Is Buddha different from a rock?

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

garudha wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:[2. You are contradicting your initial statements.
No. Like I said; "All things have the same nature. Such is the law. Such is the rock." Therefore the brain is not any different to the rock. Any distinction would be very dualistic. Such contrary distinctions are your own interpretations.

This is really just a way of playing whack-a-mole with whatever other people write, in order to seem clever and contradict it..it has nothing to do with Buddhism, emptiness, or whatever - it's just a cheap rhetorical trick.

"I don't have to affirm or deny anything, therefore I am correct"..this is a highly questionable way of using notions of non duality or emptiness to further your own aims on the forum IMO, it's a way of avoiding defense of your positions.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by garudha »

Sherab Dorje wrote:[Water and urine are both liquids (have the same nature) would you drink a glass full of urine?
There are two truths in Buddhism: ultimate and relative. Remember?
So you're asserting that Buddha is not a rock and is separate from a rock?
Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Lotus_Bitch »

garudha wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:[Water and urine are both liquids (have the same nature) would you drink a glass full of urine?
There are two truths in Buddhism: ultimate and relative. Remember?
So you're asserting that Buddha is not a rock and is separate from a rock?
This seems to be veering dangerously near to a type of grasping the "Surangama Sutra" says to avoid in meditation:
http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama37.asp

Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants can become people, and that when people die they again become plants in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

This is the fourth state, in which he draws an erroneous conclusion based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness.
How does buddhanature, which you describe as synonymous with the brain, give rise to the self?
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by garudha »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:This is really just a way of playing whack-a-mole with whatever other people write, in order to seem clever and contradict it..it has nothing to do with Buddhism, emptiness, or whatever - it's just a cheap rhetorical trick.
Let's remember that Lastlegend started the thread and invited us to discuss the dualism of Buddha & Rock as is underway. If a viewpoint is hard to defeat, it doesn't necessarily mean the advocate is playing tricks, it's just the nature of the viewpoint. There's no need to accuse anyone of "whack-a-mole" tactics.
Lotus_Bitch wrote:[How does buddhanature, which you describe as synonymous with the brain, give rise to the self?
I didn't assert synonymity of buddhanature with the brain any more than a rock. I did not assert a noumenal self. That's your own interpretation and not what I wrote.

If you want my opinion on "the self" then it's this; only Buddha exists. Transcendentally as esoteric experience and conventionally as everyday life. Whatever; it's all experience. Reality is experience. Non-reality does not exist.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by conebeckham »

When I dream of flying, that is experience of a dream. Is that experience "reality?"

Is all experience "real?" One can say "Non-reality" does not exist, but one can also say that one "experiences" things which we would call "unreal," yes?

There is nothing that can be said about the Rock, or the Buddha, per se, apart from our thought about the rock, or the Buddha. Appearances are mind. In this sense, one could say there is a certain equality between "rock" and "Buddha." However, Buddha is ultimately something that can be realized as True Nature. The same cannot be said for a Rock.

Therefore, Buddha is certainly different from a rock.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
krodha
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by krodha »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:"I don't have to affirm or deny anything, therefore I am correct"..this is a highly questionable way of using notions of non duality or emptiness to further your own aims on the forum IMO, it's a way of avoiding defense of your positions.
It's called eel wriggling [amaravikkhepa].
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

garudha wrote:
Let's remember that Lastlegend started the thread and invited us to discuss the dualism of Buddha & Rock as is underway. If a viewpoint is hard to defeat, it doesn't necessarily mean the advocate is playing tricks, it's just the nature of the viewpoint. There's no need to accuse anyone of "whack-a-mole" tactics.
I called it whack-a-mole because it can go on indefinitely like that, with you just whacking at whatever people say using the mallet of non-duality. Unless you actually have a point in your negations (which so far you don't), then it IS nothing but a trick to avoid valid responses..because you can apply to anything we can discuss. All communication relies on dualistic polarities to even function, communication is always relative, insistently pointing to non-duality as a reason that you don't need to communicate, or that someone else is being dualistic by asking for clarification, or engaging in dialectics is a juvenile and transparent approach IMO.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

asunthatneversets wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:"I don't have to affirm or deny anything, therefore I am correct"..this is a highly questionable way of using notions of non duality or emptiness to further your own aims on the forum IMO, it's a way of avoiding defense of your positions.
It's called eel wriggling [amaravikkhepa].

Ha, great term, I had no idea.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Lotus_Bitch »

garudha wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:[How does buddhanature, which you describe as synonymous with the brain, give rise to the self?
I didn't assert synonymity of buddhanature with the brain any more than a rock. I did not assert a noumenal self. That's your own interpretation and not what I wrote.

If you want my opinion on "the self" then it's this; only Buddha exists. Transcendentally as esoteric experience and conventionally as everyday life. Whatever; it's all experience. Reality is experience. Non-reality does not exist.
:?

If matter is an expression of Buddha, which includes the brain since that too is composed of matter, and there being a nonseparation of mind and matter, this means that the brain, an expression of buddhanature, gives rise to the self which must be noumenal because you stated that it cannot (normally) be seen.
What you say about matter (bring the realm of animation) makes a good point. Let's say that all matter is an expression of Buddha so that all (animated) matter is the cladding of a mind which can't otherwise (normally) be seen.
Likewise; if all matter is animated with the expression of Buddha, can Buddha be separated from matter ?
This "aliveness" is different to a hypothetical separate sentience. The whole idea being that the brain, having Buddha nature, gives birth to a phantasmic quality known as self.
Last edited by Lotus_Bitch on Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by garudha »

conebeckham wrote: There is nothing that can be said about the Rock, or the Buddha, per se, apart from our thought about the rock, or the Buddha. Appearances are mind. In this sense, one could say there is a certain equality between "rock" and "Buddha." However, Buddha is ultimately something that can be realized as True Nature. The same cannot be said for a Rock.

Therefore, Buddha is certainly different from a rock.
I see the point you're latterly trying to make but you fail, as I'll show... A human being is able to realise due to the brain which functions a mirror (having memory etc) so we can see our own Nature. A rock, however, does not have a brain so cannot be self-aware of it's own nature. None the less; the rock still has Buddha-nature... even in rock-like ignorance of itself. Actually the rock is in a state of Nirvana, just like the tree and the human body, but that's beside the point. Yes, we are ignorant of our true nature, just like rocks are! It's funny actually; because it can't think, the rock is less confused than us ! I suppose the rock could be viewed as a "kidney stone" in the reality but all things have their place so don't presume I speak bad about rocks!!!!
conebeckham wrote: When I dream of flying, that is experience of a dream. Is that experience "reality?"

Is all experience "real?" One can say "Non-reality" does not exist, but one can also say that one "experiences" things which we would call "unreal," yes?
Yes, all these things are due to the nature of the experience. They do not happen by themselves. Let's say that you're dreaming in the USA and I'm in the UK wide-awake. I think about you and create an impression in your dream. How did this happen? It's because separation is an illusion. The whole universe is so perfect that you can actually perceive a change in the UK in your sleep! It's because the whole univrse is perfectly balanced at any one time like a Swiss-watch. Likewise; I might be able to hear you snoring across the Atlantic. The potential for humans is very high but there is no reason to presume a dualistic mind is the reason.
Lotus_Bitch wrote:If matter is an expression of Buddha, which includes the brain since that too is composed of matter, and there being a nonseparation of mind and matter, this means that the brain, an expression of buddhanature, gives rise to the self which must be noumenal because you stated that it cannot (normally) be seen.
Garudha wrote:]What you say about matter (bring the realm of animation) makes a good point. Let's say that all matter is an expression of Buddha so that all (animated) matter is the cladding of a mind which can't otherwise (normally) be seen.
Yes, Lotus Bitch.. The brain gives rise to noumenal false ego, which is necessary for survival but yet does not really exist, but the brain has a very high potential. When I say "cladding of a mind" I mean the true nature of matter is not known because we are so ignorant. I mean the whole universe is a giant and infinite mind. :woohoo:
Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Lotus_Bitch »

