﻿Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
And again, the mind of analysis is a very coarse mind. That itself is a block for realization. For example, with our ordinary eyes we cannot see very subtle things. Likewise, with our ordinary conceptual minds we cannot realize what which is subtle and hard to realize. The best we can do is generate a coarse conceptual simulacrum. Then, in order to generate the subtle mind necessary for realizing the true nature of things, well, it takes a long time through sūtrayāna methods, many eons, just to even realize the first bhumi.

Astus wrote:
What defines coarse and subtle mind for you? No simulacrum is mentioned in the Bhavanakrama or other texts I'm aware of.

Malcolm said:
Sure.

Astus wrote:
And what is reliable? Something one can grasp and hang on to?

Malcolm said:
Yes, just like people have convincing experiences of ropes as snakes.

Astus wrote:
Nobody sees snakes all the time, they at best think there is a permanent substance behind/within what they can experience in the six senses.

Malcolm said:
Again, here is your claim that you have to begin with a position, only to abandon it later. This is like believing that in order to walk barefoot, one must first put on shoes and then take them off.

Astus wrote:
As noted before, people are already in the state of assuming positions and it is not adding another to point out the error.

Malcolm said:
And yet, again and again, so-called Madhyamikas make strenuous efforts to defend what they know is not true. This is the problem with Madhyamaka, again identified by Rongzom:

Astus wrote:
So, there are three things not understood: homogeneity (unity of the two truths), non-duality (unity not conceived as 1+1) and non-arising (lack of substance to come or go).

The two truths are not established as anything real, so talking of their homogeneity and non-duality is meaningless. As for non-arising, that is no different from knowing emptiness. While it sounds interesting how to make up faults in various systems, and then eventually repeat the same teachings with different words, it fails to actually show any errors. Unless this is merely a critique of style and not content, but in that case it is an aesthetic question.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
catmoon said:
What made the difference to me was exposure to the Baghavad-Gita. I just couldn't make any sense of it at all. Then I heard a little of one of the Dalai Lama's talks, and his clarity,  humour and depth caught my attention immediately.

Astus wrote:
Interesting, I liked the Gita very much and turned to Buddhism partly because koans were hard to make sense of.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Also, since nobody ever experiences a permanent self, it is just a conceptual fantasy.

lostitude said:
How do you know that? Maybe some people have?

Astus wrote:
If they had experienced a permanent self, then they must have had that all the time. Permanence does not allow an experience to arise or disappear, thus no path or teaching to reach it.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, and as pointed out above, it is a very slow approach because it relies on a coarse mind.

Astus wrote:
How slow? If someone cares to study a bit, then follow through the instructions, it is not that difficult. And I'm not bringing up here the whole minimum three aeons schedule, just the fairly ordinary person interested in the Dharma with the proper conditions to accept the teachings, etc.

Malcolm said:
So you admit that all analysis is unreliable.

Astus wrote:
Is there anything reliable?

Malcolm said:
Well then, it is pretty clear your notion of impermanence is merely an imputation, because there are plenty of counterfactual experiences of permanence.

Astus wrote:
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that there are experiences of permanence?

Malcolm said:
There is only one stream of momentary consciousness. It functions through the six sense organs like a monkey jumping from one window to the next. For example, when it functions through the eye, it is called "eye consciousness", when it jumps to the ear, it is called "ear-consciousness." But one does not possess multiple consciousnesses at the same time. To propose that one does contradicts the basic definition of vijñāna-skandha.

Astus wrote:
No, there was no mention of multiple consciousnesses at the same time. However, the mind-stream does not affirm a single consciousness either, rather a series of many. The monkey's simile means that consciousness occurs where the hand and the branch makes contact, but there is no monkey going from one place to another. As the sutta explains: "what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another" ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html ), and in another speech: "Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. ... Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns" ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html ).

Malcolm said:
In the contrary, Madhyamakas also take this stance, as Nāgārjuna states; "If I had a position, I would be at fault; since I alone have no position, I alone am without fault."

Astus wrote:
That is where one has to arrive at, after due analysis. You know, relative truth first.

Malcolm said:
The problem with Madhyamaka is that it has a theoretical view: the two truths.

Astus wrote:
That is called an expedient means, and it has its use. It does not stand alone as some statement of ultimate value.

Malcolm said:
Madhyamaka analysis does not address the nature of the mind; it merely rejects claims for existing existents and that is all.

Astus wrote:
True nature is no nature. What other nature is there to address?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 7:41 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I think surely non-conceptual wisdom is associated with trance states or at least profound inner stillness. The reason it escapes 'conceptual formations' is because they are quiescent in those states. That is why in some sense it is not an 'analytical' process, at least in the sense of 'analysis' understood by modern thinking.

Astus wrote:
If it were bound to a specific state it had no effect on one's life in general where concepts are plenty. Also, it'd be just like one of the absorptions, not liberation but part of samsara.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 6:09 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
conebeckham said:
No, it's based on habitual patterns; concepts are just the tip of the iceberg, really.  This is why replacing one concept with another conceptual understanding is not close to liberation.
Ignorance is based on a mistake, but it is a much more pervasive misapprehension than just a "mistaken concept of the self."

Astus wrote:
Non-conceptual wisdom is the correct view of prajnaparamita that liberates all beings. It is non-conceptual not because there are no concepts, but because concepts are not reified and grasped. If concepts were just the tip of the iceberg, freedom from them would be less then upholding the precept against murder. However, freedom from conceptualising is liberating because if there is no self grasped, then no matter what experience appears, they have no impact and generate no karma.

Although I think what you meant by concepts were not the basic personal truths governing all one's actions but rather superficial verbalisations.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 16th, 2015 at 5:53 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
The extremes are not there, they are not established, they never existed from the beginning.

Astus wrote:
The problem is that they are thought to be established, although they are not. And that's the basic mistake.

Malcolm said:
But you don't even need to make these conceptual assumptions and then go about eliminating them. This is a very dim-witted approach.

Astus wrote:
Ignorance is already present, no need to establish it, only to point it out as the source of the problems.

Malcolm said:
No, really it is much simpler than that. They need to receive direct introduction — then they need to work with the instructions of the lineage, which in general do not involve any analysis whatsoever, at least in Dzogchen.

Astus wrote:
Same happens everywhere else. One learns the teaching, understands it, then applies it. Analysis is following the guidance of the teachings to confirm for oneself its validity, like checking if there's a self in the sensory areas.

Malcolm said:
If all perceptions are inconstant and reliable, than all analysis is unreliable.

Astus wrote:
Yes, even the teachings are empty, conventional and conditioned. If there were a teaching of the ultimate nature, then it would really contradict universal emptiness.

Malcolm said:
Analysis is directed investigation, that is: vipasyana. Not theorising or arguing. That "slow exhaustion of concepts" is a straw man.
But above, you clear indicate that you have to adopt a theory to investigate. So you are now contradicting yourself.

Astus wrote:
Analysis is using the teachings to do an investigation. So when it talks about checking if there is any permanent element within the physical area, it's not just theorising whether that is the case or not, but looking at one's own present experience. This is what I have said before and say now.

Malcolm said:
No one is positing an ultimate perceiver here — the point there are not six consciousnesses apprehending six different kinds of media. There is one consciousness functioning through the six sense organs. The point is that when one understands that the magician is not real, one immediately understands that his tricks are also false. Going through and analyzing the six external sense objects is a waste of time.

Astus wrote:
There are a number of problems with positing a single consciousness, as taught from the early texts on in the context of the 18 dhatus. Actually, that's what one should recognise during analysis, that the mind is not a single entity but a series of instances, and then one can go further to see that even instances are not graspable as distinct entities. That's how the emptiness of both self and dharmas are confirmed. Looking for that single perceiver is no different from looking for the self and not finding it anywhere.

Malcolm said:
Madhyamaka, in reality, merely serves as a corrective to the realism of the three lower tenet systems. It has no tenet system of its own. This is why Madhyamaka has not independent path which is separate from the path of Yogacara. The path of Yogcara and Madhyamaka is the same path, five paths and ten stages.

Astus wrote:
This interpretation of "corrective to the realism of the three lower tenet systems" makes sense only in the Tibetan system where only Vajrayana is viewed as something practical, while the so called sutra teachings are reduced to mere theory. Kamalashila does not seem to see that way, nor do other Madhyamikas. As for the path, why should it come up with a new one? It is a Mahayana teaching for bodhisattvas.

Malcolm said:
The kinds of analysis Madhyamaka engages in is meant to serve as a corrective to realism.

Astus wrote:
If by realism you mean the basic grasping at supposedly real entities, then yes. If by that you mean only a theoretical view, then it is limiting the scope of the teachings for no good reason.

Malcolm said:
This is not the nature of the mind. The nature of the mind is not only emptiness.

Astus wrote:
Saying that the nature of mind is "empty-clarity" does not really add anything. When it is said that the mind is empty, that's not the same as saying there is no mind. Since the mind is per definition aware, saying that its nature is empty is the same as saying that awareness is empty, but the awareness of it is not diminished by this at all. Similarly, saying that a ball is red doesn't mean it is not also round, since being a ball means that it is round.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
What you are essentially recommending is going through a conceptual exercise of imagining that something is there, and then spending time to find out whether what you imagine is true.

If, on the other hand, someone tells you, "There are no tigers in that house", it may be the case that you have some doubt and need to confirm this for your self. Likewise, if someone tells you that there is no self in the aggregates, then you look and you will not find one. Of course it is up to you to look, and not leave it as a mere concept.

Astus wrote:
If there were no pre-existing concept of a tiger, someone saying that there is no tiger in the house would make no sense. In both cases one needs to have the assumption of a tiger. And that view of a real tiger is the mistake everyone has. Without seeing for oneself that there is no tiger, the mistake remains.

Malcolm said:
Well, the kind of vipaśyāna analysis you are now favoring is really, because unlike tigers and snakes, the absence of the four extremes is not something that really can be confirmed with ordinary thinking and cognitions because it is not an object. Therefore, you have to imagine something to negate and so on.
In other words, having seen a tiger, one can know what the absence of a tiger is because there are sign by which tigers can be apprehended. But there are no signs by which an extreme can be apprehended, and hence the analogy breaks down as it must.

Astus wrote:
One already has the view of substantial entities, conceiving things as independent objects. That is the misconception that needs to be eliminated. At the same time, one is normally unaware of the presence of wrong view, so it has to be highlighted as the source of the problem. Thus the structure of the four noble truths and the twelve links. So it is not the case that the extremes are not there, because they are the basis of all the problems.

Malcolm said:
Even if you think you have confirmed the absence of extremes, this is just an intellectual confirmation. In order to actually confirm this, you have to go beyond the conceptuality of the mind. Conceptual analysis will not get you there. Conceptual investigation will not get you there.

Astus wrote:
The extremes are conceptual assumptions. And just like with any other wrong view, it can be corrected through understanding it to be wrong. And that understanding requires concepts.

Malcolm said:
What you work with is the concepts themselves. They are your experiences.  So you observe them: where does this thought come from, where does it go? You do this until you understand that concepts do not come from anywhere nor go anywhere. Then you can go beyond concepts. But even this is still a conceptual exercise. It should only be done after receiving direct introduction on the basis having the experience of a moment of ordinary mind.

Astus wrote:
Similarly to samatha, in vipasyana one goes from the grosser to the subtler objects, simply because that is normally easier. But eventually one arrives at investigating the mind to see that thoughts are inconstant and unreliable. A moment of mind without concepts becomes a memory in the next moment and then serves as just another concept, thus people can even imagine it to be a real self and set up a duality of thoughts versus no thoughts. Then they need to look again and integrate all experiences to see that all has the same nature as the mind. That way it becomes an analysis in the reverse order.

Malcolm said:
As pointed out, mundane direct perceptions are deceptive.

Astus wrote:
All perceptions are inconstant and unreliable, and when that is recognised, there is no more basis for attachment. It doesn't matter whether it's an elephant or just the illusion of an elephant.

Malcolm said:
The reason it is not recognized is because of lack of introduction. Someone might, eventually exhaust their concepts through analysis, and understand. But this is a very slow route, it takes eons.

Astus wrote:
Analysis is directed investigation, that is: vipasyana. Not theorising or arguing. That "slow exhaustion of concepts" is a straw man.

Malcolm said:
No, you merely need look at the perceiver who uses the six sense media, and understand it is not established in any way, mere empty clarity. You do not need analysis, you need direct introduction through experiences.

Astus wrote:
Analysis is exactly like that, except it does not posit a perceiver but investigates the six areas as they are and confirms directly that there is nothing to grasp.

Malcolm said:
Since the kind of analysis used by Kamalashila and which are you now advocating involves coarse conceptuality, it is very difficult, virtually impossible through analysis to discover the nonconceptual empty clarity of the mind and go beyond mind. But when one works with direct introduction, it is very easy.

Astus wrote:
In a sense it is understandable that analytical meditation had been put away as too complicated and more experiential methods were raised as the direct path. Madhyamaka had become a large heap of arguments and theories, so no wonder many felt that it is too slow and such. The same happened to abhidharma. But that doesn't mean it was always like that or that's how it was meant to be used. Dzogchen and Mahamudra emphasising that one should go directly to the nature of mind, however, is practically not different from analysis. It goes through the same steps of establishing a calm mind, then investigating that very mind to ascertain its emptiness, finally arriving at the unity of samatha-vipasyana. If the mind were not looked into it would be simply just samatha. Kamalashila arrives at the nature of mind as well:

"One analyses by thinking that just as the mind, the identity of all phenomena too is like mere illusion. In this way when the identity of the mind is individually examined by wisdom, in the ultimate sense it is perceived neither within or without. It is also not perceived in the absence of both. Neither the mind of the past, nor that of the future, nor of the present is perceived. When the mind is born, it comes from nowhere and when it ceases it goes nowhere because it is inapprehensible, undemonstratable and non-physical."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 15th, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Finding there is no tiger in the room is not a matter of analysis.

Astus wrote:
One checks each room if there is a tiger there. Similarly, one checks the aggregates if there is a self there. If this is not analysis, then what is called analysis is not analysis. And probably this is where the misunderstanding of analysis lies, mistaking it for theorising instead of informed observation and investigation of phenomena.

Malcolm said:
It is, providing you have ascertained there is no tiger. Otherwise, you can analyze whether there is or is not a tiger in a room until the end of time, without being one step closer to the truth. This is the problem with Madhyamaka analysis.

Astus wrote:
Again, as above, vipasyana is not theorising.

Malcolm said:
Yes, so it is not a matter of analysis. It is a matter of direct perception.

Astus wrote:
There is direct perception, yes. The analysis is pointing one's perception in the right direction. Otherwise the basic nature of emptiness is already apparent, suchness is not hidden even a bit. The reason it is not recognised is because of the lack of direction, and that is what the teachings and the analysis performed based on the Dharma helps with.

Malcolm said:
Thus, there is no real need for analysis. One does not need to understand mere that there is no tiger in a house, one needs to understand that tigers, houses, snakes and indeed all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions — this is the real intention of Mahāyāna.

Astus wrote:
The tiger is a metaphor for substance, the house for the six sensory areas. Realising that the six senses are insubstantial, illusory, is all there is to know. The way to realise that is observing clearly what the six senses actually are, that is, looking through the rooms, and that is analysis.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 8:47 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
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. Just like if one were to think that there is a tiger in the house then there would arise fear from entering it. But if one actually goes and checks the rooms and find no tiger, from the confirmed knowledge of that the fear vanishes. We might say that "there is no tiger in the house" is a conceptual knowledge, but what it means is that the idea of there being a tiger is removed, so in that sense it is relinquishing the concept. It is not that one just sits far from the house and wonders whether there is or there isn't any tiger, one actually has to check it for himself. Same goes for vipasyana, it is not merely theorising about there being a self or not but actually looking for it. Although it could be said that searching the house for a tiger is still based on delusion, without actually doing a thorough analysis, one will not just enter the house.

Malcolm said:
Having a view of emptiness does not make on an ārya.

Astus wrote:
A view of emptiness is knowing that there is no view to uphold, otherwise it is a view of self.

Malcolm said:
But this contradicts the Saddharma-pundarika sūtra: ... And the...

Astus wrote:
The quotes talk about the attainment, not the path. In order to be free from conceptualisation of extremes one has to see that there is nothing to conceptualise about.

The Surangama Samadhi Sutra says (BDK Edition):

"If a Bodhisattva wishes to attain this samadhi, he should cultivate the dharmas of ordinary people. If he perceives the dharmas of ordinary people, the dharmas of the Buddha will be neither conjoined nor dispersed. This is called cultivation of the Surangama Samadhi." (p 40)
and
"if a Bodhisattva is able to contemplate the dharmas as empty and unobstructed, with each moment of thought completely extinguished and transcending like and dislike, this is to cultivate this samadhi." (p 77)

The Lotus Sutra (p 197, BDK Edition):

"A bodhisattva, at proper times,
Should enter a quiet chamber
And contemplate all dharmas
With correct thoughts,
According to the meaning."

Malcolm said:
That is fine if one thinks nirvana comes about from causes, which is a characteristic approach of the causal vehicle a.k.a, the vehicle of characteristics.

Astus wrote:
If realisation has no causes, there is neither path nor teachings. Nirvana is the elimination of ignorance, and that happens through correct understanding and correct contemplation. Vajrayana is no different, since it is itself a path with instructions and practices.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 6:50 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
HHDL weighs in. From "Dzogchen: Heart Essence of the Great Perfection"

Astus wrote:
That is the same as when one has reached, after analysis, insight into suchness. Kamalashila http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/:

"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. While abiding in that meditation, the mind should not be distracted. 
...
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. If effort is applied when the mind is in meditative equipoise, it will distract the mind."

And HHDL comments on the preceding section of the Bhavanakrama:

"It is important to note that in order to enter into non-conceptual absorption it is crucial to engage in thorough analysis first. When the objects of imputation are sought by discerning wisdom, nothing is findable. The true meaning of understanding selflessness needs to be appreciated in perspective. Mere lack of mental activity does not constitue understanding selflessness. Mere absence of a misconception of self does not imply a knowledge of selflessness. Selflessness is understood by the wisdom that finds that both the perceiving mind and the perceived objects lack any self-identity in the ultimate sense. This knowledge dawns on the practitioner after thorough and discerning scrutiny and analysis."
(Stages of Meditation, p 136)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 5:32 AM
Title: Re: How dedication works?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dedication is a practice of rejoicing over and letting go of the consequences of one's good deeds. Partaking in another person's merit is rejoicing over another's good deeds. Similarly, agreeing with and rejoicing in another's evil deeds generates bad karma. It's not that there are some mystical merit particles travelling between beings.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
Practice is something you do. Madhyamaka is something you think about.

Astus wrote:
If one only thinks about Madhyamaka, it has little use. Applying it is how one can gain the wisdom of emptiness, and that is what the practice of Madhyamaka is about. The Bhavanakrama is a great example for using the teachings of Madhyamaka. Or look into Brunnhölzl's The Center of the Sunlit Sky, especially the chapters under Madhyamaka Path - it includes a section entitled How Can Madhyamaka Be a Personal Practice? - and those under Madhyamaka Meditation that includes the section Why Is Analytical Meditation Necessary? where he writes:

"As was explained in detail, the main cause for all our samsaric problems is basic ignorance that expresses itself as our instinctive clinging to a personal self and really existing phenomena. The only means for eliminating this fundamental unawareness is to develop its opposite: an awareness through which we see our mind and phenomena as they really are. In technical terms, this is called discriminating knowledge, which is the seed for the omniscient wisdom of a Buddha.
As a sutra says:
If you discriminate that phenomena are identityless
And meditate by discriminating them in this way,
This is the cause for the result of attaining nirvana.
Peace will not come about through any other cause."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 14th, 2015 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
So you are claiming that the conceptual knowledge of emptiness, the conceptual knowledge known to a mundane authority, is sufficient?

Astus wrote:
Knowing that fire is hot is a conceptual knowledge. If one has never encountered fire, it is an unconfirmed conceptual knowledge. If one has encountered fire, it is a confirmed conceptual knowledge. Similarly, only hearing about emptiness without knowing what it means is just verbal information. Once it becomes clear what emptiness refers to in one's present experience, it is a confirmed conceptual knowledge. For example, one sees fire and knows that it is fire. If one sees fire without knowing what fire is, that has no power to inform one's knowledge (and therefore subsequent actions), while knowing fire without ever seeing one has no power to inform one's actions (as there is no use of that knowledge in any situation).

Malcolm said:
Here, when we should understand that the term "mundane" eye refers to exactly the kind of mundane authorities Mañjuśrimitra is critiquing.
It is this analysis with mundane authorities that goes exactly nowhere.

Astus wrote:
That mundane analysis is the view uninformed by emptiness, the thinking of an ordinary being (prthagjana). The Dharma is for ordinary beings to gain insight. That is, through the correct teaching ordinary beings can gain the correct view. Analysis is the method by what one can arrive at confirming what one has learnt and understood. That is, if one is told how to light fire, one is able to test it. Knowing how to make fire is not the same as using that knowledge, but without knowledge there cannot be any fire lit. So it is the mundane eye that has to be directed in the right way to turn it into a supramundane eye. The direction given is the teaching, and moving on the right path is when analysis is applied during vipasyana.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 11:29 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
1. it supposes there is something to gain beyond concepts, instead of realising the nature of conceptuality.
How?

Astus wrote:
By saying that arriving at the conceptual understanding of emptiness is insufficient and it should go beyond.

Malcolm said:
2. it denies what is taught in the sutras and shastras: that vipasyana results in wisdom, practically negating the validity of all paths but the vajrayana.
How?

Astus wrote:
By saying that analysis does not result in insight into the nature of concepts and so in non-attachment.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
It does not matter how critically you examine a bicycle and the physics of riding a bike. Until you get on it, fall a couple of times, and then finally master it you cannot say you "know how to ride a bike". And, you can learn how to ride without any analysis whatsoever.

It's the experience that counts. Meditation is something you do, not just something you think about (Dzogchen rhetoric aside).

Astus wrote:
The type of abstract analysis you mention is not the vipasyana talked about. Analysis means that in order to ride a bike, one has to be aware of where to sit, what the pedals are for and how to steer. Insight without analysis would mean that a child would immediately know what a bike is and how to use it without having any previous information of it. Analysis is applying the teachings to one's experience, not pure theorising.

As for there being something beyond concepts, that is another concept. Non-conceptuality is not the lack of concepts but knowing concepts for what they actually are.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 13th, 2015 at 9:04 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point I am making is that intellectual analysis will only result in an intellectual apprehension of the object of analysis. Even when you are finished with the analysis, for example, the famous diamond sliver analysis, and so on, still in the end you are left with the concept "emptiness", "nonarising", "freedom from extremes" and so on, even though, as Mañjuśrimitra points out, since the conceptualized extreme does not exist, therefore the extreme to analyze does not exist. Therefore, conventional analysis by mundane minds cannot used in an ultimate analysis because they cannot escape their own conceptual clinging, indeed they are always with concepts.

Astus wrote:
There are at least two problems with that view:

1. it supposes there is something to gain beyond concepts, instead of realising the nature of conceptuality.
2. it denies what is taught in the sutras and shastras: that vipasyana results in wisdom, practically negating the validity of all paths but the vajrayana.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 12th, 2015 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Can't explain ? Blame Karma
Content:
Bodhidharma said:
If not blame, then Buddhists have an annoying tendency to readily dismiss these circumstances as karma as if karma is sufficient explanation.

Astus wrote:
That is still mistaking karma for an external force. Karma is one's own mind's perspective on experiences, like calling a bowl of soup delicious or disgusting. It's not that your karma cooked the soup, but it is one's habitual conditioning (i.e. karma) that prompts one to love or hate something.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 12th, 2015 at 7:22 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
oriented towards showing that this kind of analysis is just not necessary at all in Mahāyāna.   That in fact, it is an obstacle to understanding the real meaning of Mahāyāna.
...
Why is this important? Because in general, the whole notion of direct perceptions, inferences, and so on are defined on the basis of of the conceptual cognitions of ordinary people.

Astus wrote:
The text itself you quoted is not only a heap of concepts, but goes through stating first the ultimate reality, that it cannot be analysed, then analyses the problem and its causes, then analyses appearances to show that they are false, from which it comes to the conclusion that because they are all false they are the ultimate. That is no different from how a sutra or a shastra teaches emptiness through reasoning and analysis. And after all that it states that for some unknown reason symbolic visual forms and devotion are appropriate methods, although just before that it's argued a lot for the futility of methods.

So, while analysis may not be necessary and even an obstacle, Manjusrimitra could not avoid it either. In fact, we could say that he not only performs analysis but even posits a number of solid-looking elements when it describes the appearance of ignorance, similarly to Yogacara. In the end, he very much agrees with the Buddha's words and Nagarjuna's writings.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 12th, 2015 at 4:16 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
conebeckham said:
You can read this description as a sort of "analysis," but it's really not.  The last line, "experience this directly in meditation," is the key.  Meditation, in this instance, is not a conceptual, analytical undertaking.  It is a direct seeing.  A direct experience.   It cannot be illustrated in words and concepts, but there are methods which a skillful teacher can use to engender such direct experience.  In fact, Thrangu Rinpoche is using some of those methods, here.  You must apply them, though, and not merely "work through them" using your conceptual intellect.

Astus wrote:
Kamalashila's Bhavanakramas are instructions for meditation. I dare say that even the Middle Treatise of Nagarjuna is good for meditation, not to mention the many prajnaparamita sutras. Just as Vajrayana texts can be taken for purely philosophical writings, so can the teachings of the Buddha can and often are mistaken as theoretical matters. Analysis is not meant for achieving an objective statement but to attain insight. I'm not even sure why it happens that while it is obvious that the Dharma is for liberation, teachings are regularly dismissed as if they were products of a bored academic. It is another thing that philosophy is viewed with contempt, calling it idle talk. But once we rename it as ideology, it becomes more apparent how thoughts govern action.

For instance, when there is a teaching about the aggregates, it is not about abstract ideas with no relevance to one's personal life and experience, but instructions on what and how to investigate in order to see the true nature of reality and gain liberation. It is always about direct seeing, that's what vipasyana is. Reducing the words of the Buddha and numerous teachers to mere theorising is not just insulting but inconsiderate and ignorant. (And I'm not saying here, Cone, that you are like that, these are just my general observations.)

It is not a question of conceptuality but how those concepts are understood. Keeping a distance between oneself and some ideas is when it is mere theorising, fantasising about things that have no weight. On the other hand, when a concept is taken seriously, when it is reflected on and connected to one's experience, that is heeding the advice and following the teachings. It becomes a personal matter. Just like when one can listen to any teacher and not find anything noteworthy in his words, if that teacher is seen as one's guru, even the most innocent movements become Dharma instructions.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 12th, 2015 at 12:58 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
conebeckham said:
Well, what does it mean to "realise that there is no such substance?" Does it mean one analyses, using the rational, conceptual mind, and comes to the conclusion that there is no substance?  Or does it mean something further?

Astus wrote:
Kamalashila clearly states that the result is not simply a conceptual understanding, a philosophical statement, but the direct, personal experience of emptiness, of suchness.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 12th, 2015 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Here, what is being recommended is the intimate instructions of the guru

Astus wrote:
There is little difference between someone orally giving the instructions or handing over a book containing the same instructions. The discussion has been regarding the instructions, not its format. As the http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/sword-of-wisdom says,

"Therefore do not rely on individuals,
But rely upon the Dharma.
Freedom comes from the genuine path that is taught,
Not from the one who teaches it."


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 12th, 2015 at 12:25 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
What page are you thinking of?

Astus wrote:
The practice of those who perceive appearances in the manner of sense objects, p 269-274.
That is within the section of "An explanation of the key points of the practice", within the chapter "The Extraordinary Path of Practice of the Great Perfection".


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 11:19 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Madhyamaka analysis is not required, it is merely the approach of sūtra.

Astus wrote:
As noted earlier, it is there in Mahamudra, although to that you might say "not in Tantric Mahamudra". Also, in vol 2 of Jigme Lingpa's Treasury of Precious Qualities at the end of the discussion of the path of Dzogchen he gives not only a direct but also an analytical method. So, even if there are other methods, it is considered quite efficient if Vajrayana masters have no problem including it in their teachings on the highest levels.

Malcolm said:
Therefore, since there is no consciousness nor object to be established discussing their analysis is like discussing the horns on a rabbit.

Astus wrote:
And to a similar statement Nagarjuna http://www.fodian.net/world/1631b.html,

"If any thesis does not bear on the totality of causes and conditions, or on them separately,
Is not emptiness proved because of the fact that there is no self-existence in existing things?
...
Just as a magically formed phantom could deny a phantom created by its own magic,
Just so would be that negation."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 10:15 PM
Title: Re: Is Buddhism too hard ?
Content:
Bodhidharma said:
The part that I say Buddhism is "too hard"is the 6th perfection - wisdom or the prajñā pāramitā. Attempting to understanding the Two Truths and Emptiness is not something for the faint-hearted. Given that there are countless sentient beings, isn't it unfortunate that "reality" is beyond them when it is beyond even most of us.

Astus wrote:
I think there can be basically two difficulties.

1. Buddhism has its own terminology and it can take a while to learn what is meant by expressions like emptiness.
2. From an ordinary perspective it can be difficult to face that there is no fixed and permanent element in the world.

The first difficulty can be overcome by studying, and asking teachers.
The second difficulty can be overcome by recognising that there has never been anything that can be relied on, and the misunderstanding about the world only leads to problems.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 7:24 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
plwk said:
how many Buddhists and their teachers actually engage in analysis as recommended by the texts and teachers that you quote in here?

Astus wrote:
I am unaware of any research on that subject. I think it is natural that Buddhist communities eventually reflect the larger society in that only a few belong to the class of literati. And the majority of Buddhist texts are produced by them and read by them. As I have seen, most of the Westerners interested in Buddhism come from that class. Therefore it looks sensible to propagate analytical meditation, as it might be actually more fitting than other methods, although it is understandable that people who daily use their intelligence in their line of work are attracted to something that appears to be trans/non-conceptual. DT Suzuki thought that Shin Buddhism could match Western people because of its similarity to Christian teachings, but it's turned out that exactly because of Shinshu's aura of religiousness many don't even accept it as Buddhist. Somewhat similarly to that, the teachings of Abhidharma, Madhyamaka and Yogacara are mostly subjects of academic studies and only recently has some books appeared with a Buddhist audience in mind.

plwk said:
And to what extent is that analysis utilitarian for most people here who are more interested if the stock market will plunge or if next week's astrology chart is favourable? Sounds like worldlings?

Astus wrote:
That is perfectly normal. There is a https://books.google.com/books?id=hf1Sm6K6Ze8C by Faure discussing common misconceptions about Buddhism. Among those the role of meditation is discussed, and how it is not at all as ubiquitous in Buddhism as many believe. In fact, it is practised mostly by only a handful of monastics. But as we can see, in the West the majority of Buddhist communities consisting of middle class people are centred around meditation. And there is the other side, often neglected when surveying the Buddhist scene, the Buddhist courses at universities. It's as if those who study Buddhism in established higher educational institution were non-existent or irrelevant.

plwk said:
No, I found them in many centres. Most people are struggling with bread and butter issues to even be bothered with much Dharma analysis, perhaps some taking an easier way out by relying on a teacher to do their homework for them and then taking it by 'faith' than cracking their skulls over it.

Astus wrote:
True, but they are not the only demographic group. And I am not saying everyone should immediately study Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. At the same time, since those you refer to have little interest in liberation, they are not the right audience for engaging in vipasyana.

plwk said:
Superiority, exclusivity Astus? In many places that I have been to, the vital importance of analysis is merely a nicely decorated poster slogan in the kitchen, even in Theravadin ones! But at the end of the day, nothing much of what I see pages of scholastic assertions on forums ever happens in real life Samghas, from my limited experience other than the usual housewife gossips. If you know of one that engages in compatible stringent analysis of Dharma & Vinaya in a real life Samgha practice and lifestyle, let me know.

Astus wrote:
You are right. Even monastic communities often have other things to busy themselves with. On the other hand, you might find such groups at universities. (note: it is a prejudice to say that all those who study texts are not practitioners)

plwk said:
Let's import what you quoted here say to the shores of Japan, say in the time of Honen and Shinran and even today amongst their adherents, what do you think?

Astus wrote:
Both Honen and Shinran belonged to the educated monastic elite from a good family background. As for preaching to the illiterate masses, they did a great job. I personally like their approach to the whole matter. Although others like to say as well that their teaching is available to everyone, actually I don't see any other tradition as open and embracing as the Pure Land path. In a sense, it is truly the original intention of Shakyamuni.

plwk said:
Will it work? And to what extent? I dare not say there's no analysis of Dharma at all but rather not to the point of what Kamalasila or Vimalamitra teaches. I am all for what you are advocating here but perhaps, it only works for a limited few. For the rest of us, there are other methods, apparently...

Astus wrote:
Buddhism as a whole works only for a limited few. Just consider the size of humanity. Then think about the percentage of Buddhists, and then the number of Buddhists who actually care about the Dharma. So, it's all very limited.

As for the applicability of analysis, I think it is mostly for those who are inclined to reasoning and study. And there are quite a few of them on this forum.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 5:43 PM
Title: Re: Can't explain ? Blame Karma
Content:
Astus wrote:
Blaming karma is not understanding what karma is and how to utilise that fundamental teaching.

1. There is the practice of accepting bad karma. It is not about blaming but not getting upset. It also reinforces one's motivation to avoid evil and do good.

2. Karma is not some force out there but one's mental habits. Thinking that bad things come from outside is not realising that the situations one goes into and the way those situations are interpreted are both the workings of one's habitual thinking, that is, one's personality. And one should not only exchange bad habits to good ones, but also see that the whole complex of mental attachments are based on false presumptions, otherwise known as ignorance.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 5:35 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
plwk said:
But let's face it Astus, both Sutra & Tantra have divergent methods and criterias, no amount of force fitting will work... anymore than trying to convince Nichiren that Shingon isn't Hinayana...

Astus wrote:
It's not just Tantra. As I have mentioned before, analysis is not a popular method, even neglected and looked down on to some extent in Mahayana.

At the same time, we can see in the works of Kamalashila and Vimalamitra for instance that they claim not simply superiority of analysis but exclusivity. So why not look into the veracity of that claim?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 5:12 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Is the consciousness that engages in analysis deluded or undeluded? Is the object of analysis delusive or non-delusive?
If either the consciousness or the object are respectively deluded or delusive, there is no means by which the analysis can result in non-delusion.
If on other other hand the consciousness or the object is respectively non-deluded or non-delusive, the analysis is unnecessary.

Astus wrote:
That's some nice analysis you present.

Same could be said about any other teaching or instruction. Thus they are all skilful means used within a conventional context. Actually, there is just this conventional context to operate in, and supposing a separate realm is a mistake.

The reason analysis works is because it removes wrong views and eventually attachment to any view. Analysis is a means, not an end. And analysis is required because the wrong views that generate all the problems are conceptual.

But let's not stop there. Is there a consciousness to be deluded or undeluded? Is there an object to be deluded or undeluded? Since neither a consciousness nor an object can be established, talking about their state of ignorance and enlightenment is like describing the graceful stance of the son of a barren woman.

Gangottara asked in turn, "If this question were put to one who had never come into being, how should it be answered?"
The Buddha replied, "That which has never come into being is nirvana itself."
Gangottara asked, "Are not all things identical with nirvana?"
The Buddha replied, "So they are, so they are."
"World-Honored One, if all things are identical with nirvana, why did you ask me, 'Do you not seek the state of nirvana?' "Furthermore, World-Honored One, if a magically produced being asked another magically produced being, 'Do you not seek the state of nirvana?' what would the answer be?"
The World-Honored One told her, "A magically produced being has no mental attachments (and thus seeks nothing)."
Gangottara inquired, "Does the Tathagata's very question stem from some mental attachment?"
The World-Honored One told her, "I raised the question because there are in this assembly good men and good women who can be brought to maturity. I am free of mental attachments. Why? Because the Tathagata knows that even the names of things are inaprehensible, let alone the things themselves or those who seek nirvana."
( http://www.purifymind.com/GangottaraSutra.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Analysis merely substitutes one conceptual attachment for another, thus blocking the seeing of the truth; which one already sees anyway without knowing that one is seeing it.
The question is really, "what does one hope to find in analysis?" Is there something to find? If there is nothing to find, than the analysis itself is a deviation from reality.

Astus wrote:
Analysis results in the elimination of attachment, it does not go on indefinitely as a substitute, just as the desire to reach nirvana ends with attaining it ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html ).

Kamalashila http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/:
"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 as quoted in the OP, "like the fire produced by rubbing wood it will burn the wood of conceptual thought."

Analysis cannot be a deviation from reality for two reasons. On the one hand, while one is bound by ignorance, one needs a path to escape that ignorance. On the other hand, saying that one is already in reality and ignorance itself is such, then analysis is such as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, actually I did.

Astus wrote:
I don't see how "the intimate instructions of the guru are important" is an explanation for it, but it seems there is nothing more than that.

Malcolm said:
Everyone is already experiencing suchness directly. It simply needs to be pointed out through experience. It is not discernible through analysis. The analysis itself is the obstacle.

Astus wrote:
Pointing out through experience - since one cannot directly transfer experience to another, there are only teachings one can follow to confirm reality for oneself. What blocks the vision of reality is conceptual attachment. Analysis removes that attachment, thus allows the experience of insight. Skipping analysis and going directly to insight is the idea that the http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=300777#p300777 section from Kamalashila argues against. What other version of "pointing out through experience" do you mean?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
If you want those instructions, you will have to go and get them.

Astus wrote:
You said that Vajrayana is exempt from analysis, but then did not support that with an explanation of how could that be. That doesn't mean you have to copy instructions here, the general description of its functioning should be enough.

Malcolm said:
Kamalashila's citation is completely irrelevant.

Astus wrote:
How so? The direct experience of suchness is what Vajrayana teaches, isn't it?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
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:
It has been clarified, you just refuse to listen:
As such, in order to recognize that concepts are dharmatā, the intimate instructions of the guru are important.

Astus wrote:
The question is about those instructions, that you say do not involve analysis.

As for directly accessing the view of suchness, Kamalashila writes,

"If it is said that one enters (nonconceptuality) through nonmindfulness and nonattention toward all dharmas, that is not reasonable. For Without the discernment of reality it is impossible to undertake either nonmindfulness or nonattention toward aIl dharmas even though they are being experienced. And if one would (attempt to) cultivate nonmindfulness and nonattention toward those (dharmas) cultivating thus,"These which are called dharmas are not to be noticed nor paid attention to by me" then still more would.they have been noticed and paid attention to by him! Thus if the mere nonexistence of mindfulness and attention constituted the nonmindfulness and nonattention intended, then in what manner does the nonexistence of those two come about?"
(Bhavanakramana 3, tr MT Adam, p 245)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 11th, 2015 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
The limitation of Madhyamaka vipaśyāna is that it is an intellectual analysis.

Astus wrote:
What does it limit? Unless it is argued that vipasyana does not result in wisdom, it works. Question then is: since vipasyana is the established method all over the sutras and shastras, what other methods can work and why? You say Vajrayana is different, and that's fine, but it has not yet been clarified how and in what way.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 11:22 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, there is no special object to be apprehended.

Your question was, "Is analysis necessary." In sūtra yes; in Varjayāna, no. As Vimalamitra states in his Buddhahood in This Life:
If it is objected, “If afflictions are liberated into dharmatā without antidotes, there is no need for purification on the path. Otherwise, liberation would require no effort,” for what reason would those who do not understand be liberated? Asserting that those who understand are liberated merely by recognizing concepts as dharmatā is the fruit of one’s wishes. As such, in order to recognize that concepts are dharmatā, the intimate instructions of the guru are important.

Astus wrote:
There is still no explanation given what kind of experience it is that can take one to realising suchness. Also, that quote is basically asserting the supremacy of Vajrayana and the ineffectiveness of analysis without giving a reason. And it misrepresents vipasyana as if it were mere intellectual exercise.

Thrangu Rinpoche says in http://s151421314.onlinehome.us/nbp/docs/PDF/7.%20Guide%20to%20Mahamudra.pdf:

"The reason that the path of the sutras takes so long is that there are no direct or practical instructions in the sutras for cultivating the direct experience of emptiness, whereas in the Vajrayana there are these uncommon instructions for gaining direct experience." (p 31)

That seems to agree with what you say. It continues:

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

That is, Vajrayana goes directly to the mind and does not bother with outer appearances and extensive study of reasoning. Practically, that still confirms the previous statement that Vajrayana works with experience and does not require analysis. So, what is the special Vajrayana method?

"Now, even in the midst of stillness, your mind still has a cognitive capacity, it still has awareness, so you will recognize the stillness. You will actually experience it, and that is the state of Shamatha. Then you look to see exactly what this stillness consists of, that is, what it means to say my mind is at rest. If you look, then the clarity or lucidity that is there will emerge. And you can experience what your mind is, and what your mind is like, and what your mind is doing, without needing to infer by deduction. Because you can simply, directly experience your own mind, nothing about it has to be deduced or inferred in any way." (p 32-33)

Yes, it is very much experiential, no inference or deduction. But it does not end here.

"So within that state of Shamatha, you look at your mind, and you look to try to see what is resting. By saying your mind is at rest, we mean that it is free of thought. If the mind has some kind of substantial existence; then it must be at rest in some particular way in some particular location. If the mind is something, then it will be at rest somewhere. For example, if a car is parked, we can say this car is parked in this place.
But when your mind is at rest or parked, you can’t find it anywhere. You don’t find anything placed anywhere. Even if you try to go through the parts of your body to find where your mind is located, or where your mind is at rest when you’re not thinking, you won’t find it, no matter how finely you divide your body. And if you try to find the substantial characteristics of the mind, such as a color or shape, or even if it lacks those—some kind of evidence of substantial existence—you won’t find anything. Now substance, for example a car, has all sorts of definite characteristics. The car could be parked facing east or west, or it could be parked wrong sticking out in the middle of the street. Nevertheless, even though your mind is somehow parked, your mind is still, you don’t find it anywhere. It doesn’t point anywhere. It doesn’t rest anywhere. And yet, your mind is at rest, and you can experience that. This indicates that the nature of your mind is emptiness. The nature of the rest, is also emptiness; and the location of your mind at rest, is also emptiness. 
In that way, when you meditate on the nature of your mind, you don’t find the mind anywhere. Not finding anything, you initially think that you have somehow failed. Either you misunderstood how to look, or you just haven’t looked enough. But in fact this is not true. The reason you didn’t find anything is that the nature of your mind is utter insubstantiality, which is why, according to the Buddha, it is empty. To thoroughly comprehend this emptiness, we need to experience this directly in meditation." (p 33)

This is where, after a thorough investigation of the mind, one finally confirms that it cannot be found, that is: empty. And after that it goes on to similarly investigate thoughts and realise their emptiness as well. Let's see what Kamalashila http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/:

"In this way when the identity of the mind is individually examined by wisdom, in the ultimate sense it is perceived neither within or without. It is also not perceived in the absence of both. Neither the mind of the past, nor that of the future, nor of the present is perceived. When the mind is born, it comes from nowhere and when it ceases it goes nowhere because it is inapprehensible, undemonstratable and non-physical. If one asks, what is the entity of that which is inapprehensible, undemonstratable and non-physical? It is as Arya Ratnakuta states: “O Kashyapa, when the mind is thoroughly searched, it cannot be found. What is not found cannot be perceived. And what is not perceived is neither past nor future nor present.” Through such analysis, the beginninglessness of the mind is not ultimately seen, the end of the mind is not ultimately seen and the centre of the mind is not ultimately seen."

So, the difference that actually is there is that while Kamalashila goes from outside to inside, Thrangu begins at the mind, and then the analysis is performed on the mind itself. As a result both arrives at the realisation that the mind cannot be found anywhere. Same method, same result.

As a side note, it could be said that actually one performs the investigation of the mind right where the skandhas are being looked into and the lack of any self is confirmed.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
DGA said:
notice that Shakyamuni gives an analysis of the situation, and delineates analytically which questions are helpful and which are not.
Put differently:  I'm still not convinced that the use of analysis means that any or all other methods are foreclosed.  I think "both/and" is entirely possible, and happens all the time.

Astus wrote:
If you look at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.052.than.html where various methods are mentioned, while the entrance parts vary, the step to insight is the same each time.

We can leave the possibility open for other ways to gain insight, and that's one of the things that should be debated actually. Especially since it seems that very few use analysis within various Mahayana schools. Also, Kamalashila was supposedly the one who debated with http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Hashang and defeated the Chinese approach. Plus in the Bhavanakrama the arguments against the non-analytical method is possibly there because of the popularity of it.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 6:06 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I don't really understand the meaning of 'analysis' in this context.

Astus wrote:
It is the investigation of appearances within the conceptual framework of the teachings. Early examples are the fourth section of the anapanasati and satipatthana methods. Or look into the Bhavanakrama to see what actually is meant by analysis.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 5:34 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
catmoon said:
if the goal is as ill-defined as, say, attaining a realization of suchness, then we enter a whole new arena that is much less deterministic than any tool-oriented paradigm. What analysis will produce is analytic results, theorems and hypotheses. Maybe even a proof or two. Enlightenment is ... a different breed of cat.

Astus wrote:
How could it be ill-defined? From the four noble truths on the teachings are quite specific in what is to be achieved and how. The analysis here is not about producing ideas but clarifying that ideas themselves are unfounded.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 5:25 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
If you're a Gelugpa, true. If you're a Kagyu, the prajnaparamita view is a provisional teaching and there is a "next".

Astus wrote:
It was intentional that I had not quoted Tsongkhapa on the requirement of analysis, although there is a whole chapter on it in his Lamrim Chenmo. As for the Kagyu, the Jewel Ornament of Liberation's chapter on prajnaparamita is faily explicit in saying that not only there is nothing more to realise, but it even encompasses the entire path, and that is practically Gampopa's so called "Sutra Mahamudra".

"The term Mahamudra is described in a commentary to the Kalachakra Tantra written by Padma Chin. There, he explains the essence of Mahamudra as being the actual Prajnaparamita; that is, the wisdom which is the source of all the Buddhas of the past, present, and future. They all arise from the Prajnaparamita, the ultimate wisdom, and that ultimate wisdom is nont other than Mahamudra."
(Drikung Kyabgon Chetsang Rinpoche: The Practice of Mahamudra, p 26)

However, that's not really the topic.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 4:58 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
The face of prajñāpāramitā is not different than all appearances [this is fundamental tenet of Ati yoga, one of things that differentiates it from Chan/Zen, etc.], hence it is an object of mind, an experience. Therefore, it is viewed correctly and incorrectly. Hence, introduction is necessary. Without introduction, buddhahood is not possible. Buddhahood is not a result of effort or analysis. The difference between a buddha and sentient being is just the difference recognition and nonrecognition.

Astus wrote:
All appearances are such. Are you saying that there is an appearance that is more such? If not, and what matters is recognising the suchness of any appearance, there are no special objects to be apprehended. As Kamalashila http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/: "With the knowledge that the mind is without an end and a centre, no identity of the mind is perceived. 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."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
DGA said:
I still don't see how this means, as you said before, "it excludes all other options to reach insight into the nature of reality"

Astus wrote:
Since ignorance is attachment to concepts, because they are thought to be substantial, the medicine is to realise that there is no such substance. If one does not address that ignorance, the root of delusion, it is not eliminated. It's like the story with the arrow wound. It is the arrow that must be pulled out, there is no workaround. Nevertheless, what other methods do you have in mind?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Hence, the purpose of introduction. For example, one may seen faces in a crowd everyday and never recognize them; but when they are introduced to you, you will never fail to recognize them again.

Astus wrote:
If the face of prajnaparamita could be pointed at, it would have to be an object of mind, an experience, and as such it could be viewed both correctly and incorrectly. It wouldn't be the end of conceptualisation, but rather an opportunity for further proliferation. How is that avoided?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Caodemarte said:
Exactly how is analysis defined by Kamalasila in this context?

Astus wrote:
Read from " http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/ "


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 6:26 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
DGA said:
Is it not plausible that analysis may be necessary at some points in the path, and other options necessary at other times?

Astus wrote:
Analysis is necessary to eliminate the wrong views of the two selves. Within analysis there are various forms of reasoning one can use. For other goals there are other methods.

Kamalashila http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/ the Samdhinirmocana Sutra: "When the selflessness of phenomena are individually examined and meditations performed on the basis of that analysis, that is the cause of the resultant liberation; no other cause can pacify."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 6:11 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
smcj said:
"What's next?" you may ask.

Astus wrote:
There is no next. The end of conceptualisation (grasping at a false essence) is the attainment of the ultimate view, prajnaparamita itself.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
There is no experience outside of suchness. Therefore, experiences can be used to introduce suchness.

Astus wrote:
Experiences are already such, but not everyone sees in such a way. What occludes such seeing are not experiences in general but the identification with some of them, thus establishing a self, and the habitual substantialisation of appearances, that is, attachment to concepts. If even temporary cessation of ideation cannot overcome that fundamental ignorance, what kind of experience is it that can?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 5:40 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
MalaBeads said:
When you view the rising or setting sun, do you analyze it or view it? Is that an experience or not? It is something like that. Wherein one experiences the sun instead of analyzing it. But it is only something like that.

Astus wrote:
One may watch the rising sun without a single thought, but it makes no difference in one's view of the world. Such thoughtless moments happen to everyone. But it does not bring about the realisation that appearances are without substance.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 10th, 2015 at 12:35 AM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
Sūtra works with analysis, Vajrayāna works with experiences.

Astus wrote:
How can experience make one understand suchness, when the error lies not in what is experienced but in how that experienced thing is viewed?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 9th, 2015 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
muni said:
There are many tools for that, isn't?

Astus wrote:
What other tool is there but correct analysis?

muni said:
Only when we cling to the analytical, then it is not a cure anymore.

Astus wrote:
That happens only when the analysis is not performed correctly and completely.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 9th, 2015 at 11:33 PM
Title: Re: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Malcolm said:
He is talking about sutra. It does not apply to Vajrayāna. Apples and oranges.

Astus wrote:
How so? Vajrayana doesn't aim at a different emptiness, does it?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 9th, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Title: Analysis or Nothing
Content:
Astus wrote:
If, as Kamalashila states, analysis is a necessary element of the path, it excludes all other options to reach insight into the nature of reality. Consequently, there can be no direct methods (pointing to the nature of mind, empowerment, direct introduction, etc.) that avoid using analysis. How can it be argued that the popular methods lacking the conceptual methods of discerning appearances are valid?

"Those who do not meditate with wisdom by analysing individually the entity of things, but merely meditate on elimination of mental activity, cannot avert conceptual thoughts and also cannot realise identitylessness because one lacks the light of wisdom. If the fire of consciousness knowing phenomena as they are is produced from individual analysis of suchness, then like the fire produced by rubbing wood it will burn the wood of conceptual thought."
( http://www.preciousteaching.org/sutra/kamalasilas-bhavana-krama-the-middle-meditation-stage/ )

"Thus it is on the basis of obtaining unobscured knowledge that one understands every single teaching of the Buddha. Hence without the discernment of reality there is no arising of perfect knowledge, nor also the abandonment of the afflictive obscurations."
(Necessity of Bhutapratyaveksa, Bhavanakrama 3, in Martin T. Adams: Meditation and The Concept of Insight in Kamalasila's Bhavanakramas (thesis), p 247)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 8th, 2015 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
Astus, is the practice of no-thought expressed in this passage from Bodhidharma?
When mortals are alive, they worry about death. When they're full, they worry about hunger. Theirs is the Great Uncertainty. But sages don't consider the past. And they don't worry about the future. Nor do they cling to the present. And from moment to moment they follow the Way.

Astus wrote:
Yes. Huineng taught (Platform Sutra, ch 2): ‘mahāprajñāpāramitā’ is the most honored, the supreme, the primary. It is without abiding [in the present], without going [into the past], and without coming [from the future]. It is from this that all the buddhas of the three periods of time emerge.

For a detailed explanation, look at this passage from Dazhu Haihai's http://www.ymba.org/books/entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment/treatise-entering-tao-sudden-enlightenment:

If your mind is void of thinking, then there is no grasping. If you wish to recognize clearly the non-dwelling mind, then during your meditation just be aware that your mind does not think about any object or hold on to any dualities, such as good and evil, etc. Since past things are already past, you should not think about them anymore; and, thus, any thought about the past vanishes. This is known as being without the past. Furthermore, since future things have not yet arrived, you should neither seek nor wish for them; and, thus, any thought of the future vanishes. This is known as being without the future. Finally, since present things are already present, you should not grasp them nor allow a thought of love or hate to arise; and, thus, any thought about the present vanishes. This is known as being without the present. In summary, if no thought about these three time periods arises, then the three time periods do not exist. If a thought of moving arises, do not follow it; and the thought of moving will vanish. If a thought of dwelling arises, do not follow it; and the thought of dwelling will vanish. However, grasping at the thought of non-dwelling is abiding in non-dwelling. On the other hand, if you understand clearly that your mind does not abide anywhere whatsoever that is abiding, then you are neither abiding nor not abiding anywhere. 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: Tuesday, September 8th, 2015 at 12:11 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I don't think it is equal to polishing the mirror, Astus. How do you figure that??

Astus wrote:
Look at the poems:

Shenxiu:
The body is the bodhi tree;
The mind is like a bright mirror’s stand.
Be always diligent in rubbing it—
Do not let it attract any dust.

That is, it confirms buddha-nature and its realisation, but says that one should regularly purify it. In fact, they had a practice called "concentration on purity" that was directly criticised by Huineng.

Huineng:
Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;
The bright mirror is also not a stand.
Fundamentally there is not a single thing—
Where could any dust be attracted?

In other words, instead of cleansing, purifying, etc., i.e. the usual gradual elements, it says there is nowhere to go. It is truly just "see nature, become buddha". Or, as it says in ch 2:

"Those with deluded minds appear to be cultivating and seeking buddhahood, but they are unenlightened to their self-natures. Hence are they of small capacities. If one is to be enlightened to the sudden teaching, one cannot cultivate externally (i.e., superficially): one should just constantly activate correct views in one’s own mind, and the enervating defilements of the afflictions will be rendered permanently unable to defile one. This is to see the nature."

Dan74 said:
I have a deja vu feeling, haven't we discussed it before?

Astus wrote:
Possible. This is a great topic to discuss.

Dan74 said:
So, what is the relevance of this to your practice, if I may ask?

Astus wrote:
It is a matter of defining what practice is. On the one hand, I think that the so called gradual path of ethics-meditation-wisdom is very powerful but sadly neglected in Zen. And I'm not talking about schemes like "sudden enlightenment / gradual cultivation" and going through a koan curriculum, but the traditional path established in the sutras and treatises. It is because of this concept of "sudden enlightenment" that things are messed up somewhat. On the other hand, the very teaching of suddenness is not taken seriously at all. There are various excuses to disregard the most popular works of the Zen tradition, and instead end up with a confused teaching and confused practice. I'm calling it confused, because while there is a strong feeling against systematic study and practice, the instructions are gradualist. That is actually a symptom of not understanding the scriptures nor maintaining the mind-to-mind transmission. Thus we can have Zen teachers who are not even Buddhists.

