Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Wu Hsin on enlightenment

RodrigoRodrigo São Paulo, Brazil Veteran

How do you feel about the following excerpt by Wu Hsin?

An imagined entity desires to become an enlightened imagined entity. What’s the point? It is like trying to measure space. Yet, this will continue until such time as the distinction is made between this that I am and that that I appear to be.

Dismount the pendulum of fear and desire. That ground beneath you is the Source and Support.

See that you create the space in which the world moves, the time in which it lasts. Come to realize that the world is only sand. You may play with it, you may walk on it, but don’t build your house there. There is no journey, as such. It may not seem so, but we are always back where we started. What we were in essence, and what we will be in essence, is what we are in essence.

All thinking is imaginary because the person talking to you is imaginary. There is no self talking to yourself; in fact, there also is no “yourself”. Stay a time in silence. Do not accept these words; look for yourself for “yourself”.

The two great delusions are that life is controllable and that there is an entity, me, who can exercise said control. But if we cannot even control the thoughts that appear to us, how can we possibly believe we can control what occurs to us?

Wherever you go, you carry with you the sense of here and now. This is what distinguishes any present experience from memory. It reveals that space and time are in you and not the other way around. Most people are not acquainted with the sense of their being but only with the knowledge of their doing.

Enlightenment is one more concept to add to your collection, yet another idea regarding improving yourself, discovering yourself, or obtaining peace and happiness.

Don’t take life personally. The sun has no care for what passes through the sky.

ShoshinlobsterSocairpegembaraTravellernubuddh4

Comments

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    Bit verbose, and effusively replete with similitudes, but I get what he means.

  • How do you feel about the following excerpt by Wu Hsin?

    I feel like a thirsty fish ...

    The end of questioning is
    The same as
    The end of seeking.
    Further and further explanations
    Do not provide
    That which is sought.
    Additional information
    Does not provide
    That which is sought.
    Drop these activities and
    Rest in what is
    Prior to all mental activity:
    Awareness.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/60069415/The-Lost-Writings-of-Wu-Hsin-Volume-One-Aphorisms-for-Thirsty-Fish-Sample

    RodrigoSocairTravellerDavid
  • KeromeKerome Love, love is mystery The Continent Veteran

    I liked this bit...

    “All thinking is imaginary because the person talking to you is imaginary. There is no self talking to yourself; in fact, there also is no “yourself”. Stay a time in silence. Do not accept these words; look for yourself for “yourself”.”

    It makes sense.

    lobster
  • Will_BakerWill_Baker Vermont Veteran

    How do you feel about the following excerpt by Wu Hsin?
    -It seems consistent with my view that we (read: the self-reflective Self) are ethereal, mathematically derived, technical artifacts existing within organic computers...

    lobster
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran

    @federica said:
    Bit verbose, and effusively replete with similitudes, but I get what he means.

    A lot verbose and a bit too wanky for my liking. But like @federica I get the point. Personally the K.I.S.S method would work much better in helping more people traverse the Middle Path....

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 16

    @dhammachick said:

    @federica said:
    Bit verbose, and effusively replete with similitudes, but I get what he means.

    A lot verbose and a bit too wanky for my liking. But like @federica I get the point. Personally the K.I.S.S method would work much better in helping more people traverse the Middle Path....

    I have to say I agree except for the last two sentences.

    Also I think looking for the self is a bit like looking for a microscope through its own lens. I mean, what is looking? If its all a trick then what is being tricked into thinking its a self? And where does the logic of compassion stem from if nobody is actually here?

    Is it a play on words since we are all connected with no real beginnings or is it implying that we don't really exist?

    I get a lot of flack for bringing it up but if t is really implying that we are not really here or that our actions dont mean anything then that's the exact definition of nihilism.

    Ironically it all sounds too self serving for my own tastes but I can see how it could be liberating from another perspective.

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran
    edited February 16

    @David said:
    Also I think looking for the self is a bit like looking for a microscope through its own lens. I mean, what is looking? If its all a trick then what is being tricked into thinking its a self?

    There is only looking, only being tricked, only thinking. There is no looker, no tricker, no thinker.

    And where does the logic of compassion stem from if nobody is actually here?

    The left hand doesn't take care of the right hand when it is injured because it has compassion for the other. It only responds to suffering with no need for identity. The wish for happiness and aversion towards suffering exists conventionally, and when there is no identification with a self, there is no distinction between "my" suffering and the "others" suffering.

    Is it a play on words since we are all connected with no real beginnings or is it implying that we don't really exist?

    I get a lot of flack for bringing it up but if t is really implying that we are not really here or that our actions dont mean anything then that's the exact definition of nihilism.

