Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
There is just 'one' thing I still cant understand about Buddhist path to Enlightenment..
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Somehow I don't think it's possible to not be on the path.
We are just nominal projections onto processes. There is no thing that can claim enlightenment. When in fact all things are enlightened by the fact that they are impermanent processes.
So no enlightened being would be able to be considered enlightened because it requires a being by our defintion to be enlightened.
@Floating_Abu: My theoretical understanding of Buddha's teachings says: All conditioned things are unworthy of attachment because all conditioned things are anicca, dukkha and anatta. the outer world or Samsara is the projection of our mind. everything we experience through our senses in the external world is conditioned, which arises based on the arising of their conditions and which ceases on the cessation of their conditions. there is no entity anywhere. these are just processes, which arise and fall based on their conditions. the cessation of all conditions is the unconditioned or Nirvana. so Nirvana is not something which is attained, rather Nirvana is the complete cessation of all conditioned phenomena. so Nirvana can only be directly experienced and not understood/explained through the conditioned senses of the conditioned body.
This doesn't mean that there "is not thing to claim Enlightenment". This is one of those silly paradoxes that can be so annoying in Buddhism. This is a form of nihilism, which the Buddha taught against. Of course there's something there to claim Enlightenment. The Buddha certainly claimed Enlightenment. He didn't get tangled up in Two Truths theory (which he never taught, anyway, it was a later interpretation) or go around saying nonsensical things, like he didn't really exist. :rolleyes:
@Dakini: The point is - if there is a thing to claim Enlightenment, then there should be someone who is claiming this thing - in conventional sense of Samsara, there will be a 'you' to claim Enlightenment, but in ultimate truth and seeing the way things as 'just they are', there will not be found any 'you' to begin the story - so nothing is claiming and consequently nothing is being claimed. it comes back to the question - is there 'you' to begin the story - and the answer is - depends on which perspective it is seen: from conventional perspective, 'you' exists but from ultimate truth perspective there is no 'you'.
there is no entity anywhere - is not nihilism - rather, it is the way of seeing things as 'just they are'.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings says: everything is conditioned except Nirvana. whatever is perceived through the 5 senses, there is no entity anywhere, rather processes arising and falling due to their conditions arising and falling. so all conditioned phenomena are anicca, dukkha and anatta.
'Silence is golden, so do not speak unless you are sure you can improve on silence.'
'Right speech' means avoiding lies, divisive and harsh speech, and idle chatter.
With metta,
Allen.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
it's a discussion forum.
People are 'discussing'.... ....few words don't necessarily = wisdom....
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I find that Buddha did teach of subjective truth and objective truth. Nagarguna expounded on it but he got it from his understanding of the Dharma.
It's funny. In that exchange between Taiyaki, Floating Abu, Dakini and Misecmisc I see no conflict in doctrine.
When Buddha seems to contradict himself I try to take the teaching in context and for me it usually leads back to the two truths.
As for the path, it keeps going. Buddha kept walking and even after his mortal death he is not separate from anything.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Now is not just a moment... It's all moments.
Sorry, for some reason Im unable to edit by phone but that's all I can use for a moment.
@ourself: How are you friend? Seeing your comment after (i think) long time
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Misecmisc1, Im ok, thanks. Hope the same is true for you.
The reason I agree with you on the two truths is because realising one without the other can lead to either nhilism or self indulgence.
Just as there must be a unified theory to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so there is between the objective and subjective truths.
The Middle Way.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
That certainly is an interesting question. It's like there are two Buddhas: the ascended Guru, the Supermonk who went around showing off his great enlightenment and perfection, and the starving, desperate holy man who looked down at a bowl of rice a compassionate woman gave him and said, "Oh, it's that simple. Here's the problem, and here's the solution. Anyone can do it." And then spent the rest of his life trying to tell us how easy it is.
If you have never seen any Buddhist who lives up to your idea of what a Buddha is supposed to be, then maybe it's your idea of what a Buddha looks like that is faulty, or maybe it's the Buddhists who are faulty. I've heard both sides of the argument.
My personal opinion is enlightened people are not aware of their status, because if they were to perceive themselves as such, then they have gone against part of the path, which is humility. They would not consider themselves as Enlightened out of the fact that they are (talk about a paradox).
Also, I have heard some people believe when your reach enlightenment properly, you leave this world to join the Buddha once you have hit that point, but that's another school of thought.
@misecmisc1 But the Buddha never taught "ultimate truth". He also taught that questions about who was doing the perceiving or who was working toward Enlightenment were pointless. And he certainly had no problem referring to himself as the Tathagata, and telling his followers that he had had a great realization, and knew the path to Enlightenment. It's all too easy to get carried away with sophisticated theories and intellectual games to the point of nonsense. That's not what the Buddha's teachings were about, they were very down to earth and practical.
@misecmisc1 But the Buddha never taught "ultimate truth". He also taught that questions about who was doing the perceiving or who was working toward Enlightenment were pointless. And he certainly had no problem referring to himself as the Tathagata, and telling his followers that he had had a great realization, and knew the path to Enlightenment. It's all too easy to get carried away with sophisticated theories and intellectual games to the point of nonsense. That's not what the Buddha's teachings were about, they were very down to earth and practical.
Hence the different yanas are taught to those with different capacities.
