Astus wrote:Why should have I found an self or person? There is no need for it. Let me give an example, why a self is unnecessary for karma.
We say that information is carried by electrical signs throughout the globe and it is called the internet. Is information separate from electricity, or it's the same? Of course, there is only the current of electrons, of electric charge moving.
Similarly, there is the mental continuum, the fluctuation of dharmas, arising and falling. That rise and fall is not carried on by a soul, or a container. Dharmas come and go according to causal relations, dependent arising. Karma is one of the governing factors of the mental continuum induced by ignorance.
You can find more detailed explanation of the different processes in abhidharma works, including the process of rebirth.
Astus wrote:No need to take it on faith. It is an understandable, logical teaching that can be personally observed through meditation.
Astus wrote:Is it tortuous? Just look at the periodic table of elements, isn't that too much to describe a simple thing like matter? Using earth, water, fire and wind sounds simpler, easier. But we know that knowing only the list of elements is far from enough to make one a chemist or a pharmacist. It can take even a decade in higher education to get a PhD, and that's nothing unusual, not a Nobel prize. Should Buddhism be easier?
All such dualistic concepts as 'ignorant' and 'Enlightened', 'pure' and 'impure', are obstructions. It is because your minds are hindered by them that the Wheel of the Law must be turned [i.e., that the relative truths of orthodox Buddhism must be taught]. Just as apes spend their time throwing things away and picking them up again unceasingly, so it is with you and your learning. All you need is to give up your 'learning', your 'ignorant' and 'Enlightened', 'pure' and 'impure', 'great' and 'little', your 'attachment' and 'activity'.
), but if you start mistaking words and concepts for truth you are straying. The aim is insight into reality.Astus wrote:There is the form of meditation called vipasyana, observing the mind (觀心), also dharmasmrtyupasthana, foundation of mindfulness on dharmas (法念住). In brief: watching thoughts. Seeing how phenomena come and go, looking at the work of internal causality. You can learn this from both a meditation teacher (禪師) and meditation manuals, in case you want to try it out. You can use either Theravada or Mahayana, this is a subject they both like to investigate.
but ...
Astus wrote:It can take even a decade in higher education to get a PhD, and that's nothing unusual, not a Nobel prize. Should Buddhism be easier?
m0rl0ck wrote:Rather than venture an opinion of my own i will just quote Huang Po. This is from Blofelds "Zen Teaching of Huang Po" Shambala Pocket Classics Edition page 124All such dualistic concepts as 'ignorant' and 'Enlightened', 'pure' and 'impure', are obstructions. It is because your minds are hindered by them that the Wheel of the Law must be turned [i.e., that the relative truths of orthodox Buddhism must be taught]. Just as apes spend their time throwing things away and picking them up again unceasingly, so it is with you and your learning. All you need is to give up your 'learning', your 'ignorant' and 'Enlightened', 'pure' and 'impure', 'great' and 'little', your 'attachment' and 'activity'.
Huseng wrote:m0rl0ck wrote:Rather than venture an opinion of my own i will just quote Huang Po. This is from Blofelds "Zen Teaching of Huang Po" Shambala Pocket Classics Edition page 124All such dualistic concepts as 'ignorant' and 'Enlightened', 'pure' and 'impure', are obstructions. It is because your minds are hindered by them that the Wheel of the Law must be turned [i.e., that the relative truths of orthodox Buddhism must be taught]. Just as apes spend their time throwing things away and picking them up again unceasingly, so it is with you and your learning. All you need is to give up your 'learning', your 'ignorant' and 'Enlightened', 'pure' and 'impure', 'great' and 'little', your 'attachment' and 'activity'.
This might work for you, but it won't work for everybody. Some people need to study and learn. If your method of abandoning learning works for you that's fine, but don't expect everyone else to conform to it.

Astus wrote:m0rl0ck,
I didn't mean to question your path, or practice. But in my view there is more to Buddhism than "drop all concepts" and "see your nature". The Heart Sutra is a brief extract of the prajnaparamita teachings, like a synopsis of a novel, a zip file of thousands of teachings. Not to mention teachings beyond the prajnaparamita cycle. If the Heart Sutra were enough in itself the Buddha could have stopped teaching twenty minutes after his enlightenment.
Astus wrote:Of course, I admit I didn't experience sudden realisation after reading my first ever Zen saying, so I'm not with the highest potential. And I also find studying the sutras and treatises a beneficial method to deepen my understanding and practice of Buddhism. May not be so for everyone.
Astus wrote:Even if you experience the fourth level of enlightenment, it doesn't mean that you have attained Buddhahood. In fact, the enlightenment experience may last only a moment. You will go through the four levels over and over again. Each time you will begin at a new place and learn new things.Each time you will have different experiences. By repeating this cycle again and agian, eventually you can reach complete enlightenment. But we must all start at the beginning. Now you are learning about Buddhadharma. Please practice and cultivate the Dharma as well. Don't seek the fourth level. Just practice. The fourth level will manifest naturally in its own time."[/i]
(Subtle Wisdom, p. 109-110)
Dexing wrote:Give up your "learning" means just study, just practice... just do it, but don't grasp any of it.
teebee wrote:Dexing wrote:Give up your "learning" means just study, just practice... just do it, but don't grasp any of it.
Finally, some sanity in this thread.
Gassho,
Terry Beresford

Dexing wrote:I think the point of Huangbo's lines is to not become attached to any words and speech, even as you study.
Give up your "learning" means just study, just practice... just do it, but don't grasp any of it.
m0rl0ck wrote:But study and scholasticism shouldnt be elevated above practice. Most of the adherents of buddhism up until very recent times must have been illiterate, but they didnt seem to have any trouble getting enlightened, Hui Neng for instance.
Huseng wrote:Dexing wrote:I think the point of Huangbo's lines is to not become attached to any words and speech, even as you study.
And if Huangbo said it, it's gotta be true.
Huseng wrote:Dexing wrote:Give up your "learning" means just study, just practice... just do it, but don't grasp any of it.
Do you assert yourself as being suitable to make a judgement between who grasps while studying and who doesn't?

Astus wrote:Chan teachings may give the impression that there is no system in Mahayana but that is far from the truth. Actually in terms of stages on the path it is more complicated than what you see in Theravada. For instance, in East-Asian Mahayana they teach a 52 stages of enlightenment set based on the Avatamsaka Sutra, and I'm sure you have heard about the ten stages of the bodhisattva. But even in Chan you find stages like the five ranks of Dongshan, or in Japan Hakuin's koan curriculum. Meditation manuals are also available, most famous of them is Zhiyi's Mohezhiguan (Maha-Samatha-Vipasyana). You definitely should look around for more.
Lazy_eye wrote:Astus wrote:Chan teachings may give the impression that there is no system in Mahayana but that is far from the truth. Actually in terms of stages on the path it is more complicated than what you see in Theravada. For instance, in East-Asian Mahayana they teach a 52 stages of enlightenment set based on the Avatamsaka Sutra, and I'm sure you have heard about the ten stages of the bodhisattva. But even in Chan you find stages like the five ranks of Dongshan, or in Japan Hakuin's koan curriculum. Meditation manuals are also available, most famous of them is Zhiyi's Mohezhiguan (Maha-Samatha-Vipasyana). You definitely should look around for more.
Thanks, Astus. As I suspected it would, the OP just bore testimony to my ignorance. Interesting discussion, though!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests