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.
What are your thoughts on this...
BhikkhuJayasara
Bhikkhu Veteran
in Philosophy
every so often little insights come while doing walking meditation in the morning. Today while walking in 23 degree weather my mind began to contemplate why I like the cold.. Then these thoughts arose in me and I wrote them down.
It is somewhat based on a previous insight of mine that the past and future don’t actually exist outside of our own mind. They are constructs of the mind that we escape to while our body always remains in the present moment…..
“We grow to like or dislike things over our lifetime because of the memories of experiences we had in connection with them. For instance I have historically loved the cold and snow from childhood memories.. Our likes and dislikes have no basis in the present, only the past and future, past memories and how that breeds expectations for future.
Because of this our likes and dislikes don’t really exist because they are grounded in past or future, and therefore there is no I, no me that exists to like or dislike in the present moment.”
thoughts? I figured this may bring some discussion so I wanted to post.
It is somewhat based on a previous insight of mine that the past and future don’t actually exist outside of our own mind. They are constructs of the mind that we escape to while our body always remains in the present moment…..
“We grow to like or dislike things over our lifetime because of the memories of experiences we had in connection with them. For instance I have historically loved the cold and snow from childhood memories.. Our likes and dislikes have no basis in the present, only the past and future, past memories and how that breeds expectations for future.
Because of this our likes and dislikes don’t really exist because they are grounded in past or future, and therefore there is no I, no me that exists to like or dislike in the present moment.”
thoughts? I figured this may bring some discussion so I wanted to post.
3
Comments
Feelings arise because we don't accept things as they truly are (transient, unsatisfactory and insubstantial). We hope that good times will last "forever" and are disappointed when things don't go "our" way. Our hopes, expectations and wishes creates feelings in the past, present and future.
if you remain totally in the present moment with full mindfulness, there is nothing else apart from simple unbiased observation. For the record, I have grown to dislike the cold a lot!!
:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori
The Buddhist equivalent is the crazy wisdom adepts who deliberately flout precepts and convention (not to be confused with child abusers, alcoholics, philanders, the insane, ignorant and others who are at the mercy of their afflictions rather than their master)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_wisdom
I hope I don't end up a a crazy wisdom Buddha, I am weird enough to start with :screwy:
I wanted to like J.D. and based on what I had experienced beforehand, it seemed likely that I would. But I can't stand it. I don't drink at all anymore but when I did, there was no way you'd get me near anything with sour mash in it.
Living in the subjective world it's fine and good to say the past doesn't exist but there is a misunderstanding I think... The past is just what now was but if it didn't have any bearing on the present moment, there would be no causality or karma. There would be no learning from our mistakes or graduation of any kind.
The past and the future are not seperate from the present moment just as the subjective and absolute truths are not seperate from the middle way.
We can go on about what we are not, but if we take it too far are we not nurturing irresponsibility?
We are here now and all we own are our actions.
Confession and ownership, rather than running away; facing and allowing to dissipate, seems the way to go . . .
It is why, if we are genuine, we can learn from bad teachers, hypocrites, the deluded, trees and bits of rock sculpted into Buddha forms. Initially and rightly so, we try and find the best teacher/sangha willing to help us . . .
1st Noble Truth -- There is suffering
2nd Noble Truth -- Suffering is caused by attachment and wanting what is not
3rd Noble Truth -- There is a way of cessation of suffering
4th Noble Truth -- The way to end suffering is to pretend nothing is real
I really don't mean to be off putting but this is what I sometimes see when I hear that there is no "I" to suffer.
I may not be a seperate individual unto myself because we are interdependant but somehow I am here regardless and so are the hungry.
If there is no "I" to suffer, why feed them instead of letting food decay? What is the difference?
So it is not just our past and future, our karma that is entangled with dukkha, everything is . . .
What to do? Not hard really, save our world and then pass it on . . . It's a plan . . . :clap:
Ourself... you said it right there " based on what I experienced beforehand" ... I wonder how you would of liked JD if there was no previous experience to color the present moment with?
as for the past/future thing.. yes there were these actions and events in the past that at the time did exist, and of course we can deal with the vipaka of past kamma now or in the future, but when I say the past and future don't really exist it is meant to be in relation to the present moment. When we think of the past it exists only in our mind.. when we think of the future it exists only in our mind, while the present moment exists in whatever state or form it does, right here and now.
I think I explained some things right.. I often stay away from these types of threads because I'm never good at explaining fancy happenings and insights but I had the inclination to post this up.
The continuum of beginningless mind is the ground of consciousness, the experiencer, conditioned by karma. Karma is an aspect of the natural law of cause and effect that becomes significant when it affects one's experience.
I may deny that the milk I'm about to drink is sour, but if I drink it I will still get an upset stomach, but I prefer not to drink it so I won't. However, if I did and got an upset stomach it too would be experienced, but ultimately empty.
All previous experience was gained in the now.
Good to know.
The fact that there must be snow to have that experience shows that the past interbe with the now. Because the past and present interbe there is no inherent past or present because they are conditional upon each other. The future is also obviously connected to the past and present because these condition the subsequent future. Thus all three: past, present, and future are conditional upon each other and none of them can be isolated as existing. Still memory is interesting. We cannot remember the future even though those events are part of the universe eventually.
Another way the future interbe with the present is our belief that the future experience of being in snow will be pleasant.
I can't imagine not having an obvious change of seasons. When I have to take the dog out at 5am and it's horribly cold, I might say a few choice words about it as I climb back under my huge pile of blankets. But overall, I love winter. it's so quiet and peaceful when the world is asleep. Plus then I appreciate it that much more when things come to life again.
I don't have a lot of terrific winter memories from my childhood. I did spend a lot of time outside, but it was mostly met at frustrated of snot frozen to my face, sopping wet, cold mittens and boots, walking in deep snow and getting snow in my boots so I was bordering on frost bite by the time I got on the school bus, etc. I enjoy it more now that I'm taller, but it's also been somewhat that I have chosen to like it. Because I live in an area that has hard winter from November until April, I have little choice. I can find things I love about it, or I can move. I don't know how the people who hate winter survive living here. I had to find things I appreciated about the uniqueness of where I live to avoid feeling sad about summer disappearing because it only lasts 2 months here. It taught me how to see the good in things In construe as "bad" and also that something just is. Cold is cold. It is not bad. It isn't even good. It's just cold.
Anyhow, I mostly commented because of what I saw about the 4NT in @ourself 's post. That's not how I've ever heard the 4th one interpreted. Was it meant to be tongue in cheek or is that how you actually learned it??
We don't have to pay the past any mind but without it, there is no present.
If both future and past are illusory then there is no present to be found.
There is an assumption of objective (sense, perception) and subjective (thoughts, images, symbols).
But this is not inherent in reality and is an overlay. The perceptions we have are so conditioned by our thoughts that we automatically give inherent existence to our perceptions.
Thus it is easy to dismiss future and past, but we do not see how we make this present into one gigantic reference point. Admittedly it does bring a sense of freedom but ultimately is becomes a binding condition for ourselves.
This present or here or center is an impression. All of it utterly coreless without location, time or subject/object. Yet that doesn't assert some kind of void or nihilistic vision of reality. The appearances themselves are what we are talking about when we say emptiness.
I hope this may find some use.
Just some thoughts, I am grappling with this too :-).
This is an interesting question. It might be valuable to look at our own experience and see what appears to exist. Then when we have looked at that we can see if the heart sutra is 'true'. So just looking out my window I see kind of a boring scene the house across the street. It is boring but there is some interest. So clearly there is something there because I have some kind of feeling. But it changes moment to moment in my feelings so it cannot be any certain thing. Someone could walk out the front door and then my ongoing experience would change. Now it's boring again. Reminds me of the monks looking at the flag: the flag moves said one, the wind moves said another, the mind moves said the third, tongues move said the fourth.
So, if nothing truely exists please explain how compassion makes sense.
Sid tried to deny existence but it didn't work, so Buddha stood up and taught the middle way.
Much later Nagarjuna proves that nothing really exists. Usually his view is considered the philosophical foundation for Middle Way Buddhism and a philosophical explication of the sutras.
To make sense of (the Buddha's emphasis on) compassion is impossible if we say that existence is truly real. It is only the ultimate unreality of existence that allows us to make sense of it. The middle way requires that we do not say that nothing exists. This would be a false statement. We have to say that nothing really exists. This is an aspect of the doctrine of dependent origination.
We cannot deny existence outright, no, that would not be the middle way. But we can say that it is not existence as we usually think we know it, Scotty.