My practice is no-thought, and I deeply believe that it is not only immensely beneficial but also broadly available. Beneficial, that is, I can personally testify that it can be used daily from cleaning the toilet to debating the meaning of life. Available, that is, any being can learn it and use it, no special requirements. But if you want more details, please ask specific questions.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 7th, 2015 at 10:54 PM
Title: Re: Dogen & Kensho
Content:
Dan74 said:
The thing is the delusive habits of old don't suddenly dissipate and the practice must continue to sweep them clean. At the very least. Isn't that what Hongzhi taught too?

Astus wrote:
Practically speaking, if it is clear that phenomena are without substance, thus they don't move you, they are not defilements any more. If one had to wait for habits to dissipate it would never end. In fact, life is a huge mass of habits. It is within habits that one should find liberation. Or as I was once told: within the fixed posture of zazen one has to find total freedom. When Hongzhi seems to talk about is not the "polish the mirror" type, but rather stabilising one's practice. See for yourself:

From http://terebess.hu/zen/shoyo-roku.html#p:

"From the beginning the clouds leisurely release their rain, drifting past obstacles. The direct teaching is very pure and steady. Nothing can budge it. Immediately, without allowing past conditions to turn you, genuinely embody it."

"The practice of true reality is simply to sit serenely in silent introspection. When you have fathomed this you cannot be turned around by external causes and conditions. This empty, wide open mind is subtlety and correctly illuminating. Spacious and content, without confusion from inner thoughts or grasping, effectively overcome habitual behavior and realize the self that is not possessed by emotions. You must be broad-minded, whole without relying on others."

"Emptiness is without characteristics. Illumination has no emotional afflictions. With piercing, quietly profound radiance, it mysteriously eliminates all disgrace."

"Spiritual and bright, vast and lustrous, illuminating fully what is before you, directly attain the shining light and clarity that cannot attach to a single defilement. Immediately tug and pull back the ox's nose. Of course his horns are imposing and he stomps around like a beast, yet he never damages people's sprouts or grain."

"From the beginning it is altogether complete, undefiled and clear down to the bottom. Where everything is correct and totally sufficient, attain the pure eye that illuminates thoroughly, fulfilling liberation. Enlightenment involves enacting this; stability develops from practicing it."

"Immediately you follow conditions and accord with awakening without obstruction from any defilements. The mind does not attach to things, and your footsteps are not visible on the road. Then you are called to continue the family business. Even if you thoroughly understand, still please practice until it is familiar."

"Open-minded and bright without defilement, simply penetrate and drop off everything. Today is not your first arrival here. since the ancient home before the empty kalpa, clearly nothing has been obscured. Although you are inherently spirited and splendid, still you must go ahead and enact it. When doing so, immediately display every atom without hiding a speck of dirt."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 7th, 2015 at 5:34 PM
Title: Re: Dogen & Kensho
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
How then to stop the habit of grasping, even if grasping is ungraspable?

Astus wrote:
Grasping is the result of ignorance about the nature of experiences. Seeing that appearances are originally thus - i.e. no matter what you do, the aggregates and the six sensory impressions come and go - the unfounded, illusory quality of a substantial reality is revealed right there. The point is, you don't stop anything, you directly enlighten that there is no permanent entity to liberate.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 7th, 2015 at 5:27 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I apologize to Astus for my posting above.

Astus wrote:
No problem.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, September 7th, 2015 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: Dogen & Kensho
Content:
Caodemarte said:
could you clarify "and that's the very meaning of the sudden teaching.?"

Astus wrote:
the very meaning: "the unity of practice-enlightenment, thus the complete realisation is already present in zazen. There is no other nature to be seen besides the ungraspability (不得) of appearances."

In other words, instead of gradually following a process to reach enlightenment, one goes from ignorance to wisdom in a single step.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 6th, 2015 at 10:35 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Hakuin, in the essay you mention, Astus, talks about 'seeing the ox'. This is kensho.

Astus wrote:
Sheng-yen says in his http://terebess.hu/english/oxherd5.html on the third picture: "This is also described as seeing the face of pure mind, or the momentary disappearance of self-centeredness. This picture is sometimes described as seeing one's intrinsic nature, but it is only a glimpse of something -- only the tail of the ox."

And that is what http://terebess.hu/english/oxherd0.html#Trungpa identifies as the 1st bumi, quite logically. After commenting on the pictures, Sheng-yen says,

"Going through these stages in order is not considered sudden enlightenment. It is best called gradual enlightenment. People who experience sudden enlightenment may share some of these experiences, but not necessarily in this order. The Sixth Patriarch (638-713), who taught before the Pictures were developed, never made reference to such a progression."

Practically, it is equal to the concept of polishing the mirror in the Platform Sutra. However, what Huineng means by seeing the nature is not that. Thus my http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=293657#p293657 in this thread.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 6th, 2015 at 4:57 PM
Title: Re: Dogen & Kensho
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
I feel Dogen may be criticizing some kind of quietism where you "view" the mind and feel the matter of life/death is is thereby resolved, or that one has some permanent buddhahood simply from having a mystical experience, or for doing religious practice at all.

Astus wrote:
It is not quetism but the separation of practice from enlightenment that is the problem addressed here, that is, when one uses a method in order to attain kensho. Dogen teaches the unity of practice-enlightenment, thus the complete realisation is already present in zazen. There is no other nature to be seen besides the ungraspability (不得) of appearances.

"Study thusness as ungraspable. Inquire about ungraspability in thusness. This thusness, this ungraspability, is not merely concerned with buddha thoughts. Understanding is ungraspable. Enlightenment is ungraspable."
(Inmo, SBGZ, ed. Kazuaki Tanahashi)

Therefore positing a kensho to be gained or realised through a process is a mistaken approach. Actually, that's the same thing the Platform Sutra says, and that's the very meaning of the sudden teaching.

"Dogen was critical of kensho oriented practices such as the kensho jobutsu practice of the Nihon Daruma-shu."
(Okumura: Realizing Genjokoan, p254, n14)

"One difference between Dogen’s use of koan study and a stereotypical modern view of koan practice can be found in his critique of kensho as a goal. This term, which means “seeing the nature,” has been understood at times to refer to an opening experience of attainment of realization, going beyond conceptual thinking. Dogen believes that this is a dualistic misunderstanding and such experiences are not to be emphasized. For Dogen, Buddha nature is not an object to merely see or acquire, but a mode of being that must be actually lived and expressed."
(Taigen Dan Leighton: Introduction, in Dogen's Extensive Record, p 30)

"Because the one mind is the supreme vehicle, we speak of ‘direct pointing into the human heart’ and ‘seeing the nature and becoming buddha.’” This expression is never about the everyday conduct of the Buddha-Dharma: it lacks the vigorous road of getting the body free, and it has no dignified behavior throughout the body. Fellows like this, even hundreds or thousands of years ago, were proclaiming themselves to be leading authorities; but we should know that, if they had such talk as this, they neither clarified nor penetrated the Buddha’s Dharma and the Buddha’s truth. Why not? Because of not knowing “buddha,” not knowing “the teaching,” not knowing “the mind,” not knowing “inside,” and not knowing “outside.”"
(Bukkyo, SBGZ, vol 2, p 70, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 6th, 2015 at 6:14 AM
Title: Dogen & Kensho
Content:
Astus wrote:
"Some people think mind to be permanent and body to be impermanent. In this case, mind was considered to be atman; that is, pure and permanent. And the body was considered to be the source of delusive desire and impermanent. In this case, mind was called shinsho (mind nature) and body was called shinso (bodily form). And this mind-nature was often used as a synonym of buddha-nature. This is the reason Dogen negates the idea of kensho (seeing the nature)."
( http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Genjokoan_Okumara.htm )

"Seeing the mind and seeing the nature is the animated activity of non-Buddhists."
(Sansuigyo, SBGZ, vol 1, p 219, BDK Edition)

"The essence of the Buddha-Dharma is never seeing the nature. Where has any of the Seven Buddhas or the twenty-eight patriarchs of India said that the Buddha-Dharma is only “seeing the nature”? The Sixth Patriarch’s Platform Sutra contains the words “seeing the nature,” but that text is a fake text; it is not the writing of one to whom the Dharma treasury was transmitted, and it is not the words of Sōkei. It is a text upon which descendants of the Buddhist Patriarch absolutely never rely."
(Shizen-biku, SBGZ, vol 4, p 269, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, September 6th, 2015 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Hosso/Yogacara vocabulary
Content:
Astus wrote:
Wei Tat's Ch'eng Wei-Shih Lun is a bilingual book and usually mentions the Sanskrit expression in the English translation. Can be used as a good source for terminology.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 5th, 2015 at 9:26 PM
Title: Re: POTUS 2016
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sanders sounds almost like a European, except for his accent. Plus he's of Polish-Jewish descent. So it's him.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 5th, 2015 at 6:38 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
D T Suzuki translates the Sanskrit term 'paravrtti' in the Lankavatara Sutra as 'a turning-around in the seat of the mind'.

Astus wrote:
Asraya-paravrtti is when one becomes a buddha and the eight consciousnesses become the four wisdoms. Hakuin has an essay on the subject and describes how he connects Zen with this teaching: http://terebess.hu/zen/hakuin-works.html#i.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, September 5th, 2015 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Sara H said:
Yes, they can. Children can have kenshos. Christians can have kenshos.
...
There were lots of mystics in His time that had had kensho's and lots of other spiritual experiences, even some higher ones.

Astus wrote:
Then it seems you really mean by kensho something like the 1st jhana.

Sara H said:
Buddhism does not have a license on experiencing the Unborn. It's a natural part of life.

Astus wrote:
Again, it depends on what you mean by "the Unborn". In Buddhism that stands for the emptiness of appearances, and that is something that one can achieve only via the path taught by the Buddha. Also, that insight into the insubstantiality of the dharmas means one at least stands on the level of a 1st bhumi arya-bodhisattva.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 4th, 2015 at 5:58 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Sara H said:
Well it wouldn't work. The only way to understand a kensho is by having one. It's not something you can understand intellectually.

Astus wrote:
If one does not know what an apple is, one can eat dozens of apples without knowing that they are apples. That is, how can one tell if it is a kensho if one has no idea what a kensho is?

Sara H said:
I mean this is why, in a lot of Zen traditions, traditionally they wouldn't even teach you any Dharma until you've had a kensho.
They'd just wait until you've had one, and then they'd be like "Okay, now we can actually teach you something."

Astus wrote:
One can have kensho without knowing any Dharma? I think the following applies to this situation, from chapter 27 of the Nirvana Sutra:

"If one can see the Buddha-Nature even without having heard this Great Nirvana Sutra, all beings must also be able to see it, even though they have not heard it."

However, even bodhisattvas on the highest level cannot see the buddha-nature:

"Although innumerable Bodhisattvas may well perfectly practise the paramitas [spiritual perfections], they might only reach the stage of the ten abodes [“bhumis”] and yet may not be able to see the Buddha-Nature."
"Such Bodhisattvas may well reach the stage of the ten soils [“bhumis” - stages of Bodhisattva development], and yet they cannot clearly see the Buddha-Nature. How could sravakas and pratyekabuddhas well see [it]?"
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 12)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 4th, 2015 at 7:08 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:
Astus wrote:
In the Taisho Tripitaka both the Surangama Sutra ( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T19n0945 ) and the Hevajra Tantra ( http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T18n0892 ) are in the same category of Esoteric Teachings (密教).


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 4th, 2015 at 6:59 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Sara H said:
I think you guys are being a little too in your heads about this.
This is something that has to be directly experienced. Speaking as someone who's had more than one kensho, I can tell you that I am not a Buddha. I still have a great deal of training left to go before that happens.

Astus wrote:
Could you please define what exactly you mean by kensho? What is actually realised in/with kensho? What is the nature that is seen? Please be specific, maybe then the differences can be sorted out.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 4th, 2015 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Sara H said:
You don't become free from suffering, and rebirth, just because you have a kensho.

Astus wrote:
Kensho means literally "see nature". There are a number of possible interpretations what it could mean to see nature.

1. An intellectual understanding of emptiness.
2. Attaining stream-entry.
3. Attaining the 1st bhumi.
4. Attaining the 8th bhumi.
5. Attaining buddhahood.

There is a well known phrase in Zen: see nature and become buddha. It seems to point to the 5th option. Just as it is stated in the Nirvana Sutra and by numerous ancestors, as quoted previously. Which one is your interpretation?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 4th, 2015 at 5:38 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Doesn't Zen follow the Mahayana tradition that Shakyamuni was an emanation of the "Eternal Buddha" as explained in the Lotus sutra?

Astus wrote:
Yes, of course it does.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 4th, 2015 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Sara H said:
there's a difference between experiencing your Buddha Nature (A direct experience of the Unborn) and Being a Buddha (someone who will not be reborn again.)

Astus wrote:
"If sravakas, pratyekabuddhas and the Bodhisattva of the ten abodes do not see the Buddha-Nature, we say "Nirvana". It is not "Great Nirvana". If they clearly see the Buddha-Nature, there is Great Nirvana."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 29, tr Yamamoto)

"The Buddha-Nature of beings is what all Buddhas can see; it is not what sravakas and pratyekabuddhas can know. All beings do not see the Buddha-Nature. That is why they are all bound up by defilement and repeat birth and death. When one sees the Buddha-Nature, no bonds of defilement can tie one up. Emancipation comes and one attains Great Nirvana."
(ch 34)

"To see the Buddha-Nature is to attain unsurpassed Enlightenment. To attain unsurpassed Enlightenment is to arrive at unsurpassed Great Nirvana."
(ch 36)

"Whoever sees his nature is a buddha; whoever doesn't is a mortal. But if you can find your buddha-nature apart from your mortal nature, where is it? Our mortal nature is our buddhanature. Beyond this nature there's no buddha. The buddha is our nature. There's no buddha besides this nature. And there's no nature besides the buddha."
(Bodhidharma, Bloodstream Sermon, tr Red Pine)

"To use wisdom to contemplate all the dharmas without grasping or rejecting is to see the nature and accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."
"If you recognize your own mind and see the nature, you will definitely accomplish the enlightenment of buddhahood."
"If you recognize the self-nature, with a single [experience of] enlightenment you will attain the stage of buddhahood."
"To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to arrive at the stage of buddhahood."
(Platform Sutra, ch 2, tr McRae)

"since the mind of all sentient beings is the same as original Buddha-Nature, there is no need to practice; for if one recognizes one's own Mind and sees one's own Nature, there is nothing at all to seek outside oneself."
(Huangbo, Wan-ling Record, tr Lok To)

Sara H said:
The Buddha Himself experienced His first kensho as a child. That's not the same as Full Enlightenment.

Astus wrote:
'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html )

The first level of absorption is quite far from seeing buddha-nature, but it is not unheard of that people confuse it with enlightenment.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, September 4th, 2015 at 3:35 AM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Does the Chinese/Japanese canon contain sutras that make this kind of assertion? I know this is present in Indo-Tibetan Mahayana, not sure about East Asian Mahayana.

Astus wrote:
"Having gone forth, enlightening beings instantly attain a hundred concentrations and see a hundred buddhas and acknowledge their power; they stir a hundred worlds, go to a hundred lands, illumine a hundred worlds, mature a hundred beings, live for a hundred eons, penetrate a hundred eons past and future, contemplate a hundred teachings, and manifest a hundred bodies, each body manifesting a company of a hundred enlightening beings."
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatamsaka_Sutra, p 710-711)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 11:39 PM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:
Malcolm said:
The Hevajra Tantra, a Mahāyāna Scripture, the teaching of the Buddha, is also very clear:
"Those with compassion eat meat."

Astus wrote:
Couldn't find that in either the Snellgrove or the Farrow-Menon translation. Could you give its location please?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 10:51 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Meido said:
Just to add that honestly I don't think it much of a defeat to say that if one doesn't complete the path in an instant, one may do so within this life or a handful of lives.

Astus wrote:
I don't see it as a matter of personal competency or ability, but rather as how the path and its goal are understood. The sole realisation required is to personally confirm that dharmas are unattainable. From that it is obvious that there is nothing to gain or lose, take or drop, grasp or relinquish. The main obstacle is that the instruction should be in a language that the listener understands. That's where the importance of a proper teacher comes in. As Zongmi writes, the difference between Chan and the sutras is that Chan uses a simple and direct language appropriate for Chinese people. However, reading even Zongmi - who does not use later Song era Chan lingo known from koans - takes some level of specialised knowledge to make sense of.

For instance, the http://global.sotozen-net.or.jp/eng/practice/zazen/howto/index.html given in Soto can be very simple and direct: "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." or even http://antaiji.org/dharma/okumura-mind-and-zazen/?lang=en: "you let go of whatever thoughts come up, and you also don’t sleep." That is already no-thought, abiding nowhere, manifesting the buddha-mind of empty awareness. How could it not be called practice-enlightenment? Alas, many who attempt zazen get bogged down in maintaining a physical posture they assume to be the correct one.

And something similar could be said about kannazen (note: this is just my pet idea, so you can openly criticise it as foolish, if you think so). That is, maintaining the great doubt is already not abiding in any view or interpretation, but actively letting go while at the same time being aware. Although there are normally stages described as taking up the question, generating doubt and then shattering the great doubt, but from another perspective, taking up the question immediately brings doubt with it (or it's not a question but a statement) and that doubt is without the question (or we're just using it as some mantra), it is also without an answer (otherwise there is no more doubt), so one is basically forced into independence (although the traditional examples are a rat trap and a stuck ball), and that way maintaining doubt is not getting lost in names and concepts (not clinging to names and concepts is freedom).

Meido said:
A defeat to me would rather be to think that the masters quoted had means only for those rare individuals with the most deep, sharp roots...and that everyone else has to complete the common path of 3 eons.

Astus wrote:
On the one hand, there is the view that Chan gives a direct access only to the first of the 52 stages, or the first of the 10 stages. There is also the view that whoever gains sudden enlightenment (buddhahood) in this life must have been on the bodhisattva path for a long time already. On the other hand, it shouldn't be a problem to follow the common Mahayana path. In fact, I'm in favour of letting people know more about the traditional gradual practices.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
seeker242 said:
It seems to me that it's not admitting defeat of the sutra, but simply confirming that it varies for different people. Although, if one can say sudden is impossible for anyone and everyone, then perhaps you could say it's admitting defeat. However, if one takes the view that very few people are "sharp", then maybe not. One could say that zen can meet the ideals of the sudden, but only with people who are sharp, which are few and far between. -

Astus wrote:
Yes, people are different, thus there are different teachings. One of the popular description of that is from Zongmi's " http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/zongmi.html#a " where he talks about the "five types of zen".

Platform Sutra, ch 2:
"This teaching is the Supreme Vehicle: it is preached for those of great wisdom, it is preached for those of superior capacities. Those of small capacities and small wisdom who hear it will generate doubt."
further explanation in ch 7: "To penetrate all the myriad dharmas and to be equipped with all the myriad dharmas, without any defilement at all; to transcend the characteristics of the various dharmas, without anything that is attained: this is called the Supreme Vehicle."

Huangbo explains the relevance of the difference between capacity:
"Some students attain the state of liberated Mind quickly, some slowly.  After listening to a Dharma talk, some reach "no mind" directly.  In contrast, some must first pass gradually through the ten grades of Bodhisattva faith, the Dasabhumi of Bodhisattva development, and the ten stages before attaining the Perfectly Awakened Mind.  Whether one takes a long or a short time, however, once attained, "no mind" can never be lost."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 7:39 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
MiphamFan said:
Buddhas can display all the 6 abhijnas, different powers etc.

Astus wrote:
"You say, ‘A buddha has six supernatural powers. This is miraculous!’ All the gods, immortals, asuras, and mighty pretas also have supernatural powers—must they be considered buddhas? Followers of the Way, make no mistake! For instance, when Asura fought against Indra and was routed in battle he led his entire throng, to the number of eighty-four thousand, into the tube in a fiber of a lotus root to hide. Wasn’t he then a sage? Such supernatural powers as these I have just mentioned are all reward powers or dependent powers.
Those are not the six supernatural powers of a buddha, which are entering the world of color yet not being deluded by color; entering the world of sound yet not being deluded by sound; entering the world of odor yet not being deluded by odor; entering the world of taste yet not being deluded by taste; entering the world of touch yet not being deluded by touch; entering the world of dharmas yet not being deluded by dharmas. Therefore, when it is realized that these six—color, sound, odor, taste, touch, and dharmas— are all empty forms, they cannot bind the man of the Way, dependent upon nothing. Constituted though he is of the seepage of the five skandhas, he has the supernatural power of walking upon the earth."
(Record of Linji, p 20, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 7:29 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Meido said:
The sudden awakening-gradual cultivation approach has been the mainstream Rinzai path from the earliest arrival of Rinzai lines in Japan, including the line brought over by Nanpo Shomyo which became the foundation of the surviving Otokan lineage. Naturally Zongmi's writings were known in Japan in the Kamakura period, but I have not heard there was any real Japanese Zen debate centered on this issue.
I'm not so clear how things developed in later China into the Ming. In the writings of modern Chan teachers we do find the same understanding

Astus wrote:
While the sudden-gradual set up confirms to how things seem to happen for practitioners, at the same time it is equivalent to admitting a defeat, since it means that Zen cannot meet its own ideals emphasised primarily in the Platform Sutra. Apparently many have forgotten how early teachers argued why Zen is not just about a sudden glimpse but instant buddhahood - that's what "mind is buddha" actually stands for. It is not just some general statement of buddha-nature hidden somewhere, that doctrine of tathagatagarbha is common to all schools. It is "this very mind is buddha", that practically means seeing that experiences (phenomena) are ungraspable and inconceivable just as they are. And that's how Zen can not only take part in the essence of the Dharma but point directly and transmit only that essence.

Mazu explains what "mind is buddha" means very clearly (all quotes from http://terebess.hu/zen/mazu.html ):

"The self-nature is originally complete. If one only does not get hindered by either good or evil things, then that is a person who cultivates the Way. Grasping good and rejecting evil, contemplating sunyata and entering Samadhi-all of these belong to activity. If one seeks outside, one goes away from it. Just put an end to all mental conceptions in the three realms. If there is not a single thought, then one eliminates the root of birth and death and obtains the unexcelled treasury of the Dharma king. Since limitless kalpas, all worldly false thinking, such as flattery, dishonesty, self-esteem, and arrogance have formed one body. That is why the sutra says, ‘It is only through the grouping of many dharmas that this body is formed. When it arises, it is only dharmas arising; when it ceases, it is only dharmas ceasing. When the dharmas arise, they do not say I arise; when they cease, they do not say, I cease.’“The previous thought, the following thought, and the present thought, each thought does not wait for the others; each thought is calm and extinct. This is called Ocean Seal Samadhi."

And an interesting "lost fragment" from Mazu found in the Zongjinglu:

"Why does [the Lankavatāra sūtra say] “Buddha taught that mind is the implicit truth?” As for “Buddha taught that mind is the implicit truth,” mind is Buddha. Because the words currently [attributed to the Buddha] are mind-words (i.e., designations for mind; xinyu), when it says, “Buddha taught that mind is the implicit truth, and ‘gatelessness’ is the dharma-gate,” [it means that] they understood the emptiness of the inherent nature [of things] (benxing), on top of which there is not a single dharma. Nature itself is the gateway. But because nature has no form and also lacks a gateway to access it, [the sūtra] says “‘gatelessness’ is the dharma-gate.” Why is it also known as the “gate of emptiness (kongmen),” and as the “gate of physical forms” (semen)? Emptiness refers to the emptiness of the dharma-nature; physical forms refer to the physical forms of the dharma-nature. Because the dharma-nature has no shape or form, it is referred to as “empty.” Because the dharma-nature is known and seen in everything without limit, it is referred to as “physical forms.”"


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 6:34 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Sara H said:
Buddhahood in the classic sense of the term, (not just experiencing the Buddha Nature) is very possible in Zen.

Astus wrote:
The sutras themselves say that experiencing the buddha-nature is buddhahood. Just as Dogen often likes to quote the Lotus Sutra: "No one but the buddhas (yuibutsu yobutsu 唯佛與佛) can completely know the real aspects of all dharmas"


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 5:44 PM
Title: Re: Slow server problems?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Yes. But it seems to be getting better now.

Proof: I could log in and post this.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 7:14 AM
Title: Re: knowledge of a bodhisattva and/or stream enterer
Content:
DGA said:
Yes, that is very good.  Do you think it rebuts the assertion Malcolm made above?  And if so, how?

Astus wrote:
I agree with Malcolm's responses. My point with that quote was simply to show that dependent origination is the correct view, the middle way. And seeing how dependent origination works is understanding how rebirth works.

I think the difficulty for many is that they don't see themselves and the world as an experiential realm (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html ), they lack the insight into the often repeated teaching of "all phenomena are mind only". As Hanshan http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/HanshanDeqing.html#c: "The Buddha has said, “The three realms are mind-only and the myriad dharmas are mere consciousness.” All Buddhadharma is only further exposition on these two lines so everyone will be able to distinguish, understand, and generate faith in this reality." And because of that they cannot accept a non-material mind, the six realms, and basically the whole spiritual world. This is a symptom of the view that only objective things exist, so people disregard their subjective experiences. Another symptom of that same assumption is the strong emphasis on authorisation and confirmation of one's experiences by a certified person. These are all cultural things, neither Buddhist nor necessarily logical.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Meido said:
I personally reconcile things for myself through the mainstream path which we see in Chan, Zen, and Son today:  seeing one's nature as the entrance and then - if such proves to be not total and sufficient, as is almost always the case - continued cultivation based upon that recognition in order to dissolve remaining traces/habit-energy (essentially, endlessly repeated recognition in unity with samadhi, until it is fully clarified and seamlessly embodied 24/7).

Astus wrote:
That is exactly how https://books.google.hu/books?id=bUgg9aWaAH8C taught it: sudden enlightenment, gradual cultivation. However, he is not recognised as anyone important by most, and he is outside of the later patriarchal lineages. He had two influential followers: Yongming Yanshou, author of the Zongjinglu (a great collection of Chan teachings, only the first fasicle is https://books.google.hu/books?id=2Kc-zsuweBoC yet), and Bojo Jinul. Of them, Yongming is mostly forgotten as a Chan teacher, but Jinul remains one of the most important Korean teacher.

It might interest you that Zongmi argued against the Hongzhou school that he considered too subitist. As we know now, the Hongzhou approach had become the orthodox eventually by the Song era.

Meido said:
Certainly, though, I think it fine to re-examine and challenge the mainstream. I wonder, actually, if you've read Jia's or Poceski's works on the Hongzhou school (I've not, but the discussion brought them to mind).

Astus wrote:
Yes, I have read both of them. Jia's book also contains a fine translation of Mazu's teachings based on early sources.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 6:10 AM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
How do you understand "beholding" in this case?

Astus wrote:
Beholding the mind (觀心) is awareness of one's thoughts and emotions, thus seeing that they are empty.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: knowledge of a bodhisattva and/or stream enterer
Content:
DGA said:
Does it follow, then, that someone who does not "get it" with regard to dependent origination / rebirth lacks the characteristics of a first-bhumi bodhisattva or stream enterer?

Astus wrote:
I like http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/tsongkhapa/three-principal-aspects:

"Yet when they arise at once, not each in turn but both together,
Then through merely seeing unfailing dependent origination
Certainty is born, and all modes of misapprehension fall apart—
That is when discernment of the view has reached perfection.

When you know that appearances dispel the extreme of existence,
While the extreme of nothingness is eliminated by emptiness,
And you also come to know how emptiness arises as cause and effect,
Then you will be immune to any view entailing clinging to extremes."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 4:04 AM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Meido said:
Again, the way koan texts and sutras are actually used in Zen differs from one another.

Astus wrote:
What difference do you mean? There are a couple of sutra passages in koan collections, so it's not that a koan is necessarily an encounter dialogue.

Meido said:
Sudden enlightenment rhetoric aside, all the so-called highest/most swift traditions require a great deal of practice to actualize promised results.

Astus wrote:
And that's the problem. It negates the whole point of a sudden path, a supreme vehicle. It goes contrary to the teachings of Bodhidharma, Huineng, Mazu and Linji. How do you reconcile it?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, September 3rd, 2015 at 12:21 AM
Title: Re: knowledge of a bodhisattva and/or stream enterer
Content:
DGA said:
Would a stream enterer or  bodhisattva necessarily have direct knowledge of how rebirth works?  (as distinct from accepting karma/rebirth as a doctrine, or understanding it doctrinally)

Astus wrote:
Direct knowledge of how it works on what level? Seeing one's own past lives and the process of rebirth of others' is a matter of possessing the super-knowledges (abhijna) of past lives and the divine eye. Those abilities are not necessarily possessed even by an arhat, while non-buddhists may also have them. On the other hand, because of gaining insight into how the mind works, they know clearly how dependent origination works.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015 at 10:07 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Meido said:
If someone attains experiential insight using the methods of their school, at that time they should certainly understand what the essential point of Zen is. I do not say they will grasp how to use Zen methods, nor do I say that by seeing nature in Zen one grasps how to use the methods of other schools which one has not learned.

Astus wrote:
If we say that Zen teaching comes directly as the function of buddha-mind, every realised person can teach the Zen way. There are stories like Naropa hitting Tilopa on the head with a sandal and Ajahn Chah kicking Nyanadhammo in the chest. On the other hand, when you say that not just anyone may know how to use Zen methods, it shows that there are certain techniques within the Zen tradition. And that is what I was pointing to by referring to koans as literature and how it is not that different from using sutras.

Meido said:
The approach of Zen, again, is that this understanding is meant to come at the beginning of the path. I have described elsewhere the teacher's responsibility for this, and (in a general way) some of the means by which it is accomplished.

Astus wrote:
I think one of the greatest appeal of Zen is its sudden enlightenment approach. On the one side, there is the view that it is more a rhetoric than reality, since first one has to work for years with a single koan until the initial breakthrough, and after that one has to refine that realisation for many more years. Thus, sudden enlightenment there actually means that a reliable and clear path is exchanged for a mostly circumstantial and naturalist view of insight. And this is something I don't really see the value of, as it's neither faster nor easier, but at the same time has difficult to meet requirements, like a so called clear eyed teacher, attending regular sessions and retreats, etc. On the other side, if sudden enlightenment means gaining insight to the nature of mind in a simple and easy way, then it is of course highly recommendable.

Meido said:
To Buddhism, I agree. But not necessarily to the approaches taken by Buddhists.

Astus wrote:
Do you have a couple of non-experiential approaches in mind as examples?

Meido said:
"Inevitably" goes too far here.

Astus wrote:
It sounds like a very hypothetical case where someone practises Zen in a community without knowing a single thing about it. But, not impossible.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Caodemarte said:
So, from you qoutes,are you saying that Chinese Zen, Korean Zen, and other forms of Zen EXCEPT Japanese Soto stress or use the idea of  Great Doubt?

Astus wrote:
What I say is that great doubt is a method of kanhuachan/kannazen only. It is used if one engages in investigating a huatou or koan as taught by Dahui and his later followers. Dogen, on the other hand, taught that zazen itself is practice-enlightenment, so there is no place to raise any doubts about. For instance, in Keizan's Zazen yojinki he advises that in case the mind wanders during zazen, one can use koans as a countering technique against that, among other methods like counting the breath. That is quite different from the idea of kanhuachan. Others, like Daehaeng, say that there is no point in artificially generating doubt with a huatou, and it may come naturally from personal questions.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015 at 7:35 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Meido said:
"the dharma of the exoteric and esoteric schools will be as clear as the palm of one's hand" (I paraphrase here, as I'm away from texts at the moment). The point is simply that the gate of Zen is the experiential, rather than intellectual or conceptual, grasp - in a shallow manner or deeply - of that realization to which it may be said all methods point.

Astus wrote:
Would you say that it works the other way around as well? That is, if someone learns fully an exoteric or esoteric school, that person clearly knows what Zen is all about. Also, can you identify what that common essence is?

As for Zen being experiential, this applies to Buddhism in general as well. At the same time, Zen has produced a large number of sophisticated texts, not unlike any other tradition, and the way Zen works are different from other Buddhist materials is a matter of style.

Meido said:
I expect you have read the introduction to the Mumonkan, where Mumon Ekai's interaction with students is indeed described

Astus wrote:
It shows well how literary materials were actively used by monastics, and that apparently had inspired Wumen to write a collection and his own commentary, that again got used by other monastics and further commentaries were written.

Meido said:
I would say that the lack of mention comes from that fact that such interaction was commonly understood to be a given, as demonstrated time and again in so many of the writings and stories you mention.

Astus wrote:
The history of the development of koan collections from the early 11th century on shows how those so called records are more literary works than actual accounts of past events. Supposing that such encounters happened just like it's written is unfounded. And that's not the same as saying that there was no teacher-student relationship or interaction between people, but if you look into works like https://books.google.com/books?id=sNhj17-DNNgC, it becomes clear how the Zen style of the Song era was projected on stories and teachings from the Tang, for instance that Zhaozhou's No and the whole huatou practice idea was put in Huangbo's record by editors centuries later.

Naturally, Dahui had been in close contact with the monks in his monastery. But maintaining a direct relationship with lay disciples who live all over the country is a different matter. It is not a given at all that face to face meetings happened.

Meido said:
Koan collections, both in their content and their use, were treated as practice documents - accompanied by a great deal of oral practice instruction - rather than literary works (except when misused that way, which would bring immediate scolding...a criticism Tahui also leveled when he prevented publication of Hekiganroku due to its misuse by the literary-minded).

Astus wrote:
Koan collections are writings. Taking them to be practice documents shows how said writings are highly valued, virtually like holy scriptures that convey something more than words. I didn't mean any scholarly or intellectual analysis of those books.

Meido said:
Really, if you want to say that in Zen practice there exists a kind of mandatory literary engagement with koan and other Zen works, yet the centrality of teacher-student interaction - of which, most often, koan and Zen works tend to be records - is not certain, I really can't follow what you're getting at here. In any case, the reality of what I have seen Chan, Zen and Son practitioners actually doing on the ground has always, without exception, been centered within relationship with the teacher.

Astus wrote:
I don't question the centrality of the teacher's role. As you say, the Zen texts are all about teacher-student interaction, not to mention the importance of lineage. And from that comes that because lineage is one of the central concepts of Zen, the stories that retell crucial elements of the lineage (e.g. the so called flower sermon) are inevitably known by all Zen students. And both the lineage and the stories - lamp records - are written materials preserved and kept alive by Zen communities.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Caodemarte said:
"In Sôtô Zen the focus is spoken of as “[untainted, uncontrived] just sitting,” shikan-taza [只管打坐]. Not mere sitting in blankness or clarity. Dôgen [道元; 1200-1253], the father of Japanese Sôtô Zen, struggled with this Doubt since his youth, and had it resolved through a decisive Awakening he described as “body-mind fallen off,” shinjin-datsuraku [身心 脱落].

Astus wrote:
That is a story written by Keizan and nowhere mentioned by Dogen himself. On the other hand, Dogen criticises Dahui in several chapters of Shobogenzo:

in Sesshin sesshō: "He had never seen thusness nature. Because of this, he had a mistaken view of buddha dharma."
in Jishō zanmai: after lots of criticism, Dogen sums up: "ignorant people think that Zonggao was not less than earlier masters. But those who see and know agree that he did not have clear understanding. Without clarifying the great dharma, he merely chattered groundlessly."
in Ō saku sendaba: "there was someone called Zonggao, Zen Master Dahui of Mount Jing, a remote descendant of Nanyue. People all over Song China think he equaled or even excelled Xuedou. This mistake was made because monks and laypeople in Song China are shallow in their studies and their eyes are not clear; they do not discern true persons, nor do they have the power to discern themselves."
in Jinshin inga: "People in China nowadays regard Zonggao as an established ancestor. However, his view does not equal even the expedient teachings in the buddha dharma. It resembles a view of spontaneous enlightenment by people outside the way."

How could then Dogen had embraced Dahui's approach?

Caodemarte said:
He even states in his work, Bendôwa [辨道話]: “With this, the one great matter of my entire life was resolved.”[一生 参学の大事ここにをはりぬ]"

Astus wrote:
The full sentence actually is: "Finally, I became a student of Zen Master Rujing of Taibai Peak and completed my life’s quest of the great matter." (つひに太白峰の浄禅師に参じて、一生参学の大事ここにをはりぬ。) No mention of resolving great doubt. However, the "great matter" (大事) is an important expression in the Lotus Sutra: "For this one great reason (大事) alone the buddhas have appeared in this world." (是爲諸佛以一大事因縁故出現於世)

Caodemarte said:
and in Exhortations for Those Unable to Arouse the Doubt, Boshan, one of the founders of the Caodong tradition that Soto claims descent from, drives home the fact that if Great Doubt is not allowed to arise, Zen practice sinks into a sickness.

Astus wrote:
http://terebess.hu/zen/boshan.html, aka Boshan, was a Ming era Caodong monk. However, by that time huatou was practised in China regardless of one's lineage affiliation, just like today.

Caodemarte said:
Korean Seon, of course, strongly stresses its importance.

Astus wrote:
And it was introduced to Korea by Jinul, who had read it in Dahui's works.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015 at 3:23 AM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
seeker242 said:
Except that koan/wato practice is not study or learning. And its crux is found in the encounter between teacher and student - on the spot - rather than between student and text.

Astus wrote:
This I what I think of when someone says "outside the scriptures". Personal, private dharma combat with the teacher, where he swings at you and sometime you duck, and sometimes you get your head chopped off! I don't think a book can bring that level of "aliveness" I guess you can call it. Especially if you have a good, clear, high energy teacher who gets right up in your face. Nothing I have ever read in a book can compare to that.[/quote]

Teachers of other traditions can and do the same, while at the same time such "Dharma combats" can and do become mere formalities.

The method described by Wumen contains no reference to any interaction between teacher and student, nor is there such a requirement mentioned in Dahui's letters (note: he communicated with many lay disciples through letters, so face-to-face encounter did not really happen) or Jinul's teachings. Interestingly, while in Japanese sanzen (参禅) means interview with a teacher, in Chinese canchan (參禪) means to practise meditation. But this is not what I have referred to when I compared studying koans to studying sutras. The Wumenguan itself is a literary work, just like the Blue Cliff Record and others. It has its own name actually: Literary Zen (文字禪 wenzichan). Heine writes (Like Cats and Dogs, p 6) that Dahui's phrase-watching zen (看話禪 kanhuachan) was his way of bringing the focus away from linguistic sophistry to mental cultivation, and that way allowing ordinary lay people (or actually higher class literati) access to what is normally a monastic training by providing a short-cut path. But it still remains that whoever wants to know what Chan/Zen is about, they have to read a lot of stories as well. And even if they don't read, they will hear them every time during lectures and discussions among fellow practitioners. Similarly, if one learns for instance the Heart Sutra, one can go through various stages of doubt, perplexity, confusion, over conceptualisation, internal investigation and others before it becomes somewhat clear. One can also have lively discussions with teachers. And in order to be completely clear, one needs to arrive at true realisation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 1st, 2015 at 9:13 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Caodemarte said:
I wonder if the unique  feature of Zen would be its stress on existential (not intellectual, not academic) doubt (Great Doubt) that characterizes all forms of Zen.

Astus wrote:
Great doubt is one of the three important qualities of huatou practice. But those who do not use that method don't cultivate great doubt either.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 1st, 2015 at 7:25 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Wayfarer said:
An 'essence' is the 'is-ness' of something  - that which remains whilst all the characteristics change. ... The whole point of Zen teaching was, I thought, non-attachment to form.

Astus wrote:
That essence is no essence, that is, there are just changing characteristics without anything remaining. That's how there cannot be attachment to anything.

Wayfarer said:
I admit, it has to take some form, even to be spoken of, otherwise we can't say anything whatever. But to then say 'this is the essential form of Buddhism', seems to me not necessarily in keeping with the intent of the tradition - 'the Buddha twirls a flower'.

Astus wrote:
Change is the essence, understanding change yields non-attachment. The difference between Buddhist schools is about how to bring about that understanding. Not prescribing any set methods is possible when there is a teacher who can give guidance on the spot. But once such personal instructions become subjects of study - i.e. koan practice - it is not any different from learning from the Buddha's own teachings. So, while on the one hand, as seeker242 said, koan/huatou is uniquely Zen, on the other hand, it is falling back on written materials and fixed methods.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 1st, 2015 at 6:53 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
DGA said:
I didn't know contemporary Zen schools taught nembutsu outside of Obaku.  That's good to know.

Astus wrote:
I meant nenbutsu as buddhanusmrti, not specifically oral recitation of Amida's name. It is generally part of various ceremonies and rituals.

DGA said:
By this logic, zazen, which is Zen in this context, is the most essential practice for the most essential people:  hurried, bustled, "modern" man, who can't be bothered with holdovers from "premodern" cultures.  "Zen goes to the essence" in this milieu.  Many of the claims made for mindfulness now have also been made on behalf of Zen.

Astus wrote:
I think it could be for lay people if the emphasis were not on seated meditation but cultivating no-thought. Second best is maintaining great doubt, as an entry practice to no-thought. Seated meditation is often either a limited practice that many view as a challenge to do regularly, or it is simply not done at all. It also tends to be a quietist practice. Mindfulness is similar to seated meditation in that it is taken as quietism or something even less beneficial (i.e. "living in the moment"). That not just fails to be Zen but has very little to do with Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 1st, 2015 at 5:22 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land and the Nembutsu
Content:
PorkChop said:
this passage is talking about the merit of the Bodhisattvas of the Pure Land (you know, the Bodhisattvas that all Pure Landers are aspiring to become...)

Astus wrote:
It seems the Lotus Sutra (ch 23, BDK Edition, p 285-286) agrees:

"If there is any woman five hundred years after the parinirvana of the Tathagata who hears this sutra and practices according to the teaching, she will immediately reach the dwelling of the Buddha Amitayus in the Sukhavati world, surrounded by great bodhisattvas, and will be born on a jeweled seat in a lotus flower. Never again troubled by the [three poisons] of greed, anger, or ignorance, by arrogance or jealousy, he will attain the bodhisattva’s transcendent powers and the acceptance of the nonorigination of all dharmas. After attaining this acceptance, his faculty of sight will be pure; and with this pure eye faculty, he will see all the Buddha Tathagatas, equal in number to the sands of seventy-two million kotis of nayutas of Ganges Rivers. At that time all the buddhas will praise him from afar, saying:

Splendid! Splendid! Son of a virtuous family! You have preserved, recited, and contemplated this sutra from the teachings of the Buddha Śakyamuni and taught it to others. The merit you have obtained is immeasurable and limitless. Even fire cannot burn it. Even water cannot wash it away. Even thousands of buddhas cannot give a complete description of your merit. You have already destroyed the maras. You have already conquered the armies of birth and death. You have defeated all enemies. O son of a virtuous family! Hundreds of thousands of buddhas together protect you with their transcendent powers. There is no one equal to you among the devas and humans of the entire world. With the exception of the Tathagata, the wisdom and meditation of all sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas can never equal yours."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 1st, 2015 at 5:08 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
DGA said:
Yes, there is a long historical connection between Pure Land practice and Ch'an practice.  Is that also so in Zen?  I'd thought we were discussing Zen in the strict sense.

Astus wrote:
Zen in the strict sense? Do you mean Japanese Zen? The OP itself has quotes from a Chinese teacher. But even if it's only Japanese Zen, they do have nenbutsu practices, plus there's the Obaku school.

DGA said:
it's not unusual for contemporary Zen teachers to claim that Zen practice is especially suited to the "modern" mind, as I was saying.  But the sense there is that the "modern" mind is an advanced, rational one, not a symptom of a degraded Dharma-ending-age.

Astus wrote:
How does that fit into Zen being the essence of Buddhism?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 1st, 2015 at 4:59 PM
Title: Re: What does it mean to be a "traditionalist"?
Content:
Astus wrote:
For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ishmael_Ford calls himself a http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-ishmael-ford/faith-of-a-liberal-buddhist_b_3059820.html. You can read one of his latest posts http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2015/08/the-karma-and-rebirth-debate-within-contemporary-western-buddhism-some-links-to-follow.html on karma and rebirth.

Since the realisation of either a stream-enterer or a bodhisattva necessarily includes the understanding and acceptance of rebirth, what kind of transmission is it that authorises annihilationists/materialists to appear as Zen teachers? From a "traditionalist" perspective they are more like manifestations of Mara.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, September 1st, 2015 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
DGA said:
I was thinking of Pure Land practice with regard purpose.  The immediate purpose of practice is different there.

Astus wrote:
See this from the same text by Shengyan quoted in the OP: "“pure land” can be said to be the final destination—the final goal—of all of Mahāyāna Buddhists. Why? Because the construction of a pure land, or buddhaksetra, is the goal of all bodhisattvas and buddhas. ... The pure land is a generalized Mahāyāna goal. All schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism recollect buddhas’ names, including the Chan School."

DGA said:
Another factor is time:  many schools promote their approach as being the best and most appropriate for this historical moment (the Kali Yuga or mappo argument).  It's not unusual to see Zen and Dzogchen in particular described today as being especially relevant to the "modern world."  (frankly there aren't enough questions about what the word "modern" means in this context.)

Astus wrote:
I have rarely seen that kind of argument in Zen. If the topic of the Dharma-ending age is raised at all, it is pointed out that all beings have buddha-nature and that past ancestors were no different from today's people. Although there are some Chinese teachers who say that while people in the past could gain enlightenment simply by hearing a few words, humans' capacity had declined and for that reason teachers invented skilful means like sitting meditation and huatou.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 11:09 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
seeker242 said:
Even with all that, I don't think one can say, conventionally speaking, that it's the same. Ultimately speaking, perhaps you could say it's the same because the "ultimate truth" is the same regardless. Also, I don't think it has to be brand new or unique, to be "special". But of course, that all depends on how one defines "special" to begin with.

Astus wrote:
What is it then that you consider Zen's own unique approach?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 10:52 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
seeker242 said:
I would not say that is the same as any other tradition.

Astus wrote:
Killing as a metaphor for removing defilements already occurs in the early scriptures ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.071.than.html ), plus it is discussed in the Lankavatara Sutra (3.58) in a similar way as well.

Negating the various stages of the path is a classic theme in the prajnaparamita sutras. That the Linjilu has developed its unconventional style over the time does not mean it has new content.

Or would you say that Zen is special because it offers sudden enlightenment? (Although that was "invented" before as well, particularly in Tiantai.)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 10:38 PM
Title: Re: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
DGA said:
perhaps the better question is:  best for whom, and for what purpose...

Astus wrote:
The purpose cannot really be a question, unless we go outside the boundaries of Mahayana. There are (triumphalist) answers in various traditions for the whom:
1. for those with little dust on their eyes / best capacity
2. for everyone
3. for those with the worst capacity

Zen is usually said to be either the first or the second answer.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 8:58 PM
Title: Zen - The Essence of Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
This is a topic coming from http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=299242#p299242, to give a new thread to the idea that Zen is the essence of the Buddha's teachings.

First, here are a few words from Shengyan:

"To the extent of my knowledge, I believe that Chan Buddhism as developed in China is the core of the Buddha’s message.
...
Since the time of Śākyamuni Buddha, the teaching of Chan—whether it is found in Mahāyāna teachings or the earlier teachings, whether the teaching is gradual or sudden—has consistently been focused on the realization of no-mind, the mind free of self-attachment. In all the various teachings, the essence is still the same.
...
Broadly speaking, all forms of Buddhadharma can be said to be Chan Buddhism. “The teachings stem from Chan; from the teachings one realizes Chan.” All Buddhadharma is inseparable from the teachings of Chan. Specifically, “Chan Buddhism” refers to the Chinese Chan School; and even though the Chan School encompasses the foundation and essence of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna traditions of Buddhism, all of these teachings are precisely the teachings of silent illumination and critical phrase."
( http://www.shengyen.org/e_content/content/about/about_04_06.aspx )

Shengyan's point is to show not only that Chan is not only the essential teaching of the Buddha, but by that it is the best and most authentic school. He also mentions that "Chinese Chan Buddhism is the only tradition that was institutionalized as a corporate entity with a community of monastics who developed a system of transmissions from master to disciple." - although that is historically http://eubuddhist.blogspot.in/2011/05/undisputed-lineages.html at all.

The main topic to look into here, however, is to identify what the essence of Zen is, and how that could be taken as the essence of the whole of Buddhadharma. There was a thread here on the http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=145499#p145499, and both the Platform Sutra and Shengyan confirms that no-thought is that central teaching of Zen that also equals prajnaparamita, and prajnaparamita is claimed by many sutras to be the essential teaching for both sravakas and bodhisattvas.

Question is: if Zen teaches the same as any other tradition, why say that it is anything special?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 5:19 PM
Title: Re: Why Buddhism over Vedanta?
Content:
coldmountains said:
1. how one can know who is right (since the high attainments of both are not exactly easily accessible or common experiences)?
2. What does Buddhism say specifically about the pure/infinite/absolute consciousness that Vedantic masters claim to achieve?
3. What persuaded you that Buddhism has got it right over Vedanta?

Astus wrote:
1. Knowing which one is right is already accepting one and rejecting the other. There is no objective - third point of view - measurement.

2. An absolute consciousness is the mistaken view of grasping at self within a sophisticated teaching. That is, unlike ordinary beings who don't philosophise, in this case it is a cultivated view. And it is a wrong view, since it contradicts dependent origination and results in dissatisfaction. Also, since nobody ever experiences a permanent self, it is just a conceptual fantasy.

3. "When one reaches the height of the second stage, he realises that the concept of the 'I' does not exist. But he has only abandoned the small 'I' and has not negated the concept of basic substance or the existence of God; you may call it Truth, the one and only God, the Almighty, the Unchanging Principle, or even the Buddha of Buddhism. If you think that it is real, then you are still in the realm of the big 'I' and have not left the sphere of philosophy and religion." See: http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/lib/wcf////what-is-chan/; summary: http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/chan_garden/chan_garden3.aspx?sn=48.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 5:04 PM
Title: Re: Devotion??
Content:
Astus wrote:
It seems to me you try to maintain a warm feeling all the time (or at least in relation to your practice). And as you can see for yourself, feelings are neither permanent nor obedient to your will. At the same time, because of this view that feelings should be in a specific way, you are dissatisfied. And that is three out of three universal characteristics: unstable, unsatisfactory, not owned.

Faith in the Three Jewels is simply the established understanding that this is the path that leads to liberation. Determination is the established understanding that liberation is the only true happiness that oneself and all beings desire. If you know that those two qualities are present, there is no need to long for any specific feelings, since regardless of your physical and mental condition, you are certain of the Three Jewels' immeasurable value, just like you may have fluctuating emotions toward a friend, but you remain sure that the other person is your friend.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 7:07 AM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Do you want to open another thread, Astus? I think it would be better.

_/|\_

Astus wrote:
Sure, why not.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Towards a Buddhist Fundamentalism: Part II
Content:
Astus wrote:
Sounds very misled. If they want to go hard core Buddhist, become dhutanga bhikkhus in some remote jungle or mountain and stop wasting their time on the internet. Also, Buddhism has Fundamentalist Non-violence as well, maybe they should start there.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 31st, 2015 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Meido said:
It is a distinctive approach granting great freedom because the essence of all methods can be grasped right at the outset. And in this approach the teacher is seen to necessarily play a role.

Astus wrote:
What is that essence of all methods, and how is a teacher necessary to grasp that?

As White Lotus mentioned, no-mind is practically the realisation of impermanence, a core teaching of the Buddha found in every tradition, although it is also true that traditions approach impermanence and its realisation in various ways. So, what do you say is the Zen/essential way, and how is a teacher has an important role there?

(I'm asking for your views/teachings, not debating.)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 30th, 2015 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Meido said:
I would argue that both are theoretically possible, but the former is so rare as to not be worth talking about much. On the ground, past and present, people were living together and practicing-even in these monasteries where Rinzai and others put on robes each day, engaged in ceremony and monastic activity, conducted periods of retreat, met with and guided students, traveled to test themselves under other teachers, and so on- in order to not only awaken, but to clarify and test that awakening over periods of years. Or such is the (here comes that word again) traditional understanding.

Astus wrote:
Isn't that how it goes among Buddhists throughout the world? Do you then consider Zen, or Rinzai Zen specifically, simply a matter of choice from all the other equally viable paths? That is, instead of believing in the ultimate superiority of Kanna Zen (like people claiming http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=3020&wr_id=56 ), do you see it as 1 of 84000 methods? Or, as you mentioned before, Zen being a One Vehicle path without fixed methods, isn't that contrary to maintaining a "traditional understanding"? And since he teacher-student relationship is a crucial element of Rinzai Zen, these questions apply to that aspect as well. Like if it matters at all whether someone studies Buddhism with a Rinzai teacher, a Nichirenshu teacher, or a Sakyapa lama?

Here's another from the same text by Huangbo: "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. In spite of the length of time it takes them to [attain it, once they] reside in no-mind there is nothing else to be cultivated or realized. Truly without anything to be attained, true and not false [is no-mind]. Whether it is attained in a single moment of thought or at the tenth stage [of the bodhisattva], its efficacy is identical." (tr McRae, BDK Edition, p 16)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 30th, 2015 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Meido said:
Zen is not a reduction of myriad methods to one of seeing nature. It is a way of approaching myriad methods with seeing nature as the basis of practice. This approach is what marks it as a One Vehicle school, and ultimately without fixed methods.

Astus wrote:
In order to practice the paramitas, a bodhisattva has to realise prajnaparamita. In other words, what you say seems no different from how Mahayana is generally taught. On the other hand, several ancestors - although not all (e.g. Zongmi) - taught that "To be enlightened to the Dharma of nonthought is to arrive at the stage of buddhahood." (Platform Sutra, p 34, BDK Edition) and "Awakening is to awake to one's original nature. Once awakened, one is awakened forever, there being no more ignorance." (Mazu Daoyi, in Sun-Face Buddha, p 67-68). And there is of course Linji:

"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."
(Record of Linji, p 17, tr Sasaki)
also:
"people everywhere say that there is a Way to be practiced, a dharma to be confirmed. Tell me, what dharma will you confirm, what Way will you practice? What is lacking in your present activity? What still needs to be patched up?"
(p 18)

Do you consider them relative teachings that were meant to motivate beginner practitioners who were lacking determination and had been frightened by the long path of the bodhisattva? Is it all rhetoric and skilful means? Or is it that they were meant only for the best of the best, a few people of the highest capacity?

Meido said:
But glancing at the people you name I see a number of people who went to be ordained, who entered into communal practice, who received crucial practice advice from teachers, and so on. Most if not all, I expect, took the role of teacher to others , and most transmitted  to successors ?

