have a question

[LastLegend]

“You can’t possess it and you can’t lose it. Its movements can’t be blocked by mountains, rivers, or rock walls. Its unstoppable powers penetrate the Mountain of Five Skandhas and cross the River of Samsara." No karma can restrain this real body. But this mind is subtle and hard to see. It’s not the same as the sensual mind. Every I one wants to see this mind, and those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand along the Ganges, but when you ask them, they can’t explain it. They’re like puppets. It’s theirs to use. Why don’t they see it?”

~Bodhidharma~Blood Stream Sermon

[PadmaVonSamba]

Yes, sorry to say ...we’ve been getting it not so right.

If it was impossible for awareness to be an object of awareness, it would be like dreaming yet not knowing you are dreaming.

[LastLegend]

Yes, sorry to say ...we’ve been getting it not so right.

If it was impossible for awareness to be an object of awareness, it would be like dreaming yet not knowing you are dreaming.

No! We are supposed to be clear (not mistaken)...it has nothing to do with what is aware of what? Supposed to be! But fine I think awareness aware of itself is very direct and an excellent practice.

[Johnny Dangerous]

“You can’t possess it and you can’t lose it. Its movements can’t be blocked by mountains, rivers, or rock walls. Its unstoppable powers penetrate the Mountain of Five Skandhas and cross the River of Samsara." No karma can restrain this real body. But this mind is subtle and hard to see. It’s not the same as the sensual mind. Every I one wants to see this mind, and those who move their hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand along the Ganges, but when you ask them, they can’t explain it. They’re like puppets. It’s theirs to use. Why don’t they see it?”

~Bodhidharma~Blood Stream Sermon

You are really having a hard time understanding what is being said on this subject, and misunderstanding what is being said. I’m not sure whether it’s the nonstandard language you use, just a gulf between traditions or what.

Bottom line, when awareness looks at itself, it does not find a thing, literally. Subject and object no longer apply. No different than what you quoted. That is the point of this method, nothing is found. Get some instruction and try for yourself. “Clear” and “clarity” do not mean lack of appearances either, but seeing appearance as they are - emptiness.

There is no distinction between the nature of mind and the nature of appearances except in terms of praxis...how could there be?

If you are not familiar with it, that’s fine. It’s clear you don’t really understand it though, and you should probably make the attempt before forming such strong opinions on it.

[LastLegend]

If we remember Mahaprajnaparamita Sutras, something about unborn undead...so here as soon as we are aware that means it’s born and arising these are five aggregates. That unborn undead is original nature. It’s pretty clear (not mistaken).

[LastLegend]

Bottom line, when awareness looks at itself, it does not find a thing, literally. Subject and object no longer apply. No different than what you quoted. That is the point of this method, nothing is found. Get some instruction and try for yourself. “Clear” and “clarity” do not mean lack of appearances either, but seeing appearance as they are - emptiness.

I think it’s a good practice. But then you’ll have to explain why I am still deluded and wretched by karma at times? So which part of aggregates is the main culprit responsible for that? According to what I was taught, it’s because of ignorance which is consciousness. If you have a different definition of what consciousness other than awareness I like to know?

[Johnny Dangerous]

Bottom line, when awareness looks at itself, it does not find a thing, literally. Subject and object no longer apply. No different than what you quoted. That is the point of this method, nothing is found. Get some instruction and try for yourself. “Clear” and “clarity” do not mean lack of appearances either, but seeing appearance as they are - emptiness.

I think it’s a good practice. But then you’ll have to explain why I am still deluded and wretched by karma at times? So which part of aggregates is the main culprit responsible for that? According to what I was taught, it’s because of ignorance which is consciousness. If you have a different definition of what consciousness other than awareness I like to know?

That's just the 12 links, I have no idea how they are squared with Mahayana meditation methods, and don't much care. I'm sure someone else has the explanation. If you want Mahayana meditation to square perfectly with what's taught in the Pali Canon, that's kind of an ask. Yogacara at least makes more sense here as a model.

All I can tell you is that "awareness" here is not an object, and is not any of the six consciousness, as far as I understand.

The reason you still have Karma etc. is the same reason Zen practitioners don't suddenly go "poof" because they have kensho. What is realized may be unborn and undying, beyond the three times, etc. but we are not.

Meditation is familiarization with realization.

[LastLegend]

Impressive!

But we’ll see. I have high standards formed from my observation of my teacher.

[kusulu]

Bottom line, when awareness looks at itself, it does not find a thing, literally. Subject and object no longer apply. No different than what you quoted. That is the point of this method, nothing is found. Get some instruction and try for yourself. “Clear” and “clarity” do not mean lack of appearances either, but seeing appearance as they are - emptiness.

