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.
“Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all
around, does not partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of
water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind... nor of the
divinity of the devas... of the brahmas... of the Overlord... or of
the Allness of the All.”
~ M 49.25
At this point, we can truly can see that the mind is one thing
and the mind-objects are another. We can see the true nature of
mind, mind-essence, which knows experience and in which all
of life happens; and we can see that that transcendent quality is
devoid of relationship to individuality, space, time, and move-
ment. All of the objects of the world—its people, our routines
and mind states—appear and disappear within that space.
The commentary is non-sense. Nibbana is a mind object. Not mind created but a mind object.
The words "does not partake" means "does not cling".
Please remember, the searching monk asked the Buddha: "Where do the four great element cease without remainder?"
The Buddha replied: "That question is not fitting".
The Buddha said the right question is: "Where do the four great elements have no footing?"
Ajahn Chah probably did confuse him because the Buddha did not teach perception per se is suffering.
Well I don't think Ajhan Char said so either but he was merely referring to dependent origination as far as I understand which can be confusing to someone who doesn't know it; so yeah maybe he did confuse the guy
Then the Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One...
and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘The world is empty,
the world is empty.’ In what way, Venerable sir, is it said, ‘The
world is empty, the world is empty?’”
“It is because it is empty of self and what belongs to a self that
‘The world is empty’ is said, Ananda. And what is empty of self
and what belongs to a self? The eye is empty of self and what
belongs to a self... forms... eye-consciousness... eye-contact...
any feeling born of eye-contact, whether pleasant, painful or
neutral is empty of self and what belongs to a self. The ear... The
nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is empty of self and
what belongs to a self... mental objects... mind-consciousness...
mind-contact... any feeling born of mind-contact whether pleas-
ant, painful or neutral is empty of self and what belongs to a
self.”
~ S 35.85
At this point, we can truly can see that the mind is one thing
and the mind-objects are another. We can see the true nature of
mind, mind-essence, which knows experience and in which all
of life happens; and we can see that that transcendent quality is
devoid of relationship to individuality, space, time, and move-
ment. All of the objects of the world—its people, our routines
and mind states—appear and disappear within that space.
What does this quote have to do with anything? It does not negate mind objects anyway.
Then the Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One...
and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘The world is empty,
the world is empty.’ In what way, Venerable sir, is it said, ‘The
world is empty, the world is empty?’”
“It is because it is empty of self and what belongs to a self that
‘The world is empty’ is said, Ananda. And what is empty of self
and what belongs to a self? The eye is empty of self and what
belongs to a self... forms... eye-consciousness... eye-contact...
any feeling born of eye-contact, whether pleasant, painful or
neutral is empty of self and what belongs to a self. The ear... The
nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is empty of self and
what belongs to a self... mental objects... mind-consciousness...
mind-contact... any feeling born of mind-contact whether pleas-
ant, painful or neutral is empty of self and what belongs to a
self.”
~ S 35.85
You are taking things literally. Plus you have highlighted the nihilistic worlds of the unenlightened Ananda.
The Buddha has precisely pointed to the various phenomena as empty.
The sutta states mental objects are empty of self and what belongs to self.
Mental objects include thoughts.
When the mind says: "I am a Buddhist", that too is empty of self and what belongs to self.
Those thoughts & words are merely mental formations.
[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
... Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech,
He would speak conforming to such use.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived He might still say 'I speak,' And he might say 'They speak to me.' Skillful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions."
They who look upon the world
as unstable, insubstantial,
as bubble, mirage and illusion –
they’re the ones Death cannot find.
~ Dhp 170
Yes. But the world is still there. The aggregates are still there. But they are regarded as as bubble, mirage and illusion but not non-existent. They are impermanent, unstable.
To the extent a mirage is a mirage, it exists as a mirage for what ever time it exists.
When sense organs operate, the world arises. When sense organs cease, the world ceases.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
We now come to the year of the Master's Parinibbana. The Blessed One had spent the rainy season at Beluva village, near Vesali, and when the Retreat was over he left that place and, going by the way he had come, returned by stages to Savatthi and arrived at the Jeta Grove Monastery.
There the Elder Sariputta, the Marshal of the Law, paid homage to the Blessed One and went to his day quarters. When his own disciples had saluted him and left, he swept the place and spread his leather mat. Then, having rinsed his feet, he sat down cross-legged and entered into the state of the Fruition Attainment of Arahatship.
The great Elder then gave a discourse, displaying all his descending to mundane truth, rising again, and again descending, he expounded the Dhamma directly and in symbols. And when he had ended his discourse he paid homage at the feet of the Master, embracing his legs, he said: "So that I might worship these feet I have fulfilled the Perfections throughout an aeon and a hundred thousand kalpas. My heart's wish has found fulfillment. From now on there will be no more contact or meeting; severed now is that intimate connection.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
"'Conventional Truth exists': That is one extreme. 'Ultimate Truth' exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle
Then the thought occurred to Ven. Pukkusati: "Surely, the Teacher has come to me! Surely, the One Well-gone has come to me! Surely, the Rightly Self-awakened One has come to me!" Getting up from his seat, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, and bowing down with his head at the Blessed One's feet, he said, "A transgression has overcome me, lord, in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to assume that it was proper to address the Blessed One as 'friend.' May the Blessed One please accept this confession of my transgression as such, so that I may achieve restraint in the future."
"Yes, monk, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to assume that it was proper to address me as 'friend.' But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and achieves restraint in the future."
"'Conventional Truth exists': That is one extreme. 'Ultimate Truth' exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle
Thats the place of Non Abiding.
This is slander of the Tathagata. The quote does not accord with your interpretation.
One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is through this line of reasoning that one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life."
"'Conventional Truth exists': That is one extreme. 'Ultimate Truth' exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle
"'Conventional Truth exists': That is one extreme. 'Ultimate Truth' exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle
Thats the place of Non Abiding.
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
"'[Conventional Truth] exists': That is one extreme. exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle"
Thats the place of Non Abiding.
“The wise do not take
anything in the world as belonging to them, nor do they take
anything in the world as not belonging to them either.” (sn 858)
I would agree with you, in general, that there is less attachment as we progress upon the path. (But, that may be a symptom of Clarity, and not the originating cause.)
Yet, at the same time, we cannot always know (from the outside) if someone is ‘merely doing’ something, or if they are, in fact, attached to what they are doing.
I found it interesting that after Gautama was 100% Enlightened, that He would still go off and meditate. I am guessing that He just enjoyed it, and wasn’t actually attached to it, or expecting some payback.
On the other hand, witnessing Him doing such an act, you might easily question His motives, or what exactly He still felt there was to gain in such an act?
AD: If he possessed such wisdom, why didn't he share it with his family?
S9: I can only guess. Of course, you might easily first think, he knew his sister and husband better than we do. He had his reasons. ; ^ )
When does sharing become forcing?
Then too, he may very well have shared with them in a way that they could easily understand, which wouldn’t be earth shattering.
Very often, if you are really good at teaching, the person being taught will think it is their own idea. Teaching by example is one of these. I have heard it said that, our children learn more from who we actually are (good or bad), than what we say.
