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.
Is Enlightenment Just Part Of Ones Practice ? (Where Practice Will Eventually Make Perfect)
@federica said: I hate to break this to you, but that just about covers every 'teacher' there is. Pema Chodron, The Dalai Lama, TNH, Lama Surya Das and anyone else of prominence you can think of. They all demonstrate and lay out the path.
I have never heard any one of them claim to be enlightened, yet they show the path.
Actually, the Budhha is the one who has found the path, and has shown it.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
That is such an off-tangent comment, I'm not even sure it's relevant.....?
@bookworm While you practice to reach enlightenment you will come across many truths of life. You will enjoy the self realisation you get of this life. More practice will make realisation of previous life. This way one day you will attain complete realisation i.e. enlightenment. At this stage your soul will get free from this worldly life. This is what i believe.
Got my new haircut, cute shirt, bills paid, getting groceries later, on the bus, going to practice, see the homeless man begging and wonder if he's closer then I am. Sanity and society might not be helping. Rumi told me to abandon both and drink like a fish.
If I was God/Emperor, I'd mandate a verbiage tax against anyone mentioning enlightenment & Nirvana, just to offset all the spiritual cravings & related suffering that it seems to cause practitioners.
Like a swearing fine but where all the collected moneys could go towards some selfless cause. .....
And whatever amount that we agree that a questioner has to pay, anyone professing possession of either Enlightenment or Nirvana's grace should be paying 50 times that amount.
@Earthninja said:
Shoshin hey thanks for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate what you are saying
The whole Bodhisattva thing sounds like a fairy tale to me. (How dare I?!)
How many Bodhisattvas do we know in this day? (Someone who had out off Nirvana to show others the way)
How do they even know what Nirvava is?
@Earthninja
If one thinks along the lines of a Bodhisattva being a magical, mystical, levitating, walking through walls kind of person ie, the supernatural mumbo jumbo 'down the rabbit hole' stuff, then yes it does sound somewhat fairy tale-ish
However on a personal level, I just see a Bodhisattva (who operates in the conventional world) as somebody who dedicate their lives to helping others in the altruistic sense, just because they can, (it's 'satisfying' ) and where there's no Nirvana carrot dangling on the 'end' of a stick to entice them....
Most importantly I've heard words (from what I believe) to be awakened beings. They are trying to show others, but they haven't "put off" nirvana. Do we disappear into nothingness when we wake up? **Why can't we wake up and help people? **
Bodhi=Awake Sattva=Being
Also I feel like the above Bodhisattva approach, to show people how to wake up. When one hasn't done it themselves seems like a hindrance. They could be leading them completely in the wrong direction. (With good intentions )
See above reply
Helping people from suffering is a great thing within us, we all do our best and it is something we need more of.
True
But help in the wrong direction regardless of intention is not necessarily good. Humans are trying to save the planet yet destroying it at the sane time. Why?
They (awakened beings) are trying to show others, but they haven't "put off" nirvana.
Awakened means they have seen the Truth (glimpse of Truth) , but if they are not mindful of 'the Truth they have seen' their habitual tendencies (attachment and anger) will arise
they still have to do the cleaning up of their defilement
not that they haven't 'put off' but according to the Teaching they can not 'put off' Nirvana
because it says within 7 or less number of births they will be Full Enlightenment (come to Nirvana =this is not a place to come but because of our poor expression we say they come to Nirvana)
Do we disappear into nothingness when we wake up?
No
'we' see with wisdom that there is 'nothingness' only (this is not what we read or heard or discussed but 'we' see with 'our own' wisdom, actually the'wisdom' see 'there is nothing'
however, if 'awaken' means Full Enlightenment then at the end of the present lifetime (death) no more rebirth occure
awaken or enlightenment means different to different people because they are just labels which try to explain an Understanding comes through Wisdom
@Earthninja a lot of people take the bodhisattva vow. I am assuming they are not joking around. I would say my guru is a bodhisattva.
and incidentally it is a wonderful thing that someone may become a 'hearer' let alone bodhisattva.
It's all in the JoL (Jewel Ornament of Liberation)! By that I mean that it deals with the path of the Mahayana including bodhisattva path.
The last versus of the Avatamsaka sutra show the vows one has that might have assurances of the prayers to be able to practice dharma in different rebirths.
