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.
Yes, the practice is to let go. I meditate to let go not to attain anything.
S9: Don’t believe everything your mind tells you. : ^ )
Whenever we have a goal, of course we are looking to attain something. Even the goal of letting go gains us not holding onto stuff. It can’t be helped. That is simply how the mind works naturally. Only instincts take place without any idea about gain because they take place in the spinal cord, and aren't thought.
The best we can hope for is not to be TOO specific about what that gain will be, especially because it will only lead us into speculations, which are conceptual.
All paths lead somewhere unless they travel in a circle. ; ^ )
Perhaps the only way to avoid 'Spiritual Materialism' is to understand, (second think and get an overview) that what you are going to find is already what you are, and can’t be owned, that is unless you think you own yourself. : ^ )
Ownership and gain are both dualistic notions, as they call for a you and an object outside of yourself to own. All dualism takes place in the mind.
R: I'm trying to create some space, the mindfulness needed to be able to understand where that anger arose from when that dude cut me off in his pickup truck.
S9: If there is no-self, (no ego-self), or at least the ego-self isn’t you, than the guy who got angry when some jerk cut you off in traffic wasn’t you. Perhaps Liberation isn’t all about creating a better ‘self’ image.
Clarity does certainly clear up un-useful habits of mind, however, and that is obviously practical. But, suffering isn’t about this habit, or that habit, and even that little habit over there. I believe it all comes back to wrongful identification with the guy who has all of these habits in the first place.
Seeing through identification with the many habits is a long an arduous trip, and can take a long/long time, albeit fruitful in its own way. Dis-identify, on the other hand, with the guy having and holding all of these habits, and POOF, no more fellow, and no more habits preventing your Liberation.
Q: Liberation is not for the self, but from the self."
I think this is why they speak of a slow process of Liberation and Instant Liberation. They both take place, but one of these is final. I’ll let you guess which one this is. ; ^ )
S9, imho it is good to have a sense of where you go and where you are supposed to go in meditation. That doesn't mean you chase your goal the moment you sit on that cushion. I think we all know that by now. Having letting go in mind is perfectly fine as far as you practice it the right way.
S9: This quote certainly makes it sound like what Buddha 'Woke Up' to something that was right there all along, right in front of him but previously overlooked, because he was sleeping (hypnotized by mind’s going on-s), that he simply didn’t notice it.
Isn't that it btw? Isn't enlightenment a realization of some truth that has always been there but we were too deluded to see it?
It is good to have a sense of where you go and where you are supposed to go in meditation.
S9: Perhaps, esp. if you keep it confined to how long you are going to sit that day, and what method you are going to use, only. But, as soon as your butt hits the pillow, you have to let go of not only defilements as they appear, but also any expectations you may be cherishing.
But, I get the feeling that I am preaching to the choir in telling you this. : ^ )
That doesn't mean you chase your goal the moment you sit on that cushion. I think we all know that by now.
S9: Perhaps, you do my e-friend, but no harm done in repeating it one more time for any ‘new bee’ looking on. I don’t mean to sound critical in any way towards you.
Isn't enlightenment a realization of some truth that has always been there but we were too deluded to see it?
S9: Indeed…but not a word-ee truth. Something far more subtle than that. But, again, I think you know that, as well.
It is sooo hard to know what others know already. I guess we just can’t take anything personal and enjoy hearing any one truth one more time. Maybe someone out there will gain from it.
IMHO, the monastics usually find themselves in a more conducive "environment" to practice the 4NT & 8FP than many of the lay people who have to contend with the "hustle and bustle" of the household, family issues, pressures of workplace, etc... Hence, the "extra effort" needed by the lay people. This is how I see it... others may feel the "environments" that I talk about make no difference... perhaps it all boils down to personal viewpoints here.
But if you see wisdom as being synonymous with Ultimate Truth, well than, Ultimate Truth isn’t a mind object, and does come or go like thoughts do, and therefore it certainly doesn’t arrive either.
There is nothing that is not a mind object. That being the case, certainly the arising & passing of phenonema and emptiness of phenomena are mind objects. Even Nibbana is a mind object.
The Buddha taught:
"[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally, fading].' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.' [15] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation B]Nibbana[/B.' [16] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.'
"This is how mindfulness with in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit.
You have been "respectfully" posting for a while now.
S9: Ah, aren’t you sweet. I love it when people are nice to me. : ^ )
What you are posting is merely intellectual.
S9: First of all, if it was merely intellectual, that would mean that it had no substance or personal experience behind it. This is of course not the case. In fact, most often I speak from personal experience and do not resort to quoting others to back me up.
This isn't because I can't find any quotes to do that with. This is because I feel that my truth will come through my words directly, if I speak truthfully and with all sincerity. Truth, on hearing it, will certainly resonate with those who at that place where they can benefit from it.
Whenever anyone has an experience, esp. if it is ineffable in nature, changing what they have experienced into words in order to relay it to another is always an intellectual endeavor. After all, words are the tool of the intellect.
Buddha was noted for his keen intellect. It was likened to a diamond, meaning that it could cut through anything, and was full of light/clarity.
I believe if you give this some thought that you would realize that every time the Buddha spoke of his own experience, he was forced ALSO to resort to his intellect to put it into words. I thank goodness that he took this effort. How about you? : ^ )
Not only that but, every sutra is made up of words…oops being intellectual again.
Some people have tried to circumnavigate this problem by sitting in front of an audience in complete silence. But I am not sure that is very useful for most people in an audience, esp when they have come to HEAR about the Truth. (Hear words)
I have noticed that you seem to be falling into this trap, quite a little bit actually, that is using words in your posting. But, perhaps you have been being SILENT too, and I just didn't notice it. ; ^ )
I do believe if you go back and check my posts that you will see most often I am asking people to look directly for themselves, directly at their own personal experience beyond the mind. I also think that, unlike me, most of the time you are directing people towards reading Words or sutras.
The intellect and the instrument words are not altogether evil. They are quite a necessary tool in order to have good communication with others. To communicate well by using the intellect and words efficiently isn’t necessarily a crime.
Truth is something very tangible and so are its effects upon the mind.
S9: True, but it isn’t shared unless we speak of it, and resort to our intellect in order to organize our WORDS.
What the Buddha awakened to, you described as "something".
S9: Are you saying by implication that it was 'nothing at all?'
Still talking about Brahma.
S9: You are simply jumping to conclusions about what I have experienced. Set your mind at ease. It wasn’t a Godlike personage. But, thanks for your concern for my welfare.
: ^ )
This seems to happen to Dhatu every few months. His reading comprehension goes out the window (the "preaching to the choir" part was obviously targeted at Deshy) and he gets hostile at any little imagined slight. It's a good thing he practices Dhamma; imagine what he'd be like without decades of meditation.
RE: Isn't enlightenment a realization of some truth that has always been there but we were too deluded to see it?
RE: S9: Indeed…but not a word-ee truth. Something far more subtle than that. But, again, I think you know that, as well.
Actually I don't. Why don't you tell me e-friend
S9: Very often while meditating, insights come to us much faster (immediately) than words can form in order to explain them. We know, but we can’t say what exactly we know. This happens in a Now that isn’t in time. (Some have called this the space between thoughts. But actually the thoughts just distract us from what is constantly HERE.)
