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.
Arhats are not enlightened. So what they write, may be all well and good, very scholarly perhaps, but it is not based upon personal experience of enlightenment. It is reasoning about words and concepts, nothing more.
You could see in D. T. Suzuki’s works that although prolific, and very astute, he was not enlightened until late in his life. (Right b/4 he died.)
Crossing over the river (into enlightenment) is not the same as a vast accumulation of knowledge.
When the Buddha became Enlightened, (Woke Up), He said that He “gained absolutely nothing.” That is because it has nothing to do with accumulation, or loss. It is all about Clarity.
I agree with you that at first we work with words and concepts, as they are the perfect tool for understanding what the mind is, and what the mind is not.
That would be the end of the story if we were simply a mind, or better yet a perfected mind. But, this simply is not the case. So, what is it that the term ‘Woke Up’ is trying to describe or convey?
I personally believe that you have the horse before the cart. You cannot describe a lack of
self any time before you actually see this lack of self. (AKA Clarity) So, this is a chicken/egg thing. Which came first?
Before the Buddha was Awake, anything He said about Being Awake would have been pure guesswork on his part, although no doubt astute.
So, we study the words of the masters to figure out where we should be looking in order to see what they saw. Words, in no way, can give it to us. I daresay we could remove every concept from the universe, and we would still be forced to look directly in order to Wake Up. So why wait? Start looking right now. Do not blind yourself with words any longer.
Arhats are not enlightened. So what they write, may be all well and good, very scholarly perhaps, but it is not based upon personal experience of enlightenment. It is reasoning about words and concepts, nothing more.
They're not enlightened? Huh...?
You cannot describe a lack of self any time before you actually see this lack of self.
Of course we can. Because we intellectually grasp to a self constantly (what need to mention the innate type?).
Furthermore as I have already said, directly realizing no-self in meditation is based on lessening grosser types of grasping to self, for example the intellectual ones.
A person who grasps strongly and who believes with all their heart that there is an enduring unchanging 'me' which is themselves cannot go into meditation and accidently see no-self. Ignorance is debased by insight, and insight is of 3 gradual types: learning, contemplation, and meditation.
Words, in no way, can give it to us.
Words by definition accompany us to the final step. Even if we are the type of person who traverses the path primarily through meditation, our words become more and more refined because the faulty conceptions are destroyed one by one.
I hate to nitpick, but, er...I think the definition of "arhat" is one who has become enlightened. Just FYI.
Words by definition accompany us to the final step. Even if we are the type of person who traverses the path primarily through meditation, our words become more and more refined because the faulty conceptions are destroyed one by one.
Words are like the blocks children might play with; useful for learning to think and conceptualize, but best set aside when no longer needed. It is the skillful use of words that makes them useful, not the words themselves. Direct understanding is impossible to quantify with words. In such cases, the closest we may come to expressing the inexpressible is through works of art, poetry and prose. Documents such as the Heart Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, and the Bhagavad Gita come about as close to encapsulating the inexpressible as anything I've encountered. Yet even those great works cannot take us all the way. There comes a time when you must realize they are all empty. They do not contain the answers; not the sutras, not the arhats, not even the Buddha. Study, contemplation and meditation will get you far, but eventually you have to lose the training wheels and just ride.
"Master your instrument, master the music and then forget all that and just play." ~ Charlie Parker
Yet even those great works cannot take us all the way. There comes a time when you must realize they are all empty.
I agree, but this tends to happen after we have learned what is true and what is not to a great degree(ie. substantially reduced the number of faulty conceptions which leads to gross grasping).
I was incorrect about arhats, (not being enlightened) sorry. But, I still believe what I basically said about scholars not always understanding the subtleties of enlightenment.
I believe ‘no-self’ is referring to the ego self. So, the innate self would be what is left when you remove this ego self. We do not grasp at the innate self because it IS us, that wouldn’t that be a hug? ; ^ )
We grasp at ego because we almost instinctively feel it is insubstantial, and that it can be lost merely by forgetting it for a while. Ego is a memory trace.
Likewise, the person who assumes strongly that there is 'no self', misunderstanding what the Buddha was referring to with that term, will only find what he is looking for, as mind projects and justifies assumptions, even in meditation.
When someone is 1st enlightened, they are also almost inevitably surprised. As what mind can create is no where capable of really knowing enlightenment in its fullness. Mind can only know OF enlightenment, dance around it.
