Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

The six elements

2

Comments

  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country

    Buddhism by country

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    :):D:rolleyes::eek::(:mad:lol:;):p:confused::cool:
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Nice to see motherhood has "softened" your heart.
    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. :D
  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Ansanna



    I asked a simple question. Where does Nibbana fit within the six elements?

    Is it earth, wind, fire, water, space or consciousness?

    Please choose one of the six.

    can not

    because

    six elements are worldly (loka)

    Nibbana is unworldly (aloka)

    in the First sermon it says ' Buddha said 'aloka udapadi'
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    can not

    because

    six elements are worldly (loka)

    Nibbana is unworldly (aloka)

    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 )
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Hmmmm. Wonder if ansanna and DD will come to a common understanding? :rolleyes:
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Hmmmm. Wonder if ansanna and DD will come to a common understanding? :rolleyes:

    jerry1.gif?
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Theres a smiley for every situation no?
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    upekka wrote: »
    can not

    because

    six elements are worldly (loka)

    Nibbana is unworldly (aloka)
    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

    :)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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?
  • edited March 2010
    ansanna wrote: »
    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.


    .




    .




    .
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    The 'basics' are fine by me.

    :)
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    conditional - relative / temporary truth ( as found mostly in Nikaya and Yogacara's consciousness doctrine )

    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
  • edited March 2010
    ansanna wrote: »

    (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"

    (Rigpawiki)

    http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Emptiness#The_Analogy_with_Space






    .
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Dazzle wrote: »
    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"

    Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca
  • edited March 2010
    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"

    Captain Louis Renault in Casablanca




    No comment



    .
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Dazzle wrote: »
    No comment



    .
    That is a comment. presumably saying I have done the same. Which is true.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    ansanna wrote: »
    unconditional - absolute truth ( as found in Mahayana prajna-parimitia and Nagarjuna middleway doctrine )
    nothingness doctrine - just more monkey chatter

    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

    :)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    nothingness doctrine - just more monkey chatter

    :)
    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.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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

    :rolleyesc
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    There is no such thing as nothingness. Can you percieve a nothingness ?
    What is the sphere of nothingness referred to in the scriptures?

    What happens when perception ceases in the mind?

    Is there not nothingness?

    :confused:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    The absence of "I" affirms everything
    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:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    What is the sphere of nothingness referred to in the scriptures?

    What happens when perception ceases in the mind?

    Is there not nothingness?

    :confused:
    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.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    "No mInd" does not refer to the absence of a mind.
    It does in the english language.

    :crazy:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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.

    :crazy:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    It does in the english language.

    :crazy:
    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
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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.

    :buck:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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.

    :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.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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.
    It simply shows you have blind faith in what you regard as holy words.

    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:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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.

    It is simply a means but not the end.

    It is concentration.

    :)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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?
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Infatutuation with mind and states of unified consciousness is not Buddhism.

    It is simply a means but not the end.

    :)
    Yes , very good it is not the end in Zen either.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    If you want to have a patient dialogue about the practice of No Mind fine.
    Best to stop projecting.

    It is you who wants a dialogue about "No Mind", not me.

    :rolleyes:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    god? what on earth are talking about. voyeur? infatuation? that is Zen to you?
    i simply answered your original question as I saw appropriate

    :cool:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Best to stop projecting.

    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.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Fine it is unintellegible to you. If you want to have a patient dialogue about the practice of No Mind fine.
    If I wish to know, I can simply Google it.

    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.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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.

    This is a thread about a Theravada subject.

    Now which typist is trolling or fishing?

    :cool:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    If I wish to know, I can simply Google it.

    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.

    :)
    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.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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".

    :lol:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Evangilizing? Sure DD I want you to become a zen guy. Zen is the best of all. Theravada is bad, Zen is good. Come to Zen.:rolleyes:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    I want you to become a zen guy.
    Buddha taught unwise wanting is the origin of suffering.

    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.

    :)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    I did not ask for a teaching.

    Thus why would I have an interest?

    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".

    :lol:
    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.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    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".

    :buck:
  • edited March 2010
    You are, at long last, really are an anti mahayana troll.



    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.



    .



    .



    .
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Dazzle wrote: »
    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.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    He is an anti mahyana troll.
    DD occassionally performs a guerilla surprise attack but, for the most part, he stays away from Mahayana threads

    definitely not a troll although definitely has little empathy for mahayana

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    2mrsc9j.gif

    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.

    25qwv4j.gif

    If you cannot yet observe your thoughts unaffected without judgment, the no-mind meditation will be a frustrating challenge.

    15n3r5z.jpg

    http://www.yoga-mind-control.com/no-mind.html
  • edited March 2010
    .
    He is an anti mahyana troll.

    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.

    :)




    .



    .
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited March 2010
    DD occassionally performs a guerilla surprise attack but for the most part, he stays away from Mahayana threads

    definitely not a troll although definitely has little empathy for mahayana

    :)
    Why are referring to your self in the third person?
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited March 2010
    15zsfvt.jpgzkqptd.jpgv30rbm.jpg254zll2.jpg2cdeszn.jpg2nv4303.jpg
This discussion has been closed.