There are resources available. It is not all just bullshit. Plenty of resources and gurus and so forth.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
They (awakened beings) are trying to show others, but they haven't "put off" nirvana.
Awakened means they have seen the Truth (glimpse of Truth) , but if they are not mindful of 'the Truth they have seen' their habitual tendencies (attachment and anger) will arise
they still have to do the cleaning up of their defilement
not that they haven't 'put off' but according to the Teaching they can not 'put off' Nirvana
because it says within 7 or less number of births they will be Full Enlightenment (come to Nirvana =this is not a place to come but because of our poor expression we say they come to Nirvana)
Do we disappear into nothingness when we wake up?
No
'we' see with wisdom that there is 'nothingness' only (this is not what we read or heard or discussed but 'we' see with 'our own' wisdom, actually the'wisdom' see 'there is nothing'
however, if 'awaken' means Full Enlightenment then at the end of the present lifetime (death) no more rebirth occure
awaken or enlightenment means different to different people because they are just labels which try to explain an Understanding comes through Wisdom
Have you witnessed this "nothingness" for yourself or do you mean something like emptiness or togetherness?
I think "nothingness" is a misnomer and I like to question anyone that claims to have witnessed nothing at the same time as wisdom arises. Nothing personal.
"Nothing" necessarily means there is no wisdom nor is there any potential for wisdom to arise within nothingness. Even just saying "within nothingness" is nonsensical because there would be no within. There would be no anything including any and all processes.
If you mean there are no things then I understand but that is not the same as there being nothing at all as there is action.
Awaken to the Truth or Enlightenment is beyond this world and can not be explained with worldly labels
nothing=nothingness=empty=emptiness=no thing
all these are labels
after certain period of Insight meditation a turning point comes that the wisdom sees 'there is nothing to be hold =(no thing=nothingness=empty=emptiness) apart from labels within or without oneself
'I' is a label
'wisdom' is a label
'see' is a label
'nothing' is a label
because of ignorance (not knowing there is nothing to be hold) one holds the labels
yes, there is action, arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing continually in every moment
because of that there is no permanent thing to be seen or hold
4
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2015
@upekka said:
Awaken to the Truth or Enlightenment is beyond this world and can not be explained with worldly labels
They cannot be experienced in terms of labels but they can be explained with labels. That's what labels are for. They may not relay the information perfectly but we can usually get the idea if they are used mindfully.
In trying, many teachers have watered many seeds of wisdom within many students.
nothing=nothingness=empty=emptiness=no thing
all these are labels
Sure but that doesn't mean there is not wisdom or emptiness. Emptiness is not the same as nothingness and that is why we use labels to distinguish.
after certain period of Insight meditation a turning point comes that the wisdom sees 'there is nothing to be hold =(no thing=nothingness=empty=emptiness) apart from labels within or without oneself
Ah, but nothing to hold is not to say nothing at all, period.
'I' is a label
'wisdom' is a label
'see' is a label
'nothing' is a label
because of ignorance (not knowing there is nothing to be hold) one holds the labels
I respectfully disagree. We hold the labels after some knowing because we are not capable of telepathy and labels are tools. Knowing this we are mindful of how we use them.
yes, there is action, arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing continually in every moment
because of that there is no permanent thing to be seen or hold
There cannot be action and nothing at the same time and no permanent thing is not the same as nothing.
So what does existence mean? If some thing is here one moment and gone the next, like a cloud or the wind, can it be said to exist? Yes and no.
As Nagarjuna explained, there is no present that does not depend on the future and the past. The future does not exist because it hasn't happened yet. When it has happened it is not the future, it's the past which does not exist in any sense. The present can only be seen when it is past which again, does not exist. Where is existence in this?
We are confused by our thoughts and memories. Labels only make it worse.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
so I suggest you go through life and label nothing. Nothing at all. See how far it gets you!
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@robot said:
So what does existence mean? If some thing is here one moment and gone the next, like a cloud or the wind, can it be said to exist? Yes and no.
As Nagarjuna explained, there is no present that does not depend on the future and the past. The future does not exist because it hasn't happened yet. When it has happened it is not the future, it's the past which does not exist in any sense. The present can only be seen when it is past which again, does not exist. Where is existence in this?
