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.
@ozen, I never really had one of those either, being non-religious from the start. What I mean is that all those existential questions about what you are, where you came from, where you're going, all cease to have any power. In context with karma we understand how rebirth works and how suffering continues to arise, but it's not of a self. And I didn't mean no grasping for me, I meant seeing there's nothing to grasp. That's the beginning. Then you have to work on eliminating your grasping!
Maybe, but even religious people question their beliefs, do they not? I think most humans have questions that can never really be answered, whether or not it's a "crisis". Belief is a stop-gap, but it can falter.
And I didn't mean no grasping for me, I meant seeing there's nothing to grasp. That's the beginning. Then you have to work on eliminating your grasping!
having an existential crisis is a great way to learn about not-self. i mean, i don't recomend having one, but if you are having one, you might as well gain a little insight from it.
@ozen, It's more seeing not-self than seeing impermanence. Impermanence is easy enough to see, but we still cling to self. In fact we cling to self even more because of impermanence! We'll give it a heaven too, so that it lasts forever, and call it our soul. This is just something else we have to overcome by looking... we can't think our way out of it, it has to be experienced. The very goal of meditation is to experience this emptiness directly, and that's the beginning of the end of the false self, of craving.
@ozen, It's more seeing not-self than seeing impermanence. Impermanence is easy enough to see, but we still cling to self.
Yes, that's what I was suggesting before. What you have is belief in 'not-self' rather than seeing impermanence.
In fact we cling to self even more because of impermanence!
This doesn't make any sense. If things were permanent we couldn't lose them!
We'll give it a heaven too, so that it lasts forever, and call it our soul.
Or we could call it 'not-self', NOT 'NO-self'. hehe.
This is just something else we have to overcome by looking... we can't think our way out of it, it has to be experienced. The very goal of meditation is to experience this emptiness directly, and that's the beginning of the end of the false self, of craving.
So you've seen it, right? so why is there still craving?
To those who want to make buddha nature into a thing or a self:
Buddha nature is the dependently arisen suchness. It should only be understood in relationship to clarity with emptiness. Suchness is both empty, unestablished, void, yet it manifests as the clarity of emptiness.
This isn't a "oneness" or a super "consciousness". It isn't a thing nor does it mean it exists or doesn't exists. Since it is dependently originated it is like a rainbow, an appearance with no substance.
So its more accurate to conclude that buddha nature is the impermanence itself. The unceasing flow of suchness arising and falling in this interdependent reality.
It isn't a thing, nor is it a self. Beyond all designation.
This isn't to say that "oneness" or "consciousness" isn't important on the path. They are important and helpful but ultimately not what the buddha pointed to for liberation from suffering.
@ozen, "In fact we cling to self even more because of impermanence!"... of course that doesn't make sense. We make a permanent self to avoid the impermanence we see in everything else. We just don't see that it doesn't make sense to do so. We try to make sense of it by having religious constructs, one permanent creator and a permanent heaven/hell for our permanent souls to go to... while everything else is impermanent. Or something very much like that. It has to be something we "believe", because it's certainly not something we "see". Buddhism differs in this regard by asking us to look at what's there (or not there).
@ozen, "In fact we cling to self even more because of impermanence!"... of course that doesn't make sense.
Uh, alright...
We make a permanent self to avoid the impermanence we see in everything else. We just don't see that it doesn't make sense to do so.
You're making up nonsense and then calling it nonsense. I can't argue with that.
We try to make sense of it by having religious constructs, one permanent creator and a permanent heaven/hell for our permanent souls to go to... while everything else is impermanent. Or something very much like that. It has to be something we "believe", because it's certainly not something we "see". Buddhism differs in this regard by asking us to look at what's there (or not there).
As to my craving, what do you expect? For it to all go away at once? Our path of practice is a progression of the lessening of craving through insight, and that insight is our gradual clearing away of delusion by seeing things as they are. It takes time and effort, it's not going from 0-60 all at once.