    I, and others, say it again and again that nihilism is not what it is implying. So ask yourself why is it that you keep hearing it that way? Do you have a view that there is something that truly exists?

    Ironically it all sounds too self serving for my own tastes but I can see how it could be liberating from another perspective.

    Fair enough, even though it sounds like you haven't really accepted or truly grasped the idea, at least you're willing to allow the possibility to others.

    David
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 16

    @person said:

    @David said:
    Also I think looking for the self is a bit like looking for a microscope through its own lens. I mean, what is looking? If its all a trick then what is being tricked into thinking its a self?

    There is only looking, only being tricked, only thinking. There is no looker, no tricker, no thinker.

    To me that only makes sense physically. Sure, there is no solid place we can find our self but here we are. Maybe what we really are takes up no space.

    Being into Nagarjuna I look at both truths as one and try not to cater to one without the other in equal measure. What you say only caters to half the truth as I see it from the perspective of the Middle Way.

    Again, I do not claim exclusivity of truth. I can only say what makes the most sense to me going by what I have gleaned thus far.

    And where does the logic of compassion stem from if nobody is actually here?

    The left hand doesn't take care of the right hand when it is injured because it has compassion for the other. It only responds to suffering with no need for identity. The wish for happiness and aversion towards suffering exists conventionally, and when there is no identification with a self, there is no distinction between "my" suffering and the "others" suffering.

    That can also happen when the self is identified as inclusive to all others but thank you. What you said there is exactly what I was looking for.

    Is it a play on words since we are all connected with no real beginnings or is it implying that we don't really exist?

    I get a lot of flack for bringing it up but if t is really implying that we are not really here or that our actions dont mean anything then that's the exact definition of nihilism.

    I, and others, say it again and again that nihilism is not what it is implying. So ask yourself why is it that you keep hearing it that way?

    So then your answer is that it is a play on words.

    Do you have a view that there is something that truly exists?

    That question doesn't even make sense to me, sorry.

    Ironically it all sounds too self serving for my own tastes but I can see how it could be liberating from another perspective.

    Fair enough, even though it sounds like you haven't really accepted or truly grasped the idea, at least you're willing to allow the possibility to others.

    That's what it may sound like to you, yes you've made that clear.

    However I am only answering the o/p. That's how it makes me feel personally. I wouldn't try to stop anyone else from feeling any other way about it.

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran

    @person said:

    The left hand doesn't take care of the right hand when it is injured because it has compassion for the other. It only responds to suffering with no need for identity. The wish for happiness and aversion towards suffering exists conventionally, and when there is no identification with a self, there is no distinction between "my" suffering and the "others" suffering.

    This reminds me of something I heard once but I can't remember from where.

    We don't put a bandage on a finger because we feel sorry for it. We do it because it is a part of us that needs healing.

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:
    Also I think looking for the self is a bit like looking for a microscope through its own lens. I mean, what is looking? If its all a trick then what is being tricked into thinking its a self?

    There is only looking, only being tricked, only thinking. There is no looker, no tricker, no thinker.

    To me that only makes sense physically. Sure, there is no solid place we can find our self but here we are. Maybe what we really are takes up no space.

    Form is only one of the aggregates. Feeling, recognition, mental formations and consciousness are objects of the mind. They are also interdependent and empty of self.

    And where does the logic of compassion stem from if nobody is actually here?

    The left hand doesn't take care of the right hand when it is injured because it has compassion for the other. It only responds to suffering with no need for identity. The wish for happiness and aversion towards suffering exists conventionally, and when there is no identification with a self, there is no distinction between "my" suffering and the "others" suffering.

    That can also happen when the self is identified as inclusive to all others.

    You asked where the logic of compassion comes from if nobody is actually there. I answered.

    Is it a play on words since we are all connected with no real beginnings or is it implying that we don't really exist?

    I get a lot of flack for bringing it up but if t is really implying that we are not really here or that our actions dont mean anything then that's the exact definition of nihilism.

    I, and others, say it again and again that nihilism is not what it is implying. So ask yourself why is it that you keep hearing it that way?

    So then your answer is that it is a play on words.

    I think you think oneness truly exists independent of non existence or interdependent phenomena.

    Do you have a view that there is something that truly exists?

    That question doesn't even make sense to me, sorry.

    See previous answer.

    Ironically it all sounds too self serving for my own tastes but I can see how it could be liberating from another perspective.

    Fair enough, even though it sounds like you haven't really accepted or truly grasped the idea, at least you're willing to allow the possibility to others.

    That's what it may sound like to you, yes you've made that clear.

    However I am only answering the o/p. That's how it makes me feel personally. I wouldn't try to stop anyone else from feeling any other way about it.

    Alright, to the extent you make arguments against a negative view of emptiness I feel that there are more arguments for that view in Buddhism than a positive one and want to make a defense for it.