Often it is the ordinariness of enlightenment that is so surprising. We have been swimming in enlightenment all of our lives, (like a fish swims in water) and because it is so ordinary to us, the mind just takes no notice of it.
After 100% enlightenment Ordinary Enlightenment becomes screamingly obvious. You might hear yourself saying, “How could I, possibly, not have seen this?”
I believe ‘no-self’ is referring to the ego self. So, the innate self would be what is left when you remove this ego self. We do not grasp at the innate self because it IS us, that wouldn’t that be a hug? ; ^ )
We grasp at ego because we almost instinctively feel it is insubstantial, and that it can be lost merely by forgetting it for a while. Ego is a memory trace.
Likewise, the person who assumes strongly that there is 'no self', misunderstanding what the Buddha was referring to with that term, will only find what he is looking for, as mind projects and justifies assumptions, even in meditation.
I like that. I don't particularly disagree with you, I'm just suggesting there's more. When aryas cognize selflessness they also cognize the truth of cessation, and understand it, and know they will reach it.
Remember I said, no-self is not an annihilation of PERSONS, it is simply a debunking of the person as existing in an impossible way, as it appears to do.
The impossible mode of existence misconstrued onto a person is the self which is to be denied. That person is like a dream, a bubble.
A: The impossible mode of existence misconstrued onto a person is the self, which is to be denied. That person is like a dream, a bubble.
S9: It matter little if there is a “final” cessation of thoughts/concepts, or not. Once you realize that you are not this dream, or the “Bubble boy,” what does it matter if there are clouds (AKA dreams) in the sky (AKA Buddha Nature)?
You could see it rather like a young girl (AKA our Original Face) with jewels (AKA finitude) in her hair. A thing of beauty, if rightly seen.
Dreams are not the enemy, confusion is. We can look right through these dream images and see the Buddha Nature constantly right here and now, in the Ever Present Moment.
So, a dream isn’t impossible. It is JUST a dream. It is however, impossible that we are this dream (person).
So we need not deny (fight with) the dream. We can simply allow it. Wu Wei. As AD would say, “It is that simple.”
A: When aryas cognize selflessness they also cognize the truth of cessation, and understand it, and know they will reach it.
S9: Selflessness, or what I call ego-selflessness, does not need to be cognized. Buddha Nature is previous to all of our thoughts, during our thoughts, and ever present even after all thoughts have melted away. This concept about the need to cognize in order to know, gives entirely too much honor/power to the mind, and sort of allows for mind to continue thinking that it is in charge/king of what is true, like the God’s of old.
Quote: “Mind is a thief.”
A: A person…existing in an impossible way, as it appears to do.
S9: If it is impossible, than I guess it IS impossible. Now we just have to put our heads together and decide what exactly IS impossible. Smile!
Comments
Arhats are not enlightened. So what they write, may be all well and good, very scholarly perhaps, but it is not based upon personal experience of enlightenment. It is reasoning about words and concepts, nothing more.
You could see in D. T. Suzuki’s works that although prolific, and very astute, he was not enlightened until late in his life. (Right b/4 he died.)
Crossing over the river (into enlightenment) is not the same as a vast accumulation of knowledge.
When the Buddha became Enlightened, (Woke Up), He said that He “gained absolutely nothing.” That is because it has nothing to do with accumulation, or loss. It is all about Clarity.
I agree with you that at first we work with words and concepts, as they are the perfect tool for understanding what the mind is, and what the mind is not.
That would be the end of the story if we were simply a mind, or better yet a perfected mind. But, this simply is not the case. So, what is it that the term ‘Woke Up’ is trying to describe or convey?
I personally believe that you have the horse before the cart. You cannot describe a lack of
self any time before you actually see this lack of self. (AKA Clarity) So, this is a chicken/egg thing. Which came first?
Before the Buddha was Awake, anything He said about Being Awake would have been pure guesswork on his part, although no doubt astute.
So, we study the words of the masters to figure out where we should be looking in order to see what they saw. Words, in no way, can give it to us. I daresay we could remove every concept from the universe, and we would still be forced to look directly in order to Wake Up. So why wait? Start looking right now. Do not blind yourself with words any longer.
Warm regards,
S9
Of course we can. Because we intellectually grasp to a self constantly (what need to mention the innate type?).
Furthermore as I have already said, directly realizing no-self in meditation is based on lessening grosser types of grasping to self, for example the intellectual ones.
A person who grasps strongly and who believes with all their heart that there is an enduring unchanging 'me' which is themselves cannot go into meditation and accidently see no-self. Ignorance is debased by insight, and insight is of 3 gradual types: learning, contemplation, and meditation.
Words by definition accompany us to the final step. Even if we are the type of person who traverses the path primarily through meditation, our words become more and more refined because the faulty conceptions are destroyed one by one.
Words are like the blocks children might play with; useful for learning to think and conceptualize, but best set aside when no longer needed. It is the skillful use of words that makes them useful, not the words themselves. Direct understanding is impossible to quantify with words. In such cases, the closest we may come to expressing the inexpressible is through works of art, poetry and prose. Documents such as the Heart Sutra, the Tao Te Ching, and the Bhagavad Gita come about as close to encapsulating the inexpressible as anything I've encountered. Yet even those great works cannot take us all the way. There comes a time when you must realize they are all empty. They do not contain the answers; not the sutras, not the arhats, not even the Buddha. Study, contemplation and meditation will get you far, but eventually you have to lose the training wheels and just ride.
"Master your instrument, master the music and then forget all that and just play." ~ Charlie Parker
You are correct quite about “Arhat,” I had that mixed up in my mind with something else. Thanks for correcting me.
S9
I was incorrect about arhats, (not being enlightened) sorry. But, I still believe what I basically said about scholars not always understanding the subtleties of enlightenment.
I believe ‘no-self’ is referring to the ego self. So, the innate self would be what is left when you remove this ego self. We do not grasp at the innate self because it IS us, that wouldn’t that be a hug? ; ^ )
We grasp at ego because we almost instinctively feel it is insubstantial, and that it can be lost merely by forgetting it for a while. Ego is a memory trace.
Likewise, the person who assumes strongly that there is 'no self', misunderstanding what the Buddha was referring to with that term, will only find what he is looking for, as mind projects and justifies assumptions, even in meditation.
When someone is 1st enlightened, they are also almost inevitably surprised. As what mind can create is no where capable of really knowing enlightenment in its fullness. Mind can only know OF enlightenment, dance around it.
Often it is the ordinariness of enlightenment that is so surprising. We have been swimming in enlightenment all of our lives, (like a fish swims in water) and because it is so ordinary to us, the mind just takes no notice of it.
After 100% enlightenment Ordinary Enlightenment becomes screamingly obvious. You might hear yourself saying, “How could I, possibly, not have seen this?”
Warm regards,
S9
Remember I said, no-self is not an annihilation of PERSONS, it is simply a debunking of the person as existing in an impossible way, as it appears to do.
The impossible mode of existence misconstrued onto a person is the self which is to be denied. That person is like a dream, a bubble.
A: The impossible mode of existence misconstrued onto a person is the self, which is to be denied. That person is like a dream, a bubble.
S9: It matter little if there is a “final” cessation of thoughts/concepts, or not. Once you realize that you are not this dream, or the “Bubble boy,” what does it matter if there are clouds (AKA dreams) in the sky (AKA Buddha Nature)?
You could see it rather like a young girl (AKA our Original Face) with jewels (AKA finitude) in her hair. A thing of beauty, if rightly seen.
Dreams are not the enemy, confusion is. We can look right through these dream images and see the Buddha Nature constantly right here and now, in the Ever Present Moment.
So, a dream isn’t impossible. It is JUST a dream. It is however, impossible that we are this dream (person).
So we need not deny (fight with) the dream. We can simply allow it. Wu Wei. As AD would say, “It is that simple.”
A: When aryas cognize selflessness they also cognize the truth of cessation, and understand it, and know they will reach it.
S9: Selflessness, or what I call ego-selflessness, does not need to be cognized. Buddha Nature is previous to all of our thoughts, during our thoughts, and ever present even after all thoughts have melted away. This concept about the need to cognize in order to know, gives entirely too much honor/power to the mind, and sort of allows for mind to continue thinking that it is in charge/king of what is true, like the God’s of old.
Quote: “Mind is a thief.”
A: A person…existing in an impossible way, as it appears to do.
S9: If it is impossible, than I guess it IS impossible. Now we just have to put our heads together and decide what exactly IS impossible. Smile!
Warm wishes,
S9