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.
It's certainly a reality check. :eek2: No worries, I'm sure I'll need an escape soon enough... then it's all:rant:and claws as the senseless egotistical debates take over, baby.
Basically your misunderstanding to the fact is that, Nikayan teaches only on the level of relative truth, whereas Mahayana teaches on the three layers of truths in Dharma nature, namely the relative truth, the absolute truth ( emptiness ) and ultimate truth ( middle way )
so when it was said the whole universe fits into the six elements, that appears not to be the case, because the nibbana element is part of the universe....
however, i have often pondered about the nibbana element (unconditioned element) & the space element
they certainly have some similarities
i recall once refuting why the space element is not the nibbana element but cannot recall the reasoning
if we examine or sense the space element, it has that peaceful still quality like nibbana
so when it was said the whole universe fits into the six elements, that appears not to be the case, because the nibbana element is part of the universe....
however, i have often pondered about the nibbana element (unconditioned element) & the space element
they certainly have some similarities
i recall once refuting why the space element is not the nibbana element but cannot recall the reasoning
if we examine or sense space, it has that peaceful still quality like nibbana
This is an intersting post DD. This idea that the unconditioned is part of the universe and related to space. Now I know you quote sutta alot but you seem to be speaking from your own practice here, and I can relate to what you are describing. My question for you is what in your experience is the relationship between the unconditioned and the conditioned in terms of the selfless and unobstructed nature of all conditions?
DD, if you want to stick to the more simplicity Buddhism to suit your capacity , it fine to us.
one day as your culitvation advance , you can enter more advance dharma gate more naturally , best wishes
I've come back to reading this thread after a break.... and the above post -and comments in others like it that I'm reading here in this thread -is astonishing - and makes me deeply ashamed and embarrassed that I spent so many years identifying myself as a Mahayana practitioner.
(certainly you cannot relate Mahayana doctine of sunyata ( emptiness ) with space - that is totally wrong)
"In the presentation of mind as having three aspects - its essence is empty, its nature is clarity, and its manifestation is unimpeded - we reckon the Emptiness and the Clarity of mind as the elements of of space and fire. The element of wind,(air) the continual movement of mind,is the third aspect, unimpeded manifestation. Now the element of earth is the function of mind as the origin and basis of all experience, and the element of water is the continuity of mind. These two functions (continuity and basis) apply to all three aspects. Thus, the mind is essentially empty (space), has Clarity (fire) and the ability to manifest unimpededly (wind/air) and throughout all 3 there is continuity (water) and the ability to provide a basis (earth)."
(Kalu Rinpoche - The Dharma)
THE ANALOGY WITH SPACE
"Shunyata is often compared to space, which is defined in Buddhism as the complete openness, or 'unobstructedness', which allows anything to occur"
I've come back to reading this thread after a break.... and the above post -and comments in others like it that I'm reading here in this thread -is astonishing - and makes me deeply ashamed and embarrassed that I spent so many years identifying myself as a Mahayana practitioner.
To be fair Dazzle that cuts both ways, There is chauvinism going both ways. Why not try and bridge the difference instead of widening it while saying your not part of the problem.
" I'm shocked, just shocked to find out there is gambling going on around here"
To be fair Dazzle that cuts both ways, There is chauvinism going both ways. Why not try and bridge the difference instead of widening it while saying your not part of the problem.
" I'm shocked, just shocked to find out there is gambling going on around here"
There is no such thing as nothingness. Can you percieve a nothingness ? There is only the absence of one thing that affirms the presence of something else. The absence of "I" affirms everything. "No mInd" does not refer to the absence of a mind. That is really off the wall. No mind refers to "traceless" anatman, that does not negate or even touch the functioning of bodymind. It is an elegant and effective approach to practice.
My question for you is what in your experience is the relationship between the unconditioned and the conditioned in terms of the selfless and unobstructed nature of all conditions?
My first answer is to share with you my experience of travelling home this afternoon...
