do animals have a soul?
-
Originally posted by Millenium Falcon:
Of course animals can feel pain. They have nervous system.This reason is sufficient to tell non-buddhist to avoid violence. No point arguing in different perspectives from christian and buddhist's view on soul and no-soul.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
This reason is sufficient to tell non-buddhist to avoid violence. No point arguing in different perspectives from christian and buddhist's view on soul and no-soul.
Ok, thanks for the advice.
-
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Ko'an - "True Self"
A distraught man approached the Zen master. "Please, Master, I feel lost, desperate. I don't know who I am. Please, show me my true self!" But the teacher just looked away without responding. The man began to plead and beg, but still the master gave no reply. Finally giving up in frustration, the man turned to leave. At that moment the master called out to him by name. "Yes!" the man said as he spun back around. "There it is!" exclaimed the master.---------------------------------
Shurangama Sutra
Chapter 2
...Examining them closely, I find that kshana by kshana, thought after thought, they never stop. And so I know my body will keep changing until it has perished."
The Buddha told the Great King (Prasenajit), "By watching the ceaseless changes of these transformations, you awaken and know of your perishing, but do you also know that at the time of perishing there is something in your body which does not become extinct?"
King Prasenajit put his palms together and said to the Buddha, "I really do not know."
The Buddha said, "I will now show you the nature which is neither produced and nor extinguished. Great King, how old were you when you saw the waters of the Ganges?"
The King said, "When I was three years old my compassionate mother led me to visit the goddess Jiva. We passed a river, and at the time I knew it was the waters of the Ganges."
The Buddha said, "Great King, you have said that when you were twenty you had deteriorated from when you were ten. Day by day, month by month, year by year until you reached sixty, in thought after thought there has been change. Yet when you saw the Ganges River at the age of three, how was your seeing nature different from when you were thirteen?"
The King said, "It was no different from when I was three, and even now when I am sixty-two it is still no different."
The Buddha said, "Now you are mournful that your hair is white and your face wrinkled. In the same way that your face is definitely more wrinkled then it was in your youth, has the seeing with which you look at the Ganges aged, so that it is old now but was young when you looked at the river as a child in the past?"
The King said, "No, Bhagavan."
The Buddha said, "Great King, your face is wrinkled, but the essential nature of your seeing will never wrinkle. What wrinkles is subject to change. What does not wrinkle does not change. What changes will perish, but what does not change is fundamentally free of production and extinction. How could it be subject to your birth and death? Furthermore, why bring up what Maskari G oshaliputra and the others say: that after the death of this body there is total annihilation?"
The king heard these words, believed them, and realized that when the life of this body is finished, there will be rebirth. He and the entire great assembly were greatly delighted at having obtained what they never had before.
http://www.e-sangha.com/alphone/shurangama.htmlps: the essential nature together are known as �闻觉知.
�属知�身属觉�眼属��耳属闻�鼻属嗅�舌属�,这些就是�闻觉知的性能。
/\
You are still seeing an 'essence'... therefore you can't understand beyond substantial non-dual.
What Namdrol said stands true here... whatever the Buddha teaches... even the Tathagatagarbha etc, are simply ways to point out emptiness.
Any time the Buddha says something permanent... that must be referring to emptiness. There is no ultimate reality in Buddhism. However, the truth of emptiness is ultimate in Buddhism.
So actually what Shurangama Sutra said here is simply talking about emptiness. It is not talking about a permanent substance like Brahman... a unchanging awareness of sorts.
I used to have this view last year... when I was still at the I AM and substantial non-dual stage of experience. I thought that Shurangama Sutra is talking about a permanent awareness that transcends the coming and goings of impermanent bodies... but this is a false understanding of what Shurangama Sutra meant, and is no different from the deviant views of the externalists. After realizing Anatta... the view of a substantial metaphysical essence (like the I AM or substantial non-dual) is overthrown.
This view (of an essence) is criticized by many masters before (but unfortunately most teachers today only reach substantial non-dual level of understanding and experience)... including but not limited to Zen Master Dogen, who criticized the Hindu view called 'Senika heresy'. (since he too, has gone through that phase before going to China) ...While Dogen’s most articulate critiques are those refutations of the non-Buddhist Indian teaching of Senika, his disparagement of all dualism permeate his works.... ...In his later years Dogen often severely criticized the Senika heresy (sennigedo), which is the erroneous view that the mind abides while the form perishes. According to this view, there is a bright spiritual intelligence contained in our body that is the source of self-understanding. When the body dies, the spiritual intelligence alone does not perish but abides immutably. This view, Dogen argues, when "hearing of the doctrine of this very mind [itself is buddha], take it to mean that the discriminating knowledge of sentient beings is itself the buddha." In hearing of the doctrine of the Buddha-nature, it "regards the movement or stillness of wind and fire as the enlightenment of the Buddha-nature."...
