Alternative, English translation of the Heart Sutra
Tang Huyen
William J Giddings wrote:
> Furthermore, there is no indication that the address directed towards
> Shariputra is from the bodhisattva. My personal view is that this is a quote
> from the Buddha himself. The reason for this is that the talker describes
> the achievements of the buddhas of the past.
>
> Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra
> (Taisho 251)
> Sanskrit to Chinese translation by Master of Tripitaka Xuancan, Tang
> Dynasty
> Chinese to English translation by Willam J Giddings, CE2003
>
> Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, when pursuing the deep prajnaparamita,
> recognised the five skandhas as completely empty and passed-beyond all
> vexations and distress. Shariputra, appearances are not different from
> emptiness, emptiness is not different to appearances. Appearances are
> emptiness, emptiness is an appearance. Impressions, thoughts, associations
> and knowing too, are also like this. Shariputra, all dharmas are empty of
> appearances, are not created, are not extinguished, are not defiled, are not
> pure; do not increase, do not decrease. For this reason, amidst emptiness
> there are no appearances, nor are there any impressions, thoughts,
> associations and knowing, There is no eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, ideas.
> There are no colours, sounds, smells, tastes and touch dharmas. There is no
> eye-element upto no imagining nor knowledge element. Neither is any
> non-understanding, nor is there any end to non-understanding up to no
> old-age and death. Neither is there any end to old-age and death. There is
> no suffering, cause, extinction or path. There is no knowledge nor anything
> to find. Because there isn't anything
> to find, the bodhisattva is free because of relying upon prajnaparamita: a
> heart without any obstruction. Because there are no obstructions, there is
> no fear. Abandoning, overturning dreams and concepts, finally reaches
> nirvana. Because all the buddhas of the three times have relied upon
> prajnaparamita, they have found anuttarasamyaksambodhi. For this reason,
> know prajnaparamita is the great spiritual mantra. The great understanding
> mantra. The supreme mantra. The unequalled mantra, able to cut through all
> vexation because in reality there is no emptiness. Speak the prajnaparamita
> mantra, speak the mantra's words:
>
> gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha'
>
> Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra
I have previously noticed that your command of Chinese is somewhat stiff and not
fluent, and here there is an example of that. You translate: "because in reality
there is no emptiness", but the four Chinese characters say literally: "true"
"real" "not" "empty/false", so the whole phrase means: "[because the mantra is]
true and not false".
As to your introduction: "Furthermore, there is no indication that the address
directed towards Shariputra is from the bodhisattva [Avalokitesvara]. My
personal view is that this is a quote from the Buddha himself. The reason for
this is that the talker describes the achievements of the buddhas of the past."
The Heart Sutra to me is an explicitation of what the Buddha taught in the early
canon, and is totally orthodox, by that standard. It brings out implications in
what the Buddha said, but does not contradict the meaning of what the Buddha
said. I have expressed my view of it previously, but in a scattered manner, so
here I'll take the opportunity to put it together in one place.
The first shocking thing that greets the reader, especially if the latter comes
from the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma, is the phalanx of negations. But any reader of
the early canon (in contradistinction to the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma) will
instantly recognise them -- the negations -- as implied ubiquitously by the
Buddha himself.
The slogan "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" quite simply means that form,
just where it is and just as it is, has no essence, and therefore is empty, i.
e., empty of essence, and that absence of essence, aka emptiness, right where it
is and just as it is, is the form that we perceive. There is no inexistence
involved, as form -- phenomenon as it appears to us -- is just what it is,
exactly where it is, but the essence that we unconsciously impute to it --
DharmaTroll's "self-stuff invested by us" -- is absent. So, absent the mentation
that imputes essence, all is reality, right where it is, without further ado,
and on the contrary, when that mentation is present and imputes essence, just
that is delusion. That is all there is both to the slogan and to Buddhism.
Buddhism denies only at the level of metaphysical entities like essence, but
does not deny anything at the level of phenomena, and the compositions (the
stuff of our normal, deluded experience) are within phenomena: they are our own
actions, in the realm of external bodily behavior, speech and thought, though
some are not within consciousness, at least for the normal, deluded person.
Phenomena exist and function according to patterns, which are called modalities
of functioning (dhatu), and the overarching modality is of course Dependent
Arisal. These are empty and abstract, as opposed to full and concrete essences.
Emptiness means only the inexistence of essence, but implies nothing about the
phenomena of which essence is denied but which *keep existing and functioning
just like before*.
In Buddhism, there is no mutual exclusion between what appears (form) and
emptiness, even less incompatibility, but just where we are, just there
emptiness is, because all thing-events that we face are empty of essence, due to
their dependent arisenness. The Perfection of Wisdom scriptures say: Form is
emptiness, emptiness is form, just form is emptiness, just emptiness is form.
The same world (our daily world), when perceived with naming and attribution of
essence, is delusion, but when perceived without naming and attribution of
essence, is reality, ultimate reality.
One does not vanish the world to arrive at emptiness, and one does not vanish
conventional truth to arrive at ultimate truth, or vice versa, but one only
stops all mental activities other than mere reception of sensation (and naming
and attribution of essence are two of the major components of those mental
activities other than mere reception of sensation), and just that is ultimate
reality. However in the state of quiescence of all mental activities other than
mere reception of sensation, one does not attend to emptiness, one does not
mentate that all thing-events are empty, one doesn't mentate anything, period.
As to the classification of the five aggregates, the six sense-fields, the six
sense-organs, the six sense-consciousnesses, the eighteen modalities (dhatu),
etc.: experience is whole and unitary, though fully differentiated (and not a
homogeneous blank), but is cut up into such classifications only as a temporary
means of concentrating the mind and making the mind workable. Such
classifications -- and any cutting-up of experience into whatever scheme of
whatever reference classes -- are never going to be wholly adequate to reality
-- to their referent -- but merely are serviceable at best, if they indeed are
serviceable, and in Buddhism they serve only as a temporary means of
concentrating the mind and making the mind workable, to enable further work
along the line of the contemplation of impermanence, suffering, the absence of
self.
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 (kiņcano), hostility is something, delusion is something; but the
strifeless is no-thing (a-kiņcano, not something). Furthermore the strifeless is
empty of lust (suņņa 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.
The three poisons -- lust, hostility, delusion -- are the motives behind the
cutting-up of experience into whatever scheme of whatever reference classes, and
during training, so long as such cutting-up is still going on, it has to be used
and harnessed for ... undoing itself, which is an example of the antinomies that
pervade Buddhism.
But after training, when the practitioner is awakened, no such cutting-up is
needed, unless it is needed for a specific occasion, but will then be used only
during the occasion, and not always and forever. So that two persons perceiving
the "same" reality -- sensible reality -- in almost the same place at the same
time will see two different realities, that have not been fitted into concepts
and intellective-discursive views and therefore are left in their uniqueness,
though the two realities are almost the same in content. Though the persons in
question will not think "unique" or "ultimate", but simply receive raw sensation
without any interpretation. This purely passive reception receives the world and
oneself as a unitary whole though fully differentiated, but does not think
"unitary", "whole", "differentiated", etc.
As to the negation of the Buddhist fruits of sainthood in particular and of any
obtention in general: the Buddha realised that what he had to let go of -- his
self, views, fetters, latencies, etc.-- was unobtainable and could not be made
known as real and established in the present things (drsta eva dharme satyatah
sthitito 'nupalabhyamano 'prajņapyamanas ca). So, he realised that what was to
be dropped could not be dropped because it was unobtainable and could not be
made known as real and established in the present things, and that realisation
freed him. Simple, eh?
He said: "self and what belongs to self are unobtainable and cannot be made
known as real and established in the present things (drsta eva dharme satyatah
sthitito 'nupalabhyamano 'prajņapyamanas ca), the views, fetters and latencies
in the mind are unobtainable and cannot be made known," or: "The Tathagata is
unobtainable and cannot be made known as real and established in the present
things." MA, 200, 765b29, SA, 104, 31b1-2, SA, 104, 31b1-2.
So if anybody feels that he has a reasonable idea of what the illusion/delusion
is, and how to strip it away and see through it, then he's ahead of the Buddha,
who gave up on all that -- what the illusion/delusion is, and how to strip it
away and see through it.
To the Buddha none of that could be got at, both the what and the how -- what
the illusion/delusion is and how to strip it away and see through it.
That was how he stripped it away and saw through it -- keeping in mind that the
"it" could not be got at.
Just to make sure about the negations, which in the Heart Sutra are universal:
in the early canon, such negations are also expressed, but in a slightly
different idiom. At SA, 4-6, 1b-c, Turfanfunde, IV, 77, by "detaching from the
desire for" (lí yų, chandam vi-ragayitva) each of the aggregates, "the mind is
liberated from it" (xin dé jie tuo, tatas cittam vimocayitva). See also SA, 10,
2a, 48, 12a, SN, III, 179 (22, 146) ("one is liberated from form [yú sč dé lí,
rupamha parimuccati]"), 66, 17c, 87, 22b (both have: "one is liberated from form
[yú sč dé jie tuo]"), 290, 82a ("one is liberated from form [yú sč jie tuo],"
Nidana-samyukta, 121: "one is liberated from contact [sparsad api parimucyate],
from feeling to consciousness [vedanayah ... vijņanad api parimucyate]"). SA,
58, 14c23 (Scripture of the Ten Questions), MN, III, 18 (109) say: "The cutting
of desire and lust (duān yų tan, chanda-raga-pahana), the transcending of desire
and lust (yuč yų tan, chanda-raga-vinaya) is the escape from form (sč lí, rupe
nissarana)." SA, 32, 7a, 354, 99b speak of "transcending form (chao-yuč sč, and
the other aggregates)" and of "transcending contact (chao-dų chų)" respectively.
SA, 71, 18c23-25 speaks of "transcending the sense-fields (chao-yuč jėng-jič)"
which corresponds to samatikkama of SN, I, 113 (4, 17) (= SA, 1086, 285a11,
where samatikkama is translated lí) and sad-visaya-samatikranta of the
Lalita-vistara, ed. S. Lefmann, Halle, 1902, 392.
