If the bliss isn't peace, then it isn't emptiness.Namdrol wrote:alwayson wrote:Which is tactile bliss?Namdrol wrote: It is the realization of your own emptiness to the fullest possible degree.
Well, that is a side effect.
Zen and the dogma of non-duality
-
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
- Location: San Francisco, CA
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Namdrol wrote: Well, that is a side effect.
Side effect?
Tactile bliss inseperable from emptiness, no?
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
The boundaries of a system are defined by the system(s).Acchantika wrote:The boundaries of any system are defined arbitrarily.
Yes indeed.By trying to analyse the conventional as absolute we are taking it to be an attempt to represent reality through concepts. It isn't that, it's a means, not an end.
Every situation does present unique, and I suppose relative, variables. Preparation is obviously possible.If every situation presents unique relative variables, no preparation in moral reasoning is even possible.
No one said that it was.... emphasis on emptiness is not distinct from morality.
You are saying that "realized" teachers with dubious moral behavior are just a little bit realized or something? Many people who are "unrealized" and do not practice any tradition of Buddhism demonstrate greater wisdom, compassion, etc, than many of the teachers mentioned earlier. Does that mean that they are more realized?Acchantika wrote:I'm a pretty confused fellow, so I can't really judge someone else's level of realisation. However, being a roshi doesn't mean you are a Buddha i.e. one who is completely free of delusion. Maybe his ways are beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals. Maybe he is simply full of shit. Either way, as soon as we pass judgement, he becomes a mirror - which is all a teacher needs to be.ajax wrote:Eido Roshi is believed to be realized, yet some of his behavior is morally subpar. How can that be if he is realized and has been, as you put it, freed from the delusion and confusion of self vs other?
So in your opinion the whole division of the Eightfold Path concerning wisdom only ever creates conflict?Acchantika wrote:Discernment creates separation, separation creates conflict. Conflict can only ever create more conflict.ajax wrote:I'm not suggesting that only discernment and moral reasoning be developed. I'm suggesting a fuller expression of Buddhist practice that doesn't over emphasize emptiness and devalue discernment and moral reasoning.
How can you do anything well without discernment?
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
It's not separate from the experience. Well, technically it would be, though it arises along with it.alwayson wrote:Namdrol wrote: Well, that is a side effect.
Side effect?
Tactile bliss inseperable from emptiness, no?
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
That's a tautology.ajax wrote:The boundaries of a system are defined by the system(s).Acchantika wrote:The boundaries of any system are defined arbitrarily.
A system is a conceptual model implied onto reality to facilitate our understanding. There are no systems in nature.
Every situation does present unique, and I suppose relative, variables. Preparation is obviously possible.
Unique i.e. unpredictable.
See your previous statement:No one said that it was.... emphasis on emptiness is not distinct from morality.
"I'm suggesting a fuller expression of Buddhist practice that doesn't over emphasize emptiness and devalue discernment and moral reasoning."
I am saying that any judgment of dubious morality is based on our own preconceptions of morality, and that realisation in Zen is gradual. For example, see the Five Ranks of Tozan.You are saying that "realized" teachers with dubious moral behavior are just a little bit realized or something?
Sure, if by more realised you mean they have less attachment to notions of selfhood.Many people who are "unrealized" and do not practice any tradition of Buddhism demonstrate greater wisdom, compassion, etc, than many of the teachers mentioned earlier. Does that mean that they are more realized?
As before; by wisdom here you mean analytic intelligence and by compassion you mean acting to fufill a previously defined incentive. This is different from the Buddhist notions of wisdom and compassion, which are awareness without discrimination and without self-clinging, respectively.
One cannot develop these by discriminating and clinging to ideas of self, which is what you are suggesting.
One can develop these by contemplating the emptiness of concepts and self, which is what the Zennists are suggesting.
Hence the emphasis on emptiness as oppose to moral reasoning.
If the system produces some bad eggs, it doesn't mean the system is broken. People differ in capacity.
What you are really talking about is discrimination, not discernment. The discernment, or wisdom, of prajna is not a kind of discriminative awareness.So in your opinion the whole division of the Eightfold Path concerning wisdom only ever creates conflict?Discernment creates separation, separation creates conflict. Conflict can only ever create more conflict.
By developing wisdom instead. Prajna is non-conceptual. You are talking about conceptual value systems.How can you do anything well without discernment?
...
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Nature to itself: Ouch now, how is this experience defined to be correct? Where I must put the list of correct ideation?
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Karma is what moral actions based on. And emptiness cannot be reached by thinking and concepts. So nihilism is based on thinking and concept/or imagination. To reach emptiness, you must practice and through practice you will experience.
Look at attachment to this physical body and from that attachment we mentally react with emotions and false thinking and act upon those emotions and false thinking. This is creating karma, and karma will lead to rebirth.
Look at attachment to this physical body and from that attachment we mentally react with emotions and false thinking and act upon those emotions and false thinking. This is creating karma, and karma will lead to rebirth.
It’s eye blinking.
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Acchantika
I'd like to respond to your last post, but I would first ask that you please reconsider the parts where you are telling me what I'm saying and what I mean. It is pointless to discuss things this way, and it's rather rude. If you are unclear about something or not sure what I mean you can ask.
I'd like to respond to your last post, but I would first ask that you please reconsider the parts where you are telling me what I'm saying and what I mean. It is pointless to discuss things this way, and it's rather rude. If you are unclear about something or not sure what I mean you can ask.