Its only intellectual theory to those with an intellectual level of understanding. How we can determine whether or not something is intellectual or intuitive is based on ones own capacity to deconstruct and see if such and such information is true or not.
The different yanas are build from the fundamental vehicle. Each serves sentient beings who are traversing the path towards nirvana and then some more. Etc.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@misecmisc1 But the Buddha never taught "ultimate truth".
@Sabre posted this passage from Pali scripture in another thread.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Thanks for explaining this. I've always wondered where the two truths idea came from, and had a feeling it had to do with Nagarjuna. I think commentators have gone too far in interpreting this as "ultimate truth". And how do you get from this the idea that there's no one doing the striving, doing the path-walking, etc.? If the Buddha said he walked the path and had realizations, why can't others?
In our practice we just sit with our bodies and minds in the zendo, and we aim to practice the Buddha Way in our activities outside the zendo as well. In practicing the Buddha Way there is no separation between the self that is studying the self and the self that is studied by the self; self is studying the self, and the act of studying is also the self. There is no such thing as a self that is separate from our activity. Dogen Zenji defined this self as jijuyu-zanmai, a term that Sawaki Kodo Roshi described as “self ‘selfing’ the self.'”
To illustrate this point we can think of the relationship between a runner and the act of running. When we think of this, we realize that no runner is separate from the act of running; a runner and running are the same thing. If the runner becomes separate from running, then the runner is not running. If this is the case, the runner can no longer be called a runner since a runner is defined as “one who runs.” The great ancient Indian master Nagarjuna presented this example as part of his illustration of emptiness and the negation of a fixed, permanent, fundamental essence that “owns” the body and mind.
Running as well as sitting, eating, drinking, and breathing are very ordinary things. But when we say, “There is no ‘I’ other than running” or “running without a runner,” we think we are discussing something mysterious. But this view of the teachings of people such as Nagarjuna or Dogen is mistaken. These teachers are trying to express a very ordinary thing in a truly realistic way without fabrication. To do this they use words that negate themselves in a way that reveals the reality beyond our thoughts.
When we practice the Buddha Way, there is no self, no Buddha Way, no others. This is because self, Buddha Way, and others work together as one. What we call “our actions” are actually the work done by both self and other beings and objects. For example, when a person drives a car, the person thinks “he” as subject drives “the car” as object. But in reality we cannot drive without the car; we can only become a driver or be driven with the aid of the car, and the car can only express its full function as a vehicle of transportation when someone drives it. Our cars affect us both psychologically and materially as well. We will drive different cars in different ways, for example, depending upon the style or quality of the car. The feelings and attitude of a person driving a cheap old truck carrying a load of junk will likely be totally different from the feelings and attitude that person will have driving a luxurious new car carrying a VIP. A car can also provide us with the ability to travel quickly and conveniently, yet if it breaks down, we may have to make more effort than usual to get where we need to go repair, fuel, and insurance costs can exert an added financial stress on our lives and can even feel burdensome. So in a sense the car own us and shapes us as much as we own and control it, and the action of driving can actually be manifested only by a person and a car working together. This reality of mutual influence and interconnectedness is true not only for a “special” practice done by a group of people called “Buddhists”; in truth this is the way all beings are working within the circle of interdependent origination.
The Buddha Way includes both self and objects. The Buddha Way includes both people sitting and the sitting they do. They are actually one thing. This is very difficult to explain, yet it is an obvious reality of our lives. This reality is not some special state or condition that is only accomplished by so-called “enlightened” people. Even when we don’t realize it, self, action, and object are working together as one reality, so we don’t need to train ourselves to make them into one thing in our minds. If self, action, and object were really three separate things, they could not become one. The truth is that they are always one reality, regardless of what we do or think.
But the Buddha referred to a mundane "I", a daily functioning "I". He used the first person singular pronoun.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
^^What he said.
We say this is my mind, this is my body. In that small statement there is the notion that there is someone seperate from the body and mind that owns these things. In reality the "I" is a product of those things, not some seperate entity. So its not that we can't say there is a person (conventional truth), while in truth there isn't a self distinct from its causes (ultimate truth).
But the Buddha referred to a mundane "I", a daily functioning "I". He used the first person singular pronoun.
I don't see the problem here.
He used the "i". Everyone uses the i or subject. Its language.
He also taught anatta and dependent origination. Those lead to stream entry and eventually nirvana.
It isn't the label i we deconstruct but what the referent of the i that we're looking at.
What do we make, cling to, suffer because of? It isn't a word but everything after the word.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
OK, so if the Buddha can say "I", including "I know the Dharma" or "I am Awakened", why can't others? I agree, there's no problem unless one is introduced.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
OK, so if the Buddha can say "I", including "I know the Dharma" or "I am Awakened", why can't others? I agree, there's no problem unless one is introduced.
Because both truths are true. There is a conventional reality and there is an ultimate reality. And in truth they both depend upon each other, conventional reality can't function unless it is ultimately empty and emptiness can't be said to exist without a conventional reality to be empty of something.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Maybe another way to think about it is that we can say "I" all we want but the important point is not the words we use but the way we view the "I".
Or maybe don't view it, or neither view it or don't view it. :cool:
To illustrate this point we can think of the relationship between a runner and the act of running. When we think of this, we realize that no runner is separate from the act of running; a runner and running are the same thing. If the runner becomes separate from running, then the runner is not running. If this is the case, the runner can no longer be called a runner since a runner is defined as “one who runs.” The great ancient Indian master Nagarjuna presented this example as part of his illustration of emptiness and the negation of a fixed, permanent, fundamental essence that “owns” the body and mind.
An action needs an actor. Like Siamese twins, you cannot have one without the other. Just like a knower and the known or consciousness and its objects. Once the act of running is over, where did the runner go to?
"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
There is a path, on the path you get to observe things directly, and realize a bunch of things.
No-self, impermanence and a bunch of other things.
seeing and realizing all of those things make people peaceful and end their suffering.
This is what people call enlightenment.
Yes it requires work and practice in the form of meditation and specific exercises.
The path is to help people get the work done. Like if you want to learn physics, You better have the right intention (which should be to learn and study) You better do the right actions, go to your class and study.
But these guidelines aren't forever, they are only useful to get what you want to get done, in this case a understanding of physics. Hence the angle of "the path is enlightenment" doesn't seem accurate, on top of not being reflected in any teaching as far as i know.
For enlightenment is the same except you need to develop special skills in order to get the work that you want to get done. Like right concentration, you need this ability if you want to observer what you need to observe. Like you need to learn how to use a microscope for science if you want to observe what you need to observe to get the microscopic world...
And yes you get something for your efforts, peace and clear understanding.
So practice and get those jhanas, get those meditation done, get that daily mindfulness, take your time but get some results otherwise its a waste of time and you'd be better off doing something else with your free time...
Just try to find a practice where people go all messed up, stressed, sad, with all kind of problems like anxiety, and see the same people a couple years later. If they still have the same problems without great improvement after a few years, whatever they are doing isn't working. If they are much more peaceful and happy after all of the work, then you'll understand.
I dont seem to understand why Buddhists, (especially MONKS) havent achieved Awakening by following Buddhas Path. I have spoke to many Teachers, Masters, Practitioners and Lay people (from all over the world) and I havent found one person who is Awaken or Enlightened by following the path (of course we all agree with buddha and follow his teachings but that 'ache feeling' is still within us)..
(Just like when Prince Siddartha left home because he had this 'aching pain in his heart', he went searching for Enlightenment) And his found it and then shared his teachings... BUT..
But if the 8 fold path is the way to Enlightenment, then why arnt 'all' the monks Enlightened? Ive been lucky enough to meet many monks and i always asked the same question. 'Have you achieved the goal of Enlightenment? and the answer is always NO!
I dont want to sound like a troll.. Im just that this question keeps bugging me every now and again..
We are just nominal projections onto processes. There is no thing that can claim enlightenment. When in fact all things are enlightened by the fact that they are impermanent processes.
So you are just a projection onto a process? Interesting...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
To illustrate this point we can think of the relationship between a runner and the act of running. When we think of this, we realize that no runner is separate from the act of running; a runner and running are the same thing. If the runner becomes separate from running, then the runner is not running. If this is the case, the runner can no longer be called a runner since a runner is defined as “one who runs.” The great ancient Indian master Nagarjuna presented this example as part of his illustration of emptiness and the negation of a fixed, permanent, fundamental essence that “owns” the body and mind.
An action needs an actor. Like Siamese twins, you cannot have one without the other. Just like a knower and the known or consciousness and its objects. Once the act of running is over, where did the runner go to?
If one depends on the other, then they are part of the same thing and not seperate. The runner has simply been transformed into a walker or whatever. The running turns to walking as the runner turns to walker. There is no walker if there is no walking.
I like the word awake better than enlightened because it shows a realisation instead of implying a destination. This is how the path can be seen as enlightenment.
I dont seem to understand why Buddhists, (especially MONKS) havent achieved Awakening by following Buddhas Path.
Ive been lucky enough to meet many monks and i always asked the same question. 'Have you achieved the goal of Enlightenment? and the answer is always NO!
If there is just 'one' thing you cant understand then you're doing very well indeed.
Understanding and following Mike Tyson's training routine does not make you Mike Tyson - some may argue that there is only 1 Mike Tyson... ever.
What would you say / ask if a monk said "yes"? How could that possibly help? You have the message of one person (Buddha) who claims to have attained the state - do you need more than that to convince you? How many people do you need to count? What do you need and where can you obtain it? What do you have to do? How many questions can I cook up before I run out of ideas?
If you have resolved all other points then look to see whether enlightenment exists or not - until then, you have plenty to keep you occupied.
@Floating_Abu: My view: There are two views of the same thing : conventional truth and ultimate truth.
conventional truth is the truth of Samsara. ultimate truth is the truth of seeing the things as 'just they are' - all conditioned phenomena are anicca, dukkha and anatta.
the moment the concept of 'I' is created in the mind, that same moment the external world Samsara comes into being. but whatever is out there in Samsara is conditioned and so is anicca, dukkha and anatta.
the root cause is ignorance or avidya.
when ignorance will be removed, the concept of 'I' will be removed, the concept of Samsara will be removed, conventional truth will be removed and then we shall be able to see the things as 'just they are'.