So one is still open to the world, indeed one is fully open to the world now,
without the constricting and distorting grille of concepts and volitions, and
one still has one's six sense-organs and six sense-fields just like before, but
as the Buddha says, by cutting desire and lust with respect to them, one has
transcended them, one has escaped from them, the mind is liberated from them.
They are still the same, but they are no longer the same! Everything is still
just the same, the only change is that one has stopped one's cutting-up of what
happens into discrete entities or non-entities according to whatever scheme of
whatever reference classes, and any such cutting-up of what happens into
discrete entities or non-entities according to whatever scheme of whatever
reference classes is driven by desire and lust.
So, returning to the Heart Sutra, it expresses the Buddhist understanding
marvellously, and in no way constitutes any rejection or overturning of the
Buddha's teaching. It merely brings out some implications contained in implicit
form in the Buddha's teaching. It is sober in the extreme and in no way
extravagant or flippant.
However, it has to be kept in mind that this work of explicitation is mere
explicitation, and does not add anything to Buddhist understanding, which
remains purely purgative and therefore does not admit of additions, even less of
improvements.
As to the mantra: "gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha", it is a mere
wish, a formalised preview of a plan of action, and in no way contains anything
magical or miraculous. Indeed anything magical or miraculous is mere projection
of the reader, and Buddhist understanding is the dropping of all projection and
introjection. Buddhist understanding is simply the letting what happens happen,
without any contribution of one's own, which could only contaminate it and
degrade it.
Tang Huyen
Gileht.com
As usual.
If you want real commentaries about the Hear Sutra, try Google and ask for
Heart Sutra !
Tang is just trying to peddle his usual snake-oil that has nothing to do
with Buddhism.
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E60C185...@yahoo.com...
Sphere
Tang Huyen wrote:
>
...
You work entirely too hard Devadatta. After
acknowledging the emptiness of essence you
immediately go on to build an entire
superstructure of essence. This is just the
"everything exists" cosmology rejected by
Buddha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-048.html
...
--
"In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
Lee
Nicely stated. And as I suspected, Gileht in a response to this post
evidences no comprehension of what you write or even how to question
your reasoning without descending into his gutter-speak. In any event,
you provide a convenient opening to reference a new article on the web
by Bhikkhu Nanananda at http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.htm
Go to the Nibbana Sermons - Part 8 for a discussion of how form,
invested with notions of ego and self, conspire to befuddle us and how
"the cessation of existence is experienced here and now" by the arahant
who no longer makes up an existence by manifestating concepts by way of
craving, conceit, and views. His descriptiuon of the mind of the
arahant is as follows:
------
"the arahant sees phenomena as pure phenomena. Those mind-objects arise
only to cease, that is all. They are merely a series of preparations,
suddhaü saïkhàrasantatiü. `The film reel is just being played' - that is
the way it occurs to him. Therefore, "to one who sees all this, there is
no fear, oh headman".
Let us try to give an illustration for this, too, by way of an analogy.
As we know, when a sewing machine goes into action, it sews up two folds
of cloth together. But supposing suddenly the shuttle runs out of its
load of cotton. What happens then? One might even mistake the folds to
be actually sewn up, until one discovers that they are separable. This
is because the conditions for a perfect stitch are lacking. For a
perfect stitch, the shuttle has to hasten and put a knot every time the
needle goes down.
Now, for the arahant, the shuttle refuses to put in the knot. For him,
preparations, or saïkhàras, are ineffective in producing a prepared, or
saïkhata. He has no cravings, conceits and views. For knots of existence
to occur, there has to be an attachment in the form of craving, a loop
in the form of conceit, and a tightening in the form of views. So,
then, the arahant's mind works like a sewing machine with the shuttle
run out of its load of cotton. Though referred to as `functional
consciousness', its function is not to build up a prepared, since it is
influx-free. The phenomena merely come up to go down, just like the needle."
-----
His discussion of emptiness at the end of the sermon is also worth the
visit but will likely mislead those like Gileht who will understand the
passages as arguing for his ontological emptiness. Careful readers,
however, will understand these passages in the context presented of how
existence comes into being for the befuddled by reason of a
manifestative consciousness and how it ceases "here and now" in
"ambrosial deathlessness" for the arahant who does not manifest
existence and without the arahant or the world of phenomenon going anywhere.
p.s. this is also a good source of nanananda's materials for those too
cheap like Nick to actually buy his inexpensive books. :)
--
Lee
Sphere
Gileht.com wrote:
> Total bull-shit.
>
> As usual.
>
> If you want real commentaries about the Hear Sutra, try Google and ask for
> Heart Sutra !
>
> Tang is just trying to peddle his usual snake-oil that has nothing to do
> with Buddhism.
You are being uncharitable. Devadatta has
only mistaken a grain of sand in his eye
for a mountain off in the distance. The
great effort he has put into scholarship
makes it clear that he feels a real need
for some sort of foundation, and to take
that delusion of foundation way from him
before he is ready would merely condemn
him to drown in the knee-high stream.
After all, are you not seeking a foundation
in Buddha's words?
It may be that in arising only dukkha
arises, and in ceasing only dukkha ceases,
but there is a force to that arising and
ceasing which creates a stream very hard
to go against. A stream of such force
that it seems almost real.
>
> --
> Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
> Web site: http://www.gileht.com
>
>
>
> "Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
Lee
You fall into the trap of the dogmatist thinking that the rejection of
one side of the trope is the affirmation of its opposite. But to reject
an ontological emptiness as not warranted by experience is not to affirm
an ontological essense. This is the same simple-minded mistake Ardie
has made for years, only from the opposite side.
--
Lee
Ch'an Fu
Lee wrote:
thanks for that url.
i'-d li-k-e t-o hav-e a w-ord wi-t-h th-e h-yph-e-n-ator, t-ho...
Lee
available if you click on the "Mind Stilled" link in the left navigation
pane. Hopefully this helps. I kinda remember the site looked messed up
until I installed the fonts.
--
Lee
Shiva
> "In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
What superstructure of essence, pray tell?
Sphere
"all is reality" for starters. This is the
"all exists" cosmology explicitly rejected
by Buddha.
You might also take note of my current .sig,
as here Devadatta nicely captures his "God
Self" position. A position so soundly rejected
by the Buddha that Devadatta was used as an
example.
--
Shiva
> You might also take note of my current .sig,
> as here Devadatta nicely captures his "God
> Self" position. A position so soundly rejected
> by the Buddha that Devadatta was used as an
> example.
>
> "In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
Does it have to be spelled out to you? Tang meant that as a
w-i-t-t-i-c-i-s-m, as a response to something Ch'an Fu said.Isn't it
obvious?
Shiva
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
> Shiva wrote:
> > "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E60D9C0...@all.com...
> >
> >
> >>Tang Huyen wrote:
<in better form, elsewhence>
> >>You work entirely too hard Devadatta. After
> >>acknowledging the emptiness of essence you
> >>immediately go on to build an entire
> >>superstructure of essence. This is just the
> >>"everything exists" cosmology rejected by
> >>Buddha.
> >>
> >>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-048.html
> >>
> >>"In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
> >
> >
> > What superstructure of essence, pray tell?
>
> "all is reality" for starters. This is the
> "all exists" cosmology explicitly rejected
> by Buddha.
I read Tang's words as "just what is" (because
my brain's so small, I can't think of nothin'at all),
which is in agreement with SN XII.48 in which buddy-boy
just ignored the cosmology questions and said, basically,
"stop thinking up shit like that and quit suffering".
> You might also take note of my current .sig,
> as here Devadatta nicely captures his "God
> Self" position. A position so soundly rejected
> by the Buddha that Devadatta was used as an
> example.
>
> --
>
> "In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
It would prolly be presumptuous to think
that Tang is still laughing about that one.
William J Giddings
From: "Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.religion.buddhism,uk.religion.buddhist,alt.zen,alt.religion.buddhism.ti
betan
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Alternative, English translation of the Heart Sutra
>
> I have previously noticed that your command of Chinese is somewhat stiff
and not necessarily
> fluent, and here there is an example of that.
The language of the texts is not necessarily fluent, if by that you mean
'fluid'. I do not
paraphrase or re-state the wordage of the sutras. This would be erroneous.
Furthermore, if an earlier translator or copyist makes an error, the correct
for is to translate the error and notorized any 'corrected' form. I'm sure
that you are only too aware that is the reason why so many retranslations
were done in China, especially on the principle texts. Indeed, the most
'fluid', those of Kumarajiva, weren't necessarily the most accurate in an
academic sense.
The only major source of concern in the Taisho is the bloody awful
punctuation. At times I should just strip the whole lot out and rexamine the
phrasing for myself.
> You translate: "because in reality
> there is no emptiness", but the four Chinese characters say literally:
"true"
> "real" "not" "empty/false", so the whole phrase means: "[because the
mantra is]
> true and not false".
>
The line of text reads:
T08n0251_p0848c20 除一切苦。真實不虛故。說般若波羅蜜多咒
The specific words you identify are:
真實不虛故
I aggree with your comments in as much as it deserves re-examination. To be
honest I wasn't too comfortable with that line. I would not translate this,
however, by using the matched pair of true and false. These terms dealing
which imply logical truth. True, the term 虛 does imply deceipt by virtue of
situation being devoid of any assumed purport or substance, but there is an
ambiguity in the Chinese which I am sure that Xuancang was well aware of. An
ambiguity which, to be faithful to the original text, needs to remain.
What would I do? Throw out the punctuation (which I believe to be a later
addition anyway), re-examine what remains and restructure the words to form
newer sentences. Originally I took 真實不虛故 as a sentence. Now I will
treat it as a clause to be associated the the remainder of line 20. This
gives,
Because in reality it is not empty, speak the prajnaparamita mantra
Thanks for your comments. I haven't read the attached essay, appologies.
sarva mangalam
Sphere
Not given everything else of his I've
read. For example, his "all is reality"
which you have snipped.