The past is just what the present used to be. To say the past does not exist is to deny causation. The future exists right now as potential for what could be. When the potential comes to fruition, it will still be now. In a sense it is always now, has always been now and will always be right now.
We are confused by our thoughts and memories. Labels only make it worse.
I'm not so sure I am confused so much as intrigued.
Sure, labels don't do reality justice but I think it would be way harder to communicate with one another without them.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@ourself said:
The past is just what the present used to be. To say the past does not exist is to deny causation. The future exists right now as potential for what could be
I'll bite. I'm harbour bound, waiting for a part for my toilet to be flown in. Gonna be a long day!
The past is what the present used to be, which is happening so instantaneously that it can only been seen when it's past. When it's past it is gone. Only a memory, non existent.
If the future exists now, it's not the future.
Potential is not existence. It's only a thought.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@robot said:
Potential is not existence. It's only a thought.
Tell that to the flower in mid bloom, lol.
Potential grows as conditions allow. When the conditions are right for something, it will surly manifest but it doesn't just "pop" into existence.
The current conditions are inseparable from their causes.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2015
Some people think there are increments of time and that the smallest increment goes by so fast we don't see it.
That just isn't so. There is no smallest increment that we know of so it makes sense that it's all just one stream.
There is no smallest moment, there is only one moment broken into relative chunks.
1,2,3,4... What is the largest number? we need that if we want to claim to know the smallest increment. 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4... What is the smallest increment?
Sorry @Shoshin, I do have a habit of going off on a tangent. All apologies for the off topic.
Potential grows as conditions allow. When the conditions are right for something, it will surly manifest but it doesn't just "pop" into existence.
The current conditions are inseparable from their causes.
If I pick the flower, where does the potential go?
As for the rest, let's let Nagarjuna explain:
Emptiness: The Seventy Stanzas
I. Duration, origination, destruction, existence, non-existence, inferiority, mediocrity and superiority were taught by the Buddha in accord with conventional usage, not by the power of the real.
II. There is not anything which corresponds to the expressions: not- self, not not-self, both self and not-self (because) all factors which can be spoken of are - like Nirvana - in their intrinsic being empty.
III. Since the intrinsic being of all entities does not exist in the cause and conditions, either together or separately, or in any way, therefore they are empty.
IV. The existent does not originate, because it is existent. The non- existent does not (originate) because it is non-existent. The existent and non-existent also does not (originate) because they are heterogeneous. Because there is no origination there is no duration and no destruction.
V. The originated is not the object to be originated. The unoriginated is also not the object to be originated. The (object) at the time of origination is also not the object to be originated, because it would be originated and unoriginated.
VI. If the effect is existent, the cause will possess the effect. If non- existent, the cause will be equal to a non-cause. If neither existent nor non-existent, it is contradictory, nor again is a cause justified in the three times.
@ourself it's good to see your face btw.
I haven't been to Hamilton for many years. I have a friend in Burlington. I was out there a couple of years back.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2015
@robot said:
If I pick the flower, where does the potential go?
It doesn't go anywhere. It changes from the potential to bloom to the potential to turn into compost in which more potential will grow.
As for the rest, let's let Nagarjuna explain:
Emptiness: The Seventy Stanzas
I. Duration, origination, destruction, existence, non-existence, inferiority, mediocrity and superiority were taught by the Buddha in accord with conventional usage, not by the power of the real.
To me that is like a warning not to mistake subjectivity for objectivity and vice versa.
II. There is not anything which corresponds to the expressions: not- self, not not-self, both self and not-self (because) all factors which can be spoken of are - like Nirvana - in their intrinsic being empty.
This means all things are subject to change and have always been subject to change, not that they don't really exist... See "1".
III. Since the intrinsic being of all entities does not exist in the cause and conditions, either together or separately, or in any way, therefore they are empty.
This is almost the same as "2" except it elaborates by implying that "being" is always in a state of change and still cannot be said to abide in any one cause or condition.
IV. The existent does not originate, because it is existent. The non- existent does not (originate) because it is non-existent. The existent and non-existent also does not (originate) because they are heterogeneous. Because there is no origination there is no duration and no destruction.
See, he keeps explaining it in different ways but they all really imply the same thing. That there is no original cause or condition because the only constant is change.