garudha wrote:Actually the rock is in a state of Nirvana, just like the tree and the human body, but that's beside the point. Yes, we are ignorant of our true nature, just like rocks are! It's funny actually; because it can't think, the rock is less confused than us !
The "Surangama Sutra" warns practitioners not to fall into the trap of a type of meditative experience where all thoughts have ceased:
http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama36.asp

Ananda, in his practice of samadhi, the good person’s mind is unmoving, clear, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate on its pervasive constancy, he could fall into error with four theories of pervasive permanence.
.
.
Fourth, since this person has ended the source of thoughts, there is no more reason for them to arise. In the state of flowing, halting, and turning, the thinking mind - which was the cause of production and destruction - has now ceased forever, and so he naturally thinks that this is a state of non-production and non-destruction. As a result of such reasoning, he speculates that this state is permanent.
Yes, all these things are due to the nature of the experience. They do not happen by themselves. Let's say that you're dreaming in the USA and I'm in the UK wide-awake. I think about you and create an impression in your dream. How did this happen? It's because separation is an illusion. The whole universe is so perfect that you can actually perceive a change in the UK in your sleep! It's because the whole univrse is perfectly balanced at any one time like a Swiss-watch. Likewise; I might be able to hear you snoring across the Atlantic. The potential for humans is very high but there is no reason to presume a dualistic mind is the reason.
Defining what you are alluding to as "nonseparation" would be appreciated because, as written, your description could be construed as potentially resembling a type of grasping born of meditative experiences described in the "Surangama Sutra":
http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama37.asp

Ananda, you should know that the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty, and he must return consciousness to the source. He has ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

He can cause the individual sense faculties of his body to unite and open. He also has a pervasive awareness of all the categories of beings in the ten directions. Since his awareness is pervasive, he can enter the perfect source. But if he regards what he is returning to as the cause of true permanence and interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of holding to that cause. Kapila the Sankhyan, with his theory of returning to the Truth of the Unmanifest, will become his companion. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

This is the first state, in which he concludes that there is a place to which to return, based on the idea that there is something to attain. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of externalism.

Further, Ananda, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

He may regard that to which he is returning as his own body and may see all beings in the twelve categories throughout space as flowing forth from his body. If he interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of maintaining that he has an ability which he does not really have. Maheshvara, who manifests his boundless body, will become his companion. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

This is the second state, in which he draws conclusions about the workings of an ability based on idea that he has such an ability. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds for being born in the Heaven of Great Pride where the self is considered all-pervading and perfect.

Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

If he regards what he is returning to as a refuge, he will suspect that his body and mind come forth from there, and that all things throughout space in the ten directions arise from there as well. He will explain that place from which all things issue forth is the truly permanent body, which is not subject to production and destruction. While still within production and destruction, he prematurely reckons that he abides in permanence. Since he is deluded about non-production, he is also confused about production and destruction. He is sunk in confusion. If he interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of taking what is not permanent to be permanent. He will speculate that the Sovereign God (Ishvaradeva) is his companion. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

This is the third state, in which he makes a false speculation based on the idea that there is a refuge. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana thus sowing the seeds of an distorted view of perfection.
.
.
Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

He may speculate that there is an emptiness within the perfect brightness, and based on that he denies the myriad transformations, taking their eternal cessation as his refuge. If he interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of taking what is not a refuge to be a refuge. Those abiding in the shunyata of the Heaven of [Neither Thought nor] Non-Thought will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