I believe what you are doing here is
called apologetics in Christian circles.
The problem with what Devadatta is saying
is that it isn't wildly off the mark. It's
just totally wrong. He's saying what any
careful scholar who didn't get it would
say, and in doing so he is spreading crap.
Buddha didn't offer a "just this" or a
"just that." Buddha offered to teach us
how to swim.
>
> Shiva
>
>
--
Sphere
Ch'an Fu wrote:
>
> Sphere wrote:
>
>
>>Shiva wrote:
>>
>>>"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E60D9C0...@all.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tang Huyen wrote:
>>>
>
> <in better form, elsewhence>
>
>>>>You work entirely too hard Devadatta. After
>>>>acknowledging the emptiness of essence you
>>>>immediately go on to build an entire
>>>>superstructure of essence. This is just the
>>>>"everything exists" cosmology rejected by
>>>>Buddha.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-048.html
>>>>
>>>>"In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
>>>
>>>
>>>What superstructure of essence, pray tell?
>>
>>"all is reality" for starters. This is the
>>"all exists" cosmology explicitly rejected
>>by Buddha.
>
>
> I read Tang's words as "just what is" (because
> my brain's so small, I can't think of nothin'at all),
> which is in agreement with SN XII.48 in which buddy-boy
> just ignored the cosmology questions and said, basically,
> "stop thinking up shit like that and quit suffering".
Buddha didn't say to stop thinking up shit.
He said to stop thinking your thinking
wasn't shit.
>>You might also take note of my current .sig,
>>as here Devadatta nicely captures his "God
>>Self" position. A position so soundly rejected
>>by the Buddha that Devadatta was used as an
>>example.
>>
>>--
>>
>>"In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
>
>
> It would prolly be presumptuous to think
> that Tang is still laughing about that one.
Given the "all is reality" crap which
has followed, Devadatta will have a bit
of trouble disavowing it.
Lee
>
> Sphere wrote:
>
>> Shiva wrote:
>>> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3E60D9C0...@all.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
> <in better form, elsewhence>
>
>>>> You work entirely too hard Devadatta. After acknowledging the
>>>> emptiness of essence you immediately go on to build an entire
>>>> superstructure of essence. This is just the "everything
>>>> exists" cosmology rejected by Buddha.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-048.html
>>>>
>>>> "In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
>>>
>>>
>>> What superstructure of essence, pray tell?
>>
>> "all is reality" for starters. This is the "all exists" cosmology
>> explicitly rejected by Buddha.
>
> I read Tang's words as "just what is" (because my brain's so small, I
> can't think of nothin'at all), which is in agreement with SN XII.48
> in which buddy-boy just ignored the cosmology questions and said,
> basically, "stop thinking up shit like that and quit suffering".
Right. If it helps, lets just say that Tang is a total shit and has the
interpersonal skills of a land shark. Perhaps if we trash the little
weasel hard enough, others will actually stop reacting to the fact that
we may agree with what he writes at times and try to understand why we
agree without twisting words and logic to fit their preconceived views.
If that doesn't work, we'll just have to get used to Sphere misreading
Tang for whatever reason.
--
Lee
Sphere
Ah! So you choose to read into Tang what he
does not say?
Tang teaches exactly what Devadatta taught.
Both of these Devadattas are skillful
scholars, and both fail to see what Buddha
taught. Devadatta seeks certitude and
foundation, thinking "it is this" or "it
is that."
I've got bad news for you who seek some
sort of absolute. There isn't any.
--
Gileht.com
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E6112FD...@all.com...
And there is a sutra about this:
Majjhima Nikaya 95 (Canki Sutta - With Canki) about **the impossibility of
obtaining certainty (absolute truth) through the usual pramanas of that
time**; that is through conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by
analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. The Buddha again rejects
all absolute views, but still give means to validate conventional truths and
teachers according to a Buddhist paths based on the gradual attenuation of
the three poisons: attachment, aversion and delusion. In short, even if all
views (truths) are empty of inherent existence, they are still not
completely non-existent, meaningless or useless. They can be useful
conventional truths in their limited context. So it is about the two truths
as also taught in the Mahayana.
[See the post about it that was wrongfully titled "MN72 - Another hinayana
sutra about the Middle Way: no absolute, only conventional truths"]
===========
The is also the real Majjhima Nikaya 72 (Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta -- To
Vacchagotta on Fire)
where it is said that :
'Does Master Gotama have any position at all?'
'A "position," Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
What a Tathagata sees is this: "Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is consciousness,
such its origin, such its disappearance." Because of this, I say, a
Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, &
relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making &
mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack of
sustenance/clinging, released.'
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
i dunno what "absolute" or "foundation"
you see Tang proposing, but i don't see it.
his words seem to say "that's how it is" as
well as words can, and they do help drop the
mysticism and literalism that arise in talking
about practice. there are lots of "professional
buddhists" around who do much worse.
i s'pose that you'd get all mad if i pointed out
that saying there *is* or *isn't* any "absolute"
is just silly and that the assertion that there *isn't*
falls into the same trap as one that says there *is*.
Ch'an Fu
"Gileht.com" wrote:
> The is also the real Majjhima Nikaya 72 (Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta -- To
> Vacchagotta on Fire)
>
> where it is said that :
>
> 'Does Master Gotama have any position at all?'
>
> 'A "position," Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
> What a Tathagata sees is this: "Such is form, such its origin, such its
> disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
> such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is consciousness,
> such its origin, such its disappearance." Because of this, I say, a
> Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, &
> relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making &
> mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack of
> sustenance/clinging, released.'
which, for those who can read english,
is a highly decorative version of what Tang posted.
Lee
> I've got bad news for you who seek some
> sort of absolute. There isn't any.
Neither Tang nor I have asserted that there is "some sort of absolute."
On the other hand, your claim that there isn't "some sort of absolute"
is pure speculation on your part.
--
Lee
Lee
Yes, I have explained this in detail to sphere and gileht numerous
times. Of course, being the bozo, cock-sucking stooge that I am, I must
not know what I am talking about.
heheh. This is just too easy.
--
Lee
Ch'an Fu
Lee wrote:
that must make at least 3 of us,
so how about a reverse comedy act?
we'll do the laughing -
the audience can tell the jokes.
Lee
> that must make at least 3 of us, so how about a reverse comedy act?
> we'll do the laughing - the audience can tell the jokes.
Deal. But can Ev make the cookies?
--
Lee
Ch'an Fu
Lee wrote:
would we eat 'em if she did?
Lee
>>> how about a reverse comedy act? we'll do the laughing - the
>>> audience can tell the jokes.
>>
>> Deal. But can Ev make the cookies?
>
> would we eat 'em if she did?
I've always been friends with Ev, so I would have at least one. More if
they were oatmeal. Tang may wish to diet that day, though.
--
Lee
Sphere
Very good, but I think you will find even a
better understanding in the four solaces from
the Kalama Sutta where Buddha makes it very clear
that it is not some imagined Truth but how one
thinks which is important:
17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free
mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a
purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.
"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds
done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the
body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is
possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of
deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from
hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.'
This is the second solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing
evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil
deed?' This is the third solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself
purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.
"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind,
such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified
mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."
"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, Sublime one. The disciple of the Noble
Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free
mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom,
here and now, four solaces are found.
"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds
done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the
body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is
possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of
deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from
hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.'
This is the second solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing
evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil
deed?' This is the third solace found by him.
"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself
purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel008.html
--
Sphere
There is no "that's how it is".
>
> i s'pose that you'd get all mad if i pointed out
> that saying there *is* or *isn't* any "absolute"
> is just silly and that the assertion that there *isn't*
> falls into the same trap as one that says there *is*.
No. Just bored.
The trap is in taking what I say as some
sort of absolute when *it isn't*.
>
--
Sphere
Bullshit. Devadatta posits a fundament
with practically every post -- most
directly with his "and that's all there
is to Buddhism." Only rarely does Devadatta
concede that Buddha doesn't offer any sort
of essence, and just about every time
Devadatta does so he immediately goes off
to propose some sort of essence. Tang
is a "God Self", and I have labeled him
just about as well as words can label
by giving him the name Devadatta.
Devadatta isn't spouting the wild stuff
which we see go by, and that makes what
he has to say even more wrong -- by its'
being so close and yet so far away. He's
seeking a Truth in scholarly attention
to detail while completely ignoring what
can be learned from paying attention to
the arising and cessation of what goes
on in the mind.
There is no Truth. There is only the arising
of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.
--
Sphere
It seems you expect more of words
than words are capable of providing.
This is in itself an assertion of
an absolute.
Sphere
Not easy. Not hard.
But if you know what you are talking
about then you are lost beyond
salvation.
>
--
cupcake
Sphere wrote:
>Lee wrote:
>> Sphere wrote:
>>
>>> I've got bad news for you who seek some
>>> sort of absolute. There isn't any.
>>
>>
>> Neither Tang nor I have asserted that there is "some sort of absolute."
>> On the other hand, your claim that there isn't "some sort of absolute"
>> is pure speculation on your part.
>
>It seems you expect more of words
>than words are capable of providing.
>This is in itself an assertion of
>an absolute.
>
>
well, yer an absolute jerk -- iz that absolute enough
for yu, huh?
hahahahahahahahahahaha
heeheeheeheehee hee!
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
Well, pogo, what's the difference between
saying, "There is only the arising of dukkha
and the cessation of dukkha." and stating a
"truth"? Sooner or later, you're gonna have to
swallow your own Absolute.
Boris...@nowherespecial.com
wrote:
>There is no Truth. There is only the arising
>of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.
Thus i have heard:....
Then the Exalted One at that time, seeing the meaning of
it, gave utterence to this verse of uplift:
...Monks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a
not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become,
not-made, not compounded were not, there would be apparent
no escape from this here that is born, become, made,
compounded.
But since, monks, there is an unborn, not-become,
not-made, not-compounded therefore the escape from yhis
here that is born, become, made, compounded is apparent.
take heart sphere.
