PDA

View Full Version : Change



Mardale
09 Sep 12, 00:11
All right.

Things change.

No. Things are change.

Things are the mere products of change.

So they don't exist from their own side: they are the mere residue of transformations.

So what is it that is transformed or changed?

Element
09 Sep 12, 02:51
What changes are the various elements (dhatu).

Gaoxing
09 Sep 12, 02:58
Good. No Question. No Mardale!:cool:

andyrobyn
09 Sep 12, 03:44
Good. No Question. No Mardale!:cool:

Online ?? - how would we ever really know :P. Yet, Mardale existed as Mardale just did in the post above. Beyond that, there is nothing constant or certain.

Gaoxing
09 Sep 12, 04:34
Online ?? - how would we ever really know :P. Yet, Mardale existed as Mardale just did in the post above. Beyond that, there is nothing constant or certain.:lol: So do you mean that impermanence is not permanent so we might end up with permanence? Ouch! Generally speaking my Kamma was bad for a long time so I really need change!:bow:

PS I'm starting to teach again from tomorrow so I won't pest around this much.:hands:

andyrobyn
09 Sep 12, 08:09
:lol: So do you mean that impermanence is not permanent so we might end up with permanence? Ouch! Generally speaking my Kamma was bad for a long time so I really need change!:bow:

PS I'm starting to teach again from tomorrow so I won't pest around this much.:hands:

No, more like he was what he was at that time, which is no more ( or something like that !!!). In any event, what is important is the interaction and what it brings to you, and others.

Deshy
09 Sep 12, 18:16
So they don't exist from their own side

Again, this view is close to Solipsism than Buddhism.

Element
09 Sep 12, 20:56
Again, this view is close to Solipsism than Buddhism.
Possibly not. To me, it sounded like the basis of appearing to exist is underlying causes & conditions.

andyrobyn
09 Sep 12, 23:45
Rather than saying it is the mind which ascribes its own characteristics to the outside world, the salient point in Buddhism as I see it is that everything exists in an
" asolipsistic " manner, that is, everything is interdependant on everything else - everything that does exist exists through their relationships with everything else.

Deshy
10 Sep 12, 11:59
Possibly not. To me, it sounded like the basis of appearing to exist is underlying causes & conditions.

Not speaking of this comment alone but the other threads of the OP as well. He seems to hold the common opinion that, since everything we know of is perceived by the six senses (the All (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html)), the outside world is a mere mind-made reality without an independent existence.

Gaoxing
10 Sep 12, 12:25
Rather than saying it is the mind which ascribes its own characteristics to the outside world, the salient point in Buddhism as I see it is that everything exists in an
" asolipsistic " manner, that is, everything is interdependant on everything else - everything that does exist exists through their relationships with everything else.

I agree. The Buddha taught Dependent Origination and the Four Nobles Truths. Both systems explain the same thing namely Suffering and the end of Suffering.

Gaoxing
10 Sep 12, 23:24
Not speaking of this comment alone but the other threads of the OP as well. He seems to hold the common opinion that, since everything we know of is perceived by the six senses (the All), the outside world is a mere mind-made reality without an independent existence. I think is a mistake to make as if Solipsism can not be seen as a subdivision of Buddhist thought. The Buddha was very clear about the fact that nothing has something like 'Independence'. It would however IMO be a mistake to confuse Buddhism with Philosophical terms. Solipsism has no independence either.

http://peterdellasantina.org/books/tree_of_enlightenment.htm#c19

Element
11 Sep 12, 04:21
Not speaking of this comment alone but the other threads of the OP as well. He seems to hold the common opinion that, since everything we know of is perceived by the six senses (the All (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html)), the outside world is a mere mind-made reality without an independent existence.
Sure. Buddha was very clear the characteristics of the outside world have independent existence & that Nibbana also has independent existence.


Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. All processes are unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self.

AN 3.134 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html)


There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

Nibbana Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html)

As for 'The All', it is an unimportant teaching of Buddha, given it is not about dukkha nirodha. 'The All' is a Hindu (Brahministic notion), which Buddha redefined as psycho-physiology.

Regards ;D

Gaoxing
11 Sep 12, 04:55
I completely disagree with both Element's and Deshy's statements. I think both of you are quoting the Suttas out of context. Can you supply some evidence for what you are saying?

The Buddha was clear about the Interdependence between the Born and the UN-born, the conditioned and the unconditioned, Samsara and Nirvana. If it wasn't for one the other could not be and there never arrives independence in any sense. What arises is the end of suffering. Cause and effect remains eternally.

Element
11 Sep 12, 09:31
Can you supply some evidence for what you are saying?
thanks Gaoxing. but evidence was already supplied, where Buddha taught, regardless of human awareness of it, the inherent characteristic of conditioned things is impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self (emptiness).


The Buddha was clear about the Interdependence between the Born and the UN-born, the conditioned and the unconditioned, Samsara and Nirvana. If it wasn't for one the other could not be and there never arrives independence in any sense.
It seems like you are confusing Gotama Buddha with Nagarjuna. It would suggest it is for you to supply some evidence about what Buddha taught. How can the "unconditioned" be subject to "interdependence"?

Kind regards

Element :peace:

Gaoxing
11 Sep 12, 11:14
The Buddha taught the UNIVERSAL Characteristics of existence and not just the conditioned. Your quotes is evidence enough for me as it's a matter of what you read into the text that makes the difference. Liberation is a dynamic never ending story. Cause and effect will always be present. Nibbana is still dualistic phenomenal thinking. The ineffable can only be experienced.



All is impermanent. And what is the all that is impermanent? The eye is impermanent, visual objects [ruupaa]... eye-consciousness... eye contact [cakku-samphassa]... whatever is felt [vedayita] as pleasant or unpleasant or neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant, born of eye-contact is impermanent. [Likewise with the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind] (SN 35.43/vol. iv, 28)

All formations are impermanent

Whatever is subject to origination is subject to cessation [nirodha] (MN 56)
The Buddha was Enlightened and then died.

Element
11 Sep 12, 11:47
The Buddha taught the UNIVERSAL Characteristics of existence and not just the conditioned.
Existence = the conditioned. Existence = bhava = becoming

Nibbana is not-self; but it is not impermanent & not unsatisfactory.

Buddha taught all conditioned things are impermanent & unsatifactory & all things (both conditioned & uncondtioned) are not self.


Your quotes is evidence enough for me as it's a matter of what you read into the text that makes the difference.
The quote is interpreted literally. Buddha said: "whether or not there is the arising of Buddhas", the characteristics are.


Liberation is a dynamic never ending story.
Buddha taught liberation does not fluctuate. Your opinion is different than Buddha.


His release [liberation], being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Unbinding [Nibbana] — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth, for this — Unbinding, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

****

Cause and effect will always be present.
Yes (but not in relation to Nibbana). When you say "cause & effect will always be present", you are asserting the independent existence of "cause & effect". In other words, you seem to be contradicting yourself & agreeing with Deshy & Element.


Nibbana is still dualistic phenomenal thinking.
Non-sense. Nibbana is not "thinking". Nibbana is peace, as follows:


This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html

****


The ineffable can only be experienced.
Nibbana is the unconditoned. It already exists, waiting to be discovered, i.e., "uncovered", as the Buddha discovered it. It is experienced when the defilements of mind are removed, i.e., like when the cover is taken away.

Nibbana is not an "effect". Nibbana is not the result of defilements ending. Nibbana is something "uncovered" & experienced when defilements end.


The Buddha was Enlightened and then died.
Yes. But Nibbana does not die. The mind of Buddha that experienced Nibbana died. But Nibbana does not die; nor is it born. Nibbana is not a nama-dhamma (mental phenomena). Nibbana is asankhata dhamma (unconditioned element).

Nibbana is the unborn & the undying. Nibbana is The Deathless. Again, Buddha disagrees with your opinion. Buddha explained:


Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding [Nibbana], I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html

;D

Element
11 Sep 12, 12:00
The ineffable can only be experienced.
As Deshy suggested, this appears lost in sophism.

Nibbana is an element (dhatu).


(THE ELEMENTS)

4. "But, venerable sir, in what way can a monk be called skilled in the elements?"

"There are, Ananda, these eighteen elements: the eye element, the form element, the eye-consciousness element; the ear element, the sound element, the ear-consciousness element; the nose element, the odor element, the nose-consciousness element; the tongue element, the flavor element, the tongue-consciousness element; the body element, the tangible element, the body-consciousness element; the mind element, the mind-object element, the mind-consciousness element. When he knows and sees these eighteen elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

5. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these six elements: the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element. When he knows and sees these six elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

6. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these six elements: the pleasure element, the pain element, the joy element, the grief element, the equanimity element, and the ignorance element. When he knows and sees these six elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

7. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these six elements: the sensual desire element, the renunciation element, the ill will element, the non-ill will element, the cruelty element, and the non-cruelty element. When he knows and sees these six elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

8. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these three elements: the sense-sphere element, the fine-material element, and the immaterial element. When he knows and sees these three elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

9. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

(THE BASES)

http://www.dhammasukha.org/Study/Talks/Transcripts/MN-115-SUM03-TS.htm

Gaoxing
11 Sep 12, 12:47
I'm really struggling with the BWB server. It keeps telling me it’s too busy so I have to keep my posts small. I'm also boxed in without my normal supply of resources here in China so please bear with me.

Your piece also talks about the pain and grief elements. In other words the word 'element' doesn't say much on its own.

The unconditioned is just the natural state of affairs without the illusions of the conditioned. The conditioned idea that stuff has inherent existence, namely independence, in the form of 'Self' or another entity like a conventional self or a separate outside world is the root cause of the conditioned. The conditioned does not affect the unconditioned because the unconditioned is just the natural normal healthy state of everyday life without the perversions of the conditioned. The body gets older, things still change, the wind blows, the rain falls, the seasons come and go but the pain of the conditioned is gone and there is no-one that will be born again because there was in the first place no one that was born. The only thing that was born was the ILLUSION of SELF with many former lives. Emptiness of conditioned phenomenon is required including the conditioned phenomenon of Nirvana. Unconditioned Nirvana is just the natural non-dualistic empty truth.

I feel Deshy is trying to say that not any philosophical thought can explain any part of Buddhism and it’s just not true. Philosophical thought is just much more limited and I see it as just very big words trying to explain what is already known as Sunatta.

Maybe this will be a good read. http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Bhante_Dhammananda_Where_is_the_Buddha.pdf

The ‘Aery fairy’ stuff is just gone.:hands:

Mardale
11 Sep 12, 21:09
I dunno much about Solipsim or Buddhism really but it is from reading Buddhist teaching and hearing a quote from the philosopher Henri Bergson that I made the original post, which is not my "opinion". What are opinions or views worth? Which is the correct view of a house?

Is this not Buddhism: a "chair" exists, in the form of the various elements or parts which are given the label "chair" by us. The parts, labelled chair, exist. The Chair itself is a mere label, or attribution by mind.

There is the collection of parts, upon which we impute the "chair". This works, as a practical arrangement, and seems true to reality.

The problems arise when we begin to believe that the "chair" really exists in an independent sense, other than as a mere aggregate of parts given a label of "chair".

The parts are real enough, relatively speaking. In relation to my toe, they are pretty solid, as I discover if I stub my toe against them. But the "chair"? What is that, beyond a creation of mind?

Is that Buddhism, or solipsism?

Element
11 Sep 12, 21:27
Your piece also talks about the pain and grief elements. In other words the word 'element' doesn't say much on its own.
'Element' refers to impersonal natural phenomena, which comprise of life. Life is elements, such as physical things are comprised of earth, wind, fire & water elements; and mind is comprised of various mental elements.


The unconditioned is just the natural state of affairs without the illusions of the conditioned.
The unconditioned, imo, is the state free from greed, hatred & delusion. For example, imo, the unconditioned is not the natural state of affairs of say animals & insects mating due the mating season. This natural state of affairs is certainly conditioned, imo.


The conditioned idea that stuff has inherent existence, namely independence, in the form of 'Self' or another entity like a conventional self
Your point here is not really relevent because the notion of "independence" does not necessarily infer a "Self". This is another fallacy of Nargajunian thought, where any kind of intrinsicness is regarded as an "Entity". The constant unceasing permanent flow of impermanence is not an "entity". It is not a "Self" or a "Person". The permanent Nibbana is the same. It is not an "Entity", "Self" or "Person".

The Theravadan notion of "sabhava" does not infer an "Entity". When we take up some earth element (soil) in our fingers & crumble it, the element of earth here does not lose its sense of earthiness. This is the meaning of sabhava. It is not an "Entity". This is contrary to say the physical body of a human being when it decomposes into dust (earth element). The sense of "Entity" is completely lost. A living human body has no sense of sabhava (instrinsicness) but earth element crumbled between the fingers to more & more smaller particles retains its sense of sabhava.

None of this is personal. None of it is a 'self'. 'Self' is a thought construction of the human mind, born of ignorance.


The conditioned does not affect the unconditioned because the unconditioned is just the natural normal healthy state of everyday life without the perversions of the conditioned. The body gets older, things still change, the wind blows, the rain falls, the seasons come and go
The unconditioned is the state of non-attachment. Conditioned (mental & physical) phenomena come & go but there is no attachment in the mind to the coming & going. This is the unconditioned, i.e., the absence of attachment.


but the pain of the conditioned is gone
What pain? Many conditioned things are not subject to pain.


and there is no-one that will be born again because there was in the first place no one that was born.
Yes, no "Entity" was ever born but there were Elements born.


The only thing that was born was the ILLUSION of SELF.
No. The 10,000 elements are constantly born, transforming, decaying, etc. The ILLUSION of SELF is a certain kind of birth but not the only kind of birth.


Emptiness of conditioned phenomenon is required including the conditioned phenomenon of Nirvana. Unconditioned Nirvana is just the natural non-dualistic empty truth.
Nirvana is not a conditioned phenomenon. Your opinion here does not accord with Buddha. Buddha defined Nirvana as the end of greed, hatred & delusion. But all other things, such as the five aggregates, are conditioned phenomena. Buddha had five aggregates but his five aggregates were free from greed, hatred & delusion, thus his mind experience Nirvana.

All the best

:peace:

Gaoxing
12 Sep 12, 05:30
'Element' refers to impersonal natural phenomena, which comprise of life. Life is elements, such as physical things are comprised of earth, wind, fire & water elements; and mind is comprised of various mental elements. It is still, imo, a low level of insight.



The unconditioned, imo, is the state free from greed, hatred & delusion. For example, imo, the unconditioned is not the natural state of affairs of say animals & insects mating due the mating season. This natural state of affairs is certainly conditioned, imo. I feel, once again that you were to quick to answer because of the following context. How can the conditioned be free from the afflictions of greed, hatred and delusion? I think you made a typing error. You meant the unconditioned?