V. The originated is not the object to be originated. The unoriginated is also not the object to be originated. The (object) at the time of origination is also not the object to be originated, because it would be originated and unoriginated.
I think the keyword here is "object". The process of change is emptiness at work and "things" are just like moments in time... Their birth and death are only subjective.
VI. If the effect is existent, the cause will possess the effect. If non- existent, the cause will be equal to a non-cause. If neither existent nor non-existent, it is contradictory, nor again is a cause justified in the three times.
Here he basically says what I just said... The conditions are inseparable from their causes.
@ourself it's good to see your face btw.
I haven't been to Hamilton for many years. I have a friend in Burlington. I was out there a couple of years back.
@ourself.
I understand that you are not defending existence, and I don't really see anyone defending non existence. Maybe there is no other way to get at emptiness other than to work from the extremes to the middle.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Oh, I just have a pet peeve with nothing in general, lol.
@robot said:IV. The existent does not originate, because it is existent. The non- existent does not (originate) because it is non-existent. The existent and non-existent also does not (originate) because they are heterogeneous. Because there is no origination there is no duration and no destruction.
I don't get this. A plant grows from a seed doesn't it?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Oh it's ok, @SpinyNorman , people are just getting into the realms of the highfalutin, esoteric woo-woo talk that basically seems to say a lot but is frankly, hot air, because as far as I can perceive, it's a lot of great talk, but never put into action.
People say all this stuff, but it's not what they base their day-to-day lives on.
It's one thing to expound these deep thought-provoking and intensely spiritual factors, but I'd like to know how such 'truths' actually effect people in their day-to-day lives when they're changing the wheel on the car, doing the grocery shopping or changing the diaper full of "smell".
I mean, does all this cleverness affect? ... Influence? ... Dictate? .... their daily lives?
As they're fixing the tyre/doing the shopping/changing the diaper, is
The existent does not originate, because it is existent. The non- existent does not (originate) because it is non-existent. The existent and non-existent also does not (originate) because they are heterogeneous. Because there is no origination there is no duration and no destruction.
To the front of their Conscious Mind? Is that what they are basing their lives on, while dealing with the mundane?
I very much doubt it.
@federica said:
Oh it's ok, SpinyNorman , people are just getting into the realms of the highfalutin, esoteric woo-woo talk that basically seems to say a lot but is frankly, hot air, because as far as I can perceive, it's a lot of great talk, but never put into action.
People say all this stuff, but it's not what they base their day-to-day lives on.
It's one thing to expound these deep thought-provoking and intensely spiritual factors, but I'd like to know how such 'truths' actually effect people in their day-to-day lives when they're changing the wheel on the car, doing the grocery shopping or changing the diaper full of "smell".
I mean, does all this cleverness affect? ... Influence? ... Dictate? .... their daily lives?
As they're fixing the tyre/doing the shopping/changing the diaper, is
@SpinyNorman said:
I don't get this. A plant grows from a seed doesn't it?
I'm pretty sure you've staked your claim in Therevada territory.
You can refer to Nagarjuna or the likes of Chandrakirti for the Madhyamaka view on emptiness if you find an interest there.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I hope not.
If that's Understanding, you can keep it.
I'd prefer to cut the BS and walk the talk, rather than sound off using terminology and language nobody ever actually practises or pays any attention to, other than spouting it out occasionally to demonstrate just how clever, advanced, wise and "old" they are.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2015
@robot said:
You can refer to Nagarjuna or the likes of Chandrakirti for the Madhyamaka view on emptiness if you find an interest there.
Ah.
So it's someone's philosophy, but not a universally accepted one.
Explains a lot.
These Mahayanists have a lot to answer for.
"Let's take a simple premise and screw it up beyond anyone's understanding!"
Look Fede, you have made it clear that the Dhammapada is all you need. Thats cool. But could you please spare those that are interested in the other 83999 teachings your harsh judgmentalism.
How bout it? Just this once?
Somehow @federica has arrived at the conclusion that an interest in Madhyamaka should "show" on someone. As if I like to read history or astronomy it should look like it to others.
Ridiculous.
Next we will be hearing that Madhyamikas were'nt Buddhists.
New(theraveda)Buddhist.com is not what this forum is called.
@robot said:Like I said read up if you are interested.
