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.
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.”
I will be happy to elucidate whatever's unclear, but if you don't believe in an external reality the notion of time as an imputation from memory seems like a small step. Also, what kind of explanation were you looking for when you asked "where do we look for a viable explanation of what Reality actually Is?"
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.)
Yes, that remark I made about the experience of the moment as reality was in response to you asking about what reality actually is.
Haven’t your stopped riding that horse, yet? Put away your guns, and give it a rest, dear fellow.
I am simply saying what I personally have witnessed. Is that a bad thing?
Peace,
S9
Its not a test S9. I'm serious. Do you honestly consider yourself to be an enlightened teacher. There are people who step forward and say so, and proceed to teach, thats fine.
I would also be interested to actually hear you go through this sutra in the light of your experience. This is sincere.
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
Sorry, never been there.
But isn't Nibbana the end of dukkha or craving.
Verse 153: I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!
Verse 154: Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters(craving) are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.
I don’t do sutra translation. That is above my pay grade, and not within my job description. I believe the better part of wisdom is knowing one's own limitations.
Also:
It makes no sense to start labeling myself, when I am trying to go beyond my small self, and my greater Self will not submit to description.
So my advice to you would be, stop worrying about who I am, and find out who you are.
P: But isn't Nibbana the end of dukkha or craving.
S9: Since most of our suffering comes from believing that we are the small-self, or the ego-self, I would imagine in knowing you are not that small self, that you could say, “you were beyond suffering to a good extent, at least.”
Doesn’t that follow logically?
The reason that I caveat my statement above, by saying “to a good extent” is, the dream hasn’t discontinued just because you have managed to redefine who you in fact are-not, at least. You are not the ego.
So in stands to reason that, the dream-hand will still have pain if you stick it into a dream-fire and do not withdraw it when it begins to dream-cook.
I imagine at that point (the cooking hand), that the body at least will crave to retrieve that poor hand from the fire, and go on to crave pain medication, darn it, and even after that to go on craving the healing of that unfortunate hand, so you can get out of the darn hospital. ; ^ ) I bet even Buddha would want to get out of the hospital and go home, on some level.
So I guess what I am saying is, craving doesn’t completely end, because craving doesn’t just mean giving up pizza and a movie. Craving is a survival mechanism built into a very efficient system, we call body.
Now, how do we define suffering, is it just pain…is that what Buddha meant? Of is suffering that extra stuff we add to the actual pain of the dreaming self? (AKA the unnecessary pain.) In other words, “Wrongful identification” is suffering, and can be made to stop. This distancing of one’s Self from the dream self is a very great burden dropped.
If the dream goes on for a million years, or forever, no matter, it is not you after all, it is a dream, like your dreams last night. They come up and melt away, but are or little real consequence.
I don’t do sutra translation. That is above my pay grade, and not within my job description. I believe the better part of wisdom is knowing one's own limitations.
Also:
It makes no sense to start labeling myself, when I am trying to go beyond my small self, and my greater Self will not submit to description.
So my advice to you would be, stop worrying about who I am, and find out who you are.
Have a good day,
S9
Who you are is no worry. But, addressing this sutra is the point of this thread. Can you speak to the meaning of this sutra, these lines, its already been translated for you.
Kind of a loaded question, isn't it? Who would answer in the affirmative?
Ive met a couple of people who do, and regard it as a simple statement. Whether they are Enlightened or not I'm not sure, but they delare as Enlightened teachers outside of lineage. This is not unusual.
One fellow seems genuine enough in his honesty and intention. I cant say if he is or not. He seems to have it together (more than me:o). The point is, by his measure he is and he states so.
Just I know you're in Canada, and I will probably go to Montreal at some point in the forseeable future, and it would be interesting to meet such a person.
5: I will be happy to elucidate whatever's unclear, but if you don't believe in an external reality the notion of time as an imputation from memory seems like a small step.
S9: Perhaps: but often I want to know where someone else is coming from in their own terms. If I find myself at all confused, or not on top of what someone is saying to me, I will very often ask for clarification. It saves guessing, (not one of my strengths.)
5: What kind of explanation were you looking for when you asked, "where do we look for a viable explanation of what Reality actually Is?"
S9: I want to know where exactly you look, and how you interpret what you come upon.
Actually, that seems to be a big thing with me, wanting to hear about personal experience. So much is 'pie in the sky,' and with no place to come down for a landing.
5: Yes, that remark I made about the experience of the moment as reality was in response to you asking about what reality actually is.
S9: Do you not have 2 realities going on simultaneously, one being a dream thing, and the other dawning slowly through insight?
If that isn't good enough, just make one up for me and pretend that I said it. It will be our little secret. ; ^ )
S9
Ok. You do not practice with this sutra. Have no particular interest in it, and are simply ignoring the point and intention of this thread, the reason for the thread, the question of this thread. It is merely a platform for your own thing. This is why I think you do think you are an enlightened teacher. So ok. shhhhh its our secret.