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran

    @David said:

    @person said:

    The left hand doesn't take care of the right hand when it is injured because it has compassion for the other. It only responds to suffering with no need for identity. The wish for happiness and aversion towards suffering exists conventionally, and when there is no identification with a self, there is no distinction between "my" suffering and the "others" suffering.

    This reminds me of something I heard once but I can't remember from where.

    It's from TNH

    We don't put a bandage on a finger because we feel sorry for it. We do it because it is a part of us that needs healing.

    So long as you don't then identify that larger thing as your true Self, that is what is meant by reifying DO.

    David
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 16

    No offense but it doesn't matter one bit what you think I think and it gets a bit ridiculous catering to people's assumptions or defending what makes sense to me.

    All I was looking for was an answer that you finally gave me which is bolded in my second last post here.

    Thanks for that but as for the dueling truthiness, no thanks. I do not cling to views(not sure how I could possibly be more clear on that), I was just curious about yours.

  • @Rodrigo said:
    How do you feel about the following excerpt by Wu Hsin?

    I'm more gradual approach oriented than the excerpt seems to be hinting at. But it reminds me of a 17 minute video from a neurological perspective entitled "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality". I'm not sure the excerpt and video are saying the same thing, but they sound strikingly similar to me.

    ShoshinDavid
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    @person said:

    @David said:
    Also I think looking for the self is a bit like looking for a microscope through its own lens. I mean, what is looking? If its all a trick then what is being tricked into thinking its a self?

    There is only looking, only being tricked, only thinking. There is no looker, no tricker, no thinker.

    And where does the logic of compassion stem from if nobody is actually here?

    The left hand doesn't take care of the right hand when it is injured because it has compassion for the other. It only responds to suffering with no need for identity. The wish for happiness and aversion towards suffering exists conventionally, and when there is no identification with a self, there is no distinction between "my" suffering and the "others" suffering.

    Is it a play on words since we are all connected with no real beginnings or is it implying that we don't really exist?

    I get a lot of flack for bringing it up but if t is really implying that we are not really here or that our actions dont mean anything then that's the exact definition of nihilism.

    I, and others, say it again and again that nihilism is not what it is implying. So ask yourself why is it that you keep hearing it that way? Do you have a view that there is something that truly exists?

    Ironically it all sounds too self serving for my own tastes but I can see how it could be liberating from another perspective.

    Fair enough, even though it sounds like you haven't really accepted or truly grasped the idea, at least you're willing to allow the possibility to others.

    Moderator note:

    This post sounds somewhat patronising, @Person. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're subtly putting yourself forward as some kind of an authority. Please keep the accusatory tone down a notch. Or three.

    Thanks.

    NRR.

    (No Response Required).

    David
  • Don’t take life personally. The sun has no care for what passes through the sky.

    The sun doesn't love me?

    However I can love the sun and other Skywalkers ...
    We haz plan ...

  • @Will_Baker said:
    How do you feel about the following excerpt by Wu Hsin?
    -It seems consistent with my view that we (read: the self-reflective Self) are ethereal, mathematically derived, technical artifacts existing within organic computers...

    Tee Hee <3

    Switching off the OC (organic computer) does not delete the boot sequence (my karmic hard drive) ... The technical artifacts or delusion of being independent of being are where the yin-yang, binary maths fall into non-being or quantum missing cat 'thoughts' ...

    Wherever you go, you carry with you the sense of here and now. This is what distinguishes any present experience from memory. It reveals that space and time are in you and not the other way around. Most people are not acquainted with the sense of their being but only with the knowledge of their doing.

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 18

    @person said:

    So long as you don't then identify that larger thing as your true Self, that is what is meant by reifying DO.

    I do not reify DO but I think sometimes people don't like the reification of DO because it gets in the way of making a self of Nirvana. Often times Buddhists will try to get there through more division by believing it is a separate and independent place to its own, away from this tainted world. I don't know how we could get there if this were the case which is why I feel this is just more convention in disguise.

    I think that way of seeing is still tainted by aversion which is just more clinging.

    I'm not saying that's what you're doing personally but I think it is precisely that which Nagarjuna saw and wished to correct and I also think Wu Hsin vaguely does this here.

    It makes nirvana into just another belief instead of a reality we can touch right here and now.

    It seems to stem from a misrepresentation of the 1st NT which mistakes life itself for suffering and forgets the joy that is possible in life with a harmonious understanding of the nature of DO and non-arising. By dividing into samsara and nirvana, it would be easy to believe in seperate streams of rebirthing consciousness where a flame can just be extinguished like its off to some nihilistic version of heaven where we nonexist for the rest of eternity while the rest of us toils on.