I studied all this years ago but didn't find it all that convincing at a practical level. I'd be interested in your response to my question about the plant and the seed.
That's precisely the illusion you're supposed to cut through.
A seed never actually "turns into" a flower. Because we label objects, we see them as finished products. Nothing ever originates, except as a label.
So neither is the seed the object you believe it is, nor does it disappear once it has grown into a flower. Tbh, I get the gist of it, but I don't really understand it deeply.
I know that the idea of non birth is pretty widely practiced. And it does have some implications for everyday life.
Here's an example: improvisation. When a jazz player improvises, he doesn't think of the finished whole, he just goes with the flow. There are many situations in people's life where things don't go as planned, where you just abandon the big plan and do the best you can with what you got left. That's as pragmatic as it gets.
@0student0 said: A seed never actually "turns into" a flower.
No, but the plant does arise in dependence on the seed and other conditions. Or to put it another way there would no plant without the necessary conditions.
Does Nargajuna's logic contradict this?
I get the point about labelling, but I don't think it's the central issue here.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited July 2015
@SpinyNorman said:
I don't get this. A plant grows from a seed doesn't it?
I think it's a play on causation. Remember Nagarjuna expounded the Two Truths from the Middle Way. The conventional truth would be that a plant grows from a seed and the ultimate truth is the plant is already here in the conditioning of the seed.
@SpinyNorman said:
I get the point about labelling, but I don't think it's the central issue here.
I don't think his logic contradicts that at all. I do think the translation is rather choppy though.
I mean, come on... "justified in the 3 times"? I'm sure that's just what he was saying, lmao.
@ourself said:The conventional truth would be that a plant grows from a seed and the ultimate truth is the plant is already here in the conditioning of the seed.
Do you mean the seed contains the potential for the plant?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
Do you mean the seed contains the potential for the plant?
Not just the seed but the rain, sun and soil as well. The plant that grows cannot really be separate from these.
@Shoshin said:
(the "WOW" factor), but the very next sentence might come across has a load of nonsense (the "WTF" factor )
I think this happens with zen teachings often. But usually the WTF comes first! For example, some guy killing the Buddha?? Killing your parents?? WTF!
Chan master Linji would have hit Dogen with a stick across the head for talking about enlightenment so much. Nirvana is a hitching post for donkeys, he said. WTF?! Then maybe 10 years later thinking about killing the Buddha you might say Wow! instead of WTF.
Comments
Actually, the Budhha is the one who has found the path, and has shown it.
That is such an off-tangent comment, I'm not even sure it's relevant.....?
@bookworm While you practice to reach enlightenment you will come across many truths of life. You will enjoy the self realisation you get of this life. More practice will make realisation of previous life. This way one day you will attain complete realisation i.e. enlightenment. At this stage your soul will get free from this worldly life. This is what i believe.
@Shoshin
@federica they show the path which they have learned. To show and learn new path one needs to approach enlightenment via practice.
Got my new haircut, cute shirt, bills paid, getting groceries later, on the bus, going to practice, see the homeless man begging and wonder if he's closer then I am. Sanity and society might not be helping. Rumi told me to abandon both and drink like a fish.
If I was God/Emperor, I'd mandate a verbiage tax against anyone mentioning enlightenment & Nirvana, just to offset all the spiritual cravings & related suffering that it seems to cause practitioners.
Like a swearing fine but where all the collected moneys could go towards some selfless cause. .....
And whatever amount that we agree that a questioner has to pay, anyone professing possession of either Enlightenment or Nirvana's grace should be paying 50 times that amount.
A Zen swear box - cool! Beats being hit with a stick I suppose.
A stick....? Luxury!
one understands 'for the first time' that there is nothing outside to be experienced
everything is just labels and whatever the label, it comes within
this understanding should come within
not just listening, reading and discussing Buddha's Teaching but genuinely practicing the Teaching
@Earthninja
If one thinks along the lines of a Bodhisattva being a magical, mystical, levitating, walking through walls kind of person ie, the supernatural mumbo jumbo 'down the rabbit hole' stuff, then yes it does sound somewhat fairy tale-ish
However on a personal level, I just see a Bodhisattva (who operates in the conventional world) as somebody who dedicate their lives to helping others in the altruistic sense, just because they can, (it's 'satisfying' ) and where there's no Nirvana carrot dangling on the 'end' of a stick to entice them....
