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.
Do you have any ideas about what relevant activities or qualities might have developed as a result of these experiences?
Its hard to say...at least right now since I'm fedup with posting.
This Sutras meaning evokes presence. A unity of stillness and motion, where bodymind and world are a single unflolding continuum. "I" am merely the absence that is completely filled with the presence of the world. The world is alone, ownerless and unobstructed. There is spontaneus action.
These are just words for something way to simple for words and so as I have been told, they are not wrong, but wrong. Practice goes on.
Yes I told this man he is a Theravadin Chauvinist, and it is not nice.
I would say it is not wise. Acknowledgement (but not agreement) of my different view is wise. They you had the opportunity to reply to my view that this sutra is nihilistic.
You may call me whatever you want but certainly I do not agree there is any truth to what you say. I simply generally regard the sutra as nihilistic and not leading to wisdom (although it can lead to calm abiding).
Once when I was working retreats, a newbie ask me what is reality. I replied there is no real reality apart from what is mind created. That was the closest I got to practising this sutra. The poor girl freaked out for a few days but we brought her around. In fact, she became a strong devotee.
When I'm loath to share practice on this site, it means the gig is truly up.
Personally, I have enjoyed your contributions Richard.
I apologise if I hi-jacked or distracted this thread. It was not really my intention.
It is best to reconcile within & without and start again.
Always be fresh.
Respectfully,
DD. :smilec:
P.S. This sutra does bring out strong emotions in its adherents. Nothingness is certainly appealing. It shows strong wishes for Nibbana....oops...sorry...;)
When someone comes up to you, and tells you something about the Buddha, and his words are those of which we do not agree, our knee jerk reaction should not be to cut them off at the knees. (Because they deserve it.)
If you don't, you're not giving me anything to practice with. If I don't, I'm not giving myself anything to practice with.
Of course, there's something to be said for not posting my knee jerk reactions. But that's different from not having them.
I did not mean to say that you and I would not have any inclinations toward arrogance and violence, out of either old habits or even fears. We might be inclined to react and/or attack something we saw as harmful to us, even what we believed to be wrongful ideas.
What I meant to get across, perhaps poorly, was that sometimes we had to be willing to step out of our personal comfort zone in order to see with ‘new eyes.’ This frees us from our entanglements with past attachments to concepts and self-images.
I am not trying to give anyone the idea that I am a saint, by any means, or that they should pretend to be a saint either.
But, very often we understand what is the ‘right action’ long before we can carry it off with any real proficiency. Yet, at the same time, it would be the better part of wisdom to at least intend in that direction, if we want to call ourselves follower of the Buddha.
P.S. This sutra does bring out strong emotions in its adherents. Nothingness is certainly appealing. It shows strong wishes for Nibbana....oops...sorry...;)
you still continue to assert that the sutra is about nothingness.
this is extremely incorrect.
nothingness is an extreme view and the heart sutra does not promote an extreme view in either materialist or nihilistic sense.
where are you getting this?
you still continue to assert that the sutra is about nothingness.
this is extremely incorrect.
nothingness is an extreme view and the heart sutra does not promote an extreme view in either materialist or nihilistic sense.
where are you getting this?
Precisely. Rather than criticising the sutra based on a very false misunderstanding of what the sutra is about, why not study what it is about in the first place?
In Buddhist philosophy and practice, “emptiness” – Shunyata (Sanskrit), Stong-pa-nyid (Tibetan), Kung (Chinese) – is a technical term that is sometimes also translated as “void” or “openness.” It points to the understanding that the things of the phenomenal world do not exist as separate, independent and permanent entities, but rather appear as the result of an infinite number of causes and conditions, i.e. are a product of dependent origination. For more on dependent origination, check out this excellent essay by Barbara O’Brien – About.com’s Guide to Buddhism.
The perfection of wisdom (prajnaparamita) is the realization of Dharmata – the innate nature of phenomena and mind. In terms of the innermost essence of each Buddhist practitioner, this is our Buddha Nature. In terms of the phenomenal world (including our physical/energetic bodies), this is emptiness/Shunyata, i.e. dependent origination. Ultimately, these two aspects are inseparable.
actually...it expresses a view of beneficial practise...
you can agree or disagree but there is no need for name calling...
please...why bother with this sutra if your mind cannot go beyond becoming offended?
maybe it is best to return to the beginners form...
if i quoted the Buddha's rationale for my post, it is to complete unfulfilled gratitude...
for me, there is none more inspiring than the Venerable Sariputta and for you, it appears something similar occurs regarding Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva...
this is a ridiculous post, considering that its coming from the person who grossly misinterprets both the sources you used and the sutra in question.
i'm sorry but you are way out of line.
The effect of me chanting "cakes are tasty, cakes are best " over and over again, and listening to cake recipes, is that I'm developing an addiction to cake and putting on weight.:D
The effect of me chanting "cakes are tasty, cakes are best " over and over again, and listening to cake recipes, is that I'm developing an addiction to cake and putting on weight.:D
For those who practicewith this Sutra. How has it opened or guided you?
For me, Richard, this Sutra has become my most important guide.
After contemplating this Sutra while sitting, I later found "The Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines" and then "The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom" which explained the qualities and experiences with this Sutra.
Thank you for asking this question. So nice to hear someone mention it.