Just I know you're in Canada, and I will probably go to Montreal at some point in the forseeable future, and it would be interesting to meet such a person.
Montreal has a few people like that, Toronto a couple, in Vancouver they are a dime a dozen, and in Calgary there is absolutely no possiblity of Enlightenment.
Honestly. There are some good Dharma Centers and teachers in Canada. Not too familiar with the Montreal scene, as I'm in Toronto.
If the dream goes on for a million years, or forever, no matter, it is not you after all, it is a dream, like your dreams last night. They come up and melt away, but are or little real consequence.
Warm regards,
S9
Ah hey yes very interesting conversation and i thought this was interesting as well though because it piques my small-handed brain, now does it matter? it is not the true you but it is you it is a projection of you and as you said subjectivity 9 as you said, there are two realities going on inside this one great big head this great big head that contains our small head, like a wasp inside a tree, a wasp who stings the singing tree HEE HEE HEE and bleeds its flesh, HAHAHA , because i like the image of a living tree and we are sort of like trees ah we're like wise weathered beautiful trees.... anyways i'm getting crazy, like you said we live two realities, and our goal is to merge the two realities together into one, nibbana and the phenomenal world... ahh and it does matter because even though retrospectively once all beings have reached enlightenment, and they reach the perfect eternity of nirvana and are at rest and in peace and filled of bliss and empty as the stars that shine above us in emptiness's brilliance they can look upon the past with a tranquil heart, though are not they still living the torment of their dream-selves projected through time which is really a non-time but in its delusionness becomes a non-non-time and all delusions are as real as the dead bugs you must clean off your windshield? i think the only thing i'm saying and i'm not arguing at all just interested in joining and creating discussion is that ultimately yes these dream-selves are KAPUT they are illusions fleeting illusions but they are all still dream-selves contained in the eternity of now, and it is how you spend your time that counts.
I don’t think that anyone can tell you what is the 'right thing' to do, or how to live your life. (I am a bit of a Taoist in this respect.) So that ‘All’ that I can say, to any friend is, “This is what I have observed. This is what I have tried. This is how it worked out for me.”
Yes, two realities going on at the same time, (what some have called “superimposition”).
However, only one mind abides within the bony cage, which we call our head, that being the brain-mind (organic/material) and her flowering of the ego-mind (a mental projection). The ego is simply a story-mind created out of our need for adaptation and survival within the mental/material manifestation/projection, which we call the earth.
The "Other Reality," which some call the “One,” or the “Original Mind” is actually no part of our mental projections. It stands apart in this way. It is Complete and Unchanging with no definable parts.
And:
It is not temporary OR impermanent, is not a dream. This is what we 'WAKE UP' to.
This 'Ultimate Reality' is not however unobservable by any means, even though we do not use our senses, our thoughts, our more abstract reasoning to accesses It. It is also not void or empty of essence. It is actually full of Being or Aware of Being (if you will).
This 'Being/Awareness' is what I have often called our 'Buddha Nature,' or our most fundamental and Essential Being, or Awareness of Awareness. Awareness is holy aware of its self, and in fact wants to be known. You can feel this in your own longing to understand, and to get out from under this burden which we call everyday life. No matter how we try, or may object, our life as we presently live it is not successful, simply because it is not satisfying.
Daily life of the material/mental kind goes on quite automatically, watch closely and see if I am not saying something true here.
An automatic life flows like a river, between the banks of circumstance. You on the other hand sit quietly by, unruffled by changes or unconcerned about changes...Awake in this dream.
This 'Being/Awareness' is what I have often called our 'Buddha Nature,' or our most fundamental and Essential Being, or Awareness of Awareness. Awareness is holy aware of its self, and in fact wants to be known. You can feel this in your own longing to understand, and to get out from under this burden which we call everyday life. No matter how we try, or may object, our life as we presently live it is not successful, simply because it is not satisfying.
how do you see true reality in this way. do you meditate upon it or a reading have awaken you to this view or others?
H: How do you see true reality in this way? Do you meditate upon it, or a reading have awaken you to this view, or others?
S9: Over the years, I tried a little bit of everything. I reasoned, I read, I compared religions and mystics, I meditated, I contemplated, etc. After a while you just start to notice, sort of like remembering who you are. You see that everything comes and goes except Awareness of Awareness, that simple.
It is not really something you do. It is something that does you.
Montreal has a few people like that, Toronto a couple, in Vancouver they are a dime a dozen,and in Calgary there is absolutely no possiblity of Enlightenment.
The "Other Reality," which some call the “One,” or the “Original Mind” is actually no part of our mental projections. It stands apart in this way. It is Complete and Unchanging with no definable parts.