Bodhi=Awake Sattva=Being
See above reply
True
True
You are an @Earthninja
Not necessarily so, Shakespeare "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
Metta back at ya
@Shoshin cool, so a Bodhisattva is someone who IS awake but has reengaged the world to show others the path, that's awesome.
Thanks
They (awakened beings) are trying to show others, but they haven't "put off" nirvana.
Awakened means they have seen the Truth (glimpse of Truth) , but if they are not mindful of 'the Truth they have seen' their habitual tendencies (attachment and anger) will arise
they still have to do the cleaning up of their defilement
not that they haven't 'put off' but according to the Teaching they can not 'put off' Nirvana
because it says within 7 or less number of births they will be Full Enlightenment (come to Nirvana =this is not a place to come but because of our poor expression we say they come to Nirvana)
Do we disappear into nothingness when we wake up?
No
'we' see with wisdom that there is 'nothingness' only (this is not what we read or heard or discussed but 'we' see with 'our own' wisdom, actually the'wisdom' see 'there is nothing'
however, if 'awaken' means Full Enlightenment then at the end of the present lifetime (death) no more rebirth occure
awaken or enlightenment means different to different people because they are just labels which try to explain an Understanding comes through Wisdom
@Earthninja a lot of people take the bodhisattva vow. I am assuming they are not joking around. I would say my guru is a bodhisattva.
and incidentally it is a wonderful thing that someone may become a 'hearer' let alone bodhisattva.
It's all in the JoL (Jewel Ornament of Liberation)! By that I mean that it deals with the path of the Mahayana including bodhisattva path.
The last versus of the Avatamsaka sutra show the vows one has that might have assurances of the prayers to be able to practice dharma in different rebirths.
There are resources available. It is not all just bullshit. Plenty of resources and gurus and so forth.
.> @upekka said:
Have you witnessed this "nothingness" for yourself or do you mean something like emptiness or togetherness?
I think "nothingness" is a misnomer and I like to question anyone that claims to have witnessed nothing at the same time as wisdom arises. Nothing personal.
"Nothing" necessarily means there is no wisdom nor is there any potential for wisdom to arise within nothingness. Even just saying "within nothingness" is nonsensical because there would be no within. There would be no anything including any and all processes.
If you mean there are no things then I understand but that is not the same as there being nothing at all as there is action.
Awaken to the Truth or Enlightenment is beyond this world and can not be explained with worldly labels
nothing=nothingness=empty=emptiness=no thing
all these are labels
after certain period of Insight meditation a turning point comes that the wisdom sees 'there is nothing to be hold =(no thing=nothingness=empty=emptiness) apart from labels within or without oneself
'I' is a label
'wisdom' is a label
'see' is a label
'nothing' is a label
because of ignorance (not knowing there is nothing to be hold) one holds the labels
yes, there is action, arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing, arising and ceasing continually in every moment
because of that there is no permanent thing to be seen or hold
They cannot be experienced in terms of labels but they can be explained with labels. That's what labels are for. They may not relay the information perfectly but we can usually get the idea if they are used mindfully.
In trying, many teachers have watered many seeds of wisdom within many students.
Sure but that doesn't mean there is not wisdom or emptiness. Emptiness is not the same as nothingness and that is why we use labels to distinguish.
Ah, but nothing to hold is not to say nothing at all, period.
I respectfully disagree. We hold the labels after some knowing because we are not capable of telepathy and labels are tools. Knowing this we are mindful of how we use them.
There cannot be action and nothing at the same time and no permanent thing is not the same as nothing.
Impermanent does not mean non-existent.
So what does existence mean? If some thing is here one moment and gone the next, like a cloud or the wind, can it be said to exist? Yes and no.
As Nagarjuna explained, there is no present that does not depend on the future and the past. The future does not exist because it hasn't happened yet. When it has happened it is not the future, it's the past which does not exist in any sense. The present can only be seen when it is past which again, does not exist. Where is existence in this?
We are confused by our thoughts and memories. Labels only make it worse.
so I suggest you go through life and label nothing. Nothing at all. See how far it gets you!
Nothing doesn't exist, remember?
