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 is simply another aggregate (namely consciousness)
the views of these teachers are "stuck" in mind
:coffee:
I realise that statement of mine is quite misleading. I wrote too fast. Awareness is just a term, a label, a convention. I don't mean there is an ultimate pure awareness outside of the skandhas.
Rather I was referring to dissolving the mental processes and formations part of the five skandhas, transforming five skandhas into eighteen dhatus.
The term 'pure awareness' is also confusing -- for example as Thusness said, the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. There is no 'THE Pure Awareness'. There is simply the six consciousness that dependently originates along with the six sense objects and faculties. I believe I have been pretty clear on that in my previous post. I use 'pure' in the sense of directness, nakedness, without conceptual layering.
Xabir I am studying an introduction course that is taught in light of the shentong view. Which from what you said could be good for me because I was formerly a believer only in materialism and atheism. I asked that question because for awhile I was studying with two groups and they one was teaching rangtong and I found that confusing as a beginner because they define meanings of terms differently for example.
Xabir I am studying an introduction course that is taught in light of the shentong view. Which from what you said could be good for me because I was formerly a believer only in materialism and atheism. I asked that question because for awhile I was studying with two groups and they one was teaching rangtong and I found that confusing as a beginner because they define meanings of terms differently for example.
It is quite clear that shentong stress on the luminous aspect however the downside is that there is a tendency in this view to reify luminosity. Nevertheless it is very important to have a first glimpse of your luminous essence. Then your understanding of dharma will not be theoretical. However after the initial glimpse/realisation of luminosity one must continue to refine one's view and deconstruct the view of luminosity as inherent, independent, permanent. Then you will not fall into Advaita, Hindu, Eternalist views. For that purpose this article deals with it well: Vedà nta vis-à -vis Shentong
I remember teachers like Loppon Namdrol who basically told people not to take up views of either shentong and rangtong, saying that they are 'coarse views' and putting it plain that one is eternalism and the other is nihilism, while for me - I simply see it as skillful means, to be dropped (or refined) when the time comes.
First directly realise your luminous essence, first it will be experienced like the 'I AM', then non-dual, then anatta, then you are ready to realise the true profundity of emptiness not just theoretically but experientially. (as described in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment)
Xabir, the way my course is taught first step is to examine your own ideas of heart with the hope that within you already you have a profound insight that you may find into your true nature. Next confidence and your heart's wish is examined. Then the idea of the indestructible heart which is always present of clarity, openness, and sensitivity. I think its also in light of mahamudra. We haven't been taught in our course that we shall experience our luminous nature but it could just be a choice of words. Meditation is also started during this course with the method Trungpa Rinpoche taught.
Sorry a little off topic but I guess the on topic sense would be that there is more than one way to teach dharma.
Xabir, the way my course is taught first step is to examine your own ideas of heart with the hope that within you already you have a profound insight that you may find into your true nature. Next confidence and your heart's wish is examined. Then the idea of the indestructible heart which is always present of clarity, openness, and sensitivity. I think its also in light of mahamudra. We haven't been taught in our course that we shall experience our luminous nature but it could just be a choice of words. Meditation is also started during this course with the method Trungpa Rinpoche taught.
Sorry a little off topic but I guess the on topic sense would be that there is more than one way to teach dharma.
Sounds good
Luminosity is just a word, it refers to the knowingness, aliveness, clarity. The "clarity, openness, sensitivity" are all aspects of luminosity.
Patrul Rinpoche et al. (1994: p.410; p.403) define 'Clear light' (Tibetan: 'od gsal) as the:
...spontaneous, luminous (or knowing) aspect of the nature of the mind - or awareness (rig pa), the original state of the mind, fresh, vast, luminous, and beyond thought.[6]
I might associate it with the prasangika view which is rangtong. The shentong states that when grasping (prapancha) ceases the endless buddha qualities emerge. These qualites are ungraspable and inseparable. If they are not emerging then it could be due to a prapancha of negating experience.
All views are also right. Yeti yeti along with neti neti....
(edit that statement is in need of interpretation and obviously not definitive)
All skandhas don't exist.
As the "self" and the "I" don't exist.
All things are equal (being dependently arising phenomena), as there is no "I" to percieve or to be found, there are no skandhas for the "I" to percieve or hold on to.
Originally there is no duality
If one percieves/makes the "I" then one percieves/makes the skandhas.
There is joy, pain and the myriad number of body sensations and mental formations but these along with the "self" are self arisen phenomena, empty of inherent existence.
Without these concepts there is only the 'thusness" of experience.