And:
It is not temporary OR impermanent, is not a dream. This is what we 'WAKE UP' to.
The Buddha taught all mind, whether gross or subtle, is impermanent. It sounds like you are declaring Atman and Brahma again.
It is also not void or empty of essence. It is actually full of Being or Aware of Being (if you will). This 'Being/Awareness' is what I have often called our 'Buddha Nature,' or our most fundamental and Essential Being, or Awareness of Awareness.
You on the other hand sit quietly by, unruffled by changes or unconcerned about changes...Awake in this dream.
There are two kinds of awakening.
The first, is to awaken from the dream of ego.
The second, is to awaken to the fact that everything is a dream, including awareness.
When your life ends, consciousness is gone. It is all over. It was just like a dream.
Buddha-Nature is not awareness but that which relinquishes awareness.
But currently, your mind is completely infatuated with awareness.
Warm regards
DD
Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree [having no inner substance]; consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty,
void to whoever sees them appropriately.
Beginning with the body
as taught by the One with profound discernment:
when abandoned by three things —
life, warmth & consciousness —
form is rejected, cast aside.
When bereft of these it lies thrown away,
senseless, a meal for others.
That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling.
It's said to be a murderer.
No substance here is found.
"'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.
But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.
"In the same way, Radha, you should smash, scatter & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Nibbana."
"Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that? Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might grow dispassionate, might gain release there.
"But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness,' the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.
"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that?
Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
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.
All Buddhas past, present and future live prajna paramita and thus attain anuttara samyak sambodhi.
Well. I tried to practise this today.
Observing eye consciousness, my mind ceased to label it 'consciousness'. But the thing was still there.
The same with form. My mind ceased to label the form 'tree' then ceased to label 'object' then ceased to label 'green'. But the thing was still there.
Personally, I doubt any Buddhas, past, present and future have dwelt in such a state of delusion.
The Buddha-To-Be of the past said:
'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening nor to Nibbana, but only to reappearance in the dimension of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.
But mind continued to observe those 'things' and they ceased in consciousness and consciousness itself ceased and then they all arose again, flickering occassionally in passing & arising again. Naturally, delight in those things diminished.
Observing eye consciousness, my mind ceased to label it 'consciousness'. But the thing was still there.
The same with form. My mind ceased to label the form 'tree' then ceased to label 'object' then ceased to label 'green'. But the thing was still there.
Personally, I doubt any Buddhas, past, present and future have dwelt in such a state of delusion.
The Buddha-To-Be of the past said:
But mind continued to observe those 'things' and they ceased in consciousness and consciousness itself ceased and then they all arose again, flickering occassionally in arising & passing & arising again. Naturally, delight in those things diminished.
:smilec:
You obviously mistaken emptiness to mean nothingness. As many have said so many times, emptiness does not mean nothingness, but you cling to your false understanding of what the scripture is talking about. We have said so many times to you that emptiness is not nihilistic but pointing to the fact that everything though vividly appearing is ungraspable, unlocatable, and interdependent, like a mirage is vividly appearing but without substance.
Please read your Pali Canon Phena Sutta carefully.
I trust you have studied alot except for the words of the Tathagata.
However, allow me to ask you some simple questions.
What actually is awareness?
When you sleep, does not awareness go?
When you awake, does not awareness come?
When your life ends, will not awareness go?
well, when you fall asleep, depending on your skill and your ability, awareness abides in the dream world. i am not well versed in the tibetan book of the dead nor am i a yogi, but i think when one undergoes the process of falling asleep there are clearly demarcated stages that unfold which you have awareness of, but many of us are too untrained to experience them fully . so if you're using sleep as an analogy to life, it would be unwise to assume annihilation at death.
You have made a good point about ‘Awareness’ being right there in the dream state. But actually, I think even the youngest child is fully Aware of Awareness (although they may not realize what they are looking at). This Awareness of Awareness happens to everyone during sleep, but is especially noticeable to the untrained mind during dreaming. But, the mind is so easily fooled into believing that what is going on (the bells and whistles) is the only thing taking place.
They mistakenly call Awareness nothing.
P: I think when one undergoes the process of falling asleep there are clearly demarcated stages that unfold which you have awareness of, but many of us are too untrained to experience them fully.
S9: Quite so, even science has been able to point out these changes in our brain waves.
You’ll notice that someone says, He feel asleep, (AKA he was dead to the world), they don’t call in the undertaker. ; ^ )
Obviously something is taking place, which we understand to be full (of life) and not actually empty at/all.
I am always glad to see you back again posting. : ^ )
X: You obviously mistaken emptiness to mean nothingness.
S9: I think when the mind looks at emptiness it see nothing, because True Emptiness (Meaning empty of mind objects) has no comparison, and mind can’t compute.
