forestofclarity

Where is everyone living that they need a high level of skill in unarmed fighting? Is there a weapons free island or zone like in all the 1980's martial arts movies? Or is this for secret underground bloodsport tournaments?

We're playing Shankaracharya rules, right? Loser coverts? The subject need not be dependent on the object, nor the object on the subject. Rather, the appearance of a subject depends on an object, and vice versa. They are interdependent. Similarly, if there were no movies, there could be no movie screens. I suppose we could imagine a theoretical Subject in which no object ever appears, but that would not be relevant to the current situation, because objects have appeared. The problem with asserting independence is that is denies a relationship. A relationship is a coming together, a merging, a union. According, if the Self were truly changeless and independent, there would be no knowing objects because 1) knowing a rising/falling object is a change; or 2) Subject and object would be completely separate. This is the problem that always sinks dualities: when you posit two separate things, there's no way to bring them together, because the very act of bringing them together negates the separation (and thus any sort of independence). That's why many philosophies tend to argue over what kind of thing everything is (materialism = everything is matter; idealism = everything is mind; monism = everything is God), as dualities cannot be maintained. From a Buddhist POV, you never really find an atomic one or essence to anything, because nothing can really be pinned down, and all attempts to pin things down are merely conceptual. Part of the problem is that we take our concepts to be real when they're not. I mean, look at all the issues we have with trying to even define a self! Switching from a unfindable, unsensed, unthinkable Self to an unfindable, unsensed, unthinkable "Being" does not shore up the case. Of course, many accused the Mahayana of "smuggling in the Atman!"

The way I think about it, there is a fundamental logical contradiction that is apparent: everything is completely empty and lacking any self, yet there is all of this phenomenon appearing like.... well, like magic. As Mipham Rinpoche says, "appearing yet empty; empty yet appearing," or the Heart Sutra's "form is emptiness, emptiness form" or the traditional 8 similes of illusion or the Longchenpa's second vajra point. Now a lot of people like to rely on the simile portion, saying it is "like" this or that. To me, I tend to follow the logic, much like Gendun Chophel: I struggled with this for a long time, until I started to look into quantum physics. Quantum physics introduces experiments that boggle logic. There are similar logic boggling things that arise in practice and in sleep/dream yoga. Accordingly, I feel I had to make a choice: my logical framework, or direct experience. In the end, I realized I had little choice but to embrace paradox. Appearances are fundamentally mysterious, and wonderful. In other words, magic. In Buddhism, the texts are replete with reference to "illusions" and "illusory" nature. However, Bob Thurman pointed out in English this is a little demeaning, so he prefers the term "magical." Similarly, on the Yogacara side of Mahayana, everything we experience is a transformation of consciousness, a literal dream. To paraprhase B. Alan Wallace, waking is dreaming with conditions, and night dreaming is dreaming without conditions. Again, that strikes as as eminently magical. Interesting side note: I always wondered about the magical illusion simile in Buddhism, where rocks and string can take the form of elephants and so on. Jan Westerhoff pointed out what this was in one of his books:

@dwai, glad you can assist me in avoiding doing things I don't want to do. This sounds like an argument for the emptiness of the Atman. Let's check: 1. "It cannot be captured with any of the sensory apparatuses. It cannot be described by the mind. If the mind tries to find it, it fails and finds only stillness and silence instead." In addition, "it is not something that can be experienced using the normal faculties and apparatuses (like the mind and the inner and outer senses)" In other words, it is not findable under analysis. There is nothing for the mind to grasp onto as there is nothing fixed, substantial, findable, etc. i.e. = empty. 2. In order to not be empty, it should have an independent, unitary, permanent self. a. Is it independent? No: the Atman is described as "as pure subject predicate, without which no manifestation can happen." Accordingly, it is not independent, it relates to manifestation. b. Is it permanent? No: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." c. Is it unitary? No, for reason #2. 3. Assertion to the contrary: "This root does not change", however, this is just a way of speaking since "both space and time appear in it." How can one talk about change without space and time? Change means time, which means we're already outside of this "Atman" and into manifestation. 4. Explicit confirmation that it is empty: "It is empty as it is not a thing which takes up space or exists in time." and "Atman is the selfless Self. It is the lightless light." Using contradictory words right next to each other suggests a mutual negation, i.e. that it doesn't really fit in one or the other. So... perhaps this Atman is truly not-self after all? If not, what is its essence (keeping in mind it cannot be described in terms of the senses or mental categories)?

Hey, I tried :

I would go a step further and say that the entire Mahayana Buddhist paradigm is a magical one. In fact, some have suggested using the term "magical" instead of "illusory." Given emptiness and interdependence, there is no reason to exclude magic from Buddhism other than cultural bias. I think a lot of Westerners try to downplay it and promote Buddhism as a way of reason in an effort to make it palatable to Westerners. Not all teachers do this, including Namkhai Norbu who gave secondary practitioners as a matter of rote and recommended their use to his students matter-of-factly. As a Westerner, entering into and exiting a more magical paradigm helps to loosen one's worldview, in my experience.