This thread is amusing..Oh no someone critised a mahayana sutra, begin angry time :wtf:
It a basic respect thing, and your dismissive tone is ugly. This site has one effective moderator, Federica, who is practicing in the Thai forest tradition. When a core Mahayana Sutra is posted, it's legitimacy is mocked, and there isnt a peep from this moderator. What does this say to Mahayana practitioners? As someone who has been involved with both communities before coming online I was expecting to run into a lot of derogatory references to Hinayana, but have instead encountered Theravadin Chauvinism in several fora. Now this is just internet chat, Lincolns sandbox, so it doesn't amount to anything in the scheme of things, but it has revealed a real dissonance between the example of Ajahn Sumedho for instance and his more zealous lay followers. You should take your cue from the Ordained Sangha,they do not behave this way.
It a basic respect thing, and your dismissive tone is ugly. This site has one effective moderator, Federica, who is practicing in the Thai forest tradition. When a core Mahayana Sutra is posted, it's legitimacy is mocked, and there isnt a peep from this moderator. What does this say to Mahayana practitioners? As someone who has been involved with both communities before coming online I was expecting to run into a lot of derogatory references to Hinayana, but have instead encountered Theravadin Chauvinism in several fora. Now this is just internet chat, Lincolns sandbox, so it doesn't amount to anything in the scheme of things, but it has revealed a real dissonance between the example of Ajahn Sumedho for instance and his more zealous lay followers. You should take your cue from the Ordained Sangha,they do not behave this way.
From a mod's perspective, there's nothing inherently wrong with two people disagreeing about the legitimacy of a text, regardless of its source, and no need to take action unless someone starts to get too out of line. If that's the case, you should report the offending post if we haven't noticed it yet and we'll take the appropriate action, because frankly, we don't have time to read all of these threads. It's got nothing to do with the fact that most of use tend to lean more towards Theravada.
That said, from the looks of it, DD seems to have one point of view regarding the Mahaprajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra while you have another. If you disagree with what DD or anyone else has to say about it, you're free to engage them in debate or simply ignore their comments altogether (and believe me, I've done both myself on numerous occasions).
Whoa...... ........you think this is about wanting the moderator to enforce dogma? Are you serious? Read this thread again Lincoln. Look at what happened. A thread was heckled on sectarian grounds.
Whoa...... ........you think this is about wanting the moderator to enforce dogma? Are you serious? Read this thread again Lincoln. Look at what happened. A thread was heckled on sectarian grounds.
i have to voice some support for Richard on this one.
this thread was hijacked in a pretty aggressive manner.
emptiness is not something made up by the mind.this is how things have been from the start. appearance and emptiness are one entity and cannot be differentiated into separate entities. <!-- / message -->
IF THERE IS NO MIND HOW CAN THE IDEA OF EMPTINESS EXIST?
ONE SHOULD KNOW THAT ALL THINGS AND IDEAS ARE MADE UP BY THE MIND EVEN THE IDEA OF EMPTINESS AND THE EXISTENCE OF EMPTINESS ARE ALL MADE UP BY THE MIND.
ONE SHOULD KNOW THAT ALL THINGS AND IDEAS ARE MADE UP BY THE MIND EVEN THE IDEA OF EMPTINESS AND THE EXISTENCE OF EMPTINESS ARE ALL MADE UP BY THE MIND.
IF THERE IS NO MIND HOW CAN EMPTINESS EXIST?
sunyata or emptiness is how we define the nature of phenomena as lacking inherent existence. if one attaches to the conceptual understanding of emptiness then there is a problem.
no one here is asserting that emptiness "exists".
Your statement makes sense if one is a Yogacaran or even a Svatantrika Madhyamikan.
It a basic respect thing, and your dismissive tone is ugly. This site has one effective moderator, Federica, who is practicing in the Thai forest tradition. When a core Mahayana Sutra is posted, it's legitimacy is mocked, and there isnt a peep from this moderator. What does this say to Mahayana practitioners? As someone who has been involved with both communities before coming online I was expecting to run into a lot of derogatory references to Hinayana, but have instead encountered Theravadin Chauvinism in several fora. Now this is just internet chat, Lincolns sandbox, so it doesn't amount to anything in the scheme of things, but it has revealed a real dissonance between the example of Ajahn Sumedho for instance and his more zealous lay followers. You should take your cue from the Ordained Sangha,they do not behave this way.
Its ugly eh ? well perhapes you can help use this to increase equnimity
Who cares if a sutta is critised it happens alot, it defeats the point of being a buddhist if we continually become angry everytime someone points and laughs at us, we should laugh to
Its ugly eh ? well perhapes you can help use this to increase equnimity
Who cares if a sutta is critised it happens alot, it defeats the point of being a buddhist if we continually become angry everytime someone points and laughs at us, we should laugh to
H: IF THERE IS NO MIND HOW CAN THE IDEA OF EMPTINESS EXIST?
S9: You are quite right, emptiness IS a concept in the mind. There is actually no actual THING that is called emptiness.
You seem to have a keen mind to notice that.
Have you ever read any of Nagajuna's words about emptiness? He says that, even emptiness, is empty of emptiness. Say that 3 times really fast. ; ^ )
In other words, there is something going on that isn’t entirely confined within the mind, the mind objects, or her dualistic notions.
H: ONE SHOULD KNOW THAT ALL THINGS AND IDEAS ARE MADE UP BY THE MIND EVEN THE IDEA OF EMPTINESS AND THE EXISTENCE OF EMPTINESS ARE ALL MADE UP BY THE MIND.
S9: Yes, indeed, it is the mind that continuously pumps out these ideas all day long, much like our dreams do at night. Perhaps this is why, the Buddha spoke of 'Waking Up' to the Truth. Because the Buddha saw us as lolled into a sleeping state by the mind.
Just perhaps, the Truth isn’t just one more thought or concept…”same old/same old.”
H: IF THERE IS NO MIND HOW CAN EMPTINESS EXIST?
