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.
The Buddha spoke of six realms - heaven, earth, hell etc. If people want to believe these are just in their minds, they are welcome to. But it wouldn't make sense to practice dhamma if they were just in your mind (and not a concrete reality as such). http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/beliefs/universe_1.shtml
It's as much of more of a reason to practice Dhamma.
Also, as Jeffrey said, we can't even think without referring to time or space in some manner. It is inevitable. So even if all this is imagination, it would still depend on time and space of some sort, even our dreams require them. Something to think about.
The Buddha spoke of six realms - heaven, earth, hell etc. If people want to believe these are just in their minds, they are welcome to. But it wouldn't make sense to practice dhamma if they were just in your mind (and not a concrete reality as such). http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/beliefs/universe_1.shtml
How would you know if these realms were existing outside of your mind? There is no one on the outside
But it wouldn't make sense to practice dhamma if they were just in your mind
Perhaps.
Personally I find the idea of actual realms, much like the location of heaven on other planets as the Mormon believe, a little too fanciful. It seems precisely because such areas are in the realm of mind that we can make use of them to understand our nature.
@Citta, the time and place cannot be pinned down and neither can we. Fluxional with nothing solid to ever designate as a reference point to which change happens. Inevitably we eventually look at our own experience thus I would recommend observing ourselves and space to see what it is. There is a motion of confusion and change throwing us into samsaric confusion and then the heart of the universe and us (non-dual) has a motion back into sanity and wholeness. That ungrounding and regrounding is always going on and it is called the primordial ground. The primordial ground does not come or go. And it includes anything. You cannot say it is Atman because you cannot say that it is there. It isn't there but as a pointer it directs us back to the cushion.
You do realise that I was being ironic Jeffrey ? If the realms are concrete then we must be...in fact neither we nor they has intrinsic unchanging existence..we are verbs not nouns.
I was making the point ( possibly not very well ) that in reifying Samsara, music is showing clear evidence of Hindu influence. It is the atman that moves through actual realms..in contrast to the Buddha's teaching of anatta.
There is nothing wrong with Hindu influence I feel so long as it corroborates with your experience. Advaita Vedenta is pretty close to Buddhism for example. Buddha is often misquoted as saying the self is skhandas when he in reality never said there was no self, rather he specifically said the self was NOT the skhandas.
@how, why do you divide phenomena from the skhandas? Is it like an alive meeting type of thing? I think it's alive and that may be what the hindus thought of as a union, but I think they made to big a deal about the whole affair as an attainment of a glory with an exalted divine.
@Jeffrey IMHO. "Alive" gets as vague as "dead", the deeper you look if you try to compare it against what you think, isn't alive.
We of course, as biased Buddhists, are not likely to look at attainments or glory as anything more than subtler levels of attachment whereas Hindus would see our path to union hindered by our apparent denials of it.
The importance of seeing that the self was Not the Skhandas is to see the pure unstained nature of our existence, while also seeing that the self is just attachment to identity that when not supported, falls away with suffering's cause.
@how, 'alive' is just a pointer. It refers to the nature of mind which is clear, luminous, and unimpeded. But that is a pointer to the cushion and not a definition that can be a definition of reality. 'Alive' is just a word that is something that your mind is doing to reality. As you say it could be dead and that would also be something you are doing to reality. Nonetheless, as a yogic experience the nature of mind can be found to be clear, luminous, and unimpeded as it says in sutras. If 'alive' resonates for a practitioner to connect to the nature of mind then great.
All of this points not only to our mind, but to the truth of a universe. You couldn't have a universe where seeing the truth was not a compassionate action. That would be a world where beings did not want happiness and sought great misery. Just could not be a universe at least how I mean 'a universe'. And to such an other universe the Buddha would be irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong with Hindu influence I feel so long as it corroborates with your experience. Advaita Vedenta is pretty close to Buddhism for example. Buddha is often misquoted as saying the self is skhandas when he in reality never said there was no self, rather he specifically said the self was NOT the skhandas.