And:
Although many say there is 'no-self,' in their secret heart, they believe themselves to be this mind.
I am always glad to see you back again posting. : ^ )
X: You obviously mistaken emptiness to mean nothingness.
S9: I think when the mind looks at emptiness it see nothing, because True Emptiness (Meaning empty of mind objects) has no comparison, and mind can’t compute.
And:
Although many say there is 'no-self,' in their secret heart, they believe themselves to be this mind.
Warm Regards,
S9
Hi Subjectivity, while not refuting what you said, the Emptiness you are talking about is not my definition of Emptiness.
The formlessness of the I AM is not the Emptiness I am talking about. It is important to understand the various kinds of insights in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment, if you understand then you'll see that they are distinct insights not to be mistaken as one another, though not necessarily contradictory to each other (though may replace a previous understanding of an experience). In other words all these stages of insights and experience are important, but are different, and can refine the understanding of the experience of Buddha-Nature. But one must be clear and not get confused and use certain synonymously without understanding what they mean,
For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."
Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.
You obviously mistaken emptiness to mean nothingness. As many have said so many times, emptiness does not mean nothingness, but you cling to your false understanding of what the scripture is talking about. We have said so many times to you that emptiness is not nihilistic but pointing to the fact that everything though vividly appearing is ungraspable, unlocatable, and interdependent, like a mirage is vividly appearing but without substance.
Please read your Pali Canon Phena Sutta carefully.
Xabir
The Phena Sutta does not say what the Heart Sutra states. The Pena Sutta describes the temporary & fleeting nature of things rather than deny their existence outright.
The Phena Sutta does not say there is no bubble, no mirage, no magician's trick and so forth.
I would suggest you read the Heart Sutra.
It does not say ungraspable, unlocatable [:eek:] and interdependent.
This is your interpretation. The Heart Sutra literally teaches "no-thing".
well, when you fall asleep, depending on your skill and your ability, awareness abides in the dream world. i am not well versed in the tibetan book of the dead nor am i a yogi, but i think when one undergoes the process of falling asleep there are clearly demarcated stages that unfold which you have awareness of, but many of us are too untrained to experience them fully . so if you're using sleep as an analogy to life, it would be unwise to assume annihilation at death.
Enlightened beings do not dream very much. Dreams are mental formations generally born of discursive mind. Your assertion about being trained to dream is contradictory. An advanced practitioner does not dream much or at all.
You defined what the Heart Sutra states directly from your Hindu guru.
Emptiness is the ground of all experiences. There is nothing to attain or practice. What we have to realize is this ground, this ‘ungraspability’, ‘unlocatability ’ and ‘interconnectedness’ nature of all vivid arising. Emptiness will reveal that not only is there no ‘who’ in pristine awareness, there is no ‘where’ and ‘when’. Be it ‘I’, ‘Here’ or ’Now’, all are simply impressions that dependently originate in accordance to the principle of conditionality.
Emptiness simply means things are void of selfhood. No 'who' and 'ungraspability’ are fine but emptiness is not related to "pristine awareness" and it is certainly not the ground of all experiences. The ground of all experience is consciousness or pristine awareness.
All things are empty, including whatever thoughts the mind has. If you read the Phena Sutta, it states all of the five aggregates are empty, which includes perception & thought.
Here is the heart sutra in practice. Any definition or seeming definition is tentative and provisional. A skillfull means ONLY. No mirror, no mind, all just a pointing.
this is a Practice pointing bySeung Sahn on keeping `dont know` mind.
The Sutra begins with ...Listen.
`Finally, your don't-know mind will become clear. Then you can see the sky, only blue. You can see the tree, only green. Your mind is like a clear mirror. Red comes, the mirror is red; white comes the mirror is white. A hungry person comes, you can give him food; a thirsty person comes, you can give her something to drink. There is no desire for myself, only for all beings. That mind is already enlightenment, what we call Great Love, Great Compassion, the Great Bodhisattva Way. It's very simple, not difficult!
Once again in the face of doing, of practice, all these words are wrong in so for as any referent or absence of referent is implied. Its practice.
Also... Dhamma Dhatu if you want to take this and reduce it to your Theravadin schema then thats your thing. Say its this... or that.... But to those who practice with this in sangha with devotion and discipline your just talkin. No offence, I actually have come to respect and like you but there are other ways of seeing and doing.
There is no such thing as living without conceptuality. This is chasing the unattainable. This is why the Buddha rejected states of non-conceptuality as enlightenment.
Buddhas live without greed, hatred & delusion. They do not live void of conceptuality.
`Finally, your don't-know mind will become clear. Then you can see the sky, only blue. You can see the tree, only green. Your mind is like a clear mirror. Red comes, the mirror is red; white comes the mirror is white.
