Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:24 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 8:25 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Dear Sherab,

I am actually being 100% serious. I have had more insight into questions like this through an hour of sincere practice than hours spent on online forums.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
[

It is like sweeping the dust off the floor. The floor doesn't change at all.


:thumbsup: Groundless floor.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 12:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Is Buddhahood a state then?



Good question: we treat buddhahood as if it were a state -- the term state implies something steady -- when one thing changes into another thing, we call that a "change of state". But buddhahood is no more a state that ignorance is. In other words, ultimately there is no buddhahood. Buddhahood is just a name for a relative appearance. When the causes and conditions that support that appearance cease, so does buddhahood.

Buddhahood is just the realization of that principle.

N

So when ignorance ceases, Buddhahood ceases. What is left then is just is. Is that what you mean?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
gregkavarnos wrote:
Dear Sherab,

I am actually being 100% serious. I have had more insight into questions like this through an hour of sincere practice than hours spent on online forums.
:namaste:

I know you are serious about what you said and that you meant well. :anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Sherab wrote:
If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.


The premise is misunderstood.
But in the context of the question, buddhahood already exists, so you are correct, it is not attained.
What you describe as "your nature" is actually the things that obscure realization of the real "your nature", which is buddhahood.
So, yes, your nature is unchangable. Practice is merely there to remove the obscurations.

It is like sweeping the dust off the floor. The floor doesn't change at all. Only the condition is changed from dirty to clean.

To say that "your nature is unchangeable" is a conceptual trap because as long as we are on the wrong side of enlightenment, all nature are mere illusions. That's how I see it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Sherab wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Is Buddhahood a state then?



Good question: we treat buddhahood as if it were a state -- the term state implies something steady -- when one thing changes into another thing, we call that a "change of state". But buddhahood is no more a state that ignorance is. In other words, ultimately there is no buddhahood. Buddhahood is just a name for a relative appearance. When the causes and conditions that support that appearance cease, so does buddhahood.

Buddhahood is just the realization of that principle.

N

So when ignorance ceases, Buddhahood ceases. What is left then is just is. Is that what you mean?


When there are no more sentient beings, there are no more buddhas either.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Namdrol wrote:
Sherab wrote:
So when ignorance ceases, Buddhahood ceases.


Namdrol wrote:
When there are no more sentient beings, there are no more buddhas either.


I don't see a difference in meaning between these two sentences. So I am not sure what meaning you intended to convey.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
Sherab wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:
If it removes all traces of conditioning/forming/fabricating, then I see no inherent conflict.

So something changeable can become unchangeable?


Anything which is changeable is only changeable in relation to something else.

This world is a swirling mass of change, so to imagine something unchangeable would imply something like a stone or rock.

However; if the unchangeable remained supple (in relation to the change occurring in the conditioned) then the unchangeable, might actually, appear very light.

:sage:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Buddhahood is
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Posts: 1953
What a silly exercise.

Buddhas, bodhisattvas, arhats etc exist now & in the past & will be in the future.

Have faith or confidence in your cultivation, guru and the Dharma tradition and do not pile another head on top of your head.

_________________
Only consider helping others and forget yourself. Master Hsuan Hua


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:06 pm
Posts: 98
Buddhahood is incorruptible. The mind-stream is no longer subject to the afflictions and it is impossible to fall back. It is unconditioned in this sense alone, it is not a non-changing self.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:16 pm
Posts: 152
"Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shåriputra, all dharmas are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shåriputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas; no eye dhåtu up to no mind dhåtu, no dhåtu of dharmas, no mind consciousness dhåtu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no nonattainment."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Sherab wrote:
If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.


I read this, and then I read the replies.

There is an old saying, if the right answer can't be found, then perhaps it is the wrong question.

When the Buddha taught, there were times when he did not give an answer to questions people asked.
One of the reasons he did not answer was because the topic had nothing to do with liberation from suffering.
But the other reason is because people often asked questions which assumed as a premise,
things that were not actually valid.
This is that kind of question.

In this case, the question is about "your nature", which assumes that there is in fact a "you" to begin with,
and that this "you" has a true nature.
This is a mistaken assumption, which is why nothing afterwards adds up, seems contradictory and so on.
I would suggest going back to square one, which, through vipassna meditation, brings the understanding and eventual experience that there nothing is there that can be called the 'self'.

Once there is an understand that there is in fact no 'self', no "you", then concepts such as "true nature" , "buddha nature", "unchanging", "constantly changing' and so forth will all make sense, everything will add up and there will no longer be any contradiction.
. . .

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Read this then:

If nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will lead to attain buddhahood, since nature is unchangeable.

Yet there is path to buddhahood.
And yet buddhahood is not attained.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Posts: 2445
Location: Washington DC
Sherab wrote:
Read this then:

If nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will lead to attain buddhahood, since nature is unchangeable.

Yet there is path to buddhahood.
And yet buddhahood is not attained.



If nature is changeable, why is it always present?

If it is not changeable, why is it changing?

_________________
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)

Linjii
―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma
must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:16 pm
Posts: 152
Sherab wrote:
Read this then:

If nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will lead to attain buddhahood, since nature is unchangeable.

Yet there is path to buddhahood.
And yet buddhahood is not attained.


Your question has already been answered multiple times, so why do you continue to ask it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am
Posts: 806
Vajraprajnakhadga wrote:
Sherab wrote:
Read this then:

If nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will lead to attain buddhahood, since nature is unchangeable.

Yet there is path to buddhahood.
And yet buddhahood is not attained.


Your question has already been answered multiple times, so why do you continue to ask it?

My post was a reply to PadmaVonSamba. He seems to be rather fixated with the word "your" in my original post rather than the overall meaning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:33 am
Posts: 646
Location: UK
Sherab wrote:
Read this then:

If nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will lead to attain buddhahood, since nature is unchangeable.

Yet there is path to buddhahood.
And yet buddhahood is not attained.


Buddha is thus gone. Is it not clear as pie?
Tell me, How do you spin this matter?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Sherab wrote:
Read this then:

If nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will lead to attain buddhahood, since nature is unchangeable.

Yet there is path to buddhahood.
And yet buddhahood is not attained.


Right....what you are saying is that changeable and unchangeable exclude each other.
And what I am saying is that this is true if you begin with the premise of things having inherent reality
but once you abandon this premise,
changeable and unchangeable don't contradict each other any more.
:smile:

In my experience, this is always the roadblock: we start off with a fixed 'thing' and then try to dismantle it.
in this revised edition of the question, "nature" (one's true nature) is the fixed starting point.
What if you begin without a fixed starting point?

But, this is a very good topic. It really makes a person think. Thanks!
. . .

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Posts: 542
Sherab wrote:
And yet buddhahood is not attained.


If buddhahood was attainable, it would be an object.
If it was an object, there would be an observing self.
If there was an observing self, it would not be buddahood.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
March 25 2014

Gwenn Dana joins Dharma Wheel.

The second post from Gwenn Dana tells us that s/he ' does not follow Vajrayana or Mahayana Buddhism' but has made a melange of ' Taoism Yoga and Vedanta '.

Nine days later on April 4

Gwenn Dana tells experienced practitioners of Buddhadharma what Buddhahood does or does not mean.

:smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group