In other words, Impermanence is Buddha-Nature.
The verse you quoted is saying that visual consciousness does not come into being on its own (independent of conditions), nor does it come from causes and conditions. Why? Because no independent visual consciousness, nor an independent cause and conditions can be establish. Nothing whatsoever can be established. æ— ä¸€æ³•å�¯ç«‹.
For example, the 'nature of seeing', which actually is more accurately translated as 'the nature of visual awareness' (and is translated as such in the newer translation of Shurangama Sutra), is emptiness. Emptiness is the nature of all six forms of awareness... visual, auditory, etc... awareness.
Being as such, the nature of the various awareness (visual, auditory, etc...) is that it is empty and unestablished, unconditioned, without birth and dying. The relative truth of things (body, house, etc) is that things are born and die (when taken to be entities), yet what is born and die when realized to be empty is beyond birth and death - that includes visual awareness, auditory awareness, etc... and so it is stated:
That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa.
~ Nagarjuna
Also, Shurangama Sutra has many chapters demonstrating how due to the empty nature of the various types of consciousness... auditory, visual, etc, they are beyond causation nor independent spontaneous arising. Why? Nothing can be established as independently existing, not consciousness, not even the causes and conditions.
As I quoted under a part called 'Total Causality is Unconditionality' in my Certainty of Being thread...
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/390582?page=14
"Morever, Ananda, according to your understanding of it, the ear-faculty and sounds are the conditions for the coming into being of the ear-consciousness. But does this consciousness come into being from the ear-faculty such that it is restricted by the boundaries of the ear-faculty? Or does it come into being from sounds, such that it is restricted by the boundaries of sound?
"Suppose, Ananda, that it came into being from the ear-faculty. But without the presence of either sound or silence, the ear-faculty would not be aware of anything. If the ear-faculty lacked awareness, because there would no objects for it to be aware of, then what attributes could the consciousness have? You may insist that it is the ears that hear. But without the presence of sound or silence, no hearing can take place. Also, the ear is covered with skin, and the body-faculty is involved with objects of touch. Could the ear-consciousness come into being from that faculty? Since it cannot, what can the ear-consciousness be based on?
"Suppose the ear-consciousness came into being from sounds. If the ear-consciousness owed its existence to sounds, then it would have nothing to do with hearing. But if no hearing is taking place, how would you know where sounds are coming from? Suppose, nevertheless, that the ear-consciousness did arise from sound. Since a sound must be heard if it is to be what we know as a sound, the ear-consciousness would also be heard as a sound. And when it is not heard, it would not exist. Besides, if it is heard, then it would be the same thing as a sound; it would be something that is heard. But what would be able to hear it? And if you had no awareness, you would be as insentient as grass or wood.
"Do not say that sounds, which have no awareness, and the ear-faculty, which is aware, can intermingle to create the ear-consciousness. There can be no such place where these two can mix together, since one is internal and the other is external. Where else then could the ear consciousness come into being?
"Therefore, you should know that the ear-faculty and sounds cannot be the conditions for the coming into being of the ear-consciousness, because none of these three constituents - ear-faculty, sounds, and ear-consciousness, has an independent existence. Fundamentally, they do not come into being from causes and conditions; nor do they come into being on its own.
~ The Surangama Sutra - A New Translation with Excerpts from the Commentary by the Venerable Master Hsuan Hua, page 111
This is similar to what Thusness said few days ago at the Seeing thread:
The "world of our senses" is neither existent nor nonexistent; hence neither created nor self-existing.
The 'world' is an activity itself. The senses, the mental factors, the forms do not alienate each other from before beginning. Therefore there is no 'the world' besides these ongoing activities.
Therefore we must understand that when we talk about 'not coming into being from causes and conditions, nor do they come into being on its own', we are talking about the various consciousness 'not having independent existence', 'unestablished' - it is not because there is a permanent substance.
-
Any time the Buddha says something permanent... that must be referring to emptiness. There is no ultimate reality in Buddhism. However, the truth of emptiness is ultimate in Buddhism.