Lastly, some people who are Enlightened simply do not fancy themselves as being teachers. If you confront them directly, they will answer you. But, you will not find them volunteering information.
Used to be that many teachers would send people away, on general principle. If you weren’t extremely persistent and sticking to them like glue, thereby proving you were ready to grow, then they simply wouldn’t take you on, period.
I found it interesting that after Gautama was 100% Enlightened, that He would still go off and meditate. I am guessing that He just enjoyed it, and wasn’t actually attached to it, or expecting some payback
"'[Conventional Truth] exists': That is one extreme. exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle" Thats the place of Non Abiding.
“The wise do not take
anything in the world as belonging to them, nor do they take
anything in the world as not belonging to them either.” (sn 858)
Brother.
Taking things as not belonging to one is not the same as non-existence.
This is the essence of my whole point.
The salient teachings of the Buddha are things are dependently arising, depending ceasing, impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self. Not -self means not belonging to one.
Once we start argueing about existence & non-existence, we depart from the Buddha. Buddha said:
But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
If my mind dwells in the view: "There is no Buddha, no world, no trees, no sky, no me, no people, no five aggregates", that state is a peaceful state but it is also a conditioned state and, most of all, a subjective state. It is not ultimate.
A tree falling on me and breaking most of the bones in my body will soon bring my mind down to earth.
In the world, there are things. Those things are dependently arisen, will dependently cease, impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self. Not -self means not belonging to one.
But once we get lost in existence & non-existence, we are lost.
Being is an aspect of non-being; non-being is no different from being. Until you understand this truth, you won't see anything clearly.
So too with Being and non-Being. Waste no time in doubts and arguments Have nothing to do with this.
Verses on the Faith Mind by Chien-chih Seng-ts'an Third Zen Patriarch
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
... Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech,
He would speak conforming to such use.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived He might still say 'I speak,' And he might say 'They speak to me.' Skillful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I had read, God know where anymore, after some decades, that Buddha use to assign certain fellows to teach on multiple levels, after He had Woke Up (Enlightenment), and would go off and meditate in the forest alone.
Perhaps, this is a problem of my living too long, and reading too much, just for the joy of it. Can't rightly tell you where I heard everything that is now dancing around in my head.
It probably too late for me to get organized, even if I wanted to.
I had read, God know where anymore, after some decades, that Buddha use to assign certain fellows to teach on multiple levels, after He had Woke Up (Enlightenment), and would go off and meditate in the forest alone.
Perhaps, this is a problem of my living too long, and reading too much, just for the joy of it. Can't rightly tell you where I heard everything that is now dancing around in my head.
It probably too late for me to get organized, even if I wanted to.
Smile!
Warm Regards,
S9
Thanks S9 - although Buddhanet still doesn't give any sutta references! I like to look things up in the suttas whenever possible
No, I haven't. That is your presumption. You do not know what is in my mind, or my level of understanding. You are clinging to judgments you have made about a person you don't know. I find your manner arrogant and antagonistic, and I have no wish to interact with you. Please stop referring to me as if you know what I understand. You don't. There was no reason to mention my name, above, or project your beliefs onto me. In fact, your response to S9 was bizarrely irrelevant to the matter we were discussing.
I have no ill-feelings towards you, but I would prefer that we have no further interaction. Please respect that. Thank you.
Taking things as not belonging to one is not the same as non-existence.
S9: I don’t believe that AD said, that things not belonging to you was the very same thing as non-existence. (But I probably should let her answer for herself.) : ^ )
However, if we start to have “Wrongfully Identification” with anything, like existence, or even calling your self a Buddhist, then you are identifying yourself as being a personality, albeit a Buddhist personality. Isn’t that true?
I don't believe that the Buddha was any kind of ism. "Be a light, unto your self."
I believe that the Buddha was transcendent of both personality, isms, and labels.
S9: I don’t believe that AD said, that things not belonging to you was the very same thing as non-existence. (But I probably should let her answer for herself.) : ^ )
No, you got it. I don't recall even mentioning "non-existence." That was somebody else's issue. My original point has been supported quite skillfully by Pegembara's posts, as well as some of the responses to them. I have nothing further to add to the discussion.
I believe this started over the statement "If you say you're a Buddhist, you most assuredly are not."
So in response to this:
However, if we start to have “Wrongfully Identification” with anything, like existence, or even calling your self a Buddhist, then you are identifying yourself as being a personality, albeit a Buddhist personality. Isn’t that true?
Even the Buddha had to continue communicating using words such as "I" and "my" in the real world. This doesn't suggest he hadn't fully realized anatta in any way, though. One can say for the sake of convenience and clarity that they are a "Buddhist" as in "one who follows the Dhamma" without any clinging to or self-identification around the term. If one practices medicine, and is asked if they're a doctor, and they say "yes," is it necessarily attachment or just a simple fact? Aversion to these things is in and of itself an attachment. "Buddhist" is just a word. The issue is purely internal.
to say the one is a Buddhist is completely valid.
to identify as a Buddhist falls into the area of a valid cognition.
through functional consciousness and the functional identification as a Buddhist the conventional label is sound, accurate, and in no way makes one not a Buddhist.
A quote from a book (Buddha by Karen Armstrong) I am presently reading. Not sure whether it has any relevance to what is being discussed here though...
What did the Buddha mean when he claimed to have reached Nibbana on that spring night? Had he himself, as the word implied, been "snuffed out", extinguished like a candle flame? During his six year quest, Gotama had not masochistically courted annihilation but had sought enlightenment. He had wanted to wake up to his full potential as a human person, not to be wiped out. Nibbana did not mean personal extinction: what had been been snuffed out was not his personality but the fires of greed, hatred and delusion. As a result, he enjoyed a blessed 'coolness' and peace. By tamping out the 'unhelpful' states of mind, the Buddha had gained the peace which comes from selflessness; it is a condition that, those of us who are still enmeshed in the craving of egotism, cannot imagine. That is why the Buddha always refused, in the years following his enlightenment, to define or describe Nibbana: it would, he said, be 'improper' to do so because there are no words to describe such a state to an unenlightened person. .....
I believe the problem here is that we are speaking on multiple levels.
On one level you call your self, an individual self, or even a Buddhist self, because it is convenient to do so, and also in some ways necessary in order to deal socially with others.
However, where the attachment comes in, shows its ugly head, is on the personal or subjective level, where you have hopefully understood that you are not this ego self. You are, in fact, what many of you here would call the no-self. If on this subjective level, you define yourself as a Buddhist, or any other defined personality, than you are trying to have it both ways. You are trying to be no-self, and yes-self.
When Gautama was living in birth home with His wife and son, He had just about everything in His possession that this earthly life could offer. (Or, so the story goes.) He was even said to have personal gifts and abilities way beyond the average, and yet He was not satisfied. In fact, one might call him driven.
This is an archetypal story of what happens to man when He reaches a certain Spiritual maturity, and simply cannot sit still any longer for just being human. Being human now feels to Him like a prison.
Does this sound to you like Buddha was just trying to live like everyone else, but to be a really nice guy?