The past is just what the present used to be. To say the past does not exist is to deny causation. The future exists right now as potential for what could be. When the potential comes to fruition, it will still be now. In a sense it is always now, has always been now and will always be right now.
I'm not so sure I am confused so much as intrigued.
Sure, labels don't do reality justice but I think it would be way harder to communicate with one another without them.
How could it?
If there was ever "nothing" then that means there was never any potential for change. That's the positive spin on emptiness. Emptiness is potential.
Nothing means no process of any kind, no karma, no unfolding, no awareness, no potential, no illusions of anything and no delusion.
Logically, if one were to experience "nothing" they would never know it and so explaining the experience is doomed from the start.
That isn't the fault of labels, they are just tools.
I'll bite. I'm harbour bound, waiting for a part for my toilet to be flown in. Gonna be a long day!
The past is what the present used to be, which is happening so instantaneously that it can only been seen when it's past. When it's past it is gone. Only a memory, non existent.
If the future exists now, it's not the future.
Potential is not existence. It's only a thought.
Tell that to the flower in mid bloom, lol.
Potential grows as conditions allow. When the conditions are right for something, it will surly manifest but it doesn't just "pop" into existence.
The current conditions are inseparable from their causes.
Some people think there are increments of time and that the smallest increment goes by so fast we don't see it.
That just isn't so. There is no smallest increment that we know of so it makes sense that it's all just one stream.
There is no smallest moment, there is only one moment broken into relative chunks.
1,2,3,4... What is the largest number? we need that if we want to claim to know the smallest increment. 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4... What is the smallest increment?
Sorry @Shoshin, I do have a habit of going off on a tangent. All apologies for the off topic.
Tell that to the flower in mid bloom, lol.
Potential grows as conditions allow. When the conditions are right for something, it will surly manifest but it doesn't just "pop" into existence.
The current conditions are inseparable from their causes.
If I pick the flower, where does the potential go?
As for the rest, let's let Nagarjuna explain:
Emptiness: The Seventy Stanzas
I. Duration, origination, destruction, existence, non-existence, inferiority, mediocrity and superiority were taught by the Buddha in accord with conventional usage, not by the power of the real.
II. There is not anything which corresponds to the expressions: not- self, not not-self, both self and not-self (because) all factors which can be spoken of are - like Nirvana - in their intrinsic being empty.
III. Since the intrinsic being of all entities does not exist in the cause and conditions, either together or separately, or in any way, therefore they are empty.
IV. The existent does not originate, because it is existent. The non- existent does not (originate) because it is non-existent. The existent and non-existent also does not (originate) because they are heterogeneous. Because there is no origination there is no duration and no destruction.
V. The originated is not the object to be originated. The unoriginated is also not the object to be originated. The (object) at the time of origination is also not the object to be originated, because it would be originated and unoriginated.
VI. If the effect is existent, the cause will possess the effect. If non- existent, the cause will be equal to a non-cause. If neither existent nor non-existent, it is contradictory, nor again is a cause justified in the three times.
More here: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nagarjuna.pdf
@ourself it's good to see your face btw.
I haven't been to Hamilton for many years. I have a friend in Burlington. I was out there a couple of years back.
No problem @ourself think 'nothing' of it
It doesn't go anywhere. It changes from the potential to bloom to the potential to turn into compost in which more potential will grow.
To me that is like a warning not to mistake subjectivity for objectivity and vice versa.
This means all things are subject to change and have always been subject to change, not that they don't really exist... See "1".
This is almost the same as "2" except it elaborates by implying that "being" is always in a state of change and still cannot be said to abide in any one cause or condition.
See, he keeps explaining it in different ways but they all really imply the same thing. That there is no original cause or condition because the only constant is change.
I think the keyword here is "object". The process of change is emptiness at work and "things" are just like moments in time... Their birth and death are only subjective.
Here he basically says what I just said... The conditions are inseparable from their causes.
Cool, thanks. Right back atchya.
Let me know if you're ever back around.
@ourself.
I understand that you are not defending existence, and I don't really see anyone defending non existence. Maybe there is no other way to get at emptiness other than to work from the extremes to the middle.
Oh, I just have a pet peeve with nothing in general, lol.
'nothing' to add
keep practicing
'me' too
I don't get this. A plant grows from a seed doesn't it?