Good point EN, appreciate your always perceptive detailed post, I just discovered this forum and your blog thru dharmaoverground.
I think many practitioners held on to the substantial non-dual because it is not as scary as the ultimate emptiness. To accept emptiness as it truly is demands a lot of courage.
I come from long time zen practice, discovering your blog and thusness writings encourage me to pick up the slack. Your e-book is especially inspiring since everything is in one place. I will re-read my copies of shurangama sutra with ven hsua hua commentaries which I bought around long time ago
-
:) to write 'essence' is so i can type out in word. yes, it's still mundane saying.
i thinking the sutra texts are pretty straight forward and simple. and actually i think the various types of consciousness faculty given in this part of the Shurangama sutra(u qouted) is different, still mundane and false from what the Buddha is refering of the "essence of nature". i think the " essential nature of seeing" is what our old master mentioned as �性�色性 or nature of seeing, seeing the nature of form instead of the ordinary seeing that people think. it's not 眼�色.
at certain part, Buddha aka it as "the six entrances are basically the wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata" . i think it is 法�法�,法尔如是, "All are always and already so" as in ur website. it's fundamentally free of production and extinction as Buddha Simply stated. the later part of the sutra is teaching Ananda not to have attachment, dualism and wandering thoughts So as to reach this "state". and the process of getting rid of wandering thoughts, dualism and attachment is "Empting" the mind as u are refering. i think it's refering to ur website's Stage 7: Presence is Spontaneously Perfected, yet it's still link to Emptiness.
"Thus you should know that the essential, enlightened wonderful brightness is due to neither causes nor conditions nor does it arise spontaneously. Nor is it the negation of spontaneity. It is neither a negation nor the denial of a negation.
Ananda said to the Buddha, "If the nature of the wonderful enlightenment has neither causes nor conditions then why does Bhagavan always tell the bhikshus that the nature of seeing derives from the four conditions of emptiness, brightness, the mind, and the eyes? What does that mean?"
The Buddha said, "Ananda, what I have spoken about causes and conditions in the mundane sense does not describe the primary meaning. "
Ananda, I ask you again: people in the world say, 'I can see.'
What is that 'seeing'? And what is 'not seeing'?"
Ananda said, "The light of the sun, the moon, and lamps is the cause that allows people in the world to see all kinds of appearances: that is called seeing. Without these three kinds of light, they would not be able to see."
"Ananda, if you say there is no seeing in the absence of light, then you should not see darkness. If in fact you do see darkness, which is just lack of light, how can you say there is no seeing?"
"Ananda, if, when it is dark, you call that 'not seeing' because you do not see light, then since it is now light and you do not see the characteristic of darkness, that should also be called 'not seeing.' Thus, both aspects would be called 'not seeing.' Although these two aspects counteract each other, your seeing-nature does not lapse for an instant. Thus you should know that seeing continues in both cases. How, then, can you say there is no seeing?
"Therefore, Ananda, you should know that when you see light, the seeing is not the light. When you see darkness, the seeing is not the darkness. When you see emptiness, the seeing is not the emptiness. When you see solid objects, the seeing is not the solid objects. And by extention of these four facts, you should also know that when you see your seeing, the seeing is not that seeing . Since the former seeing is beyond the latter, the latter cannot reach it. Such being the case, how can you describe it as being due to causes and conditions or spontaneity or that it has something to do with mixing and uniting? You narrow-minded Hearers are so inferior and ignorant that you are unable to penetrate through to the purity of ultimate reality. Now I will continue to instruct you. Consider well what is said. Do not become weary or negligent on the wonderful road to Bodhi."
http://www.e-sangha.com/alphone/shurangama.htmlChapter 3
"Furthermore, Ananda, why do I say that the six entrances are basically the wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata? Ananda, although the eyes' staring causes fatigue, both the eye and the fatigue originate in Bodhi. The attributes of the fatigue come from the staring. Because of the two false defiling attributes of light and dark, a sense of seeing is stimulated which in turn draws in those two defiling attributes. That is called the ability to see. Apart from these two defiling attributes of light and dark, this seeing is ultimately without substance. In fact, Ananda, you should know that seeing does not originate from light or dark, nor from the sense organ, nor from emptiness. Why not? If it originated from light, then it would be extinguished when there was darkness, and you would not see darkness. If it came from darkness, then it would be extinguished when there was light, and you would not see light. If the essence of seeing came from the sense organ, which is obviously devoid of light and dark, then in that case, basically no seeing could take place. If it came from emptiness, then looking ahead it would see the shapes of mundane phenomena; looking back, it should see the eye itself. Moreover, if emptiness itself did the seeing, what would that have to do with your eye? From this you should understand that the eye-entrance is empty and false. Fundamentally its nature cannot be attributed to either causes and conditions or spontaneity.our old master taught that from the experiment of Dr Masaru Emoto of the water crystal teach us that water can see, hear, feel and know. it has �闻觉知. not just water, everything have �闻觉知 or "six entrances". even a rock have �闻觉知 and can see, hear, feel and know, which is basically the wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata. hence MCK told Dr Emoto to continue research on other things, like cook rice, rock etc.