When Gautama sat under the Bodhi tree, He was ready to die before He would give up on this final push towards Enlightenment. He was not looking just to perfect his human manifestation. He was not looking to be a saint.
I believe that our friend, Karen, just missed the point. Don’t you?
I found it interesting that after Gautama was 100% Enlightened, that He would still go off and meditate. I am guessing that He just enjoyed it, and wasn’t actually attached to it, or expecting some payback.
S9, sorry if i'm cherry-picking from a discussion i'm not involved in, but:
i find it a very odd proposition that any being is or was 100% enlightened, even siddhartha... or any of the other great mystics and gurus in human history.
there are levels of awareness, levels of realisation, levels of self-actualisation and i would venture to say that all of us here have experienced breaking through a ceiling followed by breaking through another one sometime later. where do the ceilings end? as finite beings, no human could ever know the answer to this.
if siddhartha or guru of choice was sufficiently advanced, then for all intents and purposes they would (and have) appear to those around them as enlightened. so we can go ahead and call them "enlightened" for all intents and purposes. but even an 'enlightened' human would have no way of knowing for sure that there wasn't something more, some deeper realisation, that the cosmos might impart to them lurking around the next bend of their lives. how could they? after all, 1) we're finite beings, and 2) we have the potential to evolve even greater brains, for example. are doing it right now, in fact.
this is why i can see the point of siddhartha continuing to meditate his entire life.
first, because it's a healthy activity that everyone from the most-skilled to the least-skilled can benefit from; second, because every god knows that there's an even greater god standing just behind them, so to speak.
I believe that our friend, Karen, just missed the point. Don’t you?
I cannot say that Karen Armstrong has missed the point because I cannot find anything substantial to counter what she says. Her book is based on the Theravada tradition... and people from other traditions might not agree with some of her viewpoints. For now, I am open minded on this.
She has more to say...
The attainment of Nibbana did not mean that the Buddha would never experience any more suffering. He would grow old, get sick and die like everybody else and would experience pain while doing so. Nibbana does not give an awakened person trance like immunity, but an inner haven which enables a man or woman to live with pain, to take possession of it, affirm it, and experience a profound peace of mind in the midst of suffering. Nibbana, therefore, is found within oneself, in the very heart of each person's being. It is an entirely natural state; it is not bestowed by grace nor achieved for us by a supernatural saviour; it can be achieved by anybody who cultivates the path to enlightenment as assiduously as Gotama did. Nibbana is a still centre; it gives meaning to life. People who lose touch with this quiet place and do not orient their lives towards it can fall apart..........
Once he had found this inner realm of calm, which is Nibbana, Gotama had become a Buddha. He was convinced that, once egotism had been snuffed out, there would be no flames or fuel to spark a new existence, because the desire (tanha) which bound him to samsara had been finally quenched. When he died, he would attain his paranibbana, his final rest. Again, this did not mean total extinction, as some westeners sometimes assume. The paranibbana was a mode of existence that we cannot conceive unless we have become enlightened ourselves. There are no words or concepts for it, because our language is derived from the sense of our unhappy, mundane existence; we cannot really imagine a life in which there is no egotism of any kind. But that does not mean that such an existence is impossible; ..........
You are always cordially invited to jump right into the middle of any conversation that I am involved in. I value your input. : ^ )
That is a very good question. Was the Buddha, after Enlightenment, just doing more of 'the same old, same old?'
First let me say that, I agree with you in this way. We must try not to fall into what I see as a human failing, deifying of leaders, and Buddha certainly has taken a position throughout history of leadership in many lives. This in itself would only cloud our vision, IMO, as to what He, Himself, was trying to convey to us. That being that, “We are all 100% Enlightened already, and we just do not know it.”
Now, how can this possibly be when it appears that we are “…improving, every day in every way?” (AKA becoming)
“Being” (Enlightenment) is not the same thing as “becoming.” In a way, you might say that ‘Being” was a whole other dimension, altogether.
“Being,” in other words is “Transcendent” or outside of the world of “becoming,” (AKA finitude). Becoming is always incomplete, and reaching towards completion, and yet never quite arriving. Transcendent Being, on the other hand, is totally complete, or whole and satisfied, and therefore is never needing or changing. Transcendent Being IS Enlightenment.
The Buddha “Woke Up” to the fact that He was Transcendent Being, and that finitude was merely a dream going on, or superimposed upon His “Being,” (AKA Awareness or Presence).
Just for fun, let me answer Karen herself to give you some idea of our differences.
K: “Had he himself, as the word implied, been "snuffed out", extinguished like a candle flame?”
S9: Obviously not. No one said, “And then Buddha died. “
So what was snuffed out? I would say that Buddha no longer “Wrongfully Identified” with the dream person; Gautama, or with Gautama’s dream life. So then, this illusion melted away, or died. Ignorance was extinguished like a flame that had no fuel.
K: During his six-year quest, Gautama had not masochistically courted annihilation but had sought enlightenment.
S9: During these 6 years, Gautama became acquainted more and more with just how empty this fellow Gautama, in fact, was. We all can do this with meditation, ourselves, and He was said to be very proficient in this area.
He had reached a place in His search where He knew what Gautama was not, but He did not actually, as yet, know what He WAS. So, He sat under the Bodhi tree, and pushed that last mile.
I believe this would be similar to what is described in 'a small little jewel of a book' called, ‘The Dark Night of the Soul’ by St. John of the Cross.
I personally do not see Enlightenment as being synonymous with Sainthood. I do not see Enlightenment as just one more achievement that we can add to our bag of tricks. I see it as 180 degrees different than that.
S9: No sukhita. Her book is based upon her own opinion (viewpoint is opinion) of the Theravada tradition. The next thing called for is, you must look for yourself, and see if this agrees what you, yourself, see. Do not swallow anything whole.
“Be a lamp unto yourself.”
I fully realize that at this point in your life, you are probably thinking that you cannot see for yourself, and that you must listen to others on these subjects.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with listening to others. We all must/should listen, remain receptive, and in the beginning we do this listening more, than less. But, do not buy anything, and close the book of anything, until you, yourself, witness this to be the case, personally.
So what was stuffed out? I would say that Buddha no longer “Wrongfully Identified” with the dream person; Gautama, or with Gautama’s dream life. So then, this illusion melted away, or died. Ignorance was extinguished like a flame that had no fuel.
I agree, but this seems to be what Karen was saying too:
"Nibbana did not mean personal extinction: what had been been snuffed out was not his personality but the fires of greed, hatred and delusion."
And further: "Once he had found this inner realm of calm, which is Nibbana, Gotama had become a Buddha. He was convinced that, once egotism had been snuffed out, there would be no flames or fuel to spark a new existence, because the desire (tanha) which bound him to samsara had been finally quenched."
Although she's clearly leading in to the topic of literal rebirth, ultimately she's saying the exact same thing as you and I are, that Nibbana is "snuffing out the ego-self [and thereby craving and dukkha]."
I personally do not see Enlightenment as being synonymous with Sainthood. I do not see Enlightenment as just one more achievement that we can add to our bag of tricks. I see it as 180 degrees different than that.