Perhaps Jeffrey you could provide some BUDDHIST references for asserting that there is a self which is not the skandhas and yet is not an atman..and furthermore that explains not just what it is not, but also what it is ? Because if you are right then then generations of Buddhist teachers are wrong. Buddhadharma is far more radical and ruthless than some want to believe. It leaves us with nowhere to hide... The Buddha was totally uncompromising on the issue..when he said an-atta..he meant an-atta. Despite anything you heard from any past member he did not teach that anatta only applied to the skandhas..He taught that what we assume to be ourselves is nothing BUT the skandhas. And no amount of soft soaping will alter that. But do not accept my view go to your nearest Buddhist centre and ask them..it only needs to be authentic..authentic Theravada, Zen, or Vajrayana and they affirm the Buddhas teaching on anatta. In a setting involving flesh and blood teachers the kind of papanca that is tolerated in online discussions will vanish like a snowball on a stove. Try it. As Trungpa Rinpoche says " there is a widespread and comforting belief held by some Buddhists that our true mind is one with the universe...there is just one problem with this..our true mind does not exist ".
@Citta, I didn't say there was a self. None can be found. I just said Buddha did not say there was not one. Middle path between eternalism and nihilism. Where's @taiyaki (just hoping an interesting discussion opens up )
For a reference try the dhammapada, the nirvana sutra, the shrimaladevi sutra, or the ratnagotravhibaga. The latter are considered by the Mahayana as definitive versus some of the Pali Canon are viewed as provisional. Just how it is for good or ill.
Buddha did not teach that we are the skhandas. I don't have a reference to the Pali Canon, but maybe @Jason would jump in and perhaps correct me.
Trungpa Rinpoche was one of my teacher's teachers also. Metta. The view on a self is quite subtle. I am just scratching the surface. It depends what one means by words when one engages in a discussion. When I think of a self it would have to have the qualities of my awareness. Qualities that are always there. What is there upon nirvana? Is it just a dumb rock? Actually it is. Buddha could answer this question perhaps without prapancha even conceptual. He would answer it like I can use my hand to put a cup to my lips. How do I do it? How do I move the cup to my lips? Do we need a theory?
No the Buddha did not teach that we are the skandhas and I did not say that he did...he taught that what we perceive as ourselves is the skandhas...and that they are characterised by Dukkha, Anatta and Anicca...and that the deeper we go the more subtle becomes our realisation of Shunyata. That all arises and dissolves in great emptiness..
Perhaps Jeffrey you could provide some BUDDHIST references for asserting that there is a self which is not the skandhas and yet is not an atman..and furthermore that explains not just what it is not, but also what it is ?
Ah, yes. Just my reading comprehension. I thought you were saying that the self is the skhandas. Grasping to the skhandas is dukkha, but the skhandas themselves are perfectly fine. All of the three marks have to do with grasping. When there is no grasping, the conceptual assumptions of how time works break down, thus impermanence is in a new light. Thich Nhat Hanh says that there is a fourth dharma seal, nirvana.
We have moments of non-grasping even now. But I guess non-grasping is quite a long ways ahead of me!! See I think in time!
One teaching on how the skhandas are transformed into awareness qualities
form - morality feeling - samadhi perception - wisdom cittas - freedom of the heart or mind consciousness - knowledge of freedom
Perhaps Jeffrey you could provide some BUDDHIST references for asserting that there is a self which is not the skandhas and yet is not an atman..and furthermore that explains not just what it is not, but also what it is ?
Ah, yes. Just my reading comprehension. I thought you were saying that the self is the skhandas. Grasping to the skhandas is dukkha, but the skhandas themselves are perfectly fine. All of the three marks have to do with grasping. When there is no grasping, the conceptual assumptions of how time works break down, thus impermanence is in a new light. Thich Nhat Hanh says that there is a fourth dharma seal, nirvana.
We have moments of non-grasping even now. But I guess non-grasping is quite a long ways ahead of me!! See I think in time!
One teaching on how the skhandas are transformed into awareness qualities
form - morality feeling - samadhi perception - wisdom cittas - freedom of the heart or mind consciousness - knowledge of freedom
From a Dzogchen viewpoint those qualities too are Empty.
I realise that was over -cryptic...what I meant to say was that what I wrote was either in accordance the Dzogchen view or it wasnt...The best thing is to check it out with Dzogchen teachers.
This is such a basic issue that the debate is surprising. It has been said earlier "Samsara is a mode of existence, not just a view". But surely these are the same thing. A mode of 'existence' is just a view. We cannot escape from Samsara as if it is just a place, but to be trapped in it in we have to have the view that we are in a place. So escaping from the view is escaping from the place. Before we escape it is a place, and only after we've escaped do we see it is not. So we both escape from a place and do not escape from a place. Gateless gates and all that. No?
Oh I see you are referring to the Dzogchen view rather than your own view. Cool. Makes sense. Yeah I find Dzogchen pretty interesting. My teacher's husband is Rigdzin Shikpo who is a Dzogchen teacher in the nyingma tradition, I think.