S9: There is a mind. But what is this mind outside of the manufacturing of these thoughts...a process. Mind is impermanent just as our thoughts are impermanent. (A flash in the pan.) So mind is empty of any real intrinsic being, as in "here today and gone tomorrow." The illusion in this is that we believe ourselves to be the mind.
I am one who sees the anatta doctrine a bit differently than many. I see it as speaking of the no REAL self in the ego, or the dream character of the mind, which we lovingly call me.
Tonight we chanted this sutra, as we do everytime we practice together as Sangha. We chanted it along the Refuges, and the Great Dharani. We chanted it along with Prostrations in preparation for formal Zazen. Then, after an evening of disciplined practice we turned our mats around and looked at each other. That look was the manifestation of the Maha Prajna Paramita Hridya Sutra. .......True mind?, no mind?. True self? No-self?. No such notions, and no trace of their absence.
So..... having started this thread by asking people what it means in their practice. This is the true meaning in my (our) practice.
Your practice, or that of your Sangha may be quite different, but if it leaves a trace, its off the mark.
I am one who sees the anatta doctrine a bit differently than many. I see it as speaking of the no REAL self in the ego, or the dream character of the mind, which we lovingly call me.
The tathagatha says that he has reborn many eaons of time and by this statement alone I cannot see how others see anatta differently than no real self ego, but some how others sees it differently and made the most confusing explanations to me.
Do your teacher show you how to see anatta in this way or do you realize this on your own?
S9: Yes, indeed, it is the mind that continuously pumps out these ideas all day long, much like our dreams do at night. Perhaps this is why, the Buddha spoke of 'Waking Up' to the Truth. Because the Buddha saw us as lolled into a sleeping state by the mind.
I knew you would understand come to understand this because I have read many of your posts and you seem to fall on the same track as I do because not many people put much effort to examine their own thoughts and mind.
Mind is impermanent just as our thoughts are impermanent.
Please consider your mind and your thoughts. They are totaly different from each other.
Your thoughts is born and not your mind.
If your mind is born also then the tathagatha cannot posses the one true mind the mind with no defilement, the non-discriminative mind.
consider literal rebirth. If there is a death to this mind then there cannot be any rebirth then the tathagatha cannot say we have reborn many, many times.
The mind has no changing nature. It is Thoughts that are continuously changing and not the mind. Thoughts can be touch by other thoughts but the mind remain the same.
the mind itself is unchanging and is untouchable by anything in the same way as space.
Space is unchanging and not moving, but it is the things within space is always changing and moving.
Whatever that is unchanging and not moving and cannot be touch by anything we can see that thing is permanent.
No one lives in a vacuum, so that I/everyone (whether they know it, or not), has had multiple teachers in their lives. Most of my spiritual teachers have come to me across the ages in the form of books. Yet, at the same time, that being said, I never accept anything (swallow it whole), which I haven’t personally witnessed myself.
That is one of the things that I so highly admire in Buddha; the fact that He said, “we shouldn’t even believe his words without seeing their truth for our self.”
Of course, many other Enlightened masters have said something very similar to this, simply because the Ultimate Truth is ubiquitous, and never confined to one man, no matter what some authoritive figures may think, or even say about this.
There are many reasons why people believe the things that they do. The vast number of humans believe in what has either been told to them (Tradition) because the familiar makes them feel comfortable, or because something fills a psychological need, perhaps not to just die, but to die and go to a heaven, (of one form or another.) Reasons don’t have to be reasonable. So we have people believing stuff all over the map, and most of them preferring not to question these beliefs.
I think that I may be using the word 'mind' differently than you are, my friend. When I speak of the 'mind,' I am more or less speaking in terms of the brain-mind and ego-mind. I do know, however, that some people use the word ‘mind’ as 'Mind' (usually capitalized to indicate this) as a more 'Transcendent Mind', which is above the physical/mental dichotomy of the individual mind, perhaps closer to what Zen calls ‘Original Mind’ (With some small differences in Zen)… (A complexity we can get into later if you wish to.)
So in this way, my way, small mind is nothing more than a process, and this process is made up of thoughts and their byproduct, actions.
Therefore, I believe we are agreeing on this, that there is something that is “Unborn.”
The ‘Mind with no defilements’ is not just a brain-mind made perfect, like a saint or something. (In the same way that love is different when you are speaking of loving your children say, and loving a hamburger. Same word yes, but not the same connotations or even the same meaning, really. Well, I think you see what I getting at. : ^ )
The 'Mind without defilements' is the Untouched Mind. This Mind is not made up of thoughts, nor is it constantly changing. Some call this transcendence, because it is not imprisoned within finitude.
Space makes a good metaphor, but is not really accurate in describing Transcendent Mind, because time and space are actually one thing. (Space doesn’t make sense at/all without movement, and movement IS time, [science stuff]) Mind is the Non-abiding, and is not within space, or time.
He illuminated the five skandhas and saw that they are all empty.
The four great elements unite to become a body, and when they separate, the body is destroyed. Each of the four elements returns to its original position, which is emptiness. One can only say, “This body is mine,” not “This body is me.” The body is like a house; you live in a house, but you do not say, “This house is me.”
Ditto for feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness which lacks inherent existence.
No ignorance and also no ending of ignorance to no old age and death and also no ending of old age and death.
Refers to the 12 links of Dependent Origination. It is an exhortation to practise without expectations "I have become enlightened!" or "How is it that I have still not become enlightened."
Form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form.
Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and objects of touch, the first five of the six objects of perception, have passed by, or perhaps they persist in your mind-consciousness, where they all leave a shadow. What is the shadow? Maintain that a certain phenomenon exists, and it has already gone past; maintain that it does not exist, yet you remember it. You say that it doesn’t exist, yet there in your mind consciousness it still persists, as if it were carved on a wooden board. The shadow exists, but there is no way to see it, hear it, or seek out its genuine character.
The pairing of the six forms which are objects of perception with the six perceptual faculties produces the six consciousnesses, in which there arises discrimination of the form. The specific nature of each of the six perceptual faculties (i.e. the consciousness associated with each) – seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and knowing – is empty. Since the nature is empty and the form is manifest from the nature, form is also empty. In other words, in form there is emptiness. You do not have to leave form to find emptiness.
About form and the seeing-nature. Which of the two would you say exists first? If form exists first, then how can it manifest when there is no seeing? If you say that seeing exists first, then where does the seeing-nature go when there is no form? So, if there is no form, the seeing-nature has no function. Therefore, both the seeing-nature and form are fundamentally empty. Some people who do not understand the Buddhadharma see emptiness and think that it is certainly empty; they see existence and think that it is certainly existent.
There are many reasons why people believe the things that they do. The vast number of humans believe in what has either been told to them (Tradition) because the familiar makes them feel comfortable, or because something fills a psychological need, perhaps not to just die, but to die and go to a heaven, (of one form or another.) Reasons don’t have to be reasonable. So we have people believing stuff all over the map, and most of them preferring not to question these beliefs.
Thanks for this informations. It really is enlightening to know this. I was trying to figure this out for so many years.
Couldn’t we restate, pretty much what you have just said about the mind and her children, but this time couldn't we call it the definition of a dream, without blinking?
If so, what I am left wondering is, who or what supports this dream, this mind that is dreaming our daily life? I won’t even get into asking why have a dream at all?
If we don’t answer certain questions in some satisfactory manner, than we are left simply building up structures within structures (of explanations) with no actual support or justification, much like a house of cards.
Oh, it will keep your little grey cells busy, sure. But, the house will not stand when the winds of crisis begin to blow in your life.
(Isn’t this how the whole co-dependent arising thing is explained.) It explains what isn’t reality, yet, where do we look for a viable explanation of what Reality actually Is?
(Isn’t this how the whole co-dependent arising thing is explained.) It explains what isn’t reality, yet, where do we look for a viable explanation of what Reality actually Is?
Reality is simply the experience of this moment. Everything else is conjecture or imputation.
"What lies on the other side of ignorance?"
"Clear knowing lies on the other side of ignorance."
"What lies on the other side of clear knowing?"
"Release lies on the other side of clear knowing."
"What lies on the other side of release?"
"Unbinding lies on the other side of release."
"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"
"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life gains a footing in Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end. If you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of these things. Whatever he says, that's how you should remember it."
Can you elaborate, please? I don't see the connection, though I am enjoying reading the sutra.
S9 and I are in agreement that most people, me included are usually unaware of the "dream" state we live in. But he questions who the dreamer is or the mind that is dreaming our daily life?
In other words who is the awakened self? "What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"
He has reached the limit of questions and gone into the 'event horizon'.
I must admit that although you have me entering into, or is it having gone (down some black hole…Google’s idea) irretrievably into the ‘event horizon,’ that I have no idea what that is. Could you please explain this to me?
Is that a good thing, (got my fingers cross here)? ; ^ )
I guess the world will be glad that I have run out, reach some kind of limit on my endless questioning. (Everyone in the world takes a relieved breath [AHHH] and is thankful for small blessings.) But, something tells me that I haven’t quite run out of questions, sorry to disappoint everyone. Actually questions are the road I walk on. They are my path.
P: In other words who is the awakened self? "What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"
S9: Yes, indeed, could you answer that in your own words, please?
S9 and I are in agreement that most people, me included are usually unaware of the "dream" state we live in. But he questions who the dreamer is or the mind that is dreaming our daily life?
In other words who is the awakened self? "What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"
He has reached the limit of questions and gone into the 'event horizon'.
Event Horizon is a skillful way of saying it, but even to say "What lies on the other side of Unbinding?" is a question/projection. Buddha Dharma is practice without projections. We have the key indicators of Eternalism and Nihilism that trump even the most subtle projections.
5: Reality is simply the experience of this moment.
S9: This may indeed be the case. But although everyone experiences, very few actually know Reality for what it is. Most of us are sleepwalking.
Even the word ‘moment’ is little understood. Is a moment that tiny little increment of time between past and future? Of course not.
(Since it is highly arbitrary where the past stops and the future begins, is it not?)
Don’t be fooled into complacency, just because you can say the word "moment," or into thinking you know what the moment is, or that you have captured its essence, once and for all. The ‘Moment’ holds much mystery. Understand just that, and you are well on your way to understanding everything, IMPO.
5: Everything else is conjecture or imputation.
S9: Everything in the mind is, yes indeed. Direct experience without conjecture is our purest experience, but remain ineffable.
I always enjoy your input. You cut right to the chase. (I could use a truckload of that (being brief) but at least I’m enjoying myself. That’s something.) ; ^ )
Even the word ‘moment’ is little understood. Is a moment that tiny little increment of time between past and future? Of course not.
(Since it is highly arbitrary where the past stops and the future begins, is it not?)
There is still a model of external reality implicit in this objection, because the passage of time is an imputation from memory. The point is to let go of that model. "Experience of this moment" simply means the data from the six senses as they arise.
Don’t be fooled into complacency, just because you can say the word "moment," or into thinking you know what the moment is, or that you have captured its essence, once and for all. The ‘Moment’ holds much mystery. Understand just that, and you are well on your way to understanding everything, IMPO.