I think it’s a good practice. But then you’ll have to explain why I am still deluded and wretched by karma at times? So which part of aggregates is the main culprit responsible for that? According to what I was taught, it’s because of ignorance which is consciousness. If you have a different definition of what consciousness other than awareness I like to know?

That's just the 12 links, I have no idea how they are squared with Mahayana meditation methods, and don't much care. I'm sure someone else has the explanation. If you want Mahayana meditation to square perfectly with what's taught in the Pali Canon, that's kind of an ask.

All I can tell you is that "awareness" here is not an object, and is not any of the six consciousness, as far as I understand.

The reason you still have Karma etc. is the same reason Zen practitioners don't suddenly go "poof" because they have kensho. What is realized may be unborn and undying, beyond the three times, etc. but we are not.

Meditation is familiarization with realization.

All fine and good, but you cannot roll back the clock to remove your existence either. The factuality of it is "unborn and undying, beyond the three times, etc.", in that sense.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I think it’s a good practice. But then you’ll have to explain why I am still deluded and wretched by karma at times? So which part of aggregates is the main culprit responsible for that? According to what I was taught, it’s because of ignorance which is consciousness. If you have a different definition of what consciousness other than awareness I like to know?

That's just the 12 links, I have no idea how they are squared with Mahayana meditation methods, and don't much care. I'm sure someone else has the explanation. If you want Mahayana meditation to square perfectly with what's taught in the Pali Canon, that's kind of an ask.

All I can tell you is that "awareness" here is not an object, and is not any of the six consciousness, as far as I understand.

The reason you still have Karma etc. is the same reason Zen practitioners don't suddenly go "poof" because they have kensho. What is realized may be unborn and undying, beyond the three times, etc. but we are not.

Meditation is familiarization with realization.

All fine and good, but you cannot roll back the clock to remove your existence either. The factuality of it is "unborn and undying, beyond the three times, etc.", in that sense.

I'm not sure what you mean, or how it relates to what I wrote.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Bottom line, when awareness looks at itself, it does not find a thing, literally. Subject and object no longer apply. No different than what you quoted. That is the point of this method, nothing is found. Get some instruction and try for yourself. “Clear” and “clarity” do not mean lack of appearances either, but seeing appearance as they are - emptiness.

I think it’s a good practice. But then you’ll have to explain why I am still deluded and wretched by karma at times? So which part of aggregates is the main culprit responsible for that? According to what I was taught, it’s because of ignorance which is consciousness. If you have a different definition of what consciousness other than awareness I like to know?

The Surangama Sutra describes original awareness as divided, meaning distracted, by the 6 senses.

[LastLegend]

Original awareness is when truly clean once it’s transcended, and this where enlightened beings reside to do their work for benefits of sentient beings. With this state, it’s a paramount gate to transcend to absolute non-self or sixth Patriarch’s no thing (unborn undead). Where most of us are at this state, I believe. I still have dreams still distracted and confused.

[master of puppets]

Do we aware of the practice while practising?

anyone

Thks

Fond of the answers

If we can do that not being aware while remaining clear (not mistaken)?

yes. Mind can not do two things at one time right?

[master of puppets]

By the long time of interest of zen and buddhism, 20 years, I have developed an inner sense to emptiness.

Since it is the emptiness term that which is frequently and often emphasized,

my question is it right to look everything from an emptiness view or window?

to be more clear we are living in a world that full of many different events or people in their own characteristic.
yet many actions, speech or events that has been done has nothing to do with emptiness.they mostly seen unnecessary and nonessential in this way of looking.

so back to the question is it ok to examine eveything from the perspective of emptiness? even the most ordinary things?

- namaste

My question is still on the table

[master of puppets]

You might want to start out a half hour at a time.

Or even shorter.... I am a fan of recommending sits as short as 5 or 10 minutes to beginners. You can lengthen as it becomes more comfortable and natural to sit longer. Better to sit regularly for short sits than it is to force yourself to sit for an hour on random days and then give up

Mindfulness throughout the day is never a bad thing. Expecting no difference between on cushion and off cushion 24/7 is unrealistic though. Training is needed

KN

Let's see what can we do. As a result have to begin somewhere.

[avisitor]

What was the question again?

"my question is it right to look everything from an emptiness view or window?"

What do you mean by emptiness?
Many people throw words (or Buddhist terms) around like everyone should know their meaning
And would guess that some do and many don't.

What if anything does that do to how you interact with the world?
And who does the judgement on what is right or not??
Am guessing you need to find a teacher.