But who suggested it was? I think semantics are getting in the way here. I think it's fair to say that Enlightenment is reaching our full potential as human beings. But I think you're equating the word "human being" with the illusion itself.
Q: K: “What had been snuffed out was not his personality but the fires of greed, hatred and delusion."
M: I agree, but this seems to be what Karen was saying too:
S9: I am saying that His personality/Gautama, (not being his true identity), was snuffed out. I get the feeling that she wants to make Gautama a new, new, improved Gautama, and call this improved version Enlightened.
I, on the other hand, am saying that until Buddha died to the identity of Himself as Gautama, that He was in no way ‘Liberated.’ Liberation is not done in ½ measures.
Q: K: "Once he had found this inner realm of calm, which is Nibbana, Gotama had become a Buddha.”
S9: Nirvana is not a place (rather it is, “Abide in the Non-abiding.”) Nirvana is Being.
M: He was convinced that, once egotism had been snuffed out, there would be no flames or fuel to spark a new existence.
S9: If this were true, how does that make sense against Buddha’s insight that “We were all already 100% Enlightened, and we just didn’t know it?”
Where did desire come from in the 1st place, and why are so many people still being born?
Buddha did not snuff out the ego, as it is a necessary tool for interfacing with this world, conventionally, and with each other. (Remember an old thread and catatonia?) He simply stopped “Wrongfully Identifying” with the ego.
M: I think it's fair to say that Enlightenment is reaching our full potential as human beings.
S9: I would rather say that Enlightenment was more like graduation. When you graduate from high school, you do not say I am reaching my full potential as a high school student. You say, “I’m out of here." Or, "I no longer see my self as a high school student, how yesterday." ; ^ )
In this same way, Buddha no long saw Himself as a human being. He saw the human, Gautama, as an illusion, imaginary, or a dream, from which He had graduated.
He was Awake in a dream. Probably similar to "Lucid Dreaming."
M: But, I think you're equating the word "human being" with the illusion itself.
S9: Exactly. Not just the word, but the person depicted by the word, too. I am a Radical Transcendentalist in this area. Subject (Gautama) and object (this world) were co-dependently arising. Buddha stepped out of the stream, and was on the other side.
It's one of the questions discussed in The Questions of King Milinda. Buddha meditated after enlightenment in order to serve as an example and because of the joy of meditation.
Q: K: "Once he had found this inner realm of calm, which is Nibbana, Gotama had become a Buddha.”
S9: Nirvana is not a place (rather it is, “Abide in the Non-abiding.”) Nirvana is Being.
Karen said Nibbana is inner peace, calmness, and clarity. She didn't say it's a place.
M: He was convinced that, once egotism had been snuffed out, there would be no flames or fuel to spark a new existence.
S9: If this were true, how does that make sense against Buddha’s insight that “We were all already 100% Enlightened, and we just didn’t know it?”
I don't know what you're talking about; I did not say that, the author did. I said it's clear that the author believes in literal rebirth. I do not. Ultimately it's irrelevent because it's the false self that needs to be dealt with whether or not their is rebirth. According to rebirth doctrine, once that is taken care of, the rest would follow.
Where did desire come from in the 1st place
What do you mean? Craving comes from "Wrongful Identification" which comes from ignorance. And:
and why are so many people still being born?
...well, when a man and a woman... :P (in other words, I don't know her view on literal rebirth and as I'm not interested in life-after-death theories, I'm not trying to explain what she said; I don't think her main point had anything to do with literal rebirth, so let's not get caught up on that issue).
Buddha did not snuff out the ego, as it is a necessary tool for interfacing with this world, conventionally, and with each other. (Remember an old thread and catatonia?) He simply stopped “Wrongfully Identifying” with the ego.
Yes, this is a semantics issue. I was using "ego-self" as being synonymous with "over-all self-concept" or "false-self." Whereas you're using it in the way Karen seems to be using "personality" in her book.
M: I think it's fair to say that Enlightenment is reaching our full potential as human beings.
S9: I would rather say that Enlightenment was more like graduation. When you graduate from high school, you do not say I am reaching my full potential as a high school student. You say, “I’m out of here." Or, "I no longer see my self as a high school student, how yesterday." ; ^ )
Semantics again. I'm not using the word in that way and you seem to be nitpicking; we seem to all agree but you're reading things into others' words that aren't there.
S9: No sukhita. Her book is based upon her own opinion (viewpoint is opinion) of the Theravada tradition.
:bigclap:
The next thing called for is, you must look for yourself, and see if this agrees what you, yourself, see. Do not swallow anything whole.
“Be a lamp unto yourself.”
I fully realize that at this point in your life, you are probably thinking that you cannot see for yourself, and that you must listen to others on these subjects.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with listening to others. We all must/should listen, remain receptive, and in the beginning we do this listening more, than less. But, do not buy anything, and close the book of anything, until you, yourself, witness this to be the case, personally.
I'm aware of all this.... but thanks for your advice. I know you mean well.
Nirvana is a break through of sorts. It turns our whole world on its head. It isn’t just being very, very, very, very calm. (Many people confuse trance states with it.)
You don’t look in to find it. (Only at first, when you are need to block out distractions and you are not sure what you are looking at.) But, looking in is merely practice.
When you finally know what you are looking at, it is everywhere Present.
By the way, I didn’t say RE birth, I said why are people being born at all.
I repeat:
If we are all, already 100% Enlightened, (as Buddha said) and it is “desire” that is causing all of the trouble, one way or the other, than why are we being born at all? Why is the population growing? This would seem, to me, like a contradiction. Don’t you agree?
By the way, if you put yourself in the place of defend what an author has said, because you profess that she is correct, then saying she said that, I didn’t, is a poor strategy.
If, however, there are some small places where you disagree with the author, it is best to point them out in the very beginning, and not wiggle later. Its way obvious!
Ego-self IS personality, the persona, or personality-self if you will. They are all sheer inventions, or dream figures for world adaption.
I am a very detailed person, when it comes to this subject. That is because of its extreme subtlety. One word, one way or the other, and you are off the mark in describing what is Reality.
If however you see this as mere semantics or nitpicking, then you are not like myself in looking for the golden needle in this haystack of a world.
Nirvana is a break through of sorts. It turns our whole world on its head. It isn’t just being very, very, very, very calm. (Many people confuse trance states with it.)
I'm not sure where I've said otherwise. I didn't say it was "just being very, very, very calm [like a trance-like state, or smokin' a blunt]." It's refering to the state of mind, when Wrongful Identification no longer arises and thus no clinging, and no dukkha. There's stillness, a calm, pure peace.
You don’t look in to find it.
Right. (?)
If we are all, already 100% Enlightened, (as Buddha said) and it is “desire” that is causing all of the trouble, one way or the other, than why are we being born at all? Why is the population growing? This would seem, to me, like a contradiction. Don’t you agree?
How did this topic even get brought up? What does it have to do with anything?
In any event, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Where did the Buddha say we're already 100% Enlightened? A sutta reference, please. We all have the potential, it's our "true self" if you will, but it's tainted by ignorance, craving/clinging, and Wrongful Identification. What do you mean by "all the trouble"? You're going to have to elaborate on everything you just said, or simply let it go and realize it's not relevant to the actual topic at hand.
