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.
@Floating_Abu, yes Rigpa is like the void and the sun. Clarity, openness, sensitivity is my lamas word for it. We can discover it but we cannot find it.
The language of some other teachers is unimpeded (void - open), clear, and luminous (sensitive)
There is also clarity meaning relative clarity which comes and goes, we become more and less clear in terms of this meaning. But in the ultimate perspective confusion is clarity we just are not noticing it.
Absolutely.
So I don't relate to conditioned awareness that is all, because in rigpa, conditioning is seen just for what it is - ergo, clarity.
@Floating_Abu, yes that wisdom longing for wisdom is unconditioned but it manifests in ungraspable (dukkha) conditioned phenomena. That is what the itching and impatience is.
Completely agree, we can also say wisdom longing for wisdom is the conditioning of the unconditioned longing for the unconditioned. Happy practicing
Thank you @Floating Abu. Your experience is very familiar to me. As for me, the Diamond Sutra - when you know, you will know. Not in the way others may explain it, but in ways that are deeply evident to you And I find that the more times I read it, the deeper it seems to become. I guess the light always was that bright, but just seems to get brighter as we clean the windows.
Sounds like Trekcho is not too dissimilar from the practice I am familiar with and it is therefore recognition of the intrinsic nature of mind.
How would you integrate what is never apart though?
Perhaps your teachers have taught you something different , but Dzogchen I understand from my Tibetan friends needs expert guidance and advice. Sorry if I have misunderstood you.
Best wishes, Abu
Yes you're right. Its just integration with movement, etc.
Dzogchens emphasis is on self liberation. And everything is used to integrate.
If you can stay in knowledge then youre fully into buddhahood.
Knowledge is probably not the right word... But regardless, I think knowing is a terrible subtlety and the Devil is so tricky.. Without consistent sitting meditation, we are all likely to be fools, and even worse, spiritual fools who make victims of others.
As dissatisfying as it is for your intellectual mind, you will never be able to understand this through the intellect alone.
Of course, and to me the Heart Sutra is poetry rather than prose. But in a thread titled "Sutra Study", it seems reasonable to try to clarify what parts of the text mean...
and the answer to that isn't anything we can conceptually formulate. there is nothing I or anyone else can hand you. it requires a bare attention to whatever is your experience in the immediate.
That still doesn't explain no body, mind, thought
This is not just a matter of labelling or not labelling.
If it were, Buddhism would be easy.
So if it's not just a matter of labelling, what do you think it means to say there is no eye, ear nose etc?
Of course, and to me the Heart Sutra is poetry rather than prose. But in a thread titled "Sutra Study", it seems reasonable to try to clarify what parts of the text mean...
That's very true. Guilty as charged.
But dude, it ain't just poetry, it's just fact.
As to clarification, that is why I started becoming a wimp, lending on Master Sheng-Yen instead.
In studying it, I realised there is no possible way to explain it without misleading because there are no human words possible to encapsulate such 'understandings'
But yo right, I wimped out.
Let me try to find you another quote to defend myself later maybe
and the answer to that isn't anything we can conceptually formulate. there is nothing I or anyone else can hand you. it requires a bare attention to whatever is your experience in the immediate.
That still doesn't explain no body, mind, thought
This is not just a matter of labelling or not labelling.
If it were, Buddhism would be easy.
So if it's not just a matter of labelling, what do you think it means to say there is no eye, ear nose etc?
The Buddha has also been called the world transcendent one before for a reason.
As this is a sutra studies thread, and I cannot bring too much meaningful discussion to it, I am bringing some good words from Master Sheng-Yen for consideration as well:
Prajna (wisdom) has four prerequisites: hearing, practice or cultivation, contemplation, and realization. According to Ch'an teachings, this is the path to experience wisdom. Other traditions may approach wisdom by a different path, but if you choose to follow Ch'an methods, then first you must listen to the teachings of the Dharma. Next, you must practice a method and use the precepts as a guide for behavior. With right understanding and proper practice, your mind will settle and become more concentrated. In this clarity and stillness, you can then contemplate, or be more keenly and directly aware of your method, your actions, and your mind. Contemplation is not to be confused with ordinary reasoning and analyzing. Contemplation does not involve thinking or discriminating. It is purely awareness. Fourth and last comes realization."
"So, the bodhisattva's wisdom comes from this process of hearing, practice, contemplation and realization. With realization comes wisdom. And what is this realization? The next line of the sutra tells us: "He [Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara] perceived that all five skandhas are empty."