In fact, some masters have said when you try to grasp these insights with words; very often you have already polluted them to some extent. This is because in trying to explain them, you have thrown yourself back into the mind.
This, as I read recently often happens in a jhana experience as well. You loose it the second that you try to grasp or hold onto it with an explanation.
The Awareness of Enlightenment is similar to this. Yes, it is right Here, all of the time, and Constant. But if the mind tries to look at it, it makes whatever it is looking at into a mind object.
So although words like ‘silent’ come very close to explaining one aspect of Liberation, and even other words like ‘spacious’ for instance, none of them is quite right, and yet not exactly or completely wrong either. I sure hope I am making sense here. : ^ )
I think this is because Enlightenment is really not a mind thing at/all. It is the dimension of All at once. Whereas mind is more lineal, trapped in time, and tries to understand it one word at a time, a more accumulative effort that never quite gets there. Like dancing around it.
If someone (not you) is holding onto what they believe like it is a inflatable life raft, which prevents any possible flexibility towards the views of others, any person who doesn’t agree with you appears to be holding a big pin, and it scares to b-jesus out of you. After a while you may even see pins, where there aren’t any.
When you once trust enough to hold what you have/believe more gently, the world becomes safer overnight. Go figure. : ^ )
Peace can be very fragile when accompanied by fear.
First of all, if it was merely intellectual, that would mean that it had no substance or personal experience behind it. This is of course not the case.
So you have experienced a "truth" that is not a mind object.
If that is the case, how have you experienced it if not via mind?
Very often while meditating, insights come to us much faster (immediately) than words can form in order to explain them.
What kind of insight are you referring to that words can describe?
Some have called this the space between thoughts.
This is not insight. The space between your thoughts is space or clear consciousness.
Insight arises when there are no thoughts.
If uncontrolled discursive thought is still occuring, how can insight & enlightenment be declared?
In fact, some masters have said when you try to grasp these insights with words; very often you have already polluted them to some extent.
Buddhist Masters or Hindu masters?
Insight for the Buddha is impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self.
As your posts do not discuss these three things, they are not about Buddhist insight.
This is because in trying to explain them, you have thrown yourself back into the mind.
That is incorrect. Everything occurs in the mind.
Your confusion appears to be you regard thought as "mind" and consciousness as "space".
Mind is knowing. 'Thoughtless direct knowing' is insight.
This, as I read recently often happens in a jhana experience as well. You loose it the second that you try to grasp or hold onto it with an explanation.
Non-sense. Jhana is known by the mind, which is why it can be known during & described afterwards.
The Awareness of Enlightenment is similar to this.
Awareness is not enlightenment. Enlightenment is constantly observing the arising & passing of phenomena and their selflessness until disapassion occurs to the mind. This dispassion is the entry to Nibbana, which is fully known by the mind.
Yes, it is right Here, all of the time, and Constant. But if the mind tries to look at it, it makes whatever it is looking at into a mind object.
Everything is a mind object. Your confusion is you regard only thought as a mind object.
Even so, the absence of thought is not enlightenment. Enlightened beings still think when necessary.
So although words like ‘silent’ come very close to explaining one aspect of Liberation, and even other words like ‘spacious’ for instance,
Silent is not enlightenment, spacious is not enlightenment. These things are concentration.
Enlightenment is wisdom. It is right knowledge that ends defilement.
none of them is quite right, and yet not exactly or completely wrong either. I sure hope I am making sense here. : ^ )
You are not making any sense here. What you said is completely wrong.
I think this is because Enlightenment is really not a mind thing at/all. It is the dimension of All at once. Whereas mind is more lineal, trapped in time, and tries to understand it one word at a time, a more accumulative effort that never quite gets there. Like dancing around it.
If someone (not you) is holding onto what they believe like it is a inflatable life raft, which prevents any possible flexibility towards the views of others...
Your view are wrong views regarding enlightenment. The Buddha called this miccha dhitti or wrong view.
Flexibility is not required. What is required is throwing your views about enlightenment on the rubbish heap.
...any person who doesn’t agree with you appears to be holding a big pin...
The more one negates your views, the more enlightenment that comes.
"A pin". Please. How can one roll back the Buddha-Dhamma?
When you once trust enough to hold what you have/believe more gently, the world becomes safer overnight. Go figure. : ^ )
Your views about enlightenment are incorrect. They are nothing to cherish or fear. They are mere non-sense.
Peace can be very fragile when accompanied by fear.
Peace is always here and gets stronger, when one refutes wrong views about the end of the path.
Your views about silent, spacious mind are the beginning rather than the end. When one can maintain this silent spacious mind throughtout one's meditation, this is the beginning rather than the end. This is what Ajahn Brahm has referred to in his book as the preliminaries of the path (rather than the end). The end of the path comes when all things that come before this spaciousness silent mind are seen to be arising & passing along with the arising & passing of the spaciousness silent mind.
DS: What kind of insight are you referring to that words can describe?
S9: Ineffable insights can’t be explained in a way that the mind can contain. Clarity about what you have doing or thinking, incorrectly, is a whole n’other animal.
Obviously we are coming at this180 degrees away from each other in this way. What you are saying, I believe, is that there is nothing outside of the mind. Whereas I believe discovering what is outside of the mind IS Liberation from the mind
Either I am wrong in this, or perhaps you simply haven’t discovered this quite yet. I think that we both wish the best for each other. At least I hope this is the case. : ^ )
BTW, I don’t think saying “NONSENCE” is a polite way, or a civilized way, to correspond with others. I know you are bright enough to think of a more productive way to correspond than that.
Please consider that people will tend to discount what you are saying, if you cannot manage to CHILL. I hope you can be open to this constructive criticism, as I personally believe that you have much good to offer us.
RE: S9: Some have called this the space between thoughts. This is not insight. The space between your thoughts is space or clear consciousness.
S9: Perhaps it is not an earth shattering insight to recognize a calm space between thoughts, although it does certainly teach us that we are not just our thoughts. A small clarity of this sort can have a long list of ramification hitched to it, esp. in how we approach our self and our world.
Insight arises when there are no thoughts.
S9: Because Nirvana is without any thoughts, or mind objects whatsoever; this certainly gives us a preview of what Nirvana might be like to some small extent. Especially when you realize that suffering comes wrapped in thoughts and concepts. But again, this is not the whole of it, a little like the words silence and spacious only point at it.
If uncontrolled discursive thought is still occurring, how can insight & enlightenment be declared?
S9: Well if Enlightenment is a Constant, or always here, (and it is) than thoughts don’t really eliminate it. But, at least in the beginning, before we quite know what we are looking for, or at, it certainly can add to our confusion. : ^ (
RE: S9: :In fact, some masters have said when you try to grasp these insights with words; very often you have already polluted them to some extent. Buddhist Masters or Hindu masters?
S9: What difference does it make if it is the Truth? Truth IS Truth.
Insight for the Buddha is impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self.
S9: I would say rather that they are a form of Clarity. Any reasonable person can see this in our world and our self; that is if they examine closely enough.
I continue to say that “not-self”; means “not-ego-self,” and Buddha Nature IS our true or whole self. (Yes, I know you do not agree here either.)
As your posts do not discuss these three things, they are not about Buddhist insight.
S9: That may be a little narrow (limiting) on your part. Much of what Buddha said led to earth shattering connotations, which didn’t need to be spoken, or perhaps couldn’t be, as they were sooo numerous.
