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.
how to see buddha mind?
According to YOU Buddhist types..... (lol 
)
We have this perfect buddha nature, or buddha mind.????....
I can't seem to see it tho, or understand it,
as if trying to see it, understand it, grasp it, is actually pushing it further away...
Is it because it's so ridiculously obvious and evident that I would never find it by searching for it?
here's my theory then: If I dissolved everything conceptual and dual through meditation, what's left has got to be that mysterious Buddha mind??
)We have this perfect buddha nature, or buddha mind.????....
I can't seem to see it tho, or understand it,
as if trying to see it, understand it, grasp it, is actually pushing it further away...
Is it because it's so ridiculously obvious and evident that I would never find it by searching for it?
here's my theory then: If I dissolved everything conceptual and dual through meditation, what's left has got to be that mysterious Buddha mind??
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Theravada does not ascribe to this concept in that we agree that all have Buddha Nature - but due to suffering, and illusion, we also have Mara Nature.
It's a question of differing observations and points of view.
Are you sure you want to express it in this dualistic, almost Manichean way, Fede? Would you say that what you call "Mara Nature" is equivalent to Buddha Nature?
What I should have said is that in our unenlightened state, all qualities are matched, we are neither one thing nor the other....to varying degrees....
it's all a moveable feast......
Inasmuch as Buddha Nature is something to cultivate, we have to strive diligently to eliminate Mara nature with the same degree of determination....
Those two podcasts are about three hours of audio, which is a lot, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding the concept of Buddha mind, so it has to be approached with some care. At the end of listening to them, you will have a good grasp of the concept and its application to practice. (At least, a good grasp of Ken McLeod's understanding of it, which I consider very valuable.)
If you can find a group to practice with and a teacher to advise you, that would be ideal.
Sorry to appear pedantic - it was not my intention. My point is that the Buddha Nature is beyond all dualisms. It is, also, a subject of deep complexity.
I would recommend a small book, a dialogue between the Dalai Lama and Dr Peter Michel entitled, in the English edition, The Buddha Nature ( Bluestar Communications. 1997. ISBN 1-885394-19-5). My own copy is beginning to fall to pieces as I read and re-read it, tryiung to come to some understanding.
Of course, I also understand that my own take is, essentially, Mahayanist and yours, dear sister Fede, is Theravadan, which will entail some differences.
May I, to illustrate both the depth and the complexity of the notion, quote some of HHDL's own words:
"The tantric tradition explains the Dharmakaya through the concept of the clear light or the true nature of the mind. This means that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana manifest from this clear shining source. Therefore, one can say that this highest source, the clear light, is close to the concept of a creator. But one should be careful. When I speak about a source, it should not be misunderstood! I do not mean that somewhere a form of concentrated clear light exists as a substrate, similar to the non-Buddhist idea of Brahma. This shining space must not be deiofied!" (op.cit. p.29)
A few lines further on, HHDL says : "If you investigate, and try to find out where this clear light mind is, you will be able to find it only within an individual person." (my emphasis) On first (and subsequent) reading, these words seem very close to words he spoke to me and to the Quaker concept of "that of God" in each one of us.
The only mind you can know is your own mind. Which is the Buddha Mind. The path of liberation is clearing away the confusion and the ways of conduct which hides our true nature.
grackle
I want some part of "this" to survive death, u know... i want to save game, or .... or else im gonna feel like it's useless to live and it sucks to die..
If however this buddha mind, clear light- whatever, is like a background, that all lives are played out on, I want to get to know it, and use all of its possible functions...
Try to stay in the present Moment.
There is no other.
Stop striving and reaching for things that are unanswerable.
Just work to understand (but really understand) Suffering, and the cessation of suffering.
That in itself is a Lifetime's work.
Relax.
Laugh.
Live.
Let go.
thank you again , don't hesitate to elaborate more tho,
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most....."
Thefound:
you might as well try to catch the wind.
Bob Dylan said that, not I....
but he was right.
let me tell you something:
If you take a blob of cream, and clutch it hard in your hand, it will squeeze out everywhere, and spill and make a holy mess, and you'll find your palm empty.
if you take a blob of cream, and cradle it gently in your hand, it will stay there.....
you really need to loosen your grip a bit, and relax.
At least you're human, that's a brilliant start, isn't it?