I was on a ferry boat in a cabin with just a twelve year old girl (and her dad sitting quietly impatiently)
We had a stare-athon, looking into eachother's eyes, seeing who would not react
This was the selfless unobstructed consciousness even a 12 year old girl has mastered
You are reading too many books. Just intellectualism. Just voyeurism.
The absence of "I" may make consciousness & sense objects more lucid but it does not affirm.
Empathy affirms.
For example, if a human being is suffering & needs one's help, then the absence of the "I" does not help anyone (except the voyeur and the 12 year old playing games with consciousness).
What is the sphere of nothingness referred to in the scriptures?
What happens when perception ceases in the mind?
Is there not nothingness?
When you percieve "nothingness" what are you percieving? Even if you are talking about the the absence of all awareness. No subject, no object, then "Nothingness" is an after the fact relative perception.
You are reading too many books. Just intellectualism. Just voyeurism.
The absence of "I" may make consciousness & sense objects more lucid but it does not affirm.
Empathy affirms.
For example, if a human being is suffering & needs one's help, then the absence of the "I" does not help anyone (except the voyeur and the 12 year old playing games with consciousness).
:rolleyes:
You are saying exactly what I am in another way. it makes the world more lucid, and affirms basic presence free of dreams. Your comment about reading books and being some kind of daytripper is just ignorant.
No mind refers to "traceless" anatman, that does not negate or even touch the functioning of bodymind. It is an elegant and effective approach to practice.
It is inaccuate way of using language.
What you have posted in unintelligable.
You just said no mind refers to the traceless not-self.
Self is not mind. Mind is not self.
No mind does not equal no self.
If you do not want body and mind to function, then it appears you think having a lobotomy is Nibbana.
You misunderstand and are not willing to understand because you are coming from a complete and final prejudgment. No Mind does not refer to the absence of a mind, that is an absurd notion to you because having no mind, is an absurd notion. That is not what "No mind" refers to it is wildly off base
You are saying exactly what I am in another way. it makes the world more lucid, and affirms basic presence free of dreams.
If you actually read my post, I said there is little benefit in such a mind state, apart from to the Hinayana voyeur indulging in it and being infatuated by it, just like a 12 year old girl infatuated with staring into another's eyes, thinking she is god.
You just said no mind refers to the traceless not-self.
Self is not mind. Mind is not self.
No mind does not equal no self.
If you do not want body and mind to function, then it appears you think having a lobotomy is Nibbana.
:crazy:
Fine it is unintellegible to you. If you want to have a patient dialogue about the practice of No Mind fine. There is a categorical difference in the use of lahguage, a whole different convention in Zen. You are, and me to are at cross purposes here.
If you want to have a patient dialogue about the practice of No Mind fine. There is a categorical difference in the use of lahguage, a whole different convention in Zen. You are, and me to are at cross purposes here.
Infatutuation with mind and states of unified consciousness is not Buddhism.
If you actually read my post, I said there is little benefit in such a mind state, apart from to the Hinayana voyeur indulging in it and being infatuated by it, just like a 12 year old girl infatuated with staring into another's eyes, thinking she is god.
:buck:
god? what on earth are talking about. voyeur? infatuation? that is Zen to you?
It is you who wants a dialogue about "No Mind", not me.
:rolleyes:
I am to defending Zen from a baseless and ignorant sectarian attack, and regret having to. You are beyond dialogue. You are an anti-mahayana troll. It is pretty much clear at this point.
I am to defending Zen from a baseless and ignorant sectarian attack, and regret having to. You are beyond dialogue. You are an anti-mahayana troll. It is pretty much clear at this point.
I would say you are evangelising rather than defending.
Wisdom manifests as 'no-attachment' meditation rather than 'no-mind' meditation.
Whilst it may simply be a question of semantics, it is better to call a dog a dog rather than a cat.
Best to speak in a language that is intelligible.
that is the extent of your knowledge? google? You dont know Zen. You have no interest in knowing it because to truly know it would entail recogizing the legitimacy of trasditions not your own. You ahve absolutely no interest in doing that.