This is just concentration. It should definitely be developed but it is definitely not enlightenment.
Also... Dhamma Dhatu if you want to take this and reduce it to your Theravadin schema then thats your thing.
If one has not practised nonconceptuality then one should do so. But never say it is enlightenment.
I am not reducing things into a Theravadin schema. I have said, nonconceptuality is not enlightenment, regardless of what the religion is. A human being cannot live with conceptuality. That is impossible.
Enlightened beings do not dream very much. Dreams are mental formations generally born of discursive mind. Your assertion about being trained to dream is contradictory. An advanced practitioner does not dream much or at all.
Dhamma Dhatu. Seung Sahn is not saying nonconceptuality is enlightenment, He is pointing through a gate. It is not the gate of Dumb Concentration. It is the gate of bright, precise, totality and spontaneus function. This is the practice. There is no final goal. No final goal of leaving the world for the last time, no nibbana in that sense at all. No final cessation of the arising of conditons. It is non-renunciative in that regard. It is not freedom from the cares of the world, it is freedom as the cares of the world. There is gap here between zen and theravada that cannot be easily bridged. I have yet to see anyone do it without simply collapsing one into the other.
When one meditates and the mind is full of mental chatter & emotions, that is certainly not an attainment.
Dreams are no different. They are just mental chatter & emotions whilst sleeping.
Do you think a fully enlightened being, with a mind void of greed, hatred & delusion, dreams?
yes, i see no reason why they shouldn't, for dreaming is a natural human function. extinction does not mean that the mind becomes empty of any content whether images or thoughts or ideas or anything else, it means that the mind has been wholly tranquilized and nothing disturbs it, and reflects all things equally without any clinging, without anything extra, from what i can tell from my standpoint. i know what you are saying, but i can't imagine that simply because one becomes fully enlightened one ceases to dream, just as one who is fully enlightened is not without thoughts and appearances in the mind while awake. it is the relation to those objects which constitutes enlightenment, as far as i can say (for i am only so far down). i would imagine buddhas would dream of extremely rich buddha lands.
The Phena Sutta does not say what the Heart Sutra states. The Pena Sutta describes the temporary & fleeting nature of things rather than deny their existence outright.
The Phena Sutta does not say there is no bubble, no mirage, no magician's trick and so forth.
I would suggest you read the Heart Sutra.
It does not say ungraspable, unlocatable [:eek:] and interdependent.
This is your interpretation. The Heart Sutra literally teaches "no-thing".
No, you must understand that Heart Sutra is just a super super summarised version of the whole Prajnaparamita literature which spans hundreds of pages.
You must see the whole thing in context. If you have not read the few hundred pages, you cannot put your own false interpretation on the commentary. It is only after reading the hundreds of pages, then the few lines in Heart Sutra makes sense and is understood in its context.
Prajnaparamita Sutra are all talking about emptiness as the ungraspability, unlocatability of an essence due to its dependently originated nature.
BTW just to add on, there's a reason why they say 'no nose... etc'.
Now, the essence of what is being said is exactly the same as Phena Sutta.
But some Theravadins may be mistaken that when they say 'no', it just means the aggregates are not self, but the aggregates are self-existent. This is rejected by Phena Sutta where the aggregates themselves are described as being like mirage, without substance. Even the aggregates are dependently originated, ungraspable, unlocatable and without essence.
When the emphasis is 'no nose...' it's saying, it's not just that nose is not self, but nose is empty of inherent existence, without substance, appearing like a mirage but without any substantiality, graspability, locatability. It however does not mean anything close to 'nothingness'. As a matter of fact it is clearly stated: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.
Prajnaparamita scriptures arose partly out of the reaction of mistaken views of emptiness where only emptiness of self is understood but not emptiness of dharmas.
That's why in Mahayana there is the teaching of twofold emptiness: emptiness of self and emptiness of dharmas. Both are equally important. Emptiness of Self is Thusness's Stage 5 enlightenment and Emptiness of Dharmas is Stage 6.
You defined what the Heart Sutra states directly from your Hindu guru.
Now don't be silly. Thusness Stage 1 to 4 is Hinduism (except Stage 3 which is more of Taoism) and during his early years since 17 years old due to his I AMness experience he found many confirmation from Hindu texts and collected all sorts of Hindu books and Ramana Maharshi's books. Afterwards, he found Buddhism and stayed there because only Buddhism talks about Anatta and Emptiness which is what he experienced. He learnt from no living teacher or guru but is very grateful to Buddha for his subtlety and teachings which he would not otherwise have understood the true empty nature of mind.
Emptiness simply means things are void of selfhood. No 'who' and 'ungraspability’ are fine but emptiness is not related to "pristine awareness" and it is certainly not the ground of all experiences. The ground of all experience is consciousness or pristine awareness.