By the way, if you put yourself in the place of defend what an author has said, because you profess that she is correct, then saying she said that, I didn’t, is a poor strategy.
I defended what the initial quote said. Then Sukhita posted an additional quote which I did not agree entirely with and I pointed it out in my very next reply. You then quoted that very thing that I made clear I disagreed with/didn't consider relevant to the topic and attributed it to me.
I still agree with the initial quote and don't see the huge contradictions in that post that you seem to. There is no "strategy." I'm simply trying to understand how she "missed the point entirely" when to me, she seems to be on the same page. For example, how did you come to the conlusion that the author was suggesting "[the] Buddha was just trying to live like everyone else, but to be a really nice guy?"?
If, however, there are some small places where you disagree with the author, it is best to point them out in the very beginning, and not wiggle later. Its way obvious!
Again, I didn't "wiggle out" later. ^ What are you getting excited about?
Ego-self IS personality, the persona, or personality-self if you will. They are all sheer inventions, or dream figures for world adaption.
Again you're getting too caught up in words. Try to look past them and see the message behind them. I don't believe the author was using "personality" in that sense at all. She was addressing the topic of "Nibbana = non-existence" or that it suggests some trance-like, catatonic state. She said that Nibbana is not this but release from Wrongful Identification, thus greed and hatred and dukkha. "Personality" is not being used in the traditional sense of the word.
I am a very detailed person, when it comes to this subject. That is because of its extreme subtlety. One word, one way or the other, and you are off the mark in describing what is Reality.
Not really. Words carry different meanings to different people. I tried to look past this issue when you first joined the forum. Hopefully you don't get too hung up on it now yourself. It's said that there are people who will attain Nibbana but cannot possibly begin to put their insights into words. We're trying to put into words something that can never be fully and 100% flawlessly conveyed through words, so we have to be careful not to get too hung up on our own terms. There isn't just one way to say something or come to the same conclusion. It's the knowing behind the words that's important.
Please remember what you yourself said: "I think that sometimes the truth hides behind language. We think that we are speaking the same language, English, but we are not. We are actually speaking a subjective language that is only similar on many points with others."
If however you see this as mere semantics or nitpicking, then you are not like myself in looking for the golden needle in this haystack of a world.
However, if we start to have “Wrongfully Identification” with anything, like existence, or even calling your self a Buddhist, then you are identifying yourself as being a personality, albeit a Buddhist personality. Isn’t that true?
No. It is not true.
The problem arises when we regard the "I" as real.
If I am asked: "Are you are Buddhist?" and I (mind, speech, etc,) say "I am a Buddhist" or "I am not a Buddhist", if one believes the "I" used is that communicative response is real, then one is certainly not a Buddhist.
If one believes it, there is as much attachment in "I am not a Buddhist" as there is in "I am a Buddhist", in fact more.
The mind denying the reality of the source of their liberation is in ignorance.
All of the Buddha's arahant disciples identified with the Buddha & his Dhamma but this identification was not born of ignorance.
Again - you actually think the 'self' is real so you keep anihilating it.
'Self' is an illusion. But this does not deny gratitude and cause & effect.
AD denied there is cause & effect. A denier of cause & effect is not Buddhist.
I don't believe that the Buddha was any kind of ism. "Be a light, unto your self." I believe that the Buddha was transcendent of both personality, isms, and labels.
Warm Regards,
So now you are teaching "LightUntoYourselfism".
Also, you are correlating labels with 'self'.
The Buddha taught the cessation of suffering from the cessation of attachment & clinging. Labels are not necessarily suffering.
As such, just like AD, it is not required of you to cling to what you imagine the Buddha was or wanted.
Even the Buddha had to continue communicating using words such as "I" and "my" in the real world. This doesn't suggest he hadn't fully realized anatta in any way, though.
Aversion to these things is in and of itself an attachment. "Buddhist" is just a word.
Indeed.
It is the one's with aversion to labels & categorisation who have not realised anatta.
They take these mere mental constructions to be real.
This is called spiritual paranoia or spiritual neurosis.
When Gautama was living in birth home with His wife and son, He had just about everything in His possession that this earthly life could offer. (Or, so the story goes.) He was even said to have personal gifts and abilities way beyond the average, and yet He was not satisfied. In fact, one might call him driven.
Prince Siddartha left the palace as soon as his son was born. He did not spend any time with his son.
If we actually read the suttas, the Prince brooded alot in the palace. He had no desire for worldly things whatsoever. Further, he deeply saw the suffering of humanity, especially the suffering of the upper classes.
But your view of the Prince makes it sound like he wanted his riches, wanted his wife, wanted his child and then wanted more. Your view of the Prince was he was a hungry ghost.
My theory is he made a deal with his parents to bear an heir. That is thirteen years of marriage until an heir. Then he left. Such were his sacrifices for us (that is, to force himself to have sex to bear an heir).
His quest was not just for himself. It was a compassionate quest.
This is an archetypal story of what happens to man when He reaches a certain Spiritual maturity, and simply cannot sit still any longer for just being human. Being human now feels to Him like a prison.
Does this sound to you like Buddha was just trying to live like everyone else, but to be a really nice guy?
Comments
The words "does not partake" means "does not cling".
Please remember, the searching monk asked the Buddha: "Where do the four great element cease without remainder?"
The Buddha replied: "That question is not fitting".
The Buddha said the right question is: "Where do the four great elements have no footing?"
Well I don't think Ajhan Char said so either but he was merely referring to dependent origination as far as I understand which can be confusing to someone who doesn't know it; so yeah maybe he did confuse the guy
and said to him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘The world is empty,
the world is empty.’ In what way, Venerable sir, is it said, ‘The
world is empty, the world is empty?’”
“It is because it is empty of self and what belongs to a self that
‘The world is empty’ is said, Ananda. And what is empty of self
and what belongs to a self? The eye is empty of self and what
belongs to a self... forms... eye-consciousness... eye-contact...
any feeling born of eye-contact, whether pleasant, painful or
neutral is empty of self and what belongs to a self. The ear... The
nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is empty of self and
what belongs to a self... mental objects... mind-consciousness...
mind-contact... any feeling born of mind-contact whether pleas-
ant, painful or neutral is empty of self and what belongs to a
self.”
~ S 35.85
as unstable, insubstantial,
as bubble, mirage and illusion –
they’re the ones Death cannot find.
~ Dhp 170
The Buddha has precisely pointed to the various phenomena as empty.
The sutta states mental objects are empty of self and what belongs to self.
Mental objects include thoughts.
When the mind says: "I am a Buddhist", that too is empty of self and what belongs to self.
Those thoughts & words are merely mental formations.
To the extent a mirage is a mirage, it exists as a mirage for what ever time it exists.
When sense organs operate, the world arises. When sense organs cease, the world ceases.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
Kaccayanagotta Sutta
We now come to the year of the Master's Parinibbana. The Blessed One had spent the rainy season at Beluva village, near Vesali, and when the Retreat was over he left that place and, going by the way he had come, returned by stages to Savatthi and arrived at the Jeta Grove Monastery.