Boris
Lee
>
>
> Lee wrote:
>
>> Sphere wrote:
>>
>>> I've got bad news for you who seek some
>>> sort of absolute. There isn't any.
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither Tang nor I have asserted that there is "some sort of
>> absolute." On the other hand, your claim that there isn't "some sort
>> of absolute" is pure speculation on your part.
>
>
> It seems you expect more of words
> than words are capable of providing.
> This is in itself an assertion of
> an absolute.
I expect only that people who make claims like there isn't "some sort of
absolute" might actualy be able to muster enough intelligence to explain
the claim and not seek refuge in some mumbo-jumbo zennie speak. But I
have learned also not to get worried when those expectations are not met
since those people who make such dogmatic assertions rarely have the
ability to think clearly about the cage they sit in.
--
Lee
cupcake
Boris Fuller wrote:
thanks for putting in a good word for Nirvana, Boris --
somebody's got to speak up for what's right! :(
>
> take heart sphere.
>
>
> Boris
>
Sphere
What I say is only words.
Sphere
Don't have to. That sutta makes perfect
sense. It's only when you look for
some sort of Truth that it becomes
incomprehensible.
Drop the conceit "I am" and unbecome.
>
>
> Boris
cupcake
> Re: Tang is a Little Weasel
>
> From: Sphere <no...@all.com>
> Reply to: [1]Sphere
> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 01:11:10 GMT
> Organization: AT&T Broadband
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]uk.religion.buddhist,
> [4]alt.zen,
> [5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
> Followup to: [6]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<QB%7a.35624$Jl2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
> [8]<3E60C185...@yahoo.com>
> [9]<3E60D9C0...@all.com>
> [10]<I868a.29258$x.1...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
> [11]<3E60F173...@all.com>
> [12]<3E60F605...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk>
> [13]<v621uu7...@corp.supernews.com>
> [14]<3E6112FD...@all.com>
> [15]<5198a.13346$VG.12...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [16]<3E6120B6...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk>
> [17]<3E613E98...@all.com>
> [18]<3e6146f8...@news.freeserve.com>
Sphere, yu little moron, -- yu juzt can't summarily,
and through all of yer intellectual wrangling, declare
that yu are "unbecome", yu fricking little moron!
"unbecome" is the ultimate attainment of
buddhism, and entails arduous relinquishment
of self, desire, and attachment, -- resulting
in the extinquishing of all further "karma"
formations -- bhava-nirodha -- ie. Nirvana
>>
>>
>> Boris
>
Sphere
Please read what you have written.
After that, it might make some sense
for you to at least learn a bit about
what Buddha actually taught.
Sphere
Being blown out, extinguished, and having
no more of "I am," "I was," or "I will be"
is finding freedom. It's finding freedom
from birth and death, freedom from becoming,
freedom from being made, freedom from being
compounded.
There is escape, but escape will not be found
in some sort of magical person living outside
of samsara. Escape is found in not finding
such a person, and in knowing you can forget
about it.
>
>
>
>
>>take heart sphere.
>>
>>
>>Boris
cupcake
Sphere wrote:
yu mean sorta like hiding from yer wife, in yer study,
sitting at yer computer, year after year, nerviously
posting to buddhist usenet, when yer both living in
the same house?
iz that the extent of yer understanding of Dhamma,
Sphere?
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
yeah, that's what he said, too - just words.
so i'm torn between, "well, duh..."
and "ibid, charlie chan..."
cupcake
> Re: Tang is a Little Weasel
>
> Reply to: [1]Ch'an Fu
> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 21:00:31 -0500
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups:
> [2]talk.religion.buddhism,
> [3]uk.religion.buddhist,
> [4]alt.zen,
> [5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
> Followup to: [6]newsgroups
> References:
> [7]<QB%7a.35624$Jl2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>
> [8]<3E60C185...@yahoo.com>
> [9]<3E60D9C0...@all.com>
> [10]<I868a.29258$x.1...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
> [11]<3E60F173...@all.com>
> [12]<3E60F605...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk>
> [13]<v621uu7...@corp.supernews.com>
> [14]<3E6112FD...@all.com>
> [15]<5198a.13346$VG.12...@news20.bellglobal.com>
> [16]<3E6120B6...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk>
> [17]<3E613E98...@all.com>
> [19]<3E615978...@all.com>
Ch'an Fu, yu've got to understand that Sphere is nothing
other than, yet, another Vajra mole (undercover agent),
planted here, in buddhist usenet, by his Vajra guru,
to continuously disrupt Tang's presentation of Buddha-Dhamma
Sphere
First, what are you doing?
Second, if my wife wasn't in NC this weekend
she'd just as likely be right behind me watching
Oprah as anywhere else.
>
> iz that the extent of yer understanding of Dhamma,
> Sphere?
I don't understand the Dhamma.
Sphere
cupcake wrote:
...
>
>
> Ch'an Fu, yu've got to understand that Sphere is nothing
> other than, yet, another Vajra mole (undercover agent),
> planted here, in buddhist usenet, by his Vajra guru,
> to continuously disrupt Tang's presentation of Buddha-Dhamma
>
Sounds good to me.
--
In arising it is only dukkha which arises.
In ceasing it is only dukkha which ceases.
Boris...@nowherespecial.com
wrote:
then you might consider
choosing better words
in a different order
this is merely a smokescreen
to disguise your suffering
you are dishonest.
Boris
cupcake
Boris wrote:
suffering and dishonest is, yet, juzt another
name for "Vajrayani"
> Boris
>
Boris...@nowherespecial.com
cupcake
Sphere wrote:
well, i have been told, by people who are very close
to me, that i have to stop talking about my sexual
proclivities... so, i can't tell yu what i'm sitting
here, waiting for, in the impending, next, 30 minutes
Shiva
> Lee wrote:
> > Yes, I have explained this in detail to sphere and gileht numerous
> > times. Of course, being the bozo, cock-sucking stooge that I am, I must
> > not know what I am talking about.
> >
> > heheh. This is just too easy.
> >
> > --
> > Lee
>
> that must make at least 3 of us,
> so how about a reverse comedy act?
> we'll do the laughing -
> the audience can tell the jokes.
Have always thought of trb as being like that. You make some innocuous
statement like "pizza is tasty" or whatever and you have a whole bunch of
jokers who get into a tangle accusing you of eternalism, falling into
extremes of existence/non-existence and what not. And thus the grand three
ring circus that trb is, rolls on.
Shiva
Evelyn Ruut
"Lee" <gra...@rockingchair.com> wrote in message
news:v62alm3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ch'an Fu wrote:
> >
> > Lee wrote:
> >
> >> Ch'an Fu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sphere wrote:
>
> >>>> There isn't any.
> >>>
> >>> well as words can, and they do help drop the mysticism and
> >>> literalism that arise in talking about practice. there are lots
> >>> of "professional buddhists" around who do much worse.
> >>>
> >>> i s'pose that you'd get all mad if i pointed out that saying
> >>> there *is* or *isn't* any "absolute" is just silly and that the
> >>> assertion that there *isn't* falls into the same trap as one that
> >>> says there *is*.
> >>
> >> times. Of course, being the bozo, cock-sucking stooge that I am, I
> >> must not know what I am talking about.
> >>
> >> heheh. This is just too easy.
>
> > we'll do the laughing - the audience can tell the jokes.
>
>
> --
> Lee
Ev doesn't do cookies anymore. Diabetics avoid them, you know. I will
bring some nice strawberries instead.....
:-)
Ev.
Shiva
There will be an absolute mess if he is not able to hold it down.
Robyn
Robyn
LOL
Exactly
Gileht.com
3E61371C...@all.com...
>
> Very good, but I think you will find even a
> better understanding in the four solaces from
> the Kalama Sutta where Buddha makes it very clear
> that it is not some imagined Truth but how one
> thinks which is important:
Hooo .... excellent. Looks like I went over this one too fast the last time
I read it.
Thanks. I will add it to my list of best ones.
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E61371C...@all.com...
>
>
> Gileht.com wrote:
> > "Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 3E6112FD...@all.com...
> >
> >>
> >>Lee wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ch'an Fu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Sphere wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Shiva wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:3E60D9C0...@all.com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Tang Huyen wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>><in better form, elsewhence>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>You work entirely too hard Devadatta. After acknowledging the
> >>>>>>>emptiness of essence you immediately go on to build an entire
> >>>>>>>superstructure of essence. This is just the "everything
> >>>>>>>exists" cosmology rejected by Buddha.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-048.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>What superstructure of essence, pray tell?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"all is reality" for starters. This is the "all exists" cosmology
> >>>>>explicitly rejected by Buddha.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I read Tang's words as "just what is" (because my brain's so small, I
> >>>>can't think of nothin'at all), which is in agreement with SN XII.48
> >>>>in which buddy-boy just ignored the cosmology questions and said,
> >>>>basically, "stop thinking up shit like that and quit suffering".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Right. If it helps, lets just say that Tang is a total shit and has
the
> >>>interpersonal skills of a land shark. Perhaps if we trash the little
> >>>weasel hard enough, others will actually stop reacting to the fact that
> >>>we may agree with what he writes at times and try to understand why we
> >>>agree without twisting words and logic to fit their preconceived views.
> >>>
> >>>If that doesn't work, we'll just have to get used to Sphere misreading
> >>>Tang for whatever reason.
> >>
> >>
> >>Ah! So you choose to read into Tang what he
> >>does not say?
> >>
> >>Tang teaches exactly what Devadatta taught.
> >>Both of these Devadattas are skillful
> >>scholars, and both fail to see what Buddha
> >>taught. Devadatta seeks certitude and
> >>foundation, thinking "it is this" or "it
> >>is that."
> >>
> >>I've got bad news for you who seek some
> >>sort of absolute. There isn't any.