How do you usually think you know reality, Susan?
For an easy explanation I'd recommend Khenpo Tsultrum Gyatso, The Sun of Wisdom - Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. For a furiously difficult one it would be Jay Garfield, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. Both state that Nagarjuna proves that nothing really exists, and it is clear from the original text.
What I got from it all is that Nagarjuna has proved that things exist, but only as they appear. There is no essence. The mountain is a mountain, just empty.
That said, I am sure that you have a deeper understanding than I do and I am definetly not qualified to debate. Thanks again.
It doesn't really explain anything.
No thing exists by itself... All is inter-being and co-arising.
Existence is not the illusion... Being seperate is.
If you deny existence then dependent origination is taught.
If you assert existence then emptiness is taught.
When we investigate deeply we find an absence. From there we do not assert non-existence. From there we must conclude dependent origination as the view and correct perception of how things are.
Emptiness refutes our limited dualistic/inherent assertion about reality (self and phenomena). Things exist, just not how we think they do.
But then again I can also see the other side of the argument that nothing is established. And this isn't Nihilism or nothingness, but rather the non duality of emptiness and luminosity.
I'd say intellectually and convention it seems the views are different. But experientially they are the same. Truly nothing is established and this "reality" is dream-like. Keyword is dream-like. Not a dream, not a reality but the middle way assertion of "dream-like".
Or we can view it like this. From a negative stance and experience absolutely no "thing" is happening. There are no relationships, no nothing, no something, no neither or both. Just a total absence. The heart sutra comes to mind.
From a positive stance and experience everything is absolutely the pure mind as the myriad forms. Luminous arisings dependent upon everything. Appearing, abiding, disappearing from no center, no location, no time, no subject or object. Magical, illusion-like appearances.
TLDR:
The view is that nothing is established. Experience confirms the view, but there isn't just a lack. There is clarity in all its forms (energy, etc). Emptiness (negative), Dependent Origination (positive).
Ah damn I don't even know what I am writing about anymore. Well peace and love guys.
The Middle way is easier to walk than to explain I think.
I figure that if there is a total absence, there would be no experience period and yet here we are experiencing.
If there is a self that is dependant and inherent in all things then we could not cause each other effects.
I think to say that a thing is empty of self is to mean there is no unchanging center or permanent anchor of being. Things change...
I'm trying to remember where I got it from but I've heard it said that everything exists right here and right now. If the conditions allow for it, a thing/event will manifest and if not, it stays hidden.
I guess that it is referring to buddha nature that exists right here and right now. Manifest and hidden are in the perspective of merely explanatory sake for non enlightened beings who enquiring on the true self. Buddha nature is neither manifest nor hidden, in the position of non enlightened one is hidden, and in the essence of enlightened one is manifest. And at time to surpass both the attachment and distinguishing of hidden and manifest, there is no such thing as manifest or hidden as these are wording expressing.
So yes you're right that it is here and now.
But to those who grasp by projecting subject and object they cannot see the reality of suchness.
So the obvious is hidden even though it is this very functioning of their lives.
Just this.
Hmm. In hindsight, I can see that my comment 'we do not have to imagine that nothing exists' was, as you say, wrong. I should have said that 'we do not have to imagine that nothing really exists'. So you were right all along. Drat.
You say nothing really exists but can you explain what you mean by that exactly?
Why would you say that instead of interbeing?
If you do not believe in existence, can you recognise interbeing?
I'm not trying to be a dink or anything... I hold my own beliefs and interpretations up to the same scrutiny.
I mean, they do go hand in hand. Things are empty because of dependant origination... Because we are interdependant, there is a lack of a true seperate "self".
Because a thing is empty, it is full of potential... Emptiness is precisely form and form is constantly changing.
Is there a reason to teach them seperately? I've heard that emptiness is a tricky one to teach lest it lead to a nhilistic viewpoint and I can see why.
I think when emptiness is taught it should be taught alongside dependant origination so the Middle is all the more recognisable.
It works better that way for me anyways.
The nature of your mind right now is spacious, clear (which relates to concepts), and sensitive. That is what is noticed as emptiness of self. All three of those (clarity etc) show different sides of the three marks (non-self, suffering, and impermanence) as well.
So the intellect is a manifestation of clarity. Hatred is also a manifestation of clarity as it is a distortion of wanting to see through the otherness of something non-pleasing. Undistorted there would be vision that pierces through delusion of self and other.