Your point here is not really relevent because the notion of "independence" does not necessarily infer a "Self". This is another fallacy of Nargajunian thought, where any kind of intrinsicness is regarded as an "Entity". The constant unceasing permanent flow of impermanence is not an "entity". It is not a "Self" or a "Person". The permanent Nibbana is the same. It is not an "Entity", "Self" or "Person". I'm not referring to Nagarjuna at all. To ascribe the name 'Stone' to form on say a 'Table' is ascribing and implying entity. Buddhism does not go against science, in my opinion, and to think a stone and a table has independence from each other is not seeing things as it really is. This is where delusion is rooted and origin is given to suffering. There is some level of ignorance about how things really are and therefore lack Wisdom.


The Theravadan notion of "sabhava" does not infer an "Entity". When we take up some earth element (soil) in our fingers & crumble it, the element of earth here does not lose its sense of earthiness. This is the meaning of sabhava. It is not an "Entity". This is contrary to say the physical body of a human being when it decomposes into dust (earth element). The sense of "Entity" is completely lost. A living human body has no sense of sabhava (instrinsicness) but earth element crumbled between the fingers to more & more smaller particles retains its sense of sabhava. Yes but beyond this the interdependence is seen. I think it is wrong to lose the context here. The body needs the other elements, wind fire and earth etc. to be maintained and is relative to them and visa versa. The Tathagatagarbha can be wrongly interpreted in this sense if out of context.


None of this is personal. None of it is a 'self'. 'Self' is a thought construction of the human mind, born of ignorance. I agree.



The unconditioned is the state of non-attachment. Conditioned (mental & physical) phenomena come & go but there is no attachment in the mind to the coming & going. This is the unconditioned, i.e., the absence of attachment. I agree but the root of attachment is Atta. Sunatta have no Atta and therefore no attachement etc.


What pain? Many conditioned things are not subject to pain.
Suffering, Dukkha.


Yes, no "Entity" was ever born but there were Elements born. I agree but you can move on beyond this in Therevada, Gotama thinking. It is still conceptual awareness.



No. The 10,000 elements are constantly born, transforming, decaying, etc. The ILLUSION of SELF is a certain kind of birth but not the only kind of birth. Yes but we are back 10 steps at birth again. Birth of conceptual entities in the mind. The mind is not clear from these 'Element- concepts'



Nirvana is not a conditioned phenomenon. Your opinion here does not accord with Buddha. Buddha defined Nirvana as the end of greed, hatred & delusion. But all other things, such as the five aggregates, are conditioned phenomena. Buddha had five aggregates but his five aggregates were free from greed, hatred & delusion, thus his mind experience Nirvana. Please read what I actually said. To a none practicing Atta-mind Nirvana is not reality/nature. It is a conditioned delusion, a concept or idea and not real. True Nirvana is something else than this.

Thanks for your responses. I believe it is this type of dialog the Buddha encouraged:up2:

Aloka
12 Sep 12, 06:03
Yes but beyond this the interdependence is seen. I think it is wrong to lose the context here. The body needs the other elements, wind fire and earth etc. to be maintained and is relative to them and visa versa. The Tathagatagarbha can be wrongly interpreted in this sense if out of context.

Hi Gaoxing,

Can you explain what you mean here by "The Tathagatagarbha" please?

Are you refering to the Mahayana concept of "Buddha nature"?


Thanks.

Pegembara
12 Sep 12, 08:19
I dunno much about Solipsim or Buddhism really but it is from reading Buddhist teaching and hearing a quote from the philosopher Henri Bergson that I made the original post, which is not my "opinion". What are opinions or views worth? Which is the correct view of a house?

Is this not Buddhism: a "chair" exists, in the form of the various elements or parts which are given the label "chair" by us. The parts, labelled chair, exist. The Chair itself is a mere label, or attribution by mind.

There is the collection of parts, upon which we impute the "chair". This works, as a practical arrangement, and seems true to reality.

The problems arise when we begin to believe that the "chair" really exists in an independent sense, other than as a mere aggregate of parts given a label of "chair".

The parts are real enough, relatively speaking. In relation to my toe, they are pretty solid, as I discover if I stub my toe against them. But the "chair"? What is that, beyond a creation of mind?

Is that Buddhism, or solipsism?

Ajahn Chah said something similar:





"Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we ''determine'' cities, people, cattle - everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.

Concepts such as ''monk'' and ''layperson'' are also ''determinations.'' We determine these things into existence because intrinsically they aren't here. It's like having an empty dish - you can put anything you like into it because it's empty. This is the nature of determined reality. Men and women are simply determined concepts, as are all the things around us.

If we know the truth of determinations clearly, we will know that there are no beings, because ''beings'' are determined things. Understanding that these things are simply determinations, you can be at peace. But if you believe that the person, being, the ''mine,'' the ''theirs,'' and so on are intrinsic qualities, then you must laugh and cry over them. These are the proliferation of conditioning factors. If we take such things to be ours there will always be suffering. This is micch?ditthi, wrong view. Names are not intrinsic realities, they are provisional truths. Only after we are born do we obtain names, isn't that so? Or did you have your name already when you were born? The name comes afterwards, right? Why must we determine these names? Because intrinsically they aren't there."



Toward the Unconditioned
http://www.amaravati.org/teachingsofajahnchah/article/480/P4/

Regards

Gaoxing
12 Sep 12, 10:47
Hi Gaoxing,

Can you explain what you mean here by "The Tathagatagarbha" please?

Are you refering to the Mahayana concept of "Buddha nature"?


Thanks.
Yes, I'm referring to that from a more modern Theravada point of view. I'm trying to say that Buddha Nature does not exist as entity but as emptiness (sunnata). I'm really more Theravada than Mahayana but only because I think that Mahayana lends itself towards misinterpretation. Minds are very susceptible to wanting to boost the ego with entity or independence ideas. Atta mind finds it very soothing.

Element
12 Sep 12, 10:51
It is still, imo, a low level of insight.
Not according to Buddha. In MN 115 (linked above), it is reported Buddha advised the mind skilled in the elements is wise.


I think you made a typing error. You meant the unconditioned?
Obviously.


I'm not referring to Nagarjuna at all. To ascribe the name 'Stone' to form on say a 'Table' is ascribing and implying entity.
Non-sense. 'Stone' is the same as 'body'. To see 'body' as 'body' as sufficient for liberation, which is why Buddha taught about the five aggregates (rather than one million atoms). To see a 'stone' is anatta is all that is required for liberation.


Buddhism does not go against science, in my opinion, and to think a stone and a table has independence from each other is not seeing things as it really is.
Non-sense. Why? Unrelated to dukkha nirodha. When Buddha taught about Dependent Origination, he was referring to the dependent origination of suffering in the human mind (rather than the dependent origination of stones & tables).


This is where delusion is rooted and origin is given to suffering.
Non-sense. The perception of 'stone' or 'table' does not give rise to suffering. It is the perceptions of permanence, satisfactoriness & self in relation to conditioned things that gives rise to suffering.


There is some level of ignorance about how things really are and therefore lack Wisdom.
Non-sequitur. This is not 'wisdom'. If it was 'wisdom' then all physicists would be arahants.


I think it is wrong to lose the context here.
Indeed.


The body needs the other elements, wind fire and earth etc. to be maintained
There is not such thing as a body independent of wind, fire & earth. A 'body' without wind, fire & especially water is just dust.


the root of attachment is Atta.
The root of Atta is attachment (rather than visa versa).


Sunatta have no Atta and therefore no attachement etc.