RE: S9: This is because in trying to explain them, you have thrown yourself back into the mind. That is incorrect. Everything occurs in the mind.
S9: Every ‘thing,’ (AKA mind object), but not every possible dimension is in mind. I believe that the mind is a dream that we can Wake Up from, just as the Buddha did.
Your confusion appears to be you regard thought as "mind" and consciousness as "space."
S9: I don’t think so. Perhaps you can point out the errors of my ways. ; ^ )
Mind is knowing. 'Thoughtless direct knowing' is insight.
S9: Even noticing that you are not thinking is a thought, dear e-person. You may be seeing it perhaps as a picture (very right brain), but a picture of emptiness (a blank space) is still mind-bound according to Nagarjuna. Nirvana is even empty, even of the idea of emptiness.
Jhana is known by the mind, which is why it can be known during & described afterwards.
S9: Well, according to the article I read by a recognize Buddhist Jhana Master, what we grab at, and cling to, and even what we remember isn’t the ALL of a Jnana experience.
This was eye opening for me, as I had thought before that Jnana was nothing more than a feel-good trance state. I hadn’t thought that it could introduce us to something beyond itself because it was a feel-good trap.
Awareness is not enlightenment. Enlightenment is constantly observing the arising & passing of phenomena and their selflessness until dispassion occurs to the mind. This dispassion is the entry to Nibbana, which is fully known by the mind.
S9: “O boy,” I disagree on so many points of what you just said here that I could probably write a book. ; ^ ) Let it just suffice that I do not see mind and Nirvana as being synonymous.
Everything is a mind object. Your confusion is you regard only thought as a mind object.
S9: Not really. Not by my lights. I wonder if you could speak on this a little further as I cannot believe you are trying to say what I am reading in your words. Thanx : ^ )
Even so, the absence of thought is not enlightenment. Enlightened beings still think when necessary.
S9: Of course, the dream continues, but we realize that we are not any part of the dream.
Silent is not enlightenment, spacious is not enlightenment.
S9: Isn’t that what I have been saying? I said they were mind objects that merely mirror enlightenment. But a mirror is not the full experience of enlightenment by any means.
These things are concentration.
S9: There is obviously some silence and spaciousness without any need to concentrate, since people who do not even meditate at all, readily recognize these words.
Enlightenment is wisdom. It is right knowledge that ends defilement.
S9: And so much more, as ineffable isn’t just a poor vocabulary.
Peace is always here and gets stronger, when one refutes wrong views about the end of the path.
S9: The Peace that is beyond the mind isn’t changed one little bit by what we think. It simply IS. Thusness. But peace of mind doesn’t live along side of fear.
Your views about silent, spacious mind are the beginning rather than the end. When one can maintain this silent spacious mind throughout one's meditation, this is the beginning rather than the end.
S9: The beginning of what, if like you say there is nothing beyond the mind?
I fully realize that concentration is a mental mudra or receptivity to what is outside of our control.
The end of the path comes when all things that come before this spaciousness silent mind are seen to be arising & passing along with the arising & passing of the spaciousness silent mind.
S9: Then what? We are just psychologically comfortable in our skin? Why did Buddha say, “I Woke Up” instead of, “I am comfortable in my own skin?” or “I am psychologically cured.” Enlightenment isn’t just psychological health, only. That is only a symptom of clarity.
Subjectivity9= 'Buddha Nature IS our true or whole self.'
What exactly do you mean by 'Buddha Nature' S9?
My understanding of the term 'Buddha Nature' in relation to Tibetan Buddhism is that it means the latent potential that all sentient beings are supposed to have for Buddhahood. So it isn't our true self any more than the potential to be axe murderers is our true self either.
S9: I agree with you that Buddha Nature is “the latent potential that all sentient beings are supposed to, (do) have for Buddhahood,” as well as, let me add, the actualization of this very Real potential.
I think what you want to ask me is, “What do you think Buddha Nature is when it is actualized, comes about, or is finally discovered, is it not?
Sometimes I get the feeling that people stop think at the potential level, and don’t really go on to think about the potential itself, or question what exactly it is. They prefer to talk about what it is not.
I also think that this is because their understanding of no-self doesn’t stand up to direct scrutiny.
Is Buddhahood synonymous with nothingness? I don’t think so.
What is your take on this?
It isn't our true self any more than the potential to be axe murderers is our true self either.
S9: Yikes, I hope you don’t think I believe true self is an axe murder. Just kidding.
; ^ )
But if you think Buddhahood is simply killing everything off, and leaving absolutely nothing in its wake…what difference does it make if we do this with an axe, or with a concept? Dead and gone is still just dead and gone in that story line.
So yes, I have Buddha Nature being our Eternal Essence, our wholeness, and very much alive.
...if you think Buddhahood is simply killing everything off, and leaving absolutely nothing in its wake…what difference does it make if we do this with an axe, or with a concept?
Isn't it more that everything is already dead and nothing to begin with? Nothing to kill, nothing to destroy.
S9: "I agree with you that Buddha Nature is “the latent potential that all sentient beings are supposed to, (do) have for Buddhahood,” as well as, let me add, the actualization of this very Real potential."
According to the teachings regarding the potential or seed of Buddhahood a being such as a fly has Buddha Nature -so where's the actualisation with a fly ?
"All beings (such as the fly) possess the nature of Buddha, or tathagatagarbha"....Mahaparinirvana Sutra
"I think what you want to ask me is, “What do you think Buddha Nature is when it is actualized, comes about, or is finally discovered, is it not?"
No. I asked what you meant by 'Buddha Nature' not what happens if its actualised.
Is Buddhahood synonymous with nothingness? I don’t think so.
What is your take on this?
No idea what you're talking about. How can Buddhahood be synonymous with nothingness?
But if you think Buddhahood is simply killing everything off, and leaving absolutely nothing in its wake…what difference does it make if we do this with an axe, or with a concept? Dead and gone is still just dead and gone in that story line
5B: Isn't it more that everything is already dead and nothing to begin with?
S9: No I don’t think so. Everything is totally alive, is Life, but not in the sense that we usually think of it. Not a bunch of separate pieces of life. That is a part of the illusion, the whole concept of separation with labels to prove it.
And:
Not like a life that comes and goes in these separate pieces or dies.
I believe that finitude is a dream, not a dead dream, but a dream that is simply allowed to take place within this Constant Life.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not personifying Life, creating a God, or even giving it an ego story of any kind.
And:
Like you say, I do not believe that mind can begin to contain the whole of it, because it is too vast for the mind to comprehend. I believe Life is Buddha Nature. But, life is an understatement in our mind because it is so subtle that most of the time we simply overlook it.
Buddha Nature is not a dead thing. It is vibrantly Alive and Aware.
Finitude because it is a dream IS totally empty of its own personal Essence, and merely borrows Essence or Original Life temporarily.
I do not believe anything that I have said here, is contradicted by the Buddha. But I am very willing to discuss this with you.
Isn't it more that everything is already dead and nothing to begin with? Nothing to kill, nothing to destroy.
Hmm, well this dead tree still has wet eyes. (apologies to Dogen).