This is my experience with this.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
Edit: After careful consideration my original post sounds like it borders on nihlism, this was not the intent nor is everything non-existent. I will side with the Buddha and not define the self.For me the skandhas exist in so far as I cut my foot, I feel physical pain but this aggregate is not mine, if I make it mine then it is the process of becoming. It is then that along with my deluded sense of self that "I" exists and through these aggregates this "I" exists. After reflection this is my long winded way of saying:
The Buddha says that we are not the five skandhas (form/matter,feeling,perception,formations,consciousness) and that after enlightenment attachment to them is not present and after parinirvana the burden is dropped totally.But what remains then?
You are absolutely correct. As to each of the five aggregates or skandhas the Buddha also says, "This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self (attâ)." So clearly the Buddha rejected each aggregate as being his true self.
I can find no evidence in the Pali canon where the Buddha totally denies the self. The Buddha only says, in so many words, that the skandhas are not his self -- and rightly so because the skandhas belong to Mara, the Buddhist devil!
The Buddha clearly taught anatta. He taught that with certain conditions, clinging arises (see DO), not that there is "someone" doing the clinging.
He clearly said this:
atta saranam ananna saranam. Translated: “The Self is refuge with no other as refuge" — D.ii.100
And this:
The self (in thee), man, knows what is true or false. Surely the noble Witness, sir, the Self, you do misjudge, in that when sin is there you do conceal the Self within the self. — A.i.149
And also this:
They who have the island of self (attadipa), possess nothing. They wander from place to place everyway released. — Sn 501
And this, too:
The self liberated (vimuttattâ), it is immovable (thitam), the self immovable (thita-attâ), it is content, whose self is content (santusitattâ), is not agitated. Unagitated, the very self (paccattam) surely attains complete nibbana. — S.iii.53–54
Those just sound like bad translations, probably stemming from an era where translators used Platonic terms so that Buddhism was accessible by Christians, or more simply a translator with a Hindu bias. Though there are certain suttas that seem pro-self, it is usually said by Buddhist scholars that there is evidence that the Buddha would change up his style depending on who the audience was. The Mahaparinirvana sutta for example is one of these. These quotes are so out of line with the rest of Buddha's teachings (anatta, dependent origination) that its really questionable to use them as your sole basis in saying that "Self (your capitalization) is the only refuge"
And why exactly are you capitalizing the word "self"? :eek2: "Atta" is often used as a reflexive pronoun. And..
DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them."
SN 1.25: "
[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
...
Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.1
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech,
He would speak conforming to such use.2"
And are you saying there is an eternal "soul" or "self"? :eek2:
I'm also not familiar with that citation format. Could you refer to the sutta names or the nikaya/number?
And why exactly are you capitalizing the word "self"? :eek2: "Atta" is often used as a reflexive pronoun. And..
Actually not. Attâ (with the long a) is a noun. Even when used with a negative prefix an it still means literally "not-the-self" which is not the same as nattha attâ which means essentially "there is no self" which, in addition, means the agent is annihilated. This is of course is the view of annihilationism which the Buddha denied. Having said that, IMO, many Westerners have wrongly taken up the nattha attâ view under the false belief that the Buddha was an atma denier (i.e., there is no fundamental agent). A good book to buy which clears up the mess is Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism by Joaquin Perez-Remon which is actually an abridged dissertation.
The problems with the possessive pronoun with the reflexive pronoun argument was long ago addressed by Mrs. Rhys Davids. She writes:
"The former [the Indian] uses no possessive pronoun with the reflexive pronoun. 'My-self' and the rest is never anything more than attâ – just that – in any 'oblique' case, genitive, &c. (The use of self in the plural was only a later usage.) 'Yourselves' is then wrong. We give it nowadays a 'less' in meaning, in that we have come, in our world and our day, to see in 'self' a less than we are or should be, i.e., an egoistic person. But in early India this less-in-self is unknown. Ignorant Buddhists to-day uphold the 'no-self' doctrine, largely because they see in self, 'selfishness'. Historically they are utterly wrong" (What was the Original Gospel in 'Buddhism'?, 36–37).
Please clarify your meaning. What do you assert is the Self? What does Self mean to you (not subject to anicca?)? How would you answer the OP's question? What remains?
Comments
i propose all things are not the play of mind or awareness
for example, mind cannot cut into matter
soft matter cannot cut into hard matter
but hard matter (axe) to cut into hard matter (wood)
this demonstrates there is matter (rupa or form) rather than the mere play of mind
in buddhism, the 'one khanda' schools have often existed & generally dismissed as extreme wrong view
:smilec:
Exotic
..Re: "awareness" .....I've never found it.
:cool:
.....nope, can't find it.
Rather I was referring to dissolving the mental processes and formations part of the five skandhas, transforming five skandhas into eighteen dhatus.