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
This is completely misinterpreting what was intended.ajax wrote:I'd like to respond to your last post, but I would first ask that you please reconsider the parts where you are telling me what I'm saying and what I mean. It is pointless to discuss things this way, and it's rather rude.
Your statements make it clear that you equate prajna with a conceptual process - reasoning. I have disputed this, hence the statements "by x, you mean y".
For example, x is prajna and y is a conceptual process. If you think prajna is a conceptual process, then you say prajna but mean a conceptual process.
I have offered justfication and reasoning for why I think this is so.
The basis of a debate is that one party presents one view, and another party presents an alternative view, both using reason and argumentation to support their statements.
If you do not understand the principles of debate, that has nothing to do with me, and you probably shouldn't be in a public discussion forum.
...
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
prajna is nonconceptual, so lets' discuss.
springtimes' dog shit in its' autumn being....
springtimes' dog shit in its' autumn being....
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
You say:Acchantika wrote:This is completely misinterpreting what was intended.ajax wrote:I'd like to respond to your last post, but I would first ask that you please reconsider the parts where you are telling me what I'm saying and what I mean. It is pointless to discuss things this way, and it's rather rude.
Your statements make it clear that you equate prajna with a conceptual process - reasoning. I have disputed this, hence the statements "by x, you mean y".
For example, x is prajna and y is a conceptual process. If you think prajna is a conceptual process, then you say prajna but mean a conceptual process.
I have offered justfication and reasoning for why I think this is so.
The basis of a debate is that one party presents one view, and another party presents an alternative view, both using reason and argumentation to support their statements.
If you do not understand the principles of debate, that has nothing to do with me, and you probably shouldn't be in a public discussion forum.
If I meant to say discrimination wouldn't I have used that word? (actually I did use it by mistake earlier)Acchantika wrote:What you are really talking about is discrimination, not discernment.
What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
I think:ajax wrote:What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?
In an everyday intellectual context, discernment means conceptual assessment of variances and discrimination means selective treatment on the basis of that recognition.
These are the kinds your notion of moral reasoning advocates i.e. a form of conceptual activity.
However, discernment as it is used in relation to wisdom in the Eightfold Path is not a conceptual activity.
Yet, you equated the two - hence, the "say but mean" shennanigans, which was not a personal comment.
In fact, in a Buddhist context, I claim the kind of discernment defined above and which you present is actually a kind of discrimination i.e. wrong understanding.
Therefore, in response to:
As above, then, no; which, I reiterate, is not some kind of personal judgment but a perceived contention (read: opinion) based on the misassociation of defintions.If I meant to say discrimination wouldn't I have used that word?
...
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Dammit, I was just about to non-say that.muni wrote:springtimes' dog shit in its' autumn being....
...
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
AcchantikaAcchantika wrote:I think:ajax wrote:What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?
In an everyday intellectual context, discernment means conceptual assessment of variances and discrimination means selective treatment on the basis of that recognition.
These are the kinds your notion of moral reasoning advocates i.e. a form of conceptual activity.
However, discernment as it is used in relation to wisdom in the Eightfold Path is not a conceptual activity.
Yet, you equated the two...
I've used the words "discernment and moral reasoning" a dozen times in this topic, at least once on every page except for the first page. If I "equate the two" then why say one and the other?
Discernment in the virtuous sense means an individual possess uncommon wisdom, insight and good judgement. This sense seems the most appropriate for this discussion, don't you think? I don't know why you are talking about "everyday intellectual assessment of variances."
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Discernment, reasoning, whatever we call it, is a form of conceptual activity.ajax wrote:
I've used the words "discernment and moral reasoning" a dozen times in this topic, at least once on every page except for the first page. If I "equate the two" then why say one and the other?
It is not the same as wisdom i.e. prajna, which is not a form conceptual activity.
...
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
By all means practice and teach Dzogchen, but do not pretend that every interpretation of emptiness must conform to it.Namdrol wrote:Sometimes [quite often] teachers will speak the level of their students, when their own view is in fact higher or different. Why? Because sometimes teachers realize that they must feed the truth to their students in small doses.catmoon wrote:
Now who would these people of poor understanding be? Who uses the term illusion-like?
Some people, hearing that all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions freak out. Some people who hear that phenomena are empty, freak out. This is why it is a bohdhisattva downfall to teach emptiness to the immature.
N
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
If an explanation of emptiness does not conform to Dzogchen, then it does not conform to Madhyamaka since the explanation of emptiness in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka are identical.tobes wrote:By all means practice and teach Dzogchen, but do not pretend that every interpretation of emptiness must conform to it.Namdrol wrote:Sometimes [quite often] teachers will speak the level of their students, when their own view is in fact higher or different. Why? Because sometimes teachers realize that they must feed the truth to their students in small doses.catmoon wrote:
Now who would these people of poor understanding be? Who uses the term illusion-like?
Some people, hearing that all phenomena are completely equivalent with illusions freak out. Some people who hear that phenomena are empty, freak out. This is why it is a bohdhisattva downfall to teach emptiness to the immature.
N
N
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Discernment is synonymous with wisdom, Acchantika. If you are trying to change the meaning of the word, well, I wish you the best of luck, but for the time being...Acchantika wrote:Discernment, reasoning, whatever we call it, is a form of conceptual activity.ajax wrote:
I've used the words "discernment and moral reasoning" a dozen times in this topic, at least once on every page except for the first page. If I "equate the two" then why say one and the other?
It is not the same as wisdom i.e. prajna, which is not a form conceptual activity.
-
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am
Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality
Thank you, I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. Best wishesajax wrote:I wish you the best of luck
...