You say: "It has to be something we "believe", because it's certainly not something we "see".
And then you say that what we need to see is obstructed by "delusion." So you don't see it, it's belief, and that's what I've been trying to point out.
@ozen, You're not understanding what I'm saying. We have an initial belief in teachings like not-self, but the actual seeing of not-self is something else. It does lead to dispassion, to detachment, to a lessening of craving and suffering. That doesn't mean we see it completely or fully, but it's a beginning. This is what we need to aim toward... seeing it. We see it by looking and finding absolutely nothing that is independent or unchanging. Seeing not-self is really not seeing self (in anything whatsoever).
Belief gives way to experience, which is what meditation is for. Belief is something we have to hold onto when we haven't seen. After seeing, we let go of the belief. The beliefs don't do justice to the reality at any rate. They really are just a finger pointing to the moon.
@ozen, You're not understanding what I'm saying. We have an initial belief in teachings like not-self, but the actual seeing of not-self is something else. It does lead to dispassion, to detachment, to a lessening of craving and suffering. That doesn't mean we see it completely or fully, but it's a beginning. This is what we need to aim toward... seeing it. We see it by looking and finding absolutely nothing that is independent or unchanging. Seeing not-self is really not seeing self (in anything whatsoever).
What am I not understanding. You said yourself that if we don't "see" then it's belief.
Maybe you're not clear about how much we need to "see" in order for us to not cling (and suffer)?
and the belief itself is non self, not self, no self, selfless, empty, void, unestablished, traceless, empty of inherent existence, dependently arisen, like painting on water, rainbowish, etc.
@ozen, Perhaps it's not possible to communicate "how much" we need to see. The point I'm making is that we need to try and see, and that seeing leads to the cessation of craving and suffering. It doesn't happen all at once, it's a progression, but that's where we need to direct the mind. It is exactly why we meditate.
@ozen, If you don't know anything about cars, and you get to see under the hood, you learn that a car really is just a construct of components that work together. That doesn't yet make you a mechanic, but you know that much. Whatever anyone else says about cars to the contrary, you know they're a construct of components and this kind of knowing will never waver. This is the point where belief gets replaced with knowing. Sure there are some things you don't yet know, and you may have beliefs about them, but about this thing? This is what I'm trying to convey. Once you see, that is more powerful than any belief. This is why we meditate, to see for ourselves.
Belief gives way to experience, which is what meditation is for. Belief is something we have to hold onto when we haven't seen. After seeing, we let go of the belief.
I really dig the way you put this. It occurred to me just after reading it that my Christian upbringing, in contrast, taught something like "Experience gives way to belief, which is what sermons are for. Experience is something we have to hold onto when we haven't believed. After believing, we let go of the experience."
@ozen, If you don't know anything about cars, and you get to see under the hood, you learn that a car really is just a construct of components that work together. That doesn't yet make you a mechanic, but you know that much. Whatever anyone else says about cars to the contrary, you know they're a construct of components and this kind of knowing will never waver.
Your belief will never waver? I hope that's not true. There are many different ways to see things.
This is the point where belief gets replaced with knowing.
"Knowing," as you use the term here, is only belief with conviction or religious authority.
Sure there are some things you don't yet know, and you may have beliefs about them, but about this thing? This is what I'm trying to convey. Once you see, that is more powerful than any belief. This is why we meditate, to see for ourselves.
This is going in circles. If you've seen then why do you still grasp and suffer, if you do still grasp and suffer?
@ozen, I'm not sure at this point that you know the difference between knowing and believing. This really is just going in circles. I never said once you see that all grasping is abandoned, that'd be ridiculous. I said that you see there's nothing to grasp, not that all grasping ceases. It's a progression, which I've said umpteen times. The entire path is a progression. Why is this so hard to understand?
Belief gives way to experience, which is what meditation is for. Belief is something we have to hold onto when we haven't seen. After seeing, we let go of the belief.