There the Elder Sariputta, the Marshal of the Law, paid homage to the Blessed One and went to his day quarters. When his own disciples had saluted him and left, he swept the place and spread his leather mat. Then, having rinsed his feet, he sat down cross-legged and entered into the state of the Fruition Attainment of Arahatship.
The great Elder then gave a discourse, displaying all his descending to mundane truth, rising again, and again descending, he expounded the Dhamma directly and in symbols. And when he had ended his discourse he paid homage at the feet of the Master, embracing his legs, he said: "So that I might worship these feet I have fulfilled the Perfections throughout an aeon and a hundred thousand kalpas. My heart's wish has found fulfillment. From now on there will be no more contact or meeting; severed now is that intimate connection.
The Life of Sariputta
"'Conventional Truth exists': That is one extreme. 'Ultimate Truth' exist: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle
Thats the place of Non Abiding.
"Yes, monk, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to assume that it was proper to address me as 'friend.' But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and achieves restraint in the future."
Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta
Upaddha Sutta
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
Neyyatha Sutta
Thats the place of Non Abiding.
“The wise do not take
anything in the world as belonging to them, nor do they take
anything in the world as not belonging to them either.” (sn 858)
I would agree with you, in general, that there is less attachment as we progress upon the path. (But, that may be a symptom of Clarity, and not the originating cause.)
Yet, at the same time, we cannot always know (from the outside) if someone is ‘merely doing’ something, or if they are, in fact, attached to what they are doing.
I found it interesting that after Gautama was 100% Enlightened, that He would still go off and meditate. I am guessing that He just enjoyed it, and wasn’t actually attached to it, or expecting some payback.
On the other hand, witnessing Him doing such an act, you might easily question His motives, or what exactly He still felt there was to gain in such an act?
AD: If he possessed such wisdom, why didn't he share it with his family?
S9: I can only guess. Of course, you might easily first think, he knew his sister and husband better than we do. He had his reasons. ; ^ )
When does sharing become forcing?
Then too, he may very well have shared with them in a way that they could easily understand, which wouldn’t be earth shattering.
Very often, if you are really good at teaching, the person being taught will think it is their own idea. Teaching by example is one of these. I have heard it said that, our children learn more from who we actually are (good or bad), than what we say.
Lastly, some people who are Enlightened simply do not fancy themselves as being teachers. If you confront them directly, they will answer you. But, you will not find them volunteering information.
Used to be that many teachers would send people away, on general principle. If you weren’t extremely persistent and sticking to them like glue, thereby proving you were ready to grow, then they simply wouldn’t take you on, period.
Warm Regards,
S9
References please?
_/\_
Taking things as not belonging to one is not the same as non-existence.
This is the essence of my whole point.
The salient teachings of the Buddha are things are dependently arising, depending ceasing, impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self. Not -self means not belonging to one.
Once we start argueing about existence & non-existence, we depart from the Buddha. Buddha said: If my mind dwells in the view: "There is no Buddha, no world, no trees, no sky, no me, no people, no five aggregates", that state is a peaceful state but it is also a conditioned state and, most of all, a subjective state. It is not ultimate.
A tree falling on me and breaking most of the bones in my body will soon bring my mind down to earth.
In the world, there are things. Those things are dependently arisen, will dependently cease, impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self. Not -self means not belonging to one.
But once we get lost in existence & non-existence, we are lost.
To say, I am a Buddhist, I have followed the Buddha's teachings, is not necessarily attachment.
In the suttas, we read of the arahants approached by people who asked: "Who is your teacher, to whose dhamma do you profess?"
Those arahants answers: "The Buddha is my teacher, to his Dhamma I profess".
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
... Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech,
He would speak conforming to such use.
Araham Sutta: The Arahant
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/17lbud.htm
I had read, God know where anymore, after some decades, that Buddha use to assign certain fellows to teach on multiple levels, after He had Woke Up (Enlightenment), and would go off and meditate in the forest alone.
Perhaps, this is a problem of my living too long, and reading too much, just for the joy of it. Can't rightly tell you where I heard everything that is now dancing around in my head.
It probably too late for me to get organized, even if I wanted to.
Smile!
Warm Regards,
S9
Thanks S9 - although Buddhanet still doesn't give any sutta references! I like to look things up in the suttas whenever possible
Kind wishes,
Dazzle _/\_
I have no ill-feelings towards you, but I would prefer that we have no further interaction. Please respect that. Thank you.
~ AD
S9: I don’t believe that AD said, that things not belonging to you was the very same thing as non-existence. (But I probably should let her answer for herself.) : ^ )
However, if we start to have “Wrongfully Identification” with anything, like existence, or even calling your self a Buddhist, then you are identifying yourself as being a personality, albeit a Buddhist personality. Isn’t that true?
I don't believe that the Buddha was any kind of ism. "Be a light, unto your self."
I believe that the Buddha was transcendent of both personality, isms, and labels.
Warm Regards,
S9
________________
I bet you are a lot more organized than I ever was. I just love this stuff, and remember what I like.
But, I do like to share. So, I’m not all bad. ; ^ )
Friendly Regards,
S9
No, you got it.
Namaste,
~ AD
So in response to this:
Even the Buddha had to continue communicating using words such as "I" and "my" in the real world. This doesn't suggest he hadn't fully realized anatta in any way, though. One can say for the sake of convenience and clarity that they are a "Buddhist" as in "one who follows the Dhamma" without any clinging to or self-identification around the term. If one practices medicine, and is asked if they're a doctor, and they say "yes," is it necessarily attachment or just a simple fact? Aversion to these things is in and of itself an attachment. "Buddhist" is just a word. The issue is purely internal.
to identify as a Buddhist falls into the area of a valid cognition.
through functional consciousness and the functional identification as a Buddhist the conventional label is sound, accurate, and in no way makes one not a Buddhist.
I believe the problem here is that we are speaking on multiple levels.
On one level you call your self, an individual self, or even a Buddhist self, because it is convenient to do so, and also in some ways necessary in order to deal socially with others.
However, where the attachment comes in, shows its ugly head, is on the personal or subjective level, where you have hopefully understood that you are not this ego self. You are, in fact, what many of you here would call the no-self. If on this subjective level, you define yourself as a Buddhist, or any other defined personality, than you are trying to have it both ways. You are trying to be no-self, and yes-self.
Respectfully,
S9
When Gautama was living in birth home with His wife and son, He had just about everything in His possession that this earthly life could offer. (Or, so the story goes.) He was even said to have personal gifts and abilities way beyond the average, and yet He was not satisfied. In fact, one might call him driven.
This is an archetypal story of what happens to man when He reaches a certain Spiritual maturity, and simply cannot sit still any longer for just being human. Being human now feels to Him like a prison.
Does this sound to you like Buddha was just trying to live like everyone else, but to be a really nice guy?
When Gautama sat under the Bodhi tree, He was ready to die before He would give up on this final push towards Enlightenment. He was not looking just to perfect his human manifestation. He was not looking to be a saint.
I believe that our friend, Karen, just missed the point. Don’t you?