    However, Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, not living. The cessation of suffering comes with correct understanding and correctly living according to that understanding. I dont think the cessation of dukkha comes from transcending any reality or shunning this world for the greener grass of annihilation.

    Snakeskin
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran
    edited February 18

    @David said:

    @person said:

    So long as you don't then identify that larger thing as your true Self, that is what is meant by reifying DO.

    I do not reify DO but I think sometimes people don't like the reification of DO because it gets in the way of making a self of Nirvana. Often times Buddhists will try to get there through more division by believing it is a separate and independent place to its own, away from this tainted world. I don't know how we could get there if this were the case which is why I feel this is just more convention in disguise.

    I think that way of seeing is still tainted by aversion which is just more clinging.

    I'm not saying that's what you're doing personally but it is precisely that which Nagarjuna saw and wished to correct I think. It is also what I think Wu Hsin does in his commentary above.

    It makes nirvana into just another belief instead of a reality we can touch right here and now.

    It seems to stem from a misrepresentation of the 1st NT which mistakes life itself for suffering and forgets the joy that is possible in life with a harmonious understanding of the nature of DO and non-arising. By dividing into samsara and nirvana, it would be easy to believe in seperate streams of rebirthing consciousness where a flame can just be extinguished like its off to some nihilistic version of heaven where we nonexist for the rest of eternity while the rest of us toils on.

    However, Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, not living. The cessation of suffering comes with correct understanding and correctly living according to that understanding. The cessation of dukkha does not come from transcending any reality or shunning this world for the greener grass of annihilation.

    A thought came to me that part of what we are disagreeing about is not so much about the philosophy of emptiness but in our basic approach. I feel your approach is one of metaphysics, understanding emptiness in terms of what the world is like. I think that is a valid way to look at it but generally I, and I believe His Creaminess the @DairyLama, take a phenomenological approach, what our experience of the world is like.

    Specifically, our ignorance of the world isn't of a scientific or objective nature. Our ignorance of sunyata is a perceptual or subjective one. Ignorance isn't about our beliefs, views or intellectual understanding, it is more instinctual and basic than that. So in saying something doesn't exist we aren't saying anything about the objective world out there, we are saying our instinctual habit of separating out this from that, of automatically giving solidity to things is what is mistaken and illusory.

    Maybe something like you're talking about what an apple looks like and I'm talking about what an apple tastes like.

    Snakeskin
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran

    @person said:

    @David said:

    @person said:

    So long as you don't then identify that larger thing as your true Self, that is what is meant by reifying DO.

    I do not reify DO but I think sometimes people don't like the reification of DO because it gets in the way of making a self of Nirvana. Often times Buddhists will try to get there through more division by believing it is a separate and independent place to its own, away from this tainted world. I don't know how we could get there if this were the case which is why I feel this is just more convention in disguise.

    I think that way of seeing is still tainted by aversion which is just more clinging.

    I'm not saying that's what you're doing personally but it is precisely that which Nagarjuna saw and wished to correct I think. It is also what I think Wu Hsin does in his commentary above.

    It makes nirvana into just another belief instead of a reality we can touch right here and now.

    It seems to stem from a misrepresentation of the 1st NT which mistakes life itself for suffering and forgets the joy that is possible in life with a harmonious understanding of the nature of DO and non-arising. By dividing into samsara and nirvana, it would be easy to believe in seperate streams of rebirthing consciousness where a flame can just be extinguished like its off to some nihilistic version of heaven where we nonexist for the rest of eternity while the rest of us toils on.

    However, Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, not living. The cessation of suffering comes with correct understanding and correctly living according to that understanding. The cessation of dukkha does not come from transcending any reality or shunning this world for the greener grass of annihilation.

    A thought came to me that part of what we are disagreeing about is not so much about the philosophy of emptiness but in our basic approach. I feel your approach is one of metaphysics, understanding emptiness in terms of what the world is like. I think that is a valid way to look at it but generally I, and I believe His Creaminess the @DairyLama, take a phenomenological approach, what our experience of the world is like.

    I am actually coming at it from both directions if you can dig what I mean.

    Specifically, our ignorance of the world isn't of a scientific or objective nature. Our ignorance of sunyata is a perceptual or subjective one. Ignorance isn't about our beliefs, views or intellectual understanding, it is more instinctual and basic than that. So in saying something doesn't exist we aren't saying anything about the objective world out there, we are saying our instinctual habit of separating out this from that, of automatically giving solidity to things is what is mistaken and illusory.

    This is where we disagree. I do agree it is illusory but I strongly disagree that it is mistaken. It's just the way it is. We can use duality as our tool or it can divide us but I see this and it makes me smile.

    Snakeskin
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:

    @person said:

    So long as you don't then identify that larger thing as your true Self, that is what is meant by reifying DO.