You have no interest in knowing it because to truly know it would entail recogizing the legitimacy of trasditions not your own. You ahve absolutely no interest in doing that.
I did not ask for a teaching.
Thus why would I have an interest?
Generally, Buddhists teach when asked.
But you appear to have an interest in shoving your religion down my throat and stuffing your religion in my ears.
Instead of having a mind like space, I have no mind and the space stuffed with "Zen".
I would recommend practising "No no mind" or "No Zen".
But you appear to have an interest in shoving your religion down my throat and stuffing your religion in my years.
Instead of having a mind like space, I have no mind and the space stuffed with "Zen".
That last sentence just makes no sense.
you consider it evangelizing every time someone posts a mahayana subject.
You consider it pushing down your throat every time someone starts a thead about a mahayana sutra and you must attack the legitimacy of it right away. Any presentation of a non-theravada subject is off base for you.
You are, at long last, really are an anti mahayana troll.
My question for you is what in your experience is the relationship between the unconditioned and the conditioned in terms of the selfless and unobstructed nature of all conditions?
The mind is a conditioned thing. The unconditioned is not in relationship.
Nibbana is unconditioned but not the mind.
Mind is a condition needed to experience Nibbana but Nibbana itself needs no condition to support it.
If the body ceases to eat, the mind will become unconscious soon enough.
For example, a mirror is conditioned by the reflection in it.
Unified non-dual consciousness is conditioned. It is not unconditioned.
If I walk up a river bed, to spend the afternoon in a cool stream, there are many obstructions.
Rocks, trees, holes, etc.
The phrase "unobstructed nature of all conditions" is more just unintelligible superstition.
Just some rote learning, parrotting religious phraseology.
Yet when one quotes a sutta about actual factual clearly described things, one calls it "intellectual".
Richard maybe it might be a good idea to look at the OP #1 and the progression of this topic, before accusing DD of trolling.
.
.
.
it is clear over the long haul that DD is an anti mahayana troll. I know full well that there are Mahayana fools dengrating Theravada, but in the long haul DD has consistantly attacked the legitamacy of mahayana. It is his idee fixe. He is an anti mahyana troll.
No-mind Meditation requires a deeper, more immediate concentration. The practice involves stopping the mind's every activity immediately and retaining that state of no-thought for as long as possible.
If you cannot yet observe your thoughts unaffected without judgment, the no-mind meditation will be a frustrating challenge.
Comments
Buddhism by country
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:rolleyes::eek::(:mad;):p:confused::cool:
can not
because
six elements are worldly (loka)
Nibbana is unworldly (aloka)
in the First sermon it says ' Buddha said 'aloka udapadi'
Basically your misunderstanding to the fact is that, Nikayan teaches only on the level of relative truth, whereas Mahayana teaches on the three layers of truths in Dharma nature, namely the relative truth, the absolute truth ( emptiness ) and ultimate truth ( middle way )
?
however, i have often pondered about the nibbana element (unconditioned element) & the space element
they certainly have some similarities
i recall once refuting why the space element is not the nibbana element but cannot recall the reasoning
if we examine or sense the space element, it has that peaceful still quality like nibbana
I've come back to reading this thread after a break.... and the above post -and comments in others like it that I'm reading here in this thread -is astonishing - and makes me deeply ashamed and embarrassed that I spent so many years identifying myself as a Mahayana practitioner.
.
.
.
unconditional - absolute truth ( as found in Mahayana prajna-parimitia and Nagarjuna middleway doctrine )
they are the 2 side of the same coin ( same reality )
( certainly you cannot relate Mahayana doctine of sunyata ( emptiness ) with space - that is totally wrong
.
