Author Topic: Practices of Various Practitioners  (Read 1899 times)

Offline Dairy Lama

  • Member
  • Posts: 5166
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #45 on: July 29, 2017, 01:26:30 am »
What I wrote. If there is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, etc, then what exactly is this 'eye', 'ear', 'nose', 'tongue', etc, that is sought to be negated & deemed to not exist?  if there is no eye & no body, how is this internet page read & typed on? If there is no Free Sangha Buddhist forum; then what is this?   

No, it means that these things do not have independent existence, so all is conditional.  It is the same conditionality expressed in teachings like anatta, anicca, dependent origination, the Four Noble Truths, etc.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream"

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #46 on: July 29, 2017, 03:57:52 am »
It means that these things do not have independent existence, so all is conditional.

Definitely not. This idea is merely intellectual rather than an insight from meditation. In meditation, the eye is seen to arise, function & cease; arise, function & cease. It is seen as impermanent. But it is not seen as "no eye". Please refer to MN 148.

 
It is the same conditionality expressed in teachings like anatta, anicca, dependent origination, the Four Noble Truths, etc.

No. It is not. Anatta teaches the eye is not-self. Anicca teaches the eye is impermanent. Dependent origination teaches when the eye is polluted by ignorance, what is seen via the eye will result in suffering. The four noble truths teach craving & attachment towards the eye will cause the arising of suffering. None of these teachings say there is "no eye". That is why the Pali suttas include the eye as one of the elements (refer to MN 115).

What you posted Spiny is superstition. It does not exist. It is not true. It is false. :namaste:

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #47 on: July 29, 2017, 04:00:31 am »
See, you misunderstanding is exactly the reason why the meaning of thes sutras had to be revealed by budddhist masters.

The sutras appear to have been written by idiots rather than by masters. As I posted previously, this is a practise thread.

Please tell us how you practise to realise there is no eye, no ear, no nose, etc. Thanks  :teehee:

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #48 on: July 29, 2017, 04:04:50 am »
See, you misunderstanding is exactly the reason why the meaning of thes sutras had to be revealed by budddhist masters.

Please tell us how these so-called "masters" wrote down their teachings without an eye and without a body? Please tell us how to practise to read this webpage when their is no eye. Thanks

 :lmfao:

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2139
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #49 on: July 29, 2017, 05:05:53 am »
See, you misunderstanding is exactly the reason why the meaning of thes sutras had to be revealed by budddhist masters.

The sutras appear to have been written by idiots rather than by masters. As I posted previously, this is a practise thread.

Please tell us how you practise to realise there is no eye, no ear, no nose, etc. Thanks  :teehee:
See, you misunderstanding is exactly the reason why the meaning of thes sutras had to be revealed by budddhist masters.

Please tell us how these so-called "masters" wrote down their teachings without an eye and without a body? Please tell us how to practise to read this webpage when their is no eye. Thanks

 :lmfao:

Don't you play the silly one!

As explained already above one practices through realizing the intended meaning:

See, you misunderstanding is exactly the reason why the meaning of thes sutras had to be revealed by budddhist masters. These sutras often jump to an outright expression of ultimate reality. But how could ultimate reality be consistently expressed by means of conventional words? It is impossible! On the other hand how could someone be led to perceive ultimate reality him-/herself without using conventional words? This is impossible, too!
So there is a dilemma and this dilemma is resolved by the madhyamaka philosophies which show how to access ultimate reality rationally. But accessing ultimate reality rationally only leads to a concordant concept of ultimate reality. While a concordant concept of ultimate reality is not direct perception of ultimate reality it is however is the prerequisite for direct perception of ultimate reality. But - althouth it is a prerequisite - knowing the concordant concept of ultimate reality does not necesessarily effect the direct perception of ultimate reality.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 05:32:00 am by ground »

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2139
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #50 on: July 29, 2017, 05:16:36 am »
... Dependent origination teaches when the eye is polluted by ignorance, what is seen via the eye will result in suffering.

That's exactly what the prajnaparamita sutras aim at: to remove the innate misperception of phenomena which causes stress, not necessarily suffering which is a bad translation of 'dukkha'.