All of the negative qualities of mind are non other than openness clarity and sensitivity. And for that reason we can let them rest in our spacious mind and not be too upset that they are there. Of course the course stage is to notice that we don't want to create bad karma. But then when we stop we still can't get rid of the distortions and we just have to sit with them.
Knowledge of emptiness relates to clarity. The peace in meditation relates to sensitivity. The yielding fresh eyes relate to openness. All of these three feed the others and are inseparable. When we have clarity on interbeing that makes our sensitivity feel happy and blessed.
I like the rest of your post too.
I didn't bother talking about suffering because I don't see any disagreement in that area.
Lankavatara Sutra Chapter
2, Section XXXIV and
XXXV
Disclaimer: I didn't get any authority to teach anything.
As usual, I'm using the translation at this link.
Section XXXIV summarizes itself, since it is a summary of what went before.
In all things there is no self-nature, words too are devoid of reality; as the ignorant understand not what is meant by emptiness, yes, by emptiness, they wander about.
In all things there is no self-nature, they are mere words
of people; that which is
discriminated has no reality;
[even] Nirvana is like a
dream; nothing is seen to be
in transmigration, nor does
anything ever enter into
Nirvana.
As a king or a wealthy
householder, giving his
children various clay-made
animals, pleases them and
makes them play [with the
toys], but later gives them
real ones; . So, I, making use
of various forms and images
of things, instruct my sons;
but the limit of reality
(bhūtakoṭi) can [only] be
realised within oneself.
And the king who later gives the real
ones is you who realize yourself, after fumbling with these word-toys.
And I'll quote a key passage from XXXV:
The Blessed One said this to him: Mahāmati, since the ignorant and the simple-minded, not knowing that the world is what is seen of Mind
itself, cling to the multitudinousness of external objects, cling to the notions of being and non-being,
oneness and otherness, bothness and not-bothness, existence and non-existence, eternity and non-eternity, as being characterised by self-nature which rises from discrimination based on habit-energy, they are addicted to false imaginings.
Mahāmati, it is like a mirage
in which the springs are seen
as if they were real. They are
imagined so by the animals
who, thirsty from the heat of
the season, would run after
them. Not knowing that the
springs are their own mental
hallucinations, the animals do
not realise that there are no
such springs. In the same way,
Mahāmati, the ignorant and
simple-minded with their
minds impressed by various
erroneous speculations and
discriminations since
beginningless time; with their
minds burning with the fire
of greed, anger, and folly;
delighted in a world of
multitudinous forms; with
their thoughts saturated with
the ideas of birth, destruction, and subsistence; not understanding well what is meant by existent and non-existent, by inner and outer;
the ignorant and simple-minded fall into the way of grasping at oneness and otherness, being and non-being.
From the standpoint of the observation of phenomena, of course phenomena appear real, and they are and as far as we've been able to observe and predict,
will be consistently real. The sun will vaporize what's left of the earth's inhabitants in a billion years, if we don't go Venus first.
That said, you're going to be dead, so how "real" is that? Moreover, all the categories and opinions and perceptions we have of things are indeed distorted, unreal, reproductions of what we take to
be reality for the sake of convention, because that's how we've configured ourselves.
And yes, this text even is referring to itself, as well as my own comments here:
[T]he ignorant and simple-minded with their minds impressed by various erroneous speculations and
discriminations since beginningless time; with their minds burning with the fire of greed, anger, and folly;
delighted in a world of multitudinous forms; with their thoughts saturated with the ideas of birth, destruction, and subsistence;
not understanding well what is meant by existent and non-existent, by inner and outer; the ignorant and simple-minded fall into the way of
grasping at oneness and otherness, being and non-being.
"What is meant" by these things and
categories is Mind.
In the same way the ignorant and simple-minded who are bitten by erroneous views and are inclined toward the philosophers, do not
recognise that things seen of the Mind itself are like a dream, and are held fast by the notions of oneness and otherness, of being and non-being. Mahāmati, it is like the painter's canvas on which there is no depression nor elevation as imagined by the ignorant. In the same way,
Mahāmati, there may be in the
future some people brought
up in the habit-energy,
mentality, and imagination
based on the philosophers'
erroneous views; clinging to
the ideas of oneness and
otherness, of bothness and
not-bothness, they may bring
themselves and others to ruin;
they may declare those people
nihilists who hold the
doctrine of no-birth apart
from the alternatives of being
and non-being. They [argue
against] cause and effect,
they are followers of the
wicked views whereby they
uproot meritorious causes of
unstained purity.