this is neither seeing Nor not seeing. it just is seeing.
when i say all this, it does not mean i'm negating Emptiness. nor very attached to this existence of non emptiness. as opposte to becoming into a form of nothingness thinking. nor is it same as the eternalist of permanent substance like Brahman.
one have to have Emptiness before reaching this True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata per se. as Namdrol is refering. i think to say Tathagata is emptiness is still missing the mark as to saying it's existence is also missing the mark(?).
all and all, i'm neither attached to this existence nor emptiness, which is the true emptiness.
真空�空, 妙有�有.
TRUE Emptiness isn't empty. Brilliant Existence isn't existence.
i recall a saying that it's easier to know Form is Emptiness, while to realise Emptiness is Form take a life time or more difficult. HHDL also said something quite similar i think.
one of Shurangama sutra line i like most is that the Light(En-light-enment) is already switched On. don't think it's not switch on and go and flip the switch. u'll only switch it off.
imho,
it's Huineng's "finalised" saying,
å…祖大師法寶壇經:
何期自性本自清淨。True Nature is Originally Pure.
何期自性本�生滅。True Nature is Originally neither arising nor ceasing.
何期自性本自具足。True Nature is Originally Inclusive
何期自性本無動�。True Nature is Originally Still.
何期自性能生�法。True Nature is able to Produce all dharma.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
:) to write 'essence' is so i can type out in word. yes, it's still mundane saying.
i thinking the sutra texts are pretty straight forward and simple. and actually i think the various types of consciousness faculty given in this part of the Shurangama sutra(u qouted) is different, still mundane and false from what the Buddha is refering of the "essence of nature". i think the " essential nature of seeing" is what our old master mentioned as �性�色性 or nature of seeing, seeing the nature of form instead of the ordinary seeing that people think. it's not 眼�色.
at certain part, Buddha aka it as "the six entrances are basically the wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata" . i think it is 法�法�,法尔如是, "All are always and already so" as in ur website. it's fundamentally free of production and extinction as Buddha Simply stated. the later part of the sutra is teaching Ananda not to have attachment, dualism and wandering thoughts So as to reach this "state". and the process of getting rid of wandering thoughts, dualism and attachment is "Empting" the mind as u are refering. i think it's refering to ur website's Stage 7: Presence is Spontaneously Perfected, yet it's still link to Emptiness.
our old master taught that from the experiment of Dr Masaru Emoto of the water crystal teach us that water can see, hear, feel and know. it has �闻觉知. not just water, everything have �闻觉知 or "six entrances". even a rock have �闻觉知 and can see, hear, feel and know, which is basically the wonderful nature of True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata. hence MCK told Dr Emoto to continue research on other things, like cook rice, rock etc.
this is neither seeing Nor not seeing. it just is seeing.
when i say all this, it does not mean i'm negating Emptiness. nor very attached to this existence of non emptiness. as opposte to becoming into a form of nothingness thinking. nor is it same as the eternalist of permanent substance like Brahman.
one have to have Emptiness before reaching this True Suchness, the Treasury of the Tathagata per se. as Namdrol is refering. i think to say Tathagata is emptiness is still missing the mark as to saying it's existence is also missing the mark(?).
all and all, i'm neither attached to this existence nor emptiness, which is the true emptiness.
真空�空, 妙有�有.
TRUE Emptiness isn't empty. Brilliant Existence isn't existence.
i recall a saying that it's easier to know Form is Emptiness, while to realise Emptiness is Form take a life time or more difficult. HHDL also said something quite similar i think.
one of Shurangama sutra line i like most is that the Light(En-light-enment) is already switched On. don't think it's not switch on and go and flip the switch. u'll only switch it off.
imho,
it's Huineng's "finalised" saying,
å…祖大師法寶壇經:
何期自性本自清淨。True Nature is Originally Pure.