    I do not reify DO but I think sometimes people don't like the reification of DO because it gets in the way of making a self of Nirvana. Often times Buddhists will try to get there through more division by believing it is a separate and independent place to its own, away from this tainted world. I don't know how we could get there if this were the case which is why I feel this is just more convention in disguise.

    I think that way of seeing is still tainted by aversion which is just more clinging.

    I'm not saying that's what you're doing personally but it is precisely that which Nagarjuna saw and wished to correct I think. It is also what I think Wu Hsin does in his commentary above.

    It makes nirvana into just another belief instead of a reality we can touch right here and now.

    It seems to stem from a misrepresentation of the 1st NT which mistakes life itself for suffering and forgets the joy that is possible in life with a harmonious understanding of the nature of DO and non-arising. By dividing into samsara and nirvana, it would be easy to believe in seperate streams of rebirthing consciousness where a flame can just be extinguished like its off to some nihilistic version of heaven where we nonexist for the rest of eternity while the rest of us toils on.

    However, Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, not living. The cessation of suffering comes with correct understanding and correctly living according to that understanding. The cessation of dukkha does not come from transcending any reality or shunning this world for the greener grass of annihilation.

    Specifically, our ignorance of the world isn't of a scientific or objective nature. Our ignorance of sunyata is a perceptual or subjective one. Ignorance isn't about our beliefs, views or intellectual understanding, it is more instinctual and basic than that. So in saying something doesn't exist we aren't saying anything about the objective world out there, we are saying our instinctual habit of separating out this from that, of automatically giving solidity to things is what is mistaken and illusory.

    This is where we disagree. I do agree it is illusory but I strongly disagree that it is mistaken. It's just the way it is. We can use duality as our tool or it can divide us but I see this and it makes me smile.

    Maybe we could dig into this a little more then. I don't really understand what you mean, maybe you can explain it a little further. To me if you see an illusion and take it to be real that is a mistaken perception. Do you think I'm saying in reality there is no illusion?

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 18

    @person said:

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:

    @person said:

    So long as you don't then identify that larger thing as your true Self, that is what is meant by reifying DO.

    I do not reify DO but I think sometimes people don't like the reification of DO because it gets in the way of making a self of Nirvana. Often times Buddhists will try to get there through more division by believing it is a separate and independent place to its own, away from this tainted world. I don't know how we could get there if this were the case which is why I feel this is just more convention in disguise.

    I think that way of seeing is still tainted by aversion which is just more clinging.

    I'm not saying that's what you're doing personally but it is precisely that which Nagarjuna saw and wished to correct I think. It is also what I think Wu Hsin does in his commentary above.

    It makes nirvana into just another belief instead of a reality we can touch right here and now.

    It seems to stem from a misrepresentation of the 1st NT which mistakes life itself for suffering and forgets the joy that is possible in life with a harmonious understanding of the nature of DO and non-arising. By dividing into samsara and nirvana, it would be easy to believe in seperate streams of rebirthing consciousness where a flame can just be extinguished like its off to some nihilistic version of heaven where we nonexist for the rest of eternity while the rest of us toils on.

    However, Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, not living. The cessation of suffering comes with correct understanding and correctly living according to that understanding. The cessation of dukkha does not come from transcending any reality or shunning this world for the greener grass of annihilation.

    Specifically, our ignorance of the world isn't of a scientific or objective nature. Our ignorance of sunyata is a perceptual or subjective one. Ignorance isn't about our beliefs, views or intellectual understanding, it is more instinctual and basic than that. So in saying something doesn't exist we aren't saying anything about the objective world out there, we are saying our instinctual habit of separating out this from that, of automatically giving solidity to things is what is mistaken and illusory.

    This is where we disagree. I do agree it is illusory but I strongly disagree that it is mistaken. It's just the way it is. We can use duality as our tool or it can divide us but I see this and it makes me smile.

    Maybe we could dig into this a little more then. I don't really understand what you mean, maybe you can explain it a little further. To me if you see an illusion and take it to be real that is a mistaken perception. Do you think I'm saying in reality there is no illusion?

    No, I'm saying that the illusion is only a bad thing when we don't know its an illusion because when we know it is an illusion we can see it as a tool we can use instead of being ruled by it unknowingly.

    The possible implications after this are interesting to ponder but for myself personally I prefer to remain agnostic so I am not tempted to take on a view and conjecture.

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:

    @person said:

    So long as you don't then identify that larger thing as your true Self, that is what is meant by reifying DO.

    I do not reify DO but I think sometimes people don't like the reification of DO because it gets in the way of making a self of Nirvana. Often times Buddhists will try to get there through more division by believing it is a separate and independent place to its own, away from this tainted world. I don't know how we could get there if this were the case which is why I feel this is just more convention in disguise.