Astus wrote:
Yes, everyone listed there were (are) ordained monastics, and eventually took up teaching. Naturally, the very meaning of a monastic community is preserving and passing on the Dharma. Technically it is not possible to become a monk without a teacher, it is how it works everywhere. In that sense, talking about a lineage that goes back to Shakyamuni is redundant, as ordination necessarily goes back to him, and the same goes for the Dharma as well. And so we can see how the idea of a lineage as developed in Chinese Buddhism (first in the Sanlun, then the Tiantai, and after that in the Chan school), is about something else than authenticity or legitimacy, but that's a different topic.

Meido said:
i think the mainstream and traditional understanding is worth emphasizing very strongly. There is also the issue of the rarity of people with sufficiently great ability to progress far on the path without guidance.

Astus wrote:
Does that traditional understanding include monastic life? If I understand it correctly, the Zen teachers (shike), who are actually authorised to train monks, in Rinzai are celibate monks.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 29th, 2015 at 7:25 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Meido said:
Not to mention those who refuse to engage with a tradition as a whole , but believe they can strip out some essential method and use it on their own terms or for their own purposes.

Astus wrote:
Isn't that the very essence of Zen, reducing the immeasurable methods of Mahayana to seeing nature? From Bodhidharma through Linji to Dogen, they all taught that the six paramitas and ten stages are included in direct realisation of mind. Although that is not the same as denying the gradual path of methods, but it is how they set the difference between the usual bodhisattva career and sudden enlightenment. How do you see it?

Meido said:
there could be zazen practice without a teacher, but not Zen.

Astus wrote:
What do you say about the http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=298372#p298372 from Huineng? What about people like Bojo Jinul, Hanshan Deqing, Zibo Zhenke, Xuyun, Gyeongheo, Seongcheol, Daehaeng and Thich Thanh Tu - all of whom are considered outstanding Zen masters who did not really study under or receive confirmation from a Zen teacher?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 29th, 2015 at 5:11 PM
Title: Re: Crypto-Buddhism, Crypto-Taoism, Crypto-Dzogchen...
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
That's true, but if the resultant hodge-podge is good enough (useful enough, exciting enough) to attract others it eventually becomes a well-defined 'school' of Buddhism, Taoism or whatever, and the original cherry-picker becomes a revered teacher and founding father.

Astus wrote:
Of course, just as you say. Mutual influence is natural, so for instance "Taoist" elements are found in Chinese Buddhism, and Buddhist elements are found in Taoist teachings. But what makes a Buddhist is first of all refuge, which practically means accepting the frame of Dharma-Vinaya as presented in the Tripitaka, and from that comes accepting a number of fundamental doctrines, i.e. karma, rebirth, dependent origination and no-self - in other words: the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path. On the other hand, if it is for instance a Taoist implementing some Buddhist techniques, while it may use various meditation practices and even follow certain ethical principles, in terms of doctrine he will have to negate, disregard or transform those fundamental teachings to fit into his own frame of world view. Similarly, people today who like mindfulness and meditation are happy to practice but at the same time they're happy even to ridicule the teachings, although most of the time they just simply don't know and don't care, thus the popular view that Buddhism is not a religion but a method, that actually means "no study, only meditation", and the common term for "real Buddhists" as practitioners. On this very forum it is apparent how people regard meditation as the most important element of the Buddha's teachings and they may believe most of the scriptures to be just philosophy, while actually what they see as philosophy is the most emphasised method that brings about liberation: insight. No wonder many waste their time trying to focus on their breath without ever moving on to seeing it as unstable.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Crypto-Buddhism, Crypto-Taoism, Crypto-Dzogchen...
Content:
DGA said:
I'm not sure it's quite so straightforward as that.

Astus wrote:
Then we can follow the criteria set in MN 11 - either they teach no-self or not. That sutta is relevant also because it lists many elements of the Buddhist path that are found in other teachings as well, and that is not a problem for anyone. Similarly, if you look at the various Mahayana traditions, they may teach all sorts of things, but they all end up contemplating and realising emptiness, i.e. no-self. So, if there is a teaching that does not call itself Buddhist but contains the path of ethics-concentration-wisdom, it is practically in agreement with the Buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 10:43 PM
Title: Re: Crypto-Buddhism, Crypto-Taoism, Crypto-Dzogchen...
Content:
DGA said:
My point is that it's not always so easy to determine what is Dharma and what is not by name alone.  It can take some probing.

Astus wrote:
"Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught. Those who have practiced for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — they have practiced well in this world. Those whose passion... aversion... delusion is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising: they, in this world, are well-gone." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.072.than.html; also see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.21.2x.than.html#goal, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.078.than.html )

"Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion's roar." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html )

"In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html#fnt-54 )

DGA said:
My other point is that I'm not satisfied with this concept of "crypto-" anything in this context.  I don't think ancient yogis were attempting a kind of Dharmic trojan horse to smuggle Buddhist concepts into tribal regions along the silk road.  I think you had people doing their best with what they had, engaging with people as best they could, and now we have the outcome of that.

Astus wrote:
So-so. If they had seen Buddhism as something they want to follow, they simply could have become Buddhists themselves. Otherwise it is the same as now with New Age and such, cherry picking.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
DGA said:
to practice zazen is to practice Zen is their assumption--and hence what one needs is a democratic practice group with no authoritative leadership.  Is Zen practice possible in the absence of a competent teacher-student relation, regardless of what the apparent role might be?

Astus wrote:
"Zazen is the most venerable and only true teacher."
( http://antaiji.org/services/english-the-seven-points-of-practice-uchiyama/?lang=en )

Zazen is practice-enlightenment, according to Dogen. What is there to improve? What else is there to teach?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Khenpo Sodargye, in the video posted http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=298833#p298833, around the 44th minute compares Chan's view of the nature of mind to Semde. He is probably the closest among Tibetan teachers to make any comparisons between current Chan and Dzogchen, as he actually lectures on the Platform Sutra. But probably the most well known practitioner of both Chan and Dzogchen is (was) Yogi Chen.

Further on Khenpo Sodargye's presentation, it is quite clear he approaches Chan from a very Tibetan interpretation, like saying that Chan is based on the Platform and the Surangama sutras, plus it transmits an oral tradition of upadesa based on those two scriptures. An interesting view, but hardly representative of anyone. Nevertheless, it shows how difficult it is to make any comparisons when the fundamental elements are not clarified. But in order to do that, the person should be aware of not only some Chan and Dzogchen teaching, but the larger history of Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism. Alas, Khenpo Sodargye is explicitly against any scholarly study of Dzogchen, claiming that it should not be subject to critical investigation and logic.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 28th, 2015 at 12:04 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www.khenposodargye.org/2015/05/the-relationship-between-chan-and-dzogchen/


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 26th, 2015 at 6:52 AM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Meido said:
Finally, it is why I wince whenever someone refers to zazen as "the primary practice of Zen" without mention of sanzen or other encounter which is at least another equal wheel of the cart.

Astus wrote:
Thank you for your post.

I think it is always difficult to restrict Zen to this or that. Here's a Soto perspective (and not mentioning now anything from Korea, China or Vietnam):

"In the conventional Soto Zen world (meaning temples and teachers who do not use koans as teaching tools), there is no such thing as dokusan. I’m sure there are some exceptions to that, but in my 12 years in Japan, I have yet to find even one. A student can always meet formally with a teacher — structures exist for that. But even then — even if the meeting opens and closes with prostrations, even if it produces all the intensity we might expect — it is also more likely than not that tea will be served, and that the conversation will stretch on for an hour or more. There will not be a line of students waiting their turns; there will not be an attendant guarding the door." (source: http://nyoho.com/2012/11/26/behind-closed-doors/ )


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 25th, 2015 at 8:54 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
seeker242 said:
I don't know about that. It seems to me that the value of a teacher is them being able to see things about you, that you yourself cannot see. If they can't do that, then what's the point of having them?

Astus wrote:
Teachers are those who know more, who have a clear understanding and realisation of the teaching. That way they can transmit the Dharma according to the needs of the listeners. It is no different from learning various things where an instructor can help the student. But that doesn't mean a teacher has to be informed about people's personal lives. In a monastery with hundreds of residents it is not like that every monk talks to the abbot weekly, monthly, or even in a decade.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 24th, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Dan74 said:
That makes no sense to me at all. Of course it is a description. Or do you suppose it's a made up phrase referring to nothing?

Astus wrote:
What would be the point of a story like that just to say that teacher and student work together? How is that information conducive to liberation?

What I propose is that it is a phrase to say the same thing that is always said in any Zen work: enlightenment is seeing the nature of mind. The shell is broken not through stages of discussing age old stories but at the very moment of meeting Shakyamuni face to face. See Xuedou's poem: "Chick and mother hen do not know each other; / Who is it that breaks in and breaks out together?"

Dan74 said:
Whether you look at the actual case, Koun Yamada's commentary I quoted from above,  Meido's brief comment or also a talk by Subhana Barzaghi online, they are all talking about actual interaction between teacher and student. Or do you think all those koans and mondo were put on performances or fictional stories with no relation to actual practice and we all go It terribly wrong?

Astus wrote:
Yes, they have everything to do with one's actual practice. But is the practice about figuring out teacher-student relationships or is it about clarifying the fundamental matter?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 24th, 2015 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I'm not following - 'a teaching device'? How?

Astus wrote:
Yuanwu comments: "From this we see that they did have the device of 'simultaneous breaking in and breaking out' in Ching Ch'ing's school." Even the original case itself displays how the monk raised the topic of breaking in and out, so it's not like it is a description of what went on, but a saying to look into. Thus Xuedou's first line: "The Ancient buddhas had a family style", and Yuanwu's comment after quoting Yunmen on killing the baby Buddha: "devices of breaking in and breaking out are all in the family tradition of the Ancient Buddhas".

Dan74 said:
The intention was not to go into the koan, but to illustrate that the importance of the teacher is a well-established teaching in Zen. I bet you know many more and more convincing instances of it.

Astus wrote:
Platform Sutra, ch 2 (BDK Edition):

You should each contemplate your minds and each see the fundamental nature. If you do not become enlightened by yourself, then you must seek a great spiritual compatriot, someone who understands the Dharma of the Supreme Vehicle, to indicate directly the correct path for you. This spiritual compatriot will have a great background and will, so to speak, lead you to the attainment of seeing the nature. This is because the spiritual compatriot is able to manifest the causes of all the good dharmas. All the buddhas of the three periods of time and the twelve divisions of the canon are fundamentally and naturally immanent within the natures of people, but if you cannot become enlightened yourself, you must seek a spiritual compatriot’s instructions in order to see [the nature].
If you can become enlightened yourself, don’t rely on external seeking—don’t think I’m saying you can only attain emancipation through [the help of] a spiritual compatriot other than yourself. This is not the case! Why? Within your own minds there is a spiritual compatriot [who will help you] become enlightened by yourself! If you activate the false and deluded, you will become all mixed up with false thoughts. Although some external spiritual compatriots may be teachers, they cannot save you. If you activate the correct and true and contemplate with prajñā, in a single instant [all your] false thoughts will be completely eradicated. If you recognize the self-nature, with a single [experience of] enlightenment you will attain the stage of buddhahood.

So here Huineng says that either one obtains assistance from a good friend or works on his own. However, it should be recognised that just by reading the Platform Sutra one is already relying on a good friend, a presentation of the Dharma. In fact, only pratyekabuddhas and samyaksambuddhas can be said to be without teachers.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 24th, 2015 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Dan74 said:
The way I see it, the interaction that clears obstacles is intimate, no separation, that's what the koan refers to, if I understand correctly. In that interaction, there's no gap between the student's action and the teacher's response. ...  I don't quite get your question about the eye and the function. Naturally, the student should have the eye and the function to break out of the shell and the teacher to sync with him/her to break in.

Astus wrote:
If you look at the commentary in the BCR, there Jingqing is quoted saying "foot-travelers must have the 'simultaneous breaking in and breaking out' eye and must have the 'simultaneous breaking in and breaking out' function". That is to show how this break in and break out was used in his community. That is, this is a teaching device, not a description. Otherwise, as you say, the itinerant monks should only have the break out part, but Jingqing says they should have both the ability to go in and go out.

Dan74 said:
But in a more mundane way, being with a teacher who knows you well, can be very helpful as your habitual patterns of unawareness and sloppiness comes into sharp relief.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that's not questioned at all. And that's similar to how therapy works.

Dan74 said:
As for 'once the mind is seen, the obstacles are gone. What is there to do?' That's for you to figure out.

Astus wrote:
I mention that as what I see as the basic idea of Bodhidharma's coming from the West. Isn't that repeated all over again and again in Zen teachings? Of course, there's the option to say that it's just rhetoric (the rhetoric of immediacy), but then the whole Zen school is a bad joke.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 24th, 2015 at 7:00 PM
Title: Re: New schools in early buddhism
Content:
lostitude said:
The reputation of the author maybe? If he is known by his peers to have reached a level giving him direct knowledge of the things he discusses, or not.

Astus wrote:
Schools recognise their own teachers as enlightened. As noted by Malcolm, the debates on the nature of arhats happened between arhats. Otherwise, as you have observed, who cares?

lostitude said:
You can also tell from the style, with on one hand the highly logical, if x is true then y is true then it follows that z is true, and on the other hand, a more intuitive phrasing like 'as your insight improves you will see clearly that x and y and z.

Astus wrote:
That doesn't really apply to Buddhism. The same person can compose very logical texts and also "intuitive" poetry. One of the most highly regarded master in Mahayana is Nagarjuna who wrote a number of works that may sound overly theoretical to outsiders, but actually they are precise instructions for practitioners.

lostitude said:
none of those who debated it were Arahats themselves, otherwise the answer would be obvious to them

Astus wrote:
How could anything be obvious if first that thing needs to be defined? For instance, can a genius tell if he's a genius if the meaning of "genius" is not clear?

lostitude said:
t's about knowing on what/whose authority exactly they have been expounded and used to oppose other similar theories.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism doesn't have a single leader to tell who is right and who is wrong. So, practically anyone can go on and teach. Then either he gains followers to support him or not. The various early schools were all well established and recognised as valid by many people for centuries.

lostitude said:
Who taught him and trained him? Did his teacher(s) certify that he has reached an advanced enough level to discuss what he discusses?

Astus wrote:
The Buddha didn't have a teacher and was authorised by nobody. That is actually part of him being a buddha and not a disciple. And there were and are several generally respected teachers who did not claim anyone in particular as their teacher, although at the same time it is only natural for any Buddhist, and especially for monastics, to be members in a community and learn from several people. Here's a teaching from the Buddha on how to recognise a teacher: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.192.than.html.

lostitude said:
The kind of argument I read about sounded so much like hair-splitting (like, can an arahat produce semen while sleeping) that I asked myself this question which is a very natural question to ask in an islamic context.

Astus wrote:
My view on that kind of experience is that if it feels like irrelevant theoretical debate, it is because of the lack of thorough understanding of the topic and the lack of personal connection with it. The debate itself normally shows that for at least a couple of people it was important, since before the time of full-time academic employment people were not paid to publish new materials every month.

lostitude said:
Everything you have all written makes sense, but does not really answer my question

Astus wrote:
That is likely because of the difference in premises. Ultimately, one has to find the answers on one's own.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 24th, 2015 at 5:58 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I don't think I mentioned psychotherapy or 'mundane matters of social interaction'. I spoke of the importance of the teacher knowing the student's mind and helping clear just the right obstacle.

Astus wrote:
If it is the teacher (who is required / who helps) clearing the obstacles, how is it not like psychotherapy and social interaction? Also, if it is about teacher-student interaction, why should people have the eye and function of both break in and break out? They should only have the function of break out, and not even its eye.

Dan74 said:
What is the shell? The shell is of course ignorance and delusion and the right teacher helps us break free. Not half of the holly life, the Buddha said, all of the holly life is the companionship of spiritual friends.

Astus wrote:
Ignorance is unawareness of emptiness, equally for all beings. Zen teaches that people should look at their mind right now, instead of following appearances. Once the mind is seen the obstacles are gone. What else is there to do?

As for good friends being the whole of holy life, the Buddha advises associating with and emulating wise and virtuous friends ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.nara.html#friendship ), who have good qualities, like revealing their secrets and keeping your secrets ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.035.than.html ). Also, the scripture where you cited the saying from ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.002.than.html ), identifies the Buddha as the friend of all beings, because he showed the noble eightfold path, and the sutta also says that the one who has good friends follows the eightfold path. That is, the student's delusions are cleared to the extent of knowing what the path is, but the path is followed on one's own after that, since no other person can be ethical, concentrated and wise for another. As the Dhammapada (v 276) says, "You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 24th, 2015 at 6:19 AM
Title: Re: New schools in early buddhism
Content:
lostitude said:
By knowing if what they say is based on direct knowledge or on intellectual speculation...

Astus wrote:
How do you know that?

Here's an example. Is the teaching of the five aggregates based on direct knowledge or speculation? It was taught by the Buddha himself, so we could say it must be direct experience. But that assumption itself - that it is based on experience - is based on speculation. So one has to see if there are really such five aggregates. Only then it is confirmed in direct experience that the teaching is valid. However, the five aggregates are also theoretical categorisations, educational devices, so actually the "five aggregates" cannot be experienced at all.

There are numerous early schools. There are also many later schools. And even within schools there can be many lineages, groups and factions. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichiren_Buddhism#Major_Nichiren_Buddhist_schools_and_organisations for instance. Could it be that among all the schools there is only one that is true? Or maybe a couple? There is actually a way to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable teachings within Buddhism, and it is called the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharma_Seals.

You mention that those schools have "theories about reality, existence and so on". That is not necessarily so. Buddhism is not about making up definitions to believe in but guiding people to liberation. Some say that one should meditation on the ugliness on the body to remove attachment, others may say that it is better to contemplate the four elements, or perhaps the five elements. All three versions are perfectly valid and can be used. It all depends on one's inclinations.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 23rd, 2015 at 6:07 PM
Title: Re: New schools in early buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
How can one differentiate  'attained' people from simple philosophers? Rather, the question should be if a given teaching accords with the fundamental doctrines of the four noble truths, dependent origination, etc. The Buddha himself taught in various ways to instruct people.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 23rd, 2015 at 6:04 PM
Title: Re: the place of creativity in Buddhism?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Creativity can be used in the service of the Dharma or as an indulgence in one's passions. For instance, there are works of art made by Buddhists in order to express the Dharma, and there are works of art made by artists influenced by Buddhist ideas to express their own world view. So the difference lies in the author's view behind the work whether it accords with the Dharma or not. It should also be noted that creativity is not that easy to define, since it is a basic mental function to adapt to various situations and come up with new ideas. In a way every human being is necessarily creative. Liberating the mind from attachments to entrenched thinking and following habitual patterns naturally brings about creativity.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 23rd, 2015 at 5:37 PM
Title: Re: Pure Land and the Lotus Sutra
Content:
Astus wrote:
As noted earlier, Tendai includes both the Lotus Sutra and Amitabha. Also, both Nichirenshu and Jodo (Shin) Shu are explicitly exclusivist sects, while schools preceding them were generally inclusivists. And once you move from Japanese Buddhism you can find that such strict separations between schools don't actually exist. For instance, Chinese monastics recite mostly the same every morning and evening, regardless of what their preferences are in doctrine and practice. And that can be because the organising factor in Buddhism is primarily the Vinaya, and it is only secondary whether you prefer reciting a specific sutra, or a name of a buddha, or maybe neither.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 23rd, 2015 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I would've thought you'd know the answers to your question, Astus, as well as recognise the reference to the chick breaking out of the shell.

Astus wrote:
I am not aware of any sutra or instruction that tell people to be analysed by someone else. Except perhaps the late idea of koan practice that contains stages to go through. But otherwise on the gradual path it is the practitioner's job to cultivate the factors of enlightenment, like mindfulness and investigating phenomena, not to mention the general role of right effort.

In case 16 of the Blue Cliff Record this teaching style of breaking in, breaking out is said to be from Jingqing Daofu. If it meant cooperation between teacher and student, it's the same as the teaching of skilful means, nothing particularly noteworthy. He is quoted there: "foot-travelers must have the 'simultaneous breaking in and breaking out' eye and must have the 'simultaneous breaking in and breaking out' function". Break in and break out is according simultaneously, meeting face to face, that is, realising that one's mind is Buddha. How could it be about the mundane matters of social interaction? Even if it were, what is the shell, and why should travelling monks have both eye and function of it?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 22nd, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Dan74 said:
I think the teacher's role is so much more than this, Astus. For instance no scripture can diagnose the particular student's obstacle and device just the right treatment - the old hen pecking from the outside as the hatchling is trying to break through the shell.

Astus wrote:
That sounds like projecting psychotherapy on Buddhism. The very meaning of meditation is looking at one's own mind, exactly in order to see how it works. If the practitioner cannot see what goes on, nobody else will be able to do that either. That's why both sutras and meditation instructions contain information on various types of hindrances and how to tackle them. Do you know of any sutra or treatise where it is taught that people should get examined by someone else in order to identify unwholesome qualities?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 22nd, 2015 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
seeker242 said:
Because it can't be a transmission "outside the scriptures", if it's inside the scriptures?

Astus wrote:
Quite the opposite. Whatever is transmitted cannot differ from the scriptures.

"There is no mystery in the authentic transmission from the ancestral Master that differs from the Buddhist sutras, or even from a single word or half a word therein."
(Dogen: Bukkyo, in Shobogenzo, vol 3, p 148, BDK Edition)

"The sutras are buddha word, while Chan is the intention of the buddhas. The mouth and mind of the buddhas cannot possibly be contradictory. The lines of descent of all the [Chan] patriarchs go directly back to the disciples of the Buddha."
(Zongmi: Chan Prolegomenon, in Zongmi on Chan, p 109)

Also in the same text Zongmi basically says that Chan is a direct and simplified form of the teachings aimed for its Chinese audience:

"The teachings are the sutras and treatises left behind by the buddhas and bodhisattvas. Chan is the lines of verse related by the various good friends [on the path]. The buddha sutras open outward, catching the thousands of the beings of the eight classes, while Chan verses scoop up an abridgment, being oriented to one type of disposition found in this land [of China]. [The teachings,] which catch [the thousands of] beings [of the eight classes], are broad and vast, and hence it is difficult to rely upon them. [Chan,] which is oriented to dispositions, points to the bull's-eye and hence is easy to use."
(p 105)

seeker242 said:
True, but the masters of old like Huangbo kinda did both, before they became masters themselves. IIRC, it was the traditional custom to travel around visiting other masters. I don't think it's appropriate for a student of zen shun the Platform sutra, etc.

Astus wrote:
Even before people could receive ordination they had to memorise various sutras and learn the rules of monastic life, not to mention that ordinary lay people had the basic teachings karma and accumulating merit taught to them since childhood.

seeker242 said:
But at the same time, recognizing that you don't get enlightenment just from reading books or hearing speeches. Some people of course put too much stock in teachers, but that's really still just "looking somewhere else" IMO.

Astus wrote:
Huineng himself attained enlightenment simply by hearing the Diamond Sutra and nothing more. Jinul read the Platform Sutra and a commentary on the Avatamsaka Sutra when he experienced enlightenment. Hanshan Deqing studied the Surangama Sutra. And see what Yongming has to say:

"All [the patriarchs] are descendants of the Buddha. I now cite the words of the original teacher [Śākyamuni] 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."
(Yongming Yanshou: Zongjinglu, in Conception of Chan, p 249)

seeker242 said:
But, I know you want to blame the teachers and the institution of the lineage for that. Because that's what you always do! I partially agree with that, but not completely. I've personally found my one to one encounters with Zen Master Dae Kwang Sunim to be more helpful than anything I've ever read in a book. Mostly because he says things like "Sorry, nothing I can say can help you!" LOL A good teacher will know when to cut a student off and force them to go out on their own. But of course, not all teachers are like that.

Astus wrote:
Teachers are important as they can teach in today's language. I have myself benefited from numerous teachers in various ways. My point is, however, that teachers are not wizards or fairies to magically transform people into buddhas. They can be great examples and explain things lucidly. On the other hand, the scriptures and treatises can serve the same purpose as well. The Chan idea is not that one should cling to the words and actions of teachers instead of the Buddha. It is to attain realisation right now.

"Bodhidharma came from the West only to transmit the One-Mind Doctrine. However, since the mind of all sentient beings is the same as original Buddha-Nature, there is no need to practice; for if one recognizes one's own Mind and sees one's own Nature, there is nothing at all to seek outside oneself. But how is one to recognize one's own Mind? Just that Mind itself that wants to perceive the Mind that is your own Mind, which is as void as Original Mind and is without words and function."
(Huangbo: Wan-Ling Record, tr Lok To)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 21st, 2015 at 10:33 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
seeker242 said:
As long as you look for a Buddha somewhere else, you’ll never see that your own mind is the Buddha.
If you don’t see your nature and run around all day looking somewhere else, you’ll never find a buddha.
The "somewhere else" in this case would be "in the sutras". In other words, you don't find a Buddha in the sutras, you find the Buddha in a mirror, so to speak.

Astus wrote:
How come then that the phrase is interpreted instead of "look at your own mind" as "go see a teacher"? Thus modern people who favour Zen seem often reluctant to study the words of the Buddha and rather spend years and decades listening to a person whom they believe to be the holder of all the teachings supposedly originating from the Buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 21st, 2015 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I interpreted it as in line with the basic Zen idea of 'transmission outside scriptures' and so of non-attachment to externals. As the last line says, 'Sho-ju had no attachment to possessions', i.e. had no wish to rely on a material form.  I would have thought there was a similarity to the well-known drawing of Hui Neng tearing up sutras:

although as you observe in this case the book in question was not a sutra.

Astus wrote:
In what story does Huineng actually tear up a sutra? By the way, teachings attributed to him are recorded in a text with the title Platform Sutra. The expression "special transmission outside scriptures" is itself in scriptures.

There was a tradition of keeping secret records and such within various Chan communities. See this essay: https://www.academia.edu/7858031/Who_Has_the_Last_Word_in_Chan_Transmission_Secrecy_and_Reading_During_the_Northern_Song_Dynasty


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 20th, 2015 at 5:27 PM
Title: Re: 'What are you saying'?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
A Zen story about the importance of holy books.

Astus wrote:
I guess it's not about scriptures in general - i.e. canonical texts of sutras, shastras, etc. - but about the practice of keeping secret notes of teachings.

In Japanese Rinzai they're called missan-roku (密参録 - records of secret interviews), in Soto it is monsan (門参, from monto hissan 門徒秘参 - secret instructions of the lineage) and there are also the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirigami_%28Soto_Zen%29 (切紙 - strips of paper, i.e. secret instructions on pieces of papers).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 20th, 2015 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Looking for Online Trisvabhava Nirdesha
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/garfie.htm


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 18th, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Title: Re: "If you can understand the mindfulness of no mindfulness
Content:
Unknown said:
where do you find all these interesting passages?

Astus wrote:
I searched for "mindfulness of no mindfulness", came up with a quote from Shenhui in the book Zongmi on Chan where the endnote contained the original in pinyin, then searched for the Chinese equivalent on the internet and in CBETA.

Unknown said:
Do you read chinese? How did you learn all this stuff?

Astus wrote:
I can cope with Chinese Buddhist texts, but I'm not proficient in the language. I learn by being curious of what the original passage says using online dictionaries.

Unknown said:
Is the Jingde Chuandeng Lu the same as Record of the Transmission of the Lamp? Or a volume within it?

Astus wrote:
Chuandenglu means "record of the transmission of lamp" and there are various collections that contain that title. Jingde is an era (1004–1007 AD) within Chinese history, and the Jingde Chandeng Lu itself was published in 1004, the first of its kind followed by several others.

Unknown said:
What % of chan texts do you think are translated into English so far? What % are available on the internet in English do you think?

Astus wrote:
Perhaps about 5% of texts are available in English of the entire Chan corpus, but that percentage is significantly higher if we consider only the most important records attributed to Tang era masters. You can find a lot online of the English materials, but not everything.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 18th, 2015 at 5:03 PM
Title: Re: "If you can understand the mindfulness of no mindfulness
Content:
Astus wrote:
In vol 30 of the Jingde Chuandeng Lu it is quoted from Shenhui:

無念念者即念真如。無生生者即生實相。無住而住常住涅槃。無行而行即超彼岸。

Mindfulness of no mindfulness is the mindfulness of suchness. Birth of no birth is the true character. Nature and no nature is the eternal nature of nirvana. Movement and no movement is to cross to the other shore.

Compare that to what is said in chapter 4 of Platform Sutra:

真如即是念之體，念即是真如之用。

Suchness is the essence of thought, thought is the function of suchness. (tr. McRae)

Note: I took the term "no mindfulness" from Broughton's "Zongmi on Chan", as he translates wunian that way. From p 88:

"Knowing is no mindfulness and no form. Who is characterized as self, and who is characterized as other? When you are aware that all characteristics are void, it is true mind, no mindfulness. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear. The excellent gate of practice lies here alone. Therefore, even though you fully cultivate all the practices, just take no mindfulness as the axiom. If you just get the mind of no mindfulness, then love and hatred will spontaneously become pale and faint, compassion and wisdom [prajna] will spontaneously increase in brightness, sinful karma will spontaneously be eliminated, and you will spontaneously be zealous in meritorious practices."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 14th, 2015 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: Direct introduction. What is it?
Content:
zenman said:
No, no, that is not what I meant, that zen students should see their teachers as Buddhas. To put my comment in that context, the student should have reverential attitude his teacher, that's all.

This thread is about direct introduction, originally in the dzogchen context. Let's stick with that. In short, mind to mind, heart to heart transmission of dharma whether in the form of a shout, explanation or a poke in the eye.

Astus wrote:
Every student should have some reverence towards a teacher, that's not even anything specific to Buddhism. If you agree that Zen does not teach seeing the teacher as a buddha, then clearly it cannot be like guru yoga.

Using a shout or other unconventional methods cannot really be categorised as anything, that's why they are unconventional.

Mind to mind transmission simply means that the student understands what the teacher understands. In a Zen context, that means seeing buddha-nature. However, buddha-nature is inherent in everyone, so it is not literally transmitted in any form.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 14th, 2015 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Direct introduction. What is it?
Content:
zenman said:
Is Guru Yoga so far off from what takes place between a zen roshi and a student? From what I have experienced in both, I'd say no. And what is it then that takes place at each dokusan/sanzen if not direct dharma transmission?

Astus wrote:
I have not met any teaching in Zen telling students to see teachers as buddhas. Teachers are teachers.

What do you call direct dharma transmission? Transmitting the Dharma means teaching it. If you talk to someone about the Triple Jewels, you transmit the Dharma. If you post a quote from a sutra, you transmit the Dharma.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, August 14th, 2015 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Direct introduction. What is it?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zenman,

Regarding your experience with Dzogchen transmission, it should not be forgotten that it happens within the context of guru yoga. As they quote from Padmasambhava in Beyond Words (p 71-72): "'If a practitioner views the master, the transmitter of the lineage, as a totally realized being - a Buddha - then he can become a Buddha. If the Guru is seen as a normal teacher, then the one who sees him this way will realize the state of normal person. If seen as a little dog, he will obtain the realization of a dog."

Also, comparing Zen with Dzogchen is problematic on many levels, basically because very few know enough of both. And even if one has studied Zen in depth at one place, there are numerous other Zen lineages and traditions to study.

It could be said that in the end various teachings lead to the same realisation of suchness. The difference lies in the method, however. Dzogchen has guru yoga, Zen does not. Zen teaches sudden enlightenment, Dzogchen does not. Dzogchen is based on tantras, Zen is not. Zen has nothing to transmit, Dzogchen does. Etc.

I recommend you read the book Beyond Words, as a basic introduction to ChNN's tradition of Dzogchen. See the following quote:

Julia Lawless and Judith Allan: Beyond Words - Dzogchen Made Simple, p 76-77 said:
Direct Transmission

Frequently, direct transmission takes place in a most unorthodox way. With Tilopa and Naropa, Naropa was awakened by being slapped on the face with a wet fish. Patrul Rinpoche, the much-loved Tibetan vagabond saint of the nineteenth century, was awakened by his master Do Khyentse, whom he took to be a drunk! Do Khyentse, guessing his thoughts, spat in his face. Insulting him, he showed him his little finger and called him an Old Dog. At that point total clear realization of the luminous state of intrinsic awareness dawned in Patrul Rinpoche's mind: his mind and the non-dual mind of his master, the Buddha's mind, were completely merged.

Symbolic Transmission

Symbolic transmission means that the transmission is done in a wordless fashion or without direct explanation. Generally it is done through a crystal, a mirror or even a peacock feather. Both the mirror and the crystal are symbois of the primordially pure state of mind, able to manifest infinite reflections without changing their own intrinsic pure nature. A peacock feather is a natural manifestation of infinite potentiality, symbolized through a circle or thigle of five colours.

Oral Transmission

Oral transmission takes·place when the teachings are explained orally by the teacher so that the student can understand their primordial and perfected state of mind. It also includes methods of practice which are taught to enable the experience of this state of knowledge.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 13th, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Using floating tank as part of meditation practice?
Content:
Anders said:
I think attachment to it is. Quoting Huineng in a discussion like this to me just comes across as close-minded and unwilling to explore different avenues of practise.

Astus wrote:
The point I have intended to deliver via those quotes is that there are certain reasons against using sensory deprivation, not unlike to what was said about body posture previously.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 13th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: purest meditation practice
Content:
amanitamusc said:
Purest as in the most highly regarded and that one practices. Any form of Nembutsu compared to any other Buddhist meditation practices one has done.

Astus wrote:
Those who regard it most highly are often called Pure Land practitioners. Others regard other methods as the best.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 12th, 2015 at 7:27 PM
Title: Re: Using floating tank as part of meditation practice?
Content:
Anders said:
Meh. I love Huineng but this is such a stale context to quote him in. The discussion has been about the effects of technology Huineng never knew and has been well based in questions of conditions, circumstance of the practitioner, results and outcomes. Attempting to situate it in a context of orthodoxy is just... whatever floats your boat I guess.

Astus wrote:
The point of being in a floating tank or anechoic chamber is sensory deprivation. Similarly, one can block external stimuli on the cushion in a meditation hall or any ordinary place. And that approach is what is criticised by Huineng, don't you think?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 12th, 2015 at 6:27 PM
Title: Re: purest meditation practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Purest by what standard? And what form of nenbutsu do you mean?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 12th, 2015 at 6:05 PM
Title: Re: Using floating tank as part of meditation practice?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Some words from Huineng (Platform Sutra, BDK Edition):

there are also those who teach meditation [in terms of ] viewing the mind, contemplating tranquility, motionlessness, and nonactivation. You are supposed to make an effort on the basis of these. These deluded people do not understand, and in their grasping become mixed up like all of you here. You should understand that such superficial teachings are greatly mistaken!
(ch 4, p 43)

if you cultivate motionlessness, just see all people: when doing so, do not see the right and wrong, the good and bad, the transgressions and disasters of people. This is the motionlessness of the self-nature. “Good friends, the deluded person may be motionless in body, but he opens his mouth and speaks of the right and wrong, the strength and weakness, the good and bad of others. This is to go against the Way. If you concentrate on the mind or concentrate on purity, this is to impede the Way (i.e., enlightenment).
(ch 5, p 45)

If you are sentient, then you are able to move;
That which is insentient is immobile.
If you cultivate the practice of motionlessness,
You become identical to the immobility of insentiency.

If you are seeking the true motionlessness,
[Then realize that] there is a motionlessness of motion.
Motionlessness is motionlessness;
Insentient [objects] lack the seeds of buddhahood.

If you are able to discriminate well characteristics,
The cardinal meaning [of Buddhism] is motionlessness.
Just to have such a view
Is to have functioning that is suchlike.
(ch 10, p 85)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 12th, 2015 at 5:20 PM
Title: Re: Infinite past
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here are the words of the Buddha:

complete: https://suttacentral.net/sn15
selection: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#sn15

And from Nagarjuna (MMK 11.1):

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.

Tsongkhapa's commentary:

Various non-Buddhist teachers, including Purana, held a discussion and decided to ask the Buddha whether he knew that this cyclic existence has a beginning or end. They said that if he says that he does, this would contradict the many statements that there is no creator and that nothing arises without a cause, but if he says that he does not, he would contradict his statement that he is omniscient. Then they asked him “Hey, Gautama! Do you know that this cyclic existence has a beginning?” The great sage replied, “There is no knowledge of a beginning.” Thus, having said that cyclic existence has no beginning or end, he said clearly that it does not exist essentially. Therefore, since the origin and terminus are not seen, cyclic existence does not exist essentially; cyclic existence is like the circle made by swinging a glowing ember.

(Ocean of Reasoning, p 266-267)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, August 12th, 2015 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: Virupa's Mahamudra Doha
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is not about that, it is about being attached to methods.

Astus wrote:
Thank you.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 11th, 2015 at 10:41 PM
Title: Re: Virupa's Mahamudra Doha
Content:
Malcolm said:
Since this is my translation, I will answer. Until you are realized, you are deluded.

Astus wrote:
The poem seems to advocate entering Mahamudra directly and not through various stages, so the question if this is interpreted in a different way.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 11th, 2015 at 8:40 PM
Title: Virupa's Mahamudra Doha
Content:
Astus wrote:
Is https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2014/02/virupa-treasury-of-doha.html known among Sakyapas? If so, how do they explain it, especially the following stanza:

"Some are completely tortured with empowerment rites, 
some always count their rosary saying hum phat!
some consume shit, piss, blood, semen and meat, 
some meditate the yoga of nadi and vayu, but all are deluded."


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, August 11th, 2015 at 4:01 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana/vajrayana abhidharma
Content:
zenman said:
Which one of those three? I am a terribly poor reader!

Astus wrote:
Then go for Living Yogacara: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 10th, 2015 at 4:59 PM
Title: Re: Mahayana/vajrayana abhidharma
Content:
zenman said:
Thank you Astus. Which book would you recommend?

Astus wrote:
All of them. But you can start with:

- A Buddhist Doctrine of Experience
- Seven Works of Vasubandhu, the Buddhist Psychological Doctor
- Living Yogacara: An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 10th, 2015 at 5:24 AM
Title: Re: Mahayana/vajrayana abhidharma
Content:
Astus wrote:
https://books.google.hu/books?id=CkChrAwsvGkC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=wHHAmlVPmrEC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=KWYcVO_kptMC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=xa0VBgAAQBAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=bnCdJgvaWrQC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=W1JbBAAAQBAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=uYwyLgEACAAJ

https://books.google.hu/books?id=1C4qAwAAQBAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=Aio1KQEACAAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=jdxRTxqaTicC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=jk8ImgEACAAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=QMrKAgAAQBAJ


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, August 6th, 2015 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Dharma or Law?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I've seen it only in translations from Chinese, and there it is fairly sensible, since there they translate the Chinese word law (fa 法) into English. For instance, "saddharma" in Chinese is miao-fa (妙法), thus what can be translated as true/correct teaching becomes wonderful law.

"Good man, the recondite language of the Tathagata is profound and difficult to understand. It is analogous to what happens when a great king tells his retinue to bring him saindhava. The one word "saindhava " refers to four different products [from Sindhu] : salt, a drinking cup, water, or a horse. Since the same word is used to designate four different things, only the wise attendant understands what the king means when he calls for it. If the king seeks saindhava when he is bathing, he is to be given water. If the king is eating and asks for saindhava, then he is to be given salt. If the king asks for saindhava when he has finished a meal and wants to drink alcohol, then he is to be given something to drink with. And if the king requests saindhava when he wants to travel, then he is to be given a horse [of the type bred in Sindhu] . In this way the wise attendants are able to decipher the four ways this abstruse word is used by the king."
(Nirvana Sutra, vol 1, 9.4.6, p 297, BDK Edition. Yamamoto-Page tr: ch 16, p 133. see also: Shobogenzo, vol 4, "O-saku-sendaba - A King’s Seeking of Saindhava")


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, August 3rd, 2015 at 4:34 AM
Title: Re: Help with the Mahāyāna Sūtras Please?
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www2.fodian.net/world/index.html - lists Mahayana scriptures according to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taish%C5%8D_Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, August 2nd, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Ratnagotra & Bhagavad Gita verses
Content:
Astus wrote:
Gaudapada - a pre-Shankara teacher of Advaita Vedanta - uses Madhyamaka and Yogacara reasoning in his most well known work, the Mandukya Karika. It doesn't make him a proponent of Buddhism, and the text itself rejects such an assumption.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, August 1st, 2015 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Did the Buddha teach about the The Five Skandhas directl
Content:
Karma Dondrup Tashi said:
The whole third book of Samyutta Nikaya is about this.

Astus wrote:
I.e. the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#khandha.

It is also found in the basic definition of the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html:

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." ()


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 31st, 2015 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan worldview.
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
Is the most direct insight into the nature of reality scientific method or the valid cognition of a Buddha?  What makes us a "buddhist" isn't relying on the three higher trainings or the three principle paths or whatever outline of path we might want to use.  It's refuge.  Refuge is a bit meaningless without committing to rely on the valid cognition of the Buddha.

Astus wrote:
I don't see how Buddhism and science share the same area of investigation to even give rise to a debate about whose cognition is valid. The Buddha wanted and attained freedom from suffering. Science is about understanding how the physical world works. Buddhism offers a path of liberation, science a path of learning. As such, Buddhism is internal, subjective, personal, while science is not supposed to be like that. How can there be a meeting point?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 31st, 2015 at 12:22 AM
Title: Re: Tibetan worldview.
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
Dharma takes its view very seriously, but not its methods.  The methods change and adapt as the dharma moves from culture to culture and from time to time.

Astus wrote:
It depends on what level you mean that. The path of discipline-concentration-wisdom is what makes Buddhism. As the Buddha says in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness."

Also, it is questionable how much of Buddhist cosmology and theology is an essential part of the view. As I see it, the general rules of karma, rebirth and the three worlds are essential, but not the specifics, like the names of various gods.

Urgyen Dorje said:
What we seem to have are Buddhist dilettantes who extrude dharma through the view of scientific materialism and who keep what is left.  A less extreme is to find oneself in a limbo where one can not completely commit to the dharma because of one's commitment to the narrow view of scientific materialism.

Astus wrote:
That materialist re-interpretation of Buddhism results in a limited view where the teachings are used for therapeutic purposes. But how much it actually restricts one's capability to gain insight into the emptiness of oneself and all phenomena is debatable. I think that the bigger problem is not in denying rebirth and the existence of various realms but in maintaining the assumption that one is identical with one's body.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan worldview.
Content:
Malcolm said:
Science is not an invisible sentient being.

Astus wrote:
And it doesn't believe in one either. Isn't that the whole issue here?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 11:08 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan worldview.
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
So dharma marrying science-- I think that's already been done.  Buddha was the greatest physicist ever.

Dharma marrying scientific materialism or scientism-- disaster.  We're already seeing that as dharma comes west and comes modern.  Buddhism Without Beliefs.

Astus wrote:
I don't see it as easily separable. It's like distinguishing Dharma and cultural elements. Theoretically there is a pure Dharma, actually it's not that easy to find it.

Urgyen Dorje said:
Science has a more limited ontological scope than scientific materialism.

Astus wrote:
And that's why I say it's not really a worldview, but more a technology, a method. As such it has little influence on one's take on life. Because it leaves the philosophical and religious questions unanswered, that vacuum is naturally filled by physicalism or some other views. That's how it can be that Buddhism has nothing to do with science, just like it has nothing to do with building roads and computer programming.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 10:57 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan worldview.
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, you are really off your rocker here.

Astus wrote:
How so?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan worldview.
Content:
Urgyen Dorje said:
If by science you really mean science then this might be possible.  If you mean, which most people do as a default, scientific materialism or scientism, then this would be one of the most destructive things possible to the dharma.  As I see it, the greatest hindrance to the transmission of the dharma in the west is scientific materialism and the impoverished worldview is provides everything.

Astus wrote:
By "real science" I presume you mean the type of philosopher-scientists who are open and curious about discovering the world and may even have some form of metaphysical/spiritual inclination. Not those who are somewhat closed in their view of the world and what they regard as truth, i.e. physicalism. However, that's similar to differentiating between monastics in terms of whether they have the intellectual capacity to reflect on the Dharma and the world or they just go along and follow whatever the tradition says. I think it is quite normal that there are significantly more of the latter than the former in both science and Buddhism. Thus, if there is science and scientism, then there is Dharma and Dharmism.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan worldview.
Content:
Malcolm said:
Buddhadharma has always recognized the existence of bhumipatis and granted them respect, and occasionally forceful conversion.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism has a very good system that describes the "spiritual/other" world. Therefore it is adaptable. One can posit various pantheons there, like Indra can be exchanged to Zeus any time. Perhaps one could fit in various angels for devas. My point is that currently many who turn to Buddhism in the West are virtually materialists in their ordinary perception of the world, since the brahmans of this era are the scientists. Also, in cultural terms one may also have a Christian/Jewish background, but then it's unlikely that they would choose Buddhism while still accepting that world view. Less likely is a New Age type of background, however, that is fairly internaliser/psychological (everything is mind-made) as well.

So, if there are any local spirits to be integrated/converted to Buddhism, that spirit is science. That is what influences people the most and has a strong effect on everyday activities and rituals (e.g. washing hands, cleaning the house, all sorts of medical and dietary stuff).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Tibetan worldview.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Could it be a Western mentality that wants to force a culturally foreign view on every aspect of one's interpretation of the world?

As Buddhism spread it has adapted to the local beliefs. It's not the same pantheon in different countries that ordinary Buddhists believe in, even if the ancient Indian gods are integrated to some extent.

Should those who follow Japanese Buddhism erect altars not only for Shakyamuni and Amitabha but also for Amaterasu, Hachiman and the current emperor?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 5:13 PM
Title: Re: Luck and Karma
Content:
MalaBeads said:
Sorry but I dont understand your response. Are you saying Tibetans pray for luck? How does your response relate to my question?

Astus wrote:
Prayer is an expression of one's wishes. Buddhism has incorporated that common human behaviour in various forms. Thoughts and words are not without consequences, although it is true that often magical beliefs contradict the view of karmic causality. At the same time, karma is not exactly the same as fatalism, so even simple utterances can count. While anyone can pray for good luck and long life, it doesn't mean it will have any effect. But what matters is the type of mental attitude that it strengthens. If it is about greed, fulfilling one's desires, then it is unwholesome. If it is about renunciation, good will and compassion, it is wholesome. Otherwise, it is just a fairly neutral habitual activity that can make someone feel better.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 30th, 2015 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Luck and Karma
Content:
Astus wrote:
Don't Tibetans pray for numerous reasons, like good weather and dispelling harmful spirits? Or the long life of Garchen Rinpoche.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Title: Re: A question about stream entry in Mahayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
Aemilius,

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.24.budd.html 344 talks about people who abandon the monastic life, not people falling back from enlightenment. Can you give exact references to Sarvastivada sources, or anything in the Abhidharmakosha for instance?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here's one from the Buddha ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html ):

"Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion's roar."
...
"Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... they describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self."

Is there any other doctrine where no-self is taught?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Enlightenment
Content:
Astus wrote:
First we need a definition of enlightenment. Then we can see how that definition matches the definitions by others.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Does Chan/Seon/Zen practice mudra?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It depends on what you mean by "practising mudra". As far as I know, in Chinese Buddhism it is a ritual element of certain ceremonies.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 6:55 AM
Title: Re: Emptiness meditation
Content:
Astus wrote:
This clearly worded work contains teachings on both theory and practice of emptiness: https://books.google.hu/books?id=8zeh8VAFCvAC.

If that's not direct enough, go for https://books.google.hu/books?id=uoCa1aEVAzwC and possibly the commentary https://books.google.hu/books?id=pYT5Eww5gdIC.

And in case you want something utterly direct: https://books.google.hu/books?id=okE6AwAAQBAJ.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: A question about stream entry in Mahayana
Content:
seeker242 said:
Although, it's said that a theravada defined stream enterer cannot fall back to a non-ariya stage and is only capable of 7 more rebirths. Can First bhumi fall back to pre-bhumi stage?

Astus wrote:
No, they can only fall into the sravaka path if they abandon bodhicitta.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 1:39 AM
Title: Re: Section of my favorite sutra that is bewildering
Content:
Astus wrote:
This is a common theme of the Vimalakirti Sutra, it is present right at the beginning where Vimalakirti's actions are described.

Here's another translation of the same section:

"He manifests acting out of lust but forsakes both internal and external and does not begrudge his own life; manifests the practicing of moral infractions but peacefully resides in the pure precepts, even unto harboring great fear about even minor transgressions; manifests acting out of anger but is always sympathetically forbearant; manifests acting out of laziness, yet vigorously cultivates merit; manifests acting out of a disturbed mind, yet is always mindfully concentrated; manifests acting out of stupidity, yet penetrates both mundane and supramundane wisdom." (tr McRae, BDK Edition, p 133)

See also Lankavatara Sutra 2.58, and further discussion with other references: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2882.

The point is, no matter what happens, don't take it to be anything but empty. This is not the case of " http://www.adelaideshinbuddhistdojo.com.au/shinranwasan/kw40.htm " (as they call it in Japanese Pure Land), but freedom from all dharmas and the complete use of skilful means.

Actually, karma cannot be removed, actions of infinite births affect our every moment. Either we realise that experiences themselves are empty, or we remain dissatisfied no matter what happens.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: A question about stream entry in Mahayana
Content:
Phenomniverse said:
Stream entry may not be relevant but if already attained does it undermine the bodhisattva path?

Astus wrote:
No. If there is a desire to follow the bodhisattva path, it can be done at any time. The very fact of that desire is proof of being capable of raising bodhicitta.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 25th, 2015 at 6:40 PM
Title: Re: A question about stream entry in Mahayana
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is mentioned as part of the sravaka path - for instance in the Diamond Sutra. But if one has bodhicitta - aims for buddhahood - then it is not relevant. Sravakas eventually turn to the bodhisattva path according to the one vehicle scheme as presented primarily in the Lotus Sutra.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015 at 11:00 PM
Title: Re: Loss of Japanese traditions
Content:
Queequeg said:
human nature tends toward complacency, laziness and stagnation.

Astus wrote:
Isn't it the very meaning of Buddhism to go beyond those defilements? Blaming conditions for the lack of will to aspire on the path sounds more like an excuse to me than a valid reason. At the same time, Dharma taught just because they cannot make a living otherwise may not be a Dharma that's worth spreading.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: Loss of Japanese traditions
Content:
Queequeg said:
Once the opportunity to make converts was precluded, and once the congregation is locked in by law, there is no institutional motivation to minister to the congregation or adapt in response to the changing needs

Astus wrote:
If the only reason to make Buddhism alive is to gain more and more adherents, and it cannot do anything with existing followers, then it is quite a faulty system.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015 at 4:47 PM
Title: Re: Does Zen result in Buddhahood as described in sutras?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Zen does not result in Buddhahood. Zen is Buddhahood.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, July 14th, 2015 at 7:26 PM
Title: Re: Enlightened yet fat
Content:
Astus wrote:
Recommended book:

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0lZRt8i7Xq8C

Info:

The androgynous, asexual Buddha of contemporary popular imagination stands in stark contrast to the muscular, virile, and sensual figure presented in Indian Buddhist texts. In this groundbreaking study of previously unexplored aspects of the early Buddhist tradition, John Powers skillfully adapts methodological approaches from European and North American historiography to the study of early Buddhist literature, art, and iconography, highlighting aspects of the tradition that have been surprisingly invisible in earlier scholarship.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 12th, 2015 at 1:38 AM
Title: Re: About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
fckw said:
How do you proceed with the practice after initial stream entry?

Astus wrote:
Simple and straightforward: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.122.than.html. Some more in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 12th, 2015 at 1:26 AM
Title: Re: About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Modus.Ponens said:
I already got a partial answer: it envolves bodhicitta and eliminating the cognitive obscurations. How is the latter done?

Astus wrote:
Cognitive obscurations are removed by investigating the dharmas and seeing that they are all empty.

This is how the Buddha rouses arhats, as stated in the Lotus Sutra, chapter 7 (p 132, BDK Edition):

If sentient beings hear only about the single buddha vehicle they will then want neither to see nor approach a buddha. They will think that the buddha path is long and attainable only after enduring severe and protracted suffering. The Buddha, knowing their minds, knowing that they are weak-willed and of lowly aspiration, teaches them the two nirvanas through skillful means in order to let them rest halfway to the goal. If there are sentient beings who abide in either of these two stages, the Tathāgata immediately teaches: 
What you have accomplished is not complete. The stage you abide in is close to the wisdom of the buddhas. You should observe and consider that the nirvana you have obtained is not the true one. It is only through the power of the Tathāgata’s skillful means that the single buddha vehicle is explained as three.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 11th, 2015 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
bryandavis said:
Do you know of any good philosophical text on Theravada proper in English? I would like to be more educated in that area.

Astus wrote:
If you want something very philosophical, you can start with this one: http://store.pariyatti.org/Comprehensive-Manual-of-Abhidhamma-A--PDF-eBook_p_4362.html
A more extensive and generally accepted classic work: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

At the same time, Theravada has its own varieties. In the West the two common traditions are those from Myanmar/Burma and from Thailand, and there are others as well within and without those "lineages". Many don't rely on the above mentioned two works at all but prefer using directly the suttas. I don't know of any single work that sums up all that there is to know about Theravada (for that matter, Mahayana doesn't have one like that either). So, keep in mind that just as there is no such thing as Mahayana proper, there is no Theravada proper either.

However, if you are fairly new to Buddhism and Vasubandhu is not among your favourite authors yet, visit: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
And this site gives a good summary of the whole path: http://measurelessmind.ca/


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, July 11th, 2015 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Spread of Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
The classic work:
https://books.google.com/books?id=_9yvCQAAQBAJ

A summary:
https://books.google.com/books?id=kr_M1e7yImoC

Later events:
https://books.google.com/books?id=blBTHAY_A4wC

The mixing:
https://books.google.com/books?id=pSazfSorJzgC
https://books.google.com/books?id=VF4R8rfZ9QkC
https://books.google.com/books?id=xP0QBQAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=4GH7oQEACAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=u0BTahwaIocC

Something modern:
https://books.google.com/books?id=FqOpAgAAQBAJ


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 10th, 2015 at 5:54 PM
Title: Re: About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
maybay said:
...

Ayu said:
This assertion is illogical. An arahat has no conceptual hindrances anymore.

Astus wrote:
Except for the Gelugpas, the general view is that arhats do have it. As for the Gelugpas, they came up with some unique terminology and ideas to explain it in an even more complicated way.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 10th, 2015 at 5:46 PM
Title: Re: About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
bryandavis said:
First you would have to let us know what school view of Theravada you are positing your position from, as there is not one Theravada school. As well there is not only one interpretation of Tibetan Schools.

