Part 2: Direct Perception and Zen
Jiri
>>Everything is dependently arisen because
>>anything which was not dependently arisen
>>would not be perceivable, and can be
>>totally ignored. (Sphere)
>
>
> Hooooo. That is perfect. (Gileth)
In Zen everything is regarded as a manifestation on mind. To the question:
What is a thought the correct Zen Reply is: Everything. All mental
manifestations are perceived by the mind itself and are therefore directly
perceivable (by the mind). That which is not manifested is unknown. Since
the Reality is non-dual it can be said to be a pair of interrelated
(interdependent) pair of opposites {known, unknown}. The 'content' of the
unknown cannot be perceived directly, which is a common sense. So as a whole
the Reality cannot be perceived directly but its known part can be perceived
directly. This known part of the Reality (mind/emptiness) are the
manifestations (of mind/emptiness). To put is another way: the difference
between content of a dream at night and content seen at daytime is that one
is short and the other is long. We are always looking at the content of the
mind. To speculate whether 'objects' exist 'from their own side' is futile,
this is and always will remain the part of the unknown and therefore not
directly perceivable.
Describing/analyzing Reality in the terms of pair of interrelated
(interdependent) opposites like {one, many}, {moving, non-moving},
{substance, function} is a standard part of meditation practice of
Mahamudra's second stage called "The Yoga of Simplicity". See also Platform
Sutra of the 6th Zen Patriarch Hui Neng where he defines the main pairs of
interrelated opposites of his Zen teachings. Furthermore, see for example
"The practice of Co-Emergent Mahamudra" by Padma Karpo Ngawang Norbu
(Vajrayana), Translated by Ven. Anzan Hoshin Sensei (Zen Master ) (ISBN
1-895082-01-3). The conclusion of such practice of Yoga of Simplicity is
understanding of Middle Way. Quoting from the above mentioned Mahamudra
text: [start quote]"Since it is neither substance nor non-substance, it does
not fall into either extreme. This the Middle Way. .... Looking into
this, one finds the mind is not one or many. Since it is free from extremes
it is the Mahamudra which abides nowhere. .... Thus the Mahamudra is 'that
which is without characteristics'."[end quote]
The attempt by a person to describe Reality *only* as 'not directly
perceivable' would drag it into one of the extremes of the Middle Way. If
such person were to succeed then the Reality (mind/emptiness) could not be
called the Middle Way, i.e. non-dual:{known,unknown}, but would be a form of
Hinayana absolutism. I would definitely advise to try to perceive the Middle
Way on the meditation cushion.
Jiri
Leon
"Jiri" <ji...@emptysky.org> wrote in message
news:b1qeld$a7t$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> Direct Perception and Zen, Part2
<snip>
Thank you for making the effort to post this. It is much appreciated.
Sphere
Jiri wrote:
> Direct Perception and Zen, Part2
>
>>>Everything is dependently arisen because
>>>anything which was not dependently arisen
>>>would not be perceivable, and can be
>>>totally ignored. (Sphere)
>
>
>>Hooooo. That is perfect. (Gileth)
>
>
>
>
> In Zen everything is regarded as a manifestation on mind. To the question:
> What is a thought the correct Zen Reply is: Everything. All mental
> manifestations are perceived by the mind itself and are therefore directly
> perceivable (by the mind). That which is not manifested is unknown. Since
> the Reality is non-dual it can be said to be a pair of interrelated
> (interdependent) pair of opposites {known, unknown}. The 'content' of the
> unknown cannot be perceived directly, which is a common sense. So as a whole
> the Reality cannot be perceived directly but its known part can be perceived
> directly. This known part of the Reality (mind/emptiness) are the
> manifestations (of mind/emptiness). To put is another way: the difference
> between content of a dream at night and content seen at daytime is that one
> is short and the other is long. We are always looking at the content of the
> mind. To speculate whether 'objects' exist 'from their own side' is futile,
> this is and always will remain the part of the unknown and therefore not
> directly perceivable.
You have crossed the line into annhilationism
and pure skepticism.
If Reality is non-dual then how can it
be said to be a pair?
You have turned mind into atman.
> Describing/analyzing Reality in the terms of pair of interrelated
> (interdependent) opposites like {one, many}, {moving, non-moving},
> {substance, function} is a standard part of meditation practice of
> Mahamudra's second stage called "The Yoga of Simplicity". See also Platform
> Sutra of the 6th Zen Patriarch Hui Neng where he defines the main pairs of
> interrelated opposites of his Zen teachings. Furthermore, see for example
"The very essence of Bodhi has no tree,
Nor is there a bright mirrored stand.
In reality there is nothing,
So what is there to attract any dust."
> "The practice of Co-Emergent Mahamudra" by Padma Karpo Ngawang Norbu
> (Vajrayana), Translated by Ven. Anzan Hoshin Sensei (Zen Master ) (ISBN
> 1-895082-01-3). The conclusion of such practice of Yoga of Simplicity is
> understanding of Middle Way. Quoting from the above mentioned Mahamudra
> text: [start quote]"Since it is neither substance nor non-substance, it does
> not fall into either extreme. This the Middle Way. .... Looking into
> this, one finds the mind is not one or many. Since it is free from extremes
> it is the Mahamudra which abides nowhere. .... Thus the Mahamudra is 'that
> which is without characteristics'."[end quote]
>
>
>
> The attempt by a person to describe Reality *only* as 'not directly
> perceivable' would drag it into one of the extremes of the Middle Way. If
> such person were to succeed then the Reality (mind/emptiness) could not be
> called the Middle Way, i.e. non-dual:{known,unknown}, but would be a form of
> Hinayana absolutism. I would definitely advise to try to perceive the Middle
> Way on the meditation cushion.
Reality is what we know. To describe
what we don't know as real is shear
stupidity, and to describe what we
cannot know as real is lunacy.
>
>
>
> Jiri
>
>
>
--
All conditions are impermanent.
All conditions are imperfect.
All which is held is without self.
Gileht.com
"Jiri" <ji...@emptysky.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
b1qeld$a7t$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> Direct Perception and Zen, Part2
>
> >>Everything is dependently arisen because
> >>anything which was not dependently arisen
> >>would not be perceivable, and can be
> >>totally ignored. (Sphere)
>
> > Hooooo. That is perfect. (Gileth)
Quoting out of context is meaningless.
Here is the full quotes:
++++++++++++++++++++
> Everything is dependently arisen because
> anything which was not dependently arisen
> would not be perceivable, and can be
> totally ignored.(Sphere)
Hooooo. That is perfect.
> That which depends upon nothing else must
> of necessity be perfect and permanent. If
> it is perfect and permanent then it is
> incapable of change, even to the extent of
> reflecting light. If it is incapable of
> change then I cannot perceive it by any
> conceivable experiment. If I cannot perceive
> it no matter what then I would best treat it
> as if non-existent.(Sphere)
Hooooo. That is perfect.
To be able to perceive it it has to be a cause (at least of this
perception), and every cause also is an effect of some other causes and
conditions (some other events that will trigger the causal effect of the
cause), thus an effect. Thus everything we perceive is necessarily
dependently arisen.
Bowing !
This is perfect Madhyamika reasoning.
-- Gileht
++++++++++++++++
"Jiri" <ji...@emptysky.org> continued:
Ho well ... It was fun so far ... but now you are crossing the line.
That is what I call "drowning the fish before reeling it in" ! Most gullible
people would just be struck by such complexification and just rest in doubt.
Intelligent people would see through this bull-shit.
There is no possible direct perception of anything because everything is
empty of inherent existence, because everything is dependently arisen.
Period.
To affirm the possility of direct perception of anything is to reify this
thing (what ever it is: external or mind itself or emptiness itself).
There is no way around this.
"Nothing is directly perceivable" is synonymous to "everything is empty of
inherent existence". To object to this is to reify something. ANd to
come-out with complex theories and esoteric practices is just trying to
drown the fish, through powder in the eyes of the gullible suckers before
you empty his pockets.
When we say that 'the mind has to ultimately directly see it own real
non-dual nature' is just a figure of speech. Directly seeing our own mind is
to see that there is nothing real to see. The goal of Buddhism is to seek
this very subtle mind and to see that there is nothing real there. It is
like seeing empty space, like seeing that everything is merely projections
without even a real projector. Realizing emptiness is to seek and find
nothing real (inherently existing, on its own) -- without denying the
conventional.
You seem to believe in an atman (a real eternal self) as sphere said. That
is the proper of all Vajrayanists (ythey are all reifying the mind and
emptiness). They cannot make the difference between a skillful means and an
absolute truth. They have reified emptiness/mind and are adoring this God
like the Hinduists are adoring their God.
As for "wasting time on the cushion", I already said that many millions of
Hinduists have done that before, and done it a thousand time more longer
than you will ever be able to do it in this life time, and they all arrived
at the conclusion that there is an eternal self, there is a God, there are
castes and duties, and there is the need for human sacrifices as proper
offering to gods. You are using exactly the same yoga techniques (based on
the same pre-Buddhist naive theory) and you think that you among all will
arrive at a different "direct perception" of the real truth (or that your
masters have directly seen this). Well, either one of the two teams
(Hinduist tantrists, or Buddhist tantrists) is lying about its conclusions
(since they are completely opposite) or that the methods themselves are
total bull-shit and self-hallucination. I think the fact that the same
method gives different results with different people means that the method
is totally subjective. That is another proof that there is no direct yogic
perception (it is just a skillful means, it is not real).
Your whole yoga theory is based on Nyaya concepts that have been proven
false by Nagarjuna & al. (see chapters on perception), and by modern
philosophies and sciences (they have all rejected naive realism like the one
supporting direct perception of anything). It is just a skillful means.
Trying to confuse people with complex mumbo jumbo like you did above is not
going to help your cause. It only proves that Vajrayanists are having naive
blind faith in thechniques that have no place in a modern society anymore.
They are like grasping at the theory tha the earth is flat and at the center
of the universe, even if all facts and reasonings point toward a refutation
of this.
As Leon said "Thank you for making the effort to post this. It is much
appreciated."
And as Spere said "You have turned mind into atman."
I hope you will keep trying to defend your point.
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
Jiri
"Dr Ben Lau" wrote in message
> >From: "Jiri"
> >What is a thought the correct Zen Reply is: Everything.
an
> absolute as jin has, is it worth reading the rest. Lets see.
> > All mental
> >manifestations are perceived by the mind itself and are therefore
directly
> >perceivable (by the mind).
> >That which is not manifested is unknown.
"
> which is to say all.
> Well Jin, ive stoppped reading the rest, because i see its just fundie
newbie
> hogwash and holds no reality other than it was written and i read it and
so
> that is that.
> To give meaning to the word Zen and ascribe many definitions and
perceptions is
> to make what is potent impotent and to make what is truth untruth. The
fluid
> Zen is without description and perception as perception is struictly
individual
> and so lacks truth beyond what it holds for the perceiver.
> And in conclusion
> THERE IS NO MIDDLE WAY, and there is no way to perceive it
> Begin again Jin
> Dr.Ben Lau
>
I have made few simplifications, additions to make the text hopefully more
clear. The changes/corrections are noted by the [ ] brackets.
Direct Peception and Zen, Part2, corrected.
In Zen everything [perceivable] is regarded as a manifestation [of] mind. To
the question: What is a thought the correct Zen Reply is: Everything
[perceivable]. All [such perceivable] mental manifestations are perceived by
the mind itself and are therefore directly perceivable (by the mind
[itself]). That which is not manifested is unknown. Since the Reality is
non-dual it can be said to be a pair of interrelated (interdependent) pair
of opposites: {known, unknown}. The 'content' of the unknown cannot be
perceived directly, which is a common sense. So as a whole the Reality
cannot be perceived directly but its known part can be perceived directly.
This known part of the Reality ([]) are the manifestations (of mind[]). To
put is another way: the difference between content of a dream at night and
content seen at daytime is that one is short and the other is long. We are
always looking at the [perceivable manifestation of] the mind. To speculate
whether 'objects' exist 'from their own side' is futile, this is and always
will remain the [] unknown [ part of Reality] and therefore not directly
perceivable.
Describing/analyzing Reality in the terms of pair of interrelated
(interdependent) opposites like {one, many}, {moving, non-moving},
{substance, function} is a standard part of meditation practice of
Mahamudra's second stage called "The Yoga of Simplicity". See also Platform
Sutra of the 6th Zen Patriarch Hui Neng where he defines the main pairs of
interrelated opposites of his Zen teachings. Furthermore, see for example
"The practice of Co-Emergent Mahamudra" by Padma Karpo Ngawang Norbu
(Vajrayana), Translated by Ven. Anzan Hoshin Sensei (Zen Master ) (ISBN
1-895082-01-3). The conclusion of such practice of Yoga of Simplicity is
understanding of Middle Way. Quoting from the above mentioned Mahamudra
text: [] "Since it is neither substance nor non-substance, it does not fall
into either extreme. This [is] the Middle Way. .... Looking into this,
one finds the mind is not one or many. Since it is free from extremes it is
the Mahamudra which abides nowhere. .... Thus the Mahamudra is 'that which
is without characteristics'." []
The attempt by a person to describe Reality *only* as 'not directly
perceivable' would drag it into one of the extremes of the Middle Way. If
such person were to succeed then the Reality [] could not be called the
Middle Way, i.e. non-dual: {known, unknown}, [{perceivable,
non-perceivable}, [{moving, non-moving}], [etc.], but would be a form of
Sphere
Gileht.com wrote:
...
>
> As Leon said "Thank you for making the effort to post this. It is much
> appreciated."
> And as Spere said "You have turned mind into atman."
>
> I hope you will keep trying to defend your point.
>
> --
> Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
> Web site: http://www.gileht.com
If I spoke the phrase "stepping out
of the Void" would this bring anying
to your mind?
Tang Huyen
Jiri wrote: <<>>
What you write is a huge pile of instances of the classic error of mistaking the
"explaining" scheme for the experience (direct perception) pointed at by the
explaining scheme.
In other words, what you write is interpretation, not direct perception, and
even if the interpretation (in your case, a Chinese interpretation flavoured
with Japanese and Tibetan overtones) attempts to point at the experience (of
direct perception), the two are separate and different.
Direct perception is free of interpretation of *any* kind, especially of the
high-faluting kind as described by you. That you can't distinguish between the
two patently shows that you don't know what the hell you write about -- direct
perception. Not even in theory.
You write:
<<In Zen the Reality is regarded as being non-dual. The non-duality does not
mean boring uniformity. The Reality is described as manifesting itself as an
interrelated pair of opposites known in Zen as 'substance' and 'function'.>>
Or again:
"In Zen everything is regarded as a manifestation on [of?] mind."
These are pure interpretation and have nothing whatsoever to do with direct
perception. Even the English assertions: "the Reality is *regarded as* being
non-dual" and "In Zen everything *is regarded as* a manifestation on [of?] mind"
clearly show them to be interpretation, pure interpretation. In direct
perception, one doesn't perceive "substance" and "function", and "a
manifestation on [?] mind", which are all concepts and belong to interpretation.
They have all been left behind in direct perception.
In direct perception, to be more precise, nothing manifests anything else. That
distinction of something that manifests itself as something else is
discrimination (vikalpa, samkalpa) and is part of delusion, not awakening, not
direct perception.
You say: "If you assume the direct perception to be something capable of
perceiving the whole Reality then it follows that the direct perception is
impossible. If you assume the direct perception to be something capable of
perceiving only a part of Reality then it follows that the direct perception is
of course possible."
Your attempt to encompass "the whole Reality" in perception is exactly cause for
suffering, and is un-Buddhist and anti-Buddhist in the extreme.
Direct perception has been excellently and unsurpassably described by the Buddha
in a succinct statement that survives in Pali and Sanskrit and is well-known to
the whole of Indian Buddhism:
"In the seen there will be just the seen".
One doesn't worry about how much of Reality (your capital) is encompassed in
one's perception, one doesn't worry about how much of Reality escapes one's
perception, one simply perceives what one perceives and doesn't mentate it,
doesn't interpret it, and your whole description -- presumably of direct
perception -- is entirely interpretation and mentation and nothing but
interpretation and mentation.
You are so much like our very own Bhiksuni who keeps confusing the grandiose
schemes of the Great Vehicle and the Diamond Vehicle with reality, when in fact
they are all products of delusion and should be gotten rid of *before* beginning
Buddhist practice.
And besides, your "explaining"scheme is in my opinion vapid and wholly
misleading, and if it is meant to point to direct perception, it does a terribly
poor job.
Drop it all and try to go back to awarenes/mindfulness, son.
Tang Huyen
Lee
>
> Jiri wrote: <<>>
> You write:
>
> <<In Zen the Reality is regarded as being non-dual. The non-duality
> does not mean boring uniformity. The Reality is described as
> manifesting itself as an interrelated pair of opposites known in Zen
> as 'substance' and 'function'.>>
>
> Or again:
>
> "In Zen everything is regarded as a manifestation on [of?] mind."
>
> These are pure interpretation and have nothing whatsoever to do with
> direct perception. Even the English assertions: "the Reality is
> *regarded as* being non-dual" and "In Zen everything *is regarded as*
> a manifestation on [of?] mind" clearly show them to be
> interpretation, pure interpretation. In direct perception, one
> doesn't perceive "substance" and "function", and "a manifestation on
> [?] mind", which are all concepts and belong to interpretation.
>
> They have all been left behind in direct perception.
>
> In direct perception, to be more precise, nothing manifests anything
> else. That distinction of something that manifests itself as
> something else is discrimination (vikalpa, samkalpa) and is part of
> delusion, not awakening, not direct perception.
"[The data of sense-experience, both of percepts and concepts,] may
enter [his mind] through the portals of 'thought' (vitakka), but they
never reverberate through the corridors of his mind as echoes of
'conceptual proliferation by way of Craving, Conceit and Views'. ...