Perhaps another way of saying this would be that all of the endless layers of phenomenon that the ego attaches to and then construes as a "substantive being" is dead ("nothing to kill, nothing to destroy"). These things that arise in the mind are fabrications--delusions--survival-based ramblings of the monkey. The creation of a false self, using the skandhas to do all the dirty work of ignorance!
This body is just a loaner folks; its death is inevitable, but we do have this moment; this very precious moment. It is all that we have! Use it wisely.
S9: Ineffable insights can’t be explained in a way that the mind can contain.
Non-sense. The Buddha explained Nibbana as the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion.
What you are saying, I believe, is that there is nothing outside of the mind. Whereas I believe discovering what is outside of the mind IS Liberation from the mind
How could something outside of the mind be of benefit if the mind cannot experience it?
The Buddha taught the one goal of the spiritual life was the liberation of mind (rather than something outside of the mind).
Here's your dhamma lesson for today from the Veneral Ajahn Chah:
What is the mind? The mind isn't really any ''thing''. Conventionally speaking, it's that which feels or senses. That which senses, receives and experiences all mental impressions is called ''mind''.
Right at this moment there is mind. As I am speaking to you, the mind acknowledges what I am saying. Sounds enter through the ear and you know what is being said. That which experiences this is called ''mind''.
This mind doesn't have any self or substance. It doesn't have any form. It just experiences mental activities, that's all!
If we teach this mind to have right view, this mind won't have any problems. It will be at ease. The mind is mind. Mental objects are mental objects. Mental objects are not the mind, the mind is not mental objects.
In order to clearly understand our minds and the mental objects in our minds, we say that the mind is that which receives the mental objects which pop into it.
Whereas I believe discovering what is outside of the mind IS Liberation from the mind
The Buddha taught about the liberation of mind rather than from mind.
The Buddha taught liberation from defilements rather than liberation from mind.
Luminous, monks, is the mind.And it is defiled by incoming defilements."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind."
Either I am wrong in this, or perhaps you simply haven’t discovered this quite yet.
You cannot even decide. You are wrong. There is nothing you are referring to that needs to be discovered. Whatever can be discovered is discovered by mind.
BTW, I don’t think saying “NONSENCE” is a polite way, or a civilized way, to correspond with others. I know you are bright enough to think of a more productive way to correspond than that.
I am bright enough to speak was is factual & correct.
Please consider that people will tend to discount what you are saying, if you cannot manage to CHILL.
My mind is chilled. From from your side, just more non-sense. Just more hot air requiring a pin to pop it.
I hope you can be open to this constructive criticism, as I personally believe that you have much good to offer us.
I do have much good to offer but your criticism is baseless.
The Buddha said one stuck in the mud cannot pull another out of the mud.
Perhaps it is not an earth shattering insight to recognize a calm space between thoughts...
It is more earth shattering for the mind to be free from thoughts.
It is not really possible to have strong insight when thoughts are in the mind.
This is merely something written in books (like Krishnamurti) and is auto-suggestion or self-indocrination.
S9: Because Nirvana is without any thoughts, or mind objects whatsoever;
No. A mind that dwells with Nirvana is not necessarily free from thoughts. A mind that thinks without greed, hatred & delusion dwells in Nirvana.
The Buddha dwelt in Nirvana for 45 years and did plenty of thinking & speaking.
this certainly gives us a preview of what Nirvana might be like to some small extent.
It certainly does not. It gives false views.
Especially when you realize that suffering comes wrapped in thoughts and concepts.
No it does not. Suffering comes wrapped in craving & attachment.
But again, this is not the whole of it, a little like the words silence and spacious only point at it.
Not at all.
S9: Well if Enlightenment is a Constant, or always here, (and it is) than thoughts don’t really eliminate it.
Enlightenment leads to the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion. Thought is there when the enlightenment chooses for it to be there.
Enlightenment is not always there if one is not fully enlightened.
But, at least in the beginning, before we quite know what we are looking for, or at, it certainly can add to our confusion. : ^ (
Oh...you are now saying enlightenment leads to confusion...
RE: S9: :In fact, some masters have said when you try to grasp these insights with words; very often you have already polluted them to some extent.
They are not polluted because insight is wisdom. How can the words "impermanenance, unsatisfactoriness & non-self" pollute enlightenment?
The only pollution is thinking "I am enlightened".
Truth IS Truth.
"Truth" is a word used loosely by different teachers. For example, Jesus said "I am the truth". Muslims say "Mohamed (PBOM) is the only true messenger.
Insight for the Buddha is impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self.
S9: I would say rather that they are a form of Clarity. Any reasonable person can see this in our world and our self; that is if they examine closely enough.
They are not a form of clarity. They are vomit. They vomit up craving. They lead to dispassion.
I continue to say that “not-self”; means “not-ego-self,” and Buddha Nature IS our true or whole self. (Yes, I know you do not agree here either.)
I doubt any Buddhist would agree but most Hindus would agree.
S9: That may be a little narrow (limiting) on your part.
Sorry friend. They are not limited by the essential matter.
Where as your views of "True Self" are delusion. :crazy:
Much of what Buddha said led to earth shattering connotations, which didn’t need to be spoken, or perhaps couldn’t be, as they were sooo numerous.
:crazy:
S9: Every ‘thing,’ (AKA mind object), but not every possible dimension is in mind. I believe that the mind is a dream that we can Wake Up from, just as the Buddha did.
The Buddha had an enlightened mind. This mind was awakened from ignorance rather than from mind.
"Monks, these are the four developments of [mind using] concentration. Which four?
There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana...he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowing & seeing? There is the case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him] is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & clear comprehension? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.
I want you to try something. This is very important. Ask your self," Is there anything permanent in my life? Is there anything which has never changed, which through all experiences, everything I have done, read, said or thought is always there? Is there something really sacred, really immeasurable, really unchanging?" If you want to find the freedom that you already are that is where you must begin to look. And what you will find (100% guaranteed) is only your simple, choiceless awareness of being itself as pure silent emptiness. There is that space in your brain where there is only silence, between and before and after all thoughts. That is pure consciousness or awareness itself. And there is God, and that is always with you, in you, through you. No one can take it away from you, and no one can give it to you. It is you. It is found in your own mind, unencumbered by thought or belief. And all the great religions point to this within your very self.
Thank you for that quote. It was quite lovely AND it is True. : ^ )
Q: Ask your self, " Is there anything permanent in my life? Is there anything, which has never changed, which through all experiences, everything I have done, read, said or thought is always there? Is there something really sacred, really immeasurable, really unchanging?"
S9: That could certainly be a very fruitful practice, because small mind (finite mind) is constantly changing, or becoming. So what you would be looking for, right Here and right Now, is something that has been with you your whole life, and yet is so very subtle that it is easily overlooked by the small material mind.
P: If you want to find the freedom that you already are that is where you must begin to look.
S9: This is a very important point, that being, that we are not through all of our doing creating ‘This Pure Awareness.’
Choice-less Awareness
Pure Silent Awareness
Silence
It is b/4 and after (and during) all thoughts…untouched/unstained
It is ‘You’…"That Thou Art"
These are all fingers pointing…
Lin Chi, “Look, Look!”
Q: No one can take it away from you, and no one can give it to you. It is you.
S9: Excellent point…there is no dualistic separateness in this statement.
Q: It is found in your own mind, unencumbered by thought or belief.
S9: Yes this is the first place, the easiest place to look. After a while, however, you come to see that mind is swimming in the vast ocean of Awareness, like a tiny fish.