Warm Regards,
S9
How so? I'm not sure I see the connection between the rest of your post and what the author wrote.
i find it a very odd proposition that any being is or was 100% enlightened, even siddhartha... or any of the other great mystics and gurus in human history.
there are levels of awareness, levels of realisation, levels of self-actualisation and i would venture to say that all of us here have experienced breaking through a ceiling followed by breaking through another one sometime later. where do the ceilings end? as finite beings, no human could ever know the answer to this.
if siddhartha or guru of choice was sufficiently advanced, then for all intents and purposes they would (and have) appear to those around them as enlightened. so we can go ahead and call them "enlightened" for all intents and purposes. but even an 'enlightened' human would have no way of knowing for sure that there wasn't something more, some deeper realisation, that the cosmos might impart to them lurking around the next bend of their lives. how could they? after all, 1) we're finite beings, and 2) we have the potential to evolve even greater brains, for example. are doing it right now, in fact.
this is why i can see the point of siddhartha continuing to meditate his entire life.
first, because it's a healthy activity that everyone from the most-skilled to the least-skilled can benefit from; second, because every god knows that there's an even greater god standing just behind them, so to speak.
I cannot say that Karen Armstrong has missed the point because I cannot find anything substantial to counter what she says. Her book is based on the Theravada tradition... and people from other traditions might not agree with some of her viewpoints. For now, I am open minded on this.
She has more to say...
With kind regards
You are always cordially invited to jump right into the middle of any conversation that I am involved in. I value your input. : ^ )
That is a very good question. Was the Buddha, after Enlightenment, just doing more of 'the same old, same old?'
First let me say that, I agree with you in this way. We must try not to fall into what I see as a human failing, deifying of leaders, and Buddha certainly has taken a position throughout history of leadership in many lives. This in itself would only cloud our vision, IMO, as to what He, Himself, was trying to convey to us. That being that, “We are all 100% Enlightened already, and we just do not know it.”
Now, how can this possibly be when it appears that we are “…improving, every day in every way?” (AKA becoming)
“Being” (Enlightenment) is not the same thing as “becoming.” In a way, you might say that ‘Being” was a whole other dimension, altogether.
“Being,” in other words is “Transcendent” or outside of the world of “becoming,” (AKA finitude). Becoming is always incomplete, and reaching towards completion, and yet never quite arriving. Transcendent Being, on the other hand, is totally complete, or whole and satisfied, and therefore is never needing or changing. Transcendent Being IS Enlightenment.
The Buddha “Woke Up” to the fact that He was Transcendent Being, and that finitude was merely a dream going on, or superimposed upon His “Being,” (AKA Awareness or Presence).
Buddha was "Awake" in the dream.
Warm Regards,
S9
Just for fun, let me answer Karen herself to give you some idea of our differences.
K: “Had he himself, as the word implied, been "snuffed out", extinguished like a candle flame?”
S9: Obviously not. No one said, “And then Buddha died. “
So what was snuffed out? I would say that Buddha no longer “Wrongfully Identified” with the dream person; Gautama, or with Gautama’s dream life. So then, this illusion melted away, or died. Ignorance was extinguished like a flame that had no fuel.
K: During his six-year quest, Gautama had not masochistically courted annihilation but had sought enlightenment.
S9: During these 6 years, Gautama became acquainted more and more with just how empty this fellow Gautama, in fact, was. We all can do this with meditation, ourselves, and He was said to be very proficient in this area.
He had reached a place in His search where He knew what Gautama was not, but He did not actually, as yet, know what He WAS. So, He sat under the Bodhi tree, and pushed that last mile.
I believe this would be similar to what is described in 'a small little jewel of a book' called, ‘The Dark Night of the Soul’ by St. John of the Cross.
I personally do not see Enlightenment as being synonymous with Sainthood. I do not see Enlightenment as just one more achievement that we can add to our bag of tricks. I see it as 180 degrees different than that.
Warm Regards,
S9
S: Her book is based on the Theravada tradition
S9: No sukhita. Her book is based upon her own opinion (viewpoint is opinion) of the Theravada tradition. The next thing called for is, you must look for yourself, and see if this agrees what you, yourself, see. Do not swallow anything whole.
“Be a lamp unto yourself.”
I fully realize that at this point in your life, you are probably thinking that you cannot see for yourself, and that you must listen to others on these subjects.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with listening to others. We all must/should listen, remain receptive, and in the beginning we do this listening more, than less. But, do not buy anything, and close the book of anything, until you, yourself, witness this to be the case, personally.
Warm Regards,
S9
.
I agree, but this seems to be what Karen was saying too:
"Nibbana did not mean personal extinction: what had been been snuffed out was not his personality but the fires of greed, hatred and delusion."
And further: "Once he had found this inner realm of calm, which is Nibbana, Gotama had become a Buddha. He was convinced that, once egotism had been snuffed out, there would be no flames or fuel to spark a new existence, because the desire (tanha) which bound him to samsara had been finally quenched."
Although she's clearly leading in to the topic of literal rebirth, ultimately she's saying the exact same thing as you and I are, that Nibbana is "snuffing out the ego-self [and thereby craving and dukkha]."
But who suggested it was? I think semantics are getting in the way here. I think it's fair to say that Enlightenment is reaching our full potential as human beings. But I think you're equating the word "human being" with the illusion itself.
Q: K: “What had been snuffed out was not his personality but the fires of greed, hatred and delusion."
M: I agree, but this seems to be what Karen was saying too:
S9: I am saying that His personality/Gautama, (not being his true identity), was snuffed out. I get the feeling that she wants to make Gautama a new, new, improved Gautama, and call this improved version Enlightened.
I, on the other hand, am saying that until Buddha died to the identity of Himself as Gautama, that He was in no way ‘Liberated.’ Liberation is not done in ½ measures.
Q: K: "Once he had found this inner realm of calm, which is Nibbana, Gotama had become a Buddha.”
S9: Nirvana is not a place (rather it is, “Abide in the Non-abiding.”) Nirvana is Being.
M: He was convinced that, once egotism had been snuffed out, there would be no flames or fuel to spark a new existence.
S9: If this were true, how does that make sense against Buddha’s insight that “We were all already 100% Enlightened, and we just didn’t know it?”
Where did desire come from in the 1st place, and why are so many people still being born?
Buddha did not snuff out the ego, as it is a necessary tool for interfacing with this world, conventionally, and with each other. (Remember an old thread and catatonia?) He simply stopped “Wrongfully Identifying” with the ego.
M: I think it's fair to say that Enlightenment is reaching our full potential as human beings.
S9: I would rather say that Enlightenment was more like graduation. When you graduate from high school, you do not say I am reaching my full potential as a high school student. You say, “I’m out of here." Or, "I no longer see my self as a high school student, how yesterday." ; ^ )
In this same way, Buddha no long saw Himself as a human being. He saw the human, Gautama, as an illusion, imaginary, or a dream, from which He had graduated.
He was Awake in a dream. Probably similar to "Lucid Dreaming."
M: But, I think you're equating the word "human being" with the illusion itself.