Suffering, Dukkha.
A stone is a conditioned thing but does not experience pain or dukkha. Only minds capable of attachment experience dukkha. It is arguable any mind that cannot construct the thought of 'self' does not suffer (even if its nervous system experiences pain).


I agree but you can move on beyond this in Therevada, Gotama thinking. It is still conceptual awareness.
Non-sense. When a cloud is born in the sky due to water evaporation or a puddle is born on the ground due to rain, this unrelated to conceptuality.

Further, there is no such thing as conceptual awareness. Conceptuality is from sankhara khanda. Awareness is from vinnana khanda. Buddhas still use conceptuality. Non-conceptuality is not enlightenment. It is simply samadhi. Buddha did not teach about non-conceptuality as enlightenment. Buddha taught in seeing clearly impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self, the mind becomes dispassionate & non-attached. Seeing clearly impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self is enlightenment. The enlightenment functions liberated when engaging in both conceptuality & non-conceptuality.


Yes but we are back 10 steps at birth again. Birth of conceptual entities in the mind. The mind is not clear from these 'Element- concepts'
When evaporation forms clouds & clouds form rain & rain nourishes plants, etc, this natural activity is not 'conceptuality'.

When the mind enters the 1st jhana, it is non-conceptual, & its neurons explode with feelings of rapture. These feelings are a distinct element, just as the grave pain from breaking a bone is a distinct element.

Your view of elements demonstrates Sophism. Just the mere & clear direct experience of an in-breath gives rise to understanding 'elements'.


Please read what I actually said.
I have taken the time to read what you have said. That is obvious. What you have said is unrelated to enlightenment.


To a none practicing Atta-mind Nirvana is not reality/nature. It is a conditioned delusion, a concept or idea and not real. True Nirvana is something else than this.
The Buddha did not teach 'nothingness' as enlightenment. Buddha taught the mind is enlightened & liberated.


Thanks for your responses. I believe it is this type of dialog the Buddha encouraged
Definity not. The speculations & superstitions that you posted are not the kind of dialog the Buddha encouraged. Buddha encouraged dialogue that conforms with his Dhamma. Where as you are posting Advaita-Vedanta.

Best wishes for your studies & practise

When Buddha used conceptuality to give 84,000 oral teachings, his mind did not depart from Nirvana.

:peace:

Aloka
12 Sep 12, 11:30
Yes, I'm referring to that from a more modern Theravada point of view. I'm trying to say that Buddha Nature does not exist as entity but as emptiness (sunnata). I'm really more Theravada than Mahayana but only because I think that Mahayana lends itself towards misinterpretation. Minds are very susceptible to wanting to boost the ego with entity or independence ideas. Atta mind finds it very soothing.

The term "Buddha Nature "is described in Tibetan Buddhism as "Unrealised enlightened mind, the essential nature of all sentient beings"

(from "Awakening the sleeping Buddha" by the 12th Tai Situpa)

However this makes little sense to me since it would also apply to a worm (and wasn't taught by the Buddha.)

This article might interest you:

"Freedom from Buddha Nature"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html



That's all from me for now. - good luck for your practice Goaxing.


.

Gaoxing
12 Sep 12, 11:35
Element

Dukkha is also universal. Suffering does not just apply to human mind but to the whole universe and attachment is impossible without a self.

I'm not even going to try and quote all your 'non-sense' remarks but quote you this.


Seeing that the self is the source and the cause of all suffering, and that rejection of the self is the cause of the end of suffering, why not do our best to reject and eliminate this idea of a self, rather than trying to defend, protect, and preserve it? Why not recognize that personal experience is like a banana tree or an onion--that when we take it apart piece by piece, examining it critically and analytically, we will find that it is empty of any essential, substantial core, that it is devoid of self? When we understand--through study, consideration, and meditation--that all things are impermanent, are full of suffering, and are not-self, and when our understanding of these truths is no longer merely intellectual or academic but becomes part of our immediate experience, then the understanding of the three universal characteristics will free us of the fundamental errors that imprison us within the cycle of birth and death--the errors of seeing things as permanent, happy, and having to do with the self. When these delusions are removed, wisdom arises, just as, when darkness is removed, light arises. And when wisdom arises, we experience the peace and freedom of nirvana.

In this chapter we have confined ourselves to looking at personal experience in terms of body and mind. In the next chapter we will look more deeply into the Buddhist analysis of personal experience in terms of the elements of our physical and mental universe.
Top

http://peterdellasantina.org/books/tree_of_enlightenment.htm#c11

Aloka
12 Sep 12, 11:41
One last comment from me, you said :


I'm really more Theravada than Mahayana

If you're more Theravada, then can I ask why you always reference a Tibetan Buddhist website when posting in the forums here, as in the post above this one?


.

Element
12 Sep 12, 11:43
Ajahn Chah said something similar:


"Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we ''determine'' cities, people, cattle - everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.

Concepts such as ''monk'' and ''layperson'' are also ''determinations.'' We determine these things into existence because intrinsically they aren't here. It's like having an empty dish - you can put anything you like into it because it's empty. This is the nature of determined reality. Men and women are simply determined concepts, as are all the things around us.

If we know the truth of determinations clearly, we will know that there are no beings, because ''beings'' are determined things. Understanding that these things are simply determinations, you can be at peace. But if you believe that the person, being, the ''mine,'' the ''theirs,'' and so on are intrinsic qualities, then you must laugh and cry over them. These are the proliferation of conditioning factors. If we take such things to be ours there will always be suffering. This is micch?ditthi, wrong view. Names are not intrinsic realities, they are provisional truths. Only after we are born do we obtain names, isn't that so? Or did you have your name already when you were born? The name comes afterwards, right? Why must we determine these names? Because intrinsically they aren't there."
The above is just kindergarten Dhamma. If we listen to 'Ajahn Chah Speaks' on You Tube, he ends the video by advising all things are just elements.

When the mind stops conceptual determinations, it has samadhi. When samadhi is right, it develops discernment. What does it discern? It discerns the movement (wind) within the body. It discerns the sensations of the wind. It discerns the feeling (pleasantness & discomfort) of the different kinds of winds (breathes). It discerns differences in temperature (heat). It discerns feelings in jhana. It discerns residual defilements. It discerns the pervasive impermanence. It discerns the peace of non-craving, non-attachment & Nibbana. It discerns different & distinct qualities of experience & each quality is a different element (dhatu). When the mind is void of conceptual determinations, this is only the beginning, rather than the end. The elements come alive to the mind. Thus, to regard Ajahn Chah has spoken ultimate truth in the quote is incorrect because we will not find the Buddha speak the same way in the scriptures. Ajahn Chah has spoken about very worldly things & it is unrelated to actual vipassana. Without constantly discerning the ever changing elements, vipassana cannot occur. If there was not different elements, change would not even exist.

Less internet; less blind faith; more meditation. Regards

:meditate:

Element
12 Sep 12, 12:01
Dukkha is also universal. Suffering does not just apply to human mind but to the whole universe and attachment is impossible without a self.
Non-sense.

The word 'dukkha' has at least meanings: (1) painful feeling; (2) mental torment; and (3) unsatisfactoriness, i.e., inability to bring permanent happiness

The term 'dukkha vedana' = painful feeeling.

In the 1st Noble Truth, Budddha taught: "In summary, attaching to the five aggregates is mental torment".

In the Three Characteristics, Buddha taught the universal characteristic of impermanent things is they are unsatisfactory.

The more an enlightened mind experiences unsatisfactoriness (dukkha #3), the more their mind is free from mental torment (dukkha #2). A fully enlightened being is always free from dukkha#2 but is never 100% free from dukkha#1 and always experiences dukkha#3.