For example, when you kiss a baby or drink your coffee, there is just that. Only later might the Buddhist conditioned mind say things such as 'We are just nominal projections onto processes' or 'That was anicca, dukkha and anatta'
In other words, no matter how right or true the Buddhist teachings (such as the 3 marks) are, they are really only ever approximate in terms of Buddhist experiential learning or - reality. i.e until they are engendered as genuine insights, it is all a bit phony
Tentatively and intellectually we can say things like 'There are two views of the same thing' but if you have ever kissed a baby wholeheartedly or a loved one, where were you then, where were you at that moment you kissed him/her. Were there two truths or not, was it annica, dukkha and anatta or was it not?
These are the truths that you, I and everyone here must truly penetrate if we are to learn the Buddha's wisdom, I believe.
These handhold of theory and speculation must be relinquished and preferably soon.
You also say: "when ignorance will be removed, the concept of 'I' will be removed, the concept of Samsara will be removed, conventional truth will be removed and then we shall be able to see the things as 'just they are'"
Like Ajahn Sumedho once said, the I is not an impediment or a problem per se, nor does the "concept" of Samsara need to be removed. If the truth is known, a concept is just another tool. IOW, we do not need to lose our personalities (though this may be tempered considerably) or our very convenient manifestations or our capable intellect -- because these are the objects of our renewal, our identity and our modus operandi. i.e. the problem is not the concept per se, the problem is the mistaking of that concept for reality - the very lens of (y)our reality
Like genkaku sometimes says, is a rock really a rock? Really? Before naming what is it then.
And likewise, the challenge in Zen is sometimes who/what are you. Sometimes this is manifest in our koan work: 'What was your name before your grandparents were born'
People on this forum like to mix up talk on ultimate and relative a lot but until the Ultimate is genuinely realised, and preferably affirmed, I do not see much value in it.
I dont seem to understand why Buddhists, (especially MONKS) havent achieved Awakening by following Buddhas Path.
Ive been lucky enough to meet many monks and i always asked the same question. 'Have you achieved the goal of Enlightenment? and the answer is always NO!
If there is just 'one' thing you cant understand then you're doing very well indeed.
Understanding and following Mike Tyson's training routine does not make you Mike Tyson - some may argue that there is only 1 Mike Tyson... ever.
What would you say / ask if a monk said "yes"? How could that possibly help? You have the message of one person (Buddha) who claims to have attained the state - do you need more than that to convince you? How many people do you need to count? What do you need and where can you obtain it? What do you have to do? How many questions can I cook up before I run out of ideas?
If you have resolved all other points then look to see whether enlightenment exists or not - until then, you have plenty to keep you occupied.
We are just nominal projections onto processes. There is no thing that can claim enlightenment. When in fact all things are enlightened by the fact that they are impermanent processes.
So you are just a projection onto a process? Interesting...
We only exist as thoughts on the basis of a body and mind. But when we look at the body and mind these are impermanent streams of experience. And when we look for the thought projection it is gone. Then we look for the projectionist or projectioner and that is gone too.
But I'm not trying to convince anyone, everyone should examine for themselves. Is there anything substantial that the thoughts point to?
We are just nominal projections onto processes. There is no thing that can claim enlightenment. When in fact all things are enlightened by the fact that they are impermanent processes.
So you are just a projection onto a process? Interesting...
We only exist as thoughts on the basis of a body and mind. But when we look at the body and mind these are impermanent streams of experience. And when we look for the thought projection it is gone. Then we look for the projectionist or projectioner and that is gone too.
But I'm not trying to convince anyone, everyone should examine for themselves. Is there anything substantial that the thoughts point to?
So, your thoughts on this topic are unsubstantial?
I dont seem to understand why Buddhists, (especially MONKS) havent achieved Awakening by following Buddhas Path.
Ive been lucky enough to meet many monks and i always asked the same question. 'Have you achieved the goal of Enlightenment? and the answer is always NO!
Understanding and following Mike Tyson's training routine does not make you Mike Tyson - some may argue that there is only 1 Mike Tyson... ever.
i know it doesnt make you mike tyson. but thats not what im saying. youve completely miss understood what my question is..
If mike tyson told everyone that ''his'' training routine is the ''way'' to become the best boxer EVER (like buddha said his way was the way to liberation) Then id want to see it and i would also ask if these boxers 'are' the best ever..
But it doesnt work like that does it. Just because tyson might have made it, others might not.. Its nothing to do with wanting to become mike tyson. Or buddha for that matter.
Its about people practising a specific 'way' which promises liberation and yet, Who in our modern world is a living prove of Awakened human following the buddhas teachings???
There are countless Awakened teachers and masters since Lord Buddha. What do you want -- a signed, and sealed letter? Even if you were to get that what good would it do you. The proof is in the pudding, if you do not want to eat it there is really no point in debating if the pudding has ever made any other person full or not in the world, no?
By the way, 'We only exist as thoughts on the basis of a body and mind' - are you saying we are only thought?
And what do you mean by 'Is there anything substantial that the thoughts point to?'
Thanks for the banter.
BW, Abu
There is no who, there is only the looking. The who, where, when is an after thought, which connects the present experience with the past experience.
In seeing just the seen. Vision of color, shapes and form is the act of seeing, which requires no seer but is the effect of conditions of eye sense organ, object and contact.
Because there is the condition of a body and mind, we construct an idea of a self. When we examine the body it is just sensory data overlap of tactile and visual streams of consciousness, thus nothing substantial. When we look for the mind, we cannot find the mind either because it also is a stream of thoughts based on conditions. Thought themselves are not fixed entities.