The term 'pure awareness' is also confusing -- for example as Thusness said, the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. There is no 'THE Pure Awareness'. There is simply the six consciousness that dependently originates along with the six sense objects and faculties. I believe I have been pretty clear on that in my previous post. I use 'pure' in the sense of directness, nakedness, without conceptual layering.
I remember teachers like Loppon Namdrol who basically told people not to take up views of either shentong and rangtong, saying that they are 'coarse views' and putting it plain that one is eternalism and the other is nihilism, while for me - I simply see it as skillful means, to be dropped (or refined) when the time comes.
First directly realise your luminous essence, first it will be experienced like the 'I AM', then non-dual, then anatta, then you are ready to realise the true profundity of emptiness not just theoretically but experientially. (as described in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment)
Sorry a little off topic but I guess the on topic sense would be that there is more than one way to teach dharma.
Luminosity is just a word, it refers to the knowingness, aliveness, clarity. The "clarity, openness, sensitivity" are all aspects of luminosity.
Patrul Rinpoche et al. (1994: p.410; p.403) define 'Clear light' (Tibetan: 'od gsal) as the:
...spontaneous, luminous (or knowing) aspect of the nature of the mind - or awareness (rig pa), the original state of the mind, fresh, vast, luminous, and beyond thought.[6]
"all views are skill means = 'rafts'"
Is itself a view...
I might associate it with the prasangika view which is rangtong. The shentong states that when grasping (prapancha) ceases the endless buddha qualities emerge. These qualites are ungraspable and inseparable. If they are not emerging then it could be due to a prapancha of negating experience.
All views are also right. Yeti yeti along with neti neti....
(edit that statement is in need of interpretation and obviously not definitive)
As the "self" and the "I" don't exist.
All things are equal (being dependently arising phenomena), as there is no "I" to percieve or to be found, there are no skandhas for the "I" to percieve or hold on to.
Originally there is no duality
If one percieves/makes the "I" then one percieves/makes the skandhas.
There is joy, pain and the myriad number of body sensations and mental formations but these along with the "self" are self arisen phenomena, empty of inherent existence.
Without these concepts there is only the 'thusness" of experience.
This is my experience with this.
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
Edit: After careful consideration my original post sounds like it borders on nihlism, this was not the intent nor is everything non-existent. I will side with the Buddha and not define the self.For me the skandhas exist in so far as I cut my foot, I feel physical pain but this aggregate is not mine, if I make it mine then it is the process of becoming. It is then that along with my deluded sense of self that "I" exists and through these aggregates this "I" exists. After reflection this is my long winded way of saying:
Originally posted by Dhamma Dhatu:
"Anatta means that you are not you.
Enlightenment is mere khandas.
Khandas without the "you".
You are absolutely correct. As to each of the five aggregates or skandhas the Buddha also says, "This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self (attâ)." So clearly the Buddha rejected each aggregate as being his true self.
I can find no evidence in the Pali canon where the Buddha totally denies the self. The Buddha only says, in so many words, that the skandhas are not his self -- and rightly so because the skandhas belong to Mara, the Buddhist devil!
Bobby;)
He clearly said this:
atta saranam ananna saranam. Translated: “The Self is refuge with no other as refuge" — D.ii.100
And this:
The self (in thee), man, knows what is true or false. Surely the noble Witness, sir, the Self, you do misjudge, in that when sin is there you do conceal the Self within the self. — A.i.149
And also this:
They who have the island of self (attadipa), possess nothing. They wander from place to place everyway released. — Sn 501
And this, too:
The self liberated (vimuttattâ), it is immovable (thitam), the self immovable (thita-attâ), it is content, whose self is content (santusitattâ), is not agitated. Unagitated, the very self (paccattam) surely attains complete nibbana. — S.iii.53–54
Bobby
I thought the place needed some excitement. Dang no-selfers are starting to multiply!
I am getting the Mahayana cannon loaded up with pro-self ammo too!
Bobby
DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them."
SN 1.25: "
[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
...
Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.1
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech,
He would speak conforming to such use.2"
And are you saying there is an eternal "soul" or "self"? :eek2:
I'm also not familiar with that citation format. Could you refer to the sutta names or the nikaya/number?
Actually not. Attâ (with the long a) is a noun. Even when used with a negative prefix an it still means literally "not-the-self" which is not the same as nattha attâ which means essentially "there is no self" which, in addition, means the agent is annihilated. This is of course is the view of annihilationism which the Buddha denied. Having said that, IMO, many Westerners have wrongly taken up the nattha attâ view under the false belief that the Buddha was an atma denier (i.e., there is no fundamental agent). A good book to buy which clears up the mess is Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism by Joaquin Perez-Remon which is actually an abridged dissertation.
The problems with the possessive pronoun with the reflexive pronoun argument was long ago addressed by Mrs. Rhys Davids. She writes:
Bobby