" I'm shocked, just shocked to find out there is gambling going on around here"
Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca
No comment
.
one of the biggest problems is turning doctrines of ultimate truth into blind faith superstition
belief in Santa Claus is superstition, belief in reincarnation is superstition, belief in 'no-thing' can also be a superstition
on a Zen forum recently, the Zennies started with the doctrine of 'no mind'
then what is writing this post? no mind?
that one does not conceptualise does not mean there is no mind
when my younger sister was a child, she used to close her eyes and say: "you can't see me"
we can compare doctrines of non-labelling to this
just more superstition that must cease in order to conform to real reality
I was on a ferry boat in a cabin with just a twelve year old girl (and her dad sitting quietly impatiently)
We had a stare-athon, looking into eachother's eyes, seeing who would not react
This was the selfless unobstructed consciousness even a 12 year old girl has mastered
:rolleyesc
What happens when perception ceases in the mind?
Is there not nothingness?
The absence of "I" may make consciousness & sense objects more lucid but it does not affirm.
Empathy affirms.
For example, if a human being is suffering & needs one's help, then the absence of the "I" does not help anyone (except the voyeur and the 12 year old playing games with consciousness).
:rolleyes:
:crazy:
What you have posted in unintelligable.
You just said no mind refers to the traceless not-self.
Self is not mind. Mind is not self.
No mind does not equal no self.
If you do not want body and mind to function, then it appears you think having a lobotomy is Nibbana.
:crazy:
:buck:
The Buddha did not speak in such ways. "No mind" is an absurd way of speaking.
The Buddha said "mindfulness is the way to the deathless; the mindful do not die; those with no mind are dead already".
The Buddha was interested in wisdom rather than infatuation with mind.
:hohum:
It is simply a means but not the end.
It is concentration.
It is you who wants a dialogue about "No Mind", not me.
:rolleyes:
:cool:
Buddha taught wisdom based meditation.
Wisdom manifests as 'no-attachment' meditation rather than 'no-mind' meditation.
Whilst it may simply be a question of semantics, it is better to call a dog a dog rather than a cat.
Best to speak in a language that is intelligible.
This is a thread about a Theravada subject.
Now which typist is trolling or fishing?
:cool:
Thus why would I have an interest?
Generally, Buddhists teach when asked.
But you appear to have an interest in shoving your religion down my throat and stuffing your religion in my ears.
Instead of having a mind like space, I have no mind and the space stuffed with "Zen".
I would recommend practising "No no mind" or "No Zen".
Thanks for the invite but no thanks.
Spiritual matters are basically the same.
Non-discriminative mind is just that - concentration.
Fancy name like "Zen" makes no difference.
you consider it evangelizing every time someone posts a mahayana subject.
You consider it pushing down your throat every time someone starts a thead about a mahayana sutra and you must attack the legitimacy of it right away. Any presentation of a non-theravada subject is off base for you.
You are, at long last, really are an anti mahayana troll.
Nibbana is unconditioned but not the mind.
Mind is a condition needed to experience Nibbana but Nibbana itself needs no condition to support it.
If the body ceases to eat, the mind will become unconscious soon enough.
For example, a mirror is conditioned by the reflection in it.
Unified non-dual consciousness is conditioned. It is not unconditioned.
If I walk up a river bed, to spend the afternoon in a cool stream, there are many obstructions.
Rocks, trees, holes, etc.
The phrase "unobstructed nature of all conditions" is more just unintelligible superstition.
Just some rote learning, parrotting religious phraseology.
Yet when one quotes a sutta about actual factual clearly described things, one calls it "intellectual".
:buck:
Richard maybe it might be a good idea to look at the OP #1 and the progression of this topic, before accusing DD of trolling.
.
.
.
definitely not a troll although definitely has little empathy for mahayana
No-mind Meditation requires a deeper, more immediate concentration. The practice involves stopping the mind's every activity immediately and retaining that state of no-thought for as long as possible.
If you cannot yet observe your thoughts unaffected without judgment, the no-mind meditation will be a frustrating challenge.
http://www.yoga-mind-control.com/no-mind.html
Wooo,so much love coming from 'bodhisttvas,' that I feel uplifted .....but I tend to think its more related to my undergarments than anything else.
.
.