Then you can assert that there is a non conceptual thought, which can be defined as a formless awareness. Even that is not findable, graspable, etc.
So we are just thoughts, which have absolutely no fixed referents. And even the thoughts aren't substaintial because they are appearances based on conditions.
There are countless Awakened teachers and masters since Lord Buddha. What do you want -- a signed, and sealed letter? Even if you were to get that what good would it do you. ?
Best wishes, Abu
Im asking questions and searching, like Prince Siddhatha did before me. Dogen also was not happy with the sutras and practice for many many years. Like Prince siddhartha, im not just having blind faith and following one mans way.. I want to see who it has effected for the better. Who has become awakened in my life following buddhas path? I would love to meet such a man, just like Buddha always wanted to meet such a man who could teach him the way.. He had no luck. and began is own search... that was 2500 years ago. There is a thing called chinese whispers and who knows whats the truth about buddhism and buddha etc etc.. it was a long time ago.
I would be very suprised if someone didnt ask these kind of questions on their path. Its right to ask questions. Ive been lucky to sit and study with many Masters and they all say its the right thing to do. ASK ASK and ASK until i find my answers. Just like dogen.
(Many master have been GREAT, but do not claim enlightenment) And for everyone who thinks, 'an enlightened man wouldnt admit he is' i think we would at least 'know' by his presence..
Alot of masters and teachers these days are only MASTERS of BUDDHISM, or Their tradition. not necessarily masters of their LIVES.. Theres a difference between knowing everything about Buddhism, and knowing everything about the ''self''..
Im asking questions and searching, like Prince Siddhatha did before me. Dogen also was not happy with the sutras and practice for many many years. Like Prince siddhartha, im not just having blind faith and following one mans way.. I want to see who it has effected for the better. Who has become awakened in my life following buddhas path? I would love to meet such a man, just like Buddha always wanted to meet such a man who could teach him the way.. He had no luck. and began is own search... that was 2500 years ago. There is a thing called chinese whispers and who knows whats the truth about buddhism and buddha etc etc.. it was a long time ago.
I would be very suprised if someone didnt ask these kind of questions on their path. Its right to ask questions. Ive been lucky to sit and study with many Masters and they all say its the right thing to do. ASK ASK and ASK until i find my answers. Just like dogen.
(Many master have been GREAT, but do not claim enlightenment) And for everyone who thinks, 'an enlightened man wouldnt admit he is' i think we would at least 'know' by his presence..
Alot of masters and teachers these days are only MASTERS of BUDDHISM, or Their tradition. not necessarily masters of their LIVES.. Theres a difference between knowing everything about Buddhism, and knowing everything about the ''self''..
Prince Siddhartha was the Buddha for the age and his questions seemed to be addressed by experiential reality/practice - many years of striving and meditation and guidance etc. not by asking about whether someone has met someone who knew someone etc.
And many Masters as I said have been fully awakened, both during and after Gautama Buddha's material death. A declaration of such a thing serves no-one but the world, and that is why some in the past have spoken hintingly at such things eg. Nagarajuna, Rinzai, Ajahn Mun etc etc.
I guess the focus on just a conventional thought is a view point as well. What is in actual experience is the arising of various sensations, thought, sounds, forms, etc which overlap to create this "experience" we called life. And each instant of arising consciousness is unique, separate yet completely connected with all of existence because it requires all of existence as a condition to arise as consciousness to consciousness.
So maybe it would be more accurate to say that we are the process of both the thought onto the process and the process itself. But we or I is just a label which self liberates in the instant it is looked for.
If you hold onto one thought then you do not see what is in front of you. Each arising is it, yet we have doubt. The doubt is the natural consequence of trying to solidify what is. Because to solidify what is, is to fall into error. Each moment is it, then gone.
There is no who, there is only the looking. The who, where, when is an after thought, which connects the present experience with the past experience.
In seeing just the seen. Vision of color, shapes and form is the act of seeing, which requires no seer but is the effect of conditions of eye sense organ, object and contact.
Because there is the condition of a body and mind, we construct an idea of a self. When we examine the body it is just sensory data overlap of tactile and visual streams of consciousness, thus nothing substantial. When we look for the mind, we cannot find the mind either because it also is a stream of thoughts based on conditions. Thought themselves are not fixed entities.
Then you can assert that there is a non conceptual thought, which can be defined as a formless awareness. Even that is not findable, graspable, etc.
So we are just thoughts, which have absolutely no fixed referents. And even the thoughts aren't substaintial because they are appearances based on conditions.
Hope this makes sense.
Thankyou koala
Forgive me but you sound like you have learnt this intellectually and now apply it as fact.
Just a few points
a. We do not construct an idea of a self because of the body and mind. It is the vision of ignorance and delusion that is not penetrated which is why the idea of a separate, permanent, enduring self arises and is lived via. For the Awakened, there is no such thing as the body and mind being the reason for delusion/ignorance anymore.
b. You say that in seeing just the seen. This is as per the Buddha's instructions to Bahiya and is easily repeated. However, withe eyes closed, is there istill sight? If you say no, prepare to be whacked.
c. There is no who? So who speaks?
Anyway it is enough. Thankyou again for your detailed explanation, I appreciate your effort.