Freedom from papanca is the hall-mark of the emancipated one, however
much thoughts, deliberations and 'thoughts of a great man' (vitakka,
parivitakka, mahapurisa-vitakka) he may be said to entertain." - Bhikkhu
Nanananda in Concept and Reality
Jiri
"Gileht.com" wrote in message >
> When we say that 'the mind has to ultimately directly see it own real
> non-dual nature' is just a figure of speech. Directly seeing our own mind
is
> to see that there is nothing real to see. The goal of Buddhism is to seek
> this very subtle mind and to see that there is nothing real there. It is
> like seeing empty space, like seeing that everything is merely projections
> without even a real projector. Realizing emptiness is to seek and find
> nothing real (inherently existing, on its own) -- without denying the
> conventional.
>
Hmmm, so when somebody hits you it will not be a real pain but only
conventional. Well that's a new one on me. I should have told your advice to
my dad when he had a cancer: " dad, it is not a real suffering, you are
experiencing but only conventional "...
I am sorry if it is not clear to you but I have tried to explain my
understanding of Middle Way as simply and as best as I can over the
Internet. My contention is really that one cannot understand it fully with
dualistic thinking. One can understand it fully only by means of Prajna,
which is born of meditation experience. All I can say is, that the analyzing
in terms of interrelated (interdependent) pairs of opposites, as an
important part of the meditation process leads to understanding of Reality.
The result of the analysis is difficult to describe, but description of
Reality as having characteristics of interrelated pairs of opposites is the
best I can do. This analysis is spoken of as a metaphor of fire and fuel in
the already mentioned 'Co-emergent Mahamudra' text:
<<<The Kashyapa-paripriccha sutra tells the metaphor of fire and fuel:
"Rubbing one stick against another produces fire;
through this both sticks are burnt away.
In the same way penetrating insight is born
from the union of the 'moving' and the 'still'
and both are consumed by its birth."
This investigation through penetrating insight is called "the insight
practice of the hermits." It is not the same as the "analysis meditation" of
the scholar because the scholar's analysis concerns objects">>>
<<<From comment by the Zen Master Hoshin Sensei on the preceding line: "The
vipashyana of the Mahamudra investigates the very functioning and activity
of Awareness whereas the contemplation of the Abhidharma and of the
Madhayamika only analyze objects of awareness.>>>
My last comment is that the Middle Way is the philosophy of Mahayana
Buddhism but it is not its practice. Therefore, the right View and the right
Action are both required: the right theory and the right practice of
meditation are both needed for full understanding of Dharma.
Jiri
Gileht.com
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E412ACC...@all.com...
>
>
> Gileht.com wrote:
> ...
> >
> > As Leon said "Thank you for making the effort to post this. It is much
> > appreciated."
> > And as Spere said "You have turned mind into atman."
> >
> > I hope you will keep trying to defend your point.
> >
> > --
> > Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
> > Web site: http://www.gileht.com
>
>
> If I spoke the phrase "stepping out
> of the Void" would this bring anying
> to your mind?
Sounds like "not falling into nihilism". As in the Middle Way between the
two extremes of realism and nihilism ... Meaning not taking emptiness as an
absolute truth, as something real that can be "directly perceived" (with or
without conceptualization) in the sense of directly seeing something
inherently existing, on its own, using perfect senses (as if that was
possible).
What is your take on it ?
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
Gileht.com
>
> "Gileht.com" wrote in message >
>
> > When we say that 'the mind has to ultimately directly see it own real
> > non-dual nature' is just a figure of speech. Directly seeing our own
mind
> is
> > to see that there is nothing real to see. The goal of Buddhism is to
seek
> > this very subtle mind and to see that there is nothing real there. It is
> > like seeing empty space, like seeing that everything is merely
projections
> > without even a real projector. Realizing emptiness is to seek and find
> > nothing real (inherently existing, on its own) -- without denying the
> > conventional.
> >
>
> Hmmm, so when somebody hits you it will not be a real pain but only
> conventional. Well that's a new one on me. I should have told your advice
to
> my dad when he had a cancer: " dad, it is not a real suffering, you are
> experiencing but only conventional "...
Yap! That is true. There is no real suffering and no real person suffering
...
Maybe it is not too late to sing this song:
Gyalwa Götsangpa's Seven Delights
Namo Ratna Guru!
When thoughts that there is something, perceived and a perceiver,
Lure my mind away and distract,
I don't close my senses' gateways to meditate without them
But plunge straight into their essential point.
They're like clouds in the sky; there's this shimmer where they fly.
Thoughts that rise (1), for me sheer delight!
When kleshas get me going, and their heat has got me burning,
I try no antidote to set them right.
Like an alchemistic potion turning metal into gold,
What lies in klesha's power to bestow
Is bliss without contagion, completely undefiled.
Kleshas coming up (2), sheer delight!
When I'm plagued by god-like forces or demonic interference,
I do not drive them out with rites and spells.
The thing to chase away is egoistic thinking,
Built up on the idea of a self.
This will turn the ranks of maras into your own special forces.
When obstacles arise (3), sheer delight!
When samsara with its anguish has me writhing in its torments,
Instead of wallowing in misery,
I take the greater burden down the greater path to travel
And let compassion set me up
To take upon myself the sufferings of others.
When karmic consequences bloom (4), delight!
When my body has succumbed to the attacks of painful illness,
I do not count on medical relief,
But take that very illness as a path and by its power
Remove the obscurations blocking me,
And use it to encourage the qualities worthwhile.
When illness rears its head (5), sheer delight!
When it's time to leave this body, this illusionary tangle,
Don't cause yourself anxiety and grief.
The thing that you should train in and clear up for yourself is
There's no such thing as dying to be done.
It's just clear light, the mother, and child clear light uniting,
When mind forsakes the body (6), sheer delight!
When the whole thing's just not working, everything's lined up against you,
Don't try to find some way to change it all.
Here the point to make in your practice is reverse the way you see it.
Don't try to make it stop or to improve.
Adverse conditions happen (7); when they do it's so delightful.
They make a little song of sheer delight!
> I am sorry if it is not clear to you but I have tried to explain my
> understanding of Middle Way as simply and as best as I can over the
> Internet. My contention is really that one cannot understand it fully with
> dualistic thinking. One can understand it fully only by means of Prajna,
> which is born of meditation experience. All I can say is, that the
analyzing
> in terms of interrelated (interdependent) pairs of opposites, as an
> important part of the meditation process leads to understanding of
Reality.
> The result of the analysis is difficult to describe, but description of
> Reality as having characteristics of interrelated pairs of opposites is
the
> best I can do. This analysis is spoken of as a metaphor of fire and fuel
in
> the already mentioned 'Co-emergent Mahamudra' text:
All you have to do is say that there is no real direct perception since
everything is dependently arisen. That is the nature of samsara. Everything
in samsara is dependent on accumulated karma. There is no way around this.
And there is no real Nirvana separate from samsara. There is no bad
conceptual mind and good non-conceptual mind. There is no real purification
of the mind; there is no real very subtle mind once purified whatever you
want to call it. Even the Buddha-nature is empty of inherent existence.
These are all adapted skillful means that have to be used while combining
them with the realization of the emptiness of the three: subject, action,
object (complement). That is the meaning of the Middle Way: using both
virtuous methods and wisdom **together all the time**, not just when you
feel like it. All you have to do is to realize this.
OM MANI PADME HUM !
> <<<The Kashyapa-paripriccha sutra tells the metaphor of fire and fuel:
>
> "Rubbing one stick against another produces fire;
> through this both sticks are burnt away.
> In the same way penetrating insight is born
> from the union of the 'moving' and the 'still'
> and both are consumed by its birth."
>
> This investigation through penetrating insight is called "the insight
> practice of the hermits." It is not the same as the "analysis meditation"
of
> the scholar because the scholar's analysis concerns objects">>>
The simile of the fuel and fire has been shown to be false, see Nagarjuna's
Karikas about this. There is a whole chapter about it. You seem completely
lost in old Hindu clichés and blind faith.
I am here trying to remind you to use wisdom with your techniques otherwise
you will drif into reifications, blind faith and Hinduism.
> <<<From comment by the Zen Master Hoshin Sensei on the preceding line:
"The
> vipashyana of the Mahamudra investigates the very functioning and activity
> of Awareness whereas the contemplation of the Abhidharma and of the
> Madhayamika only analyze objects of awareness.>>>
>
> My last comment is that the Middle Way is the philosophy of Mahayana
> Buddhism but it is not its practice. Therefore, the right View and the
right
> Action are both required: the right theory and the right practice of
> meditation are both needed for full understanding of Dharma.
>
> Jiri
Wrong. The Middle Way is using virtuous methods based on dependent
origination (the law of karma) while gradually developing more and more
wisdom (the realization of the emptiness of the three: subject, object,
action). The Middle Way is combining both together all the time. Virtuous
methods based on dependent origination are the "not non-existence" part, and
realizing emptiness is the "not existence" part. The Middle Way is to stay
away from those two extremes (existence and non-existence) all the time.
That is the practice of the Middle Way. The Middle Way is not a theory.
There is no absolute right view. The Buddha never taught anything. Nagarjuna
is not proposing any system or view. Everything is for a practical
purpose -- a practice -- a method -- a path -- a Middle Way.
Tang Huyen
"All I can say is, that the analyzing in terms of interrelated (interdependent)
pairs of opposites, as an important part of the meditation process leads to
understanding of Reality. The result of the analysis is difficult to describe,
but description of Reality as having characteristics of interrelated pairs of
opposites is the best I can do."
If that's the best you can do, son, you'd better drop the whole Buddhist thing
and just go live life and not bother about Buddhism, for it is wholly beyond
you.
I have already answered you in my previous post, but to repeat, any *description
of* Reality as whatever -- like having characteristics of interrelated
(interdependent) pairs of opposites -- is merely a description and not reality.
Reality -- what happens -- can perfectly happen without your precious
interrelated pairs of opposites or whatever else you can think up to frame it.
What you think up to explain it is mere interpretation, and can be adequate to
some extent, but never to the full, and never is the same as reality. Don't
dirty reality with it.
As the Buddha said: "What and what they think it, it is otherwise."
Tang Huyen
Gileht.com
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E4174AD...@yahoo.com...
I read this as Nagarjuna said: "All views are flawed."
Which means no absolute, only adapted skillful means.
The so called real non-dual nature of everything is beyond all description,
beyond any concepts, beyond mentation and non-mentation.
So Tang, as the Buddha said: "What and what they think it, it is
otherwise." -- meaning your theory about non-mentation is flawed, bull-shit,
just another view created by your own deluded mind.
Try to practice your teaching in front of a mirror, it might help you.
With love.
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
> Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu
"Gileht.com" wrote:
"adaped skillful means" refers to upaya (teaching),
nothing else.. You keep mixing it up with your Absolut
as if it were orange juice. As far as "views" goes, none are
necessary except as treadmills for runaway gerbil-minds.
As you say, "The so called real non-dual nature of everything
is beyond all description, beyond any concepts,
beyond mentation and non-mentation."
So why do you persist in trying to describe 'it'?
It's beyond words, grasp, concepts... Duh!
You *ARE* 'it'. You 'directly perceive' it all the time.
If you'd simply stop your chattering monkey mind
long enough, you'd understand that.
Jiri
"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
>
>
> Jiri wrote: <<>>
>
> What you write is a huge pile of instances of the classic error of
mistaking the
> "explaining" scheme for the experience (direct perception) pointed at by
the
> explaining scheme.
>
Anyone can say that about your own description.
> In other words, what you write is interpretation, not direct perception,
and
> even if the interpretation (in your case, a Chinese interpretation
flavoured
> with Japanese and Tibetan overtones) attempts to point at the experience
(of
> direct perception), the two are separate and different.
>
> Direct perception is free of interpretation of *any* kind, especially of
the
> high-faluting kind as described by you. That you can't distinguish between
the
> two patently shows that you don't know what the hell you write about --
direct
> perception. Not even in theory.
You have just divided Reality into directly perceivable, and not directly
perceivable, you have defined yourself a pair of interdependent opposites
and then stuck your own definition on them: direct perception according to
you is free of interpretations of any kind, while the other is not free of
interpretations.
I did the same, but my definition of the direct perception appears to be
different, and therefore there could arise natural disagreement between us.
My definition of direct perception states that perception of concepts is
direct.
Lets leave a theory for a while and try a bit of real practice for a change:
say to yourself mentally for example your name: Tang, and try to hold it for
a while in the mind with your attention, and then let go. While you were
holding it did you perceive it or not? Did you conceptualize about it or
not? My mind is trained through meditation practice in one-pointedness of
concentration. When I concentrate on my name or other mental event, I am
aware of it without additional interpretation of any kind for some time.
Therefore according to your own definition I am able directly to perceive
concepts of the mind. (Unless you claim that I cannot do it.)
If a concept arises then there is no attempt when I sit in relaxed
meditation (shikantaza) to alter the concepts, I do not give them
interpretation of any kind. I do not ask them to come, to stay, or leave. I
do not interfere. 'In the seen (concepts) there is just the seen.' Therefore
in meditation, according to your own definition I am perceiving even the
moving concepts directly. (Unless you claim that I cannot do it.)
I perceive moving a non moving concepts of mind directly without any
interpretation of *any* kind. Therefore according to your own definition of
direct perception, the concepts can be perceived directly; they are
certainly by me. That is precisely what I have claimed: 'All [such
perceivable] mental manifestations are perceived by the mind itself and are
therefore directly perceivable (by the mind[itself])'. Your definitions
confirm my claims (with a bit of meditation practice of course). Therefore
my advice to you is also using your own words: 'Drop it all and try to go
back to awareness/mindfulness, son.'
Jiri
Ch'an Fu
Jiri wrote:
Show us one of those 'concepts' that you see.
Jiri
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote in message
news:3E419159...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk...
Don't you have your own mental concepts/manifestations. I can not pass you
one over the internet, but you can generate your own. Say 'Mu' only mentally
to yourself. What is that mental word 'Mu', is it a mental manifestation? Or
do you think your normal mental chatter is not a manifestation of mind?
I define concepts as perceivable manifestations of mind (your definition may
be different). The manifestation are of course perceived by awareness, which
is also manifestation of mind. Therefore mind perceives mind according to my
definition. The one who/what perceives is mind, what is being perceived is
mind, and the act of perceiving is also mind. During meditation therefore:
the meditator is mind, what is being meditated upon is mind, and the act of
meditation is also mind. Therefore the observer and the observed are not
two. Although they are not two they are not one either. They are
interrelated (interdependent), in other words non-dual. An attempt of
awareness (as a manifestation of mind) to perceive itself (or its own
source) results in Satori, experience of Dharmakaya (this was mentioned by
me before).
Sphere
Aditta-pariyaya Sutta
Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.28
The Fire Sermon
Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Gaya,
at Gaya Head, with 1,000 monks. There he addressed the monks:
"Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms
are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is
aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at
the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain --
that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion,
the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with
birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, &
despairs.
"The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame...
"The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame...
"The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame...
"The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame...
"The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the
intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever
there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect --
experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too
is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire
of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging &
death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with
consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And
whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye,
experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that,
too, he grows disenchanted.
"He grows disenchanted with the ear...
"He grows disenchanted with the nose...
"He grows disenchanted with the tongue...
"He grows disenchanted with the body...
"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas,
disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with
contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in
dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or
neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too.
Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully
released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.'
He discerns that 'Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task
done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted at his
words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the
1,000 monks, through no clinging (not being sustained), were fully
released from fermentation/effluents.
Sphere
Gileht.com wrote:
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3E412ACC...@all.com...
>
>>
>>Gileht.com wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>As Leon said "Thank you for making the effort to post this. It is much
>>>appreciated."
>>>And as Spere said "You have turned mind into atman."
>>>
>>>I hope you will keep trying to defend your point.
>>>
>>
>>If I spoke the phrase "stepping out
>>of the Void" would this bring anying
>>to your mind?
>
>
> Sounds like "not falling into nihilism". As in the Middle Way between the
> two extremes of realism and nihilism ... Meaning not taking emptiness as an
> absolute truth, as something real that can be "directly perceived" (with or
> without conceptualization) in the sense of directly seeing something
> inherently existing, on its own, using perfect senses (as if that was
> possible).
>
> What is your take on it ?
My take is that it's something
you do after stepping into the
Void -- after falling into
nihilism.
For Leon the Universe has never
become unreal, and he is not
ready to build his own reality.
Your answer leaves me unsure about
your state.
Tang Huyen
Jiri wrote:
> Don't you have your own mental concepts/manifestations. I can not pass you
> one over the internet, but you can generate your own. Say 'Mu' only mentally
> to yourself. What is that mental word 'Mu', is it a mental manifestation? Or
> do you think your normal mental chatter is not a manifestation of mind?
>
> I define concepts as perceivable manifestations of mind (your definition may
> be different). The manifestation are of course perceived by awareness, which
> is also manifestation of mind. Therefore mind perceives mind according to my
> definition. The one who/what perceives is mind, what is being perceived is
> mind, and the act of perceiving is also mind. During meditation therefore:
> the meditator is mind, what is being meditated upon is mind, and the act of
> meditation is also mind. Therefore the observer and the observed are not
> two. Although they are not two they are not one either. They are
> interrelated (interdependent), in other words non-dual. An attempt of
> awareness (as a manifestation of mind) to perceive itself (or its own
> source) results in Satori, experience of Dharmakaya (this was mentioned by
> me before).
Wow! Our Jiri goes from bad to worse!
I don't know where you come from, but what you say hardly tallies with the
Buddhism that I know.
The Scripture of the Concentration in Which the Present Buddha-s Appear Face to
Face (Pratyutpanna-Buddha-sammukhavasthita-samadhi-sutra), says at T, 13, 417,
899b-c (quoted at Dà zhì dù lùn, T, 25, 1509, 276b, Lamotte, Traité, 1930):
"[The cultivator] thinks: 'Where does the Buddha come from? Where do I arrive
at?' He thinks to himself: 'The Buddha does not come from anywhere, I do not
arrive anywhere.' He thinks to himself: 'The modality of desire, the modality of
form, the modality of the formless, these three modalities are nothing but mind
(citta-matra). It is according as I discriminate (vikalpayati) that I see, the
mind makes the Buddha, the mind sees itself, the mind is the Buddha, the mind is
just myself. Thought sees the Buddha, thought does not know itself, thought does
not see itself. The notion of thought (citta-samjña) is ignorance (avidya), the
absence of notion of thought (citta-asamjña) is blowing-out. The Buddha utters a
verse:
'Thought does not know itself, thought does not see itself. When thought gives
rise to notions, just that is ignorance (avidya), when there is no mentation,
that is blowing-out.'"