I would be grateful to learn a bit more about this mystery.
I always enjoy your input. You cut right to the chase. (I could use a truckload of that (being brief) but at least I’m enjoying myself. That’s something.) ; ^ )
It's merely a result of being here when I should be doing other stuff.
5: There is still a model of external reality implicit in this objection, because the passage of time is an imputation from memory.
S9: Could you elucidate on this statement (above) just a little further, please. Something tells me it is just rich in details, also implicit in your reply. I promise you that I am not just being cute. : ^ )
Let me share this however, with you. I don’t actually believe in an external reality of any kind, whatsoever. I only believe in the ‘One Eternal Moment.”
5: The point is to let go of that model. "Experience of this moment" simply means the data from the six senses as they arise.
S9: Perhaps the thing to do, actually, is to let go of every model. But since the mind cannot do that, when we are in the process of using the mind, we are quite condemned to use one model or another, are we not?
When we are speak to another, we cannot be outside of mind, as speaking is one of mind’s children. (Can’t have one without the other.)
However, let us remember that the senses are instruments of the mind, and therefore only capable of mind truth, and even that is extremely limited within a lineal way of viewing.
Now, if you are speaking of witnessing the “Eternal Moment,’ that is entirely different. But this information doesn’t come to us through our senses.
5: I would be grateful to learn a bit more about this mystery.
S9: there is no doubt in my mind that you are tapping into this mystery already. I can hear it in your words. It lives right there in the center of your own longing.
5: Has your practice led you to something beyond your own experience, beyond your mind?
S9: Beyond the mind, “yes.” There is however nothing beyond direct experience. (This experience is both implicit, and self evident, requiring no thing outside of it self to confirm it.) It is only that I am not entire dependent upon my mind to know anymore. It is only a quiet certainty, free of all definition. I like the word ‘Presence’ to describe it, or maybe ‘Solitude.’ Some call it the "Eternal Here and Now." I think you might call it "Buddha Nature."
But, don’t get the idea that I have gone off somewhere, to some altered dimension. We are all swimming in this ocean, every single one of us. Some of us just get a glimpse of what is foundational, yet unobstructive, and completely pure of admixture. (No big deal!)
Subjectivity. May I ask you a question. Honestly... Do you consider yourself to be an enlightened teacher?
could you please give a comentary on this...
Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, practicing deep prajna paramita, clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty, transforming all suffering and distress. Shariputra, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form. Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form. Sensation, thought, impulse, consciousness are also like this. Shariputra, all things are marked by emptiness - not born, not destroyed, not stained, not pure, without gain, without loss. Therefore in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, thought, impulse, consciousness. No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind. No colour, sound, smell, taste, touch, object of thought. No realm of sight to no realm of thought. No ignorance and also no ending of ignorance to no old age and death and also no ending of old age and death. No suffering, and also no source of suffering, no annihilation, no path. No wisdom, also no attainment. Having nothing to attain, Bodhisattvas live prajna paramita with no hindrance in the mind. No hindrance, thus no fear. Far beyond delusive thinking, they attain complete Nirvana. All Buddhas past, present and future live prajna paramita and thus attain anuttara samyak sambodhi. Therefore, know that prajna paramita is the great mantra, the wisdom mantra, the unsurpassed mantra, the supreme mantra, which completely removes all suffering. This is truth, not deception. Therefore set forth the prajna paramita mantra, set forth this mantra and say: Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
Could you please give a commentary on these lines. Thankyou.
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
Comments
This Sutras meaning evokes presence. A unity of stillness and motion, where bodymind and world are a single unflolding continuum. "I" am merely the absence that is completely filled with the presence of the world. The world is alone, ownerless and unobstructed. There is spontaneus action.
These are just words for something way to simple for words and so as I have been told, they are not wrong, but wrong. Practice goes on.
You may call me whatever you want but certainly I do not agree there is any truth to what you say. I simply generally regard the sutra as nihilistic and not leading to wisdom (although it can lead to calm abiding).
Once when I was working retreats, a newbie ask me what is reality. I replied there is no real reality apart from what is mind created. That was the closest I got to practising this sutra. The poor girl freaked out for a few days but we brought her around. In fact, she became a strong devotee.
With metta
DD
I apologise if I hi-jacked or distracted this thread. It was not really my intention.
It is best to reconcile within & without and start again.
Always be fresh.
Respectfully,
DD. :smilec:
P.S. This sutra does bring out strong emotions in its adherents. Nothingness is certainly appealing. It shows strong wishes for Nibbana....oops...sorry...;)
Of course, there's something to be said for not posting my knee jerk reactions. But that's different from not having them.
I did not mean to say that you and I would not have any inclinations toward arrogance and violence, out of either old habits or even fears. We might be inclined to react and/or attack something we saw as harmful to us, even what we believed to be wrongful ideas.
What I meant to get across, perhaps poorly, was that sometimes we had to be willing to step out of our personal comfort zone in order to see with ‘new eyes.’ This frees us from our entanglements with past attachments to concepts and self-images.
I am not trying to give anyone the idea that I am a saint, by any means, or that they should pretend to be a saint either.
But, very often we understand what is the ‘right action’ long before we can carry it off with any real proficiency. Yet, at the same time, it would be the better part of wisdom to at least intend in that direction, if we want to call ourselves follower of the Buddha.
Warm regards,
S9
this is extremely incorrect.
nothingness is an extreme view and the heart sutra does not promote an extreme view in either materialist or nihilistic sense.
where are you getting this?