> >
> >
> > And there is a sutra about this:
> >
> > Majjhima Nikaya 95 (Canki Sutta - With Canki) about **the impossibility
of
> > obtaining certainty (absolute truth) through the usual pramanas of that
> > time**; that is through conviction, liking, unbroken tradition,
reasoning by
> > analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. The Buddha again
rejects
> > all absolute views, but still give means to validate conventional truths
and
> > teachers according to a Buddhist paths based on the gradual attenuation
of
> > the three poisons: attachment, aversion and delusion. In short, even if
all
> > views (truths) are empty of inherent existence, they are still not
> > completely non-existent, meaningless or useless. They can be useful
> > conventional truths in their limited context. So it is about the two
truths
> > as also taught in the Mahayana.
> >
> > [See the post about it that was wrongfully titled "MN72 - Another
hinayana
> > sutra about the Middle Way: no absolute, only conventional truths"]
> >
> > ===========
> >
> >
> > The is also the real Majjhima Nikaya 72 (Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta -- To
> > Vacchagotta on Fire)
> >
> > where it is said that :
> >
> > 'Does Master Gotama have any position at all?'
> >
> >
> >
> > 'A "position," Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
> > What a Tathagata sees is this: "Such is form, such its origin, such its
> > disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
> > such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is
consciousness,
> > such its origin, such its disappearance." Because of this, I say, a
> > Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, &
> > relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making &
> > mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack of
> > sustenance/clinging, released.'
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
> > Web site: http://www.gileht.com
>
>
>
>
> 17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free
> mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a
> purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.
>
> "'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds
> done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the
> body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is
> possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
>
> "'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of
> deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from
> hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.'
> This is the second solace found by him.
>
> "'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing
> evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil
> deed?' This is the third solace found by him.
>
> "'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself
> purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.
>
> "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind,
> such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified
> mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."
>
> "So it is, Blessed One. So it is, Sublime one. The disciple of the Noble
> Ones, venerable sir, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free
> mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom,
> here and now, four solaces are found.
>
> "'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds
> done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the
> body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is
> possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
>
> "'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of
> deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from
> hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.'
> This is the second solace found by him.
>
> "'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing
> evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil
> deed?' This is the third solace found by him.
>
> "'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself
> purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.
>
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel008.html
Gileht.com
>
>
> Ch'an Fu wrote:
> > "Gileht.com" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Vacchagotta on Fire)
> >>
> >>where it is said that :
> >>
> >>'Does Master Gotama have any position at all?'
> >>
> >>'A "position," Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
> >>What a Tathagata sees is this: "Such is form, such its origin, such its
> >>disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
> >>such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is
consciousness,
> >>such its origin, such its disappearance." Because of this, I say, a
> >>Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, &
> >>relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making &
> >>mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack of
> >>sustenance/clinging, released.'
> >
> >
> > is a highly decorative version of what Tang posted.
>
>
> Bullshit. Devadatta posits a fundament
> with practically every post -- most
> directly with his "and that's all there
> is to Buddhism." Only rarely does Devadatta
> concede that Buddha doesn't offer any sort
> of essence, and just about every time
> Devadatta does so he immediately goes off
> to propose some sort of essence. Tang
> is a "God Self", and I have labeled him
> just about as well as words can label
> by giving him the name Devadatta.
>
> Devadatta isn't spouting the wild stuff
> which we see go by, and that makes what
> he has to say even more wrong -- by its'
> being so close and yet so far away. He's
> seeking a Truth in scholarly attention
> to detail while completely ignoring what
> can be learned from paying attention to
> the arising and cessation of what goes
> on in the mind.
>
> There is no Truth. There is only the arising
> of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.
It is true that Tang doesn,t understand the real meaning of "having no
position" or of "Total Unbinding" or of emptiness and the Middle Way. He is
grasping very tightly to his positions/views of "dropping all" and of
"direct perception with no mentation". His understanding of Buddhism comes
down to nothing. He is completely on a side track leading to nihilism ...
and so is Chan Foo.
Gileht.com
>
>
> Lee wrote:
> > Sphere wrote:
> >
> >> I've got bad news for you who seek some
> >> sort of absolute. There isn't any.
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, your claim that there isn't "some sort of absolute"
> > is pure speculation on your part.
Thang is drowning in absolutism, or in other words: he has fallen into on of
the extreme because he has no cule about the Middle Way at all.
It is true that Tang doesn,t understand the real meaning of "having no
position" or of "Total Unbinding" or of emptiness and the Middle Way. He is
grasping very tightly to his positions/views of "dropping all" and of
"direct perception with no mentation". His understanding of Buddhism comes
down to nothing. He is completely on a side track leading to nihilism ...
and so is Chan Foo.
--
Gileht --- to email me use gileht at gileht dawt komm
Web site: http://www.gileht.com
> It seems you expect more of words
> than words are capable of providing.
> This is in itself an assertion of
> an absolute.
>
>
>
Gileht.com
"cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> a écrit dans le message de news:
3_c8a.224$2e....@news.more.net...
Nah. Shere is right "unbecomeing" is just another word, just a carot in from
of the stupid dumb asses who need one to progress.
Robert Epstein
it still seems to me that you interpret the Buddha's words in the light of your own
philosophy. I have pointed out a few instances of this in the past, but you
haven't responded to those particular posts. To take one example from your
translation below, there is the phrase: "Transcending form [and the other
aggregates]". It does not seem to me that the idea of transcending form, for
instance, matches your idea that all that is to be removed in order to be
enlightened are disturbing attributions of essence to the world as it arises. It
seems to me that if this was what the Buddha meant to say he would have rather said
something like "transcending all interpretations" or something like that, not
"transcending form and the other aggregates". Transcending form and transcending
contact seems like he is saying that one should go beyond form and go beyond
contact, since that is what transcending means. If one is to go beyond form, that
is something more than merely ceasing to label it improperly, or attribute an
essnece to it which it doesn't have. It means that the appearance of form itself
is suspect and should be gone beyond. If you can respond to this and tell me how
you interpret the idea of transcendence of the kandhas, I would be appreciative.
Robert
==========================
Tang Huyen wrote:
> William J Giddings wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, there is no indication that the address directed towards
> > Shariputra is from the bodhisattva. My personal view is that this is a quote
> > from the Buddha himself. The reason for this is that the talker describes
> > the achievements of the buddhas of the past.
> >
> > Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra
> > (Taisho 251)
> > Sanskrit to Chinese translation by Master of Tripitaka Xuancan, Tang
> > Dynasty
> > Chinese to English translation by Willam J Giddings, CE2003
> >
> > Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, when pursuing the deep prajnaparamita,
> > recognised the five skandhas as completely empty and passed-beyond all
> > vexations and distress. Shariputra, appearances are not different from
> > emptiness, emptiness is not different to appearances. Appearances are
> > emptiness, emptiness is an appearance. Impressions, thoughts, associations
> > and knowing too, are also like this. Shariputra, all dharmas are empty of
> > appearances, are not created, are not extinguished, are not defiled, are not
> > pure; do not increase, do not decrease. For this reason, amidst emptiness
> > there are no appearances, nor are there any impressions, thoughts,
> > associations and knowing, There is no eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, ideas.
> > There are no colours, sounds, smells, tastes and touch dharmas. There is no
> > eye-element upto no imagining nor knowledge element. Neither is any
> > non-understanding, nor is there any end to non-understanding up to no
> > old-age and death. Neither is there any end to old-age and death. There is
> > no suffering, cause, extinction or path. There is no knowledge nor anything
> > to find. Because there isn't anything
> > to find, the bodhisattva is free because of relying upon prajnaparamita: a
> > heart without any obstruction. Because there are no obstructions, there is
> > no fear. Abandoning, overturning dreams and concepts, finally reaches
> > nirvana. Because all the buddhas of the three times have relied upon
> > prajnaparamita, they have found anuttarasamyaksambodhi. For this reason,
> > know prajnaparamita is the great spiritual mantra. The great understanding
> > mantra. The supreme mantra. The unequalled mantra, able to cut through all
> > vexation because in reality there is no emptiness. Speak the prajnaparamita
> > mantra, speak the mantra's words:
> >
> > gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha'
> >
> > Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra
>
> I have previously noticed that your command of Chinese is somewhat stiff and not
> fluent, and here there is an example of that. You translate: "because in reality
> there is no emptiness", but the four Chinese characters say literally: "true"
> "real" "not" "empty/false", so the whole phrase means: "[because the mantra is]
> true and not false".
>
> As to your introduction: "Furthermore, there is no indication that the address
> directed towards Shariputra is from the bodhisattva [Avalokitesvara]. My
> personal view is that this is a quote from the Buddha himself. The reason for
> this is that the talker describes the achievements of the buddhas of the past."
>
> The Heart Sutra to me is an explicitation of what the Buddha taught in the early
> canon, and is totally orthodox, by that standard. It brings out implications in
> what the Buddha said, but does not contradict the meaning of what the Buddha
> said. I have expressed my view of it previously, but in a scattered manner, so
> here I'll take the opportunity to put it together in one place.
>
> The first shocking thing that greets the reader, especially if the latter comes
> from the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma, is the phalanx of negations. But any reader of
> the early canon (in contradistinction to the Abhidhamma/Abhidharma) will
> instantly recognise them -- the negations -- as implied ubiquitously by the
> Buddha himself.
>
> The slogan "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" quite simply means that form,
> just where it is and just as it is, has no essence, and therefore is empty, i.
> e., empty of essence, and that absence of essence, aka emptiness, right where it
> is and just as it is, is the form that we perceive. There is no inexistence
> involved, as form -- phenomenon as it appears to us -- is just what it is,
> exactly where it is, but the essence that we unconsciously impute to it --
> DharmaTroll's "self-stuff invested by us" -- is absent. So, absent the mentation
> that imputes essence, all is reality, right where it is, without further ado,
> and on the contrary, when that mentation is present and imputes essence, just
> that is delusion. That is all there is both to the slogan and to Buddhism.
>
> Buddhism denies only at the level of metaphysical entities like essence, but
> does not deny anything at the level of phenomena, and the compositions (the
> stuff of our normal, deluded experience) are within phenomena: they are our own
> actions, in the realm of external bodily behavior, speech and thought, though
> some are not within consciousness, at least for the normal, deluded person.