Of course one may critizise the words that are applied in those sutras but the heart sutra you are quoting and ridiculing is spoken in meditative absorption.
Quote
"When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara."

"Was Coursing in the Deep Prajna Paramita."

"He Perceived That All Five Skandhas Are Empty."

...
"Therefore, in the Void There Are no ...


What is the insight through non-perception in absoption of that which is perceived by ordinary mind?

The insight is that all phenomena are dependent on the mode of consciousness which perceives them. They appear different to different modes of consciousness and in some modes they don't even exist and therefore the way they appear to ordinary mind is not the way they ultimately exist.

So negating eye, ear etc refers to eye, ear etc as perceived by ordinary mind. The objects perceived by ordinary mind do not exist in other modes of consciousness. Why? Because ordinary mind perceives all phenomena as if truly existing but they are empty of true existence.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 05:39:06 am by ground »

Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #51 on: July 29, 2017, 06:06:39 am »
What errors are those?

What I wrote. If there is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, etc, then what exactly is this 'eye', 'ear', 'nose', 'tongue', etc, that is sought to be negated & deemed to not exist?  if there is no eye & no body, how is this internet page read & typed on? If there is no Free Sangha Buddhist forum; then what is this?   

It is, what it is.  It's just that in emptiness there is none of that.

Things like eye, ear, nose and so are merely words, imputatations we assign to objects.  They have no connection to anything real.  This is what teachings on emptiness are imparting.  Not everyone grasps this.  It's obvious you don't.  It doesn't mean the teaching is in error.

You ask a legitimate question:  "Then what is this?".  This is what practice will reveal.  To simply read the words isn't enough.  To really to get to the underlying meaning you must peel away the many layers of confusion, ignorance and obscuration.  This is why we practice.

Or at least some of us.  :wink1:

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #52 on: July 29, 2017, 01:45:06 pm »
Things like eye, ear, nose and so are merely words, imputatations we assign to objects.  They have no connection to anything real.

This is not true. The eye & ear are not merely words.

For example, if there are no thoughts, the eye still functions.

When the eye is closed, it stops functioning because seeing stops.

When the eye is opened, seeing returns.

There is 'something' there which is called an 'eye'. Whether this 'something' is named or not named, it still exists.

What you posted, the Buddha never taught. It is irrelevant non-sense & unrelated to practise.

 :eek:

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #53 on: July 29, 2017, 01:57:01 pm »
These sutras often jump to an outright expression of ultimate reality. But how could ultimate reality be consistently expressed by means of conventional words? It is impossible!

This is unrelated to liberation. Liberation in Buddhism is defined as the destruction of craving (rather than the destruction of words or concepts). Therefore, when there is liberation & Nibbana, words can be used because words in themselves do not cause suffering. Only craving & attachment cause suffering.

These ideas are Taoist, which found their way into Chinese Buddhism. The Heart Sutra is a Chinese rather than Indian composition, I read.

On the other hand how could someone be led to perceive ultimate reality him-/herself without using conventional words? This is impossible, too!

The ultimate reality of Buddhism is the ultimate reality or true nature of suffering & its cessation. It is unrelated to the Taoist ideas you are posting about the sphere of nothingness. Prior to his awakening, the Buddha rejected the sphere of nothingness as Nibbana because it is only a temporary state of mind.

So there is a dilemma and this dilemma is resolved by the madhyamaka philosophies which show how to access ultimate reality rationally. But accessing ultimate reality rationally only leads to a concordant concept of ultimate reality. While a concordant concept of ultimate reality is not direct perception of ultimate reality it is however is the prerequisite for direct perception of ultimate reality. But - although it is a prerequisite - knowing the concordant concept of ultimate reality does not necessarily effect the direct perception of ultimate reality.

The sphere of nothingness is not related to ultimate reality. It is conditioned. The Buddha clearly taught what you are posting about is conditioned. This is the ultimate reality of what you are posting, namely, it is conditioned; conditioned due to being dependent upon non-thinking. It is immaterial becoming, one of three types of becoming in dependent origination. It is becoming because of your attachment to it; as demonstrated by your desperate posts here.