I really dig the way you put this. It occurred to me just after reading it that my Christian upbringing, in contrast, taught something like "Experience gives way to belief, which is what sermons are for. Experience is something we have to hold onto when we haven't believed. After believing, we let go of the experience."
There is something called confirmation bias. Works both ways I imagine.
And by-the-way Cloud, do you know anyone who has ever "let go of the belief"?
@ozen, I'm not sure at this point that you know the difference between knowing and believing. This really is just going in circles. I never said once you see that all grasping is abandoned, that'd be ridiculous. I said that you see there's nothing to grasp, not that all grasping ceases. It's a progression, which I've said umpteen times. The entire path is a progression. Why is this so hard to understand?
If we see that there's nothing to grasp then why would we still grasp? Because it's only a belief. Why is that so hard to understand?
@ozen, Why do you think we go from unenlightened to fully enlightened all at once? Why do you think there are "stages" of enlightenment? It all has to come together, with the largest piece of the puzzle being the most advantageous to see and making clear what has to be done. Then we have to commit to eliminating the mental tendencies that are still in effect (due to karma), and fully penetrating how these tendencies (craving) continue to give birth to suffering. The mind unwinds itself even if we don't try at that point, but it's something that does indeed at least take time. No one goes from unenlightened to fully enlightened just by penetrating that all phenomena without exception are empty of self. It's not so simple. No one said it was.
@ozen, Believing is believing, seeing is seeing. If you don't yet understand what insight (wisdom) is in the Buddhist sense, what direct experience of things as they truly are is, then that's just a roadblock that we can't get beyond. As such I'll take my leave of this conversation. Perhaps someone can explain it better, but I've spent a lot of time just on trying to explain this and have gotten nowhere with it!
@ozen, Believing is believing, seeing is seeing....
And there's also a difference between no-self and not-self.
If you don't yet understand what insight (wisdom) is in the Buddhist sense, what direct experience of things as they truly are is, then that's just a roadblock that we can't get beyond.
From what you've said it doesn't make much difference if I understand or "see." I'll still grasp and suffer.
As such I'll take my leave of this conversation. Perhaps someone can explain it better, but I've spent a lot of time just on trying to explain this and have gotten nowhere with it!
Comments
Buddha nature is the dependently arisen suchness. It should only be understood in relationship to clarity with emptiness. Suchness is both empty, unestablished, void, yet it manifests as the clarity of emptiness.
This isn't a "oneness" or a super "consciousness". It isn't a thing nor does it mean it exists or doesn't exists. Since it is dependently originated it is like a rainbow, an appearance with no substance.
So its more accurate to conclude that buddha nature is the impermanence itself. The unceasing flow of suchness arising and falling in this interdependent reality.
It isn't a thing, nor is it a self. Beyond all designation.
This isn't to say that "oneness" or "consciousness" isn't important on the path. They are important and helpful but ultimately not what the buddha pointed to for liberation from suffering.
Best wishes.
And then you say that what we need to see is obstructed by "delusion." So you don't see it, it's belief, and that's what I've been trying to point out.
Belief gives way to experience, which is what meditation is for. Belief is something we have to hold onto when we haven't seen. After seeing, we let go of the belief. The beliefs don't do justice to the reality at any rate. They really are just a finger pointing to the moon.
Maybe you're not clear about how much we need to "see" in order for us to not cling (and suffer)?
And by-the-way Cloud, do you know anyone who has ever "let go of the belief"?
Anyway gotta jet for a bit.
@ozen, Why do you think we go from unenlightened to fully enlightened all at once? Why do you think there are "stages" of enlightenment? It all has to come together, with the largest piece of the puzzle being the most advantageous to see and making clear what has to be done. Then we have to commit to eliminating the mental tendencies that are still in effect (due to karma), and fully penetrating how these tendencies (craving) continue to give birth to suffering. The mind unwinds itself even if we don't try at that point, but it's something that does indeed at least take time. No one goes from unenlightened to fully enlightened just by penetrating that all phenomena without exception are empty of self. It's not so simple. No one said it was.