何期自性本�生滅。True Nature is Originally neither arising nor ceasing.
何期自性本自具足。True Nature is Originally Inclusive
何期自性本無動�。True Nature is Originally Still.
何期自性能生�法。True Nature is able to Produce all dharma.
/\
The translation should be 'nature of visual awareness'. You should check the new translation by DRBA (the association that also provided the first translation you quoted from), which is finished 2 years ago. The one you just quoted is under 'True Visual Awareness', and I quote from the newer translation: "Light and darkness are mutually exclusive; still, regardless of which one is present, your visual awareness does not lapse for an instant."
There is actually no other consciousness beyond the six types of consciousness. To posit something else is to fall into error of positing another substance beyond the six like Brahman... an ultimate reality of sorts. No such ultimate reality is being found in Buddhism.
Whatever you quoted is actually similar to what I said earlier... visual awareness, being empty and unestablished, could not have been created by something external, nor could it have arisen spontaneously independent of conditions. All consciousnesses and all causes and all conditions do not have independent existence... they are fundamentally empty.
If you have true realization of the twofold emptiness, you will not fall into the extreme of emptiness but will see the inseparability of emptiness and appearance, or emptiness and luminosity.
All existence must be understood to be relative, not ultimate, and though luminous, is unestablished.
What I'm trying to say is this, "free from production and extinction" should be understood from the viewpoint of twofold emptiness, of everything being unestablished... and not from the view of there being a substance which is by nature unborn and imperishable (e.g. brahman).
Understood in this way, as Nagarjuna have said,
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/12/dependent-arising-of-consciousness.html
38. When eye and form assume their right relation,
Appearances appear without a blur.
Since these neither arise nor cease,
They are the dharmadhatu, though they are imagined to be otherwise.
39. When sound and ear assume their right relation,
A consciousness free of thought occurs.
These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics,
But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually.etc...
Also, Padmasambhava said,
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."Also, as Namdrol said,
There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."
Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.
Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.
Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:
I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,
the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --
not ceasing, not arising
not annihilated, not permanent,
not going, not coming,
not diverse, not single,
was taught as peace
in order to pacify proliferation.Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rinpoche:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html
Another word that has confounded many Hindu Svamis is ‘unborn’ (Skt. ajat), ‘unproduced’ (Skt. anutpada). In the context of the Hindu Vedanta, it means that there is this Ultimate Reality called the Brahma which is unborn i.e. never produced by anything or at any time, which means it always was. A thing or ‘super thing’ even a ‘non-thing’ that always existed and was never ever produced at any period in time which is separate from this born, illusory Samsara. In the Buddhist context, it is the true nature of Samsara itself which although relatively appears to be ‘born’, ultimately is never born. Advayavajra in his Tatvaratnavali says, “The world is unborn says the Buddha”. As Buddha Ekaputra Tantra (Tib. sangye tse tsig tantra) says, the base of DzogChen is the Samsara itself stirred from its depth. Since the Samsara stirred from its depth is interdependently originated, i.e. not really originated i.e. unborn and since Samsara is only relatively an interdependently originated thing but ultimately neither a thing nor a non-thing (bhava or abhava) that truly exists, the use of the word ‘unborn’ for Brahma (which is definitely not Samsara) and for Samsara itself in Buddhism are diametrically opposed. The true meaning of unborn (anutpada) is dependently originated (pratityasamutpanna), which is as already mentioned, the meaning of a nisvabhava (non-real existence) or Shunyata (emptiness). None of these can be a synonym for Brahma or anything that has kind of ultimate real existence, even if it is called Tathagatagarbha. There is no acceptance of an Ultimate Existence in any Buddhist Sutra. It is interesting that an exact word for Ultimate Existence (Skt. paramartha satta) in Tibetan Buddhism is very rarely used. It shows how non-Buddhist the whole concept is. One has to differentiate between existence (Skt. satta) and truth (Skt. satya) although they are so close and come from the same root in Sanskrit. Even in the Ratnagotra there is one single sentence (Skt. Yad yatra tat tena shunyam iti samanupasyati yat punartravasistam bhavati tad sad ihasthiti yathabhutam prajanati): “whatever is not found, know that to be empty by that itself, if something remains, know that to exist as it is).” This statement is straight out of the Vaibhasika Sutras of the Theravada (Sunnatavagga) and Sautrantika Abhidharma Samuccaya. It seems to imply an affirming negative. First of all, this statement contradicts the rest of the Ratnagotravibhaga if it is taken as the ultimate meaning in the Sutra (as the Shentongpas have done). Secondly, since it is a statement of the Vaibhasika school (stating that an ultimate unit of the consciousness and matter remains), it cannot be superior to the Rangtong Madhyamika. Thirdly, its interpretation as what remains is the ultimately existing Tathagatagarbha contradicts not only the interpretation that is found in other Buddhist sutras as “itar etar shunyata” (emptiness of what is different from it) but also the Shentong interpretation of Tathagatagarbha contradicts all the other definitions of the Tathagatagarbha found in the Ratnagotravibhaga itself. -
By the way I do agree that trees and other things must have some form of awareness... (strangely Simpo used to say tuned into the consciousness of the stone he bought which 'communicated' with him and 'informed' him that it would be better put on a running stream, so he placed it there) however they do not have the faculty of volition and perception. So while they are able to react to sunlight, and grow towards sunlight, they are incapable of performing karma and falling into the six realms...