 ;D

Quote
One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.' One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

MN 140

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #54 on: July 29, 2017, 02:00:55 pm »
This is what practice will reveal.  To simply read the words isn't enough.  To really to get to the underlying meaning you must peel away the many layers of confusion, ignorance and obscuration.  This is why we practice.

Or at least some of us.  :wink1:

Please stop lying. You are claiming to be enlightened but your posts do not show this. Thanks

People obsessed with non-thinking are generally those with minds full of thinking. When the thinking stops, this is where the journey or path begins (rather than ends).

It is obvious peeling away the many layers of confusion, ignorance and obscuration has not occurred. This is obviously merely an idea you read in a book or heard from a teacher & are repeating.

The very fact the term "us" was used shows there is still self-view in the mind.

The Buddha taught:

Quote
When things become manifest
To the ardent meditating brahman,
All his doubts then vanish since he understands
Each thing along with its cause.

Buddhist enlightenment is seeing each thing along with its cause (rather than non-thinking).

« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 02:08:59 pm by VisuddhiRaptor »

Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #55 on: July 29, 2017, 02:46:09 pm »

What you posted, the Buddha never taught.

Errr...yes he did.  It's called the the second time the Buddha turned the Wheel of Dharma.

Quote
It is irrelevant non-sense

I would say that in your personal case, that is entirely true.

 
Quote
unrelated to practise.

I can see it, in your case.  I'm quite certain your practice hasn't extended that far.

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2139
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2017, 08:48:27 pm »
These sutras often jump to an outright expression of ultimate reality. But how could ultimate reality be consistently expressed by means of conventional words? It is impossible!


This is unrelated to liberation. Liberation in Buddhism is defined as the destruction of craving (rather than the destruction of words or concepts). Therefore, when there is liberation & Nibbana, words can be used because words in themselves do not cause suffering. Only craving & attachment cause suffering.

Of course words can be used. Words must be used. However the concepts arising upon seeing words are not liberation. But the realization of the intended meaning of prajnaparamita sutras is liberation. Through that realization craving is destroyed.


On the other hand how could someone be led to perceive ultimate reality him-/herself without using conventional words? This is impossible, too!


The ultimate reality of Buddhism is the ultimate reality or true nature of suffering & its cessation.

Correct. It is about the ultimate nature of all phenomena incl.  suffering and its cessation.

It is unrelated to the Taoist ideas you are posting about the sphere of nothingness. Prior to h.is awakening, the Buddha rejected the sphere of nothingness as Nibbana because it is only a temporary state of mind.

The sphere of nothingness is one of countless modes of consciousness. So there is nothing special about it. Sphere of ordinary mind  or sphere of nothingness or sphere of the form realm ... all are of one taste from the perspective of dzogchen which is ultimately valid.

So there is a dilemma and this dilemma is resolved by the madhyamaka philosophies which show how to access ultimate reality rationally. But accessing ultimate reality rationally only leads to a concordant concept of ultimate reality. While a concordant concept of ultimate reality is not direct perception of ultimate reality it is however is the prerequisite for direct perception of ultimate reality. But - although it is a prerequisite - knowing the concordant concept of ultimate reality does not necessarily effect the direct perception of ultimate reality.


The sphere of nothingness is not related to ultimate reality.

Well, it is related to utimate reality because it is a relative sphere. But of course it is not ultimate reality.

But you still do not recognize that the sphere of nothingness is not even the sphere the prajanaparamita sutras are referring to. I have explained already above that you are completely misinterpreting the heart sutra:
So negating eye, ear etc refers to eye, ear etc as perceived by ordinary mind. The objects perceived by ordinary mind do not exist in other modes of consciousness. Why? Because ordinary mind perceives all phenomena as if truly existing but they are empty of true existence.



It is conditioned.

Correct. Everything is conditioned. your view is conditioned too. the four noble truths are conditioned view too.

The Buddha clearly taught what you are posting about is conditioned.

Of course. There is nothing that is not conditioned. Even what is called 'ultimate reality' is conditioned. Nirvana is conditioned. Samsara is conditioned.

This is the ultimate reality of what you are posting, namely, it is conditioned;

Great! Everything we all are posting here is conditioned.

conditioned due to being dependent upon non-thinking.

But both, thinking and non-thinking are conditioned, too.