> Phenomena exist and function according to patterns, which are called modalities
> of functioning (dhatu), and the overarching modality is of course Dependent
> Arisal. These are empty and abstract, as opposed to full and concrete essences.
> Emptiness means only the inexistence of essence, but implies nothing about the
> phenomena of which essence is denied but which *keep existing and functioning
> just like before*.
>
> In Buddhism, there is no mutual exclusion between what appears (form) and
> emptiness, even less incompatibility, but just where we are, just there
> emptiness is, because all thing-events that we face are empty of essence, due to
> their dependent arisenness. The Perfection of Wisdom scriptures say: Form is
> emptiness, emptiness is form, just form is emptiness, just emptiness is form.
>
> The same world (our daily world), when perceived with naming and attribution of
> essence, is delusion, but when perceived without naming and attribution of
> essence, is reality, ultimate reality.
>
> One does not vanish the world to arrive at emptiness, and one does not vanish
> conventional truth to arrive at ultimate truth, or vice versa, but one only
> stops all mental activities other than mere reception of sensation (and naming
> and attribution of essence are two of the major components of those mental
> activities other than mere reception of sensation), and just that is ultimate
> reality. However in the state of quiescence of all mental activities other than
> mere reception of sensation, one does not attend to emptiness, one does not
> mentate that all thing-events are empty, one doesn't mentate anything, period.
>
> As to the classification of the five aggregates, the six sense-fields, the six
> sense-organs, the six sense-consciousnesses, the eighteen modalities (dhatu),
> etc.: experience is whole and unitary, though fully differentiated (and not a
> homogeneous blank), but is cut up into such classifications only as a temporary
> means of concentrating the mind and making the mind workable. Such
> classifications -- and any cutting-up of experience into whatever scheme of
> whatever reference classes -- are never going to be wholly adequate to reality
> -- to their referent -- but merely are serviceable at best, if they indeed are
> serviceable, and in Buddhism they serve only as a temporary means of
> concentrating the mind and making the mind workable, to enable further work
> along the line of the contemplation of impermanence, suffering, the absence of
> self.
>
> 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 (kiņcano), hostility is something, delusion is something; but the
> strifeless is no-thing (a-kiņcano, not something). Furthermore the strifeless is
> empty of lust (suņņa 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.
>
> The three poisons -- lust, hostility, delusion -- are the motives behind the
> cutting-up of experience into whatever scheme of whatever reference classes, and
> during training, so long as such cutting-up is still going on, it has to be used
> and harnessed for ... undoing itself, which is an example of the antinomies that
> pervade Buddhism.
>
> But after training, when the practitioner is awakened, no such cutting-up is
> needed, unless it is needed for a specific occasion, but will then be used only
> during the occasion, and not always and forever. So that two persons perceiving
> the "same" reality -- sensible reality -- in almost the same place at the same
> time will see two different realities, that have not been fitted into concepts
> and intellective-discursive views and therefore are left in their uniqueness,
> though the two realities are almost the same in content. Though the persons in
> question will not think "unique" or "ultimate", but simply receive raw sensation
> without any interpretation. This purely passive reception receives the world and
> oneself as a unitary whole though fully differentiated, but does not think
> "unitary", "whole", "differentiated", etc.
>
> As to the negation of the Buddhist fruits of sainthood in particular and of any
> obtention in general: the Buddha realised that what he had to let go of -- his
> self, views, fetters, latencies, etc.-- was unobtainable and could not be made
> known as real and established in the present things (drsta eva dharme satyatah
> sthitito 'nupalabhyamano 'prajņapyamanas ca). So, he realised that what was to
> be dropped could not be dropped because it was unobtainable and could not be
> made known as real and established in the present things, and that realisation
> freed him. Simple, eh?
>
> He said: "self and what belongs to self are unobtainable and cannot be made
> known as real and established in the present things (drsta eva dharme satyatah
> sthitito 'nupalabhyamano 'prajņapyamanas ca), the views, fetters and latencies
> in the mind are unobtainable and cannot be made known," or: "The Tathagata is
> unobtainable and cannot be made known as real and established in the present
> things." MA, 200, 765b29, SA, 104, 31b1-2, SA, 104, 31b1-2.
>
> So if anybody feels that he has a reasonable idea of what the illusion/delusion
> is, and how to strip it away and see through it, then he's ahead of the Buddha,
> who gave up on all that -- what the illusion/delusion is, and how to strip it
> away and see through it.
>
> To the Buddha none of that could be got at, both the what and the how -- what
> the illusion/delusion is and how to strip it away and see through it.
>
> That was how he stripped it away and saw through it -- keeping in mind that the
> "it" could not be got at.
>
> Just to make sure about the negations, which in the Heart Sutra are universal:
> in the early canon, such negations are also expressed, but in a slightly
> different idiom. At SA, 4-6, 1b-c, Turfanfunde, IV, 77, by "detaching from the
> desire for" (lí yų, chandam vi-ragayitva) each of the aggregates, "the mind is
> liberated from it" (xin dé jie tuo, tatas cittam vimocayitva). See also SA, 10,
> 2a, 48, 12a, SN, III, 179 (22, 146) ("one is liberated from form [yú sč dé lí,
> rupamha parimuccati]"), 66, 17c, 87, 22b (both have: "one is liberated from form
> [yú sč dé jie tuo]"), 290, 82a ("one is liberated from form [yú sč jie tuo],"
> Nidana-samyukta, 121: "one is liberated from contact [sparsad api parimucyate],
> from feeling to consciousness [vedanayah ... vijņanad api parimucyate]"). SA,
> 58, 14c23 (Scripture of the Ten Questions), MN, III, 18 (109) say: "The cutting
> of desire and lust (duān yų tan, chanda-raga-pahana), the transcending of desire
> and lust (yuč yų tan, chanda-raga-vinaya) is the escape from form (sč lí, rupe
> nissarana)." SA, 32, 7a, 354, 99b speak of "transcending form (chao-yuč sč, and
> the other aggregates)" and of "transcending contact (chao-dų chų)" respectively.
> SA, 71, 18c23-25 speaks of "transcending the sense-fields (chao-yuč jėng-jič)"
> which corresponds to samatikkama of SN, I, 113 (4, 17) (= SA, 1086, 285a11,
> where samatikkama is translated lí) and sad-visaya-samatikranta of the
> Lalita-vistara, ed. S. Lefmann, Halle, 1902, 392.
>
> So one is still open to the world, indeed one is fully open to the world now,
> without the constricting and distorting grille of concepts and volitions, and
> one still has one's six sense-organs and six sense-fields just like before, but
> as the Buddha says, by cutting desire and lust with respect to them, one has
> transcended them, one has escaped from them, the mind is liberated from them.
> They are still the same, but they are no longer the same! Everything is still
> just the same, the only change is that one has stopped one's cutting-up of what
> happens into discrete entities or non-entities according to whatever scheme of
> whatever reference classes, and any such cutting-up of what happens into
> discrete entities or non-entities according to whatever scheme of whatever
> reference classes is driven by desire and lust.
>
> So, returning to the Heart Sutra, it expresses the Buddhist understanding
> marvellously, and in no way constitutes any rejection or overturning of the
> Buddha's teaching. It merely brings out some implications contained in implicit
> form in the Buddha's teaching. It is sober in the extreme and in no way
> extravagant or flippant.
>
> However, it has to be kept in mind that this work of explicitation is mere
> explicitation, and does not add anything to Buddhist understanding, which
> remains purely purgative and therefore does not admit of additions, even less of
> improvements.
>
> As to the mantra: "gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha", it is a mere
> wish, a formalised preview of a plan of action, and in no way contains anything
> magical or miraculous. Indeed anything magical or miraculous is mere projection
> of the reader, and Buddhist understanding is the dropping of all projection and
> introjection. Buddhist understanding is simply the letting what happens happen,
> without any contribution of one's own, which could only contaminate it and
> degrade it.
>
> Tang Huyen
Sphere
Well... Cuppie is right too.
Dropping the conceit "I am" is a
real pain in the butt.
Note what Cuppie says needs to be
relinquished -- although, if self
is dropped there is nothing to
have desire and become attached.
Mentation isn't even a part of
the topic, but is merely a boring
side issue.
Sphere
Gileht.com wrote:
> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3E6141F0...@all.com...
>
>>
>>Lee wrote:
>>
>>>Sphere wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've got bad news for you who seek some
>>>>sort of absolute. There isn't any.
>>>
>>>
>>>Neither Tang nor I have asserted that there is "some sort of absolute."
>>> On the other hand, your claim that there isn't "some sort of absolute"
>>>is pure speculation on your part.
>>
>
> Thang is drowning in absolutism, or in other words: he has fallen into on of
> the extreme because he has no cule about the Middle Way at all.
>
> It is true that Tang doesn,t understand the real meaning of "having no
> position" or of "Total Unbinding" or of emptiness and the Middle Way. He is
> grasping very tightly to his positions/views of "dropping all" and of
> "direct perception with no mentation". His understanding of Buddhism comes
> down to nothing. He is completely on a side track leading to nihilism ...
> and so is Chan Foo.
Ch'an wanders.
Devadatta is utterly convinced that Self is God.
You won't find him saying it directly, but
his fixation on non-mentation is a fixation on
Self. So, of course it has to be all Buddhism
is about, and exactly nothing else. If Buddhism
finds that mentation is just more fuzz like all
the other fuzz it turns the God Self into just
more fuzz -- and he can't have that. He has to
have Buddhism be exactly about something.
Do you think I ought to change 'dukkha' to
'stress' in my tagline?
Ch'an Fu
> Gileht.com wrote:
> > "cupcake" <t...@r.slrup> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 3_c8a.224$2e....@news.more.net...
<credit for petie>
> >> Sphere, yu little moron, -- yu juzt can't summarily,
> >> and through all of yer intellectual wrangling, declare
> >> that yu are "unbecome", yu fricking little moron!
> >>
> >> "unbecome" is the ultimate attainment of
> >> buddhism, and entails arduous relinquishment
> >> of self, desire, and attachment, -- resulting
> >> in the extinquishing of all further "karma"
> >> formations -- bhava-nirodha -- ie. Nirvana
>
> > Nah. Shere is right "unbecomeing" is just another word, just a carot in from
> > of the stupid dumb asses who need one to progress.
>
> Well... Cuppie is right too.
> Dropping the conceit "I am" is a
> real pain in the butt.
>
> Note what Cuppie says needs to be
> relinquished -- although, if self
> is dropped there is nothing to
> have desire and become attached.
> Mentation isn't even a part of
> the topic, but is merely a boring
> side issue.
not at all. in fact it's exactly the key
to practice. you don't think you
practice memorizing/conceptualizing
a view/idea of no-self, do you?
what do you 'think' practice is?
you claim to sit zazen. do you understand
why you do that? is it to find some cute
answer to some cute question? no.
what's your present koan?
mindfulness is constant, empty of
thought and concept, yet totally
conscious.
Ch'an Fu
"Gileht.com" wrote:
be advised that my practice leads to
joy, wisdom, openness, freedom and the
cessation of suffering. how? through letting
go of the habit of thinking up 'self', holding 'self',
dropping entirely the construction of becoming,
useless mental verbalization
(conceptual thinking, "views", imaginary
bullshit, etc.), and mindfulness
(attention/awareness/introspection).
i can be a lamb or a lion, a sheep or a shepherd,
yet i can be nothing at all and simply be.
Tang's descriptions happen to fit like a glove,
he understands indeed that "understanding
comes down to nothing", for indeed it does.
print and burn your suttas -
they'll keep you warm while you practice.
Sphere
^^
Lee
> be advised that my practice leads to joy, wisdom, openness, freedom
> and the cessation of suffering. how? through letting go of the habit
> of thinking up 'self', holding 'self', dropping entirely the
> construction of becoming, useless mental verbalization (conceptual
> thinking, "views", imaginary bullshit, etc.), and mindfulness
> (attention/awareness/introspection).
:)
--
Lee
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
speak for yourself.
Sphere
No.
Tang Huyen
"Gileht.com" wrote:
> It is true that Tang doesn,t understand the real meaning of "having no
> position" or of "Total Unbinding" or of emptiness and the Middle Way. He is
> grasping very tightly to his positions/views of "dropping all" and of
> "direct perception with no mentation". His understanding of Buddhism comes
> down to nothing. He is completely on a side track leading to nihilism ...
> and so is Chan Foo.
To say that somebody's "understanding of Buddhism comes down to nothing" *may*
be the highest compliment in Buddhism.
I don't claim that my understanding of Buddhism comes down to nothing, for if it
did I my unloading would be complete, I would weasel out of all loads and be
awakened ...
Tang Huyen
Sphere
Sammaditthi Sutta (The Discourse on Right View)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel377.html
>
> Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu
Sphere wrote:
> Tang Huyen wrote:
> >
> > "Gileht.com" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It is true that Tang doesn,t understand the real meaning of "having no
> >>position" or of "Total Unbinding" or of emptiness and the Middle Way. He is
> >>grasping very tightly to his positions/views of "dropping all" and of
> >>"direct perception with no mentation". His understanding of Buddhism comes
> >>down to nothing. He is completely on a side track leading to nihilism ...
> >>and so is Chan Foo.
> >
> >
> > To say that somebody's "understanding of Buddhism comes down to nothing" *may*
> > be the highest compliment in Buddhism.
> >
> > I don't claim that my understanding of Buddhism comes down to nothing, for if it
> > did I my unloading would be complete, I would weasel out of all loads and be
> > awakened ...
>
> Sammaditthi Sutta (The Discourse on Right View)
>
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel377.html
and what do you understand by that?
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu wrote:
Hehe, our Sphere wrote not too long ago, on 13 Feb 2003, in "Re: A speculation against
Buddhist-textual reasoning (Re: Part 2:Direct Perception and Zen":
"Right view isn't even part of the Noble Path."
Now he wants to refer to a Sutta on Right View!
He wants to talk out of both corners of his mouth, eh?
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu
Tang Huyen wrote:
3 or 4... maybe more...
Robert Epstein
Sphere wrote:
> Gileht.com wrote:
> > Total bull-shit.
> >
> > As usual.
> >
> > If you want real commentaries about the Hear Sutra, try Google and ask for
> > Heart Sutra !
> >
> > Tang is just trying to peddle his usual snake-oil that has nothing to do
> > with Buddhism.
>
> You are being uncharitable. Devadatta has
> only mistaken a grain of sand in his eye
> for a mountain off in the distance. The
> great effort he has put into scholarship
> makes it clear that he feels a real need
> for some sort of foundation, and to take
> that delusion of foundation way from him
> before he is ready would merely condemn
> him to drown in the knee-high stream.
>
> After all, are you not seeking a foundation
> in Buddha's words?
>
> It may be that in arising only dukkha
> arises, and in ceasing only dukkha ceases,
> but there is a force to that arising and
> ceasing which creates a stream very hard
> to go against. A stream of such force
> that it seems almost real.
I think what Tang doesn't see is that force -
that something causes dukha.
Is delusion an accident of mind?
Why is there ignorance?
In the zen sequence:
Before enlightenment mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers,
Tang ignores the middle of the sequence:
During enlightenment mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer
rivers.
[After enlightenment mountains are mountains again and rivers are rivers
again.]
Tang sees the arising world as a natural landscape,
not as the result of delusion itself.
robert
Sphere
This is a plausible projection, but I'd
hesitate to be so certain about
reconstructing his mind. It is clear Devadatta
is in desparate need of Buddhism to be "exactly
this and no more", but it is not clear that any
particular "this" is his need. The evidence is
there for extreme absolutism, and perhaps he
seeks this absolutism in some form of naive
realism -- but to proclaim it so would be
projection.
It does seem that he wants to bring Buddhist
insight to an abrupt end at some sort of
imagined boundary between mind and matter,
so you could very well be right about him
having some sort of naturalist ontology. This
would go along with always making a psychological
interpretation of even the most obviously
physical discussions in the canon. A lot of
people seem to want Buddhism to be entirely
psychological, and cannot accept that what is
a good description for mind is automatically
a good description for matter.
The usual error is to expect more from words
and ideas that words and ideas are able to
provide. In some sense, Devadatta makes this
error in expecting Buddhism to be exactly
anything, but I can't really say that this
is the basis of his confusion. He appears
to be clinging for his very life to any sense
of foundation he can possibly invent. I
suspect that his real problem is that he knows
whatever foundation he chooses will crumble,
and he is afraid to swim.
Gileht.com
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> a écrit dans le message de
news: 3E62A563...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk...
Nah. Thoughts and concepts are part of our precious human life, part of the
four nutriments that we should not reject, nor become slave to, as explained
in the sutras. Look for the Four Nutriments.
To reject them is like suicide ... a path only for the idiotic morons.
Gileht.com
"Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> a écrit dans le message de
news: 3E62A833...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk...
Tnat is what I taught you would say.
See my previous post for what I think aout this.
Gileht.com
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3E62DF4D...@verizon.net...
Yes.
For Tang external objects are real and can be directly perceived by real
sense organs while using non-mentation (as if mentation was real and
essentially bad) --- whatever this bull-shit means.
And he thinks that is what the sutras are saying.
I guess you have to have his magical glasses to see it this way.
He totally ignores the Middle Way.
C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334
<r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Tang,
>it still seems to me that you interpret the Buddha's words in the light of your own
>philosophy. I have pointed out a few instances of this in the past, but you
>haven't responded to those particular posts. To take one example from your
>translation below, there is the phrase: "Transcending form [and the other
>aggregates]". It does not seem to me that the idea of transcending form, for
>instance, matches your idea that all that is to be removed in order to be
>enlightened are disturbing attributions of essence to the world as it arises. It
>seems to me that if this was what the Buddha meant to say he would have rather said
>something like "transcending all interpretations" or something like that, not
>"transcending form and the other aggregates". Transcending form and transcending
>contact seems like he is saying that one should go beyond form and go beyond
>contact, since that is what transcending means. If one is to go beyond form, that
>is something more than merely ceasing to label it improperly, or attribute an
>essnece to it which it doesn't have. It means that the appearance of form itself
>is suspect and should be gone beyond. If you can respond to this and tell me how
>you interpret the idea of transcendence of the kandhas, I would be appreciative.
>
>Robert
>
um robert
to not interpret bubbas words in terms of ones experience
renders its completely useless except for intellectual autopsy
but carve away its dead anyway so it dont mind
C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334
>
>
>Gileht.com wrote:
>> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> 3E6141F0...@all.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sphere wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I've got bad news for you who seek some
>>>>>sort of absolute. There isn't any.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Neither Tang nor I have asserted that there is "some sort of absolute."
>>>> On the other hand, your claim that there isn't "some sort of absolute"
>>>>is pure speculation on your part.
>>>
>>
>> Thang is drowning in absolutism, or in other words: he has fallen into on of
>> the extreme because he has no cule about the Middle Way at all.
>>
>> It is true that Tang doesn,t understand the real meaning of "having no
>> position" or of "Total Unbinding" or of emptiness and the Middle Way. He is
>> grasping very tightly to his positions/views of "dropping all" and of
>> "direct perception with no mentation". His understanding of Buddhism comes
>> down to nothing. He is completely on a side track leading to nihilism ...
>> and so is Chan Foo.
>
>
>
>Ch'an wanders.