Im asking questions and searching, like Prince Siddhatha did before me. Dogen also was not happy with the sutras and practice for many many years. Like Prince siddhartha, im not just having blind faith and following one mans way.. I want to see who it has effected for the better. Who has become awakened in my life following buddhas path? I would love to meet such a man, just like Buddha always wanted to meet such a man who could teach him the way.. He had no luck. and began is own search... that was 2500 years ago. There is a thing called chinese whispers and who knows whats the truth about buddhism and buddha etc etc.. it was a long time ago.
I would be very suprised if someone didnt ask these kind of questions on their path. Its right to ask questions. Ive been lucky to sit and study with many Masters and they all say its the right thing to do. ASK ASK and ASK until i find my answers. Just like dogen.
(Many master have been GREAT, but do not claim enlightenment) And for everyone who thinks, 'an enlightened man wouldnt admit he is' i think we would at least 'know' by his presence..
Alot of masters and teachers these days are only MASTERS of BUDDHISM, or Their tradition. not necessarily masters of their LIVES.. Theres a difference between knowing everything about Buddhism, and knowing everything about the ''self''..
Prince Siddhartha was the Buddha for the age and his questions seemed to be addressed by experiential reality/practice - many years of striving and meditation and guidance etc. not by asking about whether someone has met someone who knew someone etc.
And many Masters as I said have been fully awakened, both during and after Gautama Buddha's material death. A declaration of such a thing serves no-one but the world, and that is why some in the past have spoken hintingly at such things eg. Nagarajuna, Rinzai, Ajahn Mun etc etc.
There is full enlightenment, but there is also shades of grey, significant milestones.
ie: you do not get to wear the funny hats in Tibetan Buddhism without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
you do not get to be listed in the Insight Meditation Society and teach vipassana without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
You do not get to be a teacher in many traditions without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
I guess the focus on just a conventional thought is a view point as well. What is in actual experience is the arising of various sensations, thought, sounds, forms, etc which overlap to create this "experience" we called life. And each instant of arising consciousness is unique, separate yet completely connected with all of existence because it requires all of existence as a condition to arise as consciousness to consciousness.
So maybe it would be more accurate to say that we are the process of both the thought onto the process and the process itself. But we or I is just a label which self liberates in the instant it is looked for.
If you hold onto one thought then you do not see what is in front of you. Each arising is it, yet we have doubt. The doubt is the natural consequence of trying to solidify what is. Because to solidify what is, is to fall into error. Each moment is it, then gone.
I still seek for the make up of -- all that is. My hint is dependent origination because consciousness as you know is just one link.
Comments
there is no entity anywhere - is not nihilism - rather, it is the way of seeing things as 'just they are'.
My understanding of Buddha's teachings says: everything is conditioned except Nirvana. whatever is perceived through the 5 senses, there is no entity anywhere, rather processes arising and falling due to their conditions arising and falling. so all conditioned phenomena are anicca, dukkha and anatta.
The Buddha says:
'Silence is golden, so do not speak unless you are sure you can improve on silence.'
'Right speech' means avoiding lies, divisive and harsh speech, and idle chatter.
With metta,
Allen.
People are 'discussing'....
....few words don't necessarily = wisdom....
It's funny. In that exchange between Taiyaki, Floating Abu, Dakini and Misecmisc I see no conflict in doctrine.
When Buddha seems to contradict himself I try to take the teaching in context and for me it usually leads back to the two truths.
As for the path, it keeps going. Buddha kept walking and even after his mortal death he is not separate from anything.
Sorry, for some reason Im unable to edit by phone but that's all I can use for a moment.
I wish you well.
Allen
The reason I agree with you on the two truths is because realising one without the other can lead to either nhilism or self indulgence.
Just as there must be a unified theory to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so there is between the objective and subjective truths.
The Middle Way.
Also, I have heard some people believe when your reach enlightenment properly, you leave this world to join the Buddha once you have hit that point, but that's another school of thought.
No comment about paragraph 2.
Its only intellectual theory to those with an intellectual level of understanding. How we can determine whether or not something is intellectual or intuitive is based on ones own capacity to deconstruct and see if such and such information is true or not.
The different yanas are build from the fundamental vehicle. Each serves sentient beings who are traversing the path towards nirvana and then some more. Etc.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/realizing-genjo-koan-shohaku-okumura.html?m=1
In our practice we just sit with our bodies and minds in the zendo, and we aim to practice the Buddha Way in our activities outside the zendo as well. In practicing the Buddha Way there is no separation between the self that is studying the self and the self that is studied by the self; self is studying the self, and the act of studying is also the self. There is no such thing as a self that is separate from our activity. Dogen Zenji defined this self as jijuyu-zanmai, a term that Sawaki Kodo Roshi described as “self ‘selfing’ the self.'”
To illustrate this point we can think of the relationship between a runner and the act of running. When we think of this, we realize that no runner is separate from the act of running; a runner and running are the same thing. If the runner becomes separate from running, then the runner is not running. If this is the case, the runner can no longer be called a runner since a runner is defined as “one who runs.” The great ancient Indian master Nagarjuna presented this example as part of his illustration of emptiness and the negation of a fixed, permanent, fundamental essence that “owns” the body and mind.