Compare with the translation from the Tibetan translation in Harrison,
"Buddhanusmrti in the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-sammukhavasthita-samadhi-sutra,"
Journal of Indian Philosophy, 1978, 46, and Harrison, The Samadhi of Direct
Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present, 43-44.
If that text is unfamiliar to you, Jiri sweetie, may I remind you of the famous
Diamond Scripture, in a passage well-known to Chinese Chan?
"The past thought cannot be got at, the present thought cannot be got at, the
future thought cannot be got at."
Jirir luv, you say:
"I define concepts as perceivable manifestations of mind (your definition may be
different). The manifestation are of course perceived by awareness, which is
also manifestation of mind. Therefore mind perceives mind according to my
definition. The one who/what perceives is mind, what is being perceived is mind,
and the act of perceiving is also mind. During meditation therefore: the
meditator is mind, what is being meditated upon is mind, and the act of
meditation is also mind. Therefore the observer and the observed are not two."
You flatly contradict the Scripture of the Concentration in Which the Present
Buddha-s Appear Face to Face:
"Thought does not know itself, thought does not see itself."
And if as the Diamond says:
"The past thought cannot be got at, the present thought cannot be got at, the
future thought cannot be got at"
then what mind knows what mind? what mind perceives what mind?
Jiri dearie, you're entangled in an irredeemable tangle of speculation that you
understand diddly squat of. Dump the whole thing, go back to live normal life
and forget about Buddhism, until such time (which ay never come) as you get your
thought together and attain to some coherence, then go back to Buddhism.
Right now it's just a huge jumble to you, Jiri my boy. You wallow in unrelieved
mind-fuck and take that to be awakening.
Tang Huyen
William Tucker
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E41C1F0...@yahoo.com...
that's wrong....
if you are _in_ the thought you're correct but if you're not attached to
it
then of course everything else is present...and a thought can be observed to
form and then travel
anyone with a modicum of ability can see thoughts as a physical
manifestation
albeit not percievable by everyone that hasn't learned to link the third eye
and
heart chakra as part of their perceptive system
thoughts are as real as clouds, and they can travel as a unit
Wm
Lee
>
> Jiri wrote:
>
>> Don't you have your own mental concepts/manifestations. I can not
>> pass you one over the internet, but you can generate your own. Say
>> 'Mu' only mentally to yourself. What is that mental word 'Mu', is
>> it a mental manifestation? Or do you think your normal mental
>> chatter is not a manifestation of mind?
>>
>> I define concepts as perceivable manifestations of mind (your
>> definition may be different). The manifestation are of course
>> perceived by awareness, which is also manifestation of mind.
>> Therefore mind perceives mind according to my definition. The one
>> who/what perceives is mind, what is being perceived is mind, and
>> the act of perceiving is also mind. During meditation therefore:
>> the meditator is mind, what is being meditated upon is mind, and
>> the act of meditation is also mind. Therefore the observer and the
>> observed are not two. Although they are not two they are not one
>> either. They are interrelated (interdependent), in other words
>> non-dual. An attempt of awareness (as a manifestation of mind) to
>> perceive itself (or its own source) results in Satori, experience
>> of Dharmakaya (this was mentioned by me before).
>
> Wow! Our Jiri goes from bad to worse!
>
> I don't know where you come from, but what you say hardly tallies
> with the Buddhism that I know.
Perhaps Jiri's words conflict with the sutras you note. I'll leave that
discussion to you and Jiri since I am not familiar with most of the
later material. What I find interesting is the wordplay involved in his
formulation.
In the passage above, Jiri neatly defines all concepts/things/processes
as manififestations of the mind, thereby sweeping away any distinctions
between the meditator, that which is meditated upon, and the process of
meditation ("During meditation therefore: the meditator is mind, what is
being meditated upon is mind, and the act of meditation is also
mind.."). With all distinctions supposedly eliminated by unilateral
definition, the magic words of Buddhism are then spoken - Abracadabra,
bippity-boo, they are not one, they are not two . . . they are non-dual.
And shazaam, the rabbit pops out of the hat and we have satori.
Rather than go through all these machinations, though, wouldn't it have
been easier for Jiri to simply say that he has the a priori belief that
all is non-dual? He may, in fact, be correct in this assertion,
whatever it means, but I don't see how the wordplay gets him there.
--
Lee
Jiri
"Tang Huyen" wrote in message >
>
> Jiri wrote:
>
Thanks for reminding me of that. (You are really stuck on this non-mentation
business). This quote describes a state of Dharmakaya, where all appearances
cannot be got at, including what you call thoughts. But the state of
Dharmakaya is not mutually exclusive with appearances, or thoughts for that
matter.
The Dharmakaya, once realized, forms a background to other manifestations.
Its relationship to images is like that of a mirror. When all images
disappear the mirror is back to its purity. With respect to appearances and
thoughts the Dharmakaya is manifested in its purity whenever they even
momentarily stop. Even if they do not stop, like a mirror it
remains unaffected.
The Dharmakaya's relationship to appearances and thoughts is like a zero to
other numbers in a simple algebraic addition: 0+0=0, 0+1=1,0+2=2,0+3=3, etc.
The zero does not alter other numbers and is always present with them as a
'background'. The 0 is not mutually exclusive with other numbers.
Your idea of non-mentation seems to be in getting rid of one of the
aggregates, namely the Thoughts aggregate, and leave just the other four
skandhas, Form, Perception, Feelings, Consciousness. Is this your idea of
blowing out? What would you think with? Would you get your Thoughts
aggregate back if you wanted to solve a difficult mathematical problem and
you had to think real hard? I hope I am wrong because this idea of getting
rid of or severly 'neutralize' the Thoughts aggregate is really whacko.
Practice of non-mentation may get you to realize the Dharmakaya, but once it
is realized you will not loose it. So you no longer have to cling to
non-mentation. Non-mentation is only skillful means to get at it.
Non-mentation would be need to be maintained if the Dharmakaya was mutually
exclusive. But that would be stupid, because the person who realized it
would loose it just because he started to think again.
> Jirir luv, you say:
>
> "I define concepts as perceivable manifestations of mind (your definition
may be
> different). The manifestation are of course perceived by awareness, which
is
> also manifestation of mind. Therefore mind perceives mind according to my
> definition. The one who/what perceives is mind, what is being perceived is
mind,
> and the act of perceiving is also mind. During meditation therefore: the
> meditator is mind, what is being meditated upon is mind, and the act of
> meditation is also mind. Therefore the observer and the observed are not
two."
>
> You flatly contradict the Scripture of the Concentration in Which the
Present
> Buddha-s Appear Face to Face:
>
> "Thought does not know itself, thought does not see itself."
>
I am not saying that, I am saying that mind is capable of perceiving mind.
Jiri
Jiri
"Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote in message
news:v43qv5m...@corp.supernews.com...
You have some point there, but the fact is that you can happily remove the
statement where words non-dual appear. That sentence is a definite overkill.
However the fact remains that one can perceive the contents of the mind (of
course with the help of awareness).
Now consider what would happen if you
wanted to see where for example your thoughts originate. In that case you
would try to solve question 'What is the source of the thoughts'. If you
thought that the source is you, then the question would take a form of 'What
is I'. If you thought that the source is mind, then the question would be
'What is mind'. These questions are known in Zen as hua'tou, most famous
being 'What is Mu', and are used as a concentration method to look within
oneself to realize Satori in Rinzai and Korean Zen.
So the case of awareness
looking for its source and finding, eventually, Satori, is not I just dreamt
up but has a very very very long tradition in Zen. It is a case of mind
looking for itself, really. Therefore notion of identity of observer and
observed does in fact come from actual Zen practice and is not some
theoretical Abracadabra.
Jiri
Lee
> Now consider what would happen if you wanted to see where for example
> your thoughts originate. In that case you would try to solve
> question 'What is the source of the thoughts'. If you thought that
> the source is you, then the question would take a form of 'What is
> I'. If you thought that the source is mind, then the question would
> be 'What is mind'. These questions are known in Zen as hua'tou, most
> famous being 'What is Mu', and are used as a concentration method to
> look within oneself to realize Satori in Rinzai and Korean Zen.
Hi Jiri:
I don't question that your presentation is standard Zen. My question
was whether the verbal wordplay really gets anywhere. If it helps
people loosen their attachment to craving, conceit, and views, then so
much the better. But if it simply provides another dreamt up view to
attach to and pretend one is enlightened in some mystical fashion, I
remain skeptical.
But as you note "Therefore notion of identity of observer and observed
does in fact come from actual Zen practice and is not some theoretical
Abracadabra." Perhaps a mere description of the actual practice would
be more valuable than the after the fact theoretical explanations of Zen
that always leave me dizzy.
--
Lee
Tang Huyen
identity of observer and observed does in fact come from actual Zen practice and
is not some theoretical Abracadabra."
In the Chinese Chan that I know, it is not said that mind finds something, like
the identity of observer and observed, even less itself (mind), but that there
is no mind (wu-xin), no thought (wu nian).
In the search for "Who it is who is mindful of the Buddha", one finds nothing,
which is just the confirmation of the absence of self in early Buddhism. As the
famous Diamond Scripture, in a passage well-known to Chinese Chan, says:
"The past thought cannot be got at, the present thought cannot be got at, the
future thought cannot be got at."
The whole of early Buddhism, known to Chinese Buddhism as the Agama-s, and
Chinese Chan, so far as I know, agree in that there is nothing to be found, and
that the very idea of something to be found is the root of delusion, the root
delusion. In the Platform Scripture, there is the famous saying: "From the
beginning there is not one thing".
Your notion of identity of observer and observed is pure and utter delusion,
starting right with "identity" and then making up "observer" and "observed" to
be identified with each other. Get rid of them all, calm your mind, do not raise
a single thought, and you may know what Chinese Chan aims at.
Jiri my son, you're totally lost in nefarious mindfuck that you understand
diddly squat of. Abandon the whole thing, go live normal life, and maybe decades
later (perhaps lifetimes later) come back to Buddhism after you have gained some
perspective and balance.
Tang Huyen
Jiri wrote:
> You have some point there, but the fact is that you can happily remove the
> statement where words non-dual appear. That sentence is a definite overkill.
> However the fact remains that one can perceive the contents of the mind (of
> course with the help of awareness).
>
> Now consider what would happen if you
> wanted to see where for example your thoughts originate. In that case you
> would try to solve question 'What is the source of the thoughts'. If you
> thought that the source is you, then the question would take a form of 'What
> is I'. If you thought that the source is mind, then the question would be
> 'What is mind'. These questions are known in Zen as hua'tou, most famous
> being 'What is Mu', and are used as a concentration method to look within
> oneself to realize Satori in Rinzai and Korean Zen.
>
> So the case of awareness
> looking for its source and finding, eventually, Satori, is not I just dreamt
> up but has a very very very long tradition in Zen. It is a case of mind
> looking for itself, really.Therefore notion of identity of observer and
Tang Huyen
Lee wrote:
> Hi Jiri:
>
> I don't question that your presentation is standard Zen. My question
> was whether the verbal wordplay really gets anywhere. If it helps
> people loosen their attachment to craving, conceit, and views, then so
> much the better. But if it simply provides another dreamt up view to
> attach to and pretend one is enlightened in some mystical fashion, I
> remain skeptical.
>
> But as you note "Therefore notion of identity of observer and observed
> does in fact come from actual Zen practice and is not some theoretical
> Abracadabra." Perhaps a mere description of the actual practice would
> be more valuable than the after the fact theoretical explanations of Zen
> that always leave me dizzy.
>
> --
> Lee
Our Jiri thinks that he can just throw forth tons and tons of impressive
buzzwords at folks and make folks take him for real on that basis.
Anybody who knows Buddhist verbiage, especially Great Vehiclistic verbiage,
can instantly detect that our Jiri has no command of it and handles it in a
most clumsy manner. There is a method to the madness of Buddhist verbiage,
especially Great Vehiclistic verbiage, but he has no glimpse of it. Even the
basic ideas escape him.
The Bhiksuni knows how to handle Buddhist verbiage better, though she takes
it too seriously.
Tang Huyen
William Tucker
I enjoyed them thoroughly...quite lucid and within grasp
Wm
> --
> Lee
>
>
Jiri
"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
> identity of observer and observed does in fact come from actual Zen
practice and
> is not some theoretical Abracadabra."
>
> In the Chinese Chan that I know, it is not said that mind finds something,
like
> the identity of observer and observed, even less itself (mind), but that
there
> is no mind (wu-xin), no thought (wu nian).
>
> In the search for "Who it is who is mindful of the Buddha", one finds
nothing,
> which is just the confirmation of the absence of self in early Buddhism.
Thank you kindly, you have made my point more eloquently than I could
myself. This is precisely what I was saying all along and way back before,
but you were not paying attention, sweetie. I said in the previous post:
<<<The attempt to look within oneself for the source of the functioning
results
in what Zen calls Satori (Realization). Although the attempt is a success
(was for D.T. Suzuki), one gets at the same time a failure. It is a success
because one is, as a result, able to completely turn ones consciousness away
from appearances and thus to stop eventually clinging to all appearances,
including later even to the experience of Satori. But it is a
failure/restriction because one does not find the real source of the
functioning. Yet "this restriction is really freedom, the true freedom". It
is a freedom to don't know. So Satori gains a freedom from clinging to
appearances and ego and at the same time realization that there is always
something new to learn and that ones life does not have to be full of boring
"know all" fools. >>>
If you have the desire to find out by practical means "what is I", who
really functions in this body and mind, then you have a chance for freedom
from ego clinging. Christians for example believe that they have a soul, but
for most of them to start looking for the soul would be probably stupid
idea. Therefore you need to start looking for the soul, for the one who
thinks, hear, knows, observes, functions etc, to have a chance for freedom
from an idea of a soul. You start with a notion of observer looking for
itself: 'I am looking for my self'. Is it going to be a success? Will I
find the ego? No, so the quest is a failure. Will I drop the idea of an ego?
Yes, so the quest is a success. Zen puts its in the usual obscure way: the
failure is a success. (which is an another example of why it is difficult to
explain the Zen stuff sometimes). I therefore repeat: since there has been
no ego in the first place it is in fact the case of "(impersonal) mind
looking for itself, really". I also repeat: "And therefore *notion* of
identity of observer and observed does in fact come from actual Zen practice
and is not some theoretical Abracadabra".
Jiri
Sphere
Jiri wrote:
...
>
> If you have the desire to find out by practical means "what is I", who
> really functions in this body and mind, then you have a chance for freedom
> from ego clinging. Christians for example believe that they have a soul, but
> for most of them to start looking for the soul would be probably stupid
> idea. Therefore you need to start looking for the soul, for the one who
> thinks, hear, knows, observes, functions etc, to have a chance for freedom
> from an idea of a soul. You start with a notion of observer looking for
> itself: 'I am looking for my self'. Is it going to be a success? Will I
> find the ego? No, so the quest is a failure. Will I drop the idea of an ego?
> Yes, so the quest is a success. Zen puts its in the usual obscure way: the
> failure is a success. (which is an another example of why it is difficult to
> explain the Zen stuff sometimes). I therefore repeat: since there has been
> no ego in the first place it is in fact the case of "(impersonal) mind
> looking for itself, really". I also repeat: "And therefore *notion* of
> identity of observer and observed does in fact come from actual Zen practice
> and is not some theoretical Abracadabra".
>
> Jiri
The translation 'ego' is an unfortunate
choice, especially given that the arising
of ego in response to conditions is rather
easily observed.
Jiri
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E4292A...@all.com...
This may the case but I think there is an added problem of simply trying to
explain practice of Dharma to another Buddhist. The reason is that as soon
as I open my mouth and say for example: 'In practice of Zen hua'toe enquiry
an ego searches for an ego (for itself)', I immediately get a reply from a
Buddhist: what are you talking about you idiot?. There is no such a thing as
an ego. So I try to modify my explanation and say: 'In practice of Zen
hua'toe enquiry non-existent ego searches for an non-existent ego (for
non-existent itself)'. I immediately get a reply from a Buddhist: what are
you talking about you idiot. Since ego is non existent why the hell would
you want to go searching for it. Surely Zen is about just sitting, sleeping
and farting, all done egolessly you idiot. :)
Jiri
Gileht.com
How well can I be since I am still in samsara ?
But don't tell this to my doctors or they will increase my pills' dosage
again. ;-)
Gileht.com
"Jiri" <ji...@emptysky.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
b1ssmv$ut0$1...@localhost.localdomain...
IMpossible, since all types of mind are all empty of inherent existence.
What you are proposing if the Hinduist atman, the eternal very subtle self
that is not changed (like a mirror) by the experiences.
You are making the same mistake as Tang: taking your adapted skillful meas
for an absolute.
You are reifying mind / emptiness.
Gileht.com
William Tucker
"Jiri" <ji...@emptysky.org> wrote in message
news:b1uafn$arf$1...@localhost.localdomain...
in a certain crowd that is certainly true...
that would be the herders
Wm
Jiri
This may be the case but I think there is an added problem of simply trying
to
explain practice of Dharma to another Buddhist. The reason is that as soon
as I open my mouth and say for example: 'In practice of Zen hua'toe enquiry
an ego searches for an ego (for itself)', I immediately get a reply from a
Buddhist: what are you talking about you idiot?. There is no such a thing as
an ego. So I try to modify my explanation and say: 'In practice of Zen
hua'toe enquiry a non-existent ego searches for a non-existent ego (for
boris_fuller
"all types of mind are all empty of inherent existence." - Gileht
.... :-X
Boris
Sphere
Doctor Ben! The patient needs more meds!