Here is just a very brief introduction:
http://taoism.about.com/od/buddhism/a/emptiness.htm
Emptiness in Buddhism
In Buddhist philosophy and practice, “emptiness” – Shunyata (Sanskrit), Stong-pa-nyid (Tibetan), Kung (Chinese) – is a technical term that is sometimes also translated as “void” or “openness.” It points to the understanding that the things of the phenomenal world do not exist as separate, independent and permanent entities, but rather appear as the result of an infinite number of causes and conditions, i.e. are a product of dependent origination. For more on dependent origination, check out this excellent essay by Barbara O’Brien – About.com’s Guide to Buddhism.
The perfection of wisdom (prajnaparamita) is the realization of Dharmata – the innate nature of phenomena and mind. In terms of the innermost essence of each Buddhist practitioner, this is our Buddha Nature. In terms of the phenomenal world (including our physical/energetic bodies), this is emptiness/Shunyata, i.e. dependent origination. Ultimately, these two aspects are inseparable.
i'm sorry but you are way out of line.
The effect of me chanting "cakes are tasty, cakes are best " over and over again, and listening to cake recipes, is that I'm developing an addiction to cake and putting on weight.:D
_/\_
Getting older hurts :cool:
Only if we want it to, Cazzie dear !:)
_/\_
Tell that to the many decaying bodies
It a basic respect thing, and your dismissive tone is ugly. This site has one effective moderator, Federica, who is practicing in the Thai forest tradition. When a core Mahayana Sutra is posted, it's legitimacy is mocked, and there isnt a peep from this moderator. What does this say to Mahayana practitioners? As someone who has been involved with both communities before coming online I was expecting to run into a lot of derogatory references to Hinayana, but have instead encountered Theravadin Chauvinism in several fora. Now this is just internet chat, Lincolns sandbox, so it doesn't amount to anything in the scheme of things, but it has revealed a real dissonance between the example of Ajahn Sumedho for instance and his more zealous lay followers. You should take your cue from the Ordained Sangha,they do not behave this way.
From a mod's perspective, there's nothing inherently wrong with two people disagreeing about the legitimacy of a text, regardless of its source, and no need to take action unless someone starts to get too out of line. If that's the case, you should report the offending post if we haven't noticed it yet and we'll take the appropriate action, because frankly, we don't have time to read all of these threads. It's got nothing to do with the fact that most of use tend to lean more towards Theravada.
That said, from the looks of it, DD seems to have one point of view regarding the Mahaprajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra while you have another. If you disagree with what DD or anyone else has to say about it, you're free to engage them in debate or simply ignore their comments altogether (and believe me, I've done both myself on numerous occasions).
this thread was hijacked in a pretty aggressive manner.
IF THERE IS NO MIND HOW CAN THE IDEA OF EMPTINESS EXIST?
IF THERE IS NO MIND HOW CAN EMPTINESS EXIST?
sunyata or emptiness is how we define the nature of phenomena as lacking inherent existence. if one attaches to the conceptual understanding of emptiness then there is a problem.
no one here is asserting that emptiness "exists".
Your statement makes sense if one is a Yogacaran or even a Svatantrika Madhyamikan.
Its ugly eh ? well perhapes you can help use this to increase equnimity
Who cares if a sutta is critised it happens alot, it defeats the point of being a buddhist if we continually become angry everytime someone points and laughs at us, we should laugh to
......yeh your right.:)
H: IF THERE IS NO MIND HOW CAN THE IDEA OF EMPTINESS EXIST?
S9: You are quite right, emptiness IS a concept in the mind. There is actually no actual THING that is called emptiness.
You seem to have a keen mind to notice that.
Have you ever read any of Nagajuna's words about emptiness? He says that, even emptiness, is empty of emptiness. Say that 3 times really fast. ; ^ )
In other words, there is something going on that isn’t entirely confined within the mind, the mind objects, or her dualistic notions.
H: ONE SHOULD KNOW THAT ALL THINGS AND IDEAS ARE MADE UP BY THE MIND EVEN THE IDEA OF EMPTINESS AND THE EXISTENCE OF EMPTINESS ARE ALL MADE UP BY THE MIND.
S9: Yes, indeed, it is the mind that continuously pumps out these ideas all day long, much like our dreams do at night. Perhaps this is why, the Buddha spoke of 'Waking Up' to the Truth. Because the Buddha saw us as lolled into a sleeping state by the mind.
Just perhaps, the Truth isn’t just one more thought or concept…”same old/same old.”
H: IF THERE IS NO MIND HOW CAN EMPTINESS EXIST?
S9: There is a mind. But what is this mind outside of the manufacturing of these thoughts...a process. Mind is impermanent just as our thoughts are impermanent. (A flash in the pan.) So mind is empty of any real intrinsic being, as in "here today and gone tomorrow." The illusion in this is that we believe ourselves to be the mind.
I am one who sees the anatta doctrine a bit differently than many. I see it as speaking of the no REAL self in the ego, or the dream character of the mind, which we lovingly call me.
Warm Regards,
S9
So..... having started this thread by asking people what it means in their practice. This is the true meaning in my (our) practice.
Your practice, or that of your Sangha may be quite different, but if it leaves a trace, its off the mark.
The tathagatha says that he has reborn many eaons of time and by this statement alone I cannot see how others see anatta differently than no real self ego, but some how others sees it differently and made the most confusing explanations to me.
Do your teacher show you how to see anatta in this way or do you realize this on your own?
I knew you would understand come to understand this because I have read many of your posts and you seem to fall on the same track as I do because not many people put much effort to examine their own thoughts and mind.