You can assume Jeffrey that any view I express about direct Dharma ( as opposed to social matters ) issues are not my opinions, they are expressing ( however poorly ) the views of my teachers.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
This is such a basic issue that the debate is surprising. It has been said earlier "Samsara is a mode of existence, not just a view". But surely these are the same thing. A mode of 'existence' is just a view. We cannot escape from Samsara as if it is just a place, but to be trapped in it in we have to have the view that we are in a place. So escaping from the view is escaping from the place. Before we escape it is a place, and only after we've escaped do we see it is not. So we both escape from a place and do not escape from a place. Gateless gates and all that. No?
Exactly... When we awaken, do we escape or do we accept?
Quickest way to get where we need to go is to see we are here.
Comments
How would you know if these realms were existing outside of your mind? There is no one on the outside
Personally I find the idea of actual realms, much like the location of heaven on other planets as the Mormon believe, a little too fanciful. It seems precisely because such areas are in the realm of mind that we can make use of them to understand our nature.
If the realms are concrete then we must be...in fact neither we nor they has intrinsic unchanging existence..we are verbs not nouns.
From the meditative perspective, the self is not the skhandas. The self is a formulation of the skhanda's interaction with the existance.
IMHO.
"Alive" gets as vague as "dead", the deeper you look if you try to compare it against what you think, isn't alive.
We of course, as biased Buddhists, are not likely to look at attainments or glory as anything more than subtler levels of attachment whereas Hindus would see our path to union hindered by our apparent denials of it.
The importance of seeing that the self was Not the Skhandas is
to see the pure unstained nature of our existence, while also seeing
that the self is just attachment to identity that when not supported, falls away with suffering's cause.
All of this points not only to our mind, but to the truth of a universe. You couldn't have a universe where seeing the truth was not a compassionate action. That would be a world where beings did not want happiness and sought great misery. Just could not be a universe at least how I mean 'a universe'. And to such an other universe the Buddha would be irrelevant.
Because if you are right then then generations of Buddhist teachers are wrong.
Buddhadharma is far more radical and ruthless than some want to believe.
It leaves us with nowhere to hide...
The Buddha was totally uncompromising on the issue..when he said an-atta..he meant an-atta. Despite anything you heard from any past member he did not teach that anatta only applied to the skandhas..He taught that what we assume to be ourselves is nothing BUT the skandhas.
And no amount of soft soaping will alter that.
But do not accept my view go to your nearest Buddhist centre and ask them..it only needs to be authentic..authentic Theravada, Zen, or Vajrayana and they affirm the Buddhas teaching on anatta.
In a setting involving flesh and blood teachers the kind of papanca that is tolerated in online discussions will vanish like a snowball on a stove. Try it.
As Trungpa Rinpoche says " there is a widespread and comforting belief held by some Buddhists that our true mind is one with the universe...there is just one problem with this..our true mind does not exist ".
For a reference try the dhammapada, the nirvana sutra, the shrimaladevi sutra, or the ratnagotravhibaga. The latter are considered by the Mahayana as definitive versus some of the Pali Canon are viewed as provisional. Just how it is for good or ill.
Buddha did not teach that we are the skhandas. I don't have a reference to the Pali Canon, but maybe @Jason would jump in and perhaps correct me.
Trungpa Rinpoche was one of my teacher's teachers also. Metta. The view on a self is quite subtle. I am just scratching the surface. It depends what one means by words when one engages in a discussion. When I think of a self it would have to have the qualities of my awareness. Qualities that are always there. What is there upon nirvana? Is it just a dumb rock? Actually it is. Buddha could answer this question perhaps without prapancha even conceptual. He would answer it like I can use my hand to put a cup to my lips. How do I do it? How do I move the cup to my lips? Do we need a theory?
That all arises and dissolves in great emptiness..
We have moments of non-grasping even now. But I guess non-grasping is quite a long ways ahead of me!! See I think in time!
One teaching on how the skhandas are transformed into awareness qualities
form - morality
feeling - samadhi
perception - wisdom
cittas - freedom of the heart or mind
consciousness - knowledge of freedom
We have moments of non-grasping even now. But I guess non-grasping is quite a long ways ahead of me!! See I think in time!
One teaching on how the skhandas are transformed into awareness qualities
form - morality
feeling - samadhi
perception - wisdom
cittas - freedom of the heart or mind
consciousness - knowledge of freedom
From a Dzogchen viewpoint those qualities too are Empty.
Quickest way to get where we need to go is to see we are here.