Q: All the great religions point to this within your very self.
S9: Indeed they do. “For those who have eyes to see.”
I actually take printouts of your posts DD; to take them home and read. Make a lot of sense to me. How long have you been studying the suttas btw? Are you American?
The "not-self" and "true-self" principles were mentioned in this thread......
In the Buddhist context, "not-self" refers to the "illusion" of a egotistic self (I, Me, Mine) created by the seamless working together of the component parts of the five aggregates (IMHO).
Again, in the Buddhist context, what would "self" refer to? Here, I'm thinking: can we talk of a "not-self" without the existance of a "self" in the first place?
I have read somewhere that the mystics (who lived before and during the Buddha's time) talked about "true self" (atman - core of personality) and "shadow self" (the egotistic self). Maybe this is of no consequence here, as the Buddha's teaching is something he discovered for himself and not based on what someone else taught.
Here, I'm thinking: can we talk of a "not-self" without the existance of a "self" in the first place?
Ok... I get it...
Anatta (Not Self/No Self) is a DOCTRINE about atta (Self). Atta, in Buddhist terms, refers to a truly existing (permanent, unchanging) self (egotistic self). Anatta is a Buddhist doctrine that shows that there is no such truly existing self occupying the five aggregates.
Again, in the Buddhist context, what would "self" refer to? Here, I'm thinking: can we talk of a "not-self" without the existance of a "self" in the first place?
Sukhita
To me, your question and reasoning here is quite excellent.
One approach is to actually abandon the metaphysics and to approach the matter from the aspect of clinging or taking ownership.
One aspect of 'not-self' is 'not-mine' or 'not-yours'.
For example, when a child is told: "Do not touch that, it is not yours, it does not belong to you".
Whatever is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. And what is not yours?
"Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's Grove. Would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning or doing with as he likes'?"
"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do they belong to our self."
"In the same way, monks, the eye is not yours: give it up. Your giving it up will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is not yours: give it up. Your giving it up will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: give it up. Your giving it up will be for your long-term happiness & benefit."
"Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours. Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.
I have read somewhere that the mystics (who lived before and during the Buddha's time) talked about "true self" (atman - core of personality) and "shadow self" (the egotistic self). Maybe this is of no consequence here, as the Buddha's teaching is something he discovered for himself and not based on what someone else taught.
Mysticism has its short-comings because it is based in concentration. Whilst concentration is useful, deep concentration tends towards clinging to non-existence, selflessness or the non-conceptual.
Whist I must admit this non-existence or absence of self thought offers great convinction in anatta, the Buddha taught anatta not to be absolutely absent of self thought but to be absolutely absent of possessiveness.
Even a Buddha must use the word's "I" and "mine".
The essence of anatta is dispossession. Even a person who has no direct enlightenment or experience of empty mind can wisely reflect on the teachings of "not-yours".
To regard things as "not-yours", "not-mine" is the essence of the Buddha-Dhamma.
Even if we still feel we are a 'self', we can penetrate the truth of "not-yours", "not-mine".
If we can penetrate the reality of "this is not my life, it is merely a creation of nature", this is enough to set the mind free.
It is not so necessary to enter into deep states of non-being.
S: Anatta (Not Self/No Self) is a DOCTRINE about atta (Self). Atta, in Buddhist terms, refers to a truly existing (permanent, unchanging) self (egotistic self). Anatta is a Buddhist doctrine that shows that there is no such truly existing self occupying the five aggregates.
S9: Because ego is constantly changing, it would be silly to say ego was a permanent Self. I don’t think anyone here is doing that.
Yet I wonder, and maybe you do too, I can’t be sure, if Buddha was pointed out the impermanent only. Or did he want us to see or notice what was beyond the impermanent? (Illusion was obscuring WHAT?)
Did he just want us to notice that everything was totally impermanent, and that there was nothing outside of it, or even that we were 100% doomed? That seems rather hollow to me, completely fruitless, and maybe a bit hellish, too.
Why if Buddha delivered us from our illusions of impermanence into ‘a hellish nothing,’ a hell that was all that there was with no hope, (a despairing notion at best) do Enlightened person’s claim to be Liberated in some way, and continue to smile like crazy? ; ^ ) Does that make sense in the real world, or does it smell clearly of a fabrication of the mind or wrong mindedness?
Forgive me my questioning mind. But I believe that this points out my good mental health not to just swallow stuff whole without investigating it deeply and personally for my own truth of what the Buddha was pointing out.
For instance, why would we even want to be delivered into a hell, and seek TOTAL annihilation as our just reward?
Comments
S9: Don’t believe everything your mind tells you. : ^ )
Whenever we have a goal, of course we are looking to attain something. Even the goal of letting go gains us not holding onto stuff. It can’t be helped. That is simply how the mind works naturally. Only instincts take place without any idea about gain because they take place in the spinal cord, and aren't thought.
The best we can hope for is not to be TOO specific about what that gain will be, especially because it will only lead us into speculations, which are conceptual.
All paths lead somewhere unless they travel in a circle. ; ^ )
Perhaps the only way to avoid 'Spiritual Materialism' is to understand, (second think and get an overview) that what you are going to find is already what you are, and can’t be owned, that is unless you think you own yourself. : ^ )
Ownership and gain are both dualistic notions, as they call for a you and an object outside of yourself to own. All dualism takes place in the mind.
Friendly regards,
S9
R: I'm trying to create some space, the mindfulness needed to be able to understand where that anger arose from when that dude cut me off in his pickup truck.
S9: If there is no-self, (no ego-self), or at least the ego-self isn’t you, than the guy who got angry when some jerk cut you off in traffic wasn’t you. Perhaps Liberation isn’t all about creating a better ‘self’ image.
Clarity does certainly clear up un-useful habits of mind, however, and that is obviously practical. But, suffering isn’t about this habit, or that habit, and even that little habit over there. I believe it all comes back to wrongful identification with the guy who has all of these habits in the first place.
Seeing through identification with the many habits is a long an arduous trip, and can take a long/long time, albeit fruitful in its own way. Dis-identify, on the other hand, with the guy having and holding all of these habits, and POOF, no more fellow, and no more habits preventing your Liberation.
Q: Liberation is not for the self, but from the self."
I think this is why they speak of a slow process of Liberation and Instant Liberation. They both take place, but one of these is final. I’ll let you guess which one this is. ; ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
Isn't that it btw? Isn't enlightenment a realization of some truth that has always been there but we were too deluded to see it?
S9: Perhaps, esp. if you keep it confined to how long you are going to sit that day, and what method you are going to use, only. But, as soon as your butt hits the pillow, you have to let go of not only defilements as they appear, but also any expectations you may be cherishing.
But, I get the feeling that I am preaching to the choir in telling you this. : ^ )
S9: Perhaps, you do my e-friend, but no harm done in repeating it one more time for any ‘new bee’ looking on. I don’t mean to sound critical in any way towards you.
S9: Indeed…but not a word-ee truth. Something far more subtle than that. But, again, I think you know that, as well.
It is sooo hard to know what others know already. I guess we just can’t take anything personal and enjoy hearing any one truth one more time. Maybe someone out there will gain from it.