Finally, there's a note in the text that says the following paragraph should be "separately treated," most likely because it breaks with the metaphorical style of the rest of this section.
Further, Mahāmati, by setting
up the three forms of measure
and the [five] members of a
syllogism, [the philosophers]
make the discrimination that
there is a reality existing by
itself, which is attained by the
realisation of noble wisdom,
and devoid of the two
Svabhāvas. [This
discrimination however is]
not right. [The Buddhist
doctrine is this:] Mahāmati,
when a [psychological]
revulsion takes place in the
Yogins [by the transcendence
of] the Citta, Manas, and
Vijñāna [Mumon's note:i.e.,
all mental processes], they
cast off the [dualistic]
discrimination of grasped and
grasping in what is seen of
Mind itself, and entering the
Tathagata-stage attain the
realisation of noble wisdom;
and in this there is no
thought of existence and
non-existence. Again,
Mahāmati, if there is the
grasping of existence and
non-existence in the realm
attained by the Yogins, there
will be in them the grasping
of an ego, a nourisher, a
supreme soul, or a person.
Again, Mahāmati, the teaching
pointing to self-nature,
individuality and generality
of things, is that of the
Transformation Buddha and
not that of the Dharmatā
Buddha. Again, Mahāmati,
such teaching is meant for the
ignorant, being in conformity
with their mentality, their way
of thinking and viewing
things; any establishment that
favours the way of self-nature, fails to reveal the truth of self-realisation to be attained by noble wisdom and the blissful abode of the
Samādhi.
Revulsion, as a result of transcendance, at all mental processes is quite a statement. Dharmatā Buddha is the one we are talking about, "Transformation
Buddha" is "meant for the ignorant," in conformity with their way of thinking.
Now this can be read 2 ways,
consistently:
1. It was a marginalized view when this was written, or, if you like, a new teaching. I'd said similar things about how the Lotus Sutra has statements about this, and this can't be ruled out at all from a purely skeptical standpoint, or, if you like, from the standpoint of the practicality of folks trying to sell a
new religious teaching. Maybe those Big Mind folks in Utah need to write a few new sutras...but I digress.
2. Let's face it, this is not "Coke is it!" These are subtle concepts which have resisted pity interpretation, no matter which culture has examined them.
It does however explain the prevalence of Asian popular Buddhism differing in ways from what Westerners have learned based on exposure to elegant concepts such as these.
Ah, forget that; stick to "revulsion, as a result of transcendance, at all mental processes."
Anyways I was reading this passage from a book and I'd like to quote it for you:
"As a result of your having investigated the nature of the 'I' and other phenomena, you now know that they appear to exist inherent, but you understand that they are empty of inherent existence, just as an illusion conjured up by a magician does not exist the way it seems. As Nagarjuna says in his Precious Garland of Advice:
A form seen from a distance
Is seen clearly by those nearby.
If a mirage were water,
Why is water not seen by those nearby?
The way this world is seen
As real by those afar
Is not so seen by those nearby,
For whom it is insubstantial, like a mirage.
A face in a mirror appears to be a face, but this image is not a real face in any way; it is from all viewpoints empty of being a face. Likewise, a magician can conjure up illusions that seem to be certain things, like a person in a box being skewered by a sword, but they are not at all established as those things. Similarly, phenomena such as bodies appear to be established from the objects' own side but are empty of being established that way and always have been.
It is not that phenomena ARE illusions; rather, they are LIKE illusions. Even if a mirror image of your face is not really your face, the reflection is not utterly non-existent. Though its appearance you can understand how your actual face looks. Similarly, although persons and things are empty of existing the way they appear to be established in their own right, they are not utterly nonexistent; they can act and can be experienced. Therefore, being like an illusion is not the same as appearing to exist but actually not existing, like horns of a rabbit, which do not exist at all."
Page 175-177 from "How To See Yourself As You Really Are" by the Dalai Lama.
Also:
"The foundation of the path is the recognition that emptiness negates not objects but an imagined status of objects."
-Jeffrey Hopkins in "Emptiness Yoga"