Astus wrote:
Theravada is neither Vaibhasika nor Sautrantika. Theravada was mostly unknown to Tibetans, as it's existed in Sri Lanka and other far away lands, not Northern India. So, it'd be difficult to find arguments that actually deal with specific Theravada views. Also, Theravada is one of the many Sravakayana schools, not a proper euphemism for Hinayana as some people happen to use it.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, July 10th, 2015 at 5:39 PM
Title: Re: About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Modus.Ponens said:
Can you explain, from the point of view of tibetan buddhism, what is it that is missing in the arahat to be a Buddha? And what would the arahat have to do to arrive at that level?

Astus wrote:
The key is bodhicitta: the wish to attain complete enlightenment in order to liberate all beings. Bodhicitta has two aspects: compassion and wisdom. Compassion is what is required for the development of skilful means and for that purpose accumulating merit. Wisdom is required for perfect liberation and insight into the emptiness of all phenomena. Combining the two as a single path is the Mahayana view.

An arhat is free from afflictions, but lacks compassion for all beings, thus has not developed the skilful means necessary to liberate all. Also, while an arhat is liberated, there is still the view that samsara is suffering, nirvana is peace, and does not realise that samsara is empty and there is nothing to escape from. So, arhats have a reified view of both nirvana and samsara as a duality.

An arhat cannot on its own switch to the bodhisattva path as there is the belief that the path is complete and there is nothing more to do. It is only because of the compassion of the buddhas that an arhat is eventually aroused from the nirvanic slumber to move on, and it is at that point when bodhicitta is developed.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 9th, 2015 at 5:33 PM
Title: Re: Vimalakirti Sutra
Content:
Astus wrote:
That small quote talks about:

- Distancing oneself from appearances is still conceiving appearances as real.
- The female form is just a concept like the male form
- The problem ultimately is being bound by concepts and ideas


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 9th, 2015 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Fortyeightvows said:
Can we say that one is an arhat at the level of stream enterer once one has had a direct perception of emptiness?
And if so which emptiness?
And if so then mustn't one become an arhat in order to become a buddha?

Astus wrote:
A stream-enterer is not yet an arhat, it is the first arya level on the sravaka path. Insight on the sravaka path is into the emptiness of the self (only Gelugpas say otherwise, but its their business). The sravakayana is not the same as the bodhisattvayana, so one does not have to become and arhat to reach buddhahood. Actually, one view is that sravakas can never reach buddhahood. The other view is that eventually arhats switch to the bodhisattva path.

(It should be noted that in Mahayana sravakas and arhats are generally symbols/representatives of practitioners who misunderstand the Dharma.)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 8th, 2015 at 6:33 PM
Title: Re: About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
In terms of liberation from suffering, the difference is made between arhats and buddhas by saying that arhats only remove afflictive emotions (klesha), while buddhas remove also conceptual hindrances (jneyavarana). This difference lies in recognising the emptiness of self (atmasunyata) or no-self of person (pudgalanairatmya), and the emptiness/selflessness of dharmas (dharmasunyata/dharmanairatmya). In other words, arhats see that there is no self in the aggregates but still take the skandhas themselves as substantial (svabhava), while buddhas also see the aggregates as without substance, that is, empty. That is the wisdom part. The bodhisattva path also emphasises the practice in skilful means, as that is required to be able to liberate sentient beings. Thus while an arhat may or may not have various abilities, a buddha necessarily has a complete set of skills. For instance, look at the qualities described in the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html.

This is a general description of the usual Mahayana interpretation. You can find it in many sutras, like the Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, July 5th, 2015 at 7:01 PM
Title: Re: Help contribute Quotes for 'Just dharma quotes' blog & A
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are such collections of sayings in the canons. In the Pali Canon the most well known is the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.intro.budd.html. The other collection is called the http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/. Zen has many similar collections, in English probably the biggest one is https://books.google.hu/books/about/Zen_s_Chinese_Heritage.html?id=qWrYGZG2yd4C.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, July 2nd, 2015 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: No, the external world is an illusion, right?
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/Yogacara/basicideas.htm
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=1C4qAwAAQBAJ


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, July 1st, 2015 at 5:49 PM
Title: Re: Homage to Wonhyo
Content:
Simon E. said:
it takes considerable loyalty and commitment to a particular tradition and lineage to make progress.

Astus wrote:
"In those days different sects were never established; just to clarify the three vehicles and the twelve divisions of the teaching was accepted as the customary way of learning the teaching. That many people today, out of stupidity, individually establish principles and suppose the Buddha-Dharma, is not the legitimate standard in Buddhism."
(Dogen: Inmo, Shobogenzo, vol 2, p 158, BDK Edition)

All the founders of the traditions and many outstanding teachers studied directly and widely the teachings of the Buddha and his descendants. Wonhyo is one example. That doesn't mean it is wrong to focus on a single teaching or system, just as the Buddha's disciples often concentrated only on a few utterances of Shakyamuni and thereafter gained liberation. But it is a narrow view to say that practising with the five aggregates is better than with dependent origination. Progress on the path depends on one's commitment and effort towards enlightenment, not on extensively praising this or that teacher. Don't we all take refuge in the Triple Jewel? Aren't all teachers only representatives of the original teacher Shakyamuni Buddha? People like Gampopa and Tsongkhapa were not bound to the feet of a single master.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 30th, 2015 at 5:11 PM
Title: Re: Homage to Wonhyo
Content:
muni said:
Whether dream or awaken. The good news is that our dream is not actually existing - not true, while Buddha is always. Courage given!

Astus wrote:
It does not talk about such a duality that only the Buddha is real and the phenomenal world is unreal. It is quite the opposite, there is no other reality, no Buddha outside of sentient beings.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 25th, 2015 at 1:44 AM
Title: Re: Right View
Content:
Astus wrote:
Right view is the middle way. The middle way is what is free from taking something to be eternal or to be annihilated (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html ). There is rebirth but no eternal soul. There is dependent origination but no substance. There is experience but no self. There is reading but no reader.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 25th, 2015 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Homage to Wonhyo
Content:
Astus wrote:
Some resources:

http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Wonhyo.html

http://ftp.buddhism.org/Publications/IABTC/Vol02_02_Sung-bae%20Park.pdf
http://ftp.buddhism.org/Publications/IABTC/Vol07_03_Pyeong-rae%20Lee.pdf

http://international.ucla.edu/media/files/01_Wonhyo_web-sz-ujs.pdf
https://books.google.hu/books?id=k1l9dUewsKgC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=Aio1KQEACAAJ
https://books.google.hu/books?id=MGEkmAEACAAJ


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 6:53 PM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
LastLegend said:
You have not answered the question: are you always intentional aware that you are driving while you are driving?
Intentional aware is with the intention to be aware. When you are not intentional aware, it does not mean your awareness dissapears. If it does, you cannot function at all.

Astus wrote:
When driving does one intend to be aware of what happens on the road? Yes. Otherwise why look forward? Unintentional awareness would be something like hearing the birds in the morning. And on the same level every sensory impression can be called unintentional most of the times, since we cannot manipulate every impression that occurs. We can also ask whether intention is intentional, or is it rather just another thought that comes up and then disappears? What we get in the end is just a series of conditioned processes without any overseer or controller.

LastLegend said:
The sensual mind is affected by language. The subtle mind is not affected by language, how can it be self if self is a construct of language? You only assume a self because you operate with language and you are concerned with self.

Astus wrote:
If there are two minds, one linguistic and one non-linguistic, then they cannot know of each other. Consequently the subtle mind you talk about is still the sensual mind. Also, since the subtle mind is originally free from language, it cannot be realised through any teaching, thus it cannot be the goal of the Buddha's teachings.

LastLegend said:
I have a problem when you say mind is conditioned. If mind is conditioned, it will disappear when conditions for it to arise are not present. I am not concerned if it's conditioned or not conditioned. Attachment is within the realm of language. Whether there is self or no self, I don't if that is true. There is a problem only when you become attached to a statement.

Astus wrote:
An unconditioned mind cannot be aware of anything conditioned. Thus it is either always aware of the same thing, or not aware at all. Because all experiences are conditioned, there cannot be an unconditioned mind that experiences any of that. What is the point of even supposing such an unconditioned mind?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 18th, 2015 at 4:37 PM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
LastLegend said:
Your subtle mind does not need to be intentional aware. While you are driving your car, are you always intentional aware that you are driving? Your subtle mind is not concerned with language because it does not operate within the domain of language. If your subtle mind is conditioned by language, then it is conditioned by appearance or object since language is referring to appearance or object. If it's conditioned, it will dissapear when object is not present. That's like saying your mind is present because a table is present. If I remove the table, does your mind dissapear?

Astus wrote:
Where is the difference between aware and intentionally aware? If there were no intention to be conscious during driving, one could as well start reading a book or fall to sleep, not to mention that drinking and driving could pose no problem either.

What is the difference between mind and subtle mind? The Buddha talks about six consciousnesses, and neither of them are permanent nor independent. He also said: "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self." ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html ) That is because the mind apparently changes moment to moment. Assuming an unaffected awareness looming above passing phenomena is the same as assuming a self.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 9:58 PM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
LastLegend said:
There is awareness of it, but you are not constantly aware. If you are, you are Buddha. Why is it important that awareness is separate from an object or not? Suppose that it is or suppose that it isn't, so what?

Astus wrote:
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=288641#p288641 you wrote: "Your aware activity is your mind your nature. You are not maintaining your aware nature. Why do you maintain something that happens naturally? Your nature is aware. Your awareness is always present whether you see it or not."

If it is always and unintentionally aware, how could one not be constantly aware?

If there were a separate awareness, then it could not be aware of anything, thus it were not awareness at all. If awareness were the same as the object, it would cease once the moment of consciousness of something has gone.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, June 17th, 2015 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
LastLegend said:
So you are not real and impermanent, then what makes Buddhahood permanent? Why are you always present?

Astus wrote:
What is real cannot be impermanent. What do you call Buddhahood? As for always being present, please clarify that.

LastLegend said:
By 'appears to be spontaneous," I mean something like you scratch when you itch.

Astus wrote:
That is satisfying a desire. It is quite conditioned and intentional.

LastLegend said:
Whether you recognize that you walk or not, you still walk. Whether you recognize your mind and its activity or not, they still happen. Your aware activity is your mind your nature. You are not maintaining your aware nature. Why do you maintain something that happens naturally? Your nature is aware. Your awareness is always present whether you see it or not. Is your awareness your true self? Well your awareness does not question itself whether its real or not real true or not true because it is not within the domain of language and does not operate within it.

Astus wrote:
How do you know it happens if there is no awareness of it? Is there an awareness separate from an object?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
LastLegend said:
If you don't know don't understand, would you not be like a rock? What's there to be attached about looking through your two eyes? Walking? Sitting? It appears to be spontaneous as such when you turn your head or lift your finger or hear a sound.

Astus wrote:
The point is not to take some sort of constant subject or active agent as the real self. Also, spontaneity, as something without a cause, cannot exist.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
"Why don’t they see it?"

Astus wrote:
When ordinary beings want to see something it means perceiving an object, looking at something outside. It is based on the incorrect view that subject and object are separate. But if we examine the present realm of experience there is neither subject nor object, only passing moments of phenomena. Examining means not looking for anything outside, not grasping at anything inside. Examining also means first contemplating the concepts relating to self and other, refuting them, and confirming in experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 6:27 PM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
LastLegend said:
There is the one that looks through those two eyes. That's the one that participates in it's activity.

Astus wrote:
Just beware of what Dogen calls the Srenika view.

"Who said that the buddha nature has knowing and comprehending? While perceivers and knowers may be buddhas, the buddha nature is not knowing and comprehending."
( http://stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/shobogenzo/translations/bussho/translation.html )

"According to that non-Buddhist view, there is one spiritual intelligence existing within our body. When this intelligence meets conditions, it can discriminate between pleasant and unpleasant and discriminate between right and wrong, and it can know pain and irritation and know suffering and pleasure—all [these] are abilities of the spiritual intelligence.
...
we should realize that living-and-dying is just nirvana; [Buddhists] have never discussed nirvana outside of living-and-dying. Moreover, even if we wrongly imagine the understanding that “mind becomes eternal by getting free of the body” to be the same as the buddha-wisdom that is free of life and death, the mind that is conscious of this understanding still appears and disappears momentarily, and so it is not eternal at all. Then isn’t [this understanding] unreliable?"
(Bendowa, SBGZ, vol 1, p 14-15, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 4:19 AM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
So in short, the practice is remembering, a billion times if need be, to stop fooling oneself?
To repeat the question, why are a billion times necessary instead of just a few, or even one?

Astus wrote:
The Buddha had all sorts of disciples. There were those who could understand his teaching just from a few sentences and realised complete liberation in a short time. And there were others who required many years. Giving up attachment to body and mind is a decision. And that decision depends on seeing the drawbacks of grasping. It does not need explanation why one shouldn't hold on to a burning ball of iron. But a nice ball made of gold is apparently desirable to keep. So one has to come to the insight that attractive things cause suffering. Then one has to understand that by letting go one is free (e.g. https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.71, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html and http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.015.nypo.html ). Practising mindfulness should not be restricted to occasionally sitting comfortably and trying to figure things out. At the same time, habits can stay because one has not yet uncovered the actual centres of holding on to something as one's self. But once it is clear that no phenomena whatsoever is graspable, it is quite natural that one falls into deluded states less and less.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
Monlam Tharchin said:
If ending suffering is a matter of seeing our nature, and our nature is impermanence, and seeing our nature is seeing impermanence, then why in the world do even people who see impermanence (e.g. meditators) fall back into self-views, and why do ordinary people inexorably driven by impermanence fail to see the nose on their face?

Astus wrote:
Ordinary people know that eventually things decay and die. But at the same time they believe that for a while it can stay, that there are actually eternal things like truth, laws, love, soul and God. Meditators can be of all kinds, so that itself does not mean they are not common people. Those who have actually confirmed for themselves that phenomena are empty and impermanent have eliminated the concept of self, but that's still not the same as getting rid of the habitual grasping at appearances. That's why training with the correct view is the path of liberation where one bases one's practice on the insight into emptiness. And that practice is simply not abiding anywhere, and when there is something grasped, mindfulness reminds oneself not to be fooled. So it is practising enlightenment, it is enlightened practice.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 16th, 2015 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Which type of Buddhist tradition do Shaolin monks belong
Content:
Astus wrote:
State influence in Chinese Buddhism has been present for the last 2000 years. Just like in probably all the other Asian countries. It doesn't mean that they're illegitimate. At the same time, mainland Chinese Buddhism does not seem to try to invite foreign followers anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 10:40 PM
Title: Re: Which type of Buddhist tradition do Shaolin monks belong
Content:
Astus wrote:
Shaolin monastery has belonged to the Caodong Chan https://shaolinchancity.blogspot.com/2008/12/three-lineages-of-shaolin_11.html since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xueting_Fuyu (1203-1275) became the abbot there. But practically speaking it is simply Chinese Mahayana as being a member of this or that lineage is only nominal. It should also be noted that those who actively pursue martial arts are not ordained monks, they only take  novice precepts (see https://shaolinchancity.blogspot.com/2008/12/shaolin-monasticism-discipleship_944.html ).


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 15th, 2015 at 5:46 PM
Title: Re: Beholding the mind
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are so many ways to observe and watch the mind, they all come with various feelings and views that one can try to maintain and practise. But that is still not accepting the simple truth that there is not a single thing that could be grasped. In order to accept that, one just has to confirm in one's personal experience that all the six sensory areas are utterly unstable. That is called seeing the nature of mind.

Platform Sutra, ch 7, p 62, BDK Edition said:
Not seeing a single dharma but maintaining the view of nonbeing
Is much like floating clouds blocking the face of the sun.
Not knowing a single dharma but maintaining one’s knowledge of emptiness
Is just like the great void generating lightning and thunder.

When such perceptual understanding arises for the slightest instant,
How can mistaken recognition ever understand expedient means?
You should understand the error of this yourself, in a single moment of thought,
And the numinous brilliance of the self will be constantly manifest.

Platform Sutra, ch 5, p 45, BDK Edition said:
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 only83 generate the falseness ofpurity. 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.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 7:20 PM
Title: Re: Distraction in shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
A daydream is being lost in a series of thoughts, following a story. That is delusion, and it can happen because we are lured into it by giving meaning and importance to the initial thought. That is what ordinary people call life, that is the monkey mind. Awakening is seeing that thoughts are without basis, without essence, without anything to grasp.

Zen is about cultivating awakening / awakened cultivation. While it is normal that the mind drifts off, at the moment one remembers (becomes mindful) of what is going on - that is, there is a reflection on the mind/thoughts - then the chain of thought is released and one has regained awareness. This returning to/of awareness during zazen in Soto is called kakusoku (覚触/覺觸), i.e. awareness or becoming aware. It is not a question whether there are or are not any thoughts, but whether one is aware of it or sucked into a story. It is in some ways similar to the type of meditation when one focuses on an object, then gets distracted by various experiences (thoughts or anything else), but then one realises that and returns to the object. That point where one realises the distraction is when one is mindful. The important difference is that in zazen what one should be mindful of is that there is nothing to be mindful of, because every experience is ungraspable. That is the awakened awareness that one cultivates, awakening again and again.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 9th, 2015 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Distraction in shikantaza
Content:
Astus wrote:
You don't have to be aware of your body or the environment. Whatever comes, comes. If you try to regulate your experience then there is a grasping at an idea, a vision of what and how things should be. And that is exactly what should not be done. Where there is no meaning given to whatever occurs then phenomena are unobstructed and the mind is unbound.

Sometimes a bodily feeling is the most prominent, sometimes a thought. It is a distraction only when you take it to be something important, when you try to keep it or push it away. Sitting is just sitting, nothing special. Like sitting on a bus and watching the landscape pass by. The moment you want to hold onto a sight, it is already gone. Remembering that sight is just another landscape passing by. Worrying about remembering is again a new vision coming and going. Distraction is to think that there is something that stays. But is there such a thing?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, June 7th, 2015 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: How effective are liberation-upon-seeing dharma doors?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Things have no power, karma is made by the mind. When something is seen, the effect depends on the seer. It might be the Buddha himself, but a mosquito sees only a source of blood. People may read as many teachings as they like, but correctly understanding them is up to the individual. While the Diamond Sutra (ch 8, tr Muller) says that it is the source of all buddhas, it is of course not the physical book or the words themselves that are the source. As Huineng says in the Platform sutra (ch 2, tr McRae): "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." Liberation can happen when seeing, when hearing, or with any other object, as the Surangama Sutra explains in detail. But as long as one is lost in words and ideas, even as obvious objects as the sun and moon are invisible for the deluded.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, June 5th, 2015 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: Why no Tantrism in Zen?
Content:
Dan74 said:
If anyone here has experience with both Zen and Tantra, could you suggest how Tantra could be helpful in a Zen framework?

Astus wrote:
It depends on the person, but any practice can be helpful both on its own and combined with another. If we want to look at it really strictly, Zen is nothing else but immediate realisation of buddha-mind. Anything besides that is only skilful means. And there is no special reason why only practices like counting breath and contemplating phrases can be used to assist practitioners. Visualisation is not a foreign idea, since there are many methods described in various sutras, like Amitayus' Contemplation Sutra, a scripture quoted in the text of Hongren. It is also well known that Japanese Rinzai uses some energy practices at least since Hakuin introduced them. And in terms of doctrinal and practical studies, Tibetan sources are easier to find in English, since the major works of Chinese Mahayana have not yet been translated fully.

Keizan, a Dharma successor three generations after Dogen, is credited, along with his successors, with widely popularizing the Soto school in Japan. Keizan actively developed forms for extending Zen practice to the general lay populace. He incorporated into the Soto tradition the earlier Japanese spiritual context and was personally strongly influenced by Shugendo, the mountain ascentic tradition, as well as the Shingon school of Vajrayana Buddhism. Much of the ritual Keizan developed, which is still used in Soto temples, was derived from the Shingon tradition.
(Dogen's Pure Standards for the Zen Community: A Translation of Eihei Shingi, p 23 - although Bodiford in "Soto Zen in Medieval Japan", p 87, says that connecting Keizan with esoteric practices is often exaggerated)

In Kamakura Japan, the question was not about pure Zen versus Zen syncretism, but about the degree and kind of Zen syncretism in which one engaged. Eisai's disciples, Gyoyu and Eicho, for example, practiced forms of Buddhist syncretism that hardly distinguished them as "Zen." As head of the Kongozammai'in, Gyoyu was a devoted practitioner of Shingon ritual and the study of Zen. Eicho, too, lacked interest in an independent Zen tradition, and preferred to absorb Zen into the general structure of Mahayana Buddhism. He was especially devoted to Daimitsu, or Tendai esotericism. In addition, Enni Ben'en, who transmitted the Yangqi (Yogi) Linji lineage to Japan, was an avid proponent of syncretic zen, melding Tendai and Shingon rituals with Zen practice. He was an avid proponent of Yanshou's Zongjing lu, on which he often lectured, and his model for Zen syncretism. Although the Soto school generally regards the syncretistic process as initiated largely through the evangelical efforts of the fourth patriarch, Keizan, and his disciples, who readily assimilated Tendai and Shingon elements and folk religious customs, is clear that Soto zen teaching in Japan was highly syncretic from the outset. The teachings of Dogen, as seen above, were highly accomodating - even preferential - toward the scriptural tradition, as the "word of the Buddha". Throughout Kamakura Zen, Zen teaching and practice were not conceived as somthing separate from, different from, or antagonistic toward scriptural teaching. If anything, Zen was regarded as the "value added" component that gave Buddhist practice an intensity and richness it otherwise may have lacked. This is essentially the same perspective that Yongming Yanshou held with regard to Chan, and it was this spirit that infiltrated and animated many of the practice halls of Song Chan monasteries. It was this spirit that was transmitted to Japan by Zen pioneers in the Kamakura period.
(Dogen: Textual and Historical Studies, p 191-192)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 4th, 2015 at 11:05 PM
Title: Re: Good introductory books to Buddhist meditation/mindfulne
Content:
Astus wrote:
General Mahayana:

http://kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/ebm_book_page.htm
http://kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/sgs_book_page.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=y6HzxLUC7rQC
https://books.google.com/books?id=5VuSpV3plz0C

Zen:

https://books.google.com/books?id=okE6AwAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=Tz46AwAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=ov7DAwAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=bQcmoHqW_AIC

Mahamudra:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_C8qAwAAQBAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=aiiMl0WpKRcC
https://books.google.com/books?id=lKd9CAAAQBAJ


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, June 4th, 2015 at 6:30 PM
Title: Re: Poll: Should Zen/Chan/Seon have a separate Forum?
Content:
Astus wrote:
1. There are separate sections for 'Tibetan Buddhism' and 'East Asian Buddhism'. That is in recognition of their different historical development.
2. There is no Vajrayana forum in and of itself anywhere here, unless one counts Shingon as that, but that is in the EA section, exactly because it is an EA school.
3. Sub-forums in the Zen area were created years ago because at that time people thought it is worth trying. It might be reconsidered, but I don't think it makes a difference in any way.
4. ZFI is a different type of forum that focuses mostly on Zen, not even EA Buddhism.
5. I cannot account for the low traffic in the Zen area here, but I don't see either how setting up a Falun/Hourin 法輪 (i.e. Law Wheel) forum separately could bring in more people, unless perhaps by drawing in more English speaking Asians.
6. Just because there is not the same amount of interaction in the Zen area as in other parts does not mean there is a problem. Dogen was happy with training only a couple of monks in the countryside, just as Zhaozhou spent his teaching years in a small remote monastery.
7. As perhaps mentioned already, it is better not to think of all the traditions as separate Buddhisms but as various skilful means. Both EA and Tibetan Buddhism developed a fairly unified set where every section of the Tripitaka has its place. The difficulty is that the Tibetan and the East Asian systems have not yet been harmonised. And to this process I'd add Theravada as well, since all three major parts of Buddhism meet in the West and also globally.
8. There are at least a few of us who have benefitted from studying various traditions. And for everyone on the Mahayana path there is a universal vow: "Dharma-gates are measureless, I vow to learn them." (Famen wuliang shiyuan xue 法門無量誓願學)
9. It may seem that Zen has a sectarian approach, and certainly there are examples for that. But if we take a closer look, in China, Korea and Vietnam it was and still is mostly a unifying idea and not a dividing one. As for Japan, its modern history is different, but Dogen's words should be remembered: "Those who randomly call themselves by the name “Zen sect,” which has never existed in India in the west or in the Eastern Lands, from the past to the present, are demons out to destroy the Buddha’s truth." (Butsudo, in Shobogenzo, vol 3, p 88, BDK Edition) Those who believe otherwise have yet to find out that the http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/green-koan-50-d%C5%8Dgen%E2%80%99s%C2%A0eyes-and-nose.
10. As I see it, this forum provides space both for discussions among Zen followers and among followers of different paths. Conflicts are inevitable, the question is whether one can solve them or not. Monasteries are rarely defined by what doctrine they follow, and people can live together simply by observing the precepts in general and the local rules and customs in particular. I think that should be the example here as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 at 6:12 AM
Title: Re: Empty House
Content:
Astus wrote:
Paichang asked, "What is the direction of the Buddhas?"
"It is the very place where you let go of your body and mind." replied the Patriarch. (Sun Face Buddha, p 69)

Nothing said:
The coloured bits are very interesting.....anyone knows what it means?

Astus wrote:
It means that the buddha is letting go of body and life. That's what buddhas want all beings to reach.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 5:04 PM
Title: Re: Empty House
Content:
seeker242 said:
Does he say how to not do that? What if the mind already grasps at dharmas? What do you do then? How are you supposed to not grasp at dharmas? Isn't Mazu's teaching itself a dharma? If we don't grasp Mazu's teaching, then how can it help?

Astus wrote:
As I have commented there, grasping is not knowing what a dharma is, grasping is not knowing what the original mind is. One just has to realise that the mind, the present fact of awareness, is itself without a single dharma. Dharmas themselves are just coming and going. It is similar to a mirror that itself contains no objects, while reflections pass through unobstructed. A mind that does not grasp is seeing that the six sensory areas always change, there is not a single thing that could be taken to be real, solid and substantial. One can observe this at any moment, as sights, sounds, feelings and ideas are by themselves unstable and transitory. So dharmas are actually ungraspable, taking them to be one's self is completely an unfounded illusion. The only difference between an ordinary being and an enlightened one is whether one chases the six kinds of impressions or by reflecting on one's mind of this present experience one realises it to be without anything to hold on to.

"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."
(Sun Face Buddha, p 64)


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, June 1st, 2015 at 6:33 AM
Title: Empty House
Content:
Astus wrote:
Mazu Daoyi said:
"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."
(Sun Face Buddha, p 67)

A dharma is an instance of experience. Grasping at a dharma means making it one's own self and interacting with everything else from that perspective. That is when the true mind is not known, when a thief is taken to be one's own son. If it is known that an instance of experience is just an instance of experience that does not abide even for a moment, then there can be no grasping. There the true mind is known to be originally pure, it is like an empty house where there's nothing to steal.

Paichang asked, "What is the direction of the Buddhas?"
"It is the very place where you let go of your body and mind." replied the Patriarch.
(Sun Face Buddha, p 69)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 12:31 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
There is only a difference in the coarseness or subtlety of the mind that apprehends suchness.

Astus wrote:
And what does that stand for? How can non-abiding be coarse or subtle? There is nothing to grasp or apprehend in suchness.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 30th, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
I don't see that passage as pointing out the nonconceptual wisdom of a bodhisattva and a tathāgata are the same.
It is not actually a very common term in the sūtras, occurring in only three sūtras in the bka' 'gyur.

Astus wrote:
Nirvikalpajnana (無分別智) should be a fairly common term in sutrayana, at least in yogacara and tathagatagarbha works. According to the Cheng Weishi Lun, this is what a bodhisattva gets at the path of seeing, what a bodhisattva practises with on the path of meditation, and it is the great mirror wisdom's perception of suchness.

Malcolm said:
The difference between the nonconceptual wisdom of bodhisattvas of one stage and another, as well as buddhas, is the degree to which they have developed sarvakārajñāna.

Astus wrote:
However, I still don't see how can there be any difference between not abiding anywhere for a bodhisattva and a buddha.

Thanks for the recommendation of Aryadeva's Lamp.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 8:25 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
Well, one difference I see is the translation of this passage you refer to seems to be an abbreviation when compared with the same passage as translated into Tibetan:

Astus wrote:
What about the difference regarding non-conceptual wisdom?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 7:45 PM
Title: Re: bhuddist dharma versus buddhist practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Dharma is actualised in one's life. Practice is about actualising it more and more. That actualisation is leaving behind greed, hatred and ignorance. Once the causes of suffering are gone, actualisation is complete, one is the very embodiment of the Dharma. Thus there is nothing more to achieve, practice, actualise, or leave behind.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Dan74 said:
Of course the Sutras speak of liberation. Malcolm spoke about stages though. The gradual enlightenment path is one of the paradigms, not the only one. That was the only point I was trying to make.

Astus wrote:
I quoted those because they specify a level of attainment.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 4:51 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
frankc said:
I don't know how much relevance this talk of compassion and helping people will be if we end up in the hell realms having our tongues cut out, being impaled by spears, kicked off cliffs, our organs being shattered by the cold, etc. If you are not enlightened and are in the lower realms then compassion and helping people I think will be the opposite of what you will be doing. Feeling pain and making others experience pain is more likely. Of course compassion and helping people will make it less likely for you to fall downwards but we all have bad karma from the past, even good people fall. Samsara is dangerous. I don't understand how anyone can be satisfied being here for anymore than one life. What if you forget your religion in your next life and end up a Satanist?  Staying here for anymore than one life is completely dangerous I feel and if you're not getting out in this life than who knows where in the world you will end up.

Astus wrote:
There is an easy and safe path to escape samsara for everyone:

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Translations/Awakening_of_faith.html:

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

Karma Chagme, A Spacious Path to Freedom, p 200:

"For individuals with mental afflictions, there is a loophole that can enable them to take birth in a Buddha realm. The Protector Amitabha promised that one may take birth in his pure realm due to the power of his prayers. Thus with your body, speech, and mind focus on this goal; it is good to offer prayers from the stitras and hidden treasure teachings to be reborn in Sukhavati. Many such prayers are found in each of the four orders of Tibetan Buddhism, as well as in the Chinese Buddhist tradition. Like prepared food and drink, they are ready to be eaten and drunk."


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
So as far as you are concerned the non-conceptual wisdom of a first stage bodhisattva and the non-conceptual wisdom of a buddha is exactly alike?

Astus wrote:
Yes. What difference do you see?

"a Bodhisattva gives alms in the same way as would a Tathāgata, without any difference. This is how a Bodhisattva takes Bodhisattva actions. Likewise a Bodhisattva observes the precepts, endures adversity, makes energetic progress, does meditation, and develops wisdom in the same way as would a Tathāgata, without any difference. This is how a Bodhisattva takes Bodhisattva actions."
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra46.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
Don't you distinguish between the nonconceptual wisdom of a first stage bodhisattva and a tenth stage bodhisattva? The object is the same, but the degree of subtlety is not.

Astus wrote:
There can be only one state that deserves the name non-conceptual wisdom, in other words, non-abiding awareness. Anything else would be conceptual, would be abiding somewhere. What do you mean by difference in subtlety?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is the same nature, the mind that recognizes it however is much more subtle.

Astus wrote:
How can non-conceptual wisdom have levels?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 29th, 2015 at 12:46 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
There is pointing out the nature of mind even in Hinayāna.

Astus wrote:
Is one directly introduced to a different nature than what is pointed out? ( http://www.khenposodargye.org/2013/11/attaining-buddhahood-by-revealing-the-nature-of-reality-and-attaining-buddhahood-in-a-single-life/ seems to say no.)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 11:13 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes. And that is just an an eye blink in time.

Astus wrote:
I'm curious, what is the source for that number?

Malcolm said:
Chan lacks the direct introduction found exclusively in Vajrayāna

Astus wrote:
Do you mean empowerment here? How about pointing out the nature of mind?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
1 x 10(56), i.e. 1 followed by 56 zeros.

Astus wrote:
That is, the minimal time to complete the entire bodhisattva path is 3×10^56 years?

Malcolm said:
Vajrayānists, including Indian Vajrayānists, consider everything that is not Vajrayāna part of common Mahāyāna. Huayen. Tientai, etc., are all schools based in Mahāyāna sūtra.

Astus wrote:
Just like those schools have their own classification systems. For instance, from a Huayan perspective Vajrayana would fall into the category of Final Mahayana, that is above Madhyamaka and Yogacara but below the Sudden Enlightenment teaching. And from the Chan view Tantra is still a gradual path based on temporary skilful means.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 9:24 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
The point is that to attain full buddhahood it takes three asaṃkhyakalpas (asaṃkhya does not really mean incalculable, it is the name of a large number). The point of knowing where one is on the path is to know that, for example, if one is not yet on the path of seeing, one has a long way to go in common Mahāyāna terms. Even if one is on the path of seeing, one has a  long way to go in common Mahāyāna terms.

For example, when it is says that bodhisattvas can attain full buddhahood in seven lifetimes, this is not referring to bodhisattva on the path of accumulation, it is referring to bodhisattvas on the eighth bhumi, etc.

Astus wrote:
What number asamkhya is?

Schools like Huayan, Tiantai and Chan do not consider themselves common Mahayana, and they don't fit the system Tibetan's use.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 8:04 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
the above refers to a thought that bodhisattva has, not an actual fact of his or her saving anyone

Astus wrote:
I did not intend anything else with it, just to demonstrate what I have referred to.

Malcolm said:
You left out the next passage

Astus wrote:
It's part of the whole point. Even encountering the Dharma is a sign of previous good karma. Thus it fits Dan's remark: "Maybe we've already been on it for incalculable kalpas minus one lifetime!"


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 7:06 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Dan74 said:
Perhaps it is holding to the notion of stages that makes the path take aeons and aeons? Sounds like the good old polishing the brick into a mirror story...

Astus wrote:
The sutras themselves give some indication on one's state.

“If good men and good women, having heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā, can come to resoluteness in their minds, not shocked, not terrified, not baffled, and not regretful, know that they stand on the Ground of No Regress. If those who have heard this profound prajñā-pāramitā are not shocked, not terrified, not baffled, and not regretful, but believe, accept, appreciate, and listen tirelessly, they have in effect achieved dāna-pāramitā, śīla-pāramitā, kṣānti-pāramitā, vīrya-pāramitā, dhyāna-pāramitā, and prajñā-pāramitā. Moreover, they can reveal and explicate [the teachings] to others and can have them train accordingly.”
( http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html )

Having presently heard the teaching of this scripture, I do not have difficulty in adequately grasping its point. But if there is someone five hundred years hence who is able to hear this scripture, and believe, understand, and commit it to memory, then this person will be most rare. Why? This person will not be abiding in the notion of self, the notion of person, the notion of sentient being, or the notion of life span. And why? Because the notion of self is not a notion. The notion of person, the notion of sentient being, and the notion of life span are also not notions. And why? Those who are free from all notions are called buddhas.”
The Buddha said to Subhūti: “Yes, yes. You are right. You should know that if someone hears the teaching of this scripture and is neither shocked, afraid, or alarmed, this person is extremely rare. And why? Subhūti, what the Tathāgata calls the greatest transcendence, is not the greatest transcendence. Therefore it is called the greatest transcendence.”
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html, ch 14)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 5:09 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
zengen said:
http://www.khenposodargye.org/2014/04/attainment-in-a-single-lifetime-and-cultivation-for-three-great-countless-eons-asamkhyeya-kalpa/ is an interesting article on this topic. In the article, the "incalculable" eon is taken to be literal.

Astus wrote:
It is interesting indeed, especially that this is the first time I see a Tibetan teacher accepting not only the Tibetan but also the Chinese canon, to the level that he actually quotes the same Bodhidharma passage cited in this thread already.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 5:06 PM
Title: Re: Zen sutra study?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Diamond Sutra covers both wisdom and compassion, and it is the basic scripture in the Zen tradition. Whether it is easy or difficult, that's up to you.

As for the list so far I'd like to add the Vajrasamadhi Sutra and the Awakening Faith in Mahayana.

As a template, here is a description of the basic training in the Jogye Order: http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=0010&wr_id=154&page=35

In terms of practical instructions it is the Platform Sutra, the Perfect Enlightenment Sutra, the Shurangama Sutra and the Vajrasamadhi Sutra that stand out, since they are products of East Asian Mahayana. But if you want those that are definitely of Indian origin, go with the Diamond Sutra, the Vimalakirti Sutra, the http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html and the Lankavatara Sutra.

Regarding the Lotus and the Avatamsaka, the former one contains little actual teaching, the latter one is very long. The Nirvana Sutra also falls into this category, as it contains some fundamental teachings, but otherwise a long text with so much repetition.

Otherwise, it is recommended to read and study all available scriptures, especially as there are not many of them available in English, and those that are are usually the popular and important ones.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 28th, 2015 at 12:27 AM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Malcolm said:
So you mean, you are not responsible for your own liberation? When someone first stage bodhisattva sees your emptiness, you are liberated.
Were it so easy...

Astus wrote:
That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

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)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 9:02 PM
Title: Re: Aeons and Aeons and Aeons
Content:
Astus wrote:
A bodhisattva sees that there are no beings to liberate, that is how all beings are liberated. By the way, do you have some other plans for the next billions and billions of uncountable aeons?

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:

But the Buddha said, "Only after undergoing innumerable hardships for three asankhya kalpas did I achieve enlightenment," Why do you now say that simply beholding the mind and over-coming the three poisons is liberation?

The words of the Buddha are true. But the three-asankhya kalpas refer to the three poisoned states of mind. What we call asankhya in Sanskrit you call countless. Within these three poisoned states of mind are countless evil thoughts, And every thought lasts a kalpa. Such an infinity is what the Buddha meant by the three asankhya kalpas, Once the three poisons obscure your real self, how can you be called liberated until you overcome their countless evil thoughts? People who can transform the three poisons of greed, anger, and delusion into the three releases are said to pass through the three asankhya kalpas. But people of this final age are the densest of fools. They don’t understand what the Tathagata really meant by the three-asankhya kalpas.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm, case 9:

A monk asked Kõyõ Seijõ, "Daitsû Chishõ Buddha sat in zazen for ten kalpas and could not attain Buddhahood. He did not become a Buddha. How could this be?"
Seijõ said, "Your question is quite self-explanatory."
The monk asked, "He meditated so long; why could he not attain Buddhahood?"
Seijõ said, "Because he did not become a Buddha."

Record of Linji (tr Sasaki, p 29):

Someone asked, “[The sutra says:]
The Buddha of Supreme Penetration and Surpassing Wisdom
Sat for ten kalpas in a place of practice,
But the buddhadharma did not manifest [itself to him],
And he did not attain the buddha-way.
I don’t understand the meaning of this. Would the master kindly explain?”
The master said, “‘Supreme Penetration’ means that one personally penetrates everywhere into the naturelessness and formlessness of the ten thousand dharmas. ‘Surpassing Wisdom’ means to have no doubts anywhere and to not obtain a single dharma. ‘Buddha’ means pureness of the mind whose radiance pervades the entire dharma realm. ‘Sat for ten kalpas in a place of practice’ refers to [the practice of] the ten paramitas. ‘The buddhadharma did not manifest’ means that buddha is in essence birthless and dharma (dharmas) in essence unextinguished. Why should it manifest itself! ‘He did not attain the buddha-way’: a buddha can’t become a buddha again.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 6:55 PM
Title: Re: Why no Tantrism in Zen?
Content:
Kim O'Hara said:
And that is totally natural. Why would anyone, ever, continue to follow a path which they thought was not the best?

Astus wrote:
Exactly. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that what the official books say and how it goes in daily practice hardly ever match. There are too few Buddhists out there to isolate oneself from everyone who does not wear the preferred colour of robe. Same goes for publications. Those who don't read in the traditional languages but in English or other European ones normally encounter the Nikayas as the basic teachings of the Buddha, Zen stories as entertaining Buddhist riddles, films with Tibetan monks doing strange things, etc. I consider that true Mahayana spirit, that encompasses everyone and learns all paths.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 27th, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Title: Re: Why no Tantrism in Zen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Similarly to what Matylda said, there is some contact between various schools in the West. Zen teachers like http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/about-the-western-chan-fellowship/lineage-of-the-teachers/chan-master-john-crook/ and http://wwzc.org/ven-anzan-hoshin-roshi studied Mahamudra and even taught it to some extent, while for instance http://www.unfetteredmind.org/ken-mcleod/ incorporated some Zen in his teachings. And I think the ultimate example is http://www.yogichen.org/gurulin/gc/gc_e.html, who was both a Vajrayana and Chan teacher at the same time.

In Dogen's Bendowa there is a question about the relationship between his teachings and those of the Shingon and Kegon schools. He writes in answer:

"Remember, among Buddhists we do not argue about superiority and inferiority of philosophies, or choose between shallowness and profundity in the Dharma; we need only know whether the practice is genuine or artificial. Some have entered into the stream of the Buddha’s truth at the invitation of grass, flowers, mountains, and rivers. Some have received and maintained the stamp of Buddha by grasping soil, stones, sand, and pebbles. Furthermore, the vast and great word is even more abundant than the myriad phenomena. And the turning of the great Dharma wheel is contained in every molecule. This being so, the words “Mind here and now is buddha” are only the moon in water, and the idea “Just to sit is to become buddha” is also a reflection in a mirror. We should not be caught by the skillfulness of the words."
(Shobogenzo, vol 1, p 9-10, BDK Edition)

Although, in the same text admonishes against combining zazen with mantra:

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

As noted before already, it is only Vajrayana followers who believe Vajrayana to be the best. Others believe it is theirs that is the best.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
And since when was this ever in question?

Astus wrote:
No, it wasn't. Although since I have started from the beginning with stating that arhats are free from the aggregates, the counter-arguments toward their being still bound by various things did not actually apply to the arhats that are free, simply because the Mahayana-type arhat is not free from the beginning. As Ayu http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=284539#p284539: "a bit like comparing apples with carrots". Then the total freedom from the aggregates in Mahayana is only for buddhas, while in Theravada for arhats and buddhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
They are not free of all traces of affliction and have no path to realize complete freedom from all traces of affliction because they do not possess sarvakārajñāna, knowledge of all aspects. And, according to AA, they "take a stand" in nirvana, believing it to be real.

Astus wrote:
Then we could say that sravakayana teachings say that arhats are free from the aggregates, bodhisattvayana teachings say that they are not completely free from them. Rather, from the Mahayana perspective, arhats grasp at calmness, have some inclination to annihilation, thus are attached to an imaginary nirvana. And from this it is clear that the interpretation of arhatship is quite different in the two doctrines.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 10:02 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, and the point is that, according to the Buddha in Mahāyāna sūtras, arhats have not abandoned "a lingering residuum", i.e. the traces I mentioned in a previous post. Also here it is clear that distinction between the noble disciple with these lingering residuums is precisely the difference between equipoise and post equipoise, as I also stated above, the idea being that arhats in this instance have nothing left to remove so that whether they are in equipoise or not is a matter of preference, not of liberation.

Astus wrote:
I don't really understand what is a matter of preference here.

As for the other part, do you mean that from a Mahayana perspective it is fine to say that arhats have not actually gave up all clinging to the aggregates? So, the very assumption that arhats are completely free from grasping the skandhas is not true in the Great Vehicle?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 9:17 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Thus there is the contradiction in your thinking that I mentioned before. Arhats abandon ten fetters, but as the view of self is the one of the three lower fetters, it is abandoned only once, at stream entry, and at that time, it is abandoned totally.

Astus wrote:
Knowing that there is no self, that is, obtaining correct view, and abandoning all clinging to the aggregates are not the same. A stream-enterer is convinced of the four noble truths, an arhat has completely realised the four noble truths. See also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.053.than.html.

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated.
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html )

"My friend, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended. It's as if there were a well along a road in a desert, with neither rope nor water bucket. A man would come along overcome by heat, oppressed by the heat, exhausted, dehydrated, & thirsty. He would look into the well and would have knowledge of 'water,' but he would not dwell touching it with his body. In the same way, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended."
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.068.than.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 5:31 PM
Title: Re: Eurovision Songcontest
Content:
Astus wrote:
As I see it, Belgium was the best. Second Serbia, third Israel, fourth Sweden (but only because of the graphics). The rest was too generic and nothing interesting.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 4:52 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
monktastic said:
Didn't read through the whole thread, but found this perspective interesting. It's from Ajahn Pannavadho's "Uncommon Wisdom." Not Mahayana, of course, but then again the Thai Forest tradition isn't exactly traditional Theravada either.

Astus wrote:
As a practical instruction it is often said that there is a mind/awareness beyond all phenomena. But it is not the final teaching, otherwise it is no different from teaching an eternal soul. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html how one is taught to move into an unafflicted mind, and what that actually means. And http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html on how it is not OK to posit an enlightened being as beyond the five aggregates. And on the Mahayana part, there is the http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Sevenfold_reasoning_of_the_chariot.

There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha):
(1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness;
(6-10) to be contained in them;
(11-15) to be independent of them;
(16-20) to be the owner of them (M.44; S.XXII.1).
( http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakkaya-ditthi/index.html )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 25th, 2015 at 4:38 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
According to PP and AA, arhats view nirvana as real. Moreover, there is no contradiction between understanding there is no self in the aggregates, and nevertheless, regarding the twelve āyatanas as real.

In this case, the subject is not a self, it is simple a consciousness which cognizes an entity, which is nevertheless, not a "self" or an identity. Arhats regard that consciousness and its object as real, pratyekabuddhas only regard the subject as real.

Astus wrote:
What does it mean that they regard it as real? If no aggregate is grasped, then no views of eternity or annihilation is held.

Malcolm said:
I was going to mention it, but I forgot, but Bryan Davis's post elsewhere prompted my memory — according to you, there is no difference between stream entrants and buddhas, since even stream entrants are free from a view of self in the aggregates.

Astus wrote:
Stream-entrants are convinced that the Buddha's teaching is true, but they have not yet abandoned grasping at the aggregates. This section illustrates the difference ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.035.than.html ):

"Now, Master Gotama, to what extent is a disciple of Master Gotama one who carries out his message, carries out his instruction, one who has crossed over & beyond doubt, one with no more questioning, one who has gained fearlessness and dwells independent of others with regard to the Teacher's message?"

"There is the case, Aggivessana, where a disciple of mine sees with right discernment any form whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form as it has come to be — as 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"He sees with right discernment any feeling... any perception... any fabrications... any consciousness whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness as it has come to be — as 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"It's to this extent, Aggivessana, that a disciple of mine is one who carries out my message, carries out my instruction, one who has crossed over & beyond doubt, one with no more questioning, one who has gained fearlessness and dwells independent of others with regard to the Teacher's message."

"And to what extent, Master Gotama, is a monk an arahant, one whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, laid to waste the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis?"

"There is the case, Aggivessana, where a monk — having seen with right discernment any form whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form as it has come to be — as 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am' is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.

"Having seen with right discernment any feeling... any perception... any fabrications... any consciousness whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness as it has come to be — as 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am,' he is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.

"It's to this extent, Aggivessana, that a monk is an arahant, one whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, laid to waste the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
While arhats do not grasp the aggregates as a self, that is not mutually exclusive with still believing in ultimate atoms, subject and object, etc.

Astus wrote:
Believing in any view is itself contrary to not identifying with the aggregates. Like establishing a duality of subject and object when it is perfectly clear for an arhat that there is no subject to establish anywhere.

Malcolm said:
Anyway, it is very clear that the Buddha has taught in the PP and other sūtras that Arhats etc., are not completely free of all traces of affliction. And why? Because they do not have all-knowledge.

Astus wrote:
Sure, Mahayana has all sorts of distinctions like that. This is a nice collection that discusses theories on the two hindrances: http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-8624-9780824835736.aspx


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 2:55 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Where does it say that arhats are free from all grasping?

Astus wrote:
All that can be grasped are included in the aggregates. Arhats do not grasp the aggregates.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: What is shikantaza?
Content:
monktastic said:
The "Mind and Zazen" quote you give sounds like what we might call "objectless shamatha" in my tradition. It sounds like there's still a divide between "me" and "my mind", and I am engaging it in a dualistic manner. But probably I am just misunderstanding?

Astus wrote:
If it is objectless, one should have no object occur at all, thus thoughts are considered a fault. In zazen, whether there are thoughts or not is not a problem.

But compare it to these instructions then:

"Simple recognition of thoughts as they arise breaks their flow. Release thoughts within that recognition. When you remain in that state, arising thoughts will all be liberated equally within awareness, the expanse of dharmakaya."
(WIsdom Nectar of Dudjom Rinpoche, p 50)

"Whenever a thought arises, whether positive or negative, one should avoid deliberately concerning oneself with it, and let the mind rest spontaneously in the nature of the thought; without being sidetracked by the thought one should rest in the mind of nowness."
(Cloudless Sky, p 45)

As for the duality of the watcher/knower and the watched/known, it is still somewhat artificial but not that big a problem. One just has to learn to trust that the mind does not slip away if one stops trying to uphold it. Whatever is experienced is already known. No need to add another awareness. At the same time, experiences don't stay even for a second. No need to forget about them or chase them away. Thus reality as it is is buddha-nature. In other words: mind is buddha. So, just relax.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 24th, 2015 at 12:40 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
It is not a problem, as has been explained to you now several times: arhats, pratyekabuddhas as well as bodhisattvas on the bhumis are subject to varying degrees of conceptuality when not in equipoise. And in the Agamas/NIkayas it is recognized that the knowledge of arhats is in no way equal to that of a Buddha.

The two obscurations are mentioned in the Āryāṣṭasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā-=sūtra.

Astus wrote:
How is an arhat subject to conceptualisation if there is no grasping of mental dharmas? This is the question not answered yet.

Although the Great Prajnaparamita Sutra in the Chinese canon (Taisho 220) is not necessarily the same, but that is the only one to contain the term "two hindrances" (二障) among the prajnaparamita texts, and even there it is just one section repeated at three different places where the qualities of the bodhi of great bodhisattvas are described, and contains no explanation what the afflictive and cognitive hindrances (煩惱所知二障) mean. It is also noteworthy that it was translated by Xuanzang, who brought many Yogacara works to China.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 23rd, 2015 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Ayu said:
Reading through this wonderful topic, I have some doubts here and there if these both thinking-systems are really comparable. A bodhisattva from mahayana view is maybe different than a Bodhisattva from palicanon view.

Astus wrote:
It is different, because in Theravada there is only one kind of nirvana for all. Difference between arhats and between arhats and buddhas are not in what they are free from, not in their wisdom (see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.058.than.html that equates the Buddha's and the arhats liberation by wisdom (paññāvimutti)), but in abilities that come from merit. So, one can become an arhat without any powers or special attainments, just simply by mastering the basics of calming and insight ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.070.than.html ), very much like what is commonly practised everywhere in Buddhism.

Once it's been introduced in Mahayana that there are two kinds of hindrances, primarily in the mind-only sutras, it is not any more just the accumulated merits that count but the level of wisdom as well. And that's where the problem raised here arises, that if arhats are free from the aggregates then there is nothing else left to let go of.

Ayu said:
What you stated about Bodhisattvas is true for the lower bhumis. But according to Prasangika teachings a bodhisattva attained liberation from the 8th bhumi on.
So this discussion - sometimes - is a bit like comparing apples with carrots.
What do you think of this overview about the differences of the shravaka paths and the bodhisattva paths?
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/path/five_pathway_minds_five_paths/5_pathway_minds.html

Astus wrote:
That description of the paths and stages are like what's been discussed here, as it also separates arhats from buddhas by the cognitive hindrance.

Ayu said:
As far as I understood, the difference between an arahat and a bodhisattva is bodhicitta. Which means the intense wish to liberate all beings. This is considered to be of prime importance for the attainment of buddhahood. Reaching nirvana, like an arahant, is something different.

Astus wrote:
That would be fine to say the difference is in intention, however, once we move on to say that arhats are limited not only by the merit accumulated but by wisdom as well, it is more than just intention.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 9:30 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Notice, Astus, that you did not answer the question. The answer is of course that only buddhas are in equipoise on reality 24/7/365, this is because they free of all obscurationNs.

Arhats are at a stage of a kind of no more training, but whoever said they were at the level of non-meditation? Only a buddha is at that stage.

Astus wrote:
With the complete elimination of conceptualisation there is no grasping at subject or object. That is the level of non-meditation (e.g. Direct Path to the Buddha Within, p 385-386). Since an arhat does not grasp any mental dharma how could there be distraction from the perfect view? That's why I started with saying that an arhat has nothing more to train in, there is nothing more to be free from, and at the same time does not fall back to attaching to phenomena.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 4:26 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, let me ask you a question: are arhats in a state of equipoise 24/7/365? Are pratyekabuddhas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365? Are bodhisattvas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365?  Are buddhas in a state of equipoise 24/7/365?

The answer to those four questions is your answer to how someone can be liberated from rebirth in the three realms and yet, still have some nonafflictive ignorance, conceptuality about subject and object and so on.

Astus wrote:
Arhats have cut all bonds, so they cannot fall back from being unfettered by the aggregates. Bodhisattvas, on the other hand, are still in training, and only with the attainment of buddhahood are they eternally free. So, both arhats and buddhas have the stage of non-meditation, while bodhisattvas are still working on reaching that.

As noted before, the superior qualities of a buddha can be explained if we consider them the results of merit accumulation, and that is the model found in both Theravada and basic Mahayana. But once the tathagatagarbha is introduced, the doctrine fundamental to later Mahayana whence the still living traditions of Tiantai, Chan, and Tantra come from, buddhahood becomes available in this life exactly because all the buddha-powers are readily available in every being's mind, and one just needs to be free from the obscurations to reach it. That's where emptiness is inseparable from compassion, so even an arhat must have compassion if s/he has wisdom.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 3:27 PM
Title: Re: What is shikantaza?
Content:
zenman said:
There is dokusan but there is no transmission of experience from master/teacher to student. Of course the teacher would have to have reached twofold emptiness/somplete end of suffering due to confused mind before being able to guide his students to this same state, whether with or without tantric transmission or dokusan.

Astus wrote:
"In the conventional Soto Zen world (meaning temples and teachers who do not use koans as teaching tools), there is no such thing as dokusan. I’m sure there are some exceptions to that, but in my 12 years in Japan, I have yet to find even one. A student can always meet formally with a teacher — structures exist for that. But even then — even if the meeting opens and closes with prostrations, even if it produces all the intensity we might expect — it is also more likely than not that tea will be served, and that the conversation will stretch on for an hour or more. There will not be a line of students waiting their turns; there will not be an attendant guarding the door."
(Koun Franz: http://nyoho.com/2012/11/26/behind-closed-doors/ )

As for such a thing as "transmission of experience", that does not really exist. Experience is per definition personal. Buddhas cannot feed the Dharma to beings, they can only give instructions and serve as examples. But it is for each and every student to taste the truth. You may read this from the same Soto priest: http://nyoho.com/2012/12/12/teacher-student/

And here's this one:

"There’s an ongoing discussion about whether or not Zen is therapy. And I know that for many in the West, the experience of relating to a teacher is very much like a form of counseling. But speaking in terms of the Soto tradition, I would say this: Zen is therapy only if your idea of therapy is spending years in the same room as your therapist silently observing your therapist; if, after all those years, there’s a very real possibility that your therapist might turn to you, prostrate three times, and say, “Now we’re both therapists,” then yes, Zen is therapy."
( http://nyoho.com/2013/08/31/my-teacher-doesnt-get-me/ )

As for the effectiveness of shikantaza, besides quoting others, what I can say is that it is the cultivation of the enlightened view. And since one practises with the Buddha's eyes and ears, there is nothing more to gain or lose. It is not polishing the mirror but the mirror is naturally unbound by the reflected images.