Friendly regards,
S9
IMHO, the monastics usually find themselves in a more conducive "environment" to practice the 4NT & 8FP than many of the lay people who have to contend with the "hustle and bustle" of the household, family issues, pressures of workplace, etc... Hence, the "extra effort" needed by the lay people. This is how I see it... others may feel the "environments" that I talk about make no difference... perhaps it all boils down to personal viewpoints here.
With kind regards,
Sukhita
The Buddha taught:
Intellectualising about "nothingness" and "indescribeable realisation" is also intellectualising.
Truth is something very tangible and so are its effects upon the mind.
What the Buddha awakened to, you described as "something".
You have been "respectfully" posting for a while now but are still talking about Brahma.
S9: Ah, aren’t you sweet. I love it when people are nice to me. : ^ )
S9: First of all, if it was merely intellectual, that would mean that it had no substance or personal experience behind it. This is of course not the case. In fact, most often I speak from personal experience and do not resort to quoting others to back me up.
This isn't because I can't find any quotes to do that with. This is because I feel that my truth will come through my words directly, if I speak truthfully and with all sincerity. Truth, on hearing it, will certainly resonate with those who at that place where they can benefit from it.
Whenever anyone has an experience, esp. if it is ineffable in nature, changing what they have experienced into words in order to relay it to another is always an intellectual endeavor. After all, words are the tool of the intellect.
Buddha was noted for his keen intellect. It was likened to a diamond, meaning that it could cut through anything, and was full of light/clarity.
I believe if you give this some thought that you would realize that every time the Buddha spoke of his own experience, he was forced ALSO to resort to his intellect to put it into words. I thank goodness that he took this effort. How about you? : ^ )
Not only that but, every sutra is made up of words…oops being intellectual again.
Some people have tried to circumnavigate this problem by sitting in front of an audience in complete silence. But I am not sure that is very useful for most people in an audience, esp when they have come to HEAR about the Truth. (Hear words)
I have noticed that you seem to be falling into this trap, quite a little bit actually, that is using words in your posting. But, perhaps you have been being SILENT too, and I just didn't notice it. ; ^ )
I do believe if you go back and check my posts that you will see most often I am asking people to look directly for themselves, directly at their own personal experience beyond the mind. I also think that, unlike me, most of the time you are directing people towards reading Words or sutras.
The intellect and the instrument words are not altogether evil. They are quite a necessary tool in order to have good communication with others. To communicate well by using the intellect and words efficiently isn’t necessarily a crime.
S9: True, but it isn’t shared unless we speak of it, and resort to our intellect in order to organize our WORDS.
S9: Are you saying by implication that it was 'nothing at all?'
S9: You are simply jumping to conclusions about what I have experienced. Set your mind at ease. It wasn’t a Godlike personage. But, thanks for your concern for my welfare.
: ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
LOL! and then he goes and tells "you need to be mindful of the six sense bases to prevent feelings from generating into craving".
But really we all do that sometimes so peace... :uphand:
Actually I don't. Why don't you tell me e-friend
RE:
RE: S9: Indeed…but not a word-ee truth. Something far more subtle than that. But, again, I think you know that, as well.
S9: Very often while meditating, insights come to us much faster (immediately) than words can form in order to explain them. We know, but we can’t say what exactly we know. This happens in a Now that isn’t in time. (Some have called this the space between thoughts. But actually the thoughts just distract us from what is constantly HERE.)
In fact, some masters have said when you try to grasp these insights with words; very often you have already polluted them to some extent. This is because in trying to explain them, you have thrown yourself back into the mind.
This, as I read recently often happens in a jhana experience as well. You loose it the second that you try to grasp or hold onto it with an explanation.
The Awareness of Enlightenment is similar to this. Yes, it is right Here, all of the time, and Constant. But if the mind tries to look at it, it makes whatever it is looking at into a mind object.
So although words like ‘silent’ come very close to explaining one aspect of Liberation, and even other words like ‘spacious’ for instance, none of them is quite right, and yet not exactly or completely wrong either. I sure hope I am making sense here. : ^ )
I think this is because Enlightenment is really not a mind thing at/all. It is the dimension of All at once. Whereas mind is more lineal, trapped in time, and tries to understand it one word at a time, a more accumulative effort that never quite gets there. Like dancing around it.
Warm Regards,
S9
If someone (not you) is holding onto what they believe like it is a inflatable life raft, which prevents any possible flexibility towards the views of others, any person who doesn’t agree with you appears to be holding a big pin, and it scares to b-jesus out of you. After a while you may even see pins, where there aren’t any.
When you once trust enough to hold what you have/believe more gently, the world becomes safer overnight. Go figure. : ^ )
Peace can be very fragile when accompanied by fear.
Friendly regards,
S9
If that is the case, how have you experienced it if not via mind?
:smilec:
So you have experienced a "truth" that is not a mind object.
If that is the case, how have you experienced it if not via mind?
S9: Directly. I am more than just a mind, meaning a brain and its thoughts.
That is hard to believe if you have always just lived in the head.
Peace,
S9
This is not insight. The space between your thoughts is space or clear consciousness.
Insight arises when there are no thoughts.
If uncontrolled discursive thought is still occuring, how can insight & enlightenment be declared?
Buddhist Masters or Hindu masters?
Insight for the Buddha is impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self.
As your posts do not discuss these three things, they are not about Buddhist insight.
That is incorrect. Everything occurs in the mind.
Your confusion appears to be you regard thought as "mind" and consciousness as "space".
Mind is knowing. 'Thoughtless direct knowing' is insight.
Non-sense. Jhana is known by the mind, which is why it can be known during & described afterwards.
Awareness is not enlightenment. Enlightenment is constantly observing the arising & passing of phenomena and their selflessness until disapassion occurs to the mind. This dispassion is the entry to Nibbana, which is fully known by the mind.
Everything is a mind object. Your confusion is you regard only thought as a mind object.
Even so, the absence of thought is not enlightenment. Enlightened beings still think when necessary.
Silent is not enlightenment, spacious is not enlightenment. These things are concentration.
Enlightenment is wisdom. It is right knowledge that ends defilement.
You are not making any sense here. What you said is completely wrong.
More non-sense.
So you are a guy
DS: What kind of insight are you referring to that words can describe?
S9: Ineffable insights can’t be explained in a way that the mind can contain. Clarity about what you have doing or thinking, incorrectly, is a whole n’other animal.
Obviously we are coming at this180 degrees away from each other in this way. What you are saying, I believe, is that there is nothing outside of the mind. Whereas I believe discovering what is outside of the mind IS Liberation from the mind
Either I am wrong in this, or perhaps you simply haven’t discovered this quite yet. I think that we both wish the best for each other. At least I hope this is the case. : ^ )
BTW, I don’t think saying “NONSENCE” is a polite way, or a civilized way, to correspond with others. I know you are bright enough to think of a more productive way to correspond than that.
Please consider that people will tend to discount what you are saying, if you cannot manage to CHILL. I hope you can be open to this constructive criticism, as I personally believe that you have much good to offer us.
RE: S9: Some have called this the space between thoughts.
S9: Perhaps it is not an earth shattering insight to recognize a calm space between thoughts, although it does certainly teach us that we are not just our thoughts. A small clarity of this sort can have a long list of ramification hitched to it, esp. in how we approach our self and our world.