S9: Exactly. Not just the word, but the person depicted by the word, too. I am a Radical Transcendentalist in this area. Subject (Gautama) and object (this world) were co-dependently arising. Buddha stepped out of the stream, and was on the other side.
Respectfully,
S9
__________________
It's one of the questions discussed in The Questions of King Milinda. Buddha meditated after enlightenment in order to serve as an example and because of the joy of meditation.
Karen said Nibbana is inner peace, calmness, and clarity. She didn't say it's a place.
I don't know what you're talking about; I did not say that, the author did. I said it's clear that the author believes in literal rebirth. I do not. Ultimately it's irrelevent because it's the false self that needs to be dealt with whether or not their is rebirth. According to rebirth doctrine, once that is taken care of, the rest would follow.
What do you mean? Craving comes from "Wrongful Identification" which comes from ignorance. And:
...well, when a man and a woman... :P (in other words, I don't know her view on literal rebirth and as I'm not interested in life-after-death theories, I'm not trying to explain what she said; I don't think her main point had anything to do with literal rebirth, so let's not get caught up on that issue).
Yes, this is a semantics issue. I was using "ego-self" as being synonymous with "over-all self-concept" or "false-self." Whereas you're using it in the way Karen seems to be using "personality" in her book.
Semantics again. I'm not using the word in that way and you seem to be nitpicking; we seem to all agree but you're reading things into others' words that aren't there.
:bigclap:
I'm aware of all this.... but thanks for your advice. I know you mean well.
With kind regards
Sukhita
Nirvana is a break through of sorts. It turns our whole world on its head. It isn’t just being very, very, very, very calm. (Many people confuse trance states with it.)
You don’t look in to find it. (Only at first, when you are need to block out distractions and you are not sure what you are looking at.) But, looking in is merely practice.
When you finally know what you are looking at, it is everywhere Present.
By the way, I didn’t say RE birth, I said why are people being born at all.
I repeat:
If we are all, already 100% Enlightened, (as Buddha said) and it is “desire” that is causing all of the trouble, one way or the other, than why are we being born at all? Why is the population growing? This would seem, to me, like a contradiction. Don’t you agree?
By the way, if you put yourself in the place of defend what an author has said, because you profess that she is correct, then saying she said that, I didn’t, is a poor strategy.
If, however, there are some small places where you disagree with the author, it is best to point them out in the very beginning, and not wiggle later. Its way obvious!
Ego-self IS personality, the persona, or personality-self if you will. They are all sheer inventions, or dream figures for world adaption.
I am a very detailed person, when it comes to this subject. That is because of its extreme subtlety. One word, one way or the other, and you are off the mark in describing what is Reality.
If however you see this as mere semantics or nitpicking, then you are not like myself in looking for the golden needle in this haystack of a world.
Warm Regards,
S9
__________________
You are very gracious. : ^ )
I meant no insult to you, if I aimed to low on your personal understanding.
But please, let me apologize anyway.
It is so difficult on the web to pick up exactly where someone else is standing.
Warm regards,
S9
I'm not sure where I've said otherwise. I didn't say it was "just being very, very, very calm [like a trance-like state, or smokin' a blunt]." It's refering to the state of mind, when Wrongful Identification no longer arises and thus no clinging, and no dukkha. There's stillness, a calm, pure peace.
Right. (?)
How did this topic even get brought up? What does it have to do with anything?
In any event, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Where did the Buddha say we're already 100% Enlightened? A sutta reference, please. We all have the potential, it's our "true self" if you will, but it's tainted by ignorance, craving/clinging, and Wrongful Identification. What do you mean by "all the trouble"? You're going to have to elaborate on everything you just said, or simply let it go and realize it's not relevant to the actual topic at hand.
I defended what the initial quote said. Then Sukhita posted an additional quote which I did not agree entirely with and I pointed it out in my very next reply. You then quoted that very thing that I made clear I disagreed with/didn't consider relevant to the topic and attributed it to me.
I still agree with the initial quote and don't see the huge contradictions in that post that you seem to. There is no "strategy." I'm simply trying to understand how she "missed the point entirely" when to me, she seems to be on the same page. For example, how did you come to the conlusion that the author was suggesting "[the] Buddha was just trying to live like everyone else, but to be a really nice guy?"?
Again, I didn't "wiggle out" later. ^ What are you getting excited about?
Again you're getting too caught up in words. Try to look past them and see the message behind them. I don't believe the author was using "personality" in that sense at all. She was addressing the topic of "Nibbana = non-existence" or that it suggests some trance-like, catatonic state. She said that Nibbana is not this but release from Wrongful Identification, thus greed and hatred and dukkha. "Personality" is not being used in the traditional sense of the word.
Not really. Words carry different meanings to different people. I tried to look past this issue when you first joined the forum. Hopefully you don't get too hung up on it now yourself. It's said that there are people who will attain Nibbana but cannot possibly begin to put their insights into words. We're trying to put into words something that can never be fully and 100% flawlessly conveyed through words, so we have to be careful not to get too hung up on our own terms. There isn't just one way to say something or come to the same conclusion. It's the knowing behind the words that's important.
Please remember what you yourself said: "I think that sometimes the truth hides behind language. We think that we are speaking the same language, English, but we are not. We are actually speaking a subjective language that is only similar on many points with others."
Judging from what you have said here, I guess that we are going to have to agree to disagree.
But, thank you for your time.
Warm Regards,
S9
The problem arises when we regard the "I" as real.
If I am asked: "Are you are Buddhist?" and I (mind, speech, etc,) say "I am a Buddhist" or "I am not a Buddhist", if one believes the "I" used is that communicative response is real, then one is certainly not a Buddhist.
If one believes it, there is as much attachment in "I am not a Buddhist" as there is in "I am a Buddhist", in fact more.
The mind denying the reality of the source of their liberation is in ignorance.
All of the Buddha's arahant disciples identified with the Buddha & his Dhamma but this identification was not born of ignorance.
Again - you actually think the 'self' is real so you keep anihilating it.
'Self' is an illusion. But this does not deny gratitude and cause & effect.
AD denied there is cause & effect. A denier of cause & effect is not Buddhist.
So now you are teaching "LightUntoYourselfism".
Also, you are correlating labels with 'self'.
The Buddha taught the cessation of suffering from the cessation of attachment & clinging. Labels are not necessarily suffering.
As such, just like AD, it is not required of you to cling to what you imagine the Buddha was or wanted.
It is the one's with aversion to labels & categorisation who have not realised anatta.
They take these mere mental constructions to be real.
This is called spiritual paranoia or spiritual neurosis.
If we actually read the suttas, the Prince brooded alot in the palace. He had no desire for worldly things whatsoever. Further, he deeply saw the suffering of humanity, especially the suffering of the upper classes.
But your view of the Prince makes it sound like he wanted his riches, wanted his wife, wanted his child and then wanted more. Your view of the Prince was he was a hungry ghost.
My theory is he made a deal with his parents to bear an heir. That is thirteen years of marriage until an heir. Then he left. Such were his sacrifices for us (that is, to force himself to have sex to bear an heir).
His quest was not just for himself. It was a compassionate quest.