The Dhamma about the relationship between dukkha#2 and dukkha3# is quoted below. If one cannot discern the different meanings of dukkha, one does not discern Buddha-Dhamma.

Good luck! Less lecturing the Buddha & more listening to the Buddha, I would recommend. It is the role of a student to practise rather than teach.

:buddha:



277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory (dukkha)" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering (dukkha). This is the path to purification.

279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Maggavagga: The Path (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html)


"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing [not conceptualising] thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"

This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.

Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.

2nd Sermon (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html)

Element
12 Sep 12, 12:17
... attachment is impossible without a self.

Buddha explained the origin of 'self' as below:


"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of ['self'] becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering

Phagguna Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html)


There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be 'self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that [craving]. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

Parileyyaka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html)


'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?

There are these five clung-to-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clung-to-aggregate, feeling as a clung-to-aggregate, perception as a clung-to-aggregate, fabrications as a clung-to-aggregate, consciousness as a clung-to-aggregate. These five clung-to-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One.

Saying, "Yes, lady," Visakha the lay follower delighted & rejoiced in what Dhammadinna the nun had said. Then he asked her a further question: 'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

Culavedalla Sutta: The Shorter Set of Questions-and-Answers (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html)

Gaoxing
12 Sep 12, 12:17
One last comment from me, you said :


I'm really more Theravada than Mahayana

If you're more Theravada, then can I ask why you always reference a Tibetan Buddhist website when posting in the forums here, as in the post above this one?



No real reason it's just that I have a particular love for Dr Santina's works and the link is just the first one that came up in my search. Here in China I have a hard copy of his book printed in Taiwan. It was the first book I ever read on Buddhism some 13 or 14 years ago and I've tested it against many other works and the Suttas. Personally I love it and trust it for being very objective.

Gaoxing
12 Sep 12, 12:35
Non-sense.

The word 'dukkha' has at least meanings: (1) painful feeling; (2) mental torment; and (3) unsatisfactoriness, i.e., inability to bring permanent happiness

The term 'dukkha vedana' = painful feeeling.

In the 1st Noble Truth, Budddha taught: "In summary, attaching to the five aggregates is mental torment".

In the Three Characteristics, Buddha taught the universal characteristic of impermanent things is they are unsatisfactory.

The more an enlightened mind experiences unsatisfactoriness (dukkha #3), the more their mind is free from mental torment (dukkha #2). A fully enlightened being is always free from dukkha#2 but is never 100% free from dukkha#1 and always experiences dukkha#3.

The Dhamma about the relationship between dukkha#2 and dukkha3# is quoted below. If one cannot discern the different meanings of dukkha, one does not discern Buddha-Dhamma.

Good luck! Less lecturing the Buddha & more listening to the Buddha, I would recommend. It is the role of a student to practise rather than teach.

:buddha:
Sorry but I'm not your student Element! You seem stuck on half a view. I cannot read what you are barking in your perceptions when reading your quotes!

A coin has two sides so; Impermanence can be experienced in the presence of Ignorance, Craving and Clinging, and then cause suffering whilst it could also be seen without the three afflictions working deliverance. We know that Impermanence itself is not the cause of suffering but only an occasion for suffering.

I’ve always understood the root cause for suffering via both Interdependent Origination and the Four Noble Truths to be the Illusion of “Self” namely Ignorance which causes desire. Having the knowledge that there is no permanent self is therefore inseparable from impermanence. Letting-go of this illusion about a permanent self means a stop in clinging to that idea but also without clinging to that again as an idea or concept.

This is a somewhat intellectual description and I would like to know what can be expected when true Insight occurs as a practical experience. Wouldn’t Nirvana be experienced and if not what?

Gaoxing
12 Sep 12, 12:43
The term "Buddha Nature "is described in Tibetan Buddhism as "Unrealised enlightened mind, the essential nature of all sentient beings"

(from "Awakening the sleeping Buddha" by the 12th Tai Situpa)

However this makes little sense to me since it would also apply to a worm (and wasn't taught by the Buddha.)

This article might interest you:

"Freedom from Buddha Nature"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html



That's all from me for now. - good luck for your practice Goaxing.



Sorry but all Sentient beings suffer Aloka, worms included. It seems like you are promoting your own kind of Buddhism.

Element
12 Sep 12, 12:55
Sorry but all Sentient beings suffer Aloka, worms included.
Non-sense. Buddha taught suffering = attachment = concept of "I"

;D

Gaoxing
12 Sep 12, 12:59
Non-sense. Buddha taught suffering = attachment = concept of "I"

;D
Just another half! Maybe the other half will join soon. :up2:

Aloka
12 Sep 12, 15:42
You seem stuck on half a view. I cannot read what you are barking in your perceptions when reading your quotes


Just another half! Maybe the other half will join soon.

Knock it off !



Sorry but all Sentient beings suffer Aloka, worms included

What has that got to do with "Buddha Nature" and the meaning I quoted which was "Unrealised enlightened mind, the essential nature of all sentient beings" ?

Worms don't have "unrealised enlightened mind " .....or the ability to understand concepts such as "I am suffering"


"Earthworms have simple brains which specialize in directing body movement in response to light, and not much else. To show how simple the brain is, if an earthworm's brain is removed, changes in its general behavior are hardly noticeable."

http://www.backyardnature.net/earthwrm.htm




It seems like you are promoting your own kind of Buddhism.

Did you read the link ?

In making that statement, Gaoxing, it seems like you are promoting yourself as an expert on Buddhism, as well as making an inappropriate accusation.


.

ZenosTurtle
12 Sep 12, 15:47
As somebody (presumably a Buddhist) once said, "Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional." The language of Buddhism can be quite technical. When I'm dealing with non Buddhists I can use the words pain and suffering interchangeably and nobody cries 'non-sense.' Among Buddhists one has to be more careful.

Element
12 Sep 12, 21:21
"Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional." When I'm dealing with non Buddhists I can use the words pain and suffering interchangeably and nobody cries 'non-sense.' Among Buddhists one has to be more careful.
Pain is certainly inevitable. Suffering is certainly optional. With non Buddhists, we can certainly use the words pain and suffering interchangeably and nobody cries 'non-sense.' But, with Buddha, he distinguished clearly between pain & suffering, so for Buddhists, synonymous use of these two words is non-sense. Buddha taught about suffering & non-suffering

If a worm is capable of being seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine', a worm is capable of suffering. If not, then no suffering.


There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change & alteration.

There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its change & alteration.

Nakulapita Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html)
The language of Buddhism is not really technical. It is just we generally do not give it the appropriate attention.

Regards ;D

Element
12 Sep 12, 21:26
Just another half! Maybe the other half will join soon. :up2:
Not so. Buddha taught of the two halves, only one half is suffering, as follows:


When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling.

But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one.

Sallatha Sutta: The Darts (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html)

:shake:

ZenosTurtle
12 Sep 12, 23:23
The language of Buddhism is not really technical.
Regards ;D

Is so.

Gaoxing
13 Sep 12, 04:47
You seem stuck on half a view. I cannot read what you are barking in your perceptions when reading your quotes


Just another half! Maybe the other half will join soon.

Knock it off !



Sorry but all Sentient beings suffer Aloka, worms included

What has that got to do with "Buddha Nature" and the meaning I quoted which was "Unrealised enlightened mind, the essential nature of all sentient beings" ?