S9: Because Nirvana is without any thoughts, or mind objects whatsoever; this certainly gives us a preview of what Nirvana might be like to some small extent. Especially when you realize that suffering comes wrapped in thoughts and concepts. But again, this is not the whole of it, a little like the words silence and spacious only point at it.
S9: Well if Enlightenment is a Constant, or always here, (and it is) than thoughts don’t really eliminate it. But, at least in the beginning, before we quite know what we are looking for, or at, it certainly can add to our confusion. : ^ (
RE: S9: :In fact, some masters have said when you try to grasp these insights with words; very often you have already polluted them to some extent.
S9: What difference does it make if it is the Truth? Truth IS Truth.
S9: I would say rather that they are a form of Clarity. Any reasonable person can see this in our world and our self; that is if they examine closely enough.
I continue to say that “not-self”; means “not-ego-self,” and Buddha Nature IS our true or whole self. (Yes, I know you do not agree here either.)
S9: That may be a little narrow (limiting) on your part. Much of what Buddha said led to earth shattering connotations, which didn’t need to be spoken, or perhaps couldn’t be, as they were sooo numerous.
RE: S9: This is because in trying to explain them, you have thrown yourself back into the mind.
S9: Every ‘thing,’ (AKA mind object), but not every possible dimension is in mind. I believe that the mind is a dream that we can Wake Up from, just as the Buddha did.
S9: I don’t think so. Perhaps you can point out the errors of my ways. ; ^ )
S9: Even noticing that you are not thinking is a thought, dear e-person. You may be seeing it perhaps as a picture (very right brain), but a picture of emptiness (a blank space) is still mind-bound according to Nagarjuna. Nirvana is even empty, even of the idea of emptiness.
S9: Well, according to the article I read by a recognize Buddhist Jhana Master, what we grab at, and cling to, and even what we remember isn’t the ALL of a Jnana experience.
This was eye opening for me, as I had thought before that Jnana was nothing more than a feel-good trance state. I hadn’t thought that it could introduce us to something beyond itself because it was a feel-good trap.
S9: “O boy,” I disagree on so many points of what you just said here that I could probably write a book. ; ^ ) Let it just suffice that I do not see mind and Nirvana as being synonymous.
S9: Not really. Not by my lights. I wonder if you could speak on this a little further as I cannot believe you are trying to say what I am reading in your words. Thanx : ^ )
S9: Of course, the dream continues, but we realize that we are not any part of the dream.
S9: Isn’t that what I have been saying? I said they were mind objects that merely mirror enlightenment. But a mirror is not the full experience of enlightenment by any means.
S9: There is obviously some silence and spaciousness without any need to concentrate, since people who do not even meditate at all, readily recognize these words.
S9: And so much more, as ineffable isn’t just a poor vocabulary.
S9: The Peace that is beyond the mind isn’t changed one little bit by what we think. It simply IS. Thusness. But peace of mind doesn’t live along side of fear.
S9: The beginning of what, if like you say there is nothing beyond the mind?
I fully realize that concentration is a mental mudra or receptivity to what is outside of our control.
S9: Then what? We are just psychologically comfortable in our skin? Why did Buddha say, “I Woke Up” instead of, “I am comfortable in my own skin?” or “I am psychologically cured.” Enlightenment isn’t just psychological health, only. That is only a symptom of clarity.
Warm Regards,
S9
__________________
What exactly do you mean by 'Buddha Nature' S9?
My understanding of the term 'Buddha Nature' in relation to Tibetan Buddhism is that it means the latent potential that all sentient beings are supposed to have for Buddhahood. So it isn't our true self any more than the potential to be axe murderers is our true self either.
.
Mmmm.....very true, and I'm not sure I care really either!
.
S9: I agree with you that Buddha Nature is “the latent potential that all sentient beings are supposed to, (do) have for Buddhahood,” as well as, let me add, the actualization of this very Real potential.
I think what you want to ask me is, “What do you think Buddha Nature is when it is actualized, comes about, or is finally discovered, is it not?
Sometimes I get the feeling that people stop think at the potential level, and don’t really go on to think about the potential itself, or question what exactly it is. They prefer to talk about what it is not.
I also think that this is because their understanding of no-self doesn’t stand up to direct scrutiny.
Is Buddhahood synonymous with nothingness? I don’t think so.
What is your take on this?
S9: Yikes, I hope you don’t think I believe true self is an axe murder. Just kidding.
; ^ )
But if you think Buddhahood is simply killing everything off, and leaving absolutely nothing in its wake…what difference does it make if we do this with an axe, or with a concept? Dead and gone is still just dead and gone in that story line.
So yes, I have Buddha Nature being our Eternal Essence, our wholeness, and very much alive.
Warm Regards,
S9
According to the teachings regarding the potential or seed of Buddhahood a being such as a fly has Buddha Nature -so where's the actualisation with a fly ?
"All beings (such as the fly) possess the nature of Buddha, or tathagatagarbha"....Mahaparinirvana Sutra
No. I asked what you meant by 'Buddha Nature' not what happens if its actualised.
No idea what you're talking about. How can Buddhahood be synonymous with nothingness?
WHAT ?
Warm farmyards,(a delightful aroma)
Dazzle
.
5B: Isn't it more that everything is already dead and nothing to begin with?
S9: No I don’t think so. Everything is totally alive, is Life, but not in the sense that we usually think of it. Not a bunch of separate pieces of life. That is a part of the illusion, the whole concept of separation with labels to prove it.
And:
Not like a life that comes and goes in these separate pieces or dies.
I believe that finitude is a dream, not a dead dream, but a dream that is simply allowed to take place within this Constant Life.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not personifying Life, creating a God, or even giving it an ego story of any kind.
And:
Like you say, I do not believe that mind can begin to contain the whole of it, because it is too vast for the mind to comprehend. I believe Life is Buddha Nature. But, life is an understatement in our mind because it is so subtle that most of the time we simply overlook it.
Buddha Nature is not a dead thing. It is vibrantly Alive and Aware.
Finitude because it is a dream IS totally empty of its own personal Essence, and merely borrows Essence or Original Life temporarily.
I do not believe anything that I have said here, is contradicted by the Buddha. But I am very willing to discuss this with you.
Warm Regards,
S9
Hmm, well this dead tree still has wet eyes.
Perhaps another way of saying this would be that all of the endless layers of phenomenon that the ego attaches to and then construes as a "substantive being" is dead ("nothing to kill, nothing to destroy"). These things that arise in the mind are fabrications--delusions--survival-based ramblings of the monkey. The creation of a false self, using the skandhas to do all the dirty work of ignorance!
This body is just a loaner folks; its death is inevitable, but we do have this moment; this very precious moment. It is all that we have! Use it wisely.
You have experience truth in the brain & its thoughts?
The brain is just physical matter.
Truth is known via the knowing mind.
Sometimes.
:winkc:
How could something outside of the mind be of benefit if the mind cannot experience it?
The Buddha taught the one goal of the spiritual life was the liberation of mind (rather than something outside of the mind).
Here's your dhamma lesson for today from the Veneral Ajahn Chah:
The Buddha taught liberation from defilements rather than liberation from mind.
You cannot even decide. You are wrong. There is nothing you are referring to that needs to be discovered. Whatever can be discovered is discovered by mind.
I am bright enough to speak was is factual & correct.
My mind is chilled. From from your side, just more non-sense. Just more hot air requiring a pin to pop it.