It is obvious, then, what "when" means. When bodhisattvas succesfully complete their cultivation of the six paramitas, prajna will spontaneously arise. When prajna arises, all five skandhas are perceived as empty and vexations are terminated. This is profound enlightenment. It is not the flash of enlightenment (kensho) experienced by ordinary sentient beings, nor is it the complete enlightenment of the Buddha. Although great bodhisattvas have terminated all vexation, they still have what are called habitual tendencies, aspects (but not vexations) of their beings or personalities which they have not yet liberated themselves from. The Buddha, on the other hand, is free from all vexations and habitual tendencies. Here is an analogy. The ignorance of sentient beings is like the clouds blocking the sun and sky. The enlightenment of bodhisattvas is the sky devoid of clouds, but still retaining a slight haze. They see the sky and sun and they think their view is clear, but it it is not absolutely clear. The Buddha's sky is clear, and he also perceives the haze the great bodhisattvas do not see.
After wisdom arises there is still an issue, namely that sometimes the wisdom is functioning and sometimes it is not. When wisdom is not functioning, then the question of whether or not a bodhisattva perceives that all five skandhas are empty is meaningless. When fundamental (non- functioning) wisdom arises in a bodhisattva, the five skandhas do not exist, and neither do sentient beings nor bodhisattvas. However, when a bodhisattva's wisdom is functioning, then the five skandhas do exist, but they are perceived as being empty.
This question of functioning versus non-functioning wisdom comes from the perspective of ordinary sentient beings. Since there are innumerable sentient beings forever interacting with and needing help from bodhisattvas, there is never a moment when their wisdom is not functioning.
Summarizing, fundamental wisdom arises when, after going through the process of hearing, practicing and contemplating, one finally realizes that the five skandhas are empty. Fundamental wisdom is the culmination of this process. But since the Bodhisattva Path is one of helping all sentient beings, there is never a time when wisdom is not being used; so, in a sense, fundamental and subsequent wisdom arise simultaneously.
I now wish to dissect the line, "He perceived that all five skandhas are empty." The manifestation of fundamental wisdom and the perception that the five skandhas are empty occur simultaneously. With the perception of emptiness of the five skandhas, fundamental wisdom manifests. When fundamental wisdom manifests, the five skandhas are empty.
I would like to elaborate further on the distinction between the Hinayana "emptiness derived from analysis" and the Mahayana "emptiness as reality."
By analysis, I mean looking at any object and saying that it exists only because of the coming together of causes and conditions. In other words, if causes and conditions break apart, there is no object. Since this can be done with everything, nothing is eternal, unchanging or independently existent. Nothing has self-nature. This is emptiness derived from analysis.
Do not be mislead by the term "analysis." It is not purely an intellectual endeavor. If it were, then the result would not generate wisdom.
The five skandhas are the essence of our being, and whether we intellectually grasp the concept or not, we must become disattached from them. To attain liberation, we must hear the Dharma, practice methods and contemplate the five skandhas until we directly realize their true nature.
Mahayana bodhisattvas such as Avalokitesvara perceive the five skandhas from the standpoint of emptiness as reality, that is they perceive that emptiness and existence are one and the same. Hinayana arhats focus on the aspect of emptiness. Ordinary sentient beings can only speak of emptiness from an intellectual standpoint, which is a false emptiness. They may say the five skandhas are empty, but they still have vexations and attachments.
As dissatisfying as it is for your intellectual mind, you will never be able to understand this through the intellect alone.
Of course, and to me the Heart Sutra is poetry rather than prose. But in a thread titled "Sutra Study", it seems reasonable to try to clarify what parts of the text mean...
And now I am in a more serious mood again I can add that again no, it is not back to the idea of our experience being merely how we perceive and label it.
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind is a representation of emptiness itself. It is a state (we can only use words to indicate) of dual recognition. Emptiness is form, form is none other than emptiness. The Buddha is the world transcendent one. Transcendence is transcendent. Ergo, it can be considered beyond, untouched, inherent in, part of, and not part of, the world of form and touch. What is emptiness ultimately? There is no-one who could tell you that without pulling the jewel from under you, in my opinion.
@Floating_Abu, there is also conditioned awareness, sems. The gelug school says that can be observed as evident in their meditations. But then what awareness observes awareness? As far as I can tell conditional awareness cannot be established by conditional awareness. Without infinite regression at least.
But I think it's a paper problem. What's more interesting what happens in the first five minutes of a life of meditation perhaps. That's awareness too. Wisdom longing for wisdom.
I would like to elaborate further on the distinction between the Hinayana "emptiness derived from analysis" and the Mahayana "emptiness as reality."
By analysis, I mean looking at any object and saying that it exists only because of the coming together of causes and conditions. In other words, if causes and conditions break apart, there is no object. Since this can be done with everything, nothing is eternal, unchanging or independently existent. Nothing has self-nature. This is emptiness derived from analysis.
It seem to me that Nargajuna's approach represents "emptiness derived from analysis", whereas insight practice in the Theravada tradition ( direct observation ) is closer to "emptiness as reality".
Its like using the intellect until its completely worn down and there is no intellectual doubt because all patterns of logic is deconstructed. Then out of that comes a deep rest a deep surrender, which leads to the direct perception of empty cognizing or buddha nature.
All buddhists path lead to the same ground and fruit. And the path (from ignorance to the fruit or wisdom) is the same as well.