    I think that way of seeing is still tainted by aversion which is just more clinging.

    I'm not saying that's what you're doing personally but it is precisely that which Nagarjuna saw and wished to correct I think. It is also what I think Wu Hsin does in his commentary above.

    It makes nirvana into just another belief instead of a reality we can touch right here and now.

    It seems to stem from a misrepresentation of the 1st NT which mistakes life itself for suffering and forgets the joy that is possible in life with a harmonious understanding of the nature of DO and non-arising. By dividing into samsara and nirvana, it would be easy to believe in seperate streams of rebirthing consciousness where a flame can just be extinguished like its off to some nihilistic version of heaven where we nonexist for the rest of eternity while the rest of us toils on.

    However, Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, not living. The cessation of suffering comes with correct understanding and correctly living according to that understanding. The cessation of dukkha does not come from transcending any reality or shunning this world for the greener grass of annihilation.

    Specifically, our ignorance of the world isn't of a scientific or objective nature. Our ignorance of sunyata is a perceptual or subjective one. Ignorance isn't about our beliefs, views or intellectual understanding, it is more instinctual and basic than that. So in saying something doesn't exist we aren't saying anything about the objective world out there, we are saying our instinctual habit of separating out this from that, of automatically giving solidity to things is what is mistaken and illusory.

    This is where we disagree. I do agree it is illusory but I strongly disagree that it is mistaken. It's just the way it is. We can use duality as our tool or it can divide us but I see this and it makes me smile.

    Maybe we could dig into this a little more then. I don't really understand what you mean, maybe you can explain it a little further. To me if you see an illusion and take it to be real that is a mistaken perception. Do you think I'm saying in reality there is no illusion?

    No, I'm saying that the illusion is only a bad thing when we don't know its an illusion because when we know it is an illusion we can see it as a tool we can use instead of being ruled by it unknowingly.

    So it's just the language you don't like? Maybe you see it as having some flavor of criticism or judgement since you use the term "bad thing"?

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 18

    @person

    I used the phrase "not a bad thing" in regards to the illusion as it seems to me there is a bit of a negative bias on the illusory self which ironically I find self serving personally. Self awareness can be a blessing or a curse depending on our understanding. Once we see duality as a tool, what is there to be averse to?

    I also found the commentary a bit off the mark as per my understanding which I already explained. It's not a big deal or anything.

    Just sharing my expression as per the request of the o/p. No reason to make it personal as this is not a sparring match, lol.

    Snakeskin
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran

    @David said:
    @person

    I used the phrase "not a bad thing" in regards to the illusion as it seems to me there is a bit of a negative bias on the illusory self which ironically I find self serving personally.

    Does it help to think back to the explanation for how compassion arises through a negative view of emptiness? (No self and no other so no resistance to addressing pain regardless of where it occurs.)

    Self awareness can be a blessing or a curse depending on our understanding. Once we see duality as a tool, what is there to be averse to?

    I just wondered if it was the language of no self that you were objecting to.

    I also found the commentary a bit off the mark as per my understanding which I already explained. It's not a big deal or anything.

    Just sharing my expression as per the request of the o/p. No reason to make it personal as this is not a sparring match, lol.

    I was trying not to make it personal, trying to focus on understanding the ideas. Sorry if I crossed the line.

    Snakeskin
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 18

    @person said:

    @David said:
    @person

    I used the phrase "not a bad thing" in regards to the illusion as it seems to me there is a bit of a negative bias on the illusory self which ironically I find self serving personally.

    Does it help to think back to the explanation for how compassion arises through a negative view of emptiness? (No self and no other so no resistance to addressing pain regardless of where it occurs.)

    Not really because that explanation should be enough to negate its own negative bias. It's as if the idea is to shun the conventional aspect of being and this is aversion.

    Self awareness can be a blessing or a curse depending on our understanding. Once we see duality as a tool, what is there to be averse to?

    I just wondered if it was the language of no self that you were objecting to.

    I think objection is a strong word and would interject that a positive spin instead of a negative one is more responsible and more conducive to sufferings cessation.

    Dont get me wrong, thanks to the way you worded it I can now understand how compassion can arise from that school of thought but I think it takes the long way around.

    And no worries. Sometimes it's hard not to take this stuff personally.

    Snakeskin
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:
    @person

    I used the phrase "not a bad thing" in regards to the illusion as it seems to me there is a bit of a negative bias on the illusory self which ironically I find self serving personally.

    Does it help to think back to the explanation for how compassion arises through a negative view of emptiness? (No self and no other so no resistance to addressing pain regardless of where it occurs.)

    Not really because that explanation should be enough to negate its own negative bias. It's as if the idea is to shun the conventional aspect of being and this is aversion.