Sphere
Heheh. I believe the Christians call
this God.
>
> You are making the same mistake as Tang: taking your adapted skillful meas
> for an absolute.
Well... A variation on a theme anyway.
>
> You are reifying mind / emptiness.
>
> --
> Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
> Web site: http://www.gileht.com
>
>
>
Jiri
site. On it you have Teachings of Mahamudra. I assume that you exhibit the
stuff there because you agree with it, or not? The Mahamudra teachings say
there for example: <<<Bodhisattvas! All the three worlds are just mind."
"Apart from the jewel of mind, there are neither Buddhas nor sentient
beings." For the Buddha, who sees and knows dharmas as they are, appearances
in both the waking and dreaming states are the same, because he would never
perceive one as real and the other as false. **So all phenomena perceived in
the daytime, while awake, are said to be appearances of things that do not
actually exist. Even though they do not exist, they appear as delusory
phenomena, and are nothing else. Nothing substantial can be found after
investigating.**>>>
It says above: **So all phenomena perceived in the daytime, while awake, are
said to be appearances of things that do not actually exist.** I disagree
with this statement, because it is a pure speculation. I claim that since
one cannot perceive phenomena from their 'own side' therefore to speculate
whether 'objects' exist 'from their own side' or do not exist 'from their
own side' is futile and any conclusion in favor of either 'exist' or
'not-exist' cannot be a statement of fact. The above statement taken from
the web site however claims that such phenomena (objects) do not actually
exist. This is a simple assumption with no foundation whatever. I claimed
that you cannot assume this and therefore that 'object side' of the Reality
should always remain unknown. The statement above marked with ** is plainly
false. It is not marked as Buddha statement. My question is who made this
false speculative statement on the web side? If your understanding of
inherent existence is based on such a statement then it would be faulty.
Jiri
"Gileht.com" <> wrote in message ...
>
> "Jiri" < a écrit dans le message de news:
That's load of bullshit. I do not propose very subtle self nor super self. I
am talking about Dharmakaya. To say that Dharmakaya is an eternal subtle
self is really a bad attack of non-understanding flue. I think your problem
is that you cling too much to your understanding of inherent existence.
> You are making the same mistake as Tang: taking your adapted skillful meas
> for an absolute.
>
> You are reifying mind / emptiness.
>
Jiri
Sphere
In that case you need to look for other words.
The words you used were ones which invoked Atman.
>
>
>>You are making the same mistake as Tang: taking your adapted skillful meas
>>for an absolute.
>>
>>You are reifying mind / emptiness.
>>
>
>
> Jiri
>
>
boris_fuller
>My last comment is that the Middle Way is the philosophy of Mahayana
>Buddhism but it is not its practice. Therefore, the right View and the right
>Action are both required: the right theory and the right practice of
>meditation are both needed for full understanding of Dharma.
>Jiri
dharma is not 'understood' - it is recognised
dharma can be recognised without ever hearing of buddhism
there is no prior requirement for recognising dharma
"everyday life is the teacher"
Boris
Gileht.com
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E42EBD9...@all.com...
Yap. Exactly my point.
The guy is merely confused or trying to confue the issue.
Gileht
Gileht.com
> I just visited the www.gileth.com. I don't know but I suppose it is your
web
> site. On it you have Teachings of Mahamudra. I assume that you exhibit the
> stuff there because you agree with it, or not?
I have never hear of this site.. ;-)
You are soooo confused .... boy !
Anyway Send your comments to H.E.Dorzong Rinpoche in Ipoh, Malaysia. Look
for the original of this text on the Internet.
LongDang
Gileht.com wrote in message ...
>
How about.............."Fuck it!
Is that................Buddhist
verbage................Mr.BuddhaTang?
LongDang
Jiri wrote in message ...
Jiri.............you must first...................recognize the
enemy...............before you can..............destroy it!
In other words....................see the
Buddha.................before you can kill him!
>
>Jiri
>
>
>
>
Tang Huyen
LongDang wrote:
> How about.............."Fuck it!
>
> Is that................Buddhist
> verbage................Mr.BuddhaTang?
Buddhism has well adapted to different languages and cultures, and
English has enriched it with new idiom, like the expression from
Hayes/Mubul/Dayamati:
"You fuck-faced baboon!"
Unimpeachable academic probity, eh?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Reality should always remain unknown."
Is this from the same person who claimed just a few days ago:
<<The Reality is described as manifesting itself as an interrelated pair of
opposites known in Zen as 'substance' and 'function'.>>
Or again:
"In Zen everything is regarded as a manifestation on [of?] mind."
So "object side" of Reality (in capital) should always remain unknown, but the
Reality is described as manifesting itself as an interrelated pair of opposites
known in Zen as 'substance' and 'function'.
So what manifests you, Jiri luv, or is it that you on the 'object side' of the
Reality should always remain unknown to me?
Tang Huyen
LongDang
Tang Huyen wrote in message <3E430148...@yahoo.com>...
Have you ever...............seen your reflection in a
mirror..............Mr.BuddhaTang..............and not realized
it was you?
>
>Tang Huyen
>
Sphere
Zen isn't about. (you idiot :)
Actually, although I've sat Zazen as much as
anything else, I'm not much impressed with
Zen. It seems to me that Zen is a bit of a
struggle to get back to basics. Why not
simply get back to basics?
Sphere
Gileht.com wrote:
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>
>>>is that you cling too much to your understanding of inherent existence.
>>
>>
>>In that case you need to look for other words.
>>
>>The words you used were ones which invoked Atman.
>
>
>
> Yap. Exactly my point.
>
> The guy is merely confused or trying to confue the issue.
>
> Gileht
>
No. The guy is just trying to join
the group (Sangha). We've seen some
real egotistical yahoos come through.
He doesn't seem to be one of them.
Give him a hard time, but maybe not
too hard a time.
Robyn's New Name
"Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> wrote in message
news:qy90a.2435$qQ.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
<snipped inapplicable stuff>
>
> Ho well ... It was fun so far ... but now you are crossing the line.
>
> That is what I call "drowning the fish before reeling it in" !
I just wanted to get your opinion on something.
My father, who is a very strange person (please take my word for this),
wrote a long, narrative poem when he was 16. It was about a little boy who
wanted a dog, but his parents instead bought him a fish. The little boy was
determined to make the fish act like a dog. Each week, the little boy
scooped out some water from the fish bowl until finally he had the fish
breathing air and surviving on his own without water.
It gets better.
He then taught the fish how to walk. After the fish learned how to walk, the
little boy put a leash on it and took it out for a walk. Well....they were
walking along by the river and the fish tripped and fell in the water and
drowned.
Imagine being raised by a person who wrote a story like that. Can you please
analyze this story and tell me what it means? I'm serious. I really want to
get your opinion on this. Other opinions are welcome as well.
--Robyn
> Most gullible
> people would just be struck by such complexification and just rest in
doubt.
> Intelligent people would see through this bull-shit.
>
> There is no possible direct perception of anything because everything is
> empty of inherent existence, because everything is dependently arisen.
> Period.
>
> To affirm the possility of direct perception of anything is to reify this
> thing (what ever it is: external or mind itself or emptiness itself).
>
> There is no way around this.
>
> "Nothing is directly perceivable" is synonymous to "everything is empty of
> inherent existence". To object to this is to reify something. ANd to
> come-out with complex theories and esoteric practices is just trying to
> drown the fish, through powder in the eyes of the gullible suckers before
> you empty his pockets.
>
> When we say that 'the mind has to ultimately directly see it own real
> non-dual nature' is just a figure of speech. Directly seeing our own mind
is
> to see that there is nothing real to see. The goal of Buddhism is to seek
> this very subtle mind and to see that there is nothing real there. It is
> like seeing empty space, like seeing that everything is merely projections
> without even a real projector. Realizing emptiness is to seek and find
> nothing real (inherently existing, on its own) -- without denying the
> conventional.
>
> You seem to believe in an atman (a real eternal self) as sphere said. That
> is the proper of all Vajrayanists (ythey are all reifying the mind and
> emptiness). They cannot make the difference between a skillful means and
an
> absolute truth. They have reified emptiness/mind and are adoring this God
> like the Hinduists are adoring their God.
>
> As for "wasting time on the cushion", I already said that many millions of
> Hinduists have done that before, and done it a thousand time more longer
> than you will ever be able to do it in this life time, and they all
arrived
> at the conclusion that there is an eternal self, there is a God, there are
> castes and duties, and there is the need for human sacrifices as proper
> offering to gods. You are using exactly the same yoga techniques (based on
> the same pre-Buddhist naive theory) and you think that you among all will
> arrive at a different "direct perception" of the real truth (or that your
> masters have directly seen this). Well, either one of the two teams
> (Hinduist tantrists, or Buddhist tantrists) is lying about its conclusions
> (since they are completely opposite) or that the methods themselves are
> total bull-shit and self-hallucination. I think the fact that the same
> method gives different results with different people means that the method
> is totally subjective. That is another proof that there is no direct yogic
> perception (it is just a skillful means, it is not real).
>
> Your whole yoga theory is based on Nyaya concepts that have been proven
> false by Nagarjuna & al. (see chapters on perception), and by modern
> philosophies and sciences (they have all rejected naive realism like the
one
> supporting direct perception of anything). It is just a skillful means.
>
> Trying to confuse people with complex mumbo jumbo like you did above is
not
> going to help your cause. It only proves that Vajrayanists are having
naive
> blind faith in thechniques that have no place in a modern society anymore.
> They are like grasping at the theory tha the earth is flat and at the
center
> of the universe, even if all facts and reasonings point toward a
refutation
> of this.
>
> As Leon said "Thank you for making the effort to post this. It is much
> appreciated."
> And as Spere said "You have turned mind into atman."
>
> I hope you will keep trying to defend your point.
>
Robert Epstein
Robyn's New Name wrote:
> Hi.
> "Gileht.com" <for...@it.net> wrote in message
> news:qy90a.2435$qQ.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> <snipped inapplicable stuff>
> >
> > Ho well ... It was fun so far ... but now you are crossing the line.
> >
> > That is what I call "drowning the fish before reeling it in" !
>
> I just wanted to get your opinion on something.
>
> My father, who is a very strange person (please take my word for this),
> wrote a long, narrative poem when he was 16. It was about a little boy who
> wanted a dog, but his parents instead bought him a fish. The little boy was
> determined to make the fish act like a dog. Each week, the little boy
> scooped out some water from the fish bowl until finally he had the fish
> breathing air and surviving on his own without water.
>
> It gets better.
>
> He then taught the fish how to walk. After the fish learned how to walk, the
> little boy put a leash on it and took it out for a walk. Well....they were
> walking along by the river and the fish tripped and fell in the water and
> drowned.
>
> Imagine being raised by a person who wrote a story like that. Can you please
> analyze this story and tell me what it means? I'm serious. I really want to
> get your opinion on this. Other opinions are welcome as well.
>
> --Robyn
Your dad's story seems very sensible to me.
The meaning is obvious, being a variant of the 'fish-out-of-water' metaphor
which is also a kind of an archetype.
Anyway, your dad is trying to evolve from a spiritual person
to someone who can function in the world.
In doing so he gives up some of his spiritual qualities
and adapts to being on land.
Having forgotten his original nature,
when he runs into a spiritual challenge
it no longer makes sense to him
and he 'drowns' in what was once his natural habitat.
His conditioning was successful -
the operation was successful
but killed the patient
in the long run.
The sadness of trying to cause a fish to act like a dog,
or to get a fish when one wanted a dog,
to be given a deep but elusive inner nature
but not have the fun outer reality that one craves as a child.......
Of course death in a metaphor is not permanent,
any more than it is in reincarnation,
which, whether actual or not,
is also a metaphor,
perhaps one which we live.
Robert
===============================
Robert Epstein
Tang Huyen wrote:
> The whole of early Buddhism, known to Chinese Buddhism as the Agama-s, and
> Chinese Chan, so far as I know, agree in that there is nothing to be found, and
> that the very idea of something to be found is the root of delusion, the root
> delusion. In the Platform Scripture, there is the famous saying: "From the
> beginning there is not one thing".
How can you quote this to support the idea that there is nothing to look for?
This quote clearly means that nothing exists period.
Please discuss.
Robert
Jiri
"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
> Reality should always remain unknown."
>
> Is this from the same person who claimed just a few days ago:
>
> <<The Reality is described as manifesting itself as an interrelated pair
of
> opposites known in Zen as 'substance' and 'function'.>>
>
> Or again:
>
> "In Zen everything is regarded as a manifestation on [of?] mind."
>
> So "object side" of Reality (in capital) should always remain unknown, but
the
> Reality is described as manifesting itself as an interrelated pair of
opposites
> known in Zen as 'substance' and 'function'.
>
> So what manifests you, Jiri luv, or is it that you on the 'object side' of
the
> Reality should always remain unknown to me?
>
Wow, you definitely suffer this winter with a bad attack of not
understanding, luv. I indeed said that if you attempt to look for the source
of your functioning, or you own manifestation, you get the case of
success/failure. Please re-read my posts about it. Then take an aspirin and
go and stick your hand under a 'tunneling electron microscope'. Then when
you see 'atoms' of your hand as small 'ping pong balls' please realize that
whatever color they may be you are still looking at colors generated by
your mind, you are still looking at your 'side' of reality. Those colors
of those little 'ping pong' balls are produced by your mind. You will be
looking at the known 'side' of Reality, namely, manifestations of mind. You
can perhaps try to describe their behavior with some Shrodinger's Wave
Function, but you can never take the glasses of you senses off to look at
the little bleeders directly. Then go and lie down and dream of those little
buggers and remember words of Buddha posted on gileth.com site: 'For the
Buddha, who sees and knows dharmas as they are, appearances in both the
waking and dreaming states are the same, because he would never perceive one
as real and the other as false'. Hopefully you will wake up cured and wiser.
Jiri
Jiri
<Boris Fuller> wrote in message news:3e42edb3...@news.lineone.net...
Dharma needs to be recognized *and* understood. Practice and theory are both
needed. Do not abandon Buddhist Philosophy or Sutras. Please also re-read my
previous post about statements of D.T.Suzuki about his Realization (Satori).
Suzuki needed an *abstract* metaphor of 'bending elbow' to understand more
fully his *actual* experience.
Jiri
Jiri
"Robyn's New Name" wrote in message .
> Hi.
> "Gileht.com" > wrote in message
>
> <snipped inapplicable stuff>
> >
> > Ho well ... It was fun so far ... but now you are crossing the line.
> >
> > That is what I call "drowning the fish before reeling it in" !
>
> I just wanted to get your opinion on something.
>
> My father, who is a very strange person (please take my word for this),
> wrote a long, narrative poem when he was 16. It was about a little boy who
> wanted a dog, but his parents instead bought him a fish. The little boy
was
> determined to make the fish act like a dog. Each week, the little boy
> scooped out some water from the fish bowl until finally he had the fish
> breathing air and surviving on his own without water.
>
> It gets better.
>
> He then taught the fish how to walk. After the fish learned how to walk,
the
> little boy put a leash on it and took it out for a walk. Well....they were
> walking along by the river and the fish tripped and fell in the water and
> drowned.
>
> Imagine being raised by a person who wrote a story like that. Can you
please
> analyze this story and tell me what it means? I'm serious. I really want
to
> get your opinion on this. Other opinions are welcome as well.
>
> --Robyn
There was a little mouse. Along came an elephant. Elephants hate mice. So he
buried the mouse under a huge pile of its own dung. A cat saw it. Cats love
mice. So he helped the mice to get out of the dung and ate it.
Jiri
Lee
> I just visited the www.gileth.com. <snip> It says above: **So all
> phenomena perceived in the daytime, while awake, are said to be
> appearances of things that do not actually exist.** I disagree with
> this statement, because it is a pure speculation. I claim that since
> one cannot perceive phenomena from their 'own side' therefore to
> speculate whether 'objects' exist 'from their own side' or do not
> exist 'from their own side' is futile and any conclusion in favor of
> either 'exist' or 'not-exist' cannot be a statement of fact. The
> above statement taken from the web site however claims that such
> phenomena (objects) do not actually exist. This is a simple
> assumption with no foundation whatever. I claimed that you cannot
> assume this and therefore that 'object side' of the Reality should
> always remain unknown.
Hi Jiri:
You had a good Pyrrhonian argument going until you threw in the
Academic's assertion that "Reality should always remain unknown."
Maybe, maybe not. But what preceeded it was certainly weasely enough
for my taste. :)
Jiri
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E431EFA...@all.com...
If we all really new what the basics were, then humanity would not be
fighting each other and we would not be calling each other 'you idiot', (you
idiot :) .
Jiri
Jiri
"LongDang" <Long...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e42f...@news.iglou.com...
These appear to be wise words, but there is a story of a Zen monk who had
his first Satori experience. And he was asked by an old Zen Teacher: "Now
tell me, that large boulder you recognize in front of you: is it inside your
mind or outside"? The monk without hesitation replied: "Inside of course".
'Then", said the old man, "you have a heavy load to carry". Are you an
another candidate for 'suicide'? If so, how are you going to kill all the
'other' Buddha's, like Sphere or Tang?
Jiri
Wachigupta
> > there for example: <<<Bodhisattvas! All the three worlds are just mind."
> > "Apart from the jewel of mind, there are neither Buddhas nor sentient
> > beings." For the Buddha, who sees and knows dharmas as they are,
> appearances
> > in both the waking and dreaming states are the same, because he would
> never
> > perceive one as real and the other as false. **So all phenomena
perceived
> in
> > the daytime, while awake, are said to be appearances of things that do
not
> > actually exist. Even though they do not exist, they appear as delusory
> > phenomena, and are nothing else. Nothing substantial can be found after
> > investigating.**>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > It says above: **So all phenomena perceived in the daytime, while awake,
> are
> > said to be appearances of things that do not actually exist.** I
disagree
> > with this statement, because it is a pure speculation.