-
yes, i am still thinking dependent origination, not an independent godhead. 缘起's much better than incline toward the notion of nothingness. i think even the translation of 'visual awareness' will also miss the mark if link with a self.
reading from HHDL Q&A,
Q: You have said that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no Creator, no God of creation, and this may initially put off many people who believe in a divine principle. Can you explain the difference between the Vajrayana Primordial Buddha and a Creator God?
A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be the ultimate reality, the realm of the Dharmakaya-- the space of emptiness--where all phenomena, pure and impure, are dissolved. This is the explanation taught by the Sutras and Tantras. However, in the context of your question, the tantric tradition is the only one which explains the Dharmakaya in terms of Inherent clear light, the essential nature of the mind; this would seem imply that all phenomena, samsara and nirvana, arise from this clear and luminous source. Even the New School of Translation came to the conclusion that the "state of rest" of a practitioner of the Great Yoga--Great Yoga implies here the state of the practitioner who has reached a stage in meditation where the most subtle experience of clear light has been realized--that for as long as the practitioner remains in this ultimate sphere he or she remains totally free of any sort of veil obscuring the mind, and is immersed in a state of great bliss.
We can say, therefore, that this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being. We can also, on the basis of its pure essence, understand this clear light to be the Primordial Buddha. All the stages which make up the life of each living being--death, the intermediate state, and rebirth--represent nothing more than the various manifestations of the potential of clear light. It is both the most subtle consciousness and energy. The more clear light loses its subtlety, the more your experiences take shape.
In this way, death and the intermediate state are moments where the gross manifestations emanating from clear light are reabsorbed. At death we return to that original source, and from there a slightly more gross state emerges to form the intermediate state preceding rebirth. At the stage of rebirth, clear light is apparent in a physical incarnation. At death we return to this source. And so on. The ability to recognize subtle clear light, also called the Primordial Buddha, is equivalent to realizing nirvana, whereas ignorance of the nature of clear light leaves us to wander in the different realms of samsaric existence.
This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html
-
I chanted yesterday.
I listened to chanting on MP3 last night.
AMTF,AMTF,AMTF ... ...
Should we chant NMAMTF or AMTF?
Can we chant all the common buddhas/pusas, each one hundred and eight times?
-
Originally posted by Millenium Falcon:
I chanted yesterday.
I listened to chanting on MP3 last night.
AMTF,AMTF,AMTF ... ...
Should we chant NMAMTF or AMTF?
Can we chant all the common buddhas/pusas, each one hundred and eight times?
Haha... change religion again loh
Welcome back.
Yes you can.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Haha... change religion again loh
Welcome back.
I was confused by christianity and buddhism for a long time as both sounded logical and correct. -
Originally posted by jinlin:
Good point EN, appreciate your always perceptive detailed post, I just discovered this forum and your blog thru dharmaoverground.
I think many practitioners held on to the substantial non-dual because it is not as scary as the ultimate emptiness. To accept emptiness as it truly is demands a lot of courage.
I come from long time zen practice, discovering your blog and thusness writings encourage me to pick up the slack. Your e-book is especially inspiring since everything is in one place. I will re-read my copies of shurangama sutra with ven hsua hua commentaries which I bought around long time ago
Cool.. welcome to this forum :) Which zen center you go to?
