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 supramundane is unspeakable, at least in a coherent way that people would actually understand. That's why we have the path. Until we understand Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha, we must still work on understanding those. The mind is a flowing process of change; it doesn't go from unawakened to awakened just because a Buddha says "life is like this", and so the Buddha didn't just say what life is like. He showed us a path of practice to realize it for ourselves."
Feeling is felt compared to what? Even if you remove verbal cognition from sensations the mere sensory perception itself is subject to emptiness. As a product of the aggregates it is a product of dependant origination which is another way of expressing the noble truths which equates the feelings being felt to mere dukkha.
"Verbal cognition"? What does that mean? Cognition in Buddhism is consciousness or mere awareness. Verbal is speech. How can the faculty of speech cognise?
Perception means to label or classify. The feeling of pain occurs, regardless of whether or not it is labelled. Feelings of pleasure occur, regardless of their being labelled. If we taste sugar, it tastes sweet. The feeling of pleasure or sweetness occurs, regardless of the labelling. The same with pain. If we break our arm or leg, the pain occurs, regardless of the labelling.
Or if the mind is absorbed in meditation, rapture & happiness arise. These feelings are unrelated to labelling or perception.
Like this year, I was taken to hospital for acute food poisoning. For a time, my blood pressure became high. The acute bodily pain and bodily reactions have little to do with perception or labelling.
What does "subject to emptiness" mean? Feelings of pleasure & pain arise. They are felt by the nervous system. These feeings are empty of 'self' and the nervous system or mind is empty of 'self' but the feelings are still felt by the mind.
"Feelings felt are dukkha"? What does this mean? All of the discources state feeling without craving is the cessation of dukkha.
The Buddha described two kinds of Nibbana. Nibbana is the absence of dukkha. One kind of Nibbana is when pleasant & unpleasant feelings are still experienced.
All the best
DD
Verbal cognition as alluding to your: Ultimately, happiness is a feeling rather than a word. Ultimately, the ego is a word or thought rather than a feeling. I believe I was being overly seduced by the average man's succumbing to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that cognition is only as penetrative as the language used to achieve it.
Because I also am trying to figure out exactly what emptiness means, though I have a decent comprehension of the grosser levels, I was simply striving to push emptiness to its limits to figure out what is or isn't real (That's a conventional way of saying "what's not based on a causal relationship"). Apparently feelings are real you say? My logic was such that even feelings are subtle examples of emptiness. That feeling is felt via the aggregates themselves, dependent upon a nervous system and presuppositions upon what feelings are. The same logic with the car as both a concept and heap of parts, but applied to feelings. That as cliche as it will sound, feelings themselves have no inherent existence.
Regarding the question on dukkha, admittedly I was using the term rather liberally but I was intending to say that, under the premise of the truth of the above assumption, feelings being understood as something real will hinder one's liberation.
I still am awake. I just understand that I can't make people see it my way. I can only help them see it their own way.
I'm very sorry if I'd offended you, my sensitivity isn't renowned especially when it crosses paths with my own egocentrical pursuits for truth of which you were an unfortunate victim. Best regards C.
Yea, you can't put it into coherent words. I feel that people who have a strong reaction one way or another to my statements are probably close to the realization themselves. My words can be very beneficial to some. It's unfortunate that this has been sunk so noone can see it, as well as the other thread about enlightenment closed, because whether or not you actually believe he's enlightened there was some good info in there, just like in here. For some reason this community wants everyone to think noone is enlightened, at least except some obscure and far off monk which you've never heard of or thich nhat hanh or the dalai lama. Enlightenment is here. It is now. That is not a metaphor. WAKE UP! Time to smell the roses. The life you were always meant to live is ready to be lived at this very moment.
The thing is, when thich nhat han or the Dalai Lama writes his message is clear. People get what he is saying. His wisdom is obvious. That has not been the case in this thread or in the other more recent one. Another point is that if someone has achieved enlightenment they would have some degree of omniscience, and would probably not be guessing as to why they are misunderstood. As has been pointed out repeatedly, what is being claimed to be enlightenment, is one in a series of realizations or experiences that may lead to awakening, and could be expected by one who is practicing. Just my opinion.
Well I know multiple people who have understood it. So YOU don't understand it. That doesn't mean noone does. It can be very beneficial for some people.
You went from claiming to be enlightened to pleading to have the thread deleted and now you are back to wondering why claims of enlightenment are not taken seriously here. I am not dismissing your realization. Believe me I can completely relate to what mintyfresh0 was trying to say and I can understand why federica cut him off. I was simply trying to point out why people like the men you referred to are taken seriously as teachers. If I don't understand you it is because sometimes when you express yourself is not so clear. Thats all. No offense intended. Like I said only my opinion.
TheJourney-I just spent an hour reading rebirth threads. Truthfully I now believe that you have done as good a job as anyone at trying to express yourself. You deserve credit for even trying to describe realization of emptiness. I am too timid to put my views out the way that you have.