To claim this statement "to be appearances of things that do not actually
exist" as pure speculation, would render this statement "For the Buddha, who
sees and knows dharmas as they are" as pure speculation as well. If the
whole statement [in a definitive presentation] cannot contradict itself,
both statements cannot be of speculation.
The statement make a claim based on status of awakening [of the buddhas],
not on status of ignorance [of sentient beings]. Statement based on status
of awakening about the real or false of the known are not speculative. Only
statement based on status of ignorance about the real or false of the
unknown are speculative.
> > I claim that since
> > one cannot perceive phenomena from their 'own side' therefore to
speculate
> > whether 'objects' exist 'from their own side' or do not exist 'from
their
> > own side' is futile and any conclusion in favor of either 'exist' or
> > 'not-exist' cannot be a statement of fact.
By claiming phenomena possessed its "own side", one already claim that this
phenomena exists in its own side, even though one claim that phenomena which
"exists" on its own side does not exist, this claim merely confirmed an
existence of a phenomena on its own side in which one [unintentionally]
posits an existence, but not on the 'other side' in which one posits a
non-existence. Both of these negative & poisitive proposition are
speculative.
The cited statement however, did not posit that phenomena possessed its "own
side", but directly refute its existence, therefore it did not have a
speculative contradiction. The claim of the false (the non-existence of
phenomena) is not based on speculation as the real (tatatha) has been
perceived non-speculatively. Like 2 objects, one is fake, another is real,
as long as the real or fake is not confirm, all statement about real or fake
is based on speculation. But once the real is confirmed, the statement about
the false is not speculative, viz. once the real is perceived, it did not
necessitate the perception of the fake, in order for the statement about the
fake is not to be speculative.
>> The above statement taken from
> > the web site however claims that such phenomena (objects) do not
actually
> > exist. This is a simple assumption with no foundation whatever. I
claimed
> > that you cannot assume this and therefore that 'object side' of the
> Reality
> > should always remain unknown.
In the status of ignorance [of reality], the claim "Reality should always
remain unknown" is purely speculative. The cited statement however, posit a
status of awakening [of reality], therefore its claim about "phenomena does
not exist" is non-speculative.
>> The statement above marked with ** is
> plainly
> > false. It is not marked as Buddha statement. My question is who made
this
> > false speculative statement on the web side? If your understanding of
> > inherent existence is based on such a statement then it would be faulty.
You have not cited any proof that the Buddha statement refuted the claim
"phenomena does not exist". To claim a false statement as based on the
Buddha statement is equate to slandering the Buddha.
Sphere
Jiri wrote:
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E431EFA...@all.com...
...
>>
>>Actually, although I've sat Zazen as much as
>>anything else, I'm not much impressed with
>>Zen. It seems to me that Zen is a bit of a
>>struggle to get back to basics. Why not
>>simply get back to basics?
>>
>
>
> If we all really new what the basics were, then humanity would not be
> fighting each other and we would not be calling each other 'you idiot', (you
> idiot :) .
>
> Jiri
If wishes were fishes and all that.
Jiri
"Wachigupta" <wachi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3e439...@news.tm.net.my...
You have lost me there with your logic. I do not follow what you mean by
phenomena. For me a manifestation (phenomenon?) of pain exists. It can
exists even in a dream. If I get hit in a dream I might wake up, but that is
beside the point. Manifestation (phenomenon?) of pain/suffering whether in a
dream or not has, apparently, existed for Buddha, otherwise he would not
bother to teach Dharma.
Whether there are some other manifestations (phenomena?) 'behind', the pain
I do not know. Maybe they are, maybe not. Maybe what is 'behind' the pain is
too complex to even imagine. Maybe the suffering started long time ago by a
movement of butterfly's wing in a jungle on a far off planet, maybe it is
caused by those nasty little bleeders electrons and protons. I am leaving it
in the unknown. I don't mind if some stuff is left in the unknown, whether
it exist or not. I like surprises. All I am saying that there is such a
thing as known and unknown. I know the color of my carpet, but I don't know
color of yours, maybe you even don't have one.
Why I should offer a proof whether Buddha said that phenomena do or do not
or both or neither exist? It is self evident for me that I have the capacity
to know and also don't know. You seem to have assumed that the word 'dharma'
in the above statements means everything and therefore 'For the Buddha, who
sees and knows dharmas as they are' is a statement confirming Buddha's 'know
all' omniscience. I do not see the word 'all [dharmas whether known or
unknown]' in the statement. To me Buddha was just and ordinary bloke whose
teachings can help me to stop clinging to a bad habit (of my ego).
Jiri
Jiri
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E43AB5F...@all.com...
>
>
> Jiri wrote:
> > "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
news:3E431EFA...@all.com...
> ...
> >>
> >>Actually, although I've sat Zazen as much as
> >>anything else, I'm not much impressed with
> >>Zen. It seems to me that Zen is a bit of a
> >>struggle to get back to basics. Why not
> >>simply get back to basics?
> >>
> >
> >
> > If we all really new what the basics were, then humanity would not be
> > fighting each other and we would not be calling each other 'you idiot',
(you
> > idiot :) .
> >
> > Jiri
>
>
> If wishes were fishes and all that.
>
In my country there is well known common saying:
'If there were fishes up your bum there would be no need
for rivers and lakes'.
Jiri
Lee
> To claim this statement "to be appearances of things that do not
> actually exist" as pure speculation, would render this statement "For
> the Buddha, who sees and knows dharmas as they are" as pure
> speculation as well. If the whole statement [in a definitive
> presentation] cannot contradict itself, both statements cannot be of
> speculation.
You need to step out of your interpretive bubble which assumes, without
more, that the text is definitive because tradition and commentary say
so. Your logic has as much validity as that of the Christian claiming
the Bible is true because his God and tradition say it is so.
Tang Huyen
Lee wrote:
In the Buddhism that I know, a partisan of any flavour of Buddhism would
call his version of Buddhism "of definitive meaning", meaning that it needs
not be drawn out further (nitartha) because it is already perfect, and the
remaining versions "of meaning to be drawn out" (neyartha).
But if one considers what the Buddha said, there could be no "definitive
meaning" whatsoever in Buddhism, because whatever is expressed in thought
and language is intrinsically flawed, genetically defective on its own
side, even before it was ever given rise to.
As the Buddha said: "What and what they think it, it is otherwise".
Even that statement and the whole of the Buddha's teaching, namely the Law
(Dharma), are mere means to point out suffering and the ending of
suffering, and are never ends in and of themselves, for he explicitly
declared that the Law (Dharma) is like unto a raft, to ferry one from this
shore (of suffering) to the other shore (of the ending of suffering), but
to be abandoned once it has accomplished its job, of ferrying one to the
other shore.
Contrariwise if one was still to carry it around, it would not have done
its job, of freeing one from attachment, including to itself. (Not to
mention carrying around one's self, which is so big and prickly that any
criticism is immediately answered with massive relatiation in the form of
vile ad hominem arguments against the author of the criticism,
unaccompanied by any rational, substantive consideration of the criticism
on its own merit, apart from its author).
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
LongDang wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> >LongDang:
>
> >> How about.............."Fuck it!
> >>
> >> Is that................Buddhist
> >> verbage................Mr.BuddhaTang?
>
> >Buddhism has well adapted to different languages and
> >cultures, and English has enriched it with new idiom, like
> >the expression from Hayes/Mubul/Dayamati:
> >
> >"You fuck-faced baboon!"
> >
> >Unimpeachable academic probity, eh?
>
> Have you ever...............seen your reflection in a
> mirror..............Mr.BuddhaTang..............and not realized
> it was you?
I wish I could attain anywhere near the command of Sanskrit, Pali and
Tibetan of Hayes, not to mention his inspired scatology.
That said, it appears that I can throw insults with some efficacy, as
their recipients tend to react by blowing up all over in full
Technicolour and soundsurround, including Hayes, who regularly claims
familiarity with the Divine Abodes, amongst other extra-curricular
accomplishments resulting from long years and decades of practice.
However, in Buddhism throwing insults at one's interlocutor is a sign of
respect for them, as Hayes himself wrote, as Mubul (mu...@aol.com) in
"Re: buddhism/occident", 1999/05/03:
<<But wise people engage in discussion, which involves the examination
of ideas with a fair and open mind, and such a mind is always ready to
reject what is unsubstantiated and shallow. If the sage really respects
the wisdom of his interlocutor, he will also throw in several choice
insults, to prove the other's patience.>>
Tang "reflection in a mirror" Huyen
Sphere
What country is that?
Lee
Yes, in my view, this idea of a teaching "of definitive meaning" is the
hallmark of the sectarian spinning tales, taking their language to be
final, closed, and, therefore, indisputably true. Bur, based on my own
experiences, whether any langage can pretend to reflect Reality with a
capital "R" is not only questionable, but largly beside the point.
For example, I can use my senses and critical thinking skills to confirm
what appears to be a general sense of regularity and repeatability in
the world. Buddhists have deemed this regularity "dependent arising" as
a way of describing the seeming lawfulness of this observation. But
whether my sense inpressions describe some underlying reality, if any,
is unknown to me at this time. Whether unknowable is another question.
In any event, I have found that I can manipulate this seeming regularity
in various ways. I have become adept at watching how sense contact can
quickly give rise to mental formations that compel me to act and react
in ways that may or may not be "skillful" as I contingently define the
term. Further, after detailed observation of this arising side of sense
contact, I have discovered ways in which the resulting actions and
reactions cease, whether intentionally or not, and how to either keep
them from arising in the first place if that is my choice or how to let
go of them if they do arise.
But none of this requires me to pretend to know whether my vocabulary
and practice reflect an underlying Reality of some kind. In this
regard, Rorty's description has value: "Truth cannot be out
there--cannot exist independently of the human mind--because sentences
cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but
descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be
true or false. The world on its own--unaided by the describing
activities of human beings--cannot." Though the preceding may suffer
from its own claims of certainty, it can assist others in understanding
the contingency of their vocabularies as a first step in letting them go.
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
> Jiri wrote:
> > "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E43AB5F...@all.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Jiri wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> >>
> > news:3E431EFA...@all.com...
> >
> >>...
> >>
> >>>>Actually, although I've sat Zazen as much as
> >>>>anything else, I'm not much impressed with
> >>>>Zen. It seems to me that Zen is a bit of a
> >>>>struggle to get back to basics. Why not
> >>>>simply get back to basics?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If we all really new what the basics were, then humanity would not be
> >>>fighting each other and we would not be calling each other 'you idiot',
> >>
> > (you
> >
> >>>idiot :) .
> >>>
> >>>Jiri
> >>
> >>
> >>If wishes were fishes and all that.
> >>
> > In my country there is well known common saying:
> > 'If there were fishes up your bum there would be no need
> > for rivers and lakes'.
> >
> > Jiri
>
> What country is that?
Jiri's a void Czech...
Lee
> However, in Buddhism throwing insults at one's interlocutor is a sign of
> respect for them
Tis true. Everytime you call me an idiot, I know you are really asking
me by for some of your legendary tea.
Gileht.com
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E434B6A...@verizon.net...
It is well knwo that Tang has magical glasses that makes him see a different
interpretation of all the sutras, and that only with those magical glasses
can one "directly see" this absolute truth.
lol
Gileht.com
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E43D3B7...@yahoo.com...
Once in a while, in a blue moon, Tang is right !
Let's celebrate this rare cosmic event.
Gileht.com
>
>
> LongDang wrote:
>
> > Tang Huyen:
> >
> > >LongDang:
> >
> > >> How about.............."Fuck it!
> > >>
> > >> Is that................Buddhist
> > >> verbage................Mr.BuddhaTang?
> >
> > >Buddhism has well adapted to different languages and
> > >cultures, and English has enriched it with new idiom, like
> > >the expression from Hayes/Mubul/Dayamati:
> > >
> > >"You fuck-faced baboon!"
> > >
> > >Unimpeachable academic probity, eh?
> >
> > Have you ever...............seen your reflection in a
> > mirror..............Mr.BuddhaTang..............and not realized
> > it was you?
>
> I wish I could attain anywhere near the command of Sanskrit, Pali and
> Tibetan of Hayes, not to mention his inspired scatology.
>
Gosh, stop all celebrations Tang has contradicted himself again in the same
half hour.
Here he is prasing his capacity to insult people and crate rage in them.
> That said, it appears that I can throw insults with some efficacy, (Tang)
While just a moment ago he said:
"(Not to mention carrying around one's self, which is so big and prickly
that any criticism is immediately answered with massive relatiation in the
form of vile ad hominem arguments against the author of the criticism,
unaccompanied by any rational, substantive consideration of the criticism on
its own merit, apart from its author)" (Tang)
> as
> their recipients tend to react by blowing up all over in full
> Technicolour and soundsurround, including Hayes, who regularly claims
> familiarity with the Divine Abodes, amongst other extra-curricular
> accomplishments resulting from long years and decades of practice.
>
And he continues prasing his capacity to insult others efficiently :
> However, in Buddhism throwing insults at one's interlocutor is a sign of
> respect for them, ...>
> Tang "reflection in a mirror" Huyen
>
The guy lives in a weird world !
Gileht.com
"Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
b20miv$3v2$1...@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
That is exactly why I am spending so much effort here in trying to refute
all "direct perception" of any absolute truths like it is proposed in
Hinduism, Hinayana and Vajrayana.
The "direct perception" of ultimate truths is the fianl argument used by all
of those sects that cannot defend their points.
It always comes down to "You don,t understand because your vision is
clouded; but I see clearly because I am a superior being and you are a
morons." That is the argument of the proud Vajrayanists.
It is the same arguments used by those sects and other extremists like all
dictators / despots: Hitler, ...
> For example, I can use my senses and critical thinking skills to confirm
> what appears to be a general sense of regularity and repeatability in
> the world. Buddhists have deemed this regularity "dependent arising" as
> a way of describing the seeming lawfulness of this observation. But
> whether my sense inpressions describe some underlying reality, if any,
> is unknown to me at this time. Whether unknowable is another question.
>
> In any event, I have found that I can manipulate this seeming regularity
> in various ways. I have become adept at watching how sense contact can
> quickly give rise to mental formations that compel me to act and react
> in ways that may or may not be "skillful" as I contingently define the
> term. Further, after detailed observation of this arising side of sense
> contact, I have discovered ways in which the resulting actions and
> reactions cease, whether intentionally or not, and how to either keep
> them from arising in the first place if that is my choice or how to let
> go of them if they do arise.
You you are saying that you have found some minimal control.
> But none of this requires me to pretend to know whether my vocabulary
> and practice reflect an underlying Reality of some kind.
But you are not fooled in thinking that you can attain absolute control, or
find some absolute laws of causality.
> In this
> regard, Rorty's description has value: "Truth cannot be out
> there--cannot exist independently of the human mind--because sentences
> cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but
> descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be
> true or false. The world on its own--unaided by the describing
> activities of human beings--cannot." Though the preceding may suffer
> from its own claims of certainty, it can assist others in understanding
> the contingency of their vocabularies as a first step in letting them go.
"Contingency" ... I love this word ... I think it is a synonym of "karma".
Nice post.
Tang Huyen
Lee wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
I haven't called you "helmet head" in awhile, however, son ...
Tang Huyen
Shiva
Well put. It is hypocritical of Buddhists to knock Hindus,
Christians for their God & Soul theories while spouting
dogma of their own that is at variance with the experiential
and pragmatic nature of B's message. Gileht immediately
springs to mind, but I suspect that it is less hyprocisy in
his case than a conceptual cesspool.
Shiva
Robyn's New Name
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E43359F...@verizon.net...
That's probably what he meant when he was 16. He's changed a whole lot since
then (he's now in his mid-60s). I just thought the story was hilarious and
wanted to share it.
All this discussion about literal meanings of religious writings reminded me
of a poem by my father's favorite poet, Ogden Nash. I think the poem can be
applied to writing about religion as well...
"Very Like a Whale"
One thing that literature would be greatly the better for
Would be a more restricted employment by the authors of simile and
metaphor.
Authors of all races, be they Greeks, Romans, Teutons or Celts,
Can't seem just to say that anything is the thing it is but have to
go out of their way to say that it is like something else.
What does it mean when we are told
That that Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold?
In the first place, George Gordon Byron had enough experience
To know that it probably wasn't just one Assyrian, it was a lot of
Assyrians.
However, as too many arguments are apt to induce apoplexy and
thus hinder longevity
We'll let it pass as one Assyrian for the sake of brevity.
Now then, this particular Assyrian, the one whose cohorts were
gleaming in purple and gold,
Just what does the poet mean when he says he came down like a
wolf on the fold?
In heaven and earth more than is dreamed of in our philosophy
there are great many things.
But I don't imagine that among them there is a wolf with purple
and gold cohorts or purple and gold anythings.
No, no, Lord Byron, before I'll believe that this Assyrian was
actually like a wolf I must have some kind of proof;
Did he run on all fours and did he have a hairy tail and a big red
mouth and big white teeth and did he say Woof Woof?
Frankly I think it is very unlikely, and all you were entitled to say,
at the very most,
Was that the Assyrian cohorts came down like a lot of Assyrian
cohorts about to destroy the Hebrew host.
But that wasn't fancy enough for Lord Byron, oh dear me no, he
had to invent a lot of figures of speech and then interpolate them,
With the result that whenever you mention Old Testament soldiers
to people they say Oh yes, they're the ones that a lot of
wolves dressed up in gold and purple ate them.
That's the kind of thing that's being done all the time by poets,
from Homer to Tennyson;
They're always comparing ladies to lilies and veal to venison,
And they always say things like that the snow is a white blanket
after a winter storm.
Oh it is, is it, all right then, you sleep under a six-inch blanket of
snow and I'll sleep under a half-inch blanket of unpoetical
blanket material and we'll see which one keeps warm,
And after that maybe you'll begin to comprehend dimly
What I mean by too much metaphor and simile.
William Tucker
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E43D3B7...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Lee wrote:
>
> > Wachigupta wrote:
> >
> > > To claim this statement "to be appearances of things that do not
> > > actually exist" as pure speculation, would render this statement "For
> > > the Buddha, who sees and knows dharmas as they are" as pure
> > > speculation as well. If the whole statement [in a definitive
> > > presentation] cannot contradict itself, both statements cannot be of
> > > speculation.