7/24?? I thought it was 24/7
24 hours a day/7 days a week
But, no, not in the beginning.
It is like being asked to run 12 miles all at one time.
A marathon runner needs to work up to such distances
Or all the effort that can be mustered up is wasted in the first few moments
And the rest is all a struggle. Quicksand, the more you fight the quicker and deeper you sink.

The other thing is you focus on method
On how to look at the world from an emptiness view?
If someone points at the moon then do you look at his finger or do you look at the moon??

Find a good teacher and learn and practice and experience for yourself.

[PadmaVonSamba]

By the long time of interest of zen and buddhism, 20 years, I have developed an inner sense to emptiness.

Since it is the emptiness term that which is frequently and often emphasized,

my question is it right to look everything from an emptiness view or window?

to be more clear we are living in a world that full of many different events or people in their own characteristic.
yet many actions, speech or events that has been done has nothing to do with emptiness.they mostly seen unnecessary and nonessential in this way of looking.

so back to the question is it ok to examine eveything from the perspective of emptiness? even the most ordinary things?

- namaste

My question is still on the table

If you are asking if it is possible for someone to see everything as emptiness, then yes, it is possible. That doesn’t mean it is easy to do, or that everybody can do it.

The emptiness of phenomena means that nothing is self-arising. Everything is constantly changing, and constantly reflecting how everything else is changing. Thus, there is nothing for “ME” to hold onto that can be regarded as a ‘self’ and nothing of phenomena to hold onto as a source of identity, nor as a source of permanent satisfaction.

This is what might be called “ultimate view” but we live in a “relative view” reality. The knife in the kitchen may be emptiness, but if you cut your finger, you will very likely experience the relative view: pain.

Also, the tricky part is that if you divide relative and ultimate into two different things, two opposite things, then you don’t have emptiness view. You still have dualistic view. And if your “emptiness view” is only conceptual and not spontaneous, not directly experienced as vividly as relative view is now, then it is only intellectualization. It is only another thought.

So, yeah, it can be done. Will it be accomplished?
Maybe yes, maybe no.

[avisitor]

If you are asking if it is possible for someone to see everything as emptiness, then yes, it is possible. That doesn’t mean it is easy to do, or that everybody can do it.

The emptiness of phenomena means that nothing is self-arising. Everything is constantly changing, and constantly reflecting how everything else is changing. Thus, there is nothing for “ME” to hold onto that can be regarded as a ‘self’ and nothing of phenomena to hold onto as a source of identity, nor as a source of permanent satisfaction.

This is what might be called “ultimate view” but we live in a “relative view” reality. The knife in the kitchen may be emptiness, but if you cut your finger, you will very likely experience the relative view: pain.

Also, the tricky part is that if you divide relative and ultimate into two different things, two opposite things, then you don’t have emptiness view. You still have dualistic view. And if your “emptiness view” is only conceptual and not spontaneous, not directly experienced as vividly as relative view is now, then it is only intellectualization. It is only another thought.

So, yeah, it can be done. Will it be accomplished?
Maybe yes, maybe no.

The emptiness of phenomena means nothing is self arising.

Cool words. So nothing in this world is self arising??
So does that mean mind does not arising from itself??
Does body arise from mind? Then where does mind arise from?
Then where does it all come from?? The brain? The body?? God??

Ultimate view? And relative view?
Can you please elaborate on the meaning of such things?
I have no knowledge about emptiness to talk about or ultimate view or relative view.

Also, if everything is constantly changing then how is it determined how long it takes for something to change??
You throw bones out but there is no meat to bite into. Sorry, not a very Buddhist analogy.
How does ultimate view exist if everything is changing??

Feels like I will be banned soon for asking the most silliest of questions.

[master of puppets]

7/24?? I thought it was 24/7
24 hours a day/7 days a week
But, no, not in the beginning.
It is like being asked to run 12 miles all at one time.
A marathon runner needs to work up to such distances
Or all the effort that can be mustered up is wasted in the first few moments
And the rest is all a struggle. Quicksand, the more you fight the quicker and deeper you sink.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The emptiness of phenomena means nothing is self arising.

Cool words. So nothing in this world is self arising??
So does that mean mind does not arising from itself??

Awareness is originally all pervading, like the sky.
Maybe you are talking about consciousness that arises conditionally, like clouds appearing in the sky.

Also, if everything is constantly changing then how is it determined how long it takes for something to change??

That’s a mistake you are making: saying that phenomena freeze in place for a second, becoming that “thing” and then changing again.
Phenomena never establishes itself for even a second. It’s all change, all the time, like a waterfall always pouring over the side of a cliff.