Intellectual analysis without practice is useless but practice without intellectual analysis can lead one astray as well. So both are required. But fundementally it comes down to the individuals condition. Thus the different paths are taught which all lead to the original ground and fruit.
It seem to me that Nargajuna's approach represents "emptiness derived from analysis", whereas insight practice in the Theravada tradition ( direct observation ) is closer to "emptiness as reality".
porpy
Keep in mind that all teachers, including N who I have not studied before in detail (I prefer practice flavors personally) have only words and pictures to bring their insights back with. That is why when you say N represents emptiness derived from analysis, I would not necessarily agree with that. I have always assumed, but have not studied formally, that his insights are from genuine realisation - but he is able to bring the philosophical/intellectual slant to help those who are more wired that way (assuming they do not just get stuck in that complexity and try to figure it out all/analyse it all day)
Anyway, not every point needs to be analysed to the nth degree in any case, the only point of reading teachers is to get the practice flavor/direction and for you to go whip the horse with e.g. to swim you should learn how to xyz then you go, not debate all the finer points - if one does not do this, one will never get past 2nd base IMO, or at least be much more delayed.
Comments
So I don't relate to conditioned awareness that is all, because in rigpa, conditioning is seen just for what it is - ergo, clarity.
Namaste.
Dzogchens emphasis is on self liberation. And everything is used to integrate.
If you can stay in knowledge then youre fully into buddhahood.
But regardless, I think knowing is a terrible subtlety and the Devil is so tricky..
Without consistent sitting meditation, we are all likely to be fools, and even worse, spiritual fools who make victims of others.
Best wishes and take care,
Abu
But dude, it ain't just poetry, it's just fact.
As to clarification, that is why I started becoming a wimp, lending on Master Sheng-Yen instead.
In studying it, I realised there is no possible way to explain it without misleading because there are no human words possible to encapsulate such 'understandings'
But yo right, I wimped out.
Let me try to find you another quote to defend myself later maybe
Thought cannot capture what comes before it, IMO.
Namaste,
Abu
As this is a sutra studies thread, and I cannot bring too much meaningful discussion to it, I am bringing some good words from Master Sheng-Yen for consideration as well:
By analysis, I mean looking at any object and saying that it exists only because of the coming together of causes and conditions. In other words, if causes and conditions
break apart, there is no object. Since this can be done with everything, nothing is eternal, unchanging or independently existent. Nothing has self-nature. This is emptiness derived from analysis.
Do not be mislead by the term "analysis." It is not purely an intellectual endeavor. If it were, then the result would not generate wisdom.
intellectually grasp the concept or not, we must become disattached from them. To attain liberation, we must hear the Dharma, practice methods and contemplate the five skandhas until we directly realize their true nature.
Mahayana bodhisattvas such as Avalokitesvara perceive the five skandhas from the standpoint of emptiness as reality, that is they perceive that emptiness and existence are one and the same. Hinayana arhats focus on the aspect of emptiness. Ordinary sentient beings can only speak of emptiness from an intellectual standpoint, which
is a false emptiness. They may say the five skandhas are empty, but they still have vexations and attachments.
We must practice until we develop wisdom.
For the full teaching, please follow the link.
Abu
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind is a representation of emptiness itself. It is a state (we can only use words to indicate) of dual recognition. Emptiness is form, form is none other than emptiness. The Buddha is the world transcendent one. Transcendence is transcendent. Ergo, it can be considered beyond, untouched, inherent in, part of, and not part of, the world of form and touch. What is emptiness ultimately? There is no-one who could tell you that without pulling the jewel from under you, in my opinion.
Best wishes,
Abu
Its like using the intellect until its completely worn down and there is no intellectual doubt because all patterns of logic is deconstructed. Then out of that comes a deep rest a deep surrender, which leads to the direct perception of empty cognizing or buddha nature.
All buddhists path lead to the same ground and fruit. And the path (from ignorance to the fruit or wisdom) is the same as well.
Intellectual analysis without practice is useless but practice without intellectual analysis can lead one astray as well. So both are required. But fundementally it comes down to the individuals condition. Thus the different paths are taught which all lead to the original ground and fruit.
Keep in mind that all teachers, including N who I have not studied before in detail (I prefer practice flavors personally) have only words and pictures to bring their insights back with. That is why when you say N represents emptiness derived from analysis, I would not necessarily agree with that. I have always assumed, but have not studied formally, that his insights are from genuine realisation - but he is able to bring the philosophical/intellectual slant to help those who are more wired that way (assuming they do not just get stuck in that complexity and try to figure it out all/analyse it all day)
Anyway, not every point needs to be analysed to the nth degree in any case, the only point of reading teachers is to get the practice flavor/direction and for you to go whip the horse with e.g. to swim you should learn how to xyz then you go, not debate all the finer points - if one does not do this, one will never get past 2nd base IMO, or at least be much more delayed.