> >
> > You need to step out of your interpretive bubble which assumes, without
> > more, that the text is definitive because tradition and commentary say
> > so. Your logic has as much validity as that of the Christian claiming
> > the Bible is true because his God and tradition say it is so.
>
> In the Buddhism that I know, a partisan of any flavour of Buddhism would
> call his version of Buddhism "of definitive meaning", meaning that it
needs
> not be drawn out further (nitartha) because it is already perfect, and the
> remaining versions "of meaning to be drawn out" (neyartha).
>
> But if one considers what the Buddha said, there could be no "definitive
> meaning" whatsoever in Buddhism, because whatever is expressed in thought
> and language is intrinsically flawed, genetically defective on its own
> side, even before it was ever given rise to.
more correctly expressed, already growing cold...moving out of contextbeing
left behind
the expressed word, not the living word
the living word is the staying in context
of the conversation of life, an example of being
the multidimensional horizon of being
in tune, in the moment, not as a given but as an art
Lee
> "Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
<snip my post>
> Nice post.
Well damn Gileht. Now I have to go back and see what I did wrong. :)
Wachigupta
"Jiri" <ji...@emptysky.org> wrote in message
news:b20ecp$t26$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> > "phenomena does not exist". To claim a false statement as based on the
> > Buddha statement is equate to slandering the Buddha.
> >
>
> You have lost me there with your logic. I do not follow what you mean by
> phenomena. For me a manifestation (phenomenon?) of pain exists. It can
> exists even in a dream. If I get hit in a dream I might wake up, but that
is
> beside the point. Manifestation (phenomenon?) of pain/suffering whether in
a
> dream or not has, apparently, existed for Buddha, otherwise he would not
> bother to teach Dharma.
Phenomena is external appearances as perceived thru the senses. Pain is
tactile sensation interpreted by thought. In awakened beings, tactile
sensation is not interpreted by thought, & so the concept of pain did not
exist in them. The awakened one taught the dharma, in order that the concept
of pain ceases, & so ceases the pain.
>
> Whether there are some other manifestations (phenomena?) 'behind', the
pain
> I do not know. Maybe they are, maybe not. Maybe what is 'behind' the pain
is
> too complex to even imagine.
> Maybe the suffering started long time ago by a
> movement of butterfly's wing in a jungle on a far off planet, maybe it is
> caused by those nasty little bleeders electrons and protons. I am leaving
it
> in the unknown. I don't mind if some stuff is left in the unknown, whether
> it exist or not. I like surprises. All I am saying that there is such a
> thing as known and unknown. I know the color of my carpet, but I don't
know
> color of yours, maybe you even don't have one.
To posit an uncertainty ("maybe") is to posit ignorance, the presence of
ignorance nullified the meaningfulness of the statement itself. All
speculation based on ignorant statement will not reach any conclusion, but
more speculations -- one of the causes of suffering.
> Why I should offer a proof whether Buddha said that phenomena do or do not
> or both or neither exist? It is self evident for me that I have the
capacity
> to know and also don't know.
Because in the presence of self-posited ignorance, self-posited knowledge is
invalid.
> You seem to have assumed that the word 'dharma'
> in the above statements means everything and therefore 'For the Buddha,
who
> sees and knows dharmas as they are' is a statement confirming Buddha's
'know
> all' omniscience.
The Buddha (the awakened) perceived the 1st-meaning, where all
dharma-descriptions (meaning) infered, this rendered the awakened
omniscience.
> I do not see the word 'all [dharmas whether known or
> unknown]' in the statement. To me Buddha was just and ordinary bloke
whose
> teachings can help me to stop clinging to a bad habit (of my ego).
To demand written justification displayed an attachment to words instead of
meaning, all interpretation of words from an ignorance status lead to
meaningless speculation. Without dharma, the ignorant would not know a bad
habit to be eliminated in the first place. If the ignorant assume to know a
bad habit to be eliminated & so employed dharma, he would have to risk
mis-interpreting the dharma in order for the dharma to fit his own
description of bad habit. However, in the end, his so called remedy will
failed to meet the requirement of the 1st meaning, & so failed to reach the
goal of buddhism, for he has contrived the dharma of facilitative meaning
(enlightened intent) for non-facilitative (worldly intent) end.
Wachigupta
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TiW0a.4510$tO2.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3E43D3B7...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Lee wrote:
> >
> > > Wachigupta wrote:
> > >
> > > > To claim this statement "to be appearances of things that do not
> > > > actually exist" as pure speculation, would render this statement
"For
> > > > the Buddha, who sees and knows dharmas as they are" as pure
> > > > speculation as well. If the whole statement [in a definitive
> > > > presentation] cannot contradict itself, both statements cannot be of
> > > > speculation.
> > >
Lee = "You need to step out of your interpretive bubble which assumes,
without
more, that the text is definitive because tradition and commentary say
so. Your logic has as much validity as that of the Christian claiming
the Bible is true because his God and tradition say it is so."
'
A text is definitive not based on claim on the text itself but on contents.
Generally, the law (dharma) itself is definitive, but record of thing-events
(stories) are not. But in buddhism, the law itself is both definitive &
indefinitve. The law is indefinitive when it concerned facilitative meaning,
it is definitive when it concerned the direct meaning. The text concerned
was level of essence-mahamudra, at this level, writers do not communicate
facilitative meaning, therefore it is textual of definitive significance
(meaning).
As for validity of this reasoning in comparison with monotheist's logic, the
monotheist does not possess direct perception of the alleged Overlord, such
possibility of direct perception is as refuted by Nagarjuna's Karikas.
Buddhism however, is based on direct perception of tatatha, a stable
foundation that rendered definitive meaning as irrefutable.
Tang Huyen= "In the Buddhism that I know, a partisan of any flavour of
Buddhism would call his version of Buddhism "of definitive meaning", meaning
that it needs
not be drawn out further (nitartha) because it is already perfect, and the
remaining versions "of meaning to be drawn out" (neyartha). But if one
considers what the Buddha said, there could be no "definitive meaning"
whatsoever in Buddhism, because whatever is expressed in thought and
language is intrinsically flawed, genetically defective on its own side,
even before it was ever given rise to."
Words are subject to mis-interpretation, therefore in words, flaws (defects)
in communication exist. However, meaning itself is not subject to
mis-interpretation, therefore in meaning, flaws (defects) in communication
do not exist. All meanings are based from the 1st-meaning, it is the 1st
meaning that determined the meaning of all meanings communicated in words.
And so it is the 1st-meaning that determine whether a statement is
definitive or indefnitive. The 1st-meaning does not expressed in words, this
fact does not nullified the fact that meaning can exist in wordlessness. To
nullified definitive meaning, therefore nullified all meaning, [including
the 1st-meaning which is beyond words]. This is nullification at the level
of annihilism -- an extremist view which strayed from the middle path.
William Tucker = "more correctly expressed, already growing cold...moving
out of contextbeing left behind"
That which changes, is not dharma but personal opinion which subject to
changes of internal & external condition. Dharma, be it definitive or
facilitative, they are changeless in their own meaning & so stable in the 3
times.
William Tucker =
> the expressed word, not the living word
>
> the living word is the staying in context
>
> of the conversation of life, an example of being
>
> the multidimensional horizon of being
>
> in tune, in the moment, not as a given but as an art
The above can easily be summarized in one word: "relevency" which is a
typical requirement of dharma discloses to be in dialogue format. However,
this dharma is dialogue format will not be subject to your 1st statement,
ie. "moving out of context" in time, for the context are intact in recorded
words to be apprehended by future readers. Only selective extraction of
verbs &/or making verbs into noun for purpose of selective interpretation
will the originl meaning be harmed. Example: the extraction of "direct
perception" from maha-ati text & its consequence when interpretated as a
noun based on selective comparison with citation from textual of
facilitative meaning.
Tang Huyen=
> > As the Buddha said: "What and what they think it, it is otherwise".
> >
> > Even that statement and the whole of the Buddha's teaching, namely the
Law
> > (Dharma), are mere means to point out suffering and the ending of
> > suffering, and are never ends in and of themselves, for he explicitly
> > declared that the Law (Dharma) is like unto a raft, to ferry one from
this
> > shore (of suffering) to the other shore (of the ending of suffering),
but
> > to be abandoned once it has accomplished its job, of ferrying one to the
> > other shore.
> > Contrariwise if one was still to carry it around, it would not have done
> > its job, of freeing one from attachment, including to itself. (Not to
> > mention carrying around one's self, which is so big and prickly that any
> > criticism is immediately answered with massive relatiation in the form
of
> > vile ad hominem arguments against the author of the criticism,
> > unaccompanied by any rational, substantive consideration of the
criticism
> > on its own merit, apart from its author).
When a law is point out not for the law's sake, but for the sake of
something outside the law (the 1st-meaning), ie. suffering, it is for the
sake of facilitative meaning, not definitive meaning, that dharma-disclose
dialogue will then based on facilitative meaning. This facilitative law
(raft) can be abandoned when the definitive meaning is reached (ie. the
other shore).
Lee
> To posit an uncertainty ("maybe") is to posit ignorance, the presence
> of ignorance nullified the meaningfulness of the statement itself.
Certitude conquers doubt, not ignorance.
And with doubt conquered, ignorance is invincible.
All hail the conquering fool.
--
Lee
Jiri
>
> "Jiri" <ji...@emptysky.org> wrote in message
> news:b20ecp$t26$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > "Wachigupta" <wachi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > You have not cited any proof that the Buddha statement refuted the
claim
> > > "phenomena does not exist". To claim a false statement as based on the
> > > Buddha statement is equate to slandering the Buddha.
> > >
> >
> > You have lost me there with your logic. I do not follow what you mean by
> > phenomena. For me a manifestation (phenomenon?) of pain exists. It can
> > exists even in a dream. If I get hit in a dream I might wake up, but
that
> is
> > beside the point. Manifestation (phenomenon?) of pain/suffering whether
in
> a
> > dream or not has, apparently, existed for Buddha, otherwise he would not
> > bother to teach Dharma.
>
> Phenomena is external appearances as perceived thru the senses. Pain is
> tactile sensation interpreted by thought. In awakened beings, tactile
> sensation is not interpreted by thought, & so the concept of pain did not
> exist in them. The awakened one taught the dharma, in order that the
concept
> of pain ceases, & so ceases the pain.
>
Here we go again with the non-mentation nonsense. If Zen Master hits you
suddenly and hard with kyosaku you will not have time to think. You will
feel pain instantly without interpretation of additional 'concepts' of any
sort. You will rub the place where you got hit automatically and without
thinking, in order to get rid off it. Only then you might start thinking,
why? So the appearance of pain and the attempt to lessen it does not require
thinking. You simply behave instinctively like any normal animal would do.
My understanding of Buddhism seems to be completely different from yours.
When all said and done for me Buddhism is teaching Wisdom and does not teach
non-thinking as a goal. Non-thinking is only skillful means, a boat to get
you to other shore, the shore of Wisdom. You leave the boat behind, and no
longer worry about thinking or non-thinking.
>
> >
> > Whether there are some other manifestations (phenomena?) 'behind', the
> pain
> > I do not know. Maybe they are, maybe not. Maybe what is 'behind' the
pain
> is
> > too complex to even imagine.
> > Maybe the suffering started long time ago by a
> > movement of butterfly's wing in a jungle on a far off planet, maybe it
is
> > caused by those nasty little bleeders electrons and protons. I am
leaving
> it
> > in the unknown. I don't mind if some stuff is left in the unknown,
whether
> > it exist or not. I like surprises. All I am saying that there is such a
> > thing as known and unknown. I know the color of my carpet, but I don't
> know
> > color of yours, maybe you even don't have one.
>
>
> To posit an uncertainty ("maybe") is to posit ignorance, the presence of
> ignorance nullified the meaningfulness of the statement itself. All
> speculation based on ignorant statement will not reach any conclusion, but
> more speculations -- one of the causes of suffering.
>
To posit "maybe" is to posit "yes, no, both and neither". It is to posit
Wisdom of Openness. It is to posit Profoundly Observing Wisdom. It is to
posit Nagarjuna's Middle Way, which is the Right View to which all
practitioners of mahamudra / ati-yoga adhere to. You are effectively saying
in your comment above that to posit Middle Way as a foundation of mahamudra
/ ati-yoga is ignorance. Yet you are obviously, as can be seen from your
other posts, promoting mahamudra / ati-yoga. The only conclusions I can make
from your post is that you have your own non-standard version of mahamudra /
ati-yoga where there is not the Nagarjuna's Middle Way: the "maybe", at its
foundation. Well I am obviously not ever going to agree with you because I
adhere to Zen which has the Nagarjuna's Middle Way: the "maybe", as an
inseparable part of its teachings. (see my previous post on Great Doubt and
Middle Way).
>
> > Why I should offer a proof whether Buddha said that phenomena do or do
not
> > or both or neither exist? It is self evident for me that I have the
> capacity
> > to know and also don't know.
>
> Because in the presence of self-posited ignorance, self-posited knowledge
is
> invalid.
>
>
> > You seem to have assumed that the word 'dharma'
> > in the above statements means everything and therefore 'For the Buddha,
> who
> > sees and knows dharmas as they are' is a statement confirming Buddha's
> 'know
> > all' omniscience.
>
> The Buddha (the awakened) perceived the 1st-meaning, where all
> dharma-descriptions (meaning) infered, this rendered the awakened
> omniscience.
>
Well, then quote me the Buddha statements where he says, hey fellows: 'I
have perceived the 1st-meaning, I am therefore omniscient'...You know that
bit where he says that he knows *all* known and unknown. Or is the unknown
not a dharma? Oh, I see from your comment below, that you have anticipated
already that I could be asking you this and are already trying to weasel out
of it: "To demand written justification displayed an attachment to words
instead of meaning, all interpretation of words from an ignorance status
lead to meaningless speculation". Well ...just don't expect me to get
attached to your explanation of meaning of the 1st-meaning, which I hope you
are going to give me.
>
> > I do not see the word 'all [dharmas whether known or
> > unknown]' in the statement. To me Buddha was just and ordinary bloke
> whose
> > teachings can help me to stop clinging to a bad habit (of my ego).
>
> To demand written justification displayed an attachment to words instead
of
> meaning, all interpretation of words from an ignorance status lead to
> meaningless speculation. Without dharma, the ignorant would not know a bad
> habit to be eliminated in the first place. If the ignorant assume to know
a
> bad habit to be eliminated & so employed dharma, he would have to risk
> mis-interpreting the dharma in order for the dharma to fit his own
> description of bad habit. However, in the end, his so called remedy will
> failed to meet the requirement of the 1st meaning, & so failed to reach
the
> goal of buddhism, for he has contrived the dharma of facilitative meaning
> (enlightened intent) for non-facilitative (worldly intent) end.
>
>
Jiri
Tang Huyen
Jiri wrote:
> It says above: **So all phenomena perceived in the daytime, while awake, are
> said to be appearances of things that do not actually exist.** I disagree
> with this statement, because it is a pure speculation. I claim that since
> one cannot perceive phenomena from their 'own side' therefore to speculate
> whether 'objects' exist 'from their own side' or do not exist 'from their
> own side' is futile and any conclusion in favor of either 'exist' or
> 'not-exist' cannot be a statement of fact. The above statement taken from
> the web site however claims that such phenomena (objects) do not actually
> exist. This is a simple assumption with no foundation whatever. I claimed
> that you cannot assume this and therefore that 'object side' of the Reality
> should always remain unknown. The statement above marked with ** is plainly
> false. It is not marked as Buddha statement. My question is who made this
> false speculative statement on the web side? If your understanding of
> inherent existence is based on such a statement then it would be faulty.
The travail of our Jiri who bounces in dead earnest in just a few posts from
something manifesting as something else (which latter is what is known to us) to
the 'object side' of the Reality always remaining unknown to us and many other
mutually contradicting options starkly reminds me that all these topics have
been speculated on by western theologians and philosophers and *intellectually
resolved* with some coherence by them for centuries, almost millennia.
Would that our Jiri spent some time reading them and figured out what he wants
to say (in street parlance: got his shit together) and said it to us with some
coherence, instead of charging out to study with people who look funny, talk
funny and dress funny, only to come back and babble utter nonsense.
In Europe and the Europeanised Mediterranean world, starting with Philo the Jew
in Alexandria who was a contemporary of Christ, we know God only in that he is
(Latin quia est) but not in what he is (Latin quid est), or in simpler terms, in
his existence but not in his essence. To the Fathers of the Christian Church in
the fourth century, God remains unknown to us in his essence (ousia), and we get
to know only his acts (energeia, plural energeiai); he is known only through his
manifestations (theophania), but what is behind the theophanies, we don't know,
can't ever know, and can only know that we don't know.
The Eunomians asked: "Do you love what you know or what you don't know?" How
could an adoration "in spirit and in truth" be of what it ignores? Basil of
Ceasarea, an older brother of Gregory of Nyssa, replied that the essence of God
remains unknown to us but that his acts descend towards us and can be
participated in by us. He could reply to the Eunomians that he adores what he
does not know, precisely because he knows that he doesn't know it. In the Latin
world Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa reprised such reasoning in De Deo abscondito:
Gentilis: quid adoras?
Christianus: Deum.
Gentilis: Quis est Deus, quem adoras?
Christianus: Ignoro.
Gentilis: Quomodo tam serio adoras, quod ignoras?
Christianus: Quia ignoro, adoro.
Earlier, Augustine, an older contemporary of Basil and Gregory, said that in
calling the Word of God "form of all things, itself unformed", one does not
enunciate a knowledge on God, but a reason by which our intelligence cannot have
true knowledge of it. Our soul can only grasp forms, formed by the Word itself,
but not their cause which transcends its capacity because it is formed. This
idea was to be developed by Nicholas as his famous Learned Ignorance.