Worms don't have "unrealised enlightened mind " .....or the ability to understand concepts such as "I am suffering"


"Earthworms have simple brains which specialize in directing body movement in response to light, and not much else. To show how simple the brain is, if an earthworm's brain is removed, changes in its general behavior are hardly noticeable."

http://www.backyardnature.net/earthwrm.htm




It seems like you are promoting your own kind of Buddhism.

Did you read the link ?

In making that statement, Gaoxing, it seems like you are promoting yourself as an expert on Buddhism, as well as making an inappropriate accusation.





You are free to delude yourself! Bye bye!

Aloka
13 Sep 12, 06:17
You are free to delude yourself! Bye bye!


May you be well, and may you find happiness and peace of mind.

Bye Bye ! :wave:

Deshy
13 Sep 12, 12:08
I dunno much about Solipsim or Buddhism really but it is from reading Buddhist teaching and hearing a quote from the philosopher Henri Bergson that I made the original post, which is not my "opinion". What are opinions or views worth? Which is the correct view of a house?

Is this not Buddhism: a "chair" exists, in the form of the various elements or parts which are given the label "chair" by us. The parts, labelled chair, exist. The Chair itself is a mere label, or attribution by mind.

There is the collection of parts, upon which we impute the "chair". This works, as a practical arrangement, and seems true to reality.

The problems arise when we begin to believe that the "chair" really exists in an independent sense, other than as a mere aggregate of parts given a label of "chair".

The parts are real enough, relatively speaking. In relation to my toe, they are pretty solid, as I discover if I stub my toe against them. But the "chair"? What is that, beyond a creation of mind?

Is that Buddhism, or solipsism?

This thread has gone a long way since I last saw it so I will only attempt to answer this.

A chair is rupa - solidity, liquidity heat, air. One, few or all of them. Whether or not your mind labels it, or how it labels it, it exists independent of your perception of it. Thinking it does not and its existance is only a mind-made reality is solipsism.

Mardale
13 Sep 12, 21:42
This thread has gone a long way since I last saw it so I will only attempt to answer this.

A chair is rupa - solidity, liquidity heat, air. One, few or all of them. Whether or not your mind labels it, or how it labels it, it exists independent of your perception of it. Thinking it does not and its existance is only a mind-made reality is solipsism.

Yes, I think I said that the parts of the thing exist, as you say they do.

But "the chair" is a mere label imposed upon those parts, or elements, is it not?

I might be a radical furniture designer, and design a radical chair.

It might be so radical that someone else, seeing it for the first time, does not realise that it is "a chair". They may label it as "a sculpture", or "a wierd coffee table", or they may not be able to assign a label.

Are they right, or am I?

The energy patterns of the universe are there. Nobody knows why, or how, but there they are.

Things are energy patterns. Even we are temporary patterns of energy.

How we label these patterns is how we conjure up the "phenomenal world" of our experience. The "noumena", which might be called the energy patterns themselves, are by definition beyond our ken, for how can we know that which lies beyond our experience? I leave aside mystical experience as an unknown possibility as far as I know.

There seems to be a teaching somewhere that is teaching us that there are issues with all this labelling, and that we perhaps might consider realising that the labels are mere labels that we are imposing upon these energy patterns.

Teaching us to go with the flow, as it were, rather than get tangled up with all the labels!

Deshy
14 Sep 12, 03:18
Yes, I think I said that the parts of the thing exist, as you say they do.

But "the chair" is a mere label imposed upon those parts, or elements, is it not?

I might be a radical furniture designer, and design a radical chair.

It might be so radical that someone else, seeing it for the first time, does not realise that it is "a chair". They may label it as "a sculpture", or "a wierd coffee table", or they may not be able to assign a label.

Are they right, or am I?

The energy patterns of the universe are there. Nobody knows why, or how, but there they are.

Things are energy patterns. Even we are temporary patterns of energy.

How we label these patterns is how we conjure up the "phenomenal world" of our experience. The "noumena", which might be called the energy patterns themselves, are by definition beyond our ken, for how can we know that which lies beyond our experience? I leave aside mystical experience as an unknown possibility as far as I know.

There seems to be a teaching somewhere that is teaching us that there are issues with all this labelling, and that we perhaps might consider realising that the labels are mere labels that we are imposing upon these energy patterns.

Teaching us to go with the flow, as it were, rather than get tangled up with all the labels!

As I said, practice is not to abandon labels and perceptions. Practice is for non-attachment which arises with experiential wisdom into the 3 qualities of phenomena - impermanence, suffering and not-self. Nibbana is merely replacing unwholesome perceptions with wholesome. Replacing fabrications with wisdom rather than blank mind.

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 05:37
Yes, I think I said that the parts of the thing exist, as you say they do.

But "the chair" is a mere label imposed upon those parts, or elements, is it not?

I might be a radical furniture designer, and design a radical chair.

It might be so radical that someone else, seeing it for the first time, does not realise that it is "a chair". They may label it as "a sculpture", or "a wierd coffee table", or they may not be able to assign a label.

Are they right, or am I?

The energy patterns of the universe are there. Nobody knows why, or how, but there they are.

Things are energy patterns. Even we are temporary patterns of energy.

How we label these patterns is how we conjure up the "phenomenal world" of our experience. The "noumena", which might be called the energy patterns themselves, are by definition beyond our ken, for how can we know that which lies beyond our experience? I leave aside mystical experience as an unknown possibility as far as I know.

There seems to be a teaching somewhere that is teaching us that there are issues with all this labelling, and that we perhaps might consider realising that the labels are mere labels that we are imposing upon these energy patterns.

Teaching us to go with the flow, as it were, rather than get tangled up with all the labels!Very well said. I think a 'Blank Mind' (spook thought) is just a practical impossibility while a mind without labels is practically quite possible to experience. In this experience suffering (Dukkha) certainly ends. (Speaking from experience and not a million Damma books)

Deshy
14 Sep 12, 06:47
Very well said. I think a 'Blank Mind' (spook thought) is just a practical impossibility while a mind without labels is practically quite possible to experience. In this experience suffering (Dukkha) certainly ends. (Speaking from experience and not a million Damma books)

Speaking from experience which is not contradictory to Buddha Damma, I can say that, only detachment brings the end of suffering. Abandoning labelling - a book as a book and the rest of the conventional references in day-to-day life do not necessarily end the mind's attachment to these objects or the self.

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 08:57
Speaking from experience which is not contradictory to Buddha Dhamma, I can say that, only detachment brings the end of suffering. Abandoning labelling - a book as a book and the rest of the conventional references in day-to-day life do not necessarily end the mind's attachment to these objects or the self.Sunnata mind has automatically no attachments. Interpretations of the Buddha Damma varies much! Not to contradict the Dhamma it is Not-self and Impermanence that realises detachment. IMO Pragmatism comes first and then the Dhamma and in the end I would run from Dhamma as fast as possible!:up2:

Element
14 Sep 12, 09:38
...a mind without labels is practically quite possible to experience. In this experience suffering (Dukkha) certainly ends.
This is true. But it is not the end of suffering. It is just temporary end of suffering. For example, in MN 43, five kinds of liberation are listed but only the last is Buddha liberation. The others, like what you describe, are temporary & samadhi states.


(Speaking from experience and not a million Damma books)
The Dhamma books explain what is not yet experienced. The Dhamma books show us maturity has not yet been reached. Only a fool, with no regard for Buddha, rebels against the Dhamma books.


Sunnata mind has automatically no attachments.
The meditation masters comment on two kinds of 'emptiness'. Literal emptiness of samadhi & true emptiness of insight. There is a difference.