No you are misunderstanding what he said. He already specified out what 'emptiness is not' -- emptiness is not a background, or some ground out of which all things arise from and subside to. That is the I AMness experience and what Subjectivity9 is going through now. The word 'ground' he used may be misleading if it is not understood in context, what he really means is 'nature'. The nature of everything is empty. It has nothing to do with pristine awareness being the ground of being and so on.
BTW, pristine awareness to him is just all the manifesting sensate reality itself, since nothing could arise without the quality of awareness, but awareness is not something apart from manifestation watching it. Rather there is simply manifesting consciousness that dependently originate and there is no outside observer or an Eternal Witness, just the manifestation is self-luminous, there is no awareness apart from that.
Awareness is empty because there is no metaphysical essence or selfhood to Awareness in Thusness and Buddhism's view.
All things are empty, including whatever thoughts the mind has. If you read the Phena Sutta, it states all of the five aggregates are empty, which includes perception & thought.
Comments
I will be happy to elucidate whatever's unclear, but if you don't believe in an external reality the notion of time as an imputation from memory seems like a small step. Also, what kind of explanation were you looking for when you asked "where do we look for a viable explanation of what Reality actually Is?"
Yes, that remark I made about the experience of the moment as reality was in response to you asking about what reality actually is.
Is this a test? Ha/ha/ha
Haven’t your stopped riding that horse, yet? Put away your guns, and give it a rest, dear fellow.
I am simply saying what I personally have witnessed. Is that a bad thing?
Peace,
S9
I would also be interested to actually hear you go through this sutra in the light of your experience. This is sincere.
Sorry, never been there.
But isn't Nibbana the end of dukkha or craving.
I don’t do sutra translation. That is above my pay grade, and not within my job description. I believe the better part of wisdom is knowing one's own limitations.
Also:
It makes no sense to start labeling myself, when I am trying to go beyond my small self, and my greater Self will not submit to description.
So my advice to you would be, stop worrying about who I am, and find out who you are.
Have a good day,
S9
P: Sorry, never been there. (Nibbana)
S9: I can respect that.
P: But isn't Nibbana the end of dukkha or craving.
S9: Since most of our suffering comes from believing that we are the small-self, or the ego-self, I would imagine in knowing you are not that small self, that you could say, “you were beyond suffering to a good extent, at least.”
Doesn’t that follow logically?
The reason that I caveat my statement above, by saying “to a good extent” is, the dream hasn’t discontinued just because you have managed to redefine who you in fact are-not, at least. You are not the ego.
So in stands to reason that, the dream-hand will still have pain if you stick it into a dream-fire and do not withdraw it when it begins to dream-cook.
I imagine at that point (the cooking hand), that the body at least will crave to retrieve that poor hand from the fire, and go on to crave pain medication, darn it, and even after that to go on craving the healing of that unfortunate hand, so you can get out of the darn hospital. ; ^ ) I bet even Buddha would want to get out of the hospital and go home, on some level.
So I guess what I am saying is, craving doesn’t completely end, because craving doesn’t just mean giving up pizza and a movie. Craving is a survival mechanism built into a very efficient system, we call body.
Now, how do we define suffering, is it just pain…is that what Buddha meant? Of is suffering that extra stuff we add to the actual pain of the dreaming self? (AKA the unnecessary pain.) In other words, “Wrongful identification” is suffering, and can be made to stop. This distancing of one’s Self from the dream self is a very great burden dropped.
If the dream goes on for a million years, or forever, no matter, it is not you after all, it is a dream, like your dreams last night. They come up and melt away, but are or little real consequence.
Warm regards,
S9
You have my answer.
If that isn't good enough, just make one up for me and pretend that I said it. It will be our little secret. ; ^ )
S9
5: I will be happy to elucidate whatever's unclear, but if you don't believe in an external reality the notion of time as an imputation from memory seems like a small step.
S9: Perhaps: but often I want to know where someone else is coming from in their own terms. If I find myself at all confused, or not on top of what someone is saying to me, I will very often ask for clarification. It saves guessing, (not one of my strengths.)
5: What kind of explanation were you looking for when you asked, "where do we look for a viable explanation of what Reality actually Is?"
S9: I want to know where exactly you look, and how you interpret what you come upon.
Actually, that seems to be a big thing with me, wanting to hear about personal experience. So much is 'pie in the sky,' and with no place to come down for a landing.
5: Yes, that remark I made about the experience of the moment as reality was in response to you asking about what reality actually is.
S9: Do you not have 2 realities going on simultaneously, one being a dream thing, and the other dawning slowly through insight?
I do!
Respectfully,
S9
Montreal has a few people like that, Toronto a couple, in Vancouver they are a dime a dozen, and in Calgary there is absolutely no possiblity of Enlightenment.