Our Jiri mentions the distinction between "substance" and "function", but does
not mention that it comes from the Tientai (Japanese Tendai) school of Chinese
Buddhism. Another distinction is amongst "substance" (ti), "appearance/mark"
(xiang) and "function" (yong), and both sets are heavily used in Chinese
Buddhism in general and Chinese Chan in particular. Their equivalents in Europe
are the diadic distinction between "essence" and "manifestation" (in Plotinus)
and the triadic distinction amongst "essence", "power" (dunamis) and "act" (in
Proclus, Emperor Julian, the Pseudo-Dionysios, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian,
etc.)
The west has practically everything to fulfil our Jiri's insatiable need for
speculation and express it with precision and coherence, but he turns to people
who look funny, talk funny and dress funny, only to come back and babble utter
nonsense. (And here *only* speculation is broached, *not* the real experience of
direct perception, which is shorn of language and thought altogether though
still fully advertent to what happens, which is what matters in Buddhism).
Below, I append a post of mine on John the Scot (Johannes Scotus Eriugena) where
some of the above ideas are discussed.
Tang Huyen
**********************************
From: Tang Huyen (tang_...@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Letting it pass and moving on (was Re: What do you see?)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism, alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan, alt.zen
Date: 2003-01-11 05:57:27 PST
bhiksuni lt drolma wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > ..... John's complicated hierarchy, Christian in appearance
> > but borrowed from Neoplatonism....
>
> he would have made a good brahmin if he hadn't had been irish!
>
> it seems his condemners didn't care much for his hinduist take
> on reality and divinity either!
Our John surely speculates from a Neoplatonic background, imbued with Gregory
of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, the Pseudo-Dionysios, etc., but he comes
close to Buddhism (and not Brahmanism or Hinduism) on many points.
To me, in Buddhism the only difference between the two truths or realities,
conventional and ultimate, is the presence or absence of desire and therefore
of its products, like mentation and the self. The object of perception is the
same, only the interpretation by desire and its products, like mentation and
the self, is the difference and makes the difference. There is no other
difference.
The underlying object of perception is the same, what the Tibetans call the
established base, which is the whole, uncut field of sensation as received in
sensation.
That whole, uncut field of sensation is ultimate reality, and it is of one
piece, though fully differentiated. The cut-up, processed bits from it
constitute conventional reality. One bit is birth, another bit is death, one
bit is a table, another bit is a chair, they are delineated and demarcated
from that whole sense-field, and therefore belong to ultimate reality, *if*
they had not been cut off, delineated, demarcated, named and mentated.
Without our mentation, reality still goes on just as usual, and in it there
are processes that, by mentation, we call birth and death, table and chair.
But that doesn't make birth and death, table and chair *purely* conventional.
The background is unchanged, by reference to which we cut up some bits,
delineate them, demarcate them, name them "birth" and "death", "table" and
"chair", just that it goes on *without* our cutting up, delineation,
demarcation, naming, etc.
At the same time, we have to keep in mind that what comes to us in sensation
-- ultimate reality -- is transient, and the Buddha calls sensation/feeling
(the second aggregate) "born in cessation" (nirvrti-jo). It cannot be
something to rest on, a foundation to lean on, because it slips right away.
With that as background, we can proceed to get a glimpse of our John. He
says:
"we ought not to understand God and the creature as two different things
distinct from each other, but as one and the same. For both the creature, by
subsisting, is in God; and God, by manisfesting himself, in a marvellous and
ineffable manner creates himself in the creature, the invisible making
himself visible and the incomprehensible comprehensible ... and the infinite
finite and the uncircumscribed circumscribed, ... and immobile he moves into
all things and becomes in all things all things." DDN, III, 678C.
"when we hear that God makes all things we ought to understand nothing else
than that God is in all things, that is, that he is the essence of all
things. For only he truly exists by himself, and he alone is everything which
in the things that are is truly said to be. For none of the things that are
truly exists by itself, but whatever is understood truly (to be) in it
receives <its true being> by participation of him, the one, who alone by
himself truly is." DDN, I, 518A.
"God is the maker of all things and is made in all things; and when he is
looked for above all things he is found in no essence -- for as yet there is
no essence -- but when he is understood in all things nothing in them
subsists but himself alone [or: he alone is the substantial foundation of all
things: nil in eis nisi solus ipse subsistit]". DDN, III, 683A.
"For 'his vestures white as snow' signified the visible creature, in which
and through which the Word of God, who subsists (subsistit) in all things, is
understood." DDN, III, 689D-670A.
"How, therefore, can the divine nature understand of itself what it is,
seeing that it is nothing? For it surpasses everything that is, since it is
not even being but all being derives from it, and by virtue of its excellence
it is supereminent over every essence and every substance. Or how can the
infinite be defined by itself in anything or be understood in anything when
it knows itself (to be) above every finite (thing) and every infinite (thing)
and beyond finitude and infinity? So God does not know of himself what he is
because he is not a 'what', being in everything incomprehensible both to
himself and to every intellect.... But he does not recognize himself as being
something. Therefore he does not know what he himself is (nescit igitur quid
ipse est), that is, he does not know that he is a 'what' (hoc est nescit se
quid esse), because he recognizes that he is none at all of the things which
are known in something (quoniam cognoscit se nullum eorum quae in aliquo
cognoscuntur) and about which it can be said or understood what they are. For
if he were to recognize himself in something he would show that he is not in
every respect infinite and incomprehensible and unnameable." DDN, II,
589B-589C.
God is infinite and uncircumscribed, but manifests himself in the things that
are finite and circumscribed -- us and the thing-events of our daily life --
and is the foundation that susbists underneath us and the thing-events of our
daily life. But that subsistence cannot be grasped by our intelligence, which
works piecemeal, because he is not a 'what' and does not recognize himself in
any 'something', because a 'what' or a 'something' is delimited, finite,
circumscribed.
The layman Citra says: Lust makes for limit (rago pamana-karano), hostility
makes for limit, delusion makes for limit; but the strifeless (arana) is the
best unlimited (appamana). Lust makes for sign (nimitta-karano), hostility
makes for sign, delusion makes for sign; but the strifeless is signless. Lust
is something (kiñcano), hostility is something, delusion is something; but
the strifeless is no-thing (a-kiñcano, not something). Furthermore the
strifeless is empty of lust (suñña ragena), of hostility, of delusion, of
anything stable, unchanging, of self and of 'what belongs to self' [= of I
and mine]. SA, 569, 149c-150a, SN, VI, 295-297 (41, 7); MN, I, 297-298 (43)
also has roughly the same content.
As our dar (presently tinkerbuddha) recently said: "once craving is
eliminated nothing looks like something".
The business of Buddhism is the removal of limits, specifically the limits,
arbitrary or approximate to reality, that we use to cut the wholesome reality
(as received in sensation) into. The thrust of the Buddhist teaching is that
one opens oneself up to what happens in the raw and does not resist it, does
not interpose between it and oneself any narrative to make sense of it, and
it is this narrative that creates the self to serve as the linking pin for
it, a self that is the coaggulation of desire (what DharmaTroll calls the
"self-stuff invested by us"). Buddhism aims at relaxation in the radical
sense, at flowing with what happens without putting up any resistance (even
thought and language are resistance, especially any thought and language that
converge on the self, and the self is the linking pin of all resistance).
The good Buddhist experiences what happens, lets it pass, and moves on to
what happens next, without cutting any of that process up, delineating it,
demarcating it, naming it, stabilising it with substance and essence lent by
desire -- without imposing limits and hardening the limits with energy
provided by desire.
In that light, our John can be understood to be a good Buddhist, or at least
to put forth good Buddhist doctrine, though he never hears of Buddhism.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Jiri wrote:
> Boris Fuller:
>
> >Jiri:
>
> > >My last comment is that the Middle Way is the philosophy
> > >of Mahayana Buddhism but it is not its practice. Therefore,
> > >the right View and the right Action are both required: the
> > >right theory and the right practice of meditation are both
> > >needed for full understanding of Dharma.
> > >Jiri
>
> > dharma is not 'understood' - it is recognised
> > dharma can be recognised without ever hearing of buddhism
> > there is no prior requirement for recognising dharma
> > "everyday life is the teacher"
>
> Dharma needs to be recognized *and* understood. Practice and theory are both
> needed. Do not abandon Buddhist Philosophy or Sutras. Please also re-read my
> previous post about statements of D.T.Suzuki about his Realization (Satori).
> Suzuki needed an *abstract* metaphor of 'bending elbow' to understand more
> fully his *actual* experience.
>
> Jiri
The Buddha discovered the path to the ending of suffering, which was and is a
universal, and anybody can discover it on his own, after the Buddha or
independently of him altogether. There is no exclusivity to Buddhism, period,
end of discussion.
Desire runs the whole show, and its nature is to scatter thought (which it has
created in the first place) so that thought has no chance of turning the light
back on itself and checking that entities of various sorts -- nearly everything
that thought deals with (the only exception is wholesome sensation, before
thought cuts it up and processes it according to preexisting mental-affective
frameworks) -- that have been taken for granted are not really there, at least
not the way thought takes them to be.
The Buddhist path comes down to reversing the process, gathering thought back in
to shine a light on all the confusion and to figure out what really goes on.
Then thought can have a chance to figure out that what it has taken for granted
-- primarily the self but also all the concept-delimited bits -- has been
congealed by its own effort in the first place.
In delusion, we congeal language and thought into reality, or even worse,
replace reality with congealments of language and thought, and the most obvious
candidate is the self. On the Buddhist path, we learn to spot the tricks that
language and thought play on us, especially with regard to congealing a self,
and to deactivate them, undo them.
Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmum 38, 7, PL, 36, 418, CCSL, 38, 408: "In attending
to it well, it is clear that it is not; if I attach to it, it is as if it was,
but if I pass by and leave it, it is not (Plane, si adtendam bene, non est: si
hæream, quasi est; si transiliam, non est)."
Hegel, Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences, I, Science of Logic, third
edition, 1830, §31: "The representations of the soul, the world and God seem at
first to provide a firm support for thought [dem Denken einen festen Halt zu
gewähren]. But, besides the fact that the character of particular subjectivity
is mixed in with them and that they therefore can have very different meaning,
they need rather to receive the fixed determination by thought to begin with [so
bedürfen sie vielmehr, erst durch das Denken die feste Bestimmung zu erhalten]."
John the Scot (Johannes Scotus Eriugena), On the Division of Nature
(Periphyseon), II, 614c-d: "But these are things which are contemplated at a
deeper and truer level than they are expressed in speech, and understood more
deeply and more truly than they are contemplated, and are deeper and truer than
they are understood to be; for they pass all understanding. For whatever things
are said or contemplated or understood of the Holy Trinity of the most simple
Goodness are but traces and theophanies of the Truth, not Truth itself, which
surpasses all contemplation not only of the rational but also of the
intellectual creature. For it is not that kind of unity or trinity which can be
thought of or understood from any creature, or be shaped by any fantasy however
clear and close to the truth it may be -- for all these things deceive as long
as this is made the end of our contemplation -- because it is more than unity
and more than trinity. But we are charged to say something of it and to
contemplate it and to understand it as far as, under the guidance and tutelage
of the holy word of God, our intellect may approach it, so that we may somehow
have matter for our praise and benediction of it."
John's complicated hierarchy, Christian in appearance but borrowed from
Neoplatonism, can be ignored, what is however remarkable is his assertion: "for
all these things deceive as long as this is made the end of our contemplation"
(haec enim omnia fallunt dum in eis finis contemplationis ponitur). A French
translation: "car tout cela trompe lorsqu'on y arrête sa contemplation."
I know of nothing in Buddhism which is more profound or penetrating than the
above three sayings, singly or together.
In the Buddhist path, we learn not to stop at anything, not to linger on
anything, but to let everything pass, to let everything go, as swiftly as it
comes, and that process is direct perception. The moment we stop on anything,
linger on anything, thought and language driven by desire jump on it to congeal
it into something, and before we know it, thought and language driven by desire
has agglutinated a self for us, which acts as a wall between sensation and
consciousness, and consequently direct perception is dead whilst suffering is
alive and well.
Tang Huyen
Wachigupta
> > tactile sensation interpreted by thought. In awakened beings, tactile
> > sensation is not interpreted by thought, & so the concept of pain did
not
> > exist in them. The awakened one taught the dharma, in order that the
> concept
> > of pain ceases, & so ceases the pain.
> >
>
> Here we go again with the non-mentation nonsense. If Zen Master hits you
> suddenly and hard with kyosaku you will not have time to think. You will
> feel pain instantly without interpretation of additional 'concepts' of any
> sort. You will rub the place where you got hit automatically and without
> thinking, in order to get rid off it. Only then you might start thinking,
> why? So the appearance of pain and the attempt to lessen it does not
require
> thinking. You simply behave instinctively like any normal animal would do.
There will be instinctive responses that occurred before the
thought-processes are possible, since the thought-processes that occured
afterwards, are not entertained, so there will be no thought of pain that
flowed as a chain of dependent-arising [which support the "pain"]. Tactile
sensation of whatever level merely to facilitate instinctive responses for
the protection of the body, not for the entertainment of the thought [of
pain] which is meaningless to the protection of the body. Tactile sensation
can be prolonged due to physical condition inflicted, but it is entertained
in the raw w/o any attempt at blocking it out. The mind can only entertain
one thing at a time, so when the raw is entertained, the thought-processes
which are not entertained will be cut off naturally.
At the level of instinctive response caused by tactile sensation prior to
thought-processes, both animals & human behaved similarly. At the level of
thought-processes, both animals & human behave similarly in that the
aversion toward that particular sensation is a conditioned process that had
been rooted in mind, it did not necessitate a very complex thought-process
to arise similar aversion toward that particular sensation. However, it
required an intellectual capacity to discriminate between raw sensation &
impression that arise due to raw perception being filtered by the mind. Both
animal & human is similar in being having a mind, but differed only in their
intellectual capacity, viz. the intellectual capacity to discriminate is the
factor that differentiate between an animal & human, between awakened &
ignorant, a factor that enable the species gifted with exceptional
intelligence to attain liberation from suffering.
> My understanding of Buddhism seems to be completely different from yours.
> When all said and done for me Buddhism is teaching Wisdom and does not
teach
> non-thinking as a goal. Non-thinking is only skillful means, a boat to get
> you to other shore, the shore of Wisdom. You leave the boat behind, and no
> longer worry about thinking or non-thinking.
Despite all the various argument by some reputable vajrayana teachers that
refute the importance of non-mentation, as long as non-mentation is not
being sought as an objective, to that degree is one being driven by the wave
of thoughts to habitual tendencies of delusion. All the path & stages lead
to purification of the mind, purification of the mind is simply the
eradication of thought-tendencies. Insight is the mean, non-mentation is the
wisdom, viz. as long as insight (wisdom) has not being manifested as a mean
to non-mentation, as long as non-mentation has not been manifested as wisdom
[ie. wisdom of non-mentation], one has not attain the stages (bodhisattva
bhumi).
These are the typical errors of one who failed to attain the bodhisattva
bhumi:
1. To assume Buddhism is teaching Wisdom and does not teach non-thinking as
a goal.
2. Non-thinking is only skillful means, a boat to get one to other shore,
the shore of Wisdom.
3. To leave the boat behind, and no longer worry about thinking or
non-thinking.
These are the consequence of the errors:
1. The so called wisdom that has being clinged did not manifest as
non-mentation, because there is a thought that reject non-thinking, this
thought stirred the mind to activity of discursive thoughts, this lead to
the formation of alaya-vijnana & the defiled-mind vijnana (the 7th & 8th
consciousnesses), there is no liberation from samsara as the 12 chain-fold
link of dependent-arising is active due to alaya-vijnana being reinforced by
defiled-mind vijnana [which is formed by habitual tendencies of discursive
thought].
2. This lead to the failure to recognise insight as the means to attain the
wisdom of non-mentation. Because of having belittle the importance of
non-mentation as a goal, the tendencies of training the insight as the means
to attain the wisdom of non-mentation is absence. The so called insight is
used instead as a mean [of analytical insight] to generate activity of
discursive thoughts which lead to consequence no.1.
3. Without discriminating the state between thinking & non-thinking, there
is no discrimination between analytical insight & insight of non-mentation.
As long as insight of non-mentation has not been realized [due to failure to
discriminating the state between thinking & non-thinking], the consequence
no.1 applied.
> To posit "maybe" is to posit "yes, no, both and neither". It is to posit
> Wisdom of Openness. It is to posit Profoundly Observing Wisdom. It is to
> posit Nagarjuna's Middle Way, which is the Right View to which all
> practitioners of mahamudra / ati-yoga adhere to. You are effectively
saying
> in your comment above that to posit Middle Way as a foundation of
mahamudra
> / ati-yoga is ignorance. Yet you are obviously, as can be seen from your
> other posts, promoting mahamudra / ati-yoga. The only conclusions I can
make
> from your post is that you have your own non-standard version of mahamudra
/
> ati-yoga where there is not the Nagarjuna's Middle Way: the "maybe", at
its
> foundation. Well I am obviously not ever going to agree with you because I
> adhere to Zen which has the Nagarjuna's Middle Way: the "maybe", as an
> inseparable part of its teachings. (see my previous post on Great Doubt
and
> Middle Way).
You have claimed an "unknown" in previous sentence: "I am leaving it in the
unknown". Since you now posited a 4-negations, this claim of "unknown" would
be nullified by yourself. When one nullified his previous claimed, then he
has make a false claim. When one make a false claim, this is due to
ignorance during the making of the claim. This reinstated my previous
statement presented to you: "Because in the presence of self-posited
ignorance, self-posited knowledge is invalid."
> Well, then quote me the Buddha statements where he says, hey fellows: 'I
> have perceived the 1st-meaning, I am therefore omniscient'...You know that
> bit where he says that he knows *all* known and unknown. Or is the unknown
> not a dharma? Oh, I see from your comment below, that you have anticipated
> already that I could be asking you this and are already trying to weasel
out
> of it: "To demand written justification displayed an attachment to words
> instead of meaning, all interpretation of words from an ignorance status
> lead to meaningless speculation". Well ...just don't expect me to get
> attached to your explanation of meaning of the 1st-meaning, which I hope
you
> are going to give me.