Here is a totally non-Zen and non-Soto citation, that nevertheless explains the same:

"The realization of samsara is the condition of Nibbana. As we recognize the cycles of habit and are no longer deluded by them or their qualities, we realize Nibbana. The Buddha-knowing is of just two things: the conditioned and the unconditioned. It is an immediate recognition of how things are right now, without grasping or attachment. At this moment we can be aware of the conditions of the mind, feelings in the body, what we’re seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling and thinking, and also of the emptiness of the mind. The conditioned and the unconditioned are what we can realize.
So the Buddha’s teaching is a very direct teaching. Our practice is not ‘to become enlightened’, but to be in the knowing, now."
( http://www.buddhanet.net/nowknow2.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, you really do seem to miss the point here — arhats etc, do not have bodhicitta to become buddhas, they do not have knowledge necessary to teach the whole path, they do not know the entire path, this is what is meant by non-afflictive ignorance, they have subject-object conceptuality and so on.

Astus wrote:
I'm clear about that list. What is missing for me is that all that non-afflictive ignorance must be there because of some clinging, but there is nothing else to cling to but the five aggregates.

Malcolm said:
But none of this means they do not realize the emptiness of persons. It simply means their realization of emptiness is not sufficient for buddhahood, but only for liberation.

Astus wrote:
The realisation of the emptiness of persons means that whatever phenomena is experienced by an arhat it is not grasped, whether it is a bodily or a mental dharma. Although in Mahayana there is the teaching of the emptiness of dharmas, practically it means not grasping at, not relying on dharmas. So what is it that arhats still hold on to?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 4:29 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Upādana means "to take again."
Hence, we have craving, addiction, etc. We are addicted to the aggregates, hence they are "addictive aggregates."

Astus wrote:
In any case, it is clinging to / taking up / relying on / identifying with / grasping at the aggregates that one is bound and deluded, while relinquishing that hold is being free from all that one can be free from. So this does not seem to solve the problem.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: What is shikantaza?
Content:
zenman said:
I wonder how thoroughly they study buddhist psychology in the Soto-tradition? I think shikantaza can very easily become mere shamatha which is not bad but in the long run doesn't manage to put an end to dukkha.

Astus wrote:
What do you mean by Buddhist psychology? Abhidharma and Yogacara texts are certainly not unknown, but not directly relevant either. Komazawa University offers "Zen psychology" and "Introduction to psychology" in its http://www.komazawa-u.ac.jp/cms/gakubu_bukkyo/bukkyo_cur/ and http://www.komazawa-u.ac.jp/cms/gakubu_bukkyo/zen_cur/ Studies curricula, but I don't know what those cover, plus it is not a requirement to get a degree in order to do zazen.

Shikantaza is not shamatha as there is no object to focus on nor concentration to maintain. Nor is it vipashyana as there is nothing to analyse or clarify. As Dogen writes:

"Zazen is not a meditation technique. It is simply the Dharma gate of joyful ease, it is practicing the realization of the boundless Dharma way. Here, the open mystery manifests, and there are no more traps and snares for you to get caught in."
( http://antaiji.org/dharma/fukanzazengi/?lang=en )

In other words, zazen is the same as prajnaparamita, not abiding anywhere. When there is no mind abiding anywhere, there is nothing to gain and nothing to lose. Here are two well known stories as illustration (from Zen's Chinese Heritage, p 22, 26):

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?” Upon hearing these words, Daoxin experienced great enlightenment.

zenman said:
I'd be really interested to know if this formula actually works to put an end to suffering.

Astus wrote:
Suffering is from grasping at phenomena, making up a self, engaging in a narrative. When there is nothing accepted and nothing rejected, how could there be any problem?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 22nd, 2015 at 3:07 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Upādāna means "addiction", not attachment.

Astus wrote:
I have not seen that kind of translation yet.

http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.0:1:3973.pali (nt.) [fr. upa + ā + dā] -- (lit. that (material) substratum by means of which an active process is kept alive or going), fuel, supply, provision

http://dictionary.buddhistdoor.com/en/word/4365/upadana is the common rendering for upādāna, though 'grasping' would come closer to the literal meaning of it, which is 'uptake'; s. Three Cardinal Discourses ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html ), p.19.

http://www.buddhism-dict.net/ddb/indexes/term-sa-u.html of it include: 取 (take, receive, obtain), 受 (receive, accept, get), 依 (rely on, be set in), 執 (hold in hand; keep)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
What Sanskrit term to you mean by "attachment"?
I think the problem lies with your definitions.

Astus wrote:
I think upadana is very appropriate here, like in pancopadanaskandha.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 9:15 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Nevertheless, arhats have subject-object conceptualization and pratyekabuddhas have subject conceptualization. Buddhas, of course, have neither subject nor object conceptualization and so their awakening is superior to that of the former pair.

Astus wrote:
This kind of conceptualisation is what I don't see how can be there while there is no attachment to the aggregates. Where does that conceptualisation reside, what does it come from, what keeps it going on? It cannot be the aggregates, but there is no conceptualisation outside them either.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 5:35 PM
Title: Re: The 'Neither One Nor Many' argument (partless particles)
Content:
Astus wrote:
Partless particles are impossible. If it is a particle, it exists in space and has extension. That extension, no matter how small, can be divided. If it can be divided, it is not partless.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
daverupa said:
The arahant is asekha; the training is complete; the arahant has done what needed to be done. This later sort of slander is intriguing, but not worth tying yourself in knots over, Astus.

Astus wrote:
As Malcolm said, even sravakayana teachings talk about non-afflictive ignorance in case of arhats, although I'm not aware if Theravada has anything to say about it. What it is meant to explain is the various behaviours and odd actions by arhats. So, in a sense, it is a very human thing. Mahayana, as it is used to do this, idealises the enlightened being and considers it a fault that arhats are not as perfect as buddhas. Or rather we could say that almost from the beginning the Buddha has been seen as somewhat superior to the others, and Mahayana simply follows this trend in Buddhism.

I think an important thing to note here is that while arhats are "blamed" for still having human traits, in other traditions as well we can find that those who are considered the enlightened ones of the tradition (bodhisattvas, zen masters, siddhas, etc.) look and act very much like human beings. So, while theoretically the title arhat got demoted in Mahayana, practically only the name changed to something else.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 3:10 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Absence of attachment does not equal knowledge.

Astus wrote:
In one way, that is very true and spot on. On the other hand though, the obscurations in question are hindrances to knowledge and not lack of knowledge. Not seeing the emptiness of dharmas means being attached to dharmas, so without attachment there is seeing. In tathagatagarbha terms, one needs to remove the dirt and not add more gold. So, in this case, the absence of attachment does equal knowledge.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: What is shikantaza?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As you know, it is "just sitting". And that is what it is, although it is not restricted to the seated position. As for what happens during sitting, it can be anything. The only thing that matters is whether one is sucked in by the ongoing events or not. It is not deliberately thinking of something (shiryō 思量), nor is it deliberately not thinking of something (fushiryō 不思量), but simply being aware of thoughts coming and going (hishiryō 非思量). Or in other words, not a busy mind, not a sleeping mind, but an aware mind.

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. I have been practicing this style of meditation for more than 35 years, and in my experience, no thought stays in the mind forever. Everything is coming and going, and we just let things come up freely and let them go away freely. We don’t try to fight against our thoughts or any other mental condition, and we don’t try to interact with them, either. The intention is not to grasp what is coming up from your consciousness. We actually do nothing but let the things happening within the mind just flow. Yet when you become aware that you are interacting with what is happening in your mind, just stop interacting and return to the zazen posture while breathing with the eyes open. That means you let go of whatever thoughts come up, and you also don’t sleep. This is the point in our sitting practice.
( http://antaiji.org/dharma/okumura-mind-and-zazen/?lang=en )

Zazen means to clarify the mind-ground and dwell comfortably in your actual nature. This is called revealing yourself and manifesting the original-ground.
In zazen both body and mind drop off. Zazen is far beyond the form of sitting or lying down. Free from considerations of good and evil, zazen transcends distinctions between ordinary people and sages, it goes far beyond judgements of deluded or enlightened. Zazen includes no boundary between sentient beings and buddha. Therefore put aside all affairs, and let go of all associations. Do nothing at all. The six senses produce nothing.
( http://antaiji.org/dharma/english-zazen-yojinki/?lang=en )


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 2:00 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Thus, it is as I already explained to you. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas have an species of non-afflictive ignorance. There are other differences, but this is the main one.

Astus wrote:
And that non-afflictive ignorance has been taken up before. What does that ignorance consist of? It is the mentioned 108 types of cognitive hindrance, that is basically the ignorance about the emptiness of dharmas and the delusion of apprehender and apprehended. So the question: how can there be such an ignorance if an arhat has no attachment to mental phenomena?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 1:03 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
"The knowledge of the paths of bodhisattvas does not totally eliminate cankers"...etc., and so on.

Astus wrote:
"The enhancing factor is to have the nature of not relinquishing the afflictions that are the causes for rebirth in [samsaric] existence for the sake of accomplishing the welfare of others." (Gone Beyond, vol 1, p 332)

I thought you meant difference between those two works, not differences between the paths. As for the differences between arhats and others, http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=284151#p284151, and that's when you directed me to check the Indian commentaries, but so far you have not answered how can there be something left for arhats to be attached to.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 21st, 2015 at 12:30 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Just on page four alone there is a significant difference. Also, Gone Beyond has the benefit of being a compilation of later Tibetan exegesis; however that is also its defect.

Astus wrote:
What significant difference do you mean?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 11:07 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
The differences are principally described in chapter two, and somewhat and three. I am afraid you are going to have to slog through it because it cannot be simply summarized.
But for example, Pratyekabuddhas do not relinquish the subjective, but do relinquish objective entities.
There are many differences related to the path.

Astus wrote:
I've read through the chapters discussing the paths of sravakas, pratyekas and bodhisattvas (vol 2, p 4-18, 51-55, 82-135), and also searched for key words, but found nothing new and relevant. In fact, so far the Gone Beyond seems significantly more informative and extensive than Vimuktisena and Haribhadra.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 4:55 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
And yet there is a difference.
You might be better off securing Sparham's four volume translation of Vimuktesena and Haribhadra's text.
However, it is mostly covered in chapter two and three the AA and its commentaries.
This issue is deep and not easy to understand, it certainly cannot be summarized in internet sound bites.

Astus wrote:
I appreciate your suggestion to look further into the AA, however, the edition you recommend I have in a not that user friendly copy. Could you specify by page numbers perhaps the section your think is relevant here? Or quote here the arguments, if they are any different from what is listed in Gone Beyond regarding the 108 types of cognitive obscurations?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 4:47 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
zengen said:
According to Mahayana, the stage of an Arhat is that of partial enlightenment, not the complete enlightenment attained by the Buddhas. There are many stages of realization beyond the stage of Arhatship. These stages are mentioned in Mahayana sutras such as the Lotus Sutra, Shurangama Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra, Avatamsaka Sutra etc.

Astus wrote:
Hsuan Hua says in his commentary to the 9th chapter of the Diamond Sutra (p 117-118, http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/prajparagen2.pdf ):

The Arhat of the Small Vehicle kills the thieves of affliction. The Bodhisattva should not only kill the thieves, but should also kill that which is not the thief, that is to say, ignorance. At the realization of Arhatship, ignorance is not
considered a thief, but at the culmination of Bodhisattvahood it is, because of the realization that all affliction comes from ignorance.
Although the Arhat has realized The Position of No Study, he still has ignorance. Even equal enlightenment Bodhisattvas still have one last particle of ignorance which acts as a thief and which Bodhisattvas recognize to be the greatest thief. Therefore it is said that they must kill that which for the Arhat is not a thief.
Subhåti was asked if an Arhat can have the thought that he has obtained Arhatship, and he replied, “No, because although he has certified to the fruit of Arhatship, it is just a name and nothing more.Ÿ Not only upon certification to the fruit of Arhatship is there no realization, but even upon attainment of Buddhahood there is none. There is no tangible dharma which can be called Arhat. It is an empty name. If one thinks it exists, one has an attachment to dharmas and has not realized the emptiness of dharmas.
If an Arhat did have the thought that he has obtained Arhatship, he would be attached to self, others, living beings, and a life. He would not have realized the emptiness of self or of dharmas, nor would he have obtained Arhatship. The thought of obtaining Arhatship carries with it the mark of self, which in turn produces its partner, the mark of others. Having the paired dharmas of self and others creates the mark of living beings, which in turn leads to the mark of a life. He would therefore be attached to the four marks.

That is, according to Hsuan Hua, an arhat does realise the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharma. The sutra itself uses the often repeated lines here, that an arhat is free from the "attachment to self, to others, to living beings, and to a life", that is, the four marks/characteristics. At the same time, he says that an arhat does not destroy ignorance. But what else ignorance could be than grasping at the four marks? See further from his commentary:

Ch 6 commentary, p 100:

"If those living beings’ hearts grasp at marks, if they hold to the mark of people, they still grasp at the four marks and have not obtained liberation. They have not genuinely put everything down. If they grasp at the mark of dharmas they are still attached to the four marks; if they grasp at the mark of the non-existence of dharmas, they are also attached to the four marks, because they have not seen through and smashed them. They have not realized the emptiness of people, of dharmas, and of emptiness itself."

Ch 14 commentary, p 161:

"Such people will. Have no mark of self, meaning they have no greed. No mark of others, meaning they have no anger. No mark of living beings, meaning they are not stupid. No mark of a life, meaning they have no desire. They have no greed, anger, stupidity, or desire — these four kinds of attachments. The four marks are without a mark. No mark is real mark. Real mark is no mark. And why? Because real mark is also distinct from all which has no marks. If you can obtain real mark, that is obtaining the principle substance of the self-nature of all Buddhas. Those who have relinquished all marks are called Buddhas. Therefore you too can certainly become a Buddha."

So there is a contradiction here in a single commentary. The same problem raised by this thread, that if an arhat is free from the aggregates, then what else could be left to relinquish?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 20th, 2015 at 3:49 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
daverupa said:
But it seems like one trouble you might be having is the lack of perfect overlap between these various schools of Buddhism. You're just going to have to find a criterion that sets some of it aside, so you can get to work (I chose text criticism & history, etc.). Otherwise you're going to end up with spools of Astus-Abhidhamma, which might not be ideal.

Astus wrote:
In some ways I like to think that all vehicles are actually the ox-vehicle. Not because eventually sravakas are removed from their nirvanic slumber to move on as bodhisattvas, but because all the teachings of the Buddha bring about the same result: i.e. freedom from identification with the aggregates.

"those who are stupid talk of the trinity of vehicles and not of the state of Mind-only where there are no images."
(Lankavatara Sutra, 2.18, tr Suzuki)

"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)

"All the dharmas of this world and of the worlds beyond are without self-nature. Also, they are without produced nature. They are just empty names, and these names are also empty. All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. Th at’s all wrong! Even if they do exist, they are nothing but states of dependent transformation, such as the dependent transformations of bodhi, nirvana, emancipation, the threefold body, the [objective] surroundings and the [subjective] mind, bodhisattvahood, and buddhahood. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformations! All of these, up to and including the Three Vehicles’ twelve divisions of teachings, are just so much waste paper to wipe off privy filth. The Buddha is just a phantom body, the patriarchs just old monks."
(Record of Linji, p 19, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 10:31 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You are making the mistake of assuming that liberation = buddhahood. It doesn't.

Astus wrote:
They don't have to be. The question is, where is the difference? The Abhisamayalamkara (or at least what is in Gone Beyond, haven't checked other works) follows the Yogacara interpretation, that with the complete transformation of the basis cognitive obscurations are completely removed and thus buddhahood is attained. Since the hindrance to knowledge is a set of attachments to concepts, basically various forms of subject-object duality, and that should no longer exist for an arhat who does not identify with any aggregate, there should be no difference.

What could make a difference - if it is accepted that an arhat has no clinging at all - is just the time spent with accumulating merit that generates the karmic force for the buddha attributes. But then there cannot be a tathagatagarbha. Or if we want there to be buddha-nature, then there is the Lotus Sutra model where arhats don't actually reach nirvana, only a temporary stay in nothingness, therefore they are not totally free from the aggregates, but that's contrary to some other teachings.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 7:53 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
seeker242 said:
Isn't it taught that arhats are still attached to something and thus have a fear and/or aversion to samsara?

Astus wrote:
Depending on which scripture you take up, you can find various lists of faults of arhats. At the same time, since arhats are at least free from attachment to the aggregates, it becomes somewhat problematic to point out what it is exactly where an arhat's view is obscured, if there are only the aggregates to what any being can rely on and identify with.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 5:36 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
An eighth stage bodhisattva has eliminated all afflictive obscurations, like an arhat, but they have not eliminated all knowledge obscurations, like an arhat.

As I said, time to get out the old Abhisamaya-alaṃkara so you can understand the difference between the abhisamaya of a śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha and a buddha.

Astus wrote:
It seems that what bodhisattvas need to eliminate as cognitive obscurations are basically the conceptions of apprehender and apprehended, in other words, realising the emptiness of self and phenomena. The difference between the stages they go through is only a matter of depth of that realisation. Since it all ultimately depends on attachment to concepts assuming real phenomena, through relinquishing the identification with the mental aggregates arhats should be completely free as well.

From Gone Beyond, vol 1, appendix 2, page 673-674:
BOUNDARY LINES OF RELINQUISHMENT
afflictive obscurations

hinayana
a) afflictive obscurations that agitate the mind stream and those that are latencies—the nirvana with remainder
b) same plus karmic and maturational afflictive obscurations—the nirvana without remainder

mahayana
a) the afflictive obscurations that agitate the mind stream—first bhümi (dharma readiness of suffering of the path of seeing)
b) the afflictive obscurations that are latencies (causes for taking birth in samsara)
• those that are factors to be relinquished through seeing—simultaneously with the 108 conceptions that are the cognitive obscurations to be relinquished on the path of seeing
• those that are factors to be relinquished through familiarization—simultaneously with the 108 conceptions that are the cognitive obscurations to be relinquished on the path of familiarization

cognitive obscurations

pratyekabuddhas
the conceptions about the apprehended being substantially other than the apprehender— arhathood (starting from the path of familiarization onward)

mahayana
A) the conceptions on the path of preparation (in the manner of suppressing them)
• seeing that the apprehended in terms of afflicted phenomena is without nature—heat
• seeing that the apprehended in terms of purified phenomena is without nature—peak
• seeing that substantial apprehending is without nature—poised readiness
• seeing that imputational apprehending is without nature—supreme dharma

B) the conceptions about apprehender and apprehended (the conceptions plus their seeds that cling to characteristics and obstruct the thorough analysis of what is to be known)
a) the conceptions that apprehend by conflating terms and referents and cling to the duality of apprehender and apprehended—the dharma cognition of suffering on the path of seeing (starting with the dharma readiness of suffering)
b) the false imagination of dualistic appearances
• the latent tendencies that produce the false imagination of dualistic appearance and are factors to be relinquished through seeing— simultaneously with the obscurations to be relinquished on the path of seeing
• the latent tendencies that produce the false imagination of dualistic appearance and are factors to be relinquished through familiarization— simultaneously with the obscurations to be relinquished on the path of familiarization

C) the impregnations of negative tendencies (the alaya-consciousness or the latent tendencies of duality)—vajralike samadhi
In other words:
• the imputational clinging to real existence: bhümi 1
• the innate clinging to real existence: bhümis 2-10
• the imputational clinging to characteristics:
- manifest: bhümis 2-7
- retaining a certain potency: bhumis 8-10
Some definitions:

The innate clinging to phenomenal identity is the sheer clinging of thinking, “This is a sprout” when focusing on a sprout. [This clinging] is unaltered by philosophical systems. The imputational [clinging to phenomenal identity] refers to imputing all kinds of things onto the [innate clinging]. The classification [of the imputational clinging] is into
a) saying that the apprehended is really established
b) saying that consciousness is really established.
(Gone Beyond, vol 1, p 218)

For, in terms of general isolates, conceptions are cognitive obscurations, but they also represent the afflictive obscurations of bodhisattvas. Therefore, through primarily relinquishing conceptions, as a matter of course, [bodhisattvas] also relinquish the afflictive obscurations. With this in mind, venerable Vasubandhu declared [in his Mahayanasutralamkarabhasya on 1.5]: The afflictions of bodhisattvas are conceptions.
(Gone Beyond, vol 1, p 589-590)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 3:55 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
daverupa said:
Papanca is not the root of ignorance, ignorance is the root of papanca. You have it backwards.

Astus wrote:
It is being ignorant of the emptiness of appearances that generates grasping, and from grasping comes proliferation. In other words, upholding that a concept has reality results in conceptualisation. Grasping at a concept and conceptualising something is practically the same, one does not happen without the other. Thus, realising the emptiness of mind (mental aggregates) ends proliferation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
First stage bodhisattvas realize two-fold emptiness, and yet still have to eliminated the two obscurations. I guess you better study Abhisamaya-alaṃkara.

Astus wrote:
A bodhisattva's realisation is not completely stable until buddhahood, thus their attachments are not totally cut, unlike an arhat.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 19th, 2015 at 4:30 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
If you are a Hinayānista, then yes. If you are Mahāyānista, then no.

Astus wrote:
If it is the conclusion you have a problem with, what else would you add where an arhat is still deluded?

daverupa said:
Well, except (1) isn't accurate & (3) should probably be unpacked... and, (2) goes without saying -anything will be within the All, not outside of it.

Astus wrote:
How is (1) inaccurate? (conceptualisation - vikalpa, prapanca)
That arhats are free from the aggregates means that they have no attachment, no identification with the skandhas. They have realised that whatever occurs (whatever aggregate it is), it is impermanent, suffering and without a self.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 8:28 PM
Title: Re: Liberation from the Six Realms & other Religions
Content:
Astus wrote:
It might be so that many Buddhists (ordained or not) have little interest in their own liberation - thus the common view that it is a far away goal beyond one's abilities - but that shouldn't concern those who aspire for the best of the best. At the same time, even those on the path of freedom can be on various stages, but that is already being within the community of noble practitioners.

Here is a definition of a "proper disciple" of the Buddha ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.035.than.html ):

"Now, Master Gotama, to what extent is a disciple of Master Gotama one who carries out his message, carries out his instruction, one who has crossed over & beyond doubt, one with no more questioning, one who has gained fearlessness and dwells independent of others with regard to the Teacher's message?"

"There is the case, Aggivessana, where a disciple of mine sees with right discernment any form whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form as it has come to be — as 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"He sees with right discernment any feeling... any perception... any fabrications... any consciousness whatsoever — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness as it has come to be — as 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"It's to this extent, Aggivessana, that a disciple of mine is one who carries out my message, carries out my instruction, one who has crossed over & beyond doubt, one with no more questioning, one who has gained fearlessness and dwells independent of others with regard to the Teacher's message."


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 5:45 PM
Title: Re: Liberation from the Six Realms & other Religions
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is the teaching of the Buddha from the beginning. Either one follows the correct path, i.e. the Buddhadharma, or there is no escape. Anyway, most of the other religions aim for heavenly birth, not nirvana.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 3:01 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Astus, what are you talking about? The emptiness of persons or the emptiness of phenomena? They are not the same thing.

Astus wrote:
This is just one of my thought experiments.

Premises:
1. The root of all hindrances and ignorance is conceptualisation.
2. Concepts fall within the area of the aggregates.
3. Arhats are free from the aggregates.
Conclusion:
4. Arhats attain complete enlightenment.

So the question:
Is there anything else beyond the aggregates to be free from?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
No one "set them up." They are there unless or until you can dwell in direct perception of ultimate truth 24/7/365.

Astus wrote:
If both are removed at the same time when freed from identification with the aggregates, then one cannot be free from afflictions but still limited by concepts.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
So you disagree with Tsongkhapa when he asserts that the realization of emptiness in Hinayāna and Mahāyana is the same?

Astus wrote:
I'm rather questioning if there is a point in setting up two kinds of hindrances, as by not identifying with any of the aggregates there is no basis for any of them.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 3:58 AM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
WeiHan said:
I don't see the statement above as true as indirect contact can also influence others' mind. I am actually thinking of interaction of minds through a medium and other factors. Why not? In science, interaction between particles are understood to be through a medium field, for example, charged particles through electromagnetic field.

Astus wrote:
Indirectly it happens all the time during all sorts of interaction between people. Like on this forum.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 1:01 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Arhats and pratyekabuddhas are not at all attached to the aggregate of consciousness, or concepts, and yet still have non-afflictive ignorance. Because of this non-afflctive ignorance, they do not have omniscience. So it is pretty clear the attainment of omniscience is more than mere nonattachment to concepts and aggregates.

Astus wrote:
That non-afflictive ignorance is the cognitive hindrance, not knowing the emptiness of appearances, that is, considering phenomena to be real. Such reification is conceptual attachment. What more is there to it? Is there a third hindrance?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 18th, 2015 at 12:08 AM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, there is something beyond the skandhas, the āyatanas. Specifically, the skandhas include only conditioned phenomena, while space and the two kinds of cessations, the unconditioned phenomena, belong to the dharma-āyatana/dhātu.

Astus wrote:
Although "Unconditioned things are not named with respect to the skandhas, because they do not correspond to the concept" (Kosha, vol 1, p 81), there is a matching between the skandhas, ayatanas and dhatus (Kosha, vol 1, p 74; Inner Science of Buddhist Practice, p 241). In that way, the aggregate of consciousness includes the dharmadhatu. The unconditioned dharmas are practically just absences, and as referred to before by the Khotthita Sutta, they need not be discussed, plus as you say, they are not related to attachment ( "Thus unconditioned things, which are neither the cause of defilement, nor the cause of purification, cannot be placed either among the upadanaskandhas nor among the skandhas"; Kosha, vol 1, p 82).

Malcolm said:
And yes, there is only one kind of liberation. Liberation is being free from the afflictions that cause rebirth in the three realms, there is no other kind of liberation beyond that. However there is something to attain beyond liberation, and that is omniscience. But there is only one liberation.

Astus wrote:
Omniscience is blocked by attachment to concepts, but concepts themselves belong to the aggregates, so if there is no attachment to the aggregates, there cannot be attachment to concepts either.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
seeker242 said:
I would say so. According to the "one vehicle" or "Ekayāna", yes, only one kind of liberation.

Astus wrote:
However, if it is just not being attached to the aggregates, sravakas attain that, not only buddhas.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Astus wrote:
As your quote says, there is nothing to objectify, nothing to attach to beyond the six sensory areas. The question raised here asks if there is anything else one could be attached to, what one would need to attain liberation from. If no, then there is only one kind of freedom, the cessation of clinging to the aggregates/senses.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 17th, 2015 at 6:49 PM
Title: Anything Beyond Skandhas?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Is there anything else to attach to beyond the five aggregates? If yes, what is it? If no, isn't there only one kind of liberation?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Title: Re: Zhiyi's Edonsho
Content:
Jikan said:
It also makes some radical claims that should provoke some healthy discussion.

Astus wrote:
Apparently those claims are not radical any more to incite some debate.

Here's another one from a later Tendai master:

"Thus, if while walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, or while performing any kind of action, you think, "I am suchness," then that is realizing Buddhahood. What could be an obstruction [to such contemplation]? You should know that suchness is to be contemplated with respect to all things. Clergy or laity, male or female - all should contemplate in this way."

(Genshin: http://www.princeton.edu/~jstone/Articles%20on%20the%20Lotus%20Sutra%20Tendai%20and%20Nichiren%20Buddhism/The%20Contemplation%20of%20Suchness%20%28translations%20from%20Shinnyokan.pdf, tr J. I. Stone in "Religions of Japan in Practice", p 208)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 5:28 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Dan74 said:
Or perhaps there can be no actual separation between minds. Any separation that appears to be there, is the separation between the streams of deluded habits.

Astus wrote:
Since minds are not physical objects, the way they are separated are by conditioning. That is, what is called a mind-stream consists of series of mental causal chains. Consequently, non-separation would mean one stream affecting another, becoming the cause of another stream. That then would mean a merging of two streams into a single stream, or rather the takeover of one stream by another, and other problems mentioned before.

I think one of the difficulties in this discussion is that if someone imagines mind to be some sort of box (or "infinite space", functionally the same) containing all the thoughts, one can think that no matter what happens to the contents of the box, the box remains the same. But that is practically supposing an atman that remains independent. On the other hand, regardless if we take the six or the eight consciousnesses, both are understood to be momentary instances of mental dharmas forming a causal stream, thus there is no space left for some higher consciousness to remain unaffected.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 5:10 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
PorkChop said:
Now you can quibble over these passages and what they mean all you want, but they are extremely clear. You can let this drop, or you can continue, but after a certain point one of two things is going to happen - 1. people are just going to see it as obstinacy and 2. people are going to question you're English capability - because not a single one of the passages you've posted asserts what you are asserting and not a single tradition would uphold it as such.

Astus wrote:
The passages you have cited I have no problem with at all. The six abhijnas were not questioned. The difference I have been emphasising from the beginning is between direct and indirect contact. And that's what the quotes I have provided before speak of. And why is it a relevant question if there is a direct contact or not? Because only direct contact would allow influencing others' minds in the way it was raised here as a topic for discussion.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 15th, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
PorkChop said:
"Outflow" in the sense of "leaks" or "faults" is probably not the right term here. But I believe that was the term used in the other thread.

Astus wrote:
Here's one on "leaking thoughts": https://youtu.be/ZgBqqJyRaa4?t=326

PorkChop said:
The stains are not the mind.

Astus wrote:
"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 )

Further explanation:

In the Kagyu Lineage Supplication, Jampal Zangpo says, "The nature of thought is dharmakaya:' Some scholars may say this statement doesn't make sense. How, they ask, could confused thoughts and the pure dharmakaya be the same thing? They have a point, for if you look at all the different aspects you would have to say that in some respects thoughts are not dharmakaya. On the conventional level, mind and thoughts appear to be different. But in the context of meditative experience, the nature of thought is the dharmadhatu, and the dharmadhatu is the dharmakaya. Therefore, the nature of thoughts is dharmakaya. From this point of view thoughts are coemergent-there is no difference between thoughts and mind.
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.
The first dharma in the Four Dharmas of Gampopa is, "May the mind be one with the Dharma;" the second is, "May the Dharma go on the path;" the third is, "May the path destroy confusion;" and the fourth is, "May confusion dawn as wisdom'The fourth dharma refers to thoughts. When we look into the nature of the thoughts, we see the union of luminosity and emptiness; in that way, thoughts are seen to be of the very nature of wisdom.
(Essentials of Mahamudra, p 158)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 10:58 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Astus wrote:
What I'm saying is that there cannot be direct contact between minds. That's it. And just as the sight of a chair is a product of one's mind, so is whatever is imagined to be another being's mind.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
PorkChop said:
Sorry, but luminous mind is not a thought, nor is it riddled with random thoughts when one is residing in cessation samadhi.

Astus wrote:
The point is that the quote from the Cheng Weishi Lun is not discussing perceiving "luminous mind", but just consciousness in general. During cessation there is no active consciousness anyway.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 8:58 PM
Title: Re: Numbered series
Content:
Astus wrote:
Personally, the four foundations of mindfulness. The first teaching I've encountered from the Buddha. Plus: "This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding"


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
PorkChop said:
Perceiving the thoughts of another is not the same thing as directly perceiving the mind of another.

Astus wrote:
Mind and thoughts are not two separate things. Mind is just a series of mental dharma (thoughts and emotions in common terms).

As a summary:

First, here as in many other places in the Ch'eng wei-shih lun, the text is quick to point out that 'consciousness-only' (vijnana-matra, vijnapti-matra, wei-shih) never means an isolated citta or a single solitary consciousness, but always includes the caittas, the felt, lived textures and cognitive fields within which cognition occurs and from which its characteristics (e.g., angry, doubtful, attentive, etc.) are inscribed. Consciousness is never apart from its caittas, and thus 'consciousness only' never means that only a subjective projector exists; what is discriminated, perceived, objective, etc., also exists, but the term 'exists' will be qualified to include only that which can be experienced (directly or indirectly), i.e., only that which exerts some efficient causal effect which is (in principle) observable can be said to 'exist.'
(Buddhist Phenomenology, p 485)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Dan74 said:
There is also plentiful mention of collective karma in the scriptures such as when Buddha's clansmen the Sakyas were about to be slaughtered and Mauggalana with his magic powers attempted to rescue some, etc etc.

Astus wrote:
Collective karma does not mean a separate karma from individual karma, only that there are mental habits similar to others. That is, karma does not exist outside of a mind-stream, and there is no such entity as a group mind. People on this forum may all like the Buddha's teachings, but that doesn't mean there is then a "forum mind". Another examples are language and culture that many people share, but it would be difficult to show where is a "nation-consciousness" and a "language-consciousness". Ideas - like the idea of a nation - does not obtain an existence on its own, it remains an abstract concept regardless of how many people believe in it.

Can you quote some teachings where "collective karma" is explained? First of all, what is "collective karma" in Sanskrit/Chinese/Tibetan?

Dan74 said:
Also, Astus, perceiving a thought of another is not akin to two minds giving rise to the same thought. A thought of another may be perceived as having a different 'flavour' to one's own thought. I'm sorry but telepathy, as you much know, is recognised as a siddhi, by all Buddhist traditions and I don't find your reasoning to be compelling at all.

Astus wrote:
As http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=283422#p283422, perceiving another's mind is not the same as actually perceiving another's mind, there is no direct contact. But here's more:

"Who says that another person's mind is not the object of one's own consciousness? We only deny that it is its immediate and direct object. This means that, when the consciousness of another person's mind manifests itself, it (that other mind) has no real function in one's own consciousness. Thus, the case is different from that of the hands, etc., which directly grasp external things themselves, or the sun, etc., which directly spreads its light itself, thus shining upon external objects. (In its relationship to another person's mind,) one's consciousness is only like a mirror in which there appears what seems to be an external sphere of objects. One's mind is then said to understand the mind of the other person, but it cannot understand another mind immediately and directly. What it does understand directly is only what it itself develops. That is why 'the Samdhinirmocana Sutra says : 'There is not the least thing [one's own mind] that can apprehend (i.e., perceive) any other thing [other minds]. The only point is that, when consciousness is born, it manifests a semblance of another thing, and is then said to apprehend that thing. In this way, one's own mind seems like perceiving another person's mind as an object, as it perceives material things, etc., (which are evolved out of that mind),"
(Xuanzang: Cheng Weishi Lun, tr. Wei Tat, p 523, also in Three Texts on Consciousness Only, p 239; see comments in Buddhist Phenomenology on p 490)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 14th, 2015 at 4:43 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Jesse said:
If I throw a rock at someone's head, who did absolutely nothing to me. How did their karma cause it?

Astus wrote:
Then Ven. Angulimala, early in the morning, having put on his robes and carrying his outer robe & bowl, went into Savatthi for alms. Now at that time a clod thrown by one person hit Ven. Angulimala on the body, a stone thrown by another person hit him on the body, and a potsherd thrown by still another person hit him on the body. So Ven. Angulimala — his head broken open and dripping with blood, his bowl broken, and his outer robe ripped to shreds — went to the Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming from afar and on seeing him said to him: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"
( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html )

"if there is a good son or good daughter who memorizes and recites this scripture, but is belittled by others, it is because this person committed crimes in a prior life which resulted in negative rebirths. Through enduring the disparagement of others in the present life, the bad karma from the prior lives can be removed, and one can attain peerless perfect enlightenment."
( http://www.acmuller.net/bud-canon/diamond_sutra.html )

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.”
( http://ctzen.org/sunnyvale/enUS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=146&Itemid=57 )


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 8:59 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Jesse said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence

Astus wrote:
That does not establish a mind, just how certain beings behave in larger groups.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 7:58 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Jesse said:
I didn't choose to be born a human. I didn't do anything so far as I can tell.

Astus wrote:
I don't remember my last month's breakfast, but that doesn't mean I didn't have one. As far as the Buddha's teaching goes, birth is determined by one's karma.

Jesse said:
There is almost certainly individual and collective karma though.

Astus wrote:
Karma comes from intentional action and impresses one's mind-stream. A collective has neither intention nor mind, thus karma cannot occur.

Jesse said:
We can't be separated from the world no matter what.

Astus wrote:
The world is what and how we experience it. That experience is completely individual.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 6:21 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Jesse said:
The idea we are separated from everything else is delusional, that our karma is not everyone's karma is delusional. We can't move a muscle without effecting everything around us.

Astus wrote:
Are you saying that it is accidental that people are born where they are born, and it is not the result of their past actions that some are born in a pleasurable environment, while others in a bad one?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 4:54 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Jesse said:
astus, I don't think the relativity of reality dismisses karma, or causality. It just means even karma and casualty is insubstantial.

Astus wrote:
Insubstantial means that there is no permanent essence. It is exactly because there is no such eternal substance that there is causality. Based on causality action is followed by its fruit, every being is an heir to their own karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 4:51 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Dan74 said:
The suttas and sutras  contain many references to telepathy - knowing thoughts of another.

Astus wrote:
Please see my previous http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=283422#p283422.

Dan74 said:
I don't think what you are saying, Astus, is supported by the tradition, or for that matter, by logic. Why should the thought-streams be completely isolated from direct contact? Well, obviously they are at least indirectly connected though action. And direct connection happens sometimes too, I believe.

Astus wrote:
Direct contact means that a single thought is produced by two mind-streams, and in that moment the two streams are one. It is not like shaking hands, it is two hands becoming a single hand. Every being experiences their own mental constructs, their own karma. To say that one person can put a thought in another's mind, that is equal to one committing a crime and another suffering its consequences. What is your reasoning for direct contact?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Jesse said:
My entire point is that conventional reality, is completely relative on every level, and the way we view things completely changes that reality. There is no correct 'view', all views are equal in a place where all things are mere illusions.

Astus wrote:
That interpretation of relativity denies causality, thus negates both morality and the path of liberation. If there is no correct view, there is no noble eightfold path either.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 13th, 2015 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Astus wrote:
More on connection between minds:

"Even if another mind is known in some sense by the yogins who have not completely abandoned the erroneous distinction of subject and object, the validity of their knowledge is limited to the fact that it does not betray them in daily life. As long as the yogins have not abandoned the subject-object distinction, they have not attained the full stature of the Buddha.
By the power of meditation the yogin can have such clear representations that they appear to him almost like the specific forms of the mind of another person, just as deities will bestow grace on a person by appearing in their dreams etc. So even the yogin does not directly grasp another person's mind through his representations. He can be said to know another person's mind only in the sense that the representations which appear in his own mind have the same form (akara) as those in another person's mind. Therefore yogi-pratyaksa is called perception only for the sake of convenience. As long as the essential distinctions are made, we go along with this way of speaking, for the representations which appear to the yogin are so clear that they look almost like the specific forms of another mind. The Buddha cognizes everything, but his cognition cannot be grasped by analytical thinking."
(Dharmakirti: Samtanantara-siddhi, in T. E. Wood: Mind Only, p 217-218)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Astus wrote:
How about this one from Tenzin Wangyal rinpoche discussing "vision is mind":

"Now invite the image of your famous person to come into your awareness. They always come anyway, but this time you are inviting them so that you can look more deeply into this experience. What exactly is this famous person composed of? See the image of the person, the character of this person who bothers you so much. Sense the energetic or emotional presence of this person. When your famous person was born, he or she did not show any physical signs or marks of what you now see. And not all people share your view of this person. What you perceive is your mind, your karmic vision, which is more karma than vision."
(Discovering the True Nature of Mind, in http://www.ligmincha.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3:ligmincha-magazine-no-05-summer-2012&catid=8&Itemid=117, p 27)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Saoshun said:
What make you think that your thoughts are yours?

Astus wrote:
There are two things to consider here:

1. One does not need to think that the thoughts are his own, one simply follows whatever thoughts occur and acts on them.
2. The sophisticated, ideological view of a thinker comes from parents, teachers, the culture, reflection and learning.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 6:52 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Jesse said:
Why would that invalidate anything? If another person crashed their car into yours, whos karma is responsible? Streams of thought exist as casual processes, only their belonging to an individuals mind is invalidated. Our perception of these streams of thought as mine, or as representing 'me', is what's wrong.

Everything is relative, when you are reading a book by a teacher, who's thoughts are you understanding, yours or theirs? Are they different? How about when tibetan Buddhist's do deity visualization practices? The mind becomes its object, or something along those lines right? How is that so different than direct mental connection? Isn't that what makes guru practices so powerful? Your mind becomes one with your teachers etc.

Astus wrote:
What one being experiences, that is that being's experience only. Even if we drank from the same cup, what I tasted and what you tasted could not be shared. I may read what you have written, but that only exists in my perception and my interpretation.

There is a difference between the sequence of experiences, i.e. the mind stream, and the habit of presuming a "doer", a "thinker", or an "owner". That is, there is the storehouse-consciousness, the basic mind stream, there is the manas that appropriates phenomena, and there are the six active consciousnesses. Direct mental connection would be like sharing not only a single eye between two beings, but a single eye-consciousness. And because eye-consciousness comes from the storehouse consciousness, that would have to be the same for both, consequently there would be only one being and not two.

While things are relative, that also means things occur based on causes and conditions. Two trees producing a single fruit is not possible. Whatever is the object of mind, it is not the same as the subject that perceives the object. The seer cannot become the seen, that is a basic condition for relative phenomena. And if we move on from the everyday appearances to the level of dependent origination, there is still a requirement for causal consistency. However, on the final absolute level, it is pointless to talk about one sharing with another.

As for deity and guru yoga, that happens in the practitioner's mind, it is his own imagination.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 5:23 PM
Title: Re: Brad Warner Video Interview
Content:
Astus wrote:
Based solely on what was said in the interview: Zen sounds like "believe what you want" and "as long as you sit you do Zen". It is like a group of lazy yogis who try to master a single asana and nothing else. Wanted to say freethinkers instead of yogis, but even free thinking is not involved here. In a sense it is an interesting and strange phenomenon, this whole "sitting Zen". On the other hand, it takes Buddhism and even the Zen tradition as something completely marginal or irrelevant.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 12th, 2015 at 4:35 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Jesse said:
I think the biggest assumption people make is thinking that emotions and thoughts that arise in the mind-stream belong to them. That thoughts are contained by anything, where does a thought exist? Is it in the mind? Where is the mind? etc.

So when a certain feeling arises in our mind, if it doesn't belong to us, to whom does it belong? "Belonging", is the creation of an I, and the assigning of some object to that 'I". Which we all know is illusory, right?

Astus wrote:
Mind-stream means that current thoughts come from past thoughts, there is a causal sequence. Two streams connecting means that another's past thought causes one's current thought. This then invalidates both the causal system of mind-streams and karma in general. That is one of the main problems if such direct mental connection is assumed.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 11th, 2015 at 11:28 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Every being experiences the result of actions performed by that being. Karma cannot be switched with others where one being acts and another experiences the result. Also, in the case of merit transference, it works only when one being rejoices in and agrees with another's action. Even our physical actions' effects on another are defined by that being's conditioning, while the results of our actions remain ours, both good and bad. See e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.043.than.html and http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.006.than.html.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 11th, 2015 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Ayu said:
So, what about practicing for the benefit of other beings? Prayers & wishes?
Only humbug?

Astus wrote:
There is ill-will as a negative, unvirtuous attitude. Goodwill is a positive, virtuous attitude. Naturally, one should cultivate the latter but not the former.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 11th, 2015 at 9:14 PM
Title: Re: Do our thoughts effect others?
Content:
Astus wrote:
I voted no.

First of all, among the precepts and the ten evil acts there is no description of one's thoughts directly affecting others. Second, there are numerous problems that come from supposing that minds can make direct contact. Third, there is a lack of explanation in Buddhism for how direct mental contact could happen, as far as I'm aware.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 5:10 PM
Title: Re: Stabilising insight
Content:
Astus wrote:
I look at any experience or state of mind gained/developed during meditation or retreat with suspicion. When I tried to keep a specific mental state for a prolonged time, there was just more and more tension generated by the ups and downs of "I want to have it" and "I must keep it".

To me "stabilising insight" means reminding myself that the mind is never stable, and if it looks stable it is just wishful thinking and conceptualisation. Insight for me is that there is nothing to rely on. Stabilising that then is about removing the habit of I-making and my-making, that is, the usual craving for something nice and fearing all the bad stuff. Contemplating a bit the ephemeral nature of all experiences can be helpful. Or just looking at how things are at the moment. There are actually many other ways to remind oneself, but it's already available in the teachings anyway. Taking refuge itself is not getting bogged down in all the self-made hells and heavens.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 8th, 2015 at 2:11 AM
Title: Re: Practice/Life difficulties - do you want to see more or
Content:
Astus wrote:
I voted 1. Practising Buddhism must be personal. There is nothing else but making it one's daily life. At least that's how I take it. The difficulty with a forum environment is mostly the same as in any situation: not listening to others as human beings but as if they were some schematic ideas. That is, one individual talking to another or "Soto Zen" versus "Drukpa Kagyu". At the same time, the large amount of personal remarks is quite harmful and discouraging in every conversation, when one "virtual member" tells another "virtual member" what s/he is like (e.g. "You don't understand this"; "You are not qualified for this"; "You need to grow up"). While we are all human beings (or some are nagas perhaps), even in meatspace it is rarely a good idea to be arrogant and presume one knows the other person. Still, I believe that it could work.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 7:28 PM
Title: Re: the two truths
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I had the idea that the two truths were originally about how to interpret the teachings.

Astus wrote:
For interpreting the teachings, there is the distinction between neyartha (figurative) and nitartha (literal). Literal is mostly where there is an explicit teaching on no-self and emptiness, figurative is the rest. The two truths of samvrttisatya (conventional) and paramarthasatya (absolute) are similar, however, conventional stands for dependent origination and absolute for emptiness. Still, there can be a literal teaching that talks explicitly about conventional reality, and there can be figurative teaching that means emptiness. Also, dependent origination and emptiness are actually one, but conventionally talked about separately.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, May 7th, 2015 at 3:11 PM
Title: Re: the two truths
Content:
Astus wrote:
The teaching of the two truths is meant to point out that what common people believe to be absolute is relative. Once phenomena are understood as relative, that is the absolute truth. That is, as long as one grasps at words and concepts as something real and independent, that is taking the relative as absolute. Once it is obvious that words are just words and concepts are just concepts, that is seeing the absolute. It is not the case that we should find some absolute beyond the relative, rather just know that the relative is relative.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: On destroying Virtue VS Unable to exhaust others' Karma
Content:
Astus wrote:
Regarding purification, please consider this discussion between the Buddha and some Jains ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html ):
"So I said to them, 'But friends, do you know that you existed in the past, and that you did not not exist?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did evil actions in the past, and that you did not not do them?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that you did such-and-such evil actions in the past?'
"'No, friend.'
"'And do you know that so-and-so much stress has been exhausted, or that so-and-so much stress remains to be exhausted, or that with the exhaustion of so-and-so much stress all stress will be exhausted?'
"'No, friend.'
As for what karma removes past karma ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html ):
And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 6:12 PM
Title: Re: Zhiyi's Edonsho
Content:
Astus wrote:
It reads quite well together with the http://www.cttbusa.org/heartsutra/hs1.htm:

Insight into the nature of reality.

When Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva was practicing the profound prajna paramita, he illuminated the five skandhas and saw that they are all empty, and he crossed  beyond all suffering and difficulty.

The perfect and sudden [method of practicing cessation-and-contemplation] involves taking the true aspects [of reality] as the object from the very beginning. Whatever is made to be the object [of contemplation], it is the Middle; there is nothing that is not truly real.

That reality is the whole of our experience.

Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness;  emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form. So, too, are feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness.

[When one attains the state of contemplation wherein] reality itself (dharmadhatu) is fixed as the object [of cognition and contemplation], and one's thoughts are integrated with reality itself, [then one realises that] there is not a single color nor scent that is not the Middle Way. It is the same for the realm of the individual [mind], the realm of the Buddha, and the world at large [i.e., the "realm of sentient beings"].

Experience is itself such, nothing to grasp, relinquish or attain.

Shariputra, all dharmas are empty of characteristics.  They are not produced. Not destroyed, not defiled, not  pure, and they neither increase nor diminish. Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, feeling, cognition,  formation, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue,  body, or mind; no sights, sounds, smells, tastes, objects of  touch, or dharmas; no field of the eyes, up to and  including no field of mind-consciousness; and no  ignorance or ending of ignorance, up to and including no  old age and death or ending of old age and death. There is no suffering, no accumulating, no extinction, no way, and  no understanding and no attaining.

All [phenomena experienced through the] aggregates and senses are thusness [i.e., reality as it is]; therefore there is no [substantial] suffering that needs to be removed. Since ignorance and the exhausting dust [of passionate afflictions] are indivisible with bodhi-wisdom, there is no origin [of suffering, i.e., craving] to be severed. Since the extreme [dualities] and false views are [indivisible with] the Middle and the right [views], there is no path to be cultivated. Since [this cyclic world of] samsara is [indivisible with] nirvana, there is no extinguishing [of craving] to be realized. Since there is no [substantial] suffering and cause [of suffering], there is no mundane world [to be transcended]; since there is no path and no extinction [of craving], there is no transcendent world [to be gained].

Since experience is such, it is perfect enlightenment.

Because nothing is attained, the Bodhisattva, through  reliance on prajna paramita, is unimpeded in his mind.  Because there is no impediment, he is not afraid, and he leaves distorted dream-thinking far behind. Ultimately Nirvana! All Buddhas of the three periods of time attain  Anuttarasamyaksambodhi through reliance on prajna  paramita.

There is purely the single true aspects [of reality]; there are no separate things outside these true aspects. For things in themselves (dharmata) to be quiescent is called "cessation"; to be quiescent yet ever luminous is called "contemplation." Though earlier and later [stages] are spoken of, they are neither two nor separate. This is called perfect and sudden cessation-and-contemplation.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 at 3:42 PM
Title: Re: Zhiyi's Edonsho
Content:
Astus wrote:
Isn't it actually from Guanding's preface? So, it's not really a writing by Zhiyi.

Here's another translation from http://www.tientai.net/lit/mksk/v1/v1p1-2p1.htm:
The Total, Sudden Method:

From the beginning, there is the True Aspect of Reality. One creates an Object that agrees with the middle way and is not without the absolute truth. Being focused on the Spiritual Realm16, and with the Spiritual Realm being in each single thought, each form and fragrance is not without the middle way. It is ones own realm as well as that of the Buddha. In fact, it is also the realm of all living beings.

1. The aggregates of self and the senses are everywhere as they are, and so there is no suffering that may be discarded.
2. With there being ignorance and the dusts from ones labors, so there is enlightenment Therefore there is no origination of suffering that may be detached from.
3. Extremes and falsehoods are within the bounds of truth, and so there is no path that may be cultivated.
4. With there being Life & Death, so there is Nirvana. Therefore there is no extinction that may be realized.
- Without suffering or origination, there is no being of the world.
- Without a path or extinction, there is no leaving the world.

There is simply one True Spiritual Aspect of Reality. Beyond the True Spiritual Aspect of Reality, nothing is distinguished.
- The Nature of Spirituality is a serene tranquility called Calm.
- It is serene and yet it is always illumined, and so it is called Observation.
Although we speak of there being a beginning and an end, they are inseparable and indivisible, and it is called The Total & Sudden Calm-Observation.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, May 5th, 2015 at 5:35 PM
Title: Re: On destroying Virtue VS Unable to exhaust others' Karma
Content:
Astus wrote:
1.

The past is already gone, it cannot be changed. Effects in the present situation is subject to present conditions, internal and external. External conditions mean that one only feels craving when there is a desirable object (physical or mental). Internal conditions mean that one can view things with a narrow or with an open mind, with kindness or with hate. So, while one might normally like chocolate cakes, if one feels sick, even cakes can look disgusting.

Purification of the mind does not mean one can actually erase past events. It means learning to become open, caring, attentive, wise and kind. Then no matter what effect ripens, one can remain untainted by it. On the other hand, if one cultivates only greed, anger and ignorance, even the most insignificant situations can bring out one's inner evils.

2.

One can spend lot of time in a friendly environment where no harmful emotions occur, but once in a new situation those inner defilements bloom in no time. Then it becomes apparent that the previous peace was only temporary. That is, in a sense, there was no real merit accumulated during all that peaceful time, since there is no change in one's habits of how one acts.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 5:00 PM
Title: Re: Amida Is A Real Buddha
Content:
Astus wrote:
As mentioned before, there are different levels of meaning. The confusion comes from assuming that they are contradictory or exclusive instead of complementary and inclusive. That is, the reality of Amitabha and that all appearances are mind only are not opposing views. In fact, they perfectly support each other. For those who naturally incline for viewing Amitabha as a real entity, they are gradually introduced to the teaching of emptiness, if they are open for it in this life. For those who prefer everything as empty, they definitely have to understand that there is no emptiness besides dependent origination, and the Pure Land path is real and effective exactly because reality is mind made. An important difference is that while relying solely on buddha-remembrance leads to birth in the Pure Land, failing to see that there is no emptiness besides appearances leads only to some higher heavens at best, or to lower realms if one also denies the functioning of karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Gyurme Kundrol,

While one can readily tell the difference between sounds from outside and one's own thoughts, how could one tell that a thought is from somebody else?

If two rivers merge they become a single river and cannot be separated again. If two mind-streams meet at a single moment of thought, all subsequent thoughts are the results of that one thought, so they become a single mind-stream.

Energy is a different subject.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, May 4th, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
dzogchungpa said:
I can also imagine "mind to mind" influences, or whatever, that would leave such space.

Astus wrote:
What is your view then, how can there be direct influence without assuming control over another?


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 6:02 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Anders said:
And why is this a problem?

Astus wrote:
A person's mental autonomy is the requirement for ethical responsibility for one's actions. Otherwise it becomes the same case as when one can blame a creator for one's fortune ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html ). If a being can put thoughts in another's mind, that is practically taking control of how one sees things and acts in the world. Unlike external influences, it leaves no space for reflection, for inclination, and other mental factors that filter and select impressions. That's because the very act of reflecting, etc. is controlled by another.

Anders said:
In fact, you should consider the possibility that the buddhas and bodhisattvas are in fact already giving you an optimal amount of help that your karmic circumstances will allow them to (as opposed to the usual notion that they are 'out there', helping someone else luckier than ourselves).