I do have much good to offer but your criticism is baseless.
The Buddha said one stuck in the mud cannot pull another out of the mud.
It is more earth shattering for the mind to be free from thoughts.
It is not really possible to have strong insight when thoughts are in the mind.
This is merely something written in books (like Krishnamurti) and is auto-suggestion or self-indocrination.
No. A mind that dwells with Nirvana is not necessarily free from thoughts. A mind that thinks without greed, hatred & delusion dwells in Nirvana.
The Buddha dwelt in Nirvana for 45 years and did plenty of thinking & speaking.
It certainly does not. It gives false views.
No it does not. Suffering comes wrapped in craving & attachment.
Not at all.
Enlightenment leads to the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion. Thought is there when the enlightenment chooses for it to be there.
Enlightenment is not always there if one is not fully enlightened.
Oh...you are now saying enlightenment leads to confusion...
They are not polluted because insight is wisdom. How can the words "impermanenance, unsatisfactoriness & non-self" pollute enlightenment?
The only pollution is thinking "I am enlightened".
"Truth" is a word used loosely by different teachers. For example, Jesus said "I am the truth". Muslims say "Mohamed (PBOM) is the only true messenger.
They are not a form of clarity. They are vomit. They vomit up craving. They lead to dispassion.
I doubt any Buddhist would agree but most Hindus would agree.
Sorry friend. They are not limited by the essential matter.
Where as your views of "True Self" are delusion. :crazy:
:crazy:
The Buddha had an enlightened mind. This mind was awakened from ignorance rather than from mind.
:smilec:
I already advised, the Buddha instructed liberation of mind rather than liberation from mind.
You were also advised formerly by another the Buddha never taught life is a dream. It can be like a dream but it is not a dream.
Your insistence on 'True Self" contradicts the Buddha.
Your insistence on 'spacious mind' as 'the end' contradicts the Buddha.
The quote below discusses 'spacious mind' and 'the end'. Spacious mind is concentration and the end is the end of mental defilements (asava).
<!-- robots content="none" --><!-- #H_meta --><!-- #H_billboard --><!-- /robots -->
Thank you for that quote. It was quite lovely AND it is True. : ^ )
Q: Ask your self, " Is there anything permanent in my life? Is there anything, which has never changed, which through all experiences, everything I have done, read, said or thought is always there? Is there something really sacred, really immeasurable, really unchanging?"
S9: That could certainly be a very fruitful practice, because small mind (finite mind) is constantly changing, or becoming. So what you would be looking for, right Here and right Now, is something that has been with you your whole life, and yet is so very subtle that it is easily overlooked by the small material mind.
P: If you want to find the freedom that you already are that is where you must begin to look.
S9: This is a very important point, that being, that we are not through all of our doing creating ‘This Pure Awareness.’
Choice-less Awareness
Pure Silent Awareness
Silence
It is b/4 and after (and during) all thoughts…untouched/unstained
It is ‘You’…"That Thou Art"
These are all fingers pointing…
Lin Chi, “Look, Look!”
Q: No one can take it away from you, and no one can give it to you. It is you.
S9: Excellent point…there is no dualistic separateness in this statement.
Q: It is found in your own mind, unencumbered by thought or belief.
S9: Yes this is the first place, the easiest place to look. After a while, however, you come to see that mind is swimming in the vast ocean of Awareness, like a tiny fish.
Q: All the great religions point to this within your very self.
S9: Indeed they do. “For those who have eyes to see.”
Friendly Regards,
S9
Ohh i get it. You are an old man
The "not-self" and "true-self" principles were mentioned in this thread......
In the Buddhist context, "not-self" refers to the "illusion" of a egotistic self (I, Me, Mine) created by the seamless working together of the component parts of the five aggregates (IMHO).
Again, in the Buddhist context, what would "self" refer to? Here, I'm thinking: can we talk of a "not-self" without the existance of a "self" in the first place?
I have read somewhere that the mystics (who lived before and during the Buddha's time) talked about "true self" (atman - core of personality) and "shadow self" (the egotistic self). Maybe this is of no consequence here, as the Buddha's teaching is something he discovered for himself and not based on what someone else taught.
I make this post simply to learn a little more...
Thanks in advance for any contributions.
Without trying to make things too complicated I think we can talk of a not-self when there is a delusion of a self present.
Thanks for your response, but...
Delusion of a self! ... What self?
Hey... stop laughing at old age, Yama is watching you
(Just kidding)
Kind Regards.
Sukhita
Ok... I get it...
Anatta (Not Self/No Self) is a DOCTRINE about atta (Self). Atta, in Buddhist terms, refers to a truly existing (permanent, unchanging) self (egotistic self). Anatta is a Buddhist doctrine that shows that there is no such truly existing self occupying the five aggregates.
First he said he is neither guy nor girl. Then he sad he is a guy sometimes... So I figured maybe he is an old guy
To me, your question and reasoning here is quite excellent.
One approach is to actually abandon the metaphysics and to approach the matter from the aspect of clinging or taking ownership.
One aspect of 'not-self' is 'not-mine' or 'not-yours'.
For example, when a child is told: "Do not touch that, it is not yours, it does not belong to you".
Whist I must admit this non-existence or absence of self thought offers great convinction in anatta, the Buddha taught anatta not to be absolutely absent of self thought but to be absolutely absent of possessiveness.
Even a Buddha must use the word's "I" and "mine".
The essence of anatta is dispossession. Even a person who has no direct enlightenment or experience of empty mind can wisely reflect on the teachings of "not-yours".
To regard things as "not-yours", "not-mine" is the essence of the Buddha-Dhamma.
Even if we still feel we are a 'self', we can penetrate the truth of "not-yours", "not-mine".
If we can penetrate the reality of "this is not my life, it is merely a creation of nature", this is enough to set the mind free.
It is not so necessary to enter into deep states of non-being.
Kind regards
DDhatu
Compare it to the Buddha's teachings of "not-yours".
S: Anatta (Not Self/No Self) is a DOCTRINE about atta (Self). Atta, in Buddhist terms, refers to a truly existing (permanent, unchanging) self (egotistic self). Anatta is a Buddhist doctrine that shows that there is no such truly existing self occupying the five aggregates.
S9: Because ego is constantly changing, it would be silly to say ego was a permanent Self. I don’t think anyone here is doing that.
Yet I wonder, and maybe you do too, I can’t be sure, if Buddha was pointed out the impermanent only. Or did he want us to see or notice what was beyond the impermanent? (Illusion was obscuring WHAT?)
Did he just want us to notice that everything was totally impermanent, and that there was nothing outside of it, or even that we were 100% doomed? That seems rather hollow to me, completely fruitless, and maybe a bit hellish, too.
Why if Buddha delivered us from our illusions of impermanence into ‘a hellish nothing,’ a hell that was all that there was with no hope, (a despairing notion at best) do Enlightened person’s claim to be Liberated in some way, and continue to smile like crazy? ; ^ ) Does that make sense in the real world, or does it smell clearly of a fabrication of the mind or wrong mindedness?
Forgive me my questioning mind. But I believe that this points out my good mental health not to just swallow stuff whole without investigating it deeply and personally for my own truth of what the Buddha was pointing out.
For instance, why would we even want to be delivered into a hell, and seek TOTAL annihilation as our just reward?
Friendly Regards,
S9