The harder you try, the harder you fall.
let things flow.
you'd be amazed at what you see when you let your eyes gaze.....
The Buddha refused to answer this question, and discouraged people from considering it. It's not what the practice is concerned with. (The rest of that sutra describes the understanding the practice actually leads to.)
The questions that the Buddha called "Imponderables" were often bantied about between various philosophers of his time. The Buddha called himself "Tathagata", but the question itself concerned life after death for everyone, not just the Buddha or arhants.
TheFound, this is the Bliss of Buddhism... you have different people, maybe studying different traditions, so sometimes the teachings can be discussed and interpreted in a manner of ways....
But the thing to remember is that occasionally, clear-cut definite conclusions, upon which all are agreed, cannot be arrived at....
The important factor is that this is OK.
Respect that.
People are entitled to different opinions on many matters, simply because translation, interpretation and tradition might have presented the texts in different ways.
This is why I'm always banging on about The Four (Noble Truths), The Eight ('Signs' on the 8Fold Path) and The Five (primary Precepts held fast by laypeople).
These hold fast and are immovable, for all traditions. they are the First Teaching the Buddha gave, and for many therefore, the most precious and the most relevant, because ultimately, all teachings lead back to these....
Actually, no. The Buddha was quite clear that reincarnation-beliefs were useful in that they could lead one who believed such things toward moral behavior, but that they were inferior to his own transcendent teachings. His own teachings were "agnostic" in nature toward such speculative views, and he pointed out in an oft-quoted discourse that:
It was a joke.
Shheeeesh! :rolleyesc
I saw that. What are you so upset about?
upset?
Naaah....
I don't do upset.
If you say so...:rolleyes:
Quite clearly? You know that [FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]pubbenivasa means "previous dwellings", rather than "past lives", don't you?
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica] Bhikkhus, any group of Samanas or Brahmins when recollecting pubbenivasa (previous dwellings), naturally recollect such previous dwellings in diverse numbers; in doing so, all of those Samanas and Brahmins recollect the five upadana-khandhas or any one of the five upadana-khandhas. What are these five? The five are …
Bhikkhus, when they recollect, they naturally recollect rupa (form) as "in the distant past we had a rupa like this."
Bhikkhus, when they recollect, they naturally recollect vedana (feeling) as "in the distant past we had vedana like this."
Bhikkhus, when they recollect, they naturally recollect sanya (recognition, perception) as "in the distant past we had sanya like this."
Bhikkhus, when they recollect, they naturally recollect sankhara (concocting, thinking, emotions) as "in the distant past we had sankhara like this."
Bhikkhus, when they recollect, they naturally recollect vinyanaas "in the distant past we had a vinyana like this."
Bhikkhus, why do they speak of rupa? Bhikkhus, this nature naturally disintegrates (ruppati, vexed, oppressed), for this reason it is called "rupa." Why does it disintegrate? It disintegrates due to cold, due to heat, due to hunger, due to thirst, and due to the contacts of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and crawling animals. This nature naturally disintegrates, for this reason it is called "rupa."
Bhikkhus, why do they speak of vedana? Bhikkhus, this nature is felt (vedayati), for this reason it is called "vedana." What does it feel? It feels pleasure, pain, and neither-pain-nor-pleasure. Bhikkhus, this nature feels, for this reason it is called "vedana."
[/FONT]
Nonetheless, many of the Buddha's contemporaries believed in reincarnation and some claimed to be able to remember "past lives". The Buddha taught that such endeavors were irrelevant to the quenching of suffering, as we see when the newly accepted monk Susima questions enlightened monks according to the "conventional wisdom" of his contemporaries' belief in "supranormal powers" and their supposed importance in the completion of the holy life:
"Yes, friend."
"Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you wield manifold supranormal powers? Having been one you become many; having been many you become one? You appear? You vanish? You go unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space? You dive in & out of the earth as if it were water? You walk on water without sinking as if it were dry land? Sitting crosslegged you fly through the air like a winged bird? With your hand you touch and stroke even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful? You exercise influence with your body even as far as the Brahma worlds?"
"No, friend."
"Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you hear — by means of the divine ear-element, purified & surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine & human, whether near or far?"
"No, friend."
"Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you know the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with your own awareness? Do you discern a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion; a mind with aversion as a mind with aversion, and a mind without aversion as a mind without aversion; a mind with delusion as a mind with delusion, and a mind without delusion as a mind without delusion; a restricted mind as a restricted mind, and a scattered mind as a scattered mind; an enlarged mind as an enlarged mind, and an unenlarged mind as an unenlarged mind;an excelled mind [one that is not on the most excellent level] as an excelled mind, and an unexcelled mind as an unexcelled mind; a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind, and an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind; a released mind as a released mind, and an unreleased mind as an unreleased mind?"
"No, friend."
"Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you recollect your manifold past lives (lit: previous homes), i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand births, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction & expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here'?"
"No, friend."
"Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you see — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and do you discern how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world'?"
"No, friend."
"Then, having known thus, having seen thus, do you dwell touching with your body the peaceful emancipations, the formless states beyond form [the formless jhanas]?"
"No, friend."
"So just now, friends, didn't you make that declaration without having attained any of these Dhammas?"
"We're released through discernment, friend Susima."
"I don't understand the detailed meaning of your brief statement. It would be good if you would speak in such a way that I would understand its detailed meaning."
"Whether or not you understand, friend Susima, we are still released through discernment."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....070.than.html
This was brought up recently in another thread, and the following was brought to light:
It is notable that at one point in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, Ven. Ananda attempts this line of questioning with the Buddha, and the Buddha tells Ananda to knock it off. Ananda took a while to figure it all out....
Sorry folks, but if it's for beginners, we need to keep it much simpler.
it's the kinder way.
Whilst I understand what you intend, Fede, I think we need to avoid the sort of "primary school" teaching that has characterised some religious teaching which leaves practiutioiners with nothing more than fairy stories.
Even 'beginners' need to understand that there are differing views. Most of our members are, I suggest, adults and need to be treated as such. The very topic of "BHuddha Mind" is a deep and mysterious concept: perhaps the whole thread should be elsewhere.
As an absolute beginner, embarking on a new path, pursuing a system that is both foreign in origin and in familiarity, I think it important to err on the side of "K.I.S.S" rather than metaphorically throwing people in at the deep end with discussions on rebirth and the Buddha's discourses on same.
we have a specific forum for more convoluted discussions.
So here we are.....
Thank you for your comments Simon!
I do understand what you say, Fede. My point is that we are asked the questions and are confronted with how to reply. Do we say: "That's too difficult for you, dear"? Or do we say: "Go to the advanced forum - when you're ready"? Personally, it has been my principle to reply to questions as and when they are posed - if I can; and, if I can't, to say so.
I do agree that most of this stuff is, indeed, gobbledy-gook - as are most of the 'explanations' that are no more than quotations from 'authorities'. Most of the true answers only come from our own experience. It reminds me of the centuries during which Western medicine and science were no more than rehashing Aristotle and other writers believed without question.
That the notion of a "Buddha Mind" never crossed the Buddha's lips -- that is also "too advanced for beginners"...?
That this notion of "Dharmakaya" was an explanation given to a Brahmin, and that the Buddha was speaking to the Brahmin in terms that the Brahmin could understand and not necessarily from His own teachings, and that the notion of "Dharmakaya" was not emphasised as part of His own teachings (the Four, the Eight, the Five, as you say) and has become greatly exaggerated in emphasis and importance over time by certain sects -- this is "too advanced for beginners"...?
That a beginner, or any Buddhist at all, does not have to bother one iota with fairy stories about reincarnation/"rebirth" and hindukarma, alternate "worlds', super-powers, etc. -- this is "too advanced for beginners"...?
The fact that one can read the teachings of the Buddha for oneself, and see for oneself that many of the fantastical notions and practices that are represented as "Buddhism" by folks in pretty robes have nothing at all to do with what the Buddha actually taught -- that is "too advanced for beginners"...?
These seem like perfectly relevant and important lessons for beginners to me. A beginner asked questions about some of these issues right here in this thread when it was in the beginners' forum.
that Buddha LIED a lot...and is not to be trusted,
just so people can be tricked into living (what they have been tricked into thinking are) better lives?
It always sucks to think about buddha like this, but my friend had a good point, he had the BEST reasons to lie about rebirth or non-nihilism, and we can't prove him wrong because of circular like arguments
So what the feck....?