Honestly. There are some good Dharma Centers and teachers in Canada. Not too familiar with the Montreal scene, as I'm in Toronto.
No problem. That's my normal state. ; ^ )
S9
I don’t think that anyone can tell you what is the 'right thing' to do, or how to live your life. (I am a bit of a Taoist in this respect.) So that ‘All’ that I can say, to any friend is, “This is what I have observed. This is what I have tried. This is how it worked out for me.”
Yes, two realities going on at the same time, (what some have called “superimposition”).
However, only one mind abides within the bony cage, which we call our head, that being the brain-mind (organic/material) and her flowering of the ego-mind (a mental projection). The ego is simply a story-mind created out of our need for adaptation and survival within the mental/material manifestation/projection, which we call the earth.
The "Other Reality," which some call the “One,” or the “Original Mind” is actually no part of our mental projections. It stands apart in this way. It is Complete and Unchanging with no definable parts.
And:
It is not temporary OR impermanent, is not a dream. This is what we 'WAKE UP' to.
This 'Ultimate Reality' is not however unobservable by any means, even though we do not use our senses, our thoughts, our more abstract reasoning to accesses It. It is also not void or empty of essence. It is actually full of Being or Aware of Being (if you will).
This 'Being/Awareness' is what I have often called our 'Buddha Nature,' or our most fundamental and Essential Being, or Awareness of Awareness. Awareness is holy aware of its self, and in fact wants to be known. You can feel this in your own longing to understand, and to get out from under this burden which we call everyday life. No matter how we try, or may object, our life as we presently live it is not successful, simply because it is not satisfying.
Daily life of the material/mental kind goes on quite automatically, watch closely and see if I am not saying something true here.
An automatic life flows like a river, between the banks of circumstance. You on the other hand sit quietly by, unruffled by changes or unconcerned about changes...Awake in this dream.
Peace my friend,
S9
how do you see true reality in this way. do you meditate upon it or a reading have awaken you to this view or others?
H: How do you see true reality in this way? Do you meditate upon it, or a reading have awaken you to this view, or others?
S9: Over the years, I tried a little bit of everything. I reasoned, I read, I compared religions and mystics, I meditated, I contemplated, etc. After a while you just start to notice, sort of like remembering who you are. You see that everything comes and goes except Awareness of Awareness, that simple.
It is not really something you do. It is something that does you.
Warm Regards,
S9
Lmao ba-zing!
Are you one of the 'dime a dozen' or one who is wise enough to know these things?
Smiles,
S9
Please bear in mind the Buddha taught there are six senses, namely, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind sense.
There are two kinds of awakening.
The first, is to awaken from the dream of ego.
The second, is to awaken to the fact that everything is a dream, including awareness.
When your life ends, consciousness is gone. It is all over. It was just like a dream.
Buddha-Nature is not awareness but that which relinquishes awareness.
But currently, your mind is completely infatuated with awareness.
Warm regards
DD
However, allow me to ask you some simple questions.
What actually is awareness?
When you sleep, does not awareness go?
When you awake, does not awareness come?
When your life ends, will not awareness go?
Observing eye consciousness, my mind ceased to label it 'consciousness'. But the thing was still there.
The same with form. My mind ceased to label the form 'tree' then ceased to label 'object' then ceased to label 'green'. But the thing was still there.
Personally, I doubt any Buddhas, past, present and future have dwelt in such a state of delusion.
The Buddha-To-Be of the past said:
But mind continued to observe those 'things' and they ceased in consciousness and consciousness itself ceased and then they all arose again, flickering occassionally in passing & arising again. Naturally, delight in those things diminished.
:smilec:
Please read your Pali Canon Phena Sutta carefully.
SN 22.95 PTS: S iii 140
CDB i 951
Phena Sutta: Foam
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1999–2010
<!-- robots content="none" -->
<!-- #H_meta --> <!-- #H_billboard --> <!-- /robots --> On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?
"Now suppose that in the autumn — when it's raining in fat, heavy drops — a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?
"Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:
Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. Beginning with the body as taught by the One with profound discernment: when abandoned by three things — life, warmth, & consciousness — form is rejected, cast aside. When bereft of these it lies thrown away, senseless, a meal for others. That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer.1 No substance here is found. Thus a monk, persistence aroused, should view the aggregates by day & by night, mindful, alert; should discard all fetters; should make himself his own refuge; should live as if his head were on fire — in hopes of the state with no falling away.
You have made a good point about ‘Awareness’ being right there in the dream state. But actually, I think even the youngest child is fully Aware of Awareness (although they may not realize what they are looking at). This Awareness of Awareness happens to everyone during sleep, but is especially noticeable to the untrained mind during dreaming. But, the mind is so easily fooled into believing that what is going on (the bells and whistles) is the only thing taking place.
They mistakenly call Awareness nothing.