    I think this goes to the object of negation. What is being negated isn't the metaphysical, conventional world, the object of negation is only in our own minds, it's the phenomenal identification we place on the shifting "oneness" of the world.

    Self awareness can be a blessing or a curse depending on our understanding. Once we see duality as a tool, what is there to be averse to?

    I just wondered if it was the language of no self that you were objecting to.

    I think objection is a strong word and would interject that a positive spin instead of a negative one is more responsible and more conducive to sufferings cessation.

    Perhaps, lots of people do take it wrongly. I often hear people who know only a little about Buddhism call it nihilistic. Eastern thinking developed differently than it did in the west, so maybe you are right and the positive language of interdependence would work better. In fact, if I ever find myself having to explain emptiness to someone unfamiliar with Buddhism I do use that language.

    Snakeskin
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    Groundhog day head-spin, anyone.....?

    image

    Socair
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran

    @federica said:
    Groundhog day head-spin, anyone.....?

    image

    Lol, he eventually gets it right and gets to move on to the next day. Maybe we just need to try harder... O.o

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 18

    @person said:

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:
    @person

    I used the phrase "not a bad thing" in regards to the illusion as it seems to me there is a bit of a negative bias on the illusory self which ironically I find self serving personally.

    Does it help to think back to the explanation for how compassion arises through a negative view of emptiness? (No self and no other so no resistance to addressing pain regardless of where it occurs.)

    Not really because that explanation should be enough to negate its own negative bias. It's as if the idea is to shun the conventional aspect of being and this is aversion.

    I think this goes to the object of negation. What is being negated isn't the metaphysical, conventional world, the object of negation is only in our own minds, it's the phenomenal identification we place on the shifting "oneness" of the world.

    I know that and you know that but I think it took me longer than it should have. The way Wu Hsin words it here makes it sound like the illusory self is to be negated just for being illusory. Buddha got up from his tree and used the illusion to our advantage.

    There is also the issue of free will which he negates and that's a can of worms I'd rather not open right now. I mean obviously we don't have free will because I can't sprout my wings and fly but we have conditional will. We can affect change to a degree. That's much different than saying we have absolutely no control. That's not too responsible sounding either.

    But I digress.

    Snakeskin
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran

    @federica

    Thanks for that reminder and I'll just say that I love everyone here unconditionally even when we disagree. I have not always been the most harmonious in my speech here and I've vowed to do better.

    lobsterRodrigoSnakeskin
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think 'Merica! Veteran
    edited February 18

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:

    @person said:

    @David said:
    @person

    I used the phrase "not a bad thing" in regards to the illusion as it seems to me there is a bit of a negative bias on the illusory self which ironically I find self serving personally.

    Does it help to think back to the explanation for how compassion arises through a negative view of emptiness? (No self and no other so no resistance to addressing pain regardless of where it occurs.)

    Not really because that explanation should be enough to negate its own negative bias. It's as if the idea is to shun the conventional aspect of being and this is aversion.

    I think this goes to the object of negation. What is being negated isn't the metaphysical, conventional world, the object of negation is only in our own minds, it's the phenomenal identification we place on the shifting "oneness" of the world.

    I know that and you know that but I think it took me longer than it should have. The way Wu Hsin words it here makes it sound like the illusory self is to be negated just for being illusory. Buddha got up from his tree and used the illusion to our advantage.

    I didn't see it as much as you did in the OP but in general I find the language of zen to focus a great deal on just the ultimate which can be confusing and much of the reason I haven't felt much of a connection personally to it.

    There is also the issue of free will which he negates and that's a can of worms I'd rather not open right now. I mean obviously we don't have free will because I can't sprout my wings and fly but we have conditional will. We can affect change to a degree. That's much different than saying we have absolutely no control. That's not too responsible sounding either.

    But I digress.

    IMO much of the disagreement in the free will discussion between people who have considered it comes down to semantics.

    DavidlobsterRodrigoSnakeskin
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 18

    @person

    I know what you mean there and having an affinity for Taoism as well I should have a soft spot for Zen. Which I probably do.

    And then we have the other take on it from the same teacher.

    "What could be more meaningless than to say that what you are looking at is the one who is looking? However nothing is closer to the primordial way of things than this. Is it no wonder then that Wu Hsin is laughing?

    The antagonism towards the world, towards people and things is the impediment to the realisation of the peace that underlies it all."

    • From the Lost Writings of Wu Hsin

    So it seems I may have read more into it than was warranted but this example he is coming at it more positively and perhaps even to the extent of implying a bigger Self which in turn could still implicate a negation of the useful illusory self. But now I am reading too much into it for sure.

    Again I just happened upon that quote while flipping around Facebook a few minutes ago. I swear I wasn't even looking for it. That keeps happening to me, lol.