Please consider your mind and your thoughts. They are totaly different from each other.
Your thoughts is born and not your mind.
If your mind is born also then the tathagatha cannot posses the one true mind the mind with no defilement, the non-discriminative mind.
consider literal rebirth. If there is a death to this mind then there cannot be any rebirth then the tathagatha cannot say we have reborn many, many times.
The mind has no changing nature. It is Thoughts that are continuously changing and not the mind. Thoughts can be touch by other thoughts but the mind remain the same.
the mind itself is unchanging and is untouchable by anything in the same way as space.
Space is unchanging and not moving, but it is the things within space is always changing and moving.
Whatever that is unchanging and not moving and cannot be touch by anything we can see that thing is permanent.
we can see that space is permanent.
No one lives in a vacuum, so that I/everyone (whether they know it, or not), has had multiple teachers in their lives. Most of my spiritual teachers have come to me across the ages in the form of books. Yet, at the same time, that being said, I never accept anything (swallow it whole), which I haven’t personally witnessed myself.
That is one of the things that I so highly admire in Buddha; the fact that He said, “we shouldn’t even believe his words without seeing their truth for our self.”
Of course, many other Enlightened masters have said something very similar to this, simply because the Ultimate Truth is ubiquitous, and never confined to one man, no matter what some authoritive figures may think, or even say about this.
There are many reasons why people believe the things that they do. The vast number of humans believe in what has either been told to them (Tradition) because the familiar makes them feel comfortable, or because something fills a psychological need, perhaps not to just die, but to die and go to a heaven, (of one form or another.) Reasons don’t have to be reasonable. So we have people believing stuff all over the map, and most of them preferring not to question these beliefs.
I think that I may be using the word 'mind' differently than you are, my friend. When I speak of the 'mind,' I am more or less speaking in terms of the brain-mind and ego-mind. I do know, however, that some people use the word ‘mind’ as 'Mind' (usually capitalized to indicate this) as a more 'Transcendent Mind', which is above the physical/mental dichotomy of the individual mind, perhaps closer to what Zen calls ‘Original Mind’ (With some small differences in Zen)… (A complexity we can get into later if you wish to.)
So in this way, my way, small mind is nothing more than a process, and this process is made up of thoughts and their byproduct, actions.
Therefore, I believe we are agreeing on this, that there is something that is “Unborn.”
The ‘Mind with no defilements’ is not just a brain-mind made perfect, like a saint or something. (In the same way that love is different when you are speaking of loving your children say, and loving a hamburger. Same word yes, but not the same connotations or even the same meaning, really. Well, I think you see what I getting at. : ^ )
The 'Mind without defilements' is the Untouched Mind. This Mind is not made up of thoughts, nor is it constantly changing. Some call this transcendence, because it is not imprisoned within finitude.
Space makes a good metaphor, but is not really accurate in describing Transcendent Mind, because time and space are actually one thing. (Space doesn’t make sense at/all without movement, and movement IS time, [science stuff]) Mind is the Non-abiding, and is not within space, or time.
Yes, permanent, we can agree on that.
Warm regards,
S9
The four great elements unite to become a body, and when they separate, the body is destroyed. Each of the four elements returns to its original position, which is emptiness. One can only say, “This body is mine,” not “This body is me.” The body is like a house; you live in a house, but you do not say, “This house is me.”
Ditto for feeling, cognition, formation, and consciousness which lacks inherent existence.
Refers to the 12 links of Dependent Origination. It is an exhortation to practise without expectations "I have become enlightened!" or "How is it that I have still not become enlightened."
Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and objects of touch, the first five of the six objects of perception, have passed by, or perhaps they persist in your mind-consciousness, where they all leave a shadow. What is the shadow? Maintain that a certain phenomenon exists, and it has already gone past; maintain that it does not exist, yet you remember it. You say that it doesn’t exist, yet there in your mind consciousness it still persists, as if it were carved on a wooden board. The shadow exists, but there is no way to see it, hear it, or seek out its genuine character.
The pairing of the six forms which are objects of perception with the six perceptual faculties produces the six consciousnesses, in which there arises discrimination of the form. The specific nature of each of the six perceptual faculties (i.e. the consciousness associated with each) – seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and knowing – is empty. Since the nature is empty and the form is manifest from the nature, form is also empty. In other words, in form there is emptiness. You do not have to leave form to find emptiness.
About form and the seeing-nature. Which of the two would you say exists first? If form exists first, then how can it manifest when there is no seeing? If you say that seeing exists first, then where does the seeing-nature go when there is no form? So, if there is no form, the seeing-nature has no function. Therefore, both the seeing-nature and form are fundamentally empty. Some people who do not understand the Buddhadharma see emptiness and think that it is certainly empty; they see existence and think that it is certainly existent.
adapted Ven Hsuan Hua
Thanks for this informations. It really is enlightening to know this. I was trying to figure this out for so many years.
Couldn’t we restate, pretty much what you have just said about the mind and her children, but this time couldn't we call it the definition of a dream, without blinking?
If so, what I am left wondering is, who or what supports this dream, this mind that is dreaming our daily life? I won’t even get into asking why have a dream at all?
If we don’t answer certain questions in some satisfactory manner, than we are left simply building up structures within structures (of explanations) with no actual support or justification, much like a house of cards.
Oh, it will keep your little grey cells busy, sure. But, the house will not stand when the winds of crisis begin to blow in your life.
(Isn’t this how the whole co-dependent arising thing is explained.) It explains what isn’t reality, yet, where do we look for a viable explanation of what Reality actually Is?
Respectfully,
S9
"What lies on the other side of ignorance?"