Astus wrote:
If we suppose such influences that can take effect depending on one's mental conditioning, it is virtually the same as if there were no such influences at all, as in both cases it is only the individual's mind that matters. The argument for those influences are very much like when theists claim that a Creator and Lawgiver is necessary in order to have a world and ethical rules.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, May 3rd, 2015 at 5:01 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Anders said:
This is just a sort of pseudo-essentialist assumption. Ie, 'my physical body may be greatly affected by interaction with other physical bodies but my mind can not be greatly affected by other minds'.

But it can. A turning word is not as physical as you imagine it to be, the energy field of the mind of an awakened master can have a profound impact on the minds of people in his or her vicinity (sometimes, you don't even need vicinity - I've heard of certain thera who, when sensing their students are in distress, will brighten  their minds with metta samadhi, even across countries).

The idea that minds are isolated pockets within physical bodies that have no interaction except through the physical senses just doesn't hold up.

Astus wrote:
It's not because of some materialist assumption, but the problem of interaction between minds without the mediating role of the five senses.

If the mentioned thera can brighten his students' minds without the students knowing anything of that, other yogis could do the same, not to mention bodhisattvas and buddhas. But apparently not all people are brightened.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, May 2nd, 2015 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
David Reigle said:
This quotation comes from Vasubandhu’s own commentary on his Vijñapti-mātratā-siddhi Viṃśatikā, verse 10:

Astus wrote:
Perhaps check some other translations. Might turn out that the one presented in that book is somewhat (intentionally) misleading. Also, what does Vasubandhu have to do with the early texts? But if there are doubts about Vasubandhu's position on the matter, there are other works to read. For instance this work by https://books.google.hu/books?id=KWYcVO_kptMC


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 11:54 PM
Title: Re: Mirror and Dust: different?
Content:
DesertDweller said:
if the objective world is an illusion or fabrication, then how do we understand "individual minds"?

Astus wrote:
Fabrication is to take ideas and concepts as if they were real or correspond to something real. Here real means something that exists on its own, independently of other things. When it is said that "external objects are only mind", it means that we take concepts to be more than just concepts. This is not an ontological or metaphysical view, an idealism, but an experiential observation with a very practical value, since grasping at ideas is the root of suffering.

"All the dharmas of this world and of the worlds beyond are without self-nature. Also, they are without produced nature. They are just empty names, and these names are also empty. All you are doing is taking these worthless names to be real. That’s all wrong! Even if they do exist, they are nothing but states of dependent transformation, such as the dependent transformations of bodhi, nirvana, emancipation, the threefold body, the [objective] surroundings and the [subjective] mind, bodhisattvahood, and buddhahood. What are you looking for in these lands of dependent transformations! All of these, up to and including the Three Vehicles’ twelve divisions of teachings, are just so much waste paper to wipe off privy filth. The Buddha is just a phantom body, the patriarchs just old monks."
(Record of Linji, p 19, tr Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:47 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Everything delivered through the five senses can be obtained from a recording as well.

fckw said:
Of course not. Only visual and auditory sense stimuli can. Or have you ever heard of a 5D-cinema?

Astus wrote:
If live broadcast and physical presence are equally valid, other senses don't really count.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 9:45 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm said:
And as I have written elsewhere, logic and inference are not authorities in Vajrayāna, scripture is. The Abhibodhikramopadeśa of Master Āryadeva states:
At the time of the ultimate view of secret mantra,
the direct perception by the mind and sense organs
as well as inferences are not authorities;
the profound scriptures and intimate instructions are authorities.

Astus wrote:
That clarifies it then for me why there aren't really works discussing the functioning of Vajrayana in a way that other Buddhist methods are usually discussed, describing the various mental elements and conditions at work. And thank you for the previous responses as well, you're really helpful.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 8:37 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Astus wrote:
I think I understand that for empowerment to happen the described procedures have to be followed, as that is the definition of what an empowerment is. Similarly to marriage that is defined in a specific way by the law, and regardless of how people live or what they do, they are not married as long as the correct procedure was not followed. However, people can do the same things both with and without a marriage certificate. That is, one can still live together and have children without marriage, while it is said that without empowerment one cannot practise Vajrayana effectively. So, the disciple must obtain something during empowerment that makes him different from the uninitiated. That is why I first of all try to analyse from the perspective of the receiver and ask the question of what is transmitted from master to student. Everything delivered through the five senses can be obtained from a recording as well. The methods of the practice and the precepts to follow can also be learnt from other sources. What makes the recipient of a correctly performed empowerment different from the one who did not receive it when they both engage in the same practice and uphold the same precepts? Is it perhaps related to the knowledge that "I have the empowerment" in the former that is missing from the latter person?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 8:08 PM
Title: Re: Mirror and Dust: different?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Tathagata cannot be defined as this or that, simply because there is no identification, no grasping as something. But just because there is no attachment to appearances/experiences does not mean there are no appearances/experiences at all. Thus the ultimate view is that appearances and emptiness are one and the same, that mind is clear and aware.

"Use all your might, my friends, so that you may attain liberation by Sudden Enlightenment. When your eyes see a form, clearly distinguish every form, and yet be unmoved by these varying forms. When in their midst, be unaffected, and among them attain liberation. Then you have attained the samadhi of forms. When your ears hear a sound... when your nose smells an odor... when your tongue tastes a flavor.... when your body feels a sensation.... when your analytic mind (manas) distinguishes a dharma, remain unmoved by these various dharmas. When in their midst attain liberation. Then you have attained the samadhi of dharmas. When in this manner all the organs are clearly seen, that is original prajna; when nothing arises, that is original samadhi."
(Shenhui: http://www.purifymind.com/DiscourseSudden.htm )


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 6:33 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm said:
The misconception which Astus has is the notion that an empowerment is merely communicating information received through the five senses, thus for him there is no difference between an empowerment and a recording of an empowerment, it is merely information. While it is true that information is being communicated through the five sense, that is not all that is happening, there are samadhis involved on the part of both the master and the students at the same time, there is the dependent origination which needs to be actively created between the master and the student at the same time, particularly in the lower empowerments; there are the samaya vows conferred and received and the agreement to follow them (Whatever you say boss, all that I will do....), and so on — all of the things which I have now explained exhaustively.

Astus wrote:
Yes, my basic assumption is that what benefits one on the path must be learnt, understood and experienced personally. So for the disciple what can have any effect for him is what he visualises during the empowerment, not what the master. You say it is the rite that matters, and it can be completed only when both the master and the student works together at the same time. But isn't the very point of performing the rite is to benefit the disciple? The question then is how the presence of the master and what he visualises affects the disciple. How can one enter a mandala that is mentally created by another?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 5:50 PM
Title: Re: The Ātman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
The argument that the Buddha only negated the self within the aggregates is clearly incorrect. The repeated statement is "assumes [X aggregate] to be the self, or the self as possessing [X aggregate], or [X aggregate] as in the self, or the self as in [X aggregate]." It excludes self 1. as the aggregates, 2. as the owner of the aggregates, 3. as outside the aggregates, 4. as inside the aggregates. Based on this well known instruction found all over the suttas there have developed numerous arguments and meditation guides to show anyone interested that there is nothing anywhere to identify as self.

So, it is difficult to see how a book on putting a self in the Buddha's teachings is any more sensible than The Gospel According to Biff where Jesus learns Zen in a Tibetan monastery.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 5:12 PM
Title: Re: Mirror and Dust: different?
Content:
DesertDweller said:
What is meant here by "mind"? How can one "forget" the mind? He makes it seem like an act of will, but it seems impossible to forget anything intentionally, since the will to forget simply places renewed emphasis on the object of forgetting.

Astus wrote:
Mind means thinking. Something occurs, one grasps it and connects it with further concepts to create a string of associations and ideas. It is also called mental proliferation (prapanca). Grasping what occurs means identifying it as me or mine, like "I am angry" and "My head hurts". Forgetting the mind means not grasping phenomena and thus not making up whole series of concepts.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, May 1st, 2015 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Like fish in a shrinking pond
Content:
Astus wrote:
是日已過  命亦隨減 如少水魚  斯有何樂
"The day is already done. Our lives are that much less
We are like fish in a shrinking pond. What joy is there in this?"

The above is found in the Chinese translations of Dharmapada and the Udanavarga (T210 & T212), matches https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=record&vid=71&mid=208325 but it has no corresponding stanza in the Pali Dhammapada.

當勤精進  如救頭然 但念無常  慎勿放逸
"We should be diligent and vigorous, as if our own heads were at stake.
Only be mindful of impermanence and be careful not to be lax."

Found in for instance the Ming era compilation "Admonishment for Monastics" (T2023).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 6:28 PM
Title: Re: Mirror and Dust: different?
Content:
Wayfarer said:
So when Huangbo says that 'The mind is also imperceptible (lit., “unattainable”), so how can it possibly be sought?", the fact that it can't be sought, doesn't mean that it is non-existent, but that it is indeed never an object of knowledge or something that can be cognized.

Astus wrote:
The dual version of false and true minds is fine as long as they are not turned into extremes as if there were actually two minds. Beings have only one mind, this very mind that is conscious right now. The difference between false and true lies in grasping at phenomena or not. Unattainable means that there is nothing actually to grasp as all appearances are empty and baseless. But as long as we believe in solid, independent, external objects, we are hooked up on them and driven by them. So, better to just clarify for oneself right now that no matter what experience occurs, it cannot ever be held onto, as it disappears in the next moment. All that we can ever attach to are concepts and ideas, but even thoughts are ungraspable as they just come and go incessantly.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 3:23 PM
Title: Re: Mirror and Dust: different?
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Very true--it is basically impossible for me to get back to the Absolute Source of consciousness--and believe me, I've tried! There is always "awareness that I am aware," though this may be quite subtle. I suppose this awareness of awareness, when it is tranquil, is like the clear mirror in the analogy.

Astus wrote:
There is no such "Absolute Source" you want to find. As they say, the very fact of not finding any ultimate consciousness or self is the true insight into the emptiness of mind.

Huangbo says,

"Ordinary people all chase after the [sensory] realms and generate the mind, so that the mind [has feelings of ] enjoyment and detestation. If you would have there be no realms, then you should forget the mind. When the mind is forgotten, then the realms are empty, and when the realms are empty the mind is extinguished. If you do not forget the mind but only eliminate the realms, because the realms cannot be eliminated you will only increase your [inner] agitation. Therefore, [you should understand that] the myriad dharmas are only the mind. The mind is also imperceptible (lit., “unattainable”), so how can it possibly be sought?"
(Zen Texts, p 24, BDK Edition)

Asanga quotes,

"In states of quiescence the bodhisattva
Understands that images exist only in his mind,
And, abandoning externalized ideas of objects,
He assuredly understands them to be only his own thoughts.
Abiding within himself, the bodhisattva
Understands that the objective realm does not exist,
And also that the subjective realm is empty.
He then directly experiences the unobtainability of both."
(Summary of the Great Vehicle, p 69, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm said:
If it's missing in the Tibetan text, it was not there in the Sanskrit original. But we can do a passage by passage comparison if you like. But it should be in another thread.

Astus wrote:
I don't think it's that important. If you say it's not in the Tibetan, it is not there.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 5:45 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm said:
None of this changes my basic point that the passage in question concerns the four reliances (dharma, meaning, wisdom, definitive meaning), not the equivalence dharmatā = tathāgata, which is not found in the Indian version of the text.

Astus wrote:
The Chinese translation is from the early 5th century. Is there actually an original Sanskrit anywhere, or you call the Tibetan Indian? Still, it was not the only quote.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Yamamoto translation says,

"Being based on Dharma means nothing other than basing oneself on the Mahaparinirvana of the Tathagata. All Buddhist teachings are none but “Dharmata” [essence of Dharma, essence of Reality]. This “Dharmata” is the Tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging. Any person who says that the Tathagata is non-eternal does not know “Dharmata”."

Mark Blum's translation (p 194, BDK Edition):

"the dharma to be taken as one's refuge is none other than this mahaparinirvana of the Tathagata. As the dharma of all buddhas, it is the dharmata, the nature of reality. And as the dharmata, it is what the Tathagata is. This is why the Tathagata is a permanently abiding presence without change. If someone were to say that the Tathagata is impermanent, that person would not understand, he has not seen the nature of reality."

Here's my simple version from the same 40-fascicle Dharmaksema translation (T12n374, p401c3-5):

依法者。即是如來大般涅槃。一切佛法即是法性。是法性者即是如來。是故如來常住不變。若復有言如來無常。是人不知不見法性。

Relying on the Law is [relying on] the Thus Come One's Great Parinirvana. All Buddha Laws are the Law-nature, the Law-nature is the Thus Come One, so the Thus Come One is eternal and permanent. If it were said that the Thus Come One is impermanent, that person would not know and would not see the Law-nature.

But to further clarify this section, a little later the sutra says:

Yamamoto:
"Basing oneself upon Dharma means basing oneself upon “Dharmata”; not basing oneself on man refers to the sravaka. “Dharmata” is the Tathagata, and the sravaka is the created. The Tathagata is Eternal, but the sravaka is non-eternal."

Blum:
"The dharma to take refuge in is the reality of dharmata; the person not to take refuge in is a sravaka disciple. The reality of dharmata is a tathagata; a sravaka disciple is a created phenomenon. A tathagata is permanently abiding; a created phenomenon is impermanent."

So, it is not really discussing differences between teachings, it turns it into the difference between unconditioned and conditioned. Same happens with the other three seals.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 2:33 AM
Title: Re: Mirror and Dust: different?
Content:
DesertDweller said:
if there is only One Mind, then how is it, first that I perceive "things" as separate from my basic consciousness? In other words, if I go back into my mind as far as I can to what seems like bare consciousness, then are the objects--mental, emotional, physical, etc--which that consciousness perceives merely "forms" of the one Mind showing itself to itself?
... am I correct to say that in Reality the dust is not separate from the Mirror, the Host is not separate from the Guest? If so, how can they seem so distinct? Even when the mind approaches no-thought in meditation, the distinction still seems apparent....

Astus wrote:
As long as you propose a "knower", a consciousness, there must be things that are "known". When you say you go back to your mind, can you really find a consciousness without any objects, or objects are always present?  In fact, when you say you look at your mind, it is still the same dichotomy of knower and known. Rather than maintaining the idea of a perceiving subject, just take whatever is experienced - physical and mental - as simply experience. Investigate for yourself if there really is a duality of knower and known, or is it rather an interpretation with what you cut into two a unitary flow of experiences.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 30th, 2015 at 1:59 AM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Sherlock said:
Dharmata is not buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
"Dharmata is the Tathagata. Hence, the Tathagata is Eternal and Unchanging."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 8, p 84)

"For the Suchness of the Tathagata, and the Suchness of all dharmas, they are both one single Suchness, not two, not divided."
(PP8000, ch 16, p 193, tr Conze)

"‘Tathagata’ means thusness of all dharmas."
(Diamond Sutra, ch 17, p 198, BTTS Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
And those quotes are supposed to show what?

Astus wrote:
The basic Chan tenet is that the nature of mind is buddha. The quote says that seeing buddha-nature is attaining perfect enlightenment. Thus it is not at all unfounded that Chan teaches that one becomes buddha by seeing the nature of mind.

"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."
(Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, in Zen Texts, p 20, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
BuddhaFollower said:
According to the other thread you  believe recognizing nature of mind is Buddhahood.

Astus wrote:
"When one sees the Buddha-Nature, one attains unsurpassed Enlightenment."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 9, p 93)

"Although innumerable Bodhisattvas may well perfectly practise the paramitas [spiritual perfections], they might only reach the stage of the ten abodes [“bhumis”] and yet may not be able to see the Buddha-Nature. If the Tathagata speaks, they may see to some extent. When these Bodhisattvas have seen all, they will say: "Oh, wonderful, O World-Honoured One! We have been repeating birth and death and have been worried by selflessness. " O good man! Such Bodhisattvas may well reach the stage of the ten soils [“bhumis” - stages of Bodhisattva development], and yet they cannot clearly see the Buddha-Nature. How could sravakas and pratyekabuddhas well see [it]?
...
The Buddha-Nature that one has is the deepest and the most difficult [thing] to see. Only the Buddha can know it well. It is not within the reach of sravakas and pratyekabuddhas."
(Nirvana Sutra, ch 12, p 110-111)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 7:19 PM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
You think there is a different instruction for lay people in Chan?

Anders said:
Often, that is the case.

Astus wrote:
That I consider a broader teaching of Mahayana. Baizhang discussed this a bit at the beginning of his longer record, although there he specified that the difference lies not in whether one is a householder or a monastic, but in their level of understanding the Dharma. Same sentiment goes for the Platform Sutra as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Wayfarer said:
No. I think that the word 'mind' has a different meaning in Mahayana Buddhism than it does in other contexts. So the instruction may not be different for 'Chan lay-people' - i.e. those who lived in Lin Chi's place and time - but it might be very different for 'modern urban lay-people'.

Astus wrote:
I see your point and I agree. Chan has its own language that should be translated to modern everyday speech when using to for teaching people unfamiliar with East Asian Mahayana literature.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Malcolm said:
If one can achieve Buddhahood in a single life via Chan there is no reason to follow Vajrayāna at all, let alone Dzogchen.

Astus wrote:
The Pure Land path promises not only buddhahood in a single life (i.e. either taking this birth and the birth in Sukhavati as one, or one lifetime in Sukhavati), but it is open for all capacities, offers practices from the simplest to the highly complicated, and most importantly, unlike other paths where fallback can only be avoided through strict adherence to the methods, it guarantees perfect liberation through the vow of Amitabha. In light of that every other teaching that cannot give buddhahood in this body for everyone are redundant and unnecessary.

It should also be noted that not only Chan teaches buddhahood in this life, but also Tiantai, Huayan, and Zhenyan (Shingon), so it is not particularly a uniquely Chan idea. What is a Chan specialty is sudden enlightenment/direct understanding, while Tiantai, Huayan, and Vajrayana all present a step by step path.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 5:56 PM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
Wayfarer,

You think there is a different instruction for lay people in Chan? Huangbo's records primarily consist of teachings given to and edited by a lay official, Peixiu. See how Huangbo's matches Linji's instructions:

"It is only this One Mind that is Buddha; there is no distinction between Buddhas and sentient beings. However, sentient beings are attached to characteristics and seek outside themselves. Seeking it, they lose it even more. Sending the Buddha in search of the Buddha, grasping the mind with the mind, they may exhaust themselves in striving for an entire eon but will never get it. They do not understand that if they cease their thoughts and end their thinking, the Buddha will automatically be present."
(Essentials of the Transmission of Mind in Zen Texts, p 13, BDK Edition)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 4:57 PM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Wayfarer said:
And what was the context of Lin Chi's words there? What kind of audience was he addressing when he said that, and in what circumstances?

Astus wrote:
That section starts with "At the evening gathering the master addressed the assembly".
Note says (p 150):
"Evening gathering 晚參. We have no definite knowledge of what this term referred to during Tang times, but in the Song it was an evening meeting of the assembly held in the master’s quarters 方丈 (see page 131, above). It was informal in procedure, in contrast to the formal service held in the morning in the main hall, when the master took the high seat."

But it's not very relevant, as the Linjilu is hardly an actual record of speeches, rather a literary work. Also, the previously quoted teaching is among the central doctrines in the text and repeated regularly.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 29th, 2015 at 3:56 PM
Title: Re: Path to Buddhahood in Chan/Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
The nature of mind is buddha. Any other buddha besides the mind itself is illusion. In other words, once you've dropped fabricating objects and identities to hang on to there is no new identity to make up.

"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.
Followers of the Way, as I see it we are no different from Śākya. What do we lack for our manifold activities today? The six-rayed divine light never ceases to shine. See it this way, and you’ll be a man who has nothing to do his whole life long."
(Record of Linji, p. 8, tr. Sasaki)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 3:16 PM
Title: Re: More on recorded empowerments, etc.
Content:
Malcolm said:
For example, a master has to create the mandala: there is the master's creation of himself as the mandala, the front created mandala, the mandala in the vase and so on and so forth.
Once the ritual has finished, all these mandalas and so on are dissolved so they do not exist anymore since they are not being maintained by the master's visualization, having been dissolved. I explained all of this already in the other thread on this point.
Not only that, but the recording generally only covers the activities for the disciple. All the activities that the master has to do before conferring the empowerment are not recorded.
Thus the recording is incapable of doing recreating these things since a recording has no mind, no volition and so on.

Astus wrote:
What the master visualises and does before the empowerment does not show for the receiver either when he is present phyiscally or when it is through a live broadcast. How is it any different for the person watching a recording? Whether the master followed the prescribed procedure to give the empowerment or not, it cannot be known by the receiver. Whatever is received by the disciple exists only as physical sensory perception, so anything beyond that does not have any role in receiving the empowerment. But if you say it does, then what and how?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 4:07 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm said:
Of course, who ever said it was otherwise?

Astus wrote:
Then there is no difference between a live broadcast and a recording in terms of visual and auditory impressions. Maybe even mass empowerments are similar as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
Malcolm said:
No, that is never the case, it is more like a stamp and its impression. A recorded empowerment can never be a stamp, it can only be an impression. In this case, an inert impression. A student, who receives an empowerment, is an animate living person upon whom an impression has been made, and when they have realized the meaning, they too can make impressions on others.

This is essentially why, for all who reading, the idea that one can receive an empowerment from a recording is a corrupt idea that will destroy lineages if people take it seriously.

Astus wrote:
How does the stamp meets the wax? Isn't it through the five outer senses?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 28th, 2015 at 2:34 AM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
WeiHan said:
What assumes a type of mental connection that is bound by time?

Astus wrote:
That the mental state of the person giving the empowerment influences the receiver's mind, as if there were a direct connection between two mind-streams.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 7:09 PM
Title: Re: What kind of mind do Buddhas have
Content:
Astus wrote:
Buddhas have the mind of sentient beings.

"to recognize the sentient being in one’s own mind is to see the buddha-nature in one’s own mind. If you wish to see the Buddha, just recognize the sentient being [in your mind]. It is only sentient beings who are deluded as to the Buddha; the buddhas are not deluded about sentient beings. If you are enlightened to your self-nature, then the sentient being is the Buddha; if you are deluded as to the self-nature, then [what might be] a ‘buddha’ is [only] a sentient being."
(Platform Sutra, ch 10, p 89-90, BDK Edition)

"It is only this One Mind that is Buddha; there is no distinction between Buddhas and sentient beings. However, sentient beings are attached to characteristics and seek outside themselves. Seeking it, they lose it even more. Sending the Buddha in search of the Buddha, grasping the mind with the mind, they may exhaust themselves in striving for an entire eon but will never get it. They do not understand that if they cease their thoughts and end their thinking, the Buddha will automatically be present.
This mind is the Buddha; the Buddha is the sentient being."
(Essentials of the Transmission of Mind, ch 1, in Zen Texts, p 13, BDK Edition)

"Since there is neither more of it in the saint nor less of it in the ordinary man, how are the Buddhas and patriarchs any different from other men? The only thing that makes them different is that they can protect their minds and thoughts―nothing more."
(Bojo Jinul: http://www.buddhism.org/board/read.cgi?board=Dharma_Talks&nnew=2&y_number=14 )

"this very awareness or sentience is the bodhi mind that is originally pure. When enlightened, this mind is the buddha; this mind is the Way."
(Ven. Weijue: http://www.ctworld.org/english-96/docs/DharmaLectures2.pdf )


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 27th, 2015 at 3:14 PM
Title: Re: Mahamudra in the Modern World
Content:
bryandavis said:
What mechanism in empowerments makes it work when it is live and fail when it isn't?
Im sure Loppon Malcom can elucidate much more clear but, the teacher (in theory) would be in a certain space while giving the empowerment; so during the 4th empowerment for example, the teacher would actually be in a state of non dual awareness. There is a real time transference or potential.

A recording is devoid of sentience,of a mind, of wisdom.

Astus wrote:
That assumes a type of mental connection that is bound by time (and perhaps space). First, such a direct connection of minds is a violation of the teachings on mind-streams and karma. Second, non-dual awareness is supposed to be beyond time and space.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 8:35 PM
Title: Re: The simplicity of Zen practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Lazy_eye,

Very good question. I think the conflict comes from putting teachings in the wrong context. Zen is about internal attitude, not behavioural precepts. The instruction of "neither taking nor rejecting" cannot apply to physical activities, just consider how we must be able to tell the difference between edible and inedible objects. Zen (and Buddhism in general) pertains to the problem of existential dissatisfaction generated by emotional and conceptual attachments. On the physical level of precepts, what one is recommended to follow are rules based on cultivating harmlessness, goodwill and compassion. Thus, one saves all beings without the concept of beings, gives without the ideas of giver, gift, and receiver. In other words: eat when hungry, sleep when tired. Daily activities and ordinary experiences are not the problem, people already know how to dress, wash the dishes, do their job - and if not, information and instructions are readily available from many sources. Problem arises if we feel dissatisfied with our life, when we are bothered by the weather, others, the colour of the sky, and such. Suffering is when we don't find our place, can't find the meaning of life, when we are stressed and frustrated by whatever event there is because we think it should be something else. Neither taking nor rejecting is opening up to whatever happens, not making issues out of non-issues.

If it itches, scratch it. Don't blame the world for the itch, don't be afraid of scratching, don't feel guilty because you scratched it. And if it is not the right time to scratch, don't get angry.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 6:50 PM
Title: Re: The simplicity of Zen practice
Content:
Astus wrote:
Related to "nothing remarkable in having learned to go with the flow" one interesting line:

"Trusting in the flow, what's needed comes."
or in Sasaki's translation:
"Trust in fate produces expedients"
originally (X69n1336_p0135c22): 任運生方便 - Allowing/Trusting (任) luck (運) generates/gives birth to (生) skilful means (方便)
運 (luck) also means "to transport", thus it connects to the next line about "all together [travelling in the] prajna-boat.

It is very much like what is the central teaching of Daehaeng sunim on "entrusting everything to Juingong" (Juingong = buddha-nature). And that is really what Zen is all about. In some ways the difference between Buddhism and other religions is that others teach one should trust in some external force to manage things ("thy will be done"), while in the Buddhadharma it is only letting go based on understanding the nature of reality.

The difficulty is always the habit of trying to take control of events. But how can we not fear bad (黑闇女 - dark woman) and desire good (功德天 - virtue god)? When I get lost in a series of ideas of what should be done - and that usually happens when I have no inclination to any option - in the end I arrive at the same conclusion that there is nothing I can foresee or control. Sometimes that is just a few seconds, sometimes I pursue various activities and struggle for days with, but the inner tension and the frustration really ends when I can realise my own error of giving in to some unfounded idea. And ideas always turn out to be without any foundation.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 4:53 PM
Title: Re: Few questions related to Zen
Content:
Astus wrote:
1. It depends on how "full enlightenment" is understood. Zen generally views its own patriarchs/ancestors as enlightened beings. More importantly, every being has buddha-nature, so what really matters is whether you have seen this yourself or not.

2. Even in Japanese Zen - where they don't follow the Pratimoksha (Vinaya) - there are monasteries where they remain celibate and live mostly isolated from the mundane life, and there are also individuals who live like hermits. At the same time, the seriousness of one's dedication towards enlightenment (bodhicitta) is not a matter of ordination or monastic precepts.

3. It is not the robe or the title that makes one a good person. Also, being a Buddhist is a question of religious conscience, not moral behaviour. Once you take refuge in the Triple Jewel, you are a Buddhist. Even if you break all the precepts. On the other hand, you can live like a saint, but if you believe that salvation/liberation exists somewhere else than the Buddhadharma, you are not a Buddhist.

4. Mahayana is not a split from Theravada. Schism in the monastic community would be setting up a different set of precepts, however, nothing like that has ever really happened. Japanese Buddhism could be considered an exception here, however, they did not actually made a new Vinaya but rather abandoned it for a different kind of rules. You may read this work: http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/sects-sectarianism/ by Bhikkhu Sujato.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 3:17 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm said:
Settling mind in what way? In which path is everything included? How is this path introduced, can you just look it up on the internet?

Astus wrote:
Settling in the correct view, emptiness/prajnaparamita, and in that everything is included. It is introduced, in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation, through analysis of the two no-selves. Otherwise, Mahamudra vipasyana (and this is what the JOoL follows as well) has analysis (pandita) and resting (kusulu), very much like the Bhavanakrama, but, as quoted, teachers of the tradition say that the difference between Mahayana and Mahamudra vipasyana is in what is looked into first, phenomena or the mind.

Malcolm said:
How is that possible? Have these teachers never heard of Yogacara? And even here, why make a distinction between the tantric Mahāmudra approach and the sūtra Mahāyāna approach if in reality they are both "mahāmudra"?

Astus wrote:
The difference between the purely sutric method and the Mahamudra method lies in whether there is pointing out the nature of mind or not, as mentioned above.

Malcolm said:
Drogmi Lotsawa states that the difference between sūtra and tantra is that tantra uses direct perception as the path. This direct perception is the basis of all Secret Mantra meditation and is the experiential view introduced in the very beginning during the empowerment, this is why Secret Mantra is a quick path. But there is no separate means of introducing this experiential view outside of the empowerment, there is no mahāmudra that exists outside of Vajrayāna.

Astus wrote:
As noted earlier, tantra uses an indirect method with deity yoga and the channels to reach buddha-nature, while Mahamudra goes there directly. Also, the fourth empowerment is generally equated with the pointing out instruction.

Malcolm said:
It does not in any way shape or form go beyond Prajñāpāramita, and since there is no empowerment, there is no experiential view to be cultivated. As Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso told me, and as you can confirm by reading Kongtrul, sūtra mahāmudra was invented for those Gampopa deemed unready for Secret Mantra.

Astus wrote:
As above, the specialty of Gampopa's Mahamudra is the direct introduction without empowerment.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 23rd, 2015 at 3:54 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm said:
Well, which "prajñāpāramitā" is he discussing? The practice of prajñāpāramita? Or the result, Prajñāpāramita?

Astus wrote:
Gampopa writes: "Setting the mind this way is the unmistaken method of practicing wisdom awareness." (p 249) and where he gives the list of all those things he beings with: "When one is endowed with the meaning of emptiness, there is not a single thing which in not included in this path." (p 252) In the commentaries by Ringu Tulku and Thrangu Rinpoche they both talk about resting in the natural state as taught in Mahamudra.

The difference between sutra and tantra in terms of Mahamudra are quite practical: "According to Mahamudra teachers, the sutric Mahayana approach uses external phenomena as the object of vipashyana meditation, whereas the tantric Mahayana approach of Mahamudra uses the mind itself as the object." ( http://www.lionsroar.com/meditating-on-the-mind-itself/ ).

Also,

"Gampopa said that there are three different paths with different practices, but these three paths have the same nature. These are taking inference as the path, taking blessings as the path, and taking direct experience as the path. Taking inference as the path refers to, for instance, the various reasonings set forth in the Madhyamaka that show that all things are neither single nor multiple. Taking blessings as the path refers to, for instance, meditation upon the body of a deity or the practices involving the subtle channels and subtle energies. Taking direct perception as the path is mahamudra. Mahamudra is pointed out to us, and we recognize it, become accustomed to it, and take direct experience as the path.
We can also classify the different paths into three groups: the paths that abandon the ground, paths that transform the ground, and paths that recognize· the ground.The first path of abandoning the ground is the vehicle of transcendent action of the sutra vehicle, in which some things are abandoned and others are remedies for those things to be abandoned. The second path, transformation of the ground, refers to the practices of the Vajrayana in which we purity our body and mind by meditating on our body being a deity. Our body is thus transformed into the pure body of the deity, and our mind is transformed from discursiveness into wisdom. In the third path, recognizing the ground, is mahamudra.We know that we do not need to abandon or transform the ground; rather, we know it as it is. When we know the ground as it is, we recognize all appearances as the magical display of the mind. Thus, mahamudra is a matter of using direct perception as the path. This is also called the quick path."
(Thrangu: Essentials of Mahamudra, p 78-79)

As for the so called Sutra Mahamudra (that actually stands for Gampopa's Mahamudra):

"The meditation of Sutra Mahamudra essentially consists of resting one's mind, free of mental activity, in the state of nonconceptual wisdom. This is the fundamental definition of Sutra Mahamudra: mind resting in the state in which it experiences the dharmadhatu, which is the expanse or nature of all things. This resting is essentially a nonconceptual wisdom beyond all elaboration, or the unity of clarity and emptiness. In this context, one meditates in the following way: The object of one's meditation is luminosity free of any projections; the perceiving subject is the lack of mental engagement; and one meditates without mental engagement. There are many extensive explanations on meditating without mental engagement, found primarily in the teachings of Maitripa and Sahajavajra.
The Sutrayana approach to Mahamudra is seen as a very profound method because it does not require any of the sophisticated and complex tantric rituals, deity yoga visualization practices, or samayas. It is a simple sutra approach, yet it conveys the direct transmission of the tantric essence of awakening."
(Dzogchen Ponlop: Wild Awakening, 31-32)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 11:24 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm said:
If someone asserts there is an actual mahāmudra result outside of the practice of the two stages or guru yoga, that person is mistaken, regardless of their title, position or rank.

Astus wrote:
Well, that one was Gampopa. See how in the Jewel Ornament of Liberation he included all practices within prajnaparamita http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=111558#p111558.

Malcolm said:
If the introduction to the nature of mind occurs outside the context of having received the four empowerments, that instruction does not go beyond prajñāpāramita meditation — which is a perfectly fine practice, but it is not mahāmudra. It is something like calling an ordinary geshe a "buddha" in order to arouse faith in his disciples.
...
However, meditating on the intimate instructions of mahāmudra divorced from completion stage practices and or the intense devotion of guru yoga is a slow path even if one has received the four empowerments in a proper way. If one has not received the four empowerments at all, the idea that one is going to realize mahāmudra is a completely hopeless fantasy, like wishing for a stone to be saturated with water because one leaves it in a pond.

Astus wrote:
If the view and the conduct are identical, how could the result be different because of the empowerments/guru yoga? Although, as above, all the empowerments and guru yoga are included in resting in the natural state, at least according to certain Mahamudra teachers.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm said:
Whose instructions? Which ones?

Astus wrote:
E.g.: Wangchuk Dorje, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, Tsele Natsok Rangdrol, Traleg Kyabgon, Khenchen Thrangu, Tsultrim Gyamtso, Tenzin Palmo, Ken McLeod.

For instance this one: http://www.lionsroar.com/meditating-on-the-mind-itself/; or this
short manual: http://s151421314.onlinehome.us/nbp/docs/PDF/7.%20Guide%20to%20Mahamudra.pdf (PDF, or just the http://www.thranguhk.org/buddhism_teachings/en_vipashyana.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=600&width=1050 from p 30-35).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Malcolm said:
These two ideas — that there is such a thing as mahāmudra in the sūtras, and that there is a mahāmudra path independent of Vajrayāna — are meritless delusions.

Astus wrote:
Do you think that the mahamudra instructions regarding seeing the nature of the mind are incorrect?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 4:13 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Astus wrote:
From a teaching by http://www.samyeling.org/about/buddhism-and-meditation/teaching-archive-2/mingyur-dorje-rinpoche/vajrayana-and-empowerment/ (underlines added):

Within the Secret Mantra Vajrayana path there are two divisions. The first one is the path of skilful means and the second is the path of liberation. If we explain further what the path of skilful means is, there are various methods through which to realize directly our nature of mind. It is revealed to us through these various types of practice. 

With skilful means we go indirectly to realize the nature of mind, we don't come directly to that realization.
...
When we practise the path of liberation, we have a direct method to realize the nature of mind, but there is no shape or colour for that. This is the mahamudra.
...
The Vajrayana path can be divided into three sections. There is the development stage, completion stage and path of liberation (kyerim, dzogrim and drollam). Within these three paths one can decide whatever one likes to do, whatever one is feeling positive towards. But the best actually is the path of liberation.

Malcolm said:
Yes, this is a mistaken tradition that cannot be defended in anyway whatsoever.

Astus wrote:
You mean you cannot accept the Dakpo Kagyu teaching of the white panacea, the method independent (and superior) of tantra, the path of liberation?

Johnny Dangerous said:
you can use Mahamudra techniques, but their result and function would be like sutra meditation

Astus wrote:
If the techniques provided in Mahamudra cannot produce the results promised, how can they be even called Mahamudra?

Tsongkhapafan said:
it is impossible to gain realisations without having a Guru and without receiving a Highest Yoga Tantra empowerment and practising the two stages sincerely

Astus wrote:
From http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/published_books/gelug_kagyu_mahamudra/pt3/mm_08.html (underlines added):

As for the actual basic methods, although there are many ways of asserting mahamudra, there are two when divided according to the sutras and tantras. 

The latter is a greatly blissful, clear light mind manifested by such skillful methods as penetrating vital points of the subtle vajra-body and so forth. The mahamudra of the traditions of Saraha, Nagarjuna, Naropa and Maitripa, it is the quintessence of the anuttarayoga class of tantra as taught in The (Seven Texts of the) Mahasiddhas and The (Three) Core Volumes. 

The former refers to the ways of meditating on voidness as directly indicated in the expanded, intermediate and brief (Prajnaparamita Sutras). The supremely realized Arya Nagarjuna has said, “Except for this, there is no other pathway of mind leading to liberation.” Here I shall give relevant instruction on mahamudra in accord with these intentions of his and discuss the methods that lead you to know the mind, face to face, in keeping with the exposition of the lineage masters.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Astus wrote:
From Mahamudra the Moonlight (2nd edition):

"In recent times meditators of Mahåmudrå sought to make adjustments according to both the sütras and the tantras. They have incorporated [in the Mahåmudrå tradition] many practices that require preparations, such as the mystical empowerment that sows the seed of a spiritual blossom, devotion to preliminary exercises, and methods of enhancing experiences. It is for that reason that it is not contradictory to regard Mahåmudrå as identical with the common and profound path of the sütras and tantras, due to the fact that many superior and inferior minds are going to benefit from it."
(p 112)

"Regarding the manner of imparting the profound path [of Mahåmudrå], the venerable Gampopa considered it to be an independent path of tantra. So he did not make the esoteric empowerment a prerequisite for receiving the Mahåmudrå teachings."
(p 123)

"On the other hand, if one follows venerable Gampopa’s system in elucidating Mahåmudrå alone, it is not necessary to bestow the empowerment upon devotees. In keeping with his system one should adhere to the preparatory exercises that he prescribed without incorporating the tantric meditation of Vajrasattva, the utterance of mantra, the transformation of oneself into the yidam, and the visualization of one’s guru in the form of Buddha Vajradhara – the source of the empowerment."
(p 124)

"In the present age,Mahåmudrå and Mantrayåna [tantric mysticism] are being blended and meditated upon in order to enhance realization. Many tantric elements are also incorporated into the preparatory practices. For those who wish to practice these, the empowerment for actualizing the inner potentiality is certainly essential. One should receive either an elaborate or short empowerment, based on a genuine tantra, associated with a realization deity such as Chakrasamvara with his consort. Such a tradition must be sustained by the living masters of a spiritual lineage, for they are the source of blessing."
(p 125)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 21st, 2015 at 3:09 PM
Title: Re: practicing alone
Content:
Astus wrote:
http://www.mahamudracenter.org/:
To support those interested in Mahamudra or working with Mahamudra study and practice groups, MMC's Meditation Manual is made available at: http://www.chagchen.com/index.htm.

Also, it is recommended to look into the Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Gampopa and follow the practices of mind training (lojong). They are very useful for mahamudra.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 20th, 2015 at 7:55 PM
Title: Re: Non-Abiding Awareness
Content:
dgomez said:
So as long as one attends effortlessly and choicelessly to sensations physical, mental, and emotionally ( and not even identify these sensations like so but simply as sensations ) then one is in choiceless awareness ( also no mind? also non abiding awareness?)

Astus wrote:
How do you attend effortlessly? If you work on or want to do something, that is already effort. The Buddha taught http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vayamo/ and the http://blog.meditation-presence.com/jetsunma-tenzin-palmo-virya-paramita-or-effort/ as parts of the path to liberation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimlessness_%28Buddhism%29 is the result, it is liberation itself, when there is nothing more to do.

The problem lies in the concept that there is a state or mentality to achieve and maintain. That idea comes from believing in some sort of actual reality that one needs to manage. However, there is nothing you can do to make things impermanent and empty. They are already such. What you can do is to understand and experience them as they actually are. How to do that? To understand, study the teachings of the buddhas and patriarchs. To experience, check for yourself if there is any bodily impression, emotion or thought that stays even for the shortest period of time.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: What is Authorisation?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Mostly it means you claim that some lama tapped you on the shoulder. Sometimes it means you are actually qualified.

Astus wrote:
You mean there are no papers and procedures - besides those given by educational institutions - in Tibetan Buddhism?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 17th, 2015 at 5:06 AM
Title: What is Authorisation?
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is mentioned http://www.charliemorley.com/full-bio/ that there was an authorisation given to teach. What form, if any, does such an authorisation take in Tibetan Buddhism?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 16th, 2015 at 8:33 PM
Title: Re: Zen is No Secret
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here is http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Secrets-of-Cultivating-the-Mind.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 15th, 2015 at 10:34 PM
Title: Re: Zen equivalent of Rigpa
Content:
frank123 said:
In Zen is there a distinction made between Shamatha and Vipassana?Is Zazen basically the two combined?

Astus wrote:
Zazen is supposed to be the two at the same time, the unity of samadhi and prajna, as stated in the Platform Sutra. What actually happens in a community is a different matter.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 9:31 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Thank you for the story Astus. Does that mean that you disagree with Malcolm and such is possible in the Buddhadharma?

Astus wrote:
So far in this thread I have not seen anything from Malcolm that I disagreed with.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: Non-Abiding Awareness
Content:
srivijaya said:
Nice thread Astus. Do your sources have anything to say about non-abiding awareness during sleep?

Astus wrote:
It is no different from when awake.

"If you stay awake, you stay awake. If you sleep, you sleep. When you sleep, you sleep in the same Buddha-mind you were awake in. When you're awake, you're awake in the same Buddha-mind you were sleeping in. You sleep in the Buddha-mind while you sleep and are up and about in the Buddha-mind while you're up and about. That way, you always stay in the Buddha-mind. You're never apart from it for an instant.
You're wrong if you think that people become something different when they fall asleep. If they were in the Buddha-mind only during their waking hours and changed into something else when they went to sleep, that wouldn't be the true Buddhist Dharma. It would mean that they were always in a state of transmigration.
All of you people here are working hard to become Buddhas. That's the reason you want to scold and beat the ones who fall asleep. But it isn't right. You each received one thing from your mother when you were born—the unborn Buddha-mind. Nothing else. Rather than try to become a Buddha, when you just stay constantly in the unborn mind, sleeping in it when you sleep, up and about in it when you're awake, you're a living Buddha in your everyday life—at all times. There's not a moment when you're not a Buddha. Since you're always a Buddha, there's no other Buddha in addition to that for you to become. Instead of trying to become a Buddha, then, a much easier and shorter way is just to be a Buddha."
(Bankei in Waddell: The Unborn, p 57-58)

and

"Would someone whose mind is really somewhere else be inquiring whether it was or not? If your mind were somewhere else, you would hardly be aware of it. You wouldn't be asking questions about it. You're not even away from it when you sleep, because if someone calls to you and tells you to wake up, you will respond to him and wake right up. You've never been apart from your mind in the past, you won't be apart from it in the future, and you're not apart from it right now. None of you here has ever been separated from your mind, just as none of you is an unenlightened person. You've each been born with the Buddha-mind. It's your birthright."
(p 75)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 7:31 PM
Title: Re: Non-Abiding Awareness
Content:
dgomez said:
It seems to me that non dwelling is included in choiceless awareness and choiceless awareness is the same as mindfulness and they involve the non dual watching of sensations - including thoughts - that arises.

Astus wrote:
One should not dwell on non-dwelling.

http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/sharf/documents/Sharf_Mindfulness%20and%20Mindlessness.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Avs5iwACs


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 3:18 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Astus wrote:
A story by Ven. Shengyan ( http://chancenter.org/cmc/1985/05/15/esoteric-and-exoteric-buddhism/ ):

In Taiwan, I have a disciple who has been practicing with me for quite sometime. He has a good command of English, so when a certain Tibetan rinpoche was scheduled to lecture, he was asked to translate. He was very nervous. He had never practiced Tantra, and was afraid that he wouldn’t understand what the rinpoche said. In a quandary, he finally decided that if he didn’t understand, it was the rinpoche’s responsibility to make him understand. With this thought he went to sleep. The rinpoche came to him in a dream, placed his hand on the disciple’s head, and said, “You don’t have to be nervous. You will understand everything I say tomorrow. You don’t have to worry.” He had a wonderful feeling when the rinpoche touched him. The next morning it was the rinpoche who woke him up. My disciple immediately prostrated to the rinpoche and thanked him for entering his dream. Curious, the rinpoche asked, “What happened last night?” The disciple told him, and after a few more questions from the rinpoche, he concluded that it might not have been the rinpoche but a “yidam,” a Dharma protector, who came to him.

Later I asked him if he had ever dreamed of me. He said, “Yes, indeed, many times.” Then I asked if he thought that it was me who had entered his dreams. He said, “No, because Shih-fu doesn’t have a yidam.” So then I said to him, “O.K., I will go and find myself a yidam so that the next time you dream of me, you will be sure that it is my yidam that is entering your dream.” My disciple objected, “But in Ch’an there is no such thing as a yidam.”


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 3:09 PM
Title: Re: Non-Abiding Awareness
Content:
dgomez said:
What is the difference between "non abidance", " choiceless awareness", and "mindfulness"?

Astus wrote:
It depends on the context, as always.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 14th, 2015 at 1:21 AM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here is a quote from Huangbo on Transmission of the Mind with the Mind as stated in the famous Essentials of the Transmission of Mind (Zen Texts, BDK Edition, p 36, tr. McRae):
The master said: To not attain a single dharma is called the transmission of the mind. If you comprehend this mind, then there is no mind and no dharma.
[The questioner] said: If there is no mind and no dharma, why do you call it a transmission?
The master said: You have heard me say “transmission of the mind” and have taken it that there is something that can be attained. It is for this reason that the patriarch said, “When one recognizes the mind-nature, it should be called inconceivable. Clearly and distinctly without anything that is attained, when one attains it one does not speak of it as understanding.” If I taught this to you how would you be able to understand it?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
I will take that response to mean that you have never actually experienced such a connection.  How about feeling any energy flow (or chakra) while doing meditation/practices?

Astus wrote:
It's not a question of experience but of interpretation. It can very well happen that while we feel something similar, you take it to be some energy flow and I take it to be a bodily function or an emotion.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Where and I why would it be without a cause and would not depend on anything? I have made no such statement and the statement definitely does not follow logically. Did you not notice my overlapping concentric circles example?

On effecting other beings... Have you never felt your guru? Never felt the difference of group meditation? Also, why do you think there are all of stories of Buddha telling people to just stay with him for a year before he would answer any questions and by the end of it no one ever has a question?  Finally, in your tradition is there no concept of a "buddha field"?

Astus wrote:
If it is a universal ground of all beings it doesn't have a cause, otherwise it would not be the final basis of everything.

The psychology of guru devotion and being in a group are fairly known phenomena. As for the Buddha not answering people's questions, I don't know what stories you mean. The concept of buddha-field is known everywhere in Mahayana, and as the Vimalakirti Sutra says, it depends on one's own mind's purity whether one sees it or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 9:37 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jeff said:
Could you explain your logic to such a comment? Think of it more like overlapping concencetric circles, where a buddha overlaps or has access to all circles.

Additionally, how can you describe a buddha of being all knowing or also as the Avatamsaka Sutra states...
...
They are able to shake infinite worlds in the ten directions by spiritual powers; their minds are
broad, being equal to the cosmos. They know various explanations of truth, they know how
many sentient beings there are, they know the differences among sentient beings, they know
the birth of suffering, they know the extinction of suffering; while knowing all acts are like reflected
images, they carry out the deeds of bodhisattvas. They sever the root of all subjection to birth.

Astus wrote:
If there were a universal ground, all things would come from that ground and it would be without a cause and would not depend on anything. As such an independent thing, it could not serve as a cause for anything else, and its very existence could not be possible either, since nothing occurs without a cause. More on the refutation of erroneous views of causality you may look into many madhyamaka teachings, like this one: http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments.

That buddhas don't have control over others' minds, it comes from the fact that we are not all liberated. What your quote says does not touch on the ability to manipulate beings. In fact, the quote mainly talks about the fact that buddhas are those who know the four noble truths and that all phenomena are empty.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 13th, 2015 at 3:34 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Jesse said:
If mind is entirely self contained how do you explain other people's presences? They also exist in your mind. Your mind to begin with only exists by contrast of other.

The propagation of memes, personality traits we adopt and other forms of knowledge we share. The mind is not self contained. It is interdependent.

Astus wrote:
Look into the first few stanza's of Vasubandhu's Vimsatika (Twenty Verses on Consciousness Only) where he argues against the idea that there must be external references. The Lankavatara Sutra (e.g. 3.64) as well confirms that all perceptions are mental discrimination without real objects.

This idea of universal substrate is against interdependence and no different from views ascertaining a creator god, a view that has been refuted from the beginning in Buddhism. Buddhas don't have access to others' minds either, or they could just turn beings into enlightened ones that way. Rather, we are responsible for our own actions and no external force or being can save us from the consequences. We are the ones creating our own hell and heaven. To say that ultimately there is some common ground is nothing but mere fantasising without any logical or experiential basis.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, April 12th, 2015 at 4:08 AM
Title: Re: Zen equivalent of Rigpa
Content:
Astus wrote:
Depends on what and how you define rigpa. If we go with the actual meaning, that is, knowing (vidya), then a similar Zen word with relation to the nature of mind, it is zhi/chi (知) as used in the Heze lineage. See this essay: http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Tsung-Mi-and-the-Single-Word-Awareness.pdf.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 11th, 2015 at 8:23 PM
Title: Re: is the mind individual?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Karma is completely individual. It means the separate mind-streams are self-generating and self-contained. It is a series of causes and conditions. At the same time, there is no "self" in the sense that the mind-stream is not a fixed permanent entity but a flow of mental states. That does not mean the mind-stream can somehow mix with others or totally dissolve. So, yes, the mind is individual. Just as our body is individual, although we consume food every day and cells constantly reproduce.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 10th, 2015 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Need help in guidance to find my monastic school
Content:
Astus wrote:
Becoming a monastic in any ordination lineage does not mean commitment to a specific school or doctrine. Monastics themselves move around to other places where they can and study what they like. Normally it is not a problem if you are interested in all sorts of Buddhist teachings and practices. But, it all depends on the actual community, so you should check them out one by one.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 5:29 PM
Title: Re: Need help in guidance to find my monastic school
Content:
Astus wrote:
As Dan said, Theravada seems like the most direct choice. They also have a fairly strong presence in Western countries. You should also be aware that every monastary has its own style and aura, so it's less the organisation/church you should consider (unless it's a very centralised one) but the individual places and the residents there. In most cases monasteries are quite independent.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 8th, 2015 at 6:44 PM
Title: Re: Zen vs Nichiren Buddhism
Content:
Astus wrote:
What is the question?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, April 7th, 2015 at 3:20 AM
Title: Re: Vajrayāna/Dzogchen
Content:
Astus wrote:
It might be so that Dzogchen is an integral part of Vajrayana and the 9th vehicle. My statement that it's moving to a generic mindfulness practice is not a reflection on the teachings in the scriptures but how it appears to me among some who follow the Great Perfection, both on- and offline. That is, when it is simplified to the point of "just stay in the natural state". I assume you have noticed this trend as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 6th, 2015 at 6:26 PM
Title: Re: Is Vajrayana the best Buddhist sect for modern westerner
Content:
Astus wrote:
Every Buddhist tradition has a larger lay community. If any, then Japanese Buddhism consists almost exclusively of family people, and of the Japanese schools the Pure Land traditions are particularly for householders.

On Chan and lay life, see http://wenshuchan-online.weebly.com/master-jing-hui---dharma-words.html from Ven. Jinghui:

"In reality it is the mind that decides whether the spiritual centre is continuously present, and which draws a distinction between worldly affairs and Buddhist practice in temples.  In this deluded state the mind prefers the temple life and disdains the ordinary life. People are continuously worrying about what practice method they should use, or how much time per day should be spent practicing. ...  It seems realistic that having children prevents the Dharma from being practiced. You need to gain good experience. If you believe that Buddhism can not be practiced in everyday life, then it will seem that the Dharma can not be applied in ordinary situations.  This is incorrect.  It is important to expertly cultivate Unified Practice Samadhi when walking, standing, sitting and lying down, and then the mind will be unified in purity.  Then all situations become the Bodhimandala without exception, this is the true meaning and practice of Unified Practice Samadhi."

That is in line with the Platform Sutra, chapter 4:

The master said, “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!”

Theravada also has a substantial lay community, and lay people are not excluded from achieving enlightenment. Just consider the many Vipassana communities.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, April 6th, 2015 at 5:44 PM
Title: Re: Is Vajrayana the best Buddhist sect for modern westerner
Content:
Astus wrote:
Unlike other Buddhist cultures, Tibetans were practically forced to come out from their homeland, and as an exiled people what they have to offer (in exchange for material support) is sharing their religious and cultural heritage. Theravada and Japanese Zen have been modernised during the 19th century and they are more straightforward without all the "cultural baggage". Vajrayana is just catching up with Dzogchen being removed from preliminaries and other rituals to turn into another form of mindfulness practice.

It is a misrepresentation to say that Vajrayana is the party bus of Buddhism. Also, religious art exists everywhere in Buddhism, so again its nothing extraordinary in Tibetan Buddhism. As for products, just search for "zen" in any web shop.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 4th, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Title: Re: What beliefs are prerequisite for practicing Zen?
Content:
Matylda said:
As for chan sutras, one more thing, they were not yet popular in Tang or Sung dynasties, if they were, for sure there would be clear transmission of those texts within zen lineages to Japan. But it did not happen for over 300 years of intensive zen relation between China and Japan. They became more popular during Ming dynasty when in China zen was in decline and became more syncretic religion with strong pure land influence and other elements, which was strongly opposed before. And in fact they have hardly any connection to zen, though they may be used as some means of education.

Astus wrote:
The Perfect Enlightenment Sutra was commented on by Zongmi (780–841). Wonhyo (617–686) commented the Vajrasamadhi Sutra. The Surangama Sutra gained popularity in the Ming Dynasty because of Hanshan Deqing and his fellows, so in Japan the Obaku school should favour it, for instance Tetsugen Doko did lecture on it. Hakuin also taught it in 1756, and Torei makes reference to the sutra in his Inexhaustable Lamp.

