Dexing wrote:White Lotus wrote:in London, i cant seem to find a master to go to for confirmation of this state or what it means, or doesnt mean. i went to the Seung Sahn Ch'an temple this morning and was told... "there is no master here! why do you want to see a master?" "i want to know where i am!" "your in London!" (big smile from the receptionst).
oh well, not sure what to do next. i cant be blamed for not trying!
you met a master, asked your question, and got the answer... with a great teaching to boot, but you didn't understand any part of the experience.
what to do next? more practice.
White Lotus wrote:thanks, i have a really good teacher, but i have no self, therefore anything that regards attainment is formless, it means nothing to me. i asked this question, because i wanted to be orthodox and if there is any sort of non-attainment, to clarify it. i am told that enlightenment is a certainty with conviction, but i have neither certainty nor doubt. it therefore is logical to say that i am not enlightened.
to be honest i have no conviction, but this could be 'No' Conviction and not convictionless.
Astus wrote:If there's nothing to attain what's the point of the Buddha's teaching? If it is the realisation that there is nothing to attain, actually it is that realisation to attain. If nobody realises it how could it be called an achievement? If it is ending all sorts of attachments there is still the concept of things one could be attached to.
Nagarjuna says, "If nirvana were nothing, how could nirvana possibly be not dependent? There does not exist any nothing which is not dependent." (MMK 25.8)
There are four extreme views:
- something exists
- something doesn't exist
- something exists and doesn't exist
- something neither exists nor doesn't exist
You seem to be stuck at the idea of non-existence, the second extreme view. How to break through? Just understand that this is actually another false concept, nothing more.
Astus wrote:The topic of Buddha-nature is a different one. And in many cases the extreme view of existence.
Yeshe wrote:I disagree. If we are to discuss attainment, then then we should challenge the concept of progressive attainment or progressive revelation. Hence, the revelation of inherent Buddha Nature is actually at the core, since one needs to accept or refute its revealtion as attainment.
1. Without skandhas there is not even consciousness to realise anything.
2. Skandhas dissolve every moment anyway.
3. Skandhas are already empty as they are, no point in making them empty.
1. Without consciousness it is like a piece of rock: insentient, dead. If there were no skandhas even understanding there are no skandhas would be impossible, not to mention writing about that here.
2. Skandhas are not about recognising or not recognising a self. All the aggregates are originally without any self, nevertheless there is the delusion of conceiving a view of self. But as I said, without skandhas means one cannot even wipe one's arse.
3. Who doesn't feel a self?
Astus wrote:Or if you're more into Zen like stuff I recommend the Surangama Sutra.
i am suggesting that even consciousness is extinuished, replaced with emptiness.
yet pain continues, and colds, toothaches etc.
if it were not possible for something to become sunyatman
i am questioning whether or not the five skhandas can be dissolved without the appearance of death.
i dont feel a self of any kind ... i have no feeling of mineness about anything
Users browsing this forum: Kim O'Hara and 19 guests