The 1st-meaning is beyond all languages & thoughts, it will not be contained
in any scriptural citation as requested.
hhesse
Tang Huyen wrote:
h writes:
yes, very well said. in this community, over the years, we have learned to simply
still the mind as the initial step. must faster than watching the breath, as we
enter the stream of consciousness(a la faulkner) and find an empty spot in that
stream between the feelings and thoughts and eventually, simply stop the movement of
the mind. and it's easy to do, except your ego will try to convince you that it
isn't.
once themind is still, when anything but direct perception enters the mind, it is
sensed as movement andyou can bet a self is themotivator behind such movement...
further practice of this will lead to: halting the internal narration of one's
life, halting the judgement mechanism, the faith and doubt mechanism, and the
talking to one's self i.e. the spliting of the mind.
eventually this will lead to the insight mechanism of mind taking over most of the
functions of learning, and the mind will open to a larger perception of self. this
is not an altered state, by any means, it's simply that without all the selves in
it's way, the mind opens to reality in a very open way.
simple really, almost too simple. and thus people when they encoutner seldom allow
themselves to partake of it. so they conceptualize the process, thru mental
examination, and come to some weird stance, and then defend it with multiples
inclusions of self...
with the mind empty, and no prepriors between the seening and the seen,
it all becomes a dance...and one's life is truely then experimental...
nothing to stand on, nothing to rest on, and barely space in which to dance...giggl.
tang has said what to do, this nonsense that i have added is an attempt to say how
it is done
by folks in this community...but don't take my word for it. practice and experience
it yourself.
our newest monk has practiced a mere two years and has,for all intents and
purposes, stilled the mind.
and there is certainly nothing special about him or the practice..it's just what
works for us, here.
but don't listen to a fat old monk...practice it yourself and you could do worse
than to read tang's stuff.
lots' worse...giggl.. bow, small noise, foetid smell, oops..h.
mind empty, heart open, body dancing.
Gilly
It always seems mildly amusing to me that those who teach wisdom through
training the mind and mindful practice and arrival at true perception
through respect for, and use of, reason are criticized for being
"unreasonable" by people who think they can somehow smack each other into
enlightenment.
In this usenet environment, that 3 Stooges method of direct perception seems
to take the guise of direct insults rather than direct perception which, to
me, is only a further vulgarization. I don't think the Zen cult has gone
through as many cultural metamorphoses as Buddhism itself. It's interesting
to see it adapted (or further vulgarized) by western culture into a sort of
American Teenage Empowerment movement with that characteristic infatuation
for the first experience of epiphany and the firm conviction that when *I*
say "poop", it's the most profound of all dharma. I think that just
provides a resting place for arrested development--a kind of Peter Pan
syndrome in which the universe is a debate solved by wordplay and the koan
mystifies you every time.
Did I say "amusing"? Well, <yawn> only the first 500 times. rofl
Jiri
If did study all those fancy books of philosophy then I would have never had
any time for any actual practice. And since I always believed that the
practice is the key, all you need is one good book, just like you need one
good map to get to the city of Paris to see Eiffel Tower. There has to come
a time where one has to make a decision which map to be guided by to get to
the territory. As I have said previously in my post: "But eventually you
will have to decide what to do, you will have to decide what the correct
View is and what the correct Action is. "You will have to take a step
forward into a complete unknown and you will have to do it completely
alone".
I was impressed by Zen because within its long tradition there is a
*practice* of meditation. I did not find any such coherence of practice in
say Christian books nor books on philosophy. Books of philosophy are endless
speculations with little practical use in ones life. Christians seek help
outside one self. They believe in divine intervention. And if someone within
Christian tradition tries to put his 'religious experience' into words, then
he is asking for trouble. Like Meister Eckart who's explanations included
notion of Godhead dividing himself into God and Creation (dare I say a pair
of interdependent opposites?).
You have missed an important point of my posts, that my experience of
non-duality comes from the actual Zen practice and is not some theoretical
Abracadabra. I have gained this experience in the past during many Zen
Meditation Retreats I attended, and confirmed the experience with others.
I am a practical guy who knows that if you want things done: do it yourself.
My very first question to a Zen Master was: 'Was Buddha's enlightenment a
gift?'. If he had said yes, then I would not have bothered with the whole
religion idiocy, whether Buddhist or Christian. But because I always
believed in my parents simple teaching 'how you shall make your bed son, so
you shall lie', I have a natural dislike of excessive non-productive
speculations, (and it seems that I am a bit breaking my own rule hanging
here on internet a bit too long ).
Jiri
Jiri
I agree with that. The major problem of discussing Dharma is that it is made
into a Buddha Dharma. As a result people quote and argue endlessly what the
Buddha is supposed to have said or not, and which of his statements are the
most important. Some of 'his' Sutras clearly originated when he was already
dead and buried (cremated). Non-exclusivity really means that other
traditions, like
Advaita, some mystics, or more 'modern' Zen traditions base their experience
in the same Dharma. However, there is a notion of deepening the
understanding of that experience in Zen. Rinzai Zen does it with the help of
Koans. Just because someone discovers electricity, it does not mean that he
fully understands what it is, initially. We for example, as a matter of
tradition indicate direction of electric current flow as being the opposite
to the more natural flow of electrons, just because the discovery was not
properly initially understood. There is also an additional problem of
teaching Dharma and of explaining it to others. You may be a great player of
golf, but a lousy teacher of golf, especially if you have a natural talent
for it, as it may appear to you that there is really nothing to it; why
other people just can't get it?
> Desire runs the whole show, and its nature is to scatter thought (which it
has
> created in the first place) so that thought has no chance of turning the
light
> back on itself and checking that entities of various sorts -- nearly
everything
> that thought deals with (the only exception is wholesome sensation, before
> thought cuts it up and processes it according to preexisting
mental-affective
> frameworks) -- that have been taken for granted are not really there, at
least
> not the way thought takes them to be.
>
> The Buddhist path comes down to reversing the process, gathering thought
back in
> to shine a light on all the confusion and to figure out what really goes
on.
> Then thought can have a chance to figure out that what it has taken for
granted
> -- primarily the self but also all the concept-delimited bits -- has been
> congealed by its own effort in the first place.
>
I agree that the desire runs the whole show. But the a desire is a tool,
like a double edged sharp knife, which can reverse the process. You can use
it also to cut yourself free off suffering. This desire to be free Zen calls
the Great Angry Determination.
> In delusion, we congeal language and thought into reality, or even worse,
> replace reality with congealments of language and thought, and the most
obvious
> candidate is the self. On the Buddhist path, we learn to spot the tricks
that
> language and thought play on us, especially with regard to congealing a
self,
> and to deactivate them, undo them.
>
Well said, sweetie :).
I like the "but we are charged to say something of it and to contemplate it
and to understand it " bit; and I suspect it is because that in our hearts
we somehow know that other human beings are also capable of realizing the
same experience of Dharma, despite the fact that our saying it and
explaining
it, is sometimes a bit wonky.
Hit me with more posts like this :)
Jiri
Jiri
You seem to be a fellow who can see into minds of animals, so you can settle
for us the question, and remember we are all paying attention Mr Doolittle:
"Does a dog have Buddha Nature, yes or no?"
> > My understanding of Buddhism seems to be completely different from
yours.
> > When all said and done for me Buddhism is teaching Wisdom and does not
> teach
> > non-thinking as a goal. Non-thinking is only skillful means, a boat to
get
> > you to other shore, the shore of Wisdom. You leave the boat behind, and
no
> > longer worry about thinking or non-thinking.
>
> Despite all the various argument by some reputable vajrayana teachers that
> refute the importance of non-mentation, as long as non-mentation is not
> being sought as an objective, to that degree is one being driven by the
wave
> of thoughts to habitual tendencies of delusion. All the path & stages lead
> to purification of the mind, purification of the mind is simply the
> eradication of thought-tendencies. Insight is the mean, non-mentation is
the
> wisdom, viz. as long as insight (wisdom) has not being manifested as a
mean
> to non-mentation, as long as non-mentation has not been manifested as
wisdom
> [ie. wisdom of non-mentation], one has not attain the stages (bodhisattva
> bhumi).
>
"Purification of the mind is simply the eradication of thought-tendencies?
Non-mentation is the wisdom?" That seems to be your unique interpretation of
vajrayana practices. Vajrayana practices do not speak of eradication of
poisons but of their transformations into positive qualities as a result of
no more ego clinging. The energies of ones own being which were previously
channeled into things like greed and hatred get channeled into generosity
and loving kindness. This transformation of energies is the real
purification. It is not about eradication but transformation. All that is
necessary is to stop ego clinging. Again you are twisting vajrayana to
support your idea of non-mentation being a real goal of Buddhist practice.
> These are the typical errors of one who failed to attain the bodhisattva
> bhumi:
>
> 1. To assume Buddhism is teaching Wisdom and does not teach non-thinking
as
> a goal.
> 2. Non-thinking is only skillful means, a boat to get one to other shore,
> the shore of Wisdom.
> 3. To leave the boat behind, and no longer worry about thinking or
> non-thinking.
>
> These are the consequence of the errors:
>
Well I am obviously not going to agree with all the rest since for me
non-mentation is not a goal but only skillful means.
Jiri
Gileht.com
"Shiva" <Pyr...@mailandnews.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
b20rqe$17s76u$1...@ID-120943.news.dfncis.de...
Gosh. I am touched by your feelings for me.
I hope this is a start of a new eternal friendship.
Love you too even with all of your limitations.
Gileht.com
lol
George W. Cherry
>
> > Boris Fuller:
> >
> > >Jiri:
> >
> > > >My last comment is that the Middle Way is the philosophy
> > > >of Mahayana Buddhism but it is not its practice. Therefore,
> > > >the right View and the right Action are both required: the
> > > >right theory and the right practice of meditation are both
> > > >needed for full understanding of Dharma.
> > > >Jiri
> >
> > > dharma is not 'understood' - it is recognised
> > > dharma can be recognised without ever hearing of buddhism
> > > there is no prior requirement for recognising dharma
> > > "everyday life is the teacher"
NO! The Dharma goes against the current of the
the ordinary consciousness, the consciousness
of the natural man in the usual environment. "Life"
is not a teacher. If it were, then everyone would
tend to drop the self as time goes by.
> > Dharma needs to be recognized *and* understood. Practice and theory are
both
> > needed. Do not abandon Buddhist Philosophy or Sutras. Please also
re-read my
> > previous post about statements of D.T.Suzuki about his Realization
(Satori).
> > Suzuki needed an *abstract* metaphor of 'bending elbow' to understand
more
> > fully his *actual* experience.
> >
> > Jiri
> The Buddha discovered the path to the ending of suffering, which was and
is a
> universal, and anybody can discover it on his own, after the Buddha or
> independently of him altogether. There is no exclusivity to Buddhism,
period,
> end of discussion.
Pronouncing ex cathedra again?
So, the ending of suffering is universal because you
found three non-Buddhist passages that suggest to
you the Buddhist Dharma? That's rather casual em-
piricism. The fact is that SUFFERING is universal;
it's universal because the self consciousness and auto-
biographical consciousness (bequeathed to us all by
evolution) try to secure, preserve, and expand
selves, not drop them. It's UNIVERSAL to defend
the self, not drop it. Dropping the self goes against
the grain. For example, your trumpeting your view
of the Dharma is your way of securing and preserv-
ing your self. Your view of the Dharma is your self
in action. That doesn't mean your view of the Dhar-
ma is wrong. But it does mean that your trumpeting
it is your self in action. If you were to drop your
self, your view of the Dharma would be more mod-
est, more muted, more mellow, more nuanced.
George
> In the Buddhist path, we learn not to stop at anything, not to linger on
> anything, but to let everything pass, to let everything go, as swiftly as
it
> comes, and that process is direct perception. The moment we stop on
anything,
> linger on anything, thought and language driven by desire jump on it to
congeal
> it into something, and before we know it, thought and language driven by
desire
> has agglutinated a self for us, which acts as a wall between sensation and
> consciousness, and consequently direct perception is dead whilst suffering
is
> alive and well.
>
> Tang Huyen
The Tang Orange Roar has agglutinated quite
a sticky self, hasn't it.
George
George W. Cherry
"hhesse" <hhe...@oldfree.org> wrote in message
news:3E452890...@oldfree.org...
My approach is not different, not the same. It
is to recognize that the motion and commotion
of my self consciousness and autobiographical
consciousness have no interest in my peace and
equanimity. They are mere artifacts of evolution
which care not one whit about my peace and
equanimity, but only about my survival and re-
productive success. To drop the self is to see
that the self was made up, concocted, synthe-
sized, like the Komodo dragon's jaws or the
giraffe's long neck. The self is an absurdity, an
anachronism, like the Baboon's red ass, some-
thing to laugh at.
George (Laughing and dancing all the way)
Jiri
"Gilly" <Gilly@0.0> wrote in message
news:b23ao9$n6k$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Koan is no word play, it is there to test the experience of that which is
otherwise difficult to communicate. Zen is no cult either but a respectable
Mahayana tradition. As to the vulgarization; it is done only by people who
lack understanding of Zen teachings. As to the smacking each other into
enlightenment:
The realization of ones nature happens when thought processes momentarily
stop, but one remains aware. To use words in Wachigupta's post: "The mind
can only entertain one thing at a time, so when the raw is entertained, the
thought-processes
which are not entertained will be cut off naturally". In samadhi, during one
pointedness of mind, when mind is still and clings to only one thought, a
sudden raw sensation will cut off that last thought naturally. This is an
natural opportunity for consciousness to turn within. This happened to the
D.T.Suzuki when a meditation bell suddenly rung at the end of meditation
session. (please re-read my previous post where he describes his Satori in
his own words.)
It is well known that the Satori happens in the moment of surprise and
astonishment, it happens in the moment of being taken by unusual experience.
For some it is a sight of a bird on an empty sky, for some a smell of
flowers, for some it is a hit by kyosaku, for some it is Zen Master's shout.
Naropa (founder of Tibetan line of Kargyutpa) came to Realization when he
was hit by his Indian teacher Tilopa over the head with his sandal. Robert
Aitken Roshi, the founder of Diamond Sangha in Hawaii, had his awakening
when his teacher Yamada Roshi shouted MU as he stood quietly behind him
while he was absorbed in concentration during a meditation retreat.
Of course the mind has to be 'ready', and that has to be trained by
practical means of concentration. Whether one can get it purely by
intellectual speculation, I don't know. But Zen tradition, based on hundreds
of years of experience, prefer exercises in practical meditation to
intellectual speculation, to get the mind ripe and ready for the experience
of Satori. Today even a hundred smacks of kyosaku would not help you, but in
the future, maybe only a whiff of incense will be sufficient for your
Realization.
Jiri
naked_ape
>
SNIP
Have you been liberated from suffering physical pain, or is this a theory?
Ape:)
boris_fuller
<gwch...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3E450F94...@yahoo.com...
>>
>>
>> Jiri wrote:
>>
>> > Boris Fuller:
>> >
>> > >Jiri:
>> >
>> > > >My last comment is that the Middle Way is the philosophy
>> > > >of Mahayana Buddhism but it is not its practice. Therefore,
>> > > >the right View and the right Action are both required: the
>> > > >right theory and the right practice of meditation are both
>> > > >needed for full understanding of Dharma.
>> > > >Jiri
>> >
>> > > dharma is not 'understood' - it is recognised
>> > > dharma can be recognised without ever hearing of buddhism
>> > > there is no prior requirement for recognising dharma
>> > > "everyday life is the teacher"
>
>NO! The Dharma goes against the current of the
>the ordinary consciousness, the consciousness
>of the natural man in the usual environment. "Life"
>is not a teacher. If it were, then everyone would
>tend to drop the self as time goes by.
i wasn't talking from dogma and doctrine,
nor from logic or prejudice...
...but from experience.
maybe "heaven and earth"
are a little more complicated
than your map, Horatio...?
>
>> > Dharma needs to be recognized *and* understood. Practice and theory are
>both
>> > needed. Do not abandon Buddhist Philosophy or Sutras. Please also
>re-read my
>> > previous post about statements of D.T.Suzuki about his Realization
>(Satori).
>> > Suzuki needed an *abstract* metaphor of 'bending elbow' to understand
>more
>> > fully his *actual* experience.
>> >
>> > Jiri
>
>> The Buddha discovered the path to the ending of suffering, which was and
>is a
>> universal, and anybody can discover it on his own, after the Buddha or
>> independently of him altogether. There is no exclusivity to Buddhism,
>period,
>> end of discussion.
>
>Pronouncing ex cathedra again?
tang is right.
does that scare you?
how could the buddha have discovered it if it wasn't there to find?
he didn't invent it or create it - he *found* it.
he wasn't non-human, was he? no, therefore
it is there within each of us - and the capacity to also find it.
...and the buddha exhorts us to do just that.
dropping *your* self goes against *your* grain, Horatio;
because you need the world to fit neatly into
your rationalizations against failure.
you might start by dropping the map, georgie
and apply that scepticism to your own process
rather than to shaving the threatening off the truth.
>
>> In the Buddhist path, we learn not to stop at anything, not to linger on
>> anything, but to let everything pass, to let everything go, as swiftly as
>it
>> comes, and that process is direct perception. The moment we stop on
>anything,
>> linger on anything, thought and language driven by desire jump on it to
>congeal
>> it into something, and before we know it, thought and language driven by
>desire
>> has agglutinated a self for us, which acts as a wall between sensation and
>> consciousness, and consequently direct perception is dead whilst suffering
>is
>> alive and well.
>>
>> Tang Huyen
>
>The Tang Orange Roar has agglutinated quite
>a sticky self, hasn't it.
>
>George
>
what of yours ?
clinging to your name
and all you achieved in it
to define you today
like three yards of peanut brittle
wrapped around a pearl
...how will the light ever shine from your nacre ?
Horatio ?
Boris