P: I think when one undergoes the process of falling asleep there are clearly demarcated stages that unfold which you have awareness of, but many of us are too untrained to experience them fully.
S9: Quite so, even science has been able to point out these changes in our brain waves.
You’ll notice that someone says, He feel asleep, (AKA he was dead to the world), they don’t call in the undertaker. ; ^ )
Obviously something is taking place, which we understand to be full (of life) and not actually empty at/all.
Warm regards,
S9
I am always glad to see you back again posting. : ^ )
X: You obviously mistaken emptiness to mean nothingness.
S9: I think when the mind looks at emptiness it see nothing, because True Emptiness (Meaning empty of mind objects) has no comparison, and mind can’t compute.
And:
Although many say there is 'no-self,' in their secret heart, they believe themselves to be this mind.
Warm Regards,
S9
The formlessness of the I AM is not the Emptiness I am talking about. It is important to understand the various kinds of insights in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment, if you understand then you'll see that they are distinct insights not to be mistaken as one another, though not necessarily contradictory to each other (though may replace a previous understanding of an experience). In other words all these stages of insights and experience are important, but are different, and can refine the understanding of the experience of Buddha-Nature. But one must be clear and not get confused and use certain synonymously without understanding what they mean,
As Greg Goode have said in http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html:
For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."
Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.
The Phena Sutta does not say what the Heart Sutra states. The Pena Sutta describes the temporary & fleeting nature of things rather than deny their existence outright.
The Phena Sutta does not say there is no bubble, no mirage, no magician's trick and so forth.
I would suggest you read the Heart Sutra.
It does not say ungraspable, unlocatable [:eek:] and interdependent.
This is your interpretation. The Heart Sutra literally teaches "no-thing".
All things are empty, including whatever thoughts the mind has. If you read the Phena Sutta, it states all of the five aggregates are empty, which includes perception & thought.
this is a Practice pointing bySeung Sahn on keeping `dont know` mind.
The Sutra begins with ...Listen.
`Finally, your don't-know mind will become clear. Then you can see the sky, only blue. You can see the tree, only green. Your mind is like a clear mirror. Red comes, the mirror is red; white comes the mirror is white. A hungry person comes, you can give him food; a thirsty person comes, you can give her something to drink. There is no desire for myself, only for all beings. That mind is already enlightenment, what we call Great Love, Great Compassion, the Great Bodhisattva Way. It's very simple, not difficult!
Once again in the face of doing, of practice, all these words are wrong in so for as any referent or absence of referent is implied. Its practice.
Buddhas live without greed, hatred & delusion. They do not live void of conceptuality.
I am not reducing things into a Theravadin schema. I have said, nonconceptuality is not enlightenment, regardless of what the religion is. A human being cannot live with conceptuality. That is impossible.
When one meditates and the mind is full of mental chatter & emotions, that is certainly not an attainment.
Dreams are no different. They are just mental chatter & emotions whilst sleeping.
Do you think a fully enlightened being, with a mind void of greed, hatred & delusion, dreams?
You simply do not understand.
You must see the whole thing in context. If you have not read the few hundred pages, you cannot put your own false interpretation on the commentary. It is only after reading the hundreds of pages, then the few lines in Heart Sutra makes sense and is understood in its context.
Prajnaparamita Sutra are all talking about emptiness as the ungraspability, unlocatability of an essence due to its dependently originated nature.
Now, the essence of what is being said is exactly the same as Phena Sutta.
But some Theravadins may be mistaken that when they say 'no', it just means the aggregates are not self, but the aggregates are self-existent. This is rejected by Phena Sutta where the aggregates themselves are described as being like mirage, without substance. Even the aggregates are dependently originated, ungraspable, unlocatable and without essence.
When the emphasis is 'no nose...' it's saying, it's not just that nose is not self, but nose is empty of inherent existence, without substance, appearing like a mirage but without any substantiality, graspability, locatability. It however does not mean anything close to 'nothingness'. As a matter of fact it is clearly stated: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.
Prajnaparamita scriptures arose partly out of the reaction of mistaken views of emptiness where only emptiness of self is understood but not emptiness of dharmas.
That's why in Mahayana there is the teaching of twofold emptiness: emptiness of self and emptiness of dharmas. Both are equally important. Emptiness of Self is Thusness's Stage 5 enlightenment and Emptiness of Dharmas is Stage 6.
BTW, pristine awareness to him is just all the manifesting sensate reality itself, since nothing could arise without the quality of awareness, but awareness is not something apart from manifestation watching it. Rather there is simply manifesting consciousness that dependently originate and there is no outside observer or an Eternal Witness, just the manifestation is self-luminous, there is no awareness apart from that.
Awareness is empty because there is no metaphysical essence or selfhood to Awareness in Thusness and Buddhism's view. Yes.