"Clear knowing lies on the other side of ignorance."
"What lies on the other side of clear knowing?"
"Release lies on the other side of clear knowing."
"What lies on the other side of release?"
"Unbinding lies on the other side of release."
"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"
"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life gains a footing in Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end. If you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of these things. Whatever he says, that's how you should remember it."
Culavedalla Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html
S9 and I are in agreement that most people, me included are usually unaware of the "dream" state we live in. But he questions who the dreamer is or the mind that is dreaming our daily life?
In other words who is the awakened self? "What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"
He has reached the limit of questions and gone into the 'event horizon'.
I must admit that although you have me entering into, or is it having gone (down some black hole…Google’s idea) irretrievably into the ‘event horizon,’ that I have no idea what that is. Could you please explain this to me?
Is that a good thing, (got my fingers cross here)? ; ^ )
I guess the world will be glad that I have run out, reach some kind of limit on my endless questioning. (Everyone in the world takes a relieved breath [AHHH] and is thankful for small blessings.) But, something tells me that I haven’t quite run out of questions, sorry to disappoint everyone. Actually questions are the road I walk on. They are my path.
P: In other words who is the awakened self? "What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"
S9: Yes, indeed, could you answer that in your own words, please?
Warm Regards,
S9
5: Reality is simply the experience of this moment.
S9: This may indeed be the case. But although everyone experiences, very few actually know Reality for what it is. Most of us are sleepwalking.
Even the word ‘moment’ is little understood. Is a moment that tiny little increment of time between past and future? Of course not.
(Since it is highly arbitrary where the past stops and the future begins, is it not?)
Don’t be fooled into complacency, just because you can say the word "moment," or into thinking you know what the moment is, or that you have captured its essence, once and for all. The ‘Moment’ holds much mystery. Understand just that, and you are well on your way to understanding everything, IMPO.
5: Everything else is conjecture or imputation.
S9: Everything in the mind is, yes indeed. Direct experience without conjecture is our purest experience, but remain ineffable.
I always enjoy your input. You cut right to the chase. (I could use a truckload of that (being brief) but at least I’m enjoying myself. That’s something.) ; ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
There is still a model of external reality implicit in this objection, because the passage of time is an imputation from memory. The point is to let go of that model. "Experience of this moment" simply means the data from the six senses as they arise.
I would be grateful to learn a bit more about this mystery.
Has your practice led you to something beyond your own experience, beyond your mind?
It's merely a result of being here when I should be doing other stuff.
5: There is still a model of external reality implicit in this objection, because the passage of time is an imputation from memory.
S9: Could you elucidate on this statement (above) just a little further, please. Something tells me it is just rich in details, also implicit in your reply. I promise you that I am not just being cute. : ^ )
Let me share this however, with you. I don’t actually believe in an external reality of any kind, whatsoever. I only believe in the ‘One Eternal Moment.”
5: The point is to let go of that model. "Experience of this moment" simply means the data from the six senses as they arise.
S9: Perhaps the thing to do, actually, is to let go of every model. But since the mind cannot do that, when we are in the process of using the mind, we are quite condemned to use one model or another, are we not?
When we are speak to another, we cannot be outside of mind, as speaking is one of mind’s children. (Can’t have one without the other.)
However, let us remember that the senses are instruments of the mind, and therefore only capable of mind truth, and even that is extremely limited within a lineal way of viewing.
Now, if you are speaking of witnessing the “Eternal Moment,’ that is entirely different. But this information doesn’t come to us through our senses.
5: I would be grateful to learn a bit more about this mystery.
S9: there is no doubt in my mind that you are tapping into this mystery already. I can hear it in your words. It lives right there in the center of your own longing.
5: Has your practice led you to something beyond your own experience, beyond your mind?
S9: Beyond the mind, “yes.” There is however nothing beyond direct experience. (This experience is both implicit, and self evident, requiring no thing outside of it self to confirm it.) It is only that I am not entire dependent upon my mind to know anymore. It is only a quiet certainty, free of all definition. I like the word ‘Presence’ to describe it, or maybe ‘Solitude.’ Some call it the "Eternal Here and Now." I think you might call it "Buddha Nature."
But, don’t get the idea that I have gone off somewhere, to some altered dimension. We are all swimming in this ocean, every single one of us. Some of us just get a glimpse of what is foundational, yet unobstructive, and completely pure of admixture. (No big deal!)
Peace,
S9
could you please give a comentary on this...
Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, practicing deep prajna paramita,
clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty, transforming all suffering and distress.
Shariputra, form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form.
Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form.
Sensation, thought, impulse, consciousness are also like this.
Shariputra, all things are marked by emptiness -
not born, not destroyed,
not stained, not pure,
without gain, without loss.
Therefore in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, thought, impulse, consciousness.
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind.
No colour, sound, smell, taste, touch, object of thought.
No realm of sight to no realm of thought.
No ignorance and also no ending of ignorance to no old age and death and also no ending of old age and death.
No suffering, and also no source of suffering, no annihilation, no path.
No wisdom, also no attainment.
Having nothing to attain, Bodhisattvas live prajna paramita with no hindrance in the mind.
No hindrance, thus no fear.
Far beyond delusive thinking, they attain complete Nirvana.
All Buddhas past, present and future live prajna paramita and thus attain anuttara samyak sambodhi.
Therefore, know that prajna paramita is the great mantra, the wisdom mantra, the unsurpassed mantra, the supreme mantra, which completely removes all suffering. This is truth, not deception. Therefore set forth the prajna paramita mantra, set forth this mantra and say: Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
Could you please give a commentary on these lines. Thankyou.
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->