The thing is, when thich nhat han or the Dalai Lama writes his message is clear. People get what he is saying. His wisdom is obvious. That has not been the case in this thread or in the other more recent one. Another point is that if someone has achieved enlightenment they would have some degree of omniscience, and would probably not be guessing as to why they are misunderstood. As has been pointed out repeatedly, what is being claimed to be enlightenment, is one in a series of realizations or experiences that may lead to awakening, and could be expected by one who is practicing. Just my opinion.
Hi Robot,
Though you raise good points, I think that there is a difference between having knowledge and having the ability to communicate that knowledge. I think the word omniscience is the cause of a lot of misunderstanding in Buddhism, and sometimes think we would all be better off without it. There is some conventional idea that we create that coincides with what we consider omniscience to be, and if someone doesn't fit our preconceived idea then they must be misinformed. Omniscience tends to be the weapon of choice - used to cut others down from their supposed high horse, yet, to me, it appears to be used merely to reinforce people's prejudices. Don't get me wrong, I suffer from this myself and have to catch myself when it occurs. The argument I use against myself when this occurs is as follows:
I'm not sure if you follow the Bodhisattva path or not, but one of the greatest characteristics of a Bodhisattva is the ability rejoice in the success of others. We have a choice to either support each other skilfully and with care, or to assume that we are all totally deluded with no hope of enlightenment. It is my belief that enlightenment is possible and that people on the path are definitely progressing towards enlightenment. To think otherwise, for me, is hypocrital, as I would be believing that I am progressing towards enlightenment on my journey yet others are not.
Anyway that is my antidote to cutting others down on the journey. Having said that, my tradition consider enlightenment to be instantaneous. On the journey it is possible to "gain" and then "lose" this until it is realised that it can never be lost. Another thing that is often said is that we do not see enlightenment because it is so close to us and is always there. If this is the case surely others would occasionally experience this and know?
The other thing I would like to add to this thread is that we have an opportunity to learn from the experiences of others. If we shoot them down by trying to share their experiences then aren't we just creating an atmosphere of fear and anxiety? How does that fit in with the Dharma?
TheJourney-I just spent an hour reading rebirth threads. Truthfully I now believe that you have done as good a job as anyone at trying to express yourself. You deserve credit for even trying to describe realization of emptiness. I am too timid to put my views out the way that you have.
What you have to understand is that noone can harm me anymore. I laugh when the people on here mock me and bring negativity my way. It doesn't affect me at all. It can't. I don't care if people have a hard time understanding what i'm saying, or even think its stupid. Cuz those aren't the people i'm trying to talk to. They have their own way. There are people that see the truth in my words. For them, I will speak, even knowing that most won't understand and will think i'm arrogant and deluded and stupid and all this other stuff. Because it doesn't matter. They can't do a thing to me.
Comments
"The supramundane is unspeakable, at least in a coherent way that people would actually understand. That's why we have the path. Until we understand Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha, we must still work on understanding those. The mind is a flowing process of change; it doesn't go from unawakened to awakened just because a Buddha says "life is like this", and so the Buddha didn't just say what life is like. He showed us a path of practice to realize it for ourselves."
Because I also am trying to figure out exactly what emptiness means, though I have a decent comprehension of the grosser levels, I was simply striving to push emptiness to its limits to figure out what is or isn't real (That's a conventional way of saying "what's not based on a causal relationship"). Apparently feelings are real you say? My logic was such that even feelings are subtle examples of emptiness. That feeling is felt via the aggregates themselves, dependent upon a nervous system and presuppositions upon what feelings are. The same logic with the car as both a concept and heap of parts, but applied to feelings. That as cliche as it will sound, feelings themselves have no inherent existence.
Regarding the question on dukkha, admittedly I was using the term rather liberally but I was intending to say that, under the premise of the truth of the above assumption, feelings being understood as something real will hinder one's liberation.
Though you raise good points, I think that there is a difference between having knowledge and having the ability to communicate that knowledge. I think the word omniscience is the cause of a lot of misunderstanding in Buddhism, and sometimes think we would all be better off without it. There is some conventional idea that we create that coincides with what we consider omniscience to be, and if someone doesn't fit our preconceived idea then they must be misinformed. Omniscience tends to be the weapon of choice - used to cut others down from their supposed high horse, yet, to me, it appears to be used merely to reinforce people's prejudices. Don't get me wrong, I suffer from this myself and have to catch myself when it occurs. The argument I use against myself when this occurs is as follows:
I'm not sure if you follow the Bodhisattva path or not, but one of the greatest characteristics of a Bodhisattva is the ability rejoice in the success of others. We have a choice to either support each other skilfully and with care, or to assume that we are all totally deluded with no hope of enlightenment. It is my belief that enlightenment is possible and that people on the path are definitely progressing towards enlightenment. To think otherwise, for me, is hypocrital, as I would be believing that I am progressing towards enlightenment on my journey yet others are not.
Anyway that is my antidote to cutting others down on the journey. Having said that, my tradition consider enlightenment to be instantaneous. On the journey it is possible to "gain" and then "lose" this until it is realised that it can never be lost. Another thing that is often said is that we do not see enlightenment because it is so close to us and is always there. If this is the case surely others would occasionally experience this and know?
Cheer, WK
Cheers, WK