This is the sixth state, in which he realizes a state of voidness based on the idea of emptiness within the perfect brightness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of annihilationism.
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Lotus_Bitch »

garudha wrote:Yes, Lotus Bitch.. The brain gives rise to noumenal false ego, which is necessary for survival but yet does not really exist, but the brain has a very high potential. When I say "cladding of a mind" I mean the true nature of matter is not known because we are so ignorant. I mean the whole universe is a giant and infinite mind. :woohoo:
As described, this resembles a type of meditative experience which the "Surangama Sutra" warns could lead to grasping:
http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama36.asp

Further, in his practice of samadhi, the good person’s mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, ‘My spiritual self, which is settled, bright and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent.
.
.
.
Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third external teaching, which postulates partial permanence.
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by garudha »

Lotus_Bitch wrote:
garudha wrote:Yes, Lotus Bitch.. The brain gives rise to noumenal false ego, which is necessary for survival but yet does not really exist, but the brain has a very high potential. When I say "cladding of a mind" I mean the true nature of matter is not known because we are so ignorant. I mean the whole universe is a giant and infinite mind. :woohoo:
As described, this resembles a type of meditative experience which the "Surangama Sutra" warns could lead to grasping:
/quote]
What are talking about? Meditation from the Cushion or Mediation from the Mind ? I don't know the former so I'm surely not describing it, Doctor Samadhi.
Lotus_Bitch
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Lotus_Bitch »

garudha wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:
garudha wrote:Yes, Lotus Bitch.. The brain gives rise to noumenal false ego, which is necessary for survival but yet does not really exist, but the brain has a very high potential. When I say "cladding of a mind" I mean the true nature of matter is not known because we are so ignorant. I mean the whole universe is a giant and infinite mind. :woohoo:
As described, this resembles a type of meditative experience which the "Surangama Sutra" warns could lead to grasping:
/quote]
What are talking about? Meditation from the Cushion or Mediation from the Mind ? I don't know the former so I'm surely not describing it, Doctor Samadhi.
Do either apply? "Nonseparation" was being discussed was it not?
Many meditators know how to meditate,
But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].
- Je Gyare
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by DGA »

garudha, have you come here to learn something by sharing in constructive dialogue, or have you come here to proselytize us with your own personal dispensation?
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by garudha »

Lotus_Bitch wrote:What are talking about? Meditation from the Cushion or Mediation from the Mind ? I don't know the former so I'm surely not describing it, Doctor Samadhi.
Do either apply? "Nonseparation" was being discussed was it not?[/quote]

There's a subtle but profound distinction of two samsdhis, according to doctrine.

The first is where you meditate on a cushion and explore the mind. --This is for whoever wants to explore their own mind which appears as an inner-process.
The second is where you mediate on the mind and explore the cushion. --This is for whoever wants to explore the Buddha mind which appears as life itself.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:53 am
Location: Texas

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by Mkoll »

Jikan wrote:garudha, have you come here to learn something by sharing in constructive dialogue, or have you come here to proselytize us with your own personal dispensation?
I'll go with "B," Alex, for $2000.

Image

~~~

One of the things this thread shows is some of the major differences in worldview among Buddhists.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by garudha »

Jikan wrote:garudha, have you come here to learn something by sharing in constructive dialogue, or have you come here to proselytize us with your own personal dispensation?
I'm playing devil's advocate and putting forward a non-dual theory which is the topic of the thread.

If others wish to have conversations without me, that's not a problem, however; as it is I've gotten a few questions which I'm replying to.

Are there any problem or off topic posts I'm not aware of ?
User avatar
garudha
Posts: 718
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Location: UK

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by garudha »

Well I see no point in staying so I can be insulted.

If anyone wishes to PM me feel free as I like discussing these things.

Bye.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Is Buddha different from a rock?

Post by LastLegend »

If we burn the rock, it will become larva(sp?). Is the rock and larva the same? Can we say that the rock has a cause for larva, and larva has a cause for rock? What about rock and Buddha? Are they the same? Does the rock have a cause for Buddha? Does Buddha have a cause for rock? :rolleye:
It’s eye blinking.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”