As for the supposed decline of Zen during the Ming era, it is quite the opposite, there was actually a great renaissance of Chan (see e.g. https://books.google.hu/books?id=Y7sueo8jsYwC ). One of the effects of that was the appearance of the Obaku school in Japan.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, April 4th, 2015 at 5:38 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
Astus wrote:
There are two general reasons why not to disclose one's personal practice openly to everyone: 1. it is personal; 2. leaves too much for misinterpretation. Again, while Vajrayana has a specific instruction for this in a formal way, the same holds true for every other school. At the same time, if one is actually interested in what karmamudra and other methods are, there are a couple of books to look into (one already suggested here), and it is also possible to approach individual teachers and practitioners. So, I would say it is not really secret, it's just somewhat similar to the difference between discussing sex in general and your experiences from last night.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
smcj said:
According to him the only time it is ever appropriate is for extremely advanced yogis to take them over the last hurdle to full enlightenment. That scenario is of course extremely rare.

Astus wrote:
Interestingly, Tilopa has a different view on who should utilise karmamudra:

"When your mind is less acute and does not truly rest,
Work the essentials of energy and bring out the vitality of awareness.
Using gazes and techniques to take hold of mind
Train awareness until it does truly rest.
When you practice with a sexual partner, empty bliss awareness arises.
The balancing of method and wisdom transforms energy.
Let it descend gently, collect it, draw it back up,
Return it to its place, and let it saturate your body.
When you are free from longing and desire, empty bliss awareness arises."
( http://www.unfetteredmind.org/pith-instructions-on-mahamudra/0/, 26-27)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 4:34 PM
Title: Re: tantric sex real or form of abuse?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Abuse can happen regardless of calling it tantric or anything else. As for the validity of using sex for practice, I don't see it as a problem in and of itself. Although Vajrayana provides a formalised version, practically any Buddhist in a relationship can reflect on and use sex for developing virtuous qualities and improving one's insight into reality. Same with any other everyday thing. Once one has internalised the Buddha's teachings they are there as part of one's personality in every decision and action.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, April 3rd, 2015 at 3:43 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
Previously, you agree that rebirth is a phenomena of the physical world.

Astus wrote:
No, I did not. See http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=275674#p275674: "Rebirth is the continuation of the mind-stream, and since mind is non-physical it is out of scope for material investigation."

WeiHan said:
As I said, adding a new category (i.e. spiritual) which requires much explanation itself but does not add to our understanding of the phenomena is actually quite redundant.

Astus wrote:
Don't we normally talk about "body and mind"? As Daehaeng Sunim used to say, there is the fifty percent seen and the fifty percent unseen (e.g.: No River to Cross, chapter 3: Mind and Science). Conventionally we separate things to material and immaterial, mundane and spiritual, etc. I think the difficulty in making sense of supernormal phenomena lies in thinking about it in the wrong context, i.e. as material and mundane, and that is what makes it incredible. Or for those who just believe in the supernatural while still taking the physical realm as the primary one tend to mystify it to the extreme where only special beings can actually perform and experience them, while throughout the Buddhist (and other) tradition it has been fairly common, leading to such views that we are in a degenerate era and such.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Now you are squirming, having boldly declared no such phenomena as siddhis or ṛddhi-patti can exist.

Astus wrote:
From the very beginning in this thread I have been saying that they cannot exist in the physical world but as spiritual experiences. Since in Buddhism the world is a product of one's mental conditioning and exists as a flow of personal experience, it is the second category (spiritual), thus there are powers.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Which position still leaves you a realist, believing that there are inherently existing natural laws that govern physical phenomena. In other words, you accept that physical phenomena exist by virtue of intrinsic characteristics, a common tenet among Hināyāna schools.

Astus wrote:
I only make a difference between various interpretations. If we say there is a shared physical world then there are certain rules. If we say that perception is the reality we have, then independent laws are nonsense.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 4:59 PM
Title: Re: What beliefs are prerequisite for practicing Zen?
Content:
Matylda said:
Thank you for these links... however this is not traditional zen education I guess, since it was made in the 80's? and the content is unusual for zen studies I guess.. the so called chan sutras by the way are only for instruction purpose.... they are not this what may be considered to be a definitive meaning which had some importance in zen in the context of sutras only, but not absolute importance. In zen most important teachings were always zen teachings..

Astus wrote:
Different traditions have different approaches. Japanese Buddhism is not the same as the others. For instance, the Surangama Sutra has been very important in Chinese Buddhism at least since the 16th century, or even before that. The Korean monastic curriculum reflects the most important works there, and while the concept of a compulsory seminary for novices is a new thing, the content is traditional, that is, a result of centuries of development.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: What beliefs are prerequisite for practicing Zen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here is what Korean monastics have to study before full ordination: http://chungamsa.org/eng/02/03.asp. Special emphasis is on: Diamond Sutra,  Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, Awakening of Mahayana Faith, Surangama Sutra, Avatamsaka Sutra. More information on the system in general: http://phathoc.net//PrintView.aspx?Language=en&ID=5E5418.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, April 2nd, 2015 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
But we can also see at a different angle. If how the external world sentient beings lived in depends on their karma, then there isn't any objective physical laws. It becomes unnecessary to differentiate that supernormal phenomena can only happened in mind realm but not in physical realm since afterall physical relam is a reflection of what is in the mind. In other words, you don't have to say that Buddha can only manifest supernormal abilities in some beings mind stream and not in the physical realm because there are fixed physical laws (this is your previous position), we just have to say "some beings have the karma to see Buddha manifesting supernormal abilities while others don't have the karma.

Astus wrote:
Yes, some beings perceive one thing, others perceive something else. The problem with supernatural occurrences within the physical realm was raised regarding the original topic of this thread. And there I also wrote that powers exist on the spiritual level. If we say that the world is what we perceive it to be, that it is formed and governed by our mind, then that is the spiritual realm.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 11:02 PM
Title: Re: What beliefs are prerequisite for practicing Zen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Lotus Sutra is quoted mainly because of how the dragon girl transformed to a buddha as an example of sudden enlightenment. At least in earlier Chan texts. Otherwise it is not specifically Zen but rather general Mahayana. On the other hand, the Lankavatara Sutra has more a legendary value than as an actual source of teachings, since hardly anyone quotes from it or refers to it. Texts like the Vajrasamadhi Sutra, Surangama Sutra, Perfect Enlightenment Sutra are all "Chan sutras", that is, they contain teachings that are directly found in Chan. The Diamond Sutra is probably the most important of all, and it has many commentaries on it by Chan masters.

Just found this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_Sutras


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 10:27 PM
Title: Re: What beliefs are prerequisite for practicing Zen?
Content:
Astus wrote:
1. Essentials for Practice

The quoted "prerequisites/essentials" are actually for kanhua/kanhwa/kanna zen where they focus on the huatou or koan.

There is a short translation from Xuyun: http://hsuyun.budismo.net/en/dharma/chan_sessions1.html. But it is in http://hsuyun.budismo.net/en/dharma/chan_sessions2.html where you get an even shorter summary: (1) Firm belief in the (law of) causality (2) Strict observance if the rules of discipline (commandment) (3) A firm faith (4) Adoption of the method of training.

The difficult question lies in first defining what is meant by zen practice. The short answer could be that the only prerequisite is bodhicitta. But that actually covers the general elements like taking refuge, observing precepts, respecting the teachings and the teachers, renouncing samsara, aiming for buddhahood, having compassion for all beings, avoiding evil actions, and so on. Another, perhaps even simpler prerequisite could be belief in buddha-nature. Still, it could be argued that all those are just unnecessary traps and there are no prerequisites on a sudden path. At the same time, like Jinul explains it, the prerequisite is sudden enlightenment, then it is followed by gradual cultivation.

2. Progression of Beliefs

Zen - again, depending on how it is understood - is not about any set of doctrines but seeing the nature of mind. So, either there is already a basic Mahayana set of values and doctrines, or one just goes straight to buddhahood. There are some teachers who talk about levels of practice, stages that people may go through, but that is not about believing this or that, although it could be said that the levels are actually different forms of incorrect views (where the correct view is no view). For instance, Zongmi mentioned the five dhyanas, Baizhang discussed the three levels of non-attachement, Linji the four relations/types of host and guest, Dongshan the five ranks, and so on.

3. Believing in the Sutras

What you mention as reinterpretation of the scriptures, that is the original zen way. You can find it from the early times, just look into Shenxiu's teachings. It does not mean questioning the content and doubting its validity. It is about bringing people back from fantasising about flying arhats and transforming dragons to the actual practice and investigating what their own mind is. It is about putting aside pointless debates and abstract theories and instead highlighting the truly important matter of birth and death. It is stated in the well known slogan: not relying on words and letters, pointing directly to the mind. That's why Bodhidharma went from India to China. There is no negation or denial of any established teaching, rather it is showing the true and essential meaning of them.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition Of Mahamudra
Content:
Astus wrote:
Mahamudra can use both calming and insight. Here are some instructions from the 9th Karmapa: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/advanced/mahamudra/karma_kagyu_mm/mahamudra_eliminating_darkness/part_2.html. However, it does not use the dhyana system as it exists in Theravada.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 8:29 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
If the first were true, the second would not necessarily follow since liberation is freedom from afflictions, not freedom from karmavipaka.

In any case the Buddha has already instructed is that he cannot remove our suffering, nor can he hand us liberation, he can only instruct.

Astus wrote:
It is within the realm of action and result to walk the path of liberation. So, buddhas could put everyone on the way to nirvana, practically making everyone noble beings. It's then just a matter of time for everyone to reach total freedom. But as you cited, buddhas only show the way.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 6:53 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
The process can be accelerated by others in peaceful or wrathful ways. However without some effort on the owners part, the effects are temporary since karma will keep being created and strengthened if the person doesnt realize emptiness, practice, and so forth.

Astus wrote:
If it is possible once to manipulate others' karma, it is always possible.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, April 1st, 2015 at 6:50 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
However, the Buddha's teaching held that whatever outer physical environment we experienced is also a result of our karma (which is somewhat a mind thing). ... If the Buddha can influence the mind of certain people so that he seem to witness a supernormal phenomena from his perspective in the outer world. It is almost the same as saying that the Buddha can influence change in the physical law since whatever physical laws that the world obeys depend on our mind and karma (as for the example of hell and heaven which I given).

Astus wrote:
And we arrive at the problem that if the Buddha can change others' karma then he can liberate them as well by the same power. Since nothing like that happened, and the whole point of the teaching is that everyone has to accomplish it on one's own, changing others' karma is not possible.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 8:16 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
kirtu said:
Even so karma can be purified as long as it hasn't ripened.  This is also true from a sutric perspective.

Astus wrote:
Not taking up a separate topic (i.e. what is purification?), the question is whether it can be purified by others or is it something the owner has to manage?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
But then, since there are also laws that must be obeyed in the mind realm, how did the Buddha then make the supernormal phenomena happens in some people mind but not others?

Astus wrote:
People experience what they are conditioned to experience. Even today numerous teachers, preachers, gurus and such are perceived by their followers as miracle makers.

"There is now a man in Korea who has proclaimed himself as Christ. Many people believe in him. After he washes his face and his feet, they take the water and drink it as medicine. And indeed, their sicknesses are miraculously cured. But it is their minds that are curing their bodies. They believe in this man so completely that he can do miracles. If they didn't believe, he wouldn't be able to do miracles. In the same way, when a boy and girl are in love, the first time they kiss, their lips are filled with magical energy. This man can touch his followers and it is as if his fingers were flowing with electricity. There are many religious leaders like this in India."
(Seung Sahn: Dropping Ashes on the Buddha, p 100)


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 4:51 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Karma is unerring, but it is not immutable.

Astus wrote:
Past actions cannot be changed. The effects of those actions, as they are present as causes, need to happen once the conditions are there. The difference is in how a person takes those results, with what kind of mind, so the fruits can be significantly milder or stronger. But to say that there are causes without effects is problematic. Also, as noted by Ayu, the question is if one being can change another's karma.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 4:43 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
Materialist also agrees that it is the mind that experiences. So I don't see why you reject them . What is the difference between your view and theirs?

You stated that there is a set of real physical laws that govern the physical world. that means that you are implying that this physical world (realm of objects) has an independent real inexistence of its own but then you reject it yourselves. This is self contradicting.

Astus wrote:
Materialism bases mind within the material world, I say that mind is non-physical and not derived from matter.

The physical world works on its own way and it can be observed that it is not without logic, that way certain laws can be established that can predict what happens within certain conditions. Similarly, Buddhism describes areas that are relevant for liberation and how that can happen. If there was no order whatsoever, then the physical and the mental realm were both unpredictable, and not only could we not tell if we take the same route as before that we end up at the same place as before, but there could be no path of liberation either, as it'd all be random. Just as mind has its patterns and chains of causes and effects, so does the physical world. While theoretically it is possible to adhere to various views on what comes from what, in almost every interpretation one must account for causality. In other words, without dependent origination there is no sensible view.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:41 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, an idea that you subscribe to by insisting that there are immutable physical laws.

Astus wrote:
Isn't karma immutable?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Anything that dependently originates that is said to be empty, it is true.
But this does not mean that when someone has the ability control the element of air, etc., they cannot fly.

Astus wrote:
In what context do you mean controlling the air element and flying? Like someone can produce a wind strong enough to lift a human body? Produce it from where and how?

Malcolm said:
For example, the traces in the minds of sentient beings are sufficiently strong that they can influence the minds of others in terms of what appearances they see.

Astus wrote:
Is there then a direct contact between two minds? Like, two people have a single thought?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:23 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
I said influence, you said control, there is a world of difference between these two words.

Astus wrote:
What form of influence do you mean?

Mental influence was already discussed a bit in this thread http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=275349#p275349.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 31st, 2015 at 12:20 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
You said you reject materialist. Why so? Because everything is ultimately experience by mind?

Astus wrote:
Experience itself happens in the mind / it is the mind itself. Materialism is the idea that there is an independent realm of objects beyond/behind experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
You put too much faith in the delusion known as "relative truth," Astus.

Astus wrote:
Are you on the position that ultimate truth contradicts and/or negates the relative? That dependent origination is something else than emptiness?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 11:52 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
WeiHan said:
They are self contradictory unless you mean you don't reject people who claim that they witness supernormal powers as long as they agree that it is only their own imagination.

Astus wrote:
How could I reject anyone's experience? It is the interpretation of that experience that can be debated.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, so finally you admit it, your view is realist and materialist, as I have been maintaining for some time.

As far as your contention goes that minds cannot influence other minds, this is merely an assertion on your part, and not something you have proven.

Astus wrote:
As WeiHan pointed out, I don't reject supernatural powers. But I reject being a materialist.

If one mind can control another, how come buddhas cannot make everyone enlightened? Then one person could make another think (and feel, and do) whatever that one wants, rendering the other a mere puppet.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Wait, mass and energy are real? They impose hard, factual limitations? How you can escape the charge of substantialism by making this assertion?

Astus wrote:
Causality is still accepted as the way phenomena function, isn't it? It's not just anything goes and things appear out of nothing.

Malcolm said:
The common physical world is either substantially real or it is not. If it is not, then there should be no problem accepting such things as iddhi-patis even if they do not normally conform to conventional expectations of 20th century humans. There are certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence of yogis who leave their footprints and handprints in rocks and so on in the HImalayas and certainly plenty of people, even westerners who have observed such events. It is rank substantialism to claim that such events are impossible because some imputed "general laws of this physical reality."

Astus wrote:
There is no need for a substantial reality as it is against causality. And while even causes and conditions are nominal and conventional, without that there is no phenomena to talk about at all. True, plenty of anecdotal evidence, and there is no need to go far back in history or to exotic countries for those. But the problem is how such stories of supernatural events are explained within a systematic order.

Malcolm said:
Right, and you have this problem because you have realist tendencies, not unlike Sarvastivadins. The abhijñas are one thing, of course these are mental abilities, the iddhi-pattis/siddhis are something else again, they are not just mental abilities, though they come from having developed powers over the mind, having done so, they lend the ability to have power over matter, which according what you state above, is either a convention or mind-only.

Astus wrote:
You may call it a realist tendency to think that whatever occurs requires appropriate causes and conditions. Natural sciences study the way matter works, what conditions bring about what results. For something to float there needs to be a force to lift it up or it has to be lighter than air. Instructions to learn levitation say that one has to make the body light - I guess they had no idea of how animals can actually fly - however, there is no explanation or even the question where the lost weight/mass goes from the body. And that is why I have mentioned the principle of mass conservation.

On the other hand, if we take the position of considering the world as a purely mental realm of experience that is regulated only by the conditioning of the mind, it cannot be allowed for one mind to manipulate another one, otherwise we face the problem of buddhas not saving all beings and the confusion of the law of karma. Since minds cannot manipulate other minds, one man's experience is only his and not shared by others, as it exists exclusively within that stream of consciousness. This is why I say that only here can supernatural powers occur.

That is, within the realist/materialist view there is no place for magic. Only in the realm of subjective experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 10:50 PM
Title: Re: The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition Of Mahamudra
Content:
Astus wrote:
Not sure what part you mean.

For instance http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/e-books/published_books/gelug_kagyu_mahamudra/pt3/mm_11.html:

"While in a state of total absorption as before, and, with a tiny (portion of) awareness, like a tiny fish flashing about in a lucid pond and not disturbing it, intelligently inspect the self nature of the individual who is the meditator."

Absorption is just the samatha/calming part.

And then,

"When you search and, like that, cannot find even a mere atom of a total absorption, someone totally absorbed, and so on, then cultivate absorbed concentration on space-like (voidness), single pointedly without any wandering."

This is single-pointed meditation on emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
None of which really explain from a scientific point of view how this mysterious interaction between mind and body works.

Astus wrote:
Scientifically there are no non-physical objects to investigate or establish a connection with. Otherwise the duality of mind and body in Buddhism is only a conventional term as all phenomena are within the experiential realm and distinguished as form and names as a way to talk about categories of experiences. If we begin to analyse such conventions in Buddhism then we gradually end up with mind-only and emptiness.

Malcolm said:
The four elements are clearly properties of material entities.

Astus wrote:
They are called material entities because they exhibit such properties and are experienced with the first five consciousnesses. Supposing a noumenal substance, independent object, beyond the phenomenal level is either a conventional approach or a substantialist philosophy.

Malcolm said:
You have not addressed my objection in the slightest, you have not explained to us how it is that consciousness, which is a non-material entity, functions through the sense organs via patches of atoms located on the various physical structures in their respective locations such as the eye, and so on.

Astus wrote:
Such distinctions as mind and matter are only nominal, thus establishing a connection between them is unnecessary. They form a single realm of experience.

Malcolm said:
Your contention however was that such things as levitation, manomayakāyas, and so on were simply subjective experiences of adepts, were not part of physical reality, and solely the domain of fantasy — even though of course Buddha, and other mahasiddhas displayed these miraculous events to others present.

Astus wrote:
Yes, supernormal phenomena are not part of our everyday physical reality, not part of what is commonly called physical - the area of study of physics - and cannot be explained with physical laws. They can happen only if conceived within a subjective experiential realm where one doesn't have to account for the conservation of mass and energy (small becomes big, one becomes many, etc.). In other words, the mechanism of supernormal powers cannot be logically described within the confines of the general laws of this physical reality.

But if you say that buddhas and ordinary beings as well can perform such abilities in the common physical world, then - as referred to before - there are a number of questions not yet answered, beginning with the first post of this thread.

Regarding this criticism that modern Zen is more and more materialist, in Korean Zen both Seung Sahn and Daehaeng taught about a stage where people experience supernormal powers, so it is not necessarily unknown for practitioners.

Malcolm said:
But despite all these things, you have no provided any reason at all that suggests that your acceptance of rebirth is rational and your rejection of iddhi-patis and so on is also rational. Your acceptance of former is actually irrational because you reject the latter.

Astus wrote:
I do not reject supernormal powers. What I find problematic is the idea that they exist within the physical context. But instead of answering for the questions and problems pertaining to the view that they manifest as ordinary physical phenomena, there are only evasive responses and irrelevant comments.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 30th, 2015 at 8:00 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
And mind doesn't manifest within the material realm? Really? How do you move an arm by will then?

Malcolm said:
It follows then that since rebirth is manifests in the material realm, you therefore must also come up with an explanation for it according to natural science. ... The mind clearly interacts with matter every time rebirth occurs. How is this possible? How can a nonmaterial entity interact with a material one?

Astus wrote:
The material realm is what is within the experience of the five senses. Can the mind be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched? Does it have a form, a colour, a spatial or temporal existence? It does not. How could then we say it manifests as a physical object? On the connection between mind and matter, there are the 18 dhatus, abhidharma literature and yogacara works. That is, the four elements are solidity/extension, cohesion/fluidity, heat and motion, so they are what is experienced by consciousness and not a separate realm. Nevertheless, various experiences are categorised differently, thus the distinction between name and form, feeling and concept, etc. In other words, instead of choosing either that body and mind are one or two, the Buddha taught the five aggregates.

What various sources agree on is that powers are samadhi (Kosa, p 1168) and they are within the rupadhyanas:

"one enters into the fifth fine-material-spehere jhana occurring by way of the direct knowledge with respect to such objects as visible forms, etc."
(Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p 343)

"The first five supernormal knowledges exist in the Four Dhyanas, that is to say, they are obtained by an ascetic in any of these Dhyanas."
(Abhidharmakosabhasyam, vol 4, p 1159)

And such powers' production are in the mental realm:

"What is matter included in the sphere of mental objects [dharmadhatu]? It is of five kinds: ... [5] that which is produced by the supernormal powers."
(Abhidharmasamuccaya, p 6)

However, it is stated that the powers' spheres are where they are developed and below that (Kosa, p 1161), that is, all can manifest within the kamadhatu. It is also said that powers can be obtained not only through meditation but other means like mantras and plants (Kosa, p 1176; MPPS 1, p 312).

Since those with power can create illusory beings and material objects (Kosa, p 1168-1173), it could be considered as actual magical power just as it is commonly understood. Then it raises a number of problems nobody so far has cared to answer. We don't even have to go as far as the problem raised at the beginning of the Vimalakirti Sutra regarding the buddha-lands - i.e., for instance Sukhavati is free from all suffering, and buddhas all possess powers in an unlimited fashion, therefore there should be no pain in this world either - but just consider stories where if Shakyamuni had used his supernormal senses and abilities the whole thing could not have happened (see e.g. this essay: " https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/buddha-omniscience.pdf "). That's why regarding superpowers I take the position presented in the Vimalakirti Sutra, that it depends on one's perception, and there is no such power that could be demonstrated for everyone, thus my distinction between physical and spiritual powers.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
As to your contention that these things are merely mental experiences, well, that does not save your from my charge that your orientation towards these questions is basically materialist. I am surprised in fact that you still accept literal rebirth, or is rebirth just another "spiritual experience", like recall of past lives, knowing the minds of others, seeing into deva realms and so on and so forth?

Astus wrote:
My orientation towards the topic of supernatural powers is materialist because the idea that they manifest within the material realm requires that. Natural science is what analyses matter, so physical phenomena falls within that area of study. Rebirth is the continuation of the mind-stream, and since mind is non-physical it is out of scope for material investigation. And for more than a hundred years experts of material sciences were unable to find any sound basis for supernormal powers, and not one person could actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal anything paranormal so far, I cannot see any basis for accepting such claims. It is another matter that even if there were such powers they would have nothing to do with the path of liberation.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 1:51 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Gyurme Kundrol said:
If you show it off you attract people who just want to take it from you. In the same way, showing off Siddhi is likely to attract so called "students" who just want power.

Astus wrote:
It seems we should all feel sorry for film stars, celebrities, politicians, business people, bankers, and in general the rich and powerful. And if one lives in a rich country others will start to immigrate. Better be poor and unknown in a destitute state?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 28th, 2015 at 1:13 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Both you and Astus thus far have demonstrated only that you are basically materialists in your orientation towards these questions.

Astus wrote:
Isn't it you who claim that powers are physical phenomena, like in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings? How is it anti-Dharma to ask for physical evidence then? And you call it materialism if I say that such powers are not physical manifestations, therefore cannot be observed in any ordinary, natural or scientific way, but rather spiritual. Is the reference to mental phenomena a materialist view?


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 10:46 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Apparently you don't read well, I cited twice one master who had this capacity, someone I knew personally, someone who I watched die, actually.

Astus wrote:
Yes, Ngagpa Yeshe Dorje. And there was Dipa Ma you brought up before as an example as well. But I did misread you. Still, no living weather controllers or others to show yet. By the way, if there are people who can control weather, they could save whole countries from a lot of suffering. There can be millions who starve because of bad weather.

I've found a talk by Sheng-yen on http://chancenter.org/cmc/1986/05/12/supernormal-power/ s where he says,

"If there were a mantra that could really accomplish such miraculous cures, there would be no need for doctors and hospitals. All we would need is the mantra. But even famous lamas in Tibet can fall prey to death and disease. There is no mantra that can defend against every sickness."

"Supernormal power can be used occasionally, but it should not be used too often. If you do use it, it should benefit others, and hopefully it will bring some benefit to you. Using this power should not place you in jeopardy. If it does, it means that you are transferring someone else’s karma onto yourself. Most practitioners refrain from using their supernormal power."

"The sage performs activities just like ordinary people. But unlike ordinary people, the sage no longer has a sense of self. As a result, there is no karmic consequence. Karma follows ordinary people like a shadow. No karma follows the sage."

"The power of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas exists at all places and at all times, and far surpasses the power of other beings: Arahats, deities, and common people."

So, from that we can understand that:

1. Mantras don't necessarily work, at least not as some might expect.
2. Ordinary people can/should not use their powers because they take up others' karma.
3. Enlightened beings are free from karma, have unlimited powers and they are everywhere.

And that leads to the problems that

1. If the power of mantras/powers are limited, there couldn't be certain yogis and enlightened ones who can do almost anything, even creating entire worlds.
2. If it is possible to redirect people's karma, buddhas could save all without a problem and should not refrain from using their powers.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 27th, 2015 at 5:37 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
That is because you are blind to it. I already pointed out to twice a master who definitely exhibited the ability control the weather. At this point, I have to concluded you are just too locked into the "scientific" worldview to be open to any such experiences.

Astus wrote:
What you cited were stories of two deceased people who have supposedly had the ability to change the weather. Stories like that and even more fantastic we have a lot from all over the world. For instance, canonised Catholic saints have performed various miracles, and there are thousands of them, including many from the 20th century. And while in all practical matters the veracity of such stories are at least irrelevant and not much different from superhero films, if someone claims for whatever reason that powers like levitation and weather changing exist, it is not a strong argument to say that only those with faith can perceive supernormal events. Although saying that actually fits what we briefly discussed with Anders here that experiences of siddhis are a matter of mind set, and that matches what I have said from the beginning that powers are not physical but spiritual. Similarly, if I were to argue that there are pegasi, I would have to provide some evidence for that, and excusing the lack of proof would not make my argument any stronger, even if I called unbelievers materialists.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Title: Re: Mahāyāna sūtras
Content:
Astus wrote:
East Asian Buddhism often uses the Five Periods system developed first in the Tiantai school as the explanation for various sutras. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiantai#Five_Periods.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 10:08 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Anders said:
Rejecting or even reviewing physicalism would represent a momentous paradigm shift. That is not to be expected from science at its current stage.

I can understand why too. The physical sciences have been enormously successful in describing and predicting the world. It's not that irrational to expect that they should be able to explain everything.

Astus wrote:
It took a few hundred years for science to overtake the place of religions, but even today it's not 100%. What I meant regarding science's openness is its theoretical basis, not how it happens on the ground where money, politics and other social conventions are involved. But as you know, Buddhism managed to gain popularity in Asia not because of its magnificent philosophy but because of other features, and the same goes for other religions as well. Siddhis are among those few elements that were once considered beneficial for the ruling class and the society in general. And just as science gained a foothold because of its success in the areas of medicine, engineering, social control, economics and warfare, something similar was true for Buddhism and other religions. Buddhism today can spread because it promises help with mental problems like stress and such, not because people are interested in the true nature of reality and similar abstract issues. So, if there were actually supernormal powers that people could learn, it would definitely be a big thing. But it's just not happening. Occult studies are very much marginal today and generally ridiculed as fake and nonsense. And that attitude is not totally without any reason.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Anders said:
Supposedly. What such a cosmology would suggest though, is that if the karmic world the scientists inhabit/manifest won't budge that far, then the siddhis can not manifest to them. Kuhn's paradigm shift elevated to cosmological/karmic principle.

In other words, a universe designed to reinforce the preconceptions you came here with make its true nature as obscure to you as possible (or at least, it looks like it does that). Now what does that remind me of.... Oh, right. Samsara!

Whoever said avija was a most powerful siddhi is not too far off to my mind.

Astus wrote:
That sounds a bit too restricting as it does not allow changes in one's view and experience. Although we could say that the area science can investigate is somewhat limited, it is a basic principle to be open for new discoveries and be willing to review previous assumptions. It is an attitude that old traditions don't really have and they don't leave space for disproving any established doctrine. That is, just because the majority fails to attain siddhis and enlightenment the truth of the Dharma is not negated, while if an experiment cannot be repeated then it loses credibility.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:40 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Who ever said that lifting tons of heavy rocks was possible for someone who had gained control over the four elements? Attaining control over the four elements does not mean omnipotence. You are venturing into lala land here. Why don't you study the matter and actually find out what these things actually mean.

On the other hand, when the Buddha levitated to the height of fourteen palm trees to prove a point, this means he had gained control over the four elements. And in fact he had forbad monks who had mastered siddhis to demonstrate them.

Astus wrote:
A few tons of rocks are nothing compared to the powers displayed openly for everyone in the Vimalakirti Sutra and others. Influencing the weather is significantly more difficult then lifting weight.

Vsm. quotes the Patisambhidamagga (p 378):

“What is success through the sciences? Masters of the sciences, having pronounced their scientific spells, travel through the air, and they show an elephant in space, in the sky … and they show a manifold military array”

I.e. it is no problem to have even an army in the air.

In the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2 / D i 77) the stock passage includes: "he even touches and strokes with his hand the sun and moon, mighty and powerfuJ as they are". Although I think it is noteworthy that the process begins by the creation of the mind-made body that performs the supernormal powers.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:22 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Anders said:
Well yeah, but that doesn't contradict any of what I wrote. If any, it reinforces it. We communicate through the shared frequencies of our 'shared' (or 'similar') contracts of manifesting a shared/similar 'saha world' environment as a product of our karma. But since there is only so much influence 'I' can have on 'your' part of the tapestry, though one may be able to manifest siddhis for himself, he might not be able to manifest them for someone else, due to the karmic circumstances of that person.

The only unusual thing here is that it considers even physical laws subject to karmic laws.

Astus wrote:
Yes, that I can agree with. People see what they are inclined to see. Supposedly that is what scientific experiments are meant to filter out.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
As I already pointed out, very few people develop the level of concentration needed to develop the abhijñas, for example. But some people do.

Astus wrote:
Why are those few not known? The living ones. If they can control the four elements then they should come forward. It would definitely be a greater sensation then the discovery of radio waves. And it could definitely upset the current physicalist worldview. But again, there must be some excuses for them to stay hidden, like the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom in the Himalayas.

Once people like John Dee and Paracelsus were employed by European rulers as "court wizards", and East Asian imperial houses had their own army of Buddhist and Taoist magicians to fight evil forces and assure the continuation of the dynasty. However, gradually such people were removed and today governments have medical doctors and engineers as advisers and "miracle makers" who control the four elements. To me it seems that the old ways of ruling over matter have lost against natural science in every possible area. Once it was no problem for any religion to provide the required number of "element controllers" to rulers and village people alike. Actually, it would take only one proper master of elements to demonstrate that there are other ways to raise tons of rocks than heavy machinery. Why don't we see any?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Anders said:
That's not really true though. Minds influence each other all the time. This is  for example called, in one guise among many potential ones, "social interaction".

Astus wrote:
That is indirect influence. But seeds don't wander from one mind to another or can be shared. That is, interaction happens through the five senses. Or not even that, as all experiences are the products of one's own mental stream.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 7:37 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Ironically, you are actually supporting a positivist theory of reality, which holds that physical laws are inherently real and impose inherent limitations which cannot be overcome. This is why I claim you have succumbed to physicalism.

Astus wrote:
How do you account for the lack of people who can perform supernormal powers, even though there are many who study and practice such methods? In fact, all those people who just want meditation out of Buddhism should have some experiences with siddhis, not to mention a perhaps even larger number of people who directly aim for higher powers. On what reasons can one accept the existence of magic as a physical force?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 7:30 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Anders said:
The yogacarin in me would tend towards seeing many physical laws as being more akin to shared causal karmic "contracts" that we are more or less obliged to follow in our shared representation of "physical existence". Siddhis then being the ability to recognise this and how mutable they are.

Astus wrote:
Vasubandhu in the Vimsatika (verse 3-4) explains shared perception by similar karmic causes, but one mind does not restrict or influence the other, otherwise all beings would be stuck and one could not reach liberation in the human or heavenly realms.

"All these experiences are obtained inspite of the fact that in reality there are no infernal guards etc. [If, therefore, all the inhabitants of hells have similar experiences], it is owing to their own matured [seeds of] deeds o f the same kind. Thus in places other than hells, too, the four factors, namely spatio-temporal determinations etc., should be understood as obtained."
(Kochumuttom, p 263)

"That is, even though in hell there are no real sentient beings that include such things as infernal guardians, still, because of the dominant power of the maturation of identical acts of those sentient beings, many [individual] mental continuities (scuntäna) in the same place, at the same time, all alike see infernal guardians, dogs, crows, iron mountains, etc., coming to them to inflict injury. As a result of this [example, I even though there are no real objects of perception apart from consciousness, still, the four concepts of restriction of place, etc., are demonstrated."
(Cook, p 393)


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 5:45 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Research kashina meditation.

Astus wrote:
The Visuddhimagga is probably the most thorough in discussing the supernormal powers among works available in English, however, while it does contain instructions for attaining them, it does not and cannot provide an explanation that would satisfy modern critics. It does not discuss the powers relation to physical laws, primarily because the author could not have viewed physics the same way as modern people. But, as stated in my previous post here, that is not to say that it's all nonsense, rather that such powers exist in a different context.

When you say that I have fallen to some physicalist view, it only confirms that modern physicalism knows nothing about spiritual powers. It also means that within the physical realm such powers do not exist. And that's why I say that they are spiritual and not physical. So, the counter-argument would be to say that it is actually possible within the physical world to transform matter according to one's wish (one to multiple, big to small, heavy to light, etc.), but then if that's not just an unfounded repetition of hearsay, one should provide reasons for how bones, flesh and blood can be changed in such a way.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 5:34 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Jesse said:
Not sure about some other siddhis but telepathy is probably just making use of shared conciousness, collective unconscious or whatever. There is actually quite a bit of evidence for this.

I guess it really depends on what you consider "real". Is this human body anymore real than the dream body or any other body we happen to be conscious of? If we are to belive this physical body is all that we are then sure. Otherwise this body is no more real than any other.

Astus wrote:
Buddhism does not recognise such a shared/collective consciousness. Mind-streams are individual and karma is personal.

To me the question is not whether there are supernatural powers but rather what they are and how they work. What I have ruled out is that they cannot exist on the same level as everyday physical forces but they are spiritual, inner experiences. That is, we don't see people flying and walking through walls because they are physically impossible, nevertheless, one can have such experiences during meditation (and other altered states of consciousness). And people can and do experience such things, it is not uncommon among certain groups of individuals (not only Buddhists). One just has to look into some New Age books and communities where they practise magical arts. However, there is not even one man who can perform supernatural powers in front of a group of independent observers, and those who pretend to do so are eventually disproved as frauds.

So we can say that once we move beyond defining reality as purely material there is ample evidence for higher powers and abilities. My argument is just that abhijnas are not like electricity and steampower but more like friendships and love.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 1:46 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
But there is such a explanation, you merely seem immune to understanding it.

Astus wrote:
And that explanation is what?


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Nonsense Astus, your post shows no such things, quite the opposite, it merely shows that you do not take such things literally, and this is normal for those who subscribe to physicalist view of reality. But then, we already know that Zen people are throwing away rebirth, tossing out karma, reducing the Dharma to mindfulness techniques to make us better programmers and managers. In fact, the departure of many Zen and Vipassana teachers from Buddhadharma has hastened rise of so called secular "Buddhism".

Astus wrote:
I don't subscribe to physicalism, never did in my life. I simply have a logical and an evidential problem with powers. The logical is that even in Buddhism there is no explanation for how the human body could multiply or levitate, how someone could read another's mind, and if such abilities were available for the Buddha, why did he not use them in various situations, like when certain disciples committed suicide as a result of meditating on the foulness of the body. The evidential I have already explained.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, March 26th, 2015 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, people are not properly cultivating dhyāna. But we have modern examples of people, like Dipa ma, who have. There are also a lack of experienced teachers, like Dipa ma's teacher.

And I still think it is a pity that you are going down the secular "buddhist" road.

Astus wrote:
There is no shortage of accounts of special powers both within and outside Buddhism. But I have not yet heard of any living teacher of some credibility to claim it for him/herself (e.g. Ajahn Sumedho, Hsing Yun, Chokyi Nyima), although they are often accepted as enlightened masters. Scientists cooperate with several meditation teachers to investigate its effects, but there is no record of siddhis.

I don't see how secular it is that you see. I have had this view of magic for a while now (see this from 2012: http://eubuddhist.blogspot.in/2012/09/buddhist-magic.html ). And as I quote there, it is not without precedent that superpowers are not taken literally in Buddhism.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 10:49 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Malcolm said:
Yes, and Edit

Astus wrote:
Powers appear from/in dhyana. Although in SN 51.22 we are told that the Buddha reached the Brahma world with both a physical and mind-made body, the description of that achievement says that he merged his mind and body to make what is heavy (the four elements) into something light (the mind), thus rising up to the heavens is easy.

Taking the position that anyone who practises the right type of meditation can manipulate the physical world in a supernatural way raises numerous questions, beginning with the apparent lack of anyone who can actually perform them. Common excuses, like that the Buddha has forbidden it, or that it is a distraction for practitioners, seems to have no relevance in thousands of well known Buddhist stories where we can read about the Buddha, his disciples and later yogis do all sorts of wonderful things. But if you have some explanation for that, please share it.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 7:16 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Karma_Yeshe said:
When people are becoming sick, it can be the fruit of past karma. The moment the fruit is there, the karma is ripend (if the sickness occured due to karma). Then when a doctor cures the disease, the doctor may generate new karma for himself. All this has nothing to do with changing the karma of people.
Could you please show some Sutra that supports your idea of seperating "spiritual experiences" and the "physical world"?

Astus wrote:
Then using supernatural powers to cure another should not have anything to do with manipulating karma either.

There are the five eyes, particularly the distinction between ordinary human and the divine eyes, and there is also the separation of nirmana- and sambhogakaya. I think it would be harder to find a scripture discussing literary tropes.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 5:30 PM
Title: Re: siddhis--why aren't they used more?
Content:
Astus wrote:
If curing people magically is interfering with karma then there should be no doctors at all. Theories of physics, chemistry, medicine, etc. are proven through observation of the material world. Religions and some other beliefs claim magical powers but none can actually provide any proof besides hearsay and legends. As I take it, siddhis are literary tropes and spiritual experiences, not actual forces in the physical world.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 6:48 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
PorkChop said:
Going back to an earlier statement that the Indian tradition is the only definitive tradition that all Mahayana schools should accept, ... In other words, instead of completely ruling something out as Chinese apocrypha, maybe the case could be made that China was a valuable source of Buddhist knowledge.

Astus wrote:
That is absolutely true. Chinese Buddhism gradually moved away from relying on Indian sources to stand on its own. Xuanzang (602–664) was probably the last monk who visited India and brought back new texts that had some level of impact on a larger scale, however, his Yogacara based Buddhism did not really gain followers and was put aside by the indigenous systems of Tiantai, Huayan and eventually Chan. It is telling that Chan itself, the dominant school during the second millennium, relies mostly on Tiantai and Huayan doctrines but not on Yogacara or Madhyamaka. Also, Chinese Buddhism did not rely much on Indian commentaries and they have started to favour their own scholars, like the disciple of Kumarajiva, Sengzhao (384–414), whose Zhaolun treatise is still quoted occasionally by Chan teachers. And the idea of Dharma transmission in Chan is another step in saying that Chinese teachers are very much the equals of Indians.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 2:31 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Malcolm said:
not even in your Brahmajala Sutra.

Astus wrote:
http://www.ymba.org/books/brahma-net-sutra-moral-code-bodhisattva/brahma-net-sutra/secondary-precepts:
3. On Eating Meat

A disciple of the Buddha must not deliberately eat meat. He should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. The meat-eater forfeits the seed of Great Compassion, severs the seed of the Buddha Nature and causes [animals and transcendental] beings to avoid him. Those who do so are guilty of countless offenses. Therefore, Bodhisattvas should not eat the flesh of any sentient beings whatsoever. If instead, he deliberately eats meat, he commits a secondary offense.

4. On Five Pungent Herbs

A disciple of the Buddha should not eat the five pungent herbs -- garlic, chives, leeks, onions, and asafoetida. (44) This is so even if they are added as flavoring to other main dishes. Hence, if he deliberately does so, he commits a secondary offense.
The Baizhang Zen Monastic Regulations, ch 7, p 219, BDK edition:
One must not partake of improper food (buyingshi). (There are three kinds: 1) alcohol, 2) spicy vegetables, and 3) animal flesh. Onions, leeks, garlic, scallions, coriander, and so on, are classified as the second spicy food, whereas various meats are classified as the last one. One should not partake of these kinds of food.)


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, March 21st, 2015 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
srivijaya said:
This is interesting Astus because for me, it would depend upon what is meant by "wisdom analyzing the entity of things". Does he mean a correct interpretation of the tenets, or perhaps insight from within meditation? The point he makes about those who just seek to eliminate mental activity is spot on and does indicate that he is referring to meditative wisdom.

So, I think it may come down to how wisdom/knowledge is used as a term. As an ontology gained and refined via logic and debate - requiring acceptance and rejection, or direct insight within meditation. I realise it can mean both in different contexts, just don't see any necessary link between the two.

Astus wrote:
Analysis means conceptual investigation that is based on knowing the teachings. One learns the meaning of selflessness and then looks at one's present experience to confirm the doctrine's validity. Once one knows first hand that indeed there is no self to find anywhere the analysis ends.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 11:12 PM
Title: Re: Establishing a Correct Understanding?
Content:
srivijaya said:
How crucial is it to establish a correct ontology of the two truths within Mahayana Buddhism. Is it a prerequisite for spiritual advancement and enlightenment - and if so, why?

Astus wrote:
In Indian Mahayana we have Madhyamaka and Yogacara. For Madhyamaka understanding the two truths is crucial. For Yogacara you have to comprehend the three natures (trisvabhava). In Chinese Buddhism you can find systems with two, three and four categories of truths. Tibetan Buddhism simply follows Indian Mahayana. And since the two truths go back to the four noble truths and the general path from samsara to nirvana it is very much a basic element of Buddhism.

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


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 9:53 PM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Astus wrote:
Mentioning that this is the Chan section of the forum, since when has Chan come to mean diet?

"In India, the twenty-seven patriarchs only transmitted the imprint of the mind. And the only reason I've come to China is to transmit the instantaneous teaching of the Mahayana: This mind is the buddha. I don't talk about precepts, devotions or ascetic practices such as immersing yourself in water and fire, treading a wheel of knives, eating one meal a day, or never lying down. These are fanatical, provisional teachings."
(Bloodstream Sermon in "The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma", p 41)

The Governor of Hung-chou asked, "Master, should I eat meat and drink wine or should I not?" 
The Master replied, "To eat and drink is your blessing. Not to do it is also a blessing."
(Mazu Daoyi, in "Original Teachings of Chan Buddhism", p 152)

"There are people in every quarter who assert that the ten thousand practices and the six pāramitās constitute the buddhadharma. But I say to you that they are merely means of adornment, expedients for carrying out the buddha’s work; they are not buddhadharma [itself]. Even those who keep the rules regarding food and conduct with the care of a man carrying a bowl of oil so as not to spill a drop, if their dharma-eye is not clear they’ll have to pay their debts, and the day will come when the cost of their food will be exacted from them."
(Record of Linji, tr. Sasaki, p 28)


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 20th, 2015 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Astus wrote:
It is interesting how the usual human obsession with food appears in religious contexts. Chan fitness diet.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Master Hsuan Hua on garlic, onions, etc.
Content:
Astus wrote:
I don't think it's a question of respect. People can say all sorts of things, some clever and some quite stupid. Take what you find sensible and leave the rest. Buddhist tradition has for this practice the terms neyartha and nitartha.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 6th, 2015 at 5:14 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I can fully accept it as apocryphal but the point of the simile is such that understanding what the so-called real story or historical account of what really happened may amount to missing the point. In other words, you might unravel the actual history, but miss the metaphorical point, without which there would be no story to tell.

Astus wrote:
Even the meaning intended within the Zen tradition has different levels. The idea of a wordless transmission is not just pointing to the nature of mind but it is posited in contrast to the verbal transmission that "store of the true Dharma eye" originally meant. It is more a sectarian than a doctrinal statement, that besides all the sutras there is a higher level truth that only those who are members of this special transmission know. Otherwise the whole concept of "truth beyond words" has been there in numerous sutras, nothing special about that.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 6th, 2015 at 5:08 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
plwk said:
The latter? Legions of property, wealth, followers, guarded legacies and generations of heirs & disciples at stake... Is this not obvious to you and the academicians?

Astus wrote:
Sure it is. Actually, recent studies usually cover political and social aspects of various traditions, and how for instance Zen literature developed during the Song and Ming dynasty to cater to the needs of the literati, the people who could donate a lot. That again can give the wrong impression that everything is about money and power, and people are all hypocrites. But that would be the other extreme.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, March 6th, 2015 at 3:36 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Astus wrote:
A story is kept alive as long as people can draw something from it relating to their present situation. There are thousands and thousands of Zen stories, but only a few hundreds are regularly used. Not because of their historical value, because they have zero of that, but because they can be reused again and again. Same goes for the whole lineage idea. It was popular in China because it was actually copied from the imperial system of descendants and fit well with Confucian concepts. Same goes for Christianity actually that copied the Roman system. Since today in Western countries nobility plays almost no role in politics and family bloodlines are mostly irrelevant and even unknown, copying a feudal model is nothing else but romanticism, just like the again popular stories like the Lord of the Rings. But arguing that there was actually a Middle Earth or the planet Coruscant cannot be taken seriously, even if some claim to be followers of Jediism and such. Ever since the finding of the Dunhuang manuscripts more than a hundred years ago we can actually know that things did not exactly happened as later generations liked to describe. People can still believe that events like the flower sermon did occur, but that only shows their insecurity about the effective functioning of the Dharma.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Dan74 said:
Sure there are inaccuracies and even myths and hagiographies - plenty of grist for the mill of doubt. But what does that all have to do with practice?

Astus wrote:
It has, because as can be seen above in Indrajala's post, Chan can be defined as whatever a Chan teacher says. Without other measurements the only thing that matters is whether the teacher is a member of a lineage or not, and the lineage is held to be valid because it comes from Shakyamuni Buddha. Also, because Chan is often perceived as something ungraspable for ordinary humans and totally mystical, what any seeker can rely on are the credentials provided through the transmission. Even if you look at the various debates that happened during the history of Chan, they are mostly about lineage claims and not anything practical or doctrinal.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 4:05 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm said:
Oh, it is pretty clear what Astus is up to. Next he will start attacking Vajrayāna lineages. Then, once he has satisfied himself that lineage is just a bunch of hokum, he will set himself up as a guru, indiscriminately mixing mahāmudra and Chan teachings.

Say it ain't so, Astus, come on.

Astus wrote:
You caught me. I've already ordered my guru hat from Amazon.

As for mahamudra + Chan, there was John Crook and we still have Ken McLeod. There might be others as well.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 3:24 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Wayfarer said:
I think the Western standard of what constitutes 'truth' is very different from the traditional one.

Astus wrote:
I don't see that the Chinese (or many other ancient civilisations) lacked historical consciousness. There were debates and studies related to the authenticity and historical truth of various texts and claims within the Chinese Buddhist community, similarly to how Tibetans tried to sort out the original from the false scriptures.

Here is a passage from the Blue Cliff Record (p 5):

"According to tradition, Master Chih died in the year 514, while Bodhidharma came to Liang in 520; since there is a seven year discrepancy, why is it said that the two met? This must be a mistake in the tradition. As to what is recorded in tradition, I will not discuss this matter now. All that's important is to understand the gist of the matter."

That is, Yuanwu recognises the error in the records, but it is not a topic he discusses in his commentary.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, March 4th, 2015 at 2:04 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm said:
Sure it is, just read Nubchen Sangye Yeshe if you have any doubts.

Anders said:
Ah come on. You're eelwriggling now. The point is valid - If that is all there is to Chan, it wouldn't have the lifeblood of realisation in its lineage that it has.

Astus wrote:
There are ways to define Chan, no question about that. A common way to do that since the middle Song era (first appearance in the Zuting Shiyuan, 1108) is to quote the four lines attributed to Bodhidharma, although even Eisai (1141-1215) left out the first line (Zen Classics, p 92; Zen Texts, p 144).

There are those who say that buddha-nature includes insentient beings (e.g. Caodong teachers), and those who say it does not (e.g. Hongzhou teachers). There are those who teach scriptural study (e.g. Yongming Yanshou) and those who don't (e.g. Miyun Yuanwu). There are those who emphasise lineage (e.g. Dogen) and those who are not even parts of any (e.g. Jinul). There are those who teach a gradual curriculum (e.g. Hakuin) and those who have nothing like that (e.g. Bankei). Most likely we could find a similar diversity among modern teachers who associate themselves with the Chan school.

The mentioned "lifeblood of realisation" is similarly a problematic matter that can be clear just by considering the amount various Chan teachers complain, ridicule and reject other Chan teachers and lineages. Theoretically all members of the lineage should be equal, but then for instance Dogen should not have left Japan and Zongmi should not have put others on a lower level than himself.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
LastLegend said:
There is a forum here called Chan. Why do you think that is?

Astus wrote:
My point is that it is not easy at all to tell what Chan practice and doctrine actually is. Actually, the word Chan is used in such a general way in Chinese Buddhism that virtually every monastery is a Chan temple and every abbot is a Chan master. Even when there is a monastic ordination people are automatically members of a Chan lineage. But in terms of the doctrine and practice monastics follow there can be great varieties. The most Chan-like practice is kanhua, but that was invented by Dahui Zonggao in the 12th century and not every lineage and teacher subscribes to it. As for some unique Chan doctrine there is not easy to find one that is on the one hand specific to Chan and on the other accepted by at least some majority of Chan teachers. So the question is, who qualifies as a Chan practitioner?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
LastLegend said:
If Chan is nothing more than what you just described there, then there should not be any real Chan practitioners today. How you do explain the surviving Chan today?

Astus wrote:
What practice is it you call Chan? What doctrine?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 at 3:38 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
LastLegend said:
Give a good reason why they had to go through all the troubles to make things up? To protect the tradition? For selfish reason? What is the deal here what we are talking about involved Buddhist monks who held precepts right?

Astus wrote:
The reason: "prestige, patronage, and special privileges"

See also e.g.: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0D0IUv8NeWMC

"The controversies that simmered in the Sung over the status of the Ch'an lineage as a "separate transmission", in short, were more about securing prestige, patronage, and special privileges within the Buddhist order than about practical matters of monkish training or spiritual cultivation. The "separate transmission" slogan was used successfully by proponents of Chan to argue that members of their lineage, having inherited the enlightenment of the Buddha in a direct line of "mind-to-mind transmission," were the monks most qualified for positions of leadership within the existing Buddhist monastic institution. The slogan was not used to promote any particular reforms of that institution, nor was it associated with any schismatic attempt to establish independent Ch'an monasteries that were "sectarian" in the technical sense of splitting off from an ecclesiastical mainstream.
The success of the Ch'an school in the Sung was largely predicated on its bold, quasi-historical claim to represent an elite lineage of patriarchs or "ancestral teachers" (tsu-shuh) within the Buddhist order."
(Griffith Foulk: Sung Controversies Concerning the "Separate Transmission" of Ch'an in "Buddhism in the Sung", p 221)

Also, if we actually want to accept literally the Chan claim of transmission, it is an exclusive statement of the superiority of Chan above everyone else. And per definition every Chan teacher has to be viewed as a living buddha. Then it becomes a bit problematic when there are such controversies in the past and present, like Chan masters wielding political power, supporting war, seducing disciples, mismanaging wealth, etc.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 3:05 PM
Title: Re: Written texts from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Chan Patriarchs
Content:
Malcolm said:
Because after all, McRae is even more authoritative that Bodhidharma.

Astus wrote:
It depends on the topic. Texts attributed to Bodhidharma are good for studying Chan, McRae's works are good for studying Chan history.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, March 2nd, 2015 at 3:03 PM
Title: Re: Written texts from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Chan Patriarchs
Content:
Loren said:
These would be the East Mountain Teachings? Guess one of the twenty-five disciples of Guru Rinpoche, Namkhai Nyingpo, practiced this school.

What modern day tradition places emphasis on these?

Astus wrote:
Yes, the East Mountain school, the earliest era of Chan that later got renamed to Northern School. It has basically gone extinct by the 10th century. Only Sengcan's poem remained in circulation, but that is somewhat later than the others, and it is not exactly a central text either.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 4:37 PM
Title: Re: "Householder Chan"
Content:
Astus wrote:
First of all, I really like your question. It is the most important one for any householder who wants Chan.

As I see it, this idea that one should be free of all attachments is a misleading one. The solution is not in reducing one's life to the bear necessities. The source of suffering is the idea of permanence, substance, meaning, importance, etc. Attachment is wanting things to be in a specific way, and that desire is based on concepts that declare what is true and what is false, what is good and what is bad ultimately. It is this projection of absolute reality that creates the duality between ordinary life and ideal life. Emptiness means that whatever supreme concept we have of ideal life is nothing but a passing thought.

It can be really difficult to know what "kleshas are bodhi" stands for. Either we are attached to something or not, there is no third option. Either we live a pure life or an impure one. But to see that this tainted realm is itself the pure land, that often feels nothing but clever sophism. What should be understood is there is nothing beyond this present reality. All humans can do are eat, shit and sleep. Whether you eat a seven course meal or a single bowl of rice makes little difference. Trouble comes one we want to force an ideal life on our ordinary one. And religious ideals are not much different from secular goals. We can dream about how sitting crossed leg facing the wall the whole day is the ultimate achievement, but that's just another false idea.

This existential unease that can drive us to philosophy and religion is the understanding that life is in general meaningless and without any real basis. The error most people make is that they look for some supreme truth beyond the present realm of experience. But as the Buddha taught, even the highest heavens are impermanent and unreliable. In other words, even the deepest meditative trance and the most wonderful realisation are meaningless and without essence.