I want you guys to tell me,
"oh no no, the Buddha was indeed great, and karma and future rebirths do exist, and this and that, buddhism IS really amazing, it will save you from suffering FOREVER " LOLOLOL
:eek:Oh no no, the Buddha was indeed great, and karma and future rebirths do exist, and this and that, buddhism IS really amazing, it will save you from suffering FOREVER...:eek:
Oops....
:cool:
The Buddha did not disabuse folks of superstitious beliefs or speculative views that he felt would tend to point them toward ethical behavior.
He had many conversations with others who held such beliefs -- and he was quite familiar with all of the various belief systems that were being kicked around in his area and in his time -- and his style of debate and teachings such persons who held such beliefs was to speak with them from the standpoint of their beliefs, and guide them toward his own teachings.
He was a master logician as well. Here's something out of the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, which gives a glimpse of the sort of logic he would use when debating or teaching someone who held some speculative view, in the form of his analysis of the various statements or conclusions that can be arrived at by four hypothetical monks who have some differing meditative "visions" concerning hindu-style karma:
So there's a pro-hindukarma position, and we see this very position taken by many Buddhists, especially on the internet and in internet forms, some of which enforce this sort of position on all of their members, and quite heavy-handedly, in fact.
Here's how the Buddha analyzed such a position:
I have added colors to highlight the critical factors in each statement.
The Buddha agreed that there is the result of misconduct: cause-and-effect. his own version of that was that actions are born of intentions. As we intend, so we act. So the Buddha concedes that position. Also, the hypothetical monk qualifies his speculative view with "It seems...", which the Buddha concedes him that.
He also concedes that the hypothetical monk could envision a person misconducting himself and going to hell for it.
However, the hypothetical monk takes that vision and creates a categorical speculative view out of it. We see this quite commonly in folks who claim that babies are born with birth defects because of misdeeds in past lives. The Buddha does not concede this because it is a categorical statement based in speculative view.
The Buddha also never conceded the ideal "only this is true, everything else is wrong."
At the same time, TF, you will see a lot of statements made by the Buddha quoted out-of-context and spun to infer that he taught one thing or another. It happens all the time, especially on the internet, and by a lot of folks that one would think would know better, including major translators of the Pali Canon. It is always a good idea to take a closer look at what was actually said, and the context of what was said: Who is the audience, what are the beliefs that they are bringing to the table, is the Buddha teachings his own teachings, or steering someone who holds some sort of beliefs toward his own teachings? These questions make a difference as to how the Buddha would answer questions, and how he would teach.
Also keep in mind the sort of levels of educations that most folks who lived in that area had back 2500 years ago. The vast majority had close to nil. A lot have close to nil even now. And even now in that area it is widely accepted that folks embellish stories and events and they are accepted as if they are true. This played a factor in how the Buddha taught folks, too. So to say "the Buddha lied" would be to ignore a great many factors that influenced the way he taught, and the fact that if he taught his own teachings just as they were, a lot of people just wouldn't get it. Hell, a lot of people don't get it even today. It's more like he told folks what he felt they needed to hear, understanding the parameters and limitations of their own beliefs. Often he would play into their belief systems, but tell them something that "did not compute' according to their belief system, in order to shake that belief system up. One example of of a pair of wanderers who went naked and acted like a dog and an ox. They asked the Buddha what they would be in the next life they believed in. He told them that if they perfected their "dog-duty" and "ox-duty", that they would be reborn as a dog and an ox. The moral of the story, what he wanted them to see, is the relationship between intention and action. As we think, so we do. In the discourse, the two immediately see the folly of their superstitious views, give up their naked dog- and ox-duty thing and go with the Buddha. If taken out of context, though, one might say, "Here, see? The Buddha believed in reincarnation! He's talking about reincarnation!" But the Buddha was really pointing out the folly of such views.
what is too advanced for a beginner depends on where you began. Where you began depends on how you advanced. Where you advance depends on how you began. Sometimes it is better not to begin, so that you can remain advanced. But if you have advanced, then you can look to the beginners, and say "they are not ready". But if you are advanced, but never began, you can look at the advanced, and say "they never began"
This is how God looks at those who think they know better than He. And truly many do think so. But I trust he looks at you and considers, you are ready to advance. If he considers you ready, that is all that matters.
I apologize if anyone feels slighted in any way, but the simple solution is, again, don't participate in things that anger you, or start your own discussion forum.