Running as well as sitting, eating, drinking, and breathing are very ordinary things. But when we say, “There is no ‘I’ other than running” or “running without a runner,” we think we are discussing something mysterious. But this view of the teachings of people such as Nagarjuna or Dogen is mistaken. These teachers are trying to express a very ordinary thing in a truly realistic way without fabrication. To do this they use words that negate themselves in a way that reveals the reality beyond our thoughts.
When we practice the Buddha Way, there is no self, no Buddha Way, no others. This is because self, Buddha Way, and others work together as one. What we call “our actions” are actually the work done by both self and other beings and objects. For example, when a person drives a car, the person thinks “he” as subject drives “the car” as object. But in reality we cannot drive without the car; we can only become a driver or be driven with the aid of the car, and the car can only express its full function as a vehicle of transportation when someone drives it. Our cars affect us both psychologically and materially as well. We will drive different cars in different ways, for example, depending upon the style or quality of the car. The feelings and attitude of a person driving a cheap old truck carrying a load of junk will likely be totally different from the feelings and attitude that person will have driving a luxurious new car carrying a VIP. A car can also provide us with the ability to travel quickly and conveniently, yet if it breaks down, we may have to make more effort than usual to get where we need to go repair, fuel, and insurance costs can exert an added financial stress on our lives and can even feel burdensome. So in a sense the car own us and shapes us as much as we own and control it, and the action of driving can actually be manifested only by a person and a car working together. This reality of mutual influence and interconnectedness is true not only for a “special” practice done by a group of people called “Buddhists”; in truth this is the way all beings are working within the circle of interdependent origination.
The Buddha Way includes both self and objects. The Buddha Way includes both people sitting and the sitting they do. They are actually one thing. This is very difficult to explain, yet it is an obvious reality of our lives. This reality is not some special state or condition that is only accomplished by so-called “enlightened” people. Even when we don’t realize it, self, action, and object are working together as one reality, so we don’t need to train ourselves to make them into one thing in our minds. If self, action, and object were really three separate things, they could not become one. The truth is that they are always one reality, regardless of what we do or think.
We say this is my mind, this is my body. In that small statement there is the notion that there is someone seperate from the body and mind that owns these things. In reality the "I" is a product of those things, not some seperate entity. So its not that we can't say there is a person (conventional truth), while in truth there isn't a self distinct from its causes (ultimate truth).
He used the "i". Everyone uses the i or subject. Its language.
He also taught anatta and dependent origination. Those lead to stream entry and eventually nirvana.
It isn't the label i we deconstruct but what the referent of the i that we're looking at.
What do we make, cling to, suffer because of? It isn't a word but everything after the word.
That is why the teaching of the two truths is so important. One truth doesn't negate the other and in fact, they are quite complementary.
This is how Buddha can say "I" without grasping. Because of the Middle Way between all extremes.
But suffering will always tell the story.
Dissatisfaction, discontentment, insecurity, these are the jewels of the Dharma, and if they are at your doorstep then all arguments no longer matter.
Namaste.
Or maybe don't view it, or neither view it or don't view it. :cool:
An action needs an actor. Like Siamese twins, you cannot have one without the other.
Just like a knower and the known or consciousness and its objects. Once the act of running is over, where did the runner go to?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html
There is a path, on the path you get to observe things directly, and realize a bunch of things.
No-self, impermanence and a bunch of other things.
seeing and realizing all of those things make people peaceful and end their suffering.
This is what people call enlightenment.
Yes it requires work and practice in the form of meditation and specific exercises.
The path is to help people get the work done.
Like if you want to learn physics,
You better have the right intention (which should be to learn and study)
You better do the right actions, go to your class and study.
But these guidelines aren't forever, they are only useful to get what you want to get done, in this case a understanding of physics.
Hence the angle of "the path is enlightenment" doesn't seem accurate, on top of not being reflected in any teaching as far as i know.
For enlightenment is the same except you need to develop special skills in order to get the work that you want to get done.
Like right concentration, you need this ability if you want to observer what you need to observe.
Like you need to learn how to use a microscope for science if you want to observe what you need to observe to get the microscopic world...
And yes you get something for your efforts, peace and clear understanding.
So practice and get those jhanas, get those meditation done, get that daily mindfulness, take your time but get some results otherwise its a waste of time and you'd be better off doing something else with your free time...
Just try to find a practice where people go all messed up, stressed, sad, with all kind of problems like anxiety, and see the same people a couple years later.
If they still have the same problems without great improvement after a few years, whatever they are doing isn't working.
If they are much more peaceful and happy after all of the work, then you'll understand.
I like the word awake better than enlightened because it shows a realisation instead of implying a destination. This is how the path can be seen as enlightenment.
If the path is ended, how will we walk the path?
Understanding and following Mike Tyson's training routine does not make you Mike Tyson - some may argue that there is only 1 Mike Tyson... ever.
What would you say / ask if a monk said "yes"? How could that possibly help? You have the message of one person (Buddha) who claims to have attained the state - do you need more than that to convince you? How many people do you need to count? What do you need and where can you obtain it? What do you have to do? How many questions can I cook up before I run out of ideas?
If you have resolved all other points then look to see whether enlightenment exists or not - until then, you have plenty to keep you occupied.
I will try to play. Thankyou.
Reality is not separate, or separated.
For example, when you kiss a baby or drink your coffee, there is just that. Only later might the Buddhist conditioned mind say things such as 'We are just nominal projections onto processes' or 'That was anicca, dukkha and anatta'
In other words, no matter how right or true the Buddhist teachings (such as the 3 marks) are, they are really only ever approximate in terms of Buddhist experiential learning or - reality. i.e until they are engendered as genuine insights, it is all a bit phony
Tentatively and intellectually we can say things like 'There are two views of the same thing' but if you have ever kissed a baby wholeheartedly or a loved one, where were you then, where were you at that moment you kissed him/her. Were there two truths or not, was it annica, dukkha and anatta or was it not?
These are the truths that you, I and everyone here must truly penetrate if we are to learn the Buddha's wisdom, I believe.
These handhold of theory and speculation must be relinquished and preferably soon.
You also say: "when ignorance will be removed, the concept of 'I' will be removed, the concept of Samsara will be removed, conventional truth will be removed and then we shall be able to see the things as 'just they are'"
Like Ajahn Sumedho once said, the I is not an impediment or a problem per se, nor does the "concept" of Samsara need to be removed. If the truth is known, a concept is just another tool. IOW, we do not need to lose our personalities (though this may be tempered considerably) or our very convenient manifestations or our capable intellect -- because these are the objects of our renewal, our identity and our modus operandi. i.e. the problem is not the concept per se, the problem is the mistaking of that concept for reality - the very lens of (y)our reality
Like genkaku sometimes says, is a rock really a rock? Really? Before naming what is it then.
And likewise, the challenge in Zen is sometimes who/what are you. Sometimes this is manifest in our koan work: 'What was your name before your grandparents were born'
People on this forum like to mix up talk on ultimate and relative a lot but until the Ultimate is genuinely realised, and preferably affirmed, I do not see much value in it.
Best wishes,
Abu
Remedy: more zazen !
But I'm not trying to convince anyone, everyone should examine for themselves. Is there anything substantial that the thoughts point to?
By the way, 'We only exist as thoughts on the basis of a body and mind' - are you saying we are only thought?
And what do you mean by 'Is there anything substantial that the thoughts point to?'
Thanks for the banter.
BW,
Abu
Best wishes,
Abu
In seeing just the seen. Vision of color, shapes and form is the act of seeing, which requires no seer but is the effect of conditions of eye sense organ, object and contact.
Because there is the condition of a body and mind, we construct an idea of a self. When we examine the body it is just sensory data overlap of tactile and visual streams of consciousness, thus nothing substantial. When we look for the mind, we cannot find the mind either because it also is a stream of thoughts based on conditions. Thought themselves are not fixed entities.
Then you can assert that there is a non conceptual thought, which can be defined as a formless awareness. Even that is not findable, graspable, etc.
So we are just thoughts, which have absolutely no fixed referents. And even the thoughts aren't substaintial because they are appearances based on conditions.
Hope this makes sense.
I would love to meet such a man, just like Buddha always wanted to meet such a man who could teach him the way.. He had no luck. and began is own search... that was 2500 years ago. There is a thing called chinese whispers and who knows whats the truth about buddhism and buddha etc etc.. it was a long time ago.
I would be very suprised if someone didnt ask these kind of questions on their path. Its right to ask questions. Ive been lucky to sit and study with many Masters and they all say its the right thing to do. ASK ASK and ASK until i find my answers. Just like dogen.
(Many master have been GREAT, but do not claim enlightenment)
And for everyone who thinks, 'an enlightened man wouldnt admit he is' i think we would at least 'know' by his presence..
Alot of masters and teachers these days are only MASTERS of BUDDHISM, or Their tradition. not necessarily masters of their LIVES.. Theres a difference between knowing everything about Buddhism, and knowing everything about the ''self''..
And many Masters as I said have been fully awakened, both during and after Gautama Buddha's material death. A declaration of such a thing serves no-one but the world, and that is why some in the past have spoken hintingly at such things eg. Nagarajuna, Rinzai, Ajahn Mun etc etc.
But sure, if you insist, knock yourself out
Best wishes,
Abu
So maybe it would be more accurate to say that we are the process of both the thought onto the process and the process itself. But we or I is just a label which self liberates in the instant it is looked for.
If you hold onto one thought then you do not see what is in front of you. Each arising is it, yet we have doubt. The doubt is the natural consequence of trying to solidify what is. Because to solidify what is, is to fall into error. Each moment is it, then gone.
Forgive me but you sound like you have learnt this intellectually and now apply it as fact.
Just a few points
a. We do not construct an idea of a self because of the body and mind. It is the vision of ignorance and delusion that is not penetrated which is why the idea of a separate, permanent, enduring self arises and is lived via. For the Awakened, there is no such thing as the body and mind being the reason for delusion/ignorance anymore.
b. You say that in seeing just the seen. This is as per the Buddha's instructions to Bahiya and is easily repeated. However, withe eyes closed, is there istill sight? If you say no, prepare to be whacked.
c. There is no who? So who speaks?
Anyway it is enough. Thankyou again for your detailed explanation, I appreciate your effort.
Namaste,
Abu
i agree with @Floating_Abu.
They are not as rare as you seem to believe.
There is full enlightenment, but there is also shades of grey, significant milestones.
ie: you do not get to wear the funny hats in Tibetan Buddhism without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
you do not get to be listed in the Insight Meditation Society and teach vipassana without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
You do not get to be a teacher in many traditions without being somewhat enlighten (having realized a specific milestone).
_/\_