As human beings we have bodily senses, we have emotions and we have thoughts. That's our complete realm of experience, our life. Senses, feelings and concepts are all temporary. Whether we enjoy our situation or hate it, does not matter. it will pass anyway. In fact, right in this present moment we cannot hold on to a single experience even for a millisecond. It's all inconceivable.

So, instead of labeling one idea as true and arranging, measuring, judging everything else relative to that, we need to realise that there is always a network of associations without any true centre. Our attention constantly moves from one thing to another, and whatever happens to be in the focus, that becomes our true world, our self, the most important thing ever. Ignorance comes in the moment we explain it to ourselves as the only truth, that is, we build an ideology, a personal story.

Facing everyday events may give us the desire that we want only the good states, the good moments, the good situations. Actually, that's what we and everyone else wants. This cannot be helped. This is life itself. Life without this basic intention to want the good things is an imaginary dead state. Instead what we should see is that nobody else but us label things as good and bad, we are the ones driven by our conditioning to highlight one thing and forget about the rest. That is the work of our conceptual network of associations. It's not good or bad, it's just how we are. We may not like how our nose looks like, but that's just how it is. The moment we want an ideal nose instead of the present one, we fall into a big trap. Because while we can go for surgery. our actual problem lies in this feeling of "not good". Changing the object, reshaping our nose, our mind, whatever, does not change the cause of the problem, that the present experience is labeled as not good. However, the Buddha says that it is never good, it is unsatisfactory, it is suffering. It is never good because we want it to be something else, something ideal, meaningful, substantial, self.

Chan is seeing the nature of mind, that is, the reality of our present experience. What we can easily see is that it is changing no matter what we do. If we want it not to change or change in a specific way - i.e. want the ordinary to be the ideal - we only strengthen this feeling of unease and pain. Practising Chan is the practice of not setting up and following ideologies and personal stories. However, there is no clear recipe but just a general instruction. First one has to clarify the nature of mind, then go on from there and face whatever comes on the basis of that. That is, acting without raising the mind. Then life is just ordinary.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 1:43 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Astus wrote:
Regarding the mentioned criticism of academic studies, please consider

McRae’s Rules of Zen Studies
(Seeing Through Zen, p xix-xx)

1. It’s not true, and therefore it’s more important.
The contents of Zen texts should not be evaluated using a simpleminded criterion of journalistic accuracy, that is, “Did it really happen?” For any event or saying to have occurred would be a trivial reality involving a mere handful of people at one imagined point in time, which would be overwhelmed by the thousands of people over the centuries who were involved in the creation of Zen legends. The mythopoeic creation of Zen literature implies the religious imagination of the Chinese people, a phenomenon of vast scale and deep significance.

2. Lineage assertions are as wrong as they are strong.
Statements of lineage identity and “history” were polemical tools of self-assertion, not critical evaluations of chronological fact according to some modern concept of historical accuracy. To the extent that any lineage assertion is significant, it is also a misrepresentation; lineage assertions that can be shown to be historically accurate are also inevitably inconsequential as statements of religious identity.

3. Precision implies inaccuracy.
Numbers, dates, and other details lend an air of verisimilitude to a story, but the more they accumulate, the more we should recognize them as literary tropes. Especially in Zen studies, greater detail is an artifact of temporal distance, and the vagueness of earlier accounts should be comforting in its integrity. While we should avoid joining a misguided quest for origins, we should also be quick to distinguish between “good data”and ornamental fluff. Even as we ponder the vectors of medieval polemics.

4. Romanticism breeds cynicism.
Storytellers inevitably create heroes and villains, and the depiction of Zen’s early patriarchs and icons cripples our understanding of both the Tang “golden age” and the supposedly stagnant formalism of the Song dynasty. If one side is romanticized, the other must be vilified, and both subjects pass incognito. The collusion between Zen romanticists and the apologists for Confucian triumphalism—which has Song Neo-Confucianism climbing to glory on the back of a defeated Buddhism—is an obstacle to the understanding of both Chan and the Chinese civil tradition. The corollary is this: Cold realism eliminates dismissive misapprehension.


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 27th, 2015 at 1:38 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Astus wrote:
Here are some quotes from John McRae's Seeing Through Zen, a work that gives a general overview of the historical development of the Zen narrative. There are individual studies as well on the various eras from the early beginning up to the 17th century. This early era of Zen, the time of Huineng, has been reviewed quite completely 30 years ago in the works of McRae ( https://books.google.co.in/books?id=BTOsAAAAIAAJ ) and Faure ( https://books.google.co.in/books?id=BTOsAAAAIAAJ ).

On Shenhui and Huineng (p 55):

"Shenhui set up his own lineage hall in imitation of Puji, even as he worked to establish the transmission from Bodhidharma to Huineng (and then implicitly to Shenhui himself) as the sole lineal succession of Chan"

On the historical Huineng (p 68):

"It is probably fair to think of the historical Huineng as a reasonably conventional Chinese monk, whose teachings differed only slightly if at all from those of other members of the Northern school."

On Shenhui's knowledge of Huineng's life (p 67):

"if the matter had been known to Shenhui, who was a master storyteller dedicated to promoting Huineng’s identity as sixth patriarch, he certainly would have included it in his writings. We have good evidence to show that in the late 730s Shenhui was ignorant of most of the details of Huineng’s life."

On the Platform Sutra (p 60):

"The Platform Sutra appeared in about 780, over a century after the events it describes were supposed to have taken place. Many scholars have struggled to identify the contents of some “original” or “core” version of the text that might date back to Huineng himself, but the utter failure of these attempts has only confirmed the late provenance of the text as we have it. Barring some miraculous discovery, we must consider the text as we first discover it, in its Dunhuang version."

On Huairang and his connection to Huineng (p 82-83):

"In the case of Huairang, the little that is known about his biography definitely undermines the historicity of the filiation between him and Huineng. First, Huairang’s epitaph was written in the year 815, some seventy years after his death, at the request of two of Mazu’s disciples, so it can hardly be used to suggest that the connection between Huineng and Huairang was historical rather than legendary. In addition, the paucity of detail concerning Huairang’s biography—he is said to have been a mountain practitioner who did not “open the Dharma” to others— suggests that he was historically insignificant. And, needless to say, nothing like the story introduced above occurs in the epitaph. In fact, the Transmissions of Treasure Grove [Temple] (Baolin zhuan), the Hongzhou school’s important contribution to the “transmission of the lamp” genre of Chan literature, written about 801, describes Huairang’s enlightenment as having been gained under the guidance of the Northern school monk Lao’an. Actually, none of the men traditionally recognized as Huineng’s most important successors—Huairang, Qingyuan, Yongjia Xuanjue, and Nanyang Huizhong—are mentioned in the Dunhuang version of the Platform Sutra."
...
"Ultimately, our main conclusion would be that Mazu had a typically variegated life of religious training, so that even if the interaction between Huairang and Mazu was historical in some sense—and it would be rash to deny this possibility out of hand—this would not be enough to make Mazu Huairang’s successor, let alone a direct secondgeneration successor to Huineng."


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 3:29 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm said:
So now you have moved from a tentative Huineng maybe existed to a full on "Huineng was invented."

Astus wrote:
On Huineng there is this work: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zTCoXPEXWNwC. As I have said before, in the earliest sources there is only the name and nothing else. It was Shenhui who created the story of Huineng first and then it was further developed by later generations.

Malcolm said:
Then why do you say "However, it is clear that the lineage connections are later creations." Why is that clear, because you did not find another ancient book in which to confirm this? It seems to me that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on an astonishing lack of evidence for them.

Astus wrote:
There is evidence enough to tell that Shenxiu - later labelled as the founder of the Northern School - was the first Chan teacher to gain fame and he was recognised in the imperial records as well. Then Shenhui launched an attack on the disciples of Shenxiu by fabricating the transmission story of the robe to Huineng. Then other factions came up with their own versions of how the transmission happened, as shown in for instance Adamek's https://books.google.co.in/books?id=dKgl-jPvHiUC.

Malcolm said:
On the other hand, there is a clear narrative, and clear history. Just accept it and move on. That helps the tradition of Zen. The opposite undermines it. Is that what you want?

Astus wrote:
Yes, there is a story of transmission developed over a thousand years and debated by numerous factions. There is hardly any clear narrative unless we believe in a single account of our chosen lineage, in other words, we stick to a sectarian bias and accept whatever that group wants us to believe. How can that be called living up to the ideal of realising the nature of mind?


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 11:17 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm said:
Huh? You are proposing a speculation,"...instead they probably made up two fake disciples to connect Huineng with later generations" as a fact, "...there is no lineage from him."

Astus wrote:
Let's start with how Huineng was invented by Shenhui only to connect him to Hongren and establish a lineage separate from those of the so called Northern School, i.e. the disciples of Shenxiu. The earliest version of the Platform Sutra, written after the death of Shenhui, does not even mention Nanyue Huairang, who was later mentioned as the teacher of Mazu Daoyi in order to connect Mazu to Huineng. So, I could say that not only the name of Nanyue was added to the lineage of Huineng, but Huineng himself was added to the lineage of Hongren, both by people who wanted to establish their own authority. This is not to say that there might not have been people with names like that, however, it is clear that the lineage connections are later creations. That is, Huineng was not an outstanding disciple of Hongren and all we know about him from fairly contemporary sources is his name, and Nanyue was not a disciple of Huineng and besides his name we know nothing about from the earliest sources - and that source is actually the stele of Mazu.

So, yes, we can only speculate if they existed at all or not. What we can know is that the stories and their places in the lineage are creations of later generations, and such lineages were made up in order to claim authority.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 10:36 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm said:
You conflate two things here: the Platform Sutra and the Sixth Patriarch.
Did Hui-Neng live? Yes? No?
It does not matter if all the details in the book about Hui-nengs life are "correct."

Astus wrote:
Yes, based on the available texts there was such a person, although there is nothing else known about him besides his name. Heze Shenhui was the first to claim that Huineng was the true heir of Hongren and not Shenxiu. However, no later lineages derive themselves from Shenhui - who might have been a disciple of Huineng - instead they probably made up two fake disciples to connect Huineng with later generations. So, even if Huineng might have existed, there is no lineage from him. On the other hand, it was the Platform Sutra that propagated Huineng as the true heir and made him the one true Sixth Patriarch.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 at 3:54 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm said:
buddhology is forensics, lineage and tradition are living and breathing.

Astus wrote:
Tradition is the idea that certain patterns of thinking and activity are inherited through time without change. Historical research includes investigating such claims, looking into the origin and development of traditions. For instance, through findings in the 20th century it has become obvious that the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch is a later creation and not an account of actual events and teachings. Since all living Zen lineages originate from the Sixth Patriarch, and lineage is the single basis of authority in Zen, it is not at all irrelevant whether the tradition has a historical validity or not, exactly because lineage is a powerful argument only as long as it can be perceived as true.


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 3:22 PM
Title: Re: The Very Idea of Buddhist History
Content:
Malcolm said:
Anyway, the point is that no amount of study of Buddhist "history" will get you any closer to the Dharma.

Astus wrote:
At the same time Buddhist schools are happy to establish their authority on historical claims and they regularly transmit stories about events supposedly happened in the past. The very idea of lineage is a claim for historical origins. If it is irrelevant to understanding the Dharma, why not leave all those out?


Author: Astus
Date: Tuesday, February 24th, 2015 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Non duality for teenagers
Content:
Astus wrote:
Millions and millions of children have been taught magnificent and profound ideas before in practically every human society. But I have yet to see if it made any difference in people's day to day lives or on a historical scale. And this concept that kids should learn about non-duality or anything like that is not different from sending them to ecclesiastic schools. I wonder how many members here believe that religious education produces better humans.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
DesertDweller said:
The "totalitarianism" I was referring to in the passage above had more to do with the author's strident rhetoric and intolerance for other methods or even layers of meaning in Shin doctrine. To put it in a slightly more direct way, if this is what the Shin school really represents, I fail to see how it can serve as a saving means for any but the most literalistic fundamentalists--and this,  again, seems contrary to my understanding of the spirit of Pure Land, which is mercy and compassion for ALL types of people, saints, sinners, fools and metaphysicians alike.

Astus wrote:
Any and every teaching says that it is the best of all. Otherwise why even bother with that path? The reason this approach may sound bad to some is that they associate it with religious intolerance and violence. Individualist relativism is a fairly modern thing and it either means a lack a faith in anything or more often the disguised rejection of everyone else who do not agree with whatever idea one has and at the same time calling them intolerant thus blocking all meaningful discourse.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 12:28 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
DesertDweller said:
is this attitude really characteristic--or "required"--for Shin Buddhism, or is it merely a polemical distortion?

Astus wrote:
A topic from 2010 related to your question: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=1084


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 14th, 2015 at 12:24 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
plwk said:
Hence, I tend to be much more attracted to the Chinese approach to Chan and Pure Land.
I totally forgot to recommend you this fabulous work as found https://www.google.com.my/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de%2Findex.php%2Fjiabs%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F8711%2F2618&ei=shfeVPjHAoeGuATstYDYAQ&usg=AFQjCNE8u6QXkTJkMDuTCiNdCbFKaARrBA&sig2=ZYZx4mAWtQLeDAPJ-kj6aA. A bit on the author's profile http://www.peterlang.com/download/datasheet/42913/datasheet_61681.pdf and one review https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/2528. What I have failed to present in this thread, this work does it by leaps and bounds. Take your time to digest it...

Astus wrote:
More on Yongming Yanshou:

Online:

http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Yongming3.pdf
https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/16409/1/Keenan%20Cox%20MA%20Thesis%20Final.pdf
http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Yongming1.pdf
http://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Yongming2.pdf

Books:

https://books.google.hu/books?id=2Kc-zsuweBoC
https://books.google.hu/books?id=ZBzlqhA7m1QC


Author: Astus
Date: Friday, February 13th, 2015 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
plwk,

"the name of Amitābha Buddha is recited slowly, and the mind is emptied out after each repetition. When idle thoughts arise, the phrase is repeated again to clear them. With constant practice, the mind is able to remain peacefully in emptiness, culminating in the attainment of samādhi."

That kind of dual practice is not that emptiness is achieved during recitation, but it uses recitation to assist in cutting off thoughts and arrives at the total cessation of recitation. There was a Chan school similar to that in the Tang era.
From the Chan Notes by Guifeng Zongmi (in Zongmi on Chan, p 186, 187):

"South Mountain Buddha-Recitation Gate's practice is "maintaining the buddha-recitation consisting of the one syllable for 'buddha.''' This is a musical buddha-recitation in which the practitioners sing the single syllable for "buddha" in a gradually lowering pitch, until their voices die out. Eventually they reach no thought.
...
At the beginning they chant this buddha-recitation as a gentle [or slow] song.Later they gradually lower the sound to a finer and finer sound, up to and including no sound. They are dispatching the "{hut" to [the seventh consciousness,] the manas,but in the manas the buddha-recitation is still coarse. They go on to dispatch [the "fhut"] to [the eighth consciousness,] the citta [that is, the storehouse consciousness], maintaining thought recitation after recitation. They have the "{hut" constantly inside the citta, up to and including the nothought concentration. [By such a practice] how could they not attain the path?"

"every Buddhist practice comes with a contemplation on śūnyatā ultimately"

The argument I proposed was that within recitation there is no contemplation of emptiness. But even within visualisation and other common practices used in one's devotion to Amitabha there is no emptiness contemplation. Still, the original question is whether with recitation one can attain liberation in this life, and that is to what I have said no, with the condition that it is only recitation practice. But if you have a source where there actually is contemplation of no-self within recitation, please quote that.

"From the Anguttara-Nikaya: Ekanipata: Ekadhammapali: Pañhamavagga
Bhikkhus, if you develop and make much this one thing,
it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.
What is it? It is recollecting the Enlightened One.
If this single thing is recollected and made much,
it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction."

From Bhikkhu Bodhi's note to that section where he quotes the commentary (Numerical Discourses, p 1614, n161):

"But one can also use this meditation subject directly for the purpose of developing insight. After recollecting the Buddha , one dissects the act of recollection into the five aggregates and defines them thus: 'These five aggregates are, in brief, the truth of suffering. The craving  that produced them is the truth of the origin. The cessation of craving is the truth of cessation; and the practice that understands cessation is the truth of the path' Thus one has defined the four truths in the preliminary portion [the stage of insight] and one step by step reaches the stage of the noble ones."

As it can be seen from the above, it is not the recollection in and of itself that leads to insight. The sutta itself only gives a general point regarding how the six forms of recollection can boost one's practice ("The first six recollections — of the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, virtue, generosity, and the devas — are meant to induce a sense of joy and confidence (pasada) in the practice. The first two induce a sense of confidence in the practice itself;" from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recollections.html ).


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 9:08 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

"Vasubandhu clearly states that the visions of the Pure Land (and it's adornments, which are clearly linked to mental qualities) that arise are Vipassana (觀), that's even in the name of the Visualization Sutra."

What http://www.euroshinshu.org/www12.canvas.ne.jp/horai/jodoron.htm means by insight "is to contemplate wholeheartedly those glorious adornments and so practice vipashyana; by this one can reach that Land, where one will enjoy various flavors of the Dharma." and "The contemplation is of three kinds: (1) contemplation of the glorious manifestations of the merit of the Buddha-land; (2) contemplation of the glorious merit of Amida Buddha; (3) contemplation of the glorious merit of various Bodhisattvas."

What I have written http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=270911#p270911: "the difference between calming and insight practice, is that contemplation of the nature of phenomena, of dependent origination, of emptiness, is not included in reciting the name, or even in visualisation." still holds for what is contained in the Jodoron.

"So what do you mean there's no Emptiness in Pure Land?"

I mean that reciting the name, visualisation or the other commonly used practices do not include contemplation on the absence of self. Impermanence and suffering is considered to the point where one can renounce samsaric existence as undesirable, but the solution to that is birth in the Pure Land instead of removing the obscurations. Otherwise there would be no need to attain birth.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 8:46 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Last Legend,

"I want to discuss how Chan works exactly if one is doing the gradual practice because it is still within the conceptual framework."

Chan is sudden enlightenment. Following a gradual path is common Mahayana. If you want to clarify the gradual process, the best sources in English are from the Tibetan tradition (e.g. http://www.dharma-friends.org.il/libitem/the-middling-stages-of-meditation-by-acharya-kamalashila/ and http://kagyumonlam.org/Download/TEXT/Lamp%20For%20the%20Path%20to%20Enlightenment/English%20Root%20Text%20BodhipathapradIpa.pdf ), or you can try to go through such works as Zhiyi's http://www.kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/ebm_book_page.htm and the http://www.kalavinka.org/kp_book_pages/sgs_book_page.htm.

In short, the basis of ignorance is conceptual attachment, that is, believing in essentially existing things and beings, from that comes emotional attachments and from that all sorts of deluded actions. One can go gradually by first restricting one's actions with the precepts, calming emotional states with meditation and eliminating false ideas through insight. Or one can go directly to the root cause of clinging to thoughts and see that there is nothing to grasp. The result is the same.

All learning is necessarily conceptual as our primary communicational form is through words. But just as one can understand through instructions how to ride a bike or set the air conditioner, similarly one can understand the teachings and confirm it in one's experience. For instance, it is taught that within the five aggregates there is no self, nor is there an self beyond nor between the two. So one has to learn what the five aggregates are, what a self is, and then search for that hypothetical self within the aggregates. Once it is definitely confirmed that no such self can be found, the belief in a self is refuted and dissolved.

"If during recitation, one is be able to hear one's own recitation, that's hearing without distortion. That's practicing Zen because hearing without distortion is Zen."

That is concentration and calming. Zen is no-thought, where although everything appears but there is no attachment. A peaceful mind induced by focusing on a single object is temporary and conditioned. If the basis of attachment is removed and there is no delusion, then attachment cannot happen in any situation.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 4:50 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

"Now your entire straw man rests on this fictional idea that there is a Buddha Recitation that does not involve thinking of that Buddha and the associated narrative."

If by that you mean one recites the name with the intention to attain birth based on the faith in the vow, I have not questioned that. What I said is that during a single-minded recitation one does not think about anything else but the name, otherwise it is not a single-minded but a distracted recitation. But the main point, that is, the difference between calming and insight practice, is that contemplation of the nature of phenomena, of dependent origination, of emptiness, is not included in reciting the name, or even in visualisation. The topic of no-self is not one of the common Pure Land narrative, but I don't see you would argue for that either. Naturally, all Pure Land schools teach buddha-remembrance within a specific context, that's what makes them Pure Land schools. Vajrayana can explain buddha-remembrance in a quite different fashion, just as it happens in other sects. Although all may recite the name, they do it with a different perspective. But that has not been questioned by me at all. It is still and only the lack of contemplating the nature of reality that I have brought up as the reason why recitation in and of itself may not bring about enlightenment in this life. To repeat, I do not question the validity and functionality of buddha-remembrance as effective in getting one to the Pure Land. It is just its relation to enlightenment in this life that would require insight into the nature of reality that I have talked about before and now.

"You've made the claim that Recitation falls under the first with absolutely NO PROOF"

Yes, my claim is that recitation is calming without insight. Should I prove the lack of contemplating emptiness in recitation how? If you have a specific work where a Pure Land teacher actually describes how emptiness is to be meditated upon within the frame of recitation then right there you can disprove my claim. Note that I have already mentioned how recitation can be connected with what is called real-mark buddha-remembrance and investigating who the reciter is.

"you made the claim that there is nothing inherently Buddhist about the Pure Land path"

I presume what you refer to is the part where I say that calming practice is common to both Buddhist and non-Buddhist schools. It is not about what the Pure Land path is or is not.


Author: Astus
Date: Thursday, February 12th, 2015 at 1:48 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

The question asked from Bodhidharma is about the point of contemplating mind (觀心) if one can attain liberation through buddha-remembrance (念佛). The entire Breakthrough Sermon is about this single practice of contemplating the mind and throughout the text it is explain how it is enough in itself, how it includes and at the same time surpasses all other practices. What Bodhidharma does with the term buddha-remembrance is simply turning it into the practice of contemplating the mind, just as it is explained for other common terms like the six paramitas, six realms, meritorious actions, three immeasurable aeons, etc. Contemplating the mind itself is the same as seeing nature, the enlightenment of the buddha-mind, the realisation of emptiness.

So, buddha-remembrance is explained in a way that buddha stands for being conscious (覺察) of body and mind and thus not raising any evil (惡), while remembrance is keeping in mind (憶持) and not forgetting (不忘) to observe the precepts. This is related to what is written at the beginning of the text that there are the pure and the impure minds, one is occupied with good (善) and the other with evil (惡). In other words, good is buddha-mind, evil is samsara. That way buddha-remembrance is keeping the buddha-mind. When it says that remembering (念) lies in the mind (心) and not in words (言) he emphasises contemplating mind. And that in order to recall the name (念佛之名) one already has to know the recalling of the way (念佛之道), what is meant is not that one should recite with understanding but that one should have realisation in order to properly remember the buddha. That is because unless the three poisons are removed one cannot see the buddha. He differentiates recitation (誦) and recalling (念), that one is a verbal while the other is a mental act. That is again strengthened by the statement that all the enlightened beings of the past (過去諸聖) practised exclusively mentally (唯只推心) and never verbally (皆非外說), as that would have been grasping at external phenomena.

"Now your entire straw man rests on this fictional idea that there is a Buddha Recitation that does not involve thinking of that Buddha and the associated narrative."

No. It rests in the difference between calming and insight practice.

On the Fukeshu I recommend this essay: https://web.archive.org/web/20130408103143/http://www.japanese-religions.jp/publications/assets/JR32_a_Deeg.pdf

(I will continue my response later)


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 11:37 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
The only question then is whether within the practice of recitation the teachings on non-birth are included or not.

Dan74 said:
Could you spell this out for me, please?

Astus wrote:
It is by realising non-birth, i.e. emptiness, that one gains liberation. Normally such attainment is through insight meditation where one contemplates the lack of self in both people and dharmas. If someone only recites the name then it can produce concentration and calm, but somehow one also needs to learn about dependent origination, etc. in order to be able to think about them and investigate their validity in one's present experience.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 11:14 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
plwk,

"And how convenient in forgetting that when deliberating on your pet topic of how niàn fó is done the Chán way, the opposite on Pure Land within the dynamics of a dual practice is neglected and even when mentioned, it's oft made to look inferior or subservient to the former, when it should not be the case."

Dual practice either means that one does both nianfo and canchan in separate sessions, or they are practised together either in the form of real-mark buddha-remembrance. or applying phrase investigation and raising the great doubt. Done in separate sessions is fairly universal, as most monastic rituals include name and sutra recitation of Amitabha. Practising with "Who recites?" is the most common form in Chinese Buddhism, while awareness of the real-mark seems rare. If the practice is with the question, then it is no different from kanhuachan. If it is with the real-mark, it is abiding in buddha-mind and no different from wunian. In both cases recitation serves only as the basis upon what is built further practice, thus we arrive at the usual calming and insight formula.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 9:29 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Dan74 said:
In Pali canon alone there are many examples of people who were liberated after very brief teachings, Astus. You must surely remember them? Bahiya comes to mind, then there is the lovely sutta quoted above, etc etc

Astus wrote:
Sure, they did not follow any meditation practices or pursued studies but realised directly from the Buddha's utterance. Usually those were teachings asked as summaries of his Dharma, similarly to what were later called direct instructions and upadeshas. I don't think I have denied that option anywhere.

Dan74 said:
But in other faiths, wrong view might be the obstacle on the way to liberation, whereas Pure Land practitioners are not encumbered by wrong views.
Whether prajnaparamita or any other aspect of the Dharma, they are all pointers, as we know, not the 'thing' itself. So they are not something one needs to 'possess' as a prerequisite. The dharma doors are many!

Astus wrote:
Wrong views are what we all have from birth, an even from before that. That's why one needs the teachings. The only question then is whether within the practice of recitation the teachings on non-birth are included or not.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 9:21 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

There seems to be some gap between what I say and comes through.

"Chanting and invoking are worlds apart, Chanting is done with the mouth. Invoking is done with the mind."

If this refutes what I say then that is not what I say. The question was whether recitation of the name can bring about enlightenment in this life. Recitation is what is called chanting in the Bodhidharma quote. Buddha means "awareness of body and mind that prevents evil from arising in either" and invoking it means "to call constantly to mind the rules of discipline and to follow them with all your might" and "As long as you’re troubled by the three poisons or by thoughts of yourself, your deluded mind will keep you from seeing the Buddha and you’ll only waste your effort." That is a description of the Holy Path, of realising the buddha-mind. Contrary to that, the oral recitation - that is called the easy path what has been emphasised by numerous Pure Land teachers as the essential method - is the chanting.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 7:46 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
LastLegend said:
You are right recitation is not practicing prajnaparamita directly. It's practicing One Appearance Samadhi which will lead to prajnaparamita.

Astus wrote:
One Act Samadhi is explained in the sutra that has the prerequisite of learning and understanding prajnaparamita teachings. Without that, it is just a devotional practice of recalling a buddha and his virtues.

LastLegend said:
If by wisdom you mean conceptual knowledge of emptiness, then I disagree. If wisdom is defined as understanding itself that is leading to liberation, then conceptual knowledge of emptiness is not wisdom. However, knowledge of emptiness can lead to wisdom. If one has to come back to the conceptual knowledge of emptiness from time to time to remind oneself of non-attachment, then how is that different from the practice of coming back to reciting Buddha. That's still playing with antidote. Liberation is defined by Bodhidharma Wake-Up Sermon as:

To see form but not be corrupted by form or to hear sound but not to be corrupted by sound is liberation. Eyes that aren’t attached to form are the gates of Zen. In short, those who perceive the existence and nature of phenomena and remain unattached are liberated. Those who perceive the external appearance of phenomena are at their mercy. Not to be subject to afflictions is what’s meant by liberation. There’s no other liberation. When you know how to look at form, form doesn’t give rise to mind and mind doesn’t give rise to form. Form and mind are both pure.

Astus wrote:
First one needs to hear about the teachings, then understand it, then it can be confirmed in one's experience. Without the first two steps there cannot be the third one.

Afflictions arise from the misconception that there is a substance. Such misconception is eliminated by learning, understanding and confirmation. If one only holds a single object in mind to block the occurrence of afflictions, that can be a temporary state, but once one has to engage in daily activities one reverts to the afflicted mind. In other words, even gods of the highest (dhyana) heavens eventually fall to lower realms. That's why the Chan practice is being aware of everything without attachment, and not being aware of a single thing, attached to that one thing, and barring everything else.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 7:17 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Dan74 said:
Basically I can very easily see a strong Pure Land practice leading to insight in the presence of the right karmic disposition. So at the end of the day, there is just a question of what works better and this will surely depend on many factors, chief of which probably being one's karmic disposition.

Astus wrote:
Where lies the difference between practitioners of other faiths who focus on a single object and attain various levels of absorptions and Buddhist meditators doing the same? Probably none, and they can both attain birth in specific heavens related to their achievements. Theoretically both types of practitioners could attain insight, however, it is generally believed that only through learning of the Buddha's teachings can one engage in correct contemplation and gain insight into no-self and emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 7:08 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
PorkChop said:
This interpretation is a straw man.
No Pure Land school anywhere would recognize this as a valid interpretation of Buddha Name Recitation.
Yet you won't let this straw man go no matter how many times it gets burned down.
Hence no more point in debating.

Astus wrote:
Let me start with some quotes regarding that straw man first. This is to show the general Chan approach to buddha-remembrance. After all, the topic here is Chan and Pure Land.

"Don’t use a Buddha to worship a Buddha. And don’t use the mind to invoke a Buddha. Buddhas don’t recite sutras. ...  If you don’t see your nature, invoking Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are all useless. Invoking Buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good memory; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth, and making offerings results in future blessings-but no buddha. ... All day long they invoke Buddhas and read sutras. But they remain blind to their own divine nature, and they don’t escape the Wheel."
(Bodhidharma: http://www.fodian.net/world/dmhml-e.html )

"The sutras say that someone who wholeheartedly invokes the Buddha is sure to be reborn in the Western Paradise. Since is door leads to Buddhahood, why seek liberation in beholding the mind?
If you’re going to invoke the Buddha, you have to do it right. Unless you understand what invoking means, you’ll do it wrong. And if you do it wrong, you’ll never go anywhere. Buddha means awareness, the awareness of body and mind that prevents evil from arising in either. And to invoke means to call to mind, to call constantly to mind the rules of discipline and to follow them with all your might. This is what’s meant by invoking. Invoking has to do with thought and not with language. If you use a trap to catch fish, once you succeed you can forget the trap. And if you use language to find meaning, once you find it you can forget language. To invoke the Buddha’s name you have to understand the Dharma of invoking. If it’s not present in your mind, your mouth chants an empty name. As long as you’re troubled by the three poisons or by thoughts of yourself, your deluded mind will keep you from seeing the Buddha and you’ll only waste your effort. Chanting and invoking are worlds apart, Chanting is done with the mouth. Invoking is done with the mind. And because invoking comes from the mind, it’s called the door to awareness. Chanting is centered in the mouth and appears as sound."
(Bodhidharma: http://www.fodian.net/world/dmpsl-e.html )

"The deluded person recites the Buddha’s [name] and seeks for rebirth in that other [location], while the enlightened person purifies his mind. Therefore the Buddha said, ‘As the mind is purified, so is the buddha land purified. ... If you recite the Buddha’s [name] and seek rebirth [in the Pure Land] without being enlightened, how will you ever be able to travel such a long road?"
(Huineng: Platform Sutra, ch 3, p 38, 39, BDK edition)

"To strive for the Way of Awakening by moving the mouth thousands or tens of thousands of times is like steering a cart north but intending to go south. It is like putting a square peg in a round hole. Looking over words and phrases but not practising is as worthless as reading a prescription but forgetting to take the medication. Ceaslessly repeating the Buddha’s Name is as worthless as a frog in a spring field, croaking day and night."
(Dogen: http://wwzc.org/sites/default/files/Bendowa-book.pdf )

"Is it not the innate self-nature with which you yourself are endowed, standing bright and clear before your eyes? If you have not seen into your own nature it will not be easy for you to see this land. Yet nowadays those who practice the Pure Land teaching recite the name daily a thousand times, ten thousand times, a million times, but not one of them has determined the Great Matter of salvation. Don't they realize that Amida Buddha refused to accept true enlightenment? Still more, don't they realize that one instant of thought is this very Paradise of Salvation?"
...
"But if you are looking for something that will help you attain continuous uninterrupted true meditation and insight into your own nature, then calling the Buddha's name is fine, but you could as well recite the grain-grinding song instead. Do not think you are going to become a Buddha by deliberately discarding the essentials of seeing into your own nature and turning instead to the virtues gained from calling the Buddha's name."
(Hakuin: Orategama Zokushu in "The Zen Master Hakuin: selected Writings" tr P. Yampolsky, p 127, 133)

From the above it is quite clear that the common Chan view of buddha-remembrance is that at best it can be used as an object of focus to generate concentration. At least that's what Hakuin came up with, who otherwise criticised those who mix Chan with Pure Land, like the famous Zhuhong Yunqi. Others just emphasise that one should first and foremost should see the nature of mind or else all practices are just mundane activities. Here is the same sentiment by Xuyun:

"Reciters of the Buddha's name should never cling to that name for it can become as harmful as poison. We now recite the Buddha's name because our habits are deeply rooted from time without beginning and our thoughts cannot be easily stopped. So we use his name as a prop in our striving to wipe out all rising thoughts until they eventually vanish completely and give way to the Pure Land which will then manifest itself. So why should we seek it from outside?"
( http://hsuyun.budismo.net/en/dharma/two_discourses1.html )

As I see it, this kind of Chan approach to buddha-remembrance is contrary to the whole concept of the Pure Land path that aims for birth through the vow of Amitabha. That is why in this thread from the beginning I have been against confusing the two. And if one were to use recitation for training the mind in concentration and cutting off conceptual proliferation, that is neither Chan (seeing nature) nor Pure Land (attaining birth).


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
DesertDweller said:
Astus, I think you are simply not acknowledging the numerous statements regarding the dynamic power of the nembutsu itself that have been posted from page 1 of this thread. And you are sticking to a single valid but limited view of Pure Land as a "devotional religion."

Astus wrote:
I have replied to various statements raised here and gave my reasons. Reciting the name is just reciting the name, repeating the same words over and over. The difference between various kinds of recitations is the ideology associated with it but not the act - and I do not mean that theory does not matter, in fact, that is what really matters. Using a single object as the focal point of concentration is the basic form of calming practice. While calming the mind is required for gaining insight, in and of itself it is not enough. That is why meditation is described in Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana within the categories of calming and insight, both are necessary for liberation. The Pure Land path includes various methods aimed for birth in the Pure Land. It is part of the Mahayana branch of the religion called Buddhism. It is devotional in the sense that its practitioners devote themselves toward a single buddha's land mostly through devotional practices for a single buddha.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

"On the other hand, the idea of giving up the entire idea of Self Power in order to receive Other Power is part of the method."

As I see it, there are various ways to approach attaining birth in Sukhavati. All methods there are within the context of that goal, therefore, attainments in this life can go from none to the highest bodhisattva stage. However, recitation itself is one of the possible methods, and it is at best a type of calming meditation. Buddha-remembrance can mean other things as well, including realisation of buddha-mind. But when it is in the realm of reciting a buddha's name, contemplating a buddha's virtues and attributes and visualising him, then generally it may not even fall within the category of meditation but it is a form of motivational practice. Part of that motivation is thinking how blessed one becomes just from thinking about a buddha.

Saying that one should rely on other power instead of one's own practically means that birth in the Pure Land is not because of one's achievements but because of Amitabha's vows. The level of effort required from an aspirant is regularly remembering him, because that is how one conditions the mind. Deep faith itself is simply that, changing one's way of thinking. Through remembering Amitabha there is a reconditioning of the mind and one's direction is changed from samsara to the Pure Land. Technically it is not much different from non-Buddhist devotional religions where people want to be born in a heaven or some other state. The important difference is that being born in the Pure Land is for eventually attaining buddhahood. Because of taking the Pure Land as one's goal and Amitabha as the ideal form of existence there can be many beneficial changes in this life as well, no doubt.

It can even happen that one attains the stage of a noble being, an enlightened one, from insight into emptiness during one's path to Sukhavati. However, the recitation method as it is does not include that function. And that has been my only argument here from the beginning.

"It's not equal to Enlightenment, just a signpost to mark that one is forming a strong karmic relation with Amida and considered a necessary step for the other realizations explained by the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, which culminate with Enlightenment. I imagine it's kind of like a kensho for the Self Power schools."

Although it sounds good an fascinating to experience such visions, and can be relevant for certain individuals, I'm of the opinion that hearing about Amitabha and believing is proof enough of one's connection. If someone started to question why there has been no visions and such it could lead to losing faith, or at least to some bad feelings and anxiety over the uncertainty of birth.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 1:00 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
LastLegend,

"Great faith is as just powerful as wisdom. ... recitation is the practice of prajnaparamita"

The two problems I see with that:

If faith equals wisdom, it is enough to believe in liberation to be liberated, and all those who believe in buddha are in fact buddhas.
If recitation is practising prajnaparamita then there is no point in translating it or studying it, we can all just read the words in Sanskrit.


Author: Astus
Date: Wednesday, February 11th, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

"Now you want me to bend Honen's teachings to say something they never intended to, the idea that Enlightenment is capable through one's own efforts in this lifetime?"

Not at all. Honen and his followers explicitly say that enlightenment happens only in the Pure Land. That is the whole point of the entire Pure Land teaching, that one aspires for birth because that's where one can gain liberation and not in this life. So it is strange to me how you seem to defend the idea that the Pure Land path includes insight into emptiness now.

"most likely an image will arise"

That sounds like a measurement to me, or a promise that eventually one will get a vision. But while there are stories about Honen attaining it, I have not encountered any statement by Honen that would hint at such an experience for nenbutsu followers. Also, if the meaning of the recitation samadhi is equalled to becoming an enlightened being, then again it seems to go against the whole difference made between the Holy and the Pure Land path.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 8:21 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
LastLegend said:
There are two types of merit. One is with limit ( in anticipation of rewards or holding rewards) and one without limit. One without limit is Buddha.

Mañjuśrī asked the Buddha, “World-Honored One, what actions can one take to attain anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi quickly?”
The Buddha replied, “Mañjuśrī, those who practice prajñā-pāramitā as explained will quickly attain anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi. Furthermore, there is the Samādhi of the One Action. If good men and good women train in this samādhi, they will also quickly attain anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi.”

Pay attention to the bolded word.

Astus wrote:
Limitless merit is when one knows and sees that it is empty. And that is wisdom. Without wisdom, it is limited merit.

All it says that those who practice the One Action Samadhi will also quickly attain perfect enlightenment. It does not specify what such a samadhi involves. And as it says later, it involves learning and understanding prajnaparamita. The difference is that while some can manage just with learning prajnaparamita, others require some further practice, or even gaining birth in the Pure Land.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 8:12 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

My questions are the following then:

1. Honen writes in his famous http://www.jodo.org/teachings/teachings02.html: "In China and Japan, many Buddhist masters and scholars understand that the nembutsu is to meditate deeply on Amida Buddha and the Pure Land. However, I do not understand the nembutsu in this way. ... they should not put on any airs and should sincerely practice the nembutsu, just as an illiterate fool, a nun or one who is ignorant of Buddhism"

That is, simply reciting the name leads to birth in the Pure Land. It is not a visualisation or contemplation but an oral repetition of Namu Amida Butsu. One does not even have to have a focused mind for it to be effective. In fact, Honen considered most incapable of doing the simplest of meditation practices:

"Let devotees of the present day give up their so-called meditations as if they were required by the Law. Even though a man would meditate upon the images of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in Paradise, the fact is he is incapable of picturing to himself the Buddhas as represented in the images made by such famous sculptors as Unkei and Kokei. Even though he tries to meditate upon the things which beautify the Land of Bliss, he finds it hard even to picture to his mind the beauties of the flowers and fruit of the cherry, plum, and peach of this world with which he is so familiar."
(Fitzgerald: Honen the Buddhist Saint, p 33)

And on the Pure Land methods themselves he says:

"But if we inquire into the essential nature of these various disciplines, we find that the number of the meditative reaches thirteen, and of the nonmeditative nine, and they are all difficult to practice. Anyone who would enter the gate of the meditative will find that his mind races about like a horse among the six objects of sensation, and when he wants to get near to the gate of the non-meditative, he is like a monkey that sports on the branches of the tree of the ten evils. Try as he will to quiet his mind and subdue his heart, he finds himself unable to do so."
(p 72)

Since it is considered difficult to do anything but the simplest form of recitation, how could then one perform the type of buddha-remembrance you talk about?

2. There is a difference between the Holy Path and the Pure Land Path where only the Holy Path includes liberation in this life.

"By the Holy Path is meant the way a man even in this corrupt world can get free from his evil passions, and attain enlightenment, while by the gate of the Pure Land is meant the way to secure this by being born into the Land of Bliss at death."
(p 71)

If recitation itself brings about enlightenment in this life, is it not the Holy Path?


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 7:50 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
LastLegend said:
They are two different things. First one is study prajnaparamita and train. The other is Buddha recitation

Astus wrote:
They are not separated.

"Mañjuśrī asked, “World-Honored One, what is called the One Action Samādhi?”
The Buddha replied, “The dharma realm has the one appearance. Focusing one’s mind on the dharma realm is called the One Action Samādhi. If, among good men and good women, there are those who aspire to enter the One Action Samādhi, they should first hear prajñā-pāramitā and next train and learn it accordingly. Then they will be able to enter the One Action Samādhi"

LastLegend said:
Merit from reciting Buddha is immeasurable and boundless.

Astus wrote:
Merit is still within samsara. One needs wisdom to go beyond ordinary merit accumulation.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 7:44 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
duckfiasco said:
one does not realize non-birth; that is the Holy Gate, beyond my personal limitations. One is grasped by Amida and birth in the Pure Land is a matter of course

Astus wrote:
And that's then primary topic here. How Chan and Pure Land can be put together, how one can attain enlightenment in this life through recitation of the name. And, as you say, such an approach belongs to the Holy Gate.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 7:36 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

"This is a description in Pure Land terms of the result of Nembutsu/Nianfo as a direct experience of emptiness. ... The practice starts with subject "I" thinking of object "Buddha".
Eventually, subject falls off (no more I, me, mine), object falls off (no more external object Buddha), all that's left is the name."

That is not an experience of emptiness, it is the result/level of concentration practice, at best the fourth dhyana.
Inka means that one person thinks the other person has a correct view of the Dharma. It is far from a general approval as a Zen teacher can dismiss entire Zen lineages as false, or schools can call each other deficient.

"To be clear, I'm not arguing some complex compendium of all of the teachings with each recitation, just the basic narrative that all Pure Land teachers cover. "

There is a difference between the reason one recites the nenbutsu and what happens during recitation itself. If the reason, the motivation is birth in Sukhavati, that is the definitive PL attitude. But during recitation itself one does not have to remind oneself about the PL doctrines.

"By the final stage, one is Awakened to the true nature of mind."

And the original point was that recitation itself does not include insight. The practice described in the Pratyutpanna Sutra goes well beyond oral buddha-remembrance, thus it is not a text often quoted by PL teachers who follow Shandao or Honen. Such so called higher level practices as visualisation and contemplation of the true mark/emptiness is normally left in the realm of theory as they are considered out of scope for most in the Dharma ending age.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 4:40 AM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:
Astus wrote:
The Surangama Sutra argues:

"To wear parts of a being’s body is to involve one’s karma with that being"
(BTTS new translation, p 269)

Based on these two Sutras it does not sound accurate.
See above. The Surangama Sutra actually says that somehow those who consume animal products or use them in other ways are involved with that being's karma. On the other hand, the Nirvana and the Lankavatara talks about the bad smell that frightens others, and that somehow eating meat changes the mind of the person.


Author: Astus
Date: Monday, February 9th, 2015 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

"Again, you're spouting Ch'an interpretation as if it was universal law."

True, I take Chan as the default doctrine. At the same time, it looks contrary to what I find in instructions on reciting the name that one should not only focus on pronouncing clearly the syllables but at the same time think about all the merits and virtues of Amitabha. Although there are such complex practices, like the one taught by Zhiyi as the walking samadhi, but teachers like Honen have a different interpretation of buddha-remembrance. Still, if there are thoughts about other things than the name, it is not single-minded.

"You recite, thinking about the narrative, you receive a vision of the Buddha, from there the wisdom arises for Awakening. You don't actually engage in a separate practice other than recitation/mindfulness of the Buddha for this to happen. In the meantime, you treat the Buddha just as real as anything else."

It is not the vision that gives wisdom, rather it is what one learns from the Buddha there. But even before that one should know that all appearances are empty.

The sutra itself says in that chapter (Rulu's translation): "All are impermanent and all are unstable. Recognize that there has never been an everlasting ruler in one, Only convergence and divergence of causes and conditions. Understand and know that nothing in existence is real." Also, once one has the vision of Amitabha, "He teaches, in the assembly of Bodhisattvas and bhikṣus, that dharmas [in true reality] are empty and, therefore, indestructible. Why? Because indestructible are all dharmas, such as form, pain, itch, thinking, perception, birth, death, consciousness, spirit, earth, water, fire, wind, the human world, and the heaven world, including Great Brahma Heaven. By thinking of a Buddha, one attains the Samādhi of Emptiness.”" and the chapter concludes: "The mind with perceptions is saṁsāra; the mind without perceptions is nirvāṇa. Dharmas as perceived are not something pleasurable. They are empty thoughts, nothing real. This is what Bodhisattvas see as they abide in this samādhi.”"

So, although it teaches visualisation, it is also strong in affirming the importance of contemplating emptiness and how the vision itself is mind made, like a dream.

"Nowhere in that passage does it mention that."

It is there on p 20: "Through reflecting on emptiness, that man then and there attained happiness in dharmas which do not come into existence from anywhere [anutpattika-dharma-ksanti], and straightaway attained non-regression."

"Sorry, don't have access to that translation. It doesn't exist in the one I have."

You can read that version http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/Pratyutpanna_and_Surangama_Samadhi_Sutras,1998,BDK25.pdf. It is that Rulu translated T417 (one fascicle), while Harrison translated T418 (three fasciles). You can also read Harrison's https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/10662 on the sutra where he translated the Tibetan and compared it with three Chinese versions. The referenced section there is on p 34-35.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 8:50 PM
Title: Re: The Mahayana idea of karma and vegetarianism
Content:
Astus wrote:
It sounds accurate to me. At least some think like that.

The Surangama Sutra argues:

"To wear parts of a being’s body is to involve one’s karma with that being, just as people have become bound to this earth by eating vegetables and grains. I can affirm that a person who neither eats the flesh of other beings nor wears any part of the bodies of other beings, nor even thinks of eating or wearing these things, is a person who will gain liberation."
(BTTS new translation, p 269)

On the other hand, the Nirvana Sutra says (tr. Yamamoto, p 52, 53),

"Kasyapa said again to the Buddha: "If the Tathagata means to prohibit the eating of meat, such things as the five kinds of flavours as milk, cream, fresh butter, clarified butter, and sarpirmanda, all kinds of clothing, silk cloth, horse-shoe shell, hide and leather, bowls of gold and silver should not be received." "O good man! Do not muddle things up with what the Nirgranthas [Jains] say."

"When one eats meat, this gives out the smell of meat while one is walking, standing, sitting or reclining. People smell this and become fearful. This is as when one comes near a lion. One sees and smells the lion, and fear arises. O good man! When one eats garlic, the dirty smell is unbearable. Other people notice it. They smell the bad smell. They leave that person and go away. Even from far off, people hate to see such a person. They will not come near him. It is the same with one who eats meat. It is a similar situation with all people who, on smelling the meat, become afraid and entertain the thought of death. All living things in the water, on land and in the sky desert such a person and run away. They say that this person is their enemy. Hence the Bodhisattva does not eat meat. In order to save beings, he shows [pretends] that he eats meat. Though he [seems to] eat meat, in actual fact he does not. O good man! Such a Bodhisattva does not even take pure food. How could he eat meat?"


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 8:39 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
LastLegend said:
Buddha is the inconceivable. The inconceivable is prajnaparamita. By reciting Buddha is reciting the inconceivable, prajnaparamita. That is the practice of 6 paramitas because at the moment when one recites Buddha, one is truly taking refuge in the 3 jewels and not in Samsara.

Astus wrote:
On that Huineng says in the Platform Sutra (p 28, BDK edition):

"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."

The sutra you quoted says,

"they should first hear prajñā-pāramitā and next train and learn it accordingly. Then they will be able to enter the One Action Samādhi"

It is the same paragraph quoted by Daoxin (4th Chan patriarch), who wrote (tr. David W. Chappell in Early Ch'an in China and Tibet, p 107):

"i-hsing san-mei means that the mind which is aware of the Buddha is the Buddha, whereas [the mind which] does false thinking is the ordinary person,"

And Huineng said (p 42):

"If you speak of the samādhi of the single practice with your mouth, you will not practice the straightforward mind. Just practice the straightforward mind, and be without attachment within all the dharmas."

That is, the practice of yixing-sanmei is based on one's study of the prajnaparamita teaching and only after that can one enter it. It is more than just reciting a name and visualising a buddha as it comes from understanding emptiness.


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 8:10 PM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
PorkChop,

"First off you're not focusing on a word, you're focusing on a Buddha (which involves a very specific narrative)"

That is, a word with a specific set of associated concepts. It is not actually a buddha, as that would mean direct realisation of buddha-nature. But during recitation one does not think about all the teachings regarding Amitabha as that would be a distraction from focusing single-mindedly.

Hsuan Hua said,

"As you recite the Buddha’s name, every sound of the Buddha’s name is a thought of purity. When every sound is recitation, every thought is clear and pure. When every thought is clear and pure, you obtain the Buddha Recitation samadhi."

That is, only the name remains and nothing else. It is a relative purity resulting from concentration and it disappears once the concentration is interrupted. Insight is something that removes the causes of attachment, while concentration just covers it up for a while. That's why attaining various dhyanas result only in birth in higher realms but not liberation. Similarly, focusing on Amitabha establishes the connection necessary for birth in the Pure Land, but it lacks the practices and methods required for insight, i.e. contemplation on the nature of reality.

Elder Master Liu Yu said,

"when he has exerted the utmost effort and reached the goal, right in the midst of present thought, worldly delusions suddenly disappear -- the mind experiences sudden Awakening"

It does not specify how one moves from concentration to insight, it only asserts that it happens.

The Pratyutpannasamadhi Sutra teaches how buddhas can be visualised and that all visions are mind made and empty. It is not enough to visualise or recite the name, one has to reflect on the nature of one's experience and see them as insubstantial. And this is what I have said before, that recitation in and of itself is not enough to attain insight. Unlike the above quotes from Hsuan Hua and Liu Yu, this sutra is explicit about how one attains the patience of non-birth. And that way is contemplating emptiness.

When they reflect on the Buddha they ought not to reflect on [him as] an existing thing, nor should they have [the notion: it is something'] set up by me. As they would conceive of emptiness so should they reflect on the Buddha standing there, like a precious gem set on beryl. In this way bodhisattvas will have a clear vision of the innumerable Buddhas of the ten quarters.
(p 20, BDK edition)

When the forms are clear, everything is clear. If one wishes to see the Buddha then one sees him. If one sees him then one asks questions. If one asks then one is answered, one hears the sutras and rejoices greatly. One reflects thus: 'Where did the Buddha come from? Where did I go to?' and one thinks to oneself: 'The Buddha came from nowhere, and I also went nowhere.' One thinks to oneself: The Three Realms—the Realm of Desire, the Realm of Form, and the Realm of the Formless—these Three Realms are simply made by thought. Whatever I think, that I see. The mind creates the Buddha. The mind itself sees him. The mind is the Buddha. The mind is the Tathagata. The mind is my body, the mind sees the Buddha. The mind does not itself know the mind, the mind does not itself see mind. A mind with conceptions is stupidity, a mind without conceptions is nirvana. There is nothing in these dharmas which can be enjoyed; they are all made by thinking. If thinking is nothing but empty, then anything which is thought is also utterly nonexistent.' So it is, Bhadrapala, such is the vision of the bodhisattvas who are established in the meditation."
(p 21-22)

Those who reject this precious jewel of a sutra are stupid and unwise, they regard their own attainment of perfection in the trances as transcendence, they perversely claim that the world exists, they do not immerse themselves in emptiness or know nonbeing.
(p 28)


Author: Astus
Date: Sunday, February 8th, 2015 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Let's say the name recitation can generate insight into emptiness. My question is: how? How goes one from focusing on a word to realising non-birth?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
DesertDweller,

"Those of the highest faculties cannot go beyond this level while those of the lowest capabilities are also able to reach it."

What nobody can go beyond and anybody can reach it is buddhahood, and that is what is guaranteed once born in the Pure Land. It doesn't say anywhere one reaches it in this life but rather through birth.

Although Ouyi writes:

"Thus, the name of Amitabha is the inherently enlightened true nature of sentient beings, and reciting the name of Amitabha reveals this enlightenment. Inherent enlightenment and the enlightenment as it is revealed [through cultivation and realization] are fundamentally not two different things, just as sentient beings and Buddhas are not two different things. Thus if we are in accord [with our inherently enlightened true nature] for a moment, we are Buddhas for a moment, and if we are in accord [with our inherently enlightened true nature] moment after moment, we are Buddhas moment after moment."

That is talking theoretically, what the name stands for, what it symbolises. This is shown by the following passage in the commentary:

"Although they are going to attain enlightenment in one lifetime, still, they must be called ordinary people, and they cannot be called Bodhisattvas with enlightenment equal to the Buddhas."

The most relevant question to be asked, if recitation can result in insight, how so? What is the process? How does the practitioner come to the patience of non-birth from repeating words? What are the actual steps?

"From a perspective of non-dualism, where does one level end and the other begin?"

That is a theoretical perspective. If one truly has left behind dualism there is no birth to attain, thus recitation is a pointless activity.


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
DesertDweller said:
I appreciate your posts and insight and truly don't wish to argue unnecessarily, but I find statements all over the place saying that nembutsu/Nienfo alone can indeed lead to Awakening in this life.

Astus wrote:
Could you be more specific please, like quoting from Ouyi's commentary?


Author: Astus
Date: Saturday, February 7th, 2015 at 4:59 AM
Title: Re: Daily Discipline: Chan and Pure Land
Content:
Astus wrote:
Duckfiasco,

"This isn't the contention of the Jodo Shinshu school, as far as I know."

Deep faith is being assured of birth, thus the stage of non-regression in a certain sense. But that is not the same as what the Vimalakirti Sutra says about the pure mind observing a pure land. Although through faith one has almost attained buddhahood, one is still an ordinary being who can only rely on the vow and not even a bit on his own wisdom.

"the nembutsu has been like a merit transfer from Amida, or a catalyst to insight."

I have not questioned for a moment the varied usefulness of the nenbutsu in this life. My statement is simply that only by reciting the name there is no insight (that is, realisation of emptiness) generated. It is something one will gain after birth in Sukhavati.