Glad you like my e-book... however there are many others more experienced and wiser than me. I am still a beginner in a sense ;)
You should really get Ted's book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1589825179?tag=flatsutrzenan-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1589825179&adid=1QSAQ1ZKZAGEB4F0PQEJ&
Am buying it.
-
Today some bible verses come to my mind. Must be I read too much bible until It stays in my subconscious.
I used to memorise many bible verses like John 3:16 and so on.
I have read new testament over and over again for many times.
-
Some psalms verses come to my mind too.
-
Sometimes what Jesus said in new testament comes to my mind.
Like his parables in the 4 gospels.
Sometimes sutra and diamond sutra verses come to my mind.
Did I got confused by 2 religions?
-
Originally posted by Millenium Falcon:
I chanted yesterday.
I listened to chanting on MP3 last night.
AMTF,AMTF,AMTF ... ...
Should we chant NMAMTF or AMTF?
Can we chant all the common buddhas/pusas, each one hundred and eight times?
NMAMTF is for a notion of a beginner; or many ppl chanting together. Namo is being polite.AMTF is for notion that u really want to go to PL and u are very close to Amituofo. so u can rid the" Namo" as no need so polite already.
MCK advocated not chanting too many. stick to one if can. so as to achieve one-pointedness. chanting Guan yin as support can also. but one should have a Main Buddha.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
NMAMTF is for a notion of a beginner; or many ppl chanting together. Namo is being polite.AMTF is for notion that u really want to go to PL and u are very close to Amituofo. so u can rid the" Namo" as no need so polite already.
MCK advocated not chanting too many. stick to one if can. so as to achieve one-pointedness. chanting Guan yin as support can also. but one should have a Main Buddha.
/\
Sometimes bible verses come to my mind.
What should I do?
-
Lastime I got chanting beads. I chanted 108 times for each buddha/pusa.
-
Originally posted by Millenium Falcon:
Lastime I got chanting beads. I chanted 108 times for each buddha/pusa.
some monasteries chant the 1000 Buddha ceremony. MCK said, not as powerful as one-pointed recitation of Amitabha. 三时系念佛 -
Some bible verses still come to my mind.
Sometimes I sin still feel like repenting to Jesus.
I listened to amtf chanting yesterday for a few hours.
I chanted too.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
By the way I do agree that trees and other things must have some form of awareness... (strangely Simpo used to say tuned into the consciousness of the stone he bought which 'communicated' with him and 'informed' him that it would be better put on a running stream, so he placed it there) however they do not have the faculty of volition and perception. So while they are able to react to sunlight, and grow towards sunlight, they are incapable of performing karma and falling into the six realms...
yea we did sort of talk about where spirits can reside in them. i presume rock too. those plant or rock that people seldom disturb, are more choosen by "them" as "home". if like vegetables or trees that people farm, i think not many spirits like to reside, as they will need to move house often when harvesting. it's also true for small animals.but for the water crystal experiment, i'm thinking something deeper. not so much related to spirits. as it can see a word love or hate place near it; listen to music; precieve our thoughts etc. more related to dependent origination. they react(perceive) due to the surrounding Collective "energy" (or karma). they cannot change by itself. they also don't have volition/action on it's own to create karma. that will be independant. it is truly NO Self. here i can use NO instead of NOT. :)
-
I like di zang wang pusa more, I am gonna concentrate on chanting his name.
His name easier to pronouce too.
-
Is It di zhang wang pusa or di zang wang pusa?
-
Originally posted by jinlin:
Good point EN, appreciate your always perceptive detailed post, I just discovered this forum and your blog thru dharmaoverground.
I think many practitioners held on to the substantial non-dual because it is not as scary as the ultimate emptiness. To accept emptiness as it truly is demands a lot of courage.
I come from long time zen practice, discovering your blog and thusness writings encourage me to pick up the slack. Your e-book is especially inspiring since everything is in one place. I will re-read my copies of shurangama sutra with ven hsua hua commentaries which I bought around long time ago
Strangely this thought has been revolving around my mind for a few days. been wanting to write something about it but can't pen anything.
The 'scary' fear of emptiness is present from a clinging to this view of self, and coupled with the bliss of substantial non-dual as pure awareness. This creates a tendency to 'enjoy' this stage. to shake off this notion of awareness, one needs to closely examine each of the six senses and come to a realization that they are all there is. The bliss is also only conditional.