Oh it's ok, @SpinyNorman , people are just getting into the realms of the highfalutin, esoteric woo-woo talk that basically seems to say a lot but is frankly, hot air, because as far as I can perceive, it's a lot of great talk, but never put into action.
People say all this stuff, but it's not what they base their day-to-day lives on.
It's one thing to expound these deep thought-provoking and intensely spiritual factors, but I'd like to know how such 'truths' actually effect people in their day-to-day lives when they're changing the wheel on the car, doing the grocery shopping or changing the diaper full of "smell".
I mean, does all this cleverness affect? ... Influence? ... Dictate? .... their daily lives?
As they're fixing the tyre/doing the shopping/changing the diaper, is
To the front of their Conscious Mind? Is that what they are basing their lives on, while dealing with the mundane?
I very much doubt it.
When I am shopping at Tescos it's usually special offers that are to the front of my mind, especially ice-cream.
You'll understand when you're older.
I'm pretty sure you've staked your claim in Therevada territory.
You can refer to Nagarjuna or the likes of Chandrakirti for the Madhyamaka view on emptiness if you find an interest there.
I hope not.
If that's Understanding, you can keep it.
I'd prefer to cut the BS and walk the talk, rather than sound off using terminology and language nobody ever actually practises or pays any attention to, other than spouting it out occasionally to demonstrate just how clever, advanced, wise and "old" they are.
Ah.
So it's someone's philosophy, but not a universally accepted one.
Explains a lot.
These Mahayanists have a lot to answer for.
"Let's take a simple premise and screw it up beyond anyone's understanding!"
(Off to work. See y'all!)
But a plant does grow from a seed, doesn't it? The plant arises in dependence on the seed and other conditions like sun, water and minerals.
Look Fede, you have made it clear that the Dhammapada is all you need. Thats cool. But could you please spare those that are interested in the other 83999 teachings your harsh judgmentalism.
How bout it? Just this once?
Here you go. Like I said read up if you are interested. http://www.wisdompubs.org/sites/default/files/preview/Nagarjuna's-Middle-Way-Book-Preview-R.pdf
Somehow @federica has arrived at the conclusion that an interest in Madhyamaka should "show" on someone. As if I like to read history or astronomy it should look like it to others.
Ridiculous.
Next we will be hearing that Madhyamikas were'nt Buddhists.
New(theraveda)Buddhist.com is not what this forum is called.
I studied all this years ago but didn't find it all that convincing at a practical level. I'd be interested in your response to my question about the plant and the seed.
@SpinyNorman
That's precisely the illusion you're supposed to cut through.
A seed never actually "turns into" a flower. Because we label objects, we see them as finished products. Nothing ever originates, except as a label.
So neither is the seed the object you believe it is, nor does it disappear once it has grown into a flower. Tbh, I get the gist of it, but I don't really understand it deeply.
I know that the idea of non birth is pretty widely practiced. And it does have some implications for everyday life.
Here's an example: improvisation. When a jazz player improvises, he doesn't think of the finished whole, he just goes with the flow. There are many situations in people's life where things don't go as planned, where you just abandon the big plan and do the best you can with what you got left. That's as pragmatic as it gets.
No, but the plant does arise in dependence on the seed and other conditions. Or to put it another way there would no plant without the necessary conditions.
Does Nargajuna's logic contradict this?
I get the point about labelling, but I don't think it's the central issue here.
I think it's a play on causation. Remember Nagarjuna expounded the Two Truths from the Middle Way. The conventional truth would be that a plant grows from a seed and the ultimate truth is the plant is already here in the conditioning of the seed.
I don't think his logic contradicts that at all. I do think the translation is rather choppy though.
I mean, come on... "justified in the 3 times"? I'm sure that's just what he was saying, lmao.
Do you mean the seed contains the potential for the plant?
Not just the seed but the rain, sun and soil as well. The plant that grows cannot really be separate from these.
I think this happens with zen teachings often.
But usually the WTF comes first! For example, some guy killing the Buddha?? Killing your parents?? WTF!
Chan master Linji would have hit Dogen with a stick across the head for talking about enlightenment so much. Nirvana is a hitching post for donkeys, he said. WTF?! Then maybe 10 years later thinking about killing the Buddha you might say Wow! instead of WTF.
So the idea that's being challenged is of the plant as in independently existing phenomenon?