>
>Devadatta is utterly convinced that Self is God.
self is god
just ask yours
C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334
stay away from zen
thats so horribly confused
zen is for the japanese
are you japanese
its hard to sort out ure inferences
but broken down your conclusion is
"tang see the arising world as an arisen world not as the result
arisings itself"
in your sequence the usual assumption, and i think ure making it
1. A=A
2. A=(A)not
3. A=A
making 1 = 3
bzzzztttt you fail the koan that way
the third case isnt identity with one
3 is A=Aand/or(A)not
everything comes up either neither and both
which is why they're called mountains again
cuz there's nothin else you can call them in japanese
as there are no grammatical structures to do other wise
its mostly about breakin out of japanese linguistic and grammatical
structures than any profound depth of meaning, a profoundity
found only by translating out of japanese anyway
you wouldnt bore a chey engine with toyota tools would you
the reasom zen is so rife with poetic metaphor
is japanese is a shitty language to talk about it in
english is great though cuz even when its wrong its right
cuz where nuthin's mobile in japanese in english anything is
C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334
lead on master
and never look back
C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334
NO PARKING ON MEDIAN
Ch'an Fu
"C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334" wrote:
wb
dar
pass th magik
glasses
Sphere
He keeps telling himself to fuck off.
Nick Knack
Then why doesn't he listen to himself?
Sphere
While asleep Krakatoa stands eternal.
Falling into the Void Krakatoa explodes
into nothingness.
Upon awakening Krakatoa rests peacefully
in the mind.
> you wouldnt bore a chey engine with toyota tools would you
Why not? Sounds like as interesting as
way to break an engine as any.
>
> the reasom zen is so rife with poetic metaphor
> is japanese is a shitty language to talk about it in
>
> english is great though cuz even when its wrong its right
> cuz where nuthin's mobile in japanese in english anything is
"I got life, mother
I got laughs, sister
I got freedom, brother
I got good times, man
I got crazy ways, daughter
I got million-dollar charm, cousin
I got headaches and toothaches
And bad times too
Like you
I got my hair
I got my head
I got my brains
I got my ears
I got my eyes
I got my nose
I got my mouth
I got my teeth
I got my tongue
I got my chin
I got my neck
I got my tits
I got my heart
I got my soul
I got my back
I got my ass
I got my arms
I got my hands
I got my fingers
Got my legs
I got my feet
I got my toes
I got my liver
Got my blood
I got my guts (I got my guts)
I got my muscles (muscles)
I got life (life)
Life (life)
Life (life)
LIFE!"
Shiva
Unless you own a SUV
Welcome back, dar
Sphere
Nick, that was a stupid question.
Sphere
Only wheelies permitted.
William Tucker
"Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message news:3E6112FD...@all.com...
>
>
> Lee wrote:
> > Ch'an Fu wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sphere wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> "Sphere" <no...@all.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:3E60D9C0...@all.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Tang Huyen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>
> >> <in better form, elsewhence>
> >>
> >>>>> You work entirely too hard Devadatta. After acknowledging the
> >>>>> emptiness of essence you immediately go on to build an entire
> >>>>> superstructure of essence. This is just the "everything
> >>>>> exists" cosmology rejected by Buddha.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-048.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What superstructure of essence, pray tell?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "all is reality" for starters. This is the "all exists" cosmology
> >>> explicitly rejected by Buddha.
> >>
> >>
> >> I read Tang's words as "just what is" (because my brain's so small, I
> >> can't think of nothin'at all), which is in agreement with SN XII.48
> >> in which buddy-boy just ignored the cosmology questions and said,
> >> basically, "stop thinking up shit like that and quit suffering".
> >
> >
> > Right. If it helps, lets just say that Tang is a total shit and has the
> > interpersonal skills of a land shark. Perhaps if we trash the little
> > weasel hard enough, others will actually stop reacting to the fact that
> > we may agree with what he writes at times and try to understand why we
> > agree without twisting words and logic to fit their preconceived views.
> >
> > If that doesn't work, we'll just have to get used to Sphere misreading
> > Tang for whatever reason.
>
>
> Ah! So you choose to read into Tang what he
> does not say?
>
> Tang teaches exactly what Devadatta taught.
> Both of these Devadattas are skillful
> scholars, and both fail to see what Buddha
> taught. Devadatta seeks certitude and
> foundation, thinking "it is this" or "it
> is that."
>
> I've got bad news for you who seek some
> sort of absolute. There isn't any.
>
enjoying a meal
sitting with someone that I love
having a cup of coffee watching the snow fall, sharing a brownie
absolutely divine
dancing sharing tunes of joy encircle me
water dancing on shore, birds rushing to see what the gift is
>
> --
>
> "In the seen there will be just the self." -- Tang Huyen
>
>
William Tucker
"Shiva" <pyr...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:9Zm8a.32456$x.4...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> "Ch'an Fu" <Cha...@removeyoursandals.metta.lk> wrote in message
> >
> > Sphere wrote:
> >
> > > Ch'an Fu wrote:
> > saying, "There is only the arising of dukkha
> > and the cessation of dukkha." and stating a
> > "truth"? Sooner or later, you're gonna have to
> > swallow your own Absolute.
>
> There will be an absolute mess if he is not able to hold it down.
>
water lilies, frog elsewhere
sunlightdragonflies
Wm
>
Sphere
Water flowing by,
A fish jumps to catch a fly --
The sun breaks apart.
Robert Epstein
Sphere wrote:
well what he says over and over again
is that the world exists exactly as it appears to exist
only that we add projections as to the interiority or meaning of
that which arises, without which
all would be well.
Robert
Robert Epstein
"C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334" wrote:
my critique of what Tang is saying is based on my experience,
as far as it goes.
Robert
Robert Epstein
"C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334" wrote:
I presume you speak japanese?
as for your interpretation of the sequence,
it makes more sense that after the dissolution of ordinary perception
as one becomes focussed on the nature of mind
one returns to ordinary perception but with an understanding of its inherent
emptiness.
your equations seem like an unnecessary bit of confusion
from a mind that doesn't take its own advice to refer to its own experience
for the truth
robert
C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334
<r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote:
werll im not fussy when it comes to precision within style
tangs style evokes words like torpid turgid tormented to me
tho with hyperbolic words like transcendence or expanded consciousness
enlightenment even i'm very cautious and place then along with
whiter than white and 50% brighter and other prop formulations
cuz thats what those terms are, empty advertizing phrases
to make the crap product look good
put it this way,
buddha touched the ground
he didnt blast off to the stars
anyway to me to see movment and change and growth is a good thing
here whether i care for the flavor at all, but for the most part most
seem to have the same ideas and opinions they've been defending
since this place opened shop over ten years ago
it is so wonderfully refreshing on those rare occassions
to see someone being the dharma rather than spouting it
sides with buddhists if you say adios
its take as proof ure a deist
there is nothing to befound in mining the buddhas words
since as he always said they are figures of speech nothing more
adios
C...@34.n34.54-0gdvcvcfs.drew4334
<r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote:
enough to get laid
i have a good friend i spend alot of time with whos fluent
in several dialects
my all time favorite is all those one's that end with the
master silent waving his hand in "i cannot say'
and we make so much of that silence when it simply
means "i cannot say" because there isnt a grammatical
construction for it
ie,,, "i'm going to sears"
or better just "im going to the store"
the word for i and "going" and store can all
change depnding on when, and how far the distance
is between me and the store, some distances are not defined
if you watch japanese speaking they'll move closer or back
from the object to match the grammer they're using
there's positional switching too
but alot of the things we make a big deal out of
atre simply 'mu' areas like 'mu' where there is no word
my friend favorite thing which is how we got on to it
is that simply pronoucing my name is an impossible koan in japanese
since its all d's r's and l',,,,and it cant be done
so my name is mu'd in japanese
i just giggles me when something apprently complex
revolves around silly things like that at its core
and nothing works out that way more than buddha dharma
the Four Nobull Truths is the best of those
create a strawman, lock him in a box and sell him the key
pretty good gig if you ask me
Nobel Truth indeed but more of the barnum than devine.
>as for your interpretation of the sequence,
>it makes more sense that after the dissolution of ordinary perception
>as one becomes focussed on the nature of mind
>one returns to ordinary perception but with an understanding of its inherent
>emptiness.
that woudl seem to be the way, the prblem is ther is no way to
express the difference in japaese without herding ox
its not understanding at that point btw its more rooted in the sense
like someone pointing out the that background hum, now you can
hear it all the time and can still filter it out at time but its there
>your equations seem like an unnecessary bit of confusion
>from a mind that doesn't take its own advice to refer to its own experience
>for the truth
>
i dont care for it all that much,,,
anyway its not my thesis but you can by the proof as a book
some japanese got their phd working that proof out
i forget what its called,,,im sure shambala sells it
since those whores sell everything
anyway that the guys proof minus the middle 150 pages
any way experience yeilds thruth of the moment like
the most important thing is,,,,,whatever works at the moment
Sphere
Devadatta almost found me a nice piece on
that -- as in, he twist-quoted the beginning
of it:
"Here bhikkhu, a bhikkhu has heard, 'Nothing
is worth adhering to.' When a bhikkhu has
heard, 'Nothing is worth adhering to,' he
fully understands everything. Having fully
understood everything, he sees all signs
differently. He sees the eye differently,
he sees forms differently ... whatever feeling
arises with mind-contact as condition ... that
too he sees differently.
"When, bhikkhu, a bhikkhu knows and sees thus,
ignorance is abandoned by him and true
knowledge arises."
> your equations seem like an unnecessary bit of confusion
> from a mind that doesn't take its own advice to refer to its own experience
> for the truth
>
> robert
>
>
Sphere
Robert Epstein wrote:
> Sphere wrote:
...
>>The usual error is to expect more from words
>>and ideas that words and ideas are able to
>>provide. In some sense, Devadatta makes this
>>error in expecting Buddhism to be exactly
>>anything, but I can't really say that this
>>is the basis of his confusion. He appears
>>to be clinging for his very life to any sense
>>of foundation he can possibly invent. I
>>suspect that his real problem is that he knows
>>whatever foundation he chooses will crumble,
>>and he is afraid to swim.
>
>
> well what he says over and over again
> is that the world exists exactly as it appears to exist
> only that we add projections as to the interiority or meaning of
> that which arises, without which
> all would be well.
Well, I must admit that sounds like
naive realism.
>
> Robert