For example, the mind that rebels against the 'elements' does not have insight emptiness. It has only experienced the supression of thought. In true insight, the mind feels & directly experiences the various elements.

;D

srivijaya
14 Sep 12, 10:12
I dunno much about Solipsim or Buddhism really but it is from reading Buddhist teaching and hearing a quote from the philosopher Henri Bergson that I made the original post, which is not my "opinion". What are opinions or views worth? Which is the correct view of a house?

Is this not Buddhism: a "chair" exists, in the form of the various elements or parts which are given the label "chair" by us. The parts, labelled chair, exist. The Chair itself is a mere label, or attribution by mind.

There is the collection of parts, upon which we impute the "chair". This works, as a practical arrangement, and seems true to reality.

The problems arise when we begin to believe that the "chair" really exists in an independent sense, other than as a mere aggregate of parts given a label of "chair".

The parts are real enough, relatively speaking. In relation to my toe, they are pretty solid, as I discover if I stub my toe against them. But the "chair"? What is that, beyond a creation of mind?

Is that Buddhism, or solipsism?
Hi Mardale,
I know that the argument runs thus: we believe XYZ exits from its own side so we act in a given way. When we understand that it doesn't, we see emptiness and thus banish ignorance.

So the question of whether something exists or not becomes critical when we are "informed" that the correct penetration of this philosophy is a prerequisite to insight.

It isn't.

An intellectual position one way or the other may help suppress desire or anger, but it's not the relinquishment Buddha taught. The insight which will slowly... slowly... unbind the bonds is found within meditation, rather than discursive reasoning.

:hands:

Deshy
14 Sep 12, 11:11
Sunnata mind has automatically no attachments.

Not so. A mind which does not label its experiences is not necessarily liberated; just suppressed. A mind which is liberated does not necessary abandon labelling/perceptions either. The Buddha himself explained his experiences as pain and pleasure. Rather than non-perception, his mind was established in non-attachment.

Ending perception is a samadhi absorption (nirodha samapatti) rather than real freedom of mind. A mind which is free from suffering can carry conventional labels (nice house, good kamma, unpleasent pain in the stomach, beautiful city) without attachment/aversion/confusion. Therefore, liberation is related to experiential wisdom and insight rather than denial of feelings and perceptions.

Element
14 Sep 12, 12:03
Abandoning labelling - do not necessarily end the mind's attachment
How can abandoning labelling be liberation or freedom? What happens when the mind must label, such as when communicating? Does the mind go from the 'liberation' of non-labelling to the 'bondage' of labelling?

In his innate wisdom, after mastering the practises of his 1st two teachers, the Buddha-To-Be rejected non-labelling as liberation, which is why non-labelling cannot be found in the original scriptures as explaining the True Dhamma.

In the Pali, it is reported Buddha explained non-labelling was a conditioned state. In being so, it is not sunnata, given sunnata is the innate characteristic of all phenomena, including labelling. In right understanding, both labelling & non-labelling are sunnata, just as each of the five aggregates is sunnata.

Regards

:peace:


One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.'

One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

MN 140

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 12:04
Hi Mardale,
I know that the argument runs thus: we believe XYZ exits from its own side so we act in a given way. When we understand that it doesn't, we see emptiness and thus banish ignorance.

So the question of whether something exists or not becomes critical when we are "informed" that the correct penetration of this philosophy is a prerequisite to insight.

It isn't.

An intellectual position one way or the other may help suppress desire or anger, but it's not the relinquishment Buddha taught. The insight which will slowly... slowly... unbind the bonds is found within meditation, rather than discursive reasoning.

:hands:This is very well said and very true!

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 12:07
Not so. A mind which does not label its experiences is not necessarily liberated; just suppressed. A mind which is liberated does not necessary abandon labelling/perceptions either. The Buddha himself explained his experiences as pain and pleasure. Rather than non-perception, his mind was established in non-attachment.

Ending perception is a samadhi absorption (nirodha samapatti) rather than real freedom of mind. A mind which is free from suffering can carry conventional labels (nice house, good kamma, unpleasent pain in the stomach, beautiful city) without attachment/aversion/confusion. Therefore, liberation is related to experiential wisdom and insight rather than denial of feelings and perceptions.
Wow! Do you even know Sunnata at all? How do you get to combine non-labeling with non-perception? I thought the unconditioned is a real experience but here we are back at confusing the issues at hand. IMO intelligence need not be assumed non-existing.

Dhamma remains the boat to be left at the river and not the snare to get stuck in!

Element
14 Sep 12, 12:10
Wow! Do you even know Sunata at all?
How can "you" know sunnata?

:saucer:

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 12:20
This is true. But it is not the end of suffering. It is just temporary end of suffering. For example, in MN 43, five kinds of liberation are listed but only the last is Buddha liberation. The others, like what you describe, are temporary & samadhi states.


The Dhamma books explain what is not yet experienced. The Dhamma books show us maturity has not yet been reached. Only a fool, with no regard for Buddha, rebels against the Dhamma books.


The meditation masters comment on two kinds of 'emptiness'. Literal emptiness of samadhi & true emptiness of insight. There is a difference.

For example, the mind that rebels against the 'elements' does not have insight emptiness. It has only experienced the supression of thought. In true insight, the mind feels & directly experiences the various elements.

;DGaoxing is not rebelling against the elements. Gaoxing knows that nomenclature or semantics are just rubbish when it comes to liberation experience. Dhamma remains a conditioned concoction. What is ineffable is to be found on the other side of the river and there Dhamma has no use!

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 12:21
How can "you" know sunnata?

:saucer:Sure! How can you ask such a question?

Element
14 Sep 12, 12:22
Sure! How can you ask such a question?
"You" ask a question?

:dontknow:

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 12:28
"You" ask a question?

:dontknow:
There we go! If emptiness is seen, words brings the limits due to their inability to express the ineffable, but only to the UN-skilled and unfamiliar.

andyrobyn
14 Sep 12, 12:34
There we go! If emptiness is seen, words brings the limits due their inability to express the ineffable, but only to the UN-skilled and unfamiliar.

Will you explain more about how it is so to only the unskilled and unfamiliar ... ie. in regard to what? Thanks in advance

Element
14 Sep 12, 12:43
Gaoxing is not rebelling against the elements. Gaoxing knows that nomenclature or semantics are just rubbish when it comes to liberation experience. Dhamma remains a conditioned concoction. What is ineffable is to be found on the other side of the river and there Dhamma has no use!
When the mind reaches jhana & beyond, it vividly experiences the elements, such as rapture or pure defilement, as phenomena distinctly 'separate' from the clarity & stillness is conscious awareness. Or before jhana, it experiences the dances & nuances of the breath & body in relationship.

It is like the ocean. The ocean is a simile Buddha used for Nibbana.

Often, the undifferentiated surface of the ocean is experienced & believed to be Nibbana. But the mind with real clarity is sparkling clear and sees the different colours, corals, fishes, etc, within the ocean. This is an analogy for intelligent people to understand.

Is meditation like this?

http://i48.tinypic.com/2zs0krc.jpg

Or like this?

http://i50.tinypic.com/5ob34m.jpg

That is , like this:


To study the Way
is to study the self.

To study the self
is to forget the self.

To forget the self
is to be enlightened
by the ten thousand things.

Eihei Dogen

That is, like this:


[1] discerns, 'breathing in long';

[2] discerns, 'breathing in short';

[3] sensitive to all kaya

[4] calming bodily conditioner

[5] sensitive to rapture

[6] sensitive to pleasure

[7] sensitive to the mental conditioner

[8] calming the mental conditioner

[9] sensitive to cittas

[10] satisfaction of mind

[11] pure concentration of mind

[12] releasing of mind.