It is immaterial becoming, one of three types of becoming in dependent origination. It is becoming because of your attachment to it; as demonstrated by your desperate posts here.

 :teehee:
Where can attachment be found in words? Under, over, between, before or behind the characters these words are composed of?



Quote
One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.' One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

MN 140



Quote
"He discerns that 'This [result of meditative practice] is fabricated & mentally fashioned.' And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html
« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 09:16:40 pm by ground »

Offline Tyler

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2017, 11:32:03 pm »
Deleted
« Last Edit: July 29, 2017, 11:34:05 pm by Tyler »

Offline Pixie

  • Member
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
    • Buddhism Without Boundaries
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2017, 12:35:37 am »
As the Heart Sutra was being discussed here, I wondered if Ven Thich Nhat Hanh's translation of the Heart Sutra (posted at Plum Village website 3 years ago) and his message "The Reasons for a New Translation " might be helpful.

https://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/


Excerpt from his message :

"Dear Family,

Thay needs to make this new translation of the Heart Sutra because the patriarch who originally compiled the Heart Sutra was not sufficiently skilful enough with his use of language. This has resulted in much misunderstanding for almost 2,000 years.

Thay would like to share with you two stories: the story of a novice monk who paid a visit to a Zen master, and the story of a Bhikkhu who came with a question to the Eminent Master Tue Trung.

1

In the first story, the Zen master asked the novice monk:
“Tell me about your understanding of the Heart sutra.”

The novice monk joined his palms and replied:
“I have understood that the five skandhas are empty. There are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind; there are no forms, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings, or objects of mind; the six consciousnesses do not exist, the eighteen realms of phenomena do not exist, the twelve links of dependent arising do not exist, and even wisdom and attainment do not exist.”
“Do you believe what it says?”
“Yes, I truly believe what it says.”

“Come closer to me,” the Zen master instructed the novice monk. When the novice monk drew near, the Zen master immediately used his thumb and index finger to pinch and twist the novice’s nose.
In great agony, the novice cried out “Teacher! You’re hurting me!” The Zen master looked at the novice. “Just now you said that the nose doesn’t exist. But if the nose doesn’t exist then what’s hurting?”



More at the link....

https://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/


_/|\_
May all beings have happiness and the causes of happiness.
May they all be free from suffering and the causes of suffering.
May they never be deprived of true happiness devoid of any suffering.
May they abide in great impartiality, free from attachment to loved ones and aversion to others.

Offline Dairy Lama

  • Member
  • Posts: 5166
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: Practices of Various Practitioners
« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2017, 02:36:18 am »
It means that these things do not have independent existence, so all is conditional.


Definitely not. This idea is merely intellectual rather than an insight from meditation. In meditation, the eye is seen to arise, function & cease; arise, function & cease. It is seen as impermanent. But it is not seen as "no eye". Please refer to MN 148.

 
It is the same conditionality expressed in teachings like anatta, anicca, dependent origination, the Four Noble Truths, etc.


No. It is not. Anatta teaches the eye is not-self. Anicca teaches the eye is impermanent. Dependent origination teaches when the eye is polluted by ignorance, what is seen via the eye will result in suffering. The four noble truths teach craving & attachment towards the eye will cause the arising of suffering. None of these teachings say there is "no eye". That is why the Pali suttas include the eye as one of the elements (refer to MN 115).

What you posted Spiny is superstition. It does not exist. It is not true. It is false. :namaste:


Oh, come off it, Element, this is sheer nonsense.  Conditionality is the central theme in Buddhadharma, and it is also the central theme in the suttas. 

Here from the suttas is the general principle of conditionality in dependent origination:

"When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.03.than.html

Here is a practical application of conditionality from the suttas:

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html

And finally an extract from the Phena Sutta, which looks remarkably similar to the Heart Sutra:

"Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
   this has been taught
   by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
   to whoever sees them
   appropriately."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html


And of course conditionality ( aka emptiness ) is something that can be observed directly in practice, for example in the context of satipatthana - you would know this if you had done any serious practice.  Instead your main practice seems to be proselytising your particular brand of Thai Forest dogma, and relentlessly patronising other Buddhists. 
« Last Edit: July 30, 2017, 02:50:32 am by Spiny Norman »
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream"

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal