Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby deepbluehum » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:50 pm

Namdrol wrote:
alwayson wrote:
Namdrol wrote:It is the realization of your own emptiness to the fullest possible degree.


Which is tactile bliss?



Well, that is a side effect.


If the bliss isn't peace, then it isn't emptiness.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby alwayson » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:54 pm

Namdrol wrote:Well, that is a side effect.



Side effect?

Tactile bliss inseperable from emptiness, no?
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby ajax » Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:02 am

Acchantika wrote:The boundaries of any system are defined arbitrarily.

The boundaries of a system are defined by the system(s).

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.

Yes indeed.

If every situation presents unique relative variables, no preparation in moral reasoning is even possible.

Every situation does present unique, and I suppose relative, variables. Preparation is obviously possible.

... emphasis on emptiness is not distinct from morality.

No one said that it was.

Acchantika wrote:
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?

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.

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:
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.

Discernment creates separation, separation creates conflict. Conflict can only ever create more conflict.

So in your opinion the whole division of the Eightfold Path concerning wisdom only ever creates conflict?

How can you do anything well without discernment?
ajax
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:48 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby Virgo » Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:20 am

alwayson wrote:
Namdrol wrote:Well, that is a side effect.



Side effect?

Tactile bliss inseperable from emptiness, no?

It's not separate from the experience. Well, technically it would be, though it arises along with it.
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby Acchantika » Tue Sep 27, 2011 7:04 am

ajax wrote:
Acchantika wrote:The boundaries of any system are defined arbitrarily.

The boundaries of a system are defined by the system(s).


That's a tautology.

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.

... emphasis on emptiness is not distinct from morality.

No one said that it was.


See your previous statement:

"I'm suggesting a fuller expression of Buddhist practice that doesn't over emphasize emptiness and devalue discernment and moral reasoning."

You are saying that "realized" teachers with dubious moral behavior are just a little bit realized or something?


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.

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?


Sure, if by more realised you mean they have less attachment to notions of selfhood.

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.

Discernment creates separation, separation creates conflict. Conflict can only ever create more conflict.

So in your opinion the whole division of the Eightfold Path concerning wisdom only ever creates conflict?


What you are really talking about is discrimination, not discernment. The discernment, or wisdom, of prajna is not a kind of discriminative awareness.

How can you do anything well without discernment?


By developing wisdom instead. Prajna is non-conceptual. You are talking about conceptual value systems.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby muni » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:05 am

Nature to itself: Ouch now, how is this experience defined to be correct? Where I must put the list of correct ideation?
muni
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby LastLegend » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:13 am

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.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby ajax » Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:52 am

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.
ajax
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:48 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby Acchantika » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:41 am

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.


This is completely misinterpreting what was intended.

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.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby muni » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:08 pm

prajna is nonconceptual, so lets' discuss.

springtimes' dog shit in its' autumn being....
muni
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby ajax » Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:26 pm

Acchantika wrote:
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.


This is completely misinterpreting what was intended.

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.

You say:
Acchantika wrote:What you are really talking about is discrimination, not discernment.

If I meant to say discrimination wouldn't I have used that word? (actually I did use it by mistake earlier)

What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?
ajax
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:48 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby Acchantika » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:20 pm

ajax wrote:What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?

I think:

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:

If I meant to say discrimination wouldn't I have used that word?


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.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby Acchantika » Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:26 pm

muni wrote:springtimes' dog shit in its' autumn being....


Dammit, I was just about to non-say that.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby ajax » Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:39 am

Acchantika wrote:
ajax wrote:What do you think the difference is between discrimination and discernment?

I think:

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...

Acchantika

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."
ajax
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:48 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby Acchantika » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:28 am

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?


Discernment, reasoning, whatever we call it, is a form of conceptual activity.

It is not the same as wisdom i.e. prajna, which is not a form conceptual activity.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby tobes » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Namdrol wrote:
catmoon wrote:
Now who would these people of poor understanding be? Who uses the term illusion-like?


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.

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


By all means practice and teach Dzogchen, but do not pretend that every interpretation of emptiness must conform to it.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1139
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby booker » Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:58 pm

Neverending story :popcorn:
"Be Buddhist or be Buddha"
User avatar
booker
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:08 pm
Location: UK

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby Malcolm » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:19 pm

tobes wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
catmoon wrote:
Now who would these people of poor understanding be? Who uses the term illusion-like?


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.

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


By all means practice and teach Dzogchen, but do not pretend that every interpretation of emptiness must conform to it.

:anjali:


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.

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

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11738
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby ajax » Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:07 pm

Acchantika wrote:
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?


Discernment, reasoning, whatever we call it, is a form of conceptual activity.

It is not the same as wisdom i.e. prajna, which is not a form conceptual activity.

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...
ajax
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 5:48 am

Re: Zen and the dogma of non-duality

Postby Acchantika » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:36 pm

ajax wrote:I wish you the best of luck


Thank you, I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. Best wishes :namaste:
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Zen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alex123, Dan74 and 13 guests

>