    Snakeskin
  • personSocairSnakeskinBuddhadragon
  • SnakeskinSnakeskin Veteran
    edited February 20

    @David quoted Wu Hsin:
    “The antagonism towards the world, towards people and things is the impediment to the realisation of the peace that underlies it all."

    Minor point.

    Unwholesome roots:

    • raga (passion)
    • dosa (aversion)

    Wholesome roots:

    • viraga (dispassion)
    • adosa (non-aversion)

    Viraga (dispassion) != dosa (aversion)

    Example: (Edit) A guilty pleasure one doesn't possess is how dispassion differs from aversion.

    While aversion toward the world may impede the realization of an underlying peace, dispassion toward an impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty world enables. In some context viraga means “fading away”, as in fading color. That is, the delusional passions that color and distort fade. In this way, dispassion isn’t an antagonistic aversion toward the world; it’s the clarity to see the underlying peace.

    ShoshinpersonDavid
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    @Snakeskin, serious question, is there anything that proves tempting to you? A guilty pleasure, perhaps?

  • @federica said:
    @Snakeskin, serious question, is there anything that proves tempting to you? A guilty pleasure, perhaps?

    Plenty.

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    Right; I see you have heavily edited/amended your previous post (you sent me a PM, for which I thank you) it kinda makes my question 'redundant'. :)

    You spoke, if I may allude to the edited content, of peoples' addictions to food, and your personal
    dietary-habit indifference, to excess consumption.
    I was merely going to add that whereas food was not something that tempted you to excess, I have personally found that very often, the absence of one 'guilty pleasure' merely makes room for another.
    And that's not a criticism.
    I think to one extent or another, if we have buttons that can be pushed, somehow, some time, we all find a very pleasing and gratifying 'pusher'.

    lobsterSocairSnakeskin
  • ... I have personally found that very often, the absence of one 'guilty pleasure' merely makes room for another.
    And that's not a criticism.

    Make room for virtue by being guilty ... I knew we had plan ...

    The two great delusions are that life is controllable and that there is an entity, me, who can exercise said control. But if we cannot even control the thoughts that appear to us, how can we possibly believe we can control what occurs to us?

    Wu Hsin

    Snakeskin
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited February 21

    @Snakeskin said:

    @David quoted Wu Hsin:
    “The antagonism towards the world, towards people and things is the impediment to the realisation of the peace that underlies it all."

    Minor point.

    Unwholesome roots:

    • raga (passion)
    • dosa (aversion)

    Wholesome roots:

    • viraga (dispassion)
    • adosa (non-aversion)

    Viraga (dispassion) != dosa (aversion)

    Example: (Edit) A guilty pleasure one doesn't possess is how dispassion differs from aversion.

    While aversion toward the world may impede the realization of an underlying peace, dispassion toward an impermanent, unsatisfactory and empty world enables. In some context viraga means “fading away”, as in fading color. That is, the delusional passions that color and distort fade. In this way, dispassion isn’t an antagonistic aversion toward the world; it’s the clarity to see the underlying peace.

    I agree. I think when he says "antagonism toward the world, people and things", he's speaking of passion, not dispassion. With dispassion we wouldn't be upset with the way things are enough to get antagonistic.

    The reason I posted those quotes is because I may have been too critical with the perspective in the o/p. It really goes to show that context is key and that if someone is coming at the dharma from a perspective too tainted by one aspect (convention or subjectivity) then perhaps it's good to teach from the other (absolute or objectivity) so that hopefully, teacher and student can meet in the Middle.

    Like the Bahiya Sutta. Bahiya was very full of himself so Buddha taught him to take himself out of the equation. The Karaniya Metta Sutta would only have strengthened his passion for convention.

    So I have to admit I was wrong. Wu Hsin was not showing a bias, he was being selective. The Middle Way is easier to see when both or all of the extremes have been established... we work our way in from there.

    SocairlobsterSnakeskin
  • No argument there, @federica. Obviously, my example was not only thoughtless but sabotaged its own purpose too. Its aim was to illustrate how dispassion and aversion point at two distinct concepts. The love-hate relationship I have with my own guilty pleasures demonstrates the opposite: strong desire (passion) coupled with an antagonism (aversion) toward it.

    That latter kind of relationship, @David, is how I read Wu Hsin when he says “antagonism … is the impediment to the realisation of the peace that underlies it all." I wanted to highlight the difference between passion/aversion and dispassion/non-aversion, because the opposite of “antagonism” doesn’t necessarily include dispassion, an important concept, I think, and an important distinction to make. He should've anticipated I’d read that and chosen a more precise word. :p

    federicalobsterDavid
Sign In or Register to comment.