[13] experiencing inconstancy

[14] experiencing dispassion [literally, fading]

[15] experiencing cessation.

[16] experiencing relinquishment.

MN 118

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 12:50
Will you explain more about how it is so to only the unskilled and unfamiliar ... ie. in regard to what? Thanks in advanceUsing the terms 'I', 'You', 'Me' etc. can be by either a Sunnata mind that sees Emptiness directly or by 'someone' not seeing emptiness. If the mind sees Emptiness directly words cannot bring limits because emptiness is seen directly but to the UN-skilled and unfamiliar mind words brings a limit to insight because that mind does not see Emptiness directly and still falls back into the Atman trap. The skilled or those familiar with Emptiness cannot be limited by words as their experience speaks louder than words.

Element
14 Sep 12, 12:53
There we go! If emptiness is seen, words brings the limits due to their inability to express the ineffable...
non-sense

reality is expressed like this: "Wow! Does the mind even know Sunata at all?"

:bunny:

'the mind' is impersonal & thus sunnata

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 12:57
non-sense

reality is expressed like this: "Wow! Does the mind even know Sunata at all?"

:bunny:

'the mind' is impersonal & thus sunnataYeah! a kiss on both cheeks for you, you funny Australian Bunny!

Element
14 Sep 12, 13:00
Using the terms 'I', 'You', 'Me' etc. can be by either by a Sunnata mind that sees Emptiness directly or by 'someone' not seeing emptiness.
Using the terms 'I', 'You', 'Me' etc. can be by either by a Sunnata mind that sees Emptiness directly or by a Sunnata mind not seeing emptiness. all mind, whether enlightened or ignorant, is Sunnata


If the mind sees Emptiness directly words cannot bring limits
Well spoken! therefore, why the scores of posts on this forum about "non-conceptuality" & the like?


words brings a limit to insight
non-sequitur. this notion has not been mentioned in any post before. it has not been posted before that words can lead to insight. please stay on topic

:topic:


because that mind does not see Emptiness directly and still falls back into the Atman trap.
oh the rhetoric :sheep:


The skilled or those familiar with Emptiness cannot be limited by words as their experience speaks louder than words.
:papanca:

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 13:13
Using the terms 'I', 'You', 'Me' etc. can be by either by a Sunnata mind that sees Emptiness directly or by a Sunnata mind not seeing emptiness. all mind, whether enlightened or ignorant, is Sunnata


Well spoken! therefore, why the scores of posts on this forum about "non-conceptuality" & the like?


non-sequitur. this notion has not been mentioned in any post before. it has not been posted before that words can lead to insight. please stay on topic

:topic:


oh the rhetoric


:papanca::papanca::meditate:

Deshy
14 Sep 12, 13:49
Wow! Do you even know Sunnata at all?

The way I understand, emptiness is the experiential realization that the five aggregates are void of a permanent entity to be called a self. A person arising from this meditative realization, can continue to have conventional labels to things such as "this is good, this is bad, this is my robe and kuti, my body feels pain, the cushion is comfortable" etc. Why shouldn't there be? There are instances where the Buddha had expressed the beauty of city rajagaha, the comfort of a silk material, the pain of a sick body or wholesome/unwholesome actions.

Non-labeling cannot be compared to non-attachment. Non-labeling is not necessarily freedom from suffering. Non-attachment clearly is.

Deshy
14 Sep 12, 13:55
Dhamma remains the boat to be left at the river and not the snare to get stuck in!

No one here is disagreeing with the importance of real practice compared to dhamma discussion or dhamma scholarly.

Gaoxing
14 Sep 12, 13:57
The way I understand, emptiness is the experiential realization that the five aggregates are void of a permanent entity to be called a self. A person arising from this meditative realization, can continue to have conventional labels to things such as "this is good, this is bad, this is my robe and kuti, my body feels pain, the cushion is comfortable" etc. Why shouldn't there be? There are instances where the Buddha had expressed the beauty of city rajagaha, the comfort of a silk material, the pain of a sick body or wholesome/unwholesome actions.

Non-labeling cannot be compared to non-attachment. Non-labeling is not necessarily freedom from suffering. Non-attachment clearly is.Cool!:cool:

Deshy
14 Sep 12, 14:04
Cool!:cool:

Cool. Nonetheless, earlier you seem to have held the view that it is non-labeling which leads to cessation of suffering.


a mind without labels is practically quite possible to experience. In this experience suffering (Dukkha) certainly ends.

Mardale
14 Sep 12, 19:56
Speaking from experience which is not contradictory to Buddha Damma, I can say that, only detachment brings the end of suffering. Abandoning labelling - a book as a book and the rest of the conventional references in day-to-day life do not necessarily end the mind's attachment to these objects or the self.

Yes, but it's a start, isn't it? Some of us are mere dabblers and beginners and ignoramuses, you know!

srivijaya
14 Sep 12, 21:30
Yes, but it's a start, isn't it?
More a kind of distraction than a start.

Some of us are mere dabblers and beginners and ignoramuses, you know!
Ignoramuses etc. are folks who lack specific knowledge. Leave such considerations behind you.
Are you still breathing? Can you be aware of it? Then you have "a start".

andyrobyn
14 Sep 12, 23:16
Using the terms 'I', 'You', 'Me' etc. can be by either a Sunnata mind that sees Emptiness directly or by 'someone' not seeing emptiness. If the mind sees Emptiness directly words cannot bring limits because emptiness is seen directly but to the UN-skilled and unfamiliar mind words brings a limit to insight because that mind does not see Emptiness directly and still falls back into the Atman trap. The skilled or those familiar with Emptiness cannot be limited by words as their experience speaks louder than words.

I thought that was what you were referring too. just wondered if there was something more I was missing - words are so inadequate ( especially written online ) at times, I find - thanks again.

Deshy
15 Sep 12, 06:28
Yes, but it's a start, isn't it? Some of us are mere dabblers and beginners and ignoramuses, you know!

My beginner's understanding is that some meditation masters teach not to label experiences for the following reason:

When your sense organs make contact with a sense object, the initial cognition is usually tainted in a patujjana. When we perceive things as "this is pleasant, this tastes great, this feels so good etc." it usually leads to subtle mental clinging to that pleasant sensory experience. We do not even recognize it at the time until it develops into fully-grown attachments.

Therefore, some meditation masters teach you to stop labeling sensory experiences and dwell in a somewhat "suppressed" mind, which regards all experiences as the same - having the three qualities. This is merely a mental training rather than cessation of suffering. This training technique settles some of the mental agitation and internal dialogues which distract samadhi. For a practitioner who has spent years of his life vexed by this constant back and forth of the mind (clinging/aversion/confusion), this new technique gives momentary peace and happiness. Momentary letting go. However, practice will tell you that this experience is "no big deal".

True liberation is meant to happen with experiential meditative insight. An arahath continues to see colors in flowers and say they look beautiful. They can see a beautiful woman and say she looks beautiful. Their minds are liberated from clinging and craving rather than "conventional vocabulary or the sensory world". They continue to recognize pain as pain, pleasure as pleasure, beauty as beauty, good taste as good taste without clinging to the texture of the sensory experience. They have merely cooled off rather than drifted off from the rest of the world.

As Srivijaya said, if you approach this specific training method with right understanding, you can make it helpful to your practice. Otherwise it is easy to get lost in the whole new experience or the peace of jhana and waste one's time with it.