How would you work on the mind without qi, and how would you work on qi without mind?

Self threads should start with reasonably clear definitions.

I think the text issue is more of a problem with Tibetan Buddhist schools in particular. Part of that has to due with the theory that a person should have a complete set of instructions before meditating. A lot of TB retreats are structured around the notion that when you have your teacher present, you should get instruction, and then go off to practice (traditionally you would go off to a hermitage). Also, some TB schools are more practice oriented (like the Kagyu) than others. Zen and Theravada tend to be very practice oriented, in my experience, to the point where there is, in my opinion, insufficient instruction. Some TB schools have taken a page from the Zen/Theravada book and added more practice oriented elements since Westerners often take the instruction but never practice. I don't agree that the texts are aimed at a rational understanding so much as going beyond concepts. It is not like Western philosophy, in my experience. Some of the online distortion arises because many TB students are allowed to publicly discuss things like emptiness but not allowed to discuss the nuts and bolts of practice. I do find the notion that there is a rare stream of esoteric teaching open to the very few to be a very Taoist (among other paths), as opposed to Buddhist. I don't know what the standard post-death teaching is for Taoists, but at least some teachers I've come across have taught that most people will just dissolve into nothing upon death. Whereas with Buddhism, most of us are going to continue the journey, whether in a Pureland or in another life. So a person is merely following the 5 precepts is progressing along the (very long, multi-lifetime) Buddhist path, and so is everyone else. Accordingly, what constitutes the path in Buddhism is very broad. The "dumbed down" approach may be the right thing for that particular person in this particular life.

It's a bit counterintuitive. Here's a snip from Greg Goode, who turned me onto the idea (which I immediately rejected, but have warmed up to). I'll see if I can find a better summary. Blanshard argues that truth is the coherence among our various ideas. As a judgment is integrated into a larger and more coherent system of thought, the more closely it approximate “truth.” A “false” idea is one that doesn’t cohere as well as its opposite. Over the years, Blanshard has been regarded as one of the major authorities on the coherence theory. Before encountering Blanshard’s work, I had always accepted the more common theory, which says that truth consists of an idea matching or corresponding to a bit of reality in the world. In fact, it’s called the “correspondence theory” of truth. But before reading The Nature of Thought, I had never examined just how correspondence was supposed to work. In fact, one of Blanshard’s principal arguments for the coherence theory is that the correspondence theory can’t work as it claims to. We can’t ever be in the position to adjudicate how a judgment corresponds to an orange. We can’t verify whether correspondence is even taking place. The other argument is based on what we do when we try to ascertain the truth of a judgment. We check how well or poorly the judgment is supported by related judgments and observations. We ascertain how well the judgment coheres with other judgments and with the existing structures of experience. In other words, even if we wish to define truth as correspondence, in practice it is coherence. I had encountered the coherence model of truth in an earlier reading Hegel. But Blanshard’s exposition is crystal clear. I found the coherence model to have a simple logic as well as an almost aesthetic appeal. Of course this short discussion can’t settle the controversy between the coherence-vs-correspondence debate, but I found the coherence model to assist in deconstructing the mind/world dualism I’ve always felt to be entailed by the correspondence model. https://greg-goode.com/spirituality/the-nature-of-thought-1939-a-personal-review/

Have you come across coherence theory vs correspondence theory of truth?

The issue is that Buddhism is very contextual (we could call it, say, a "categorical framework). There are specific teachings for specific people in specific situations. If my teacher is sitting in the middle of the room, some of us will have to look to the left to see her/him, and some will have to look to the right. Some will have to turn more than others. There is no contradiction. However, if you are on the right side, and look to the right, you will not see the teacher. Similarly, there are important reasons for the teachings to be structured as they are, as I'm sure there are important reasons for other teachings to be structured as they are. The problems only arise when some one attempts to subvert one categorical framework by importing the rules of another. But at the end of the day, they are all merely pointers, are they not?

I think you're mixing up your suttas. The unanswerable questions are in the Cula-Malunkyovada. The Sutta we're discussing is With Ananda, SN 44.10. In that Sutta, the Buddha doesn't say the question is unanswerable, he says that he is on the horns of a dilemma. Vacchagotta has asked the Buddha about two options: atthata and natthatta. Notice, the second question was not about anatta, the characteristic of all dhammas, but natthatta. Given this, Bikkhu Sujato translates the text differently, using natthatta to mean "absolute existence" (see his explanation here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-not-self-existence-and-ontological-strategies/11836) In SN 44.10, Buddha says there are 4 reasons he didn't answer the question (https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato): 1. "if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists." 2. "if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists." 3. "if I had answered that ‘the self exists absolutely’ would that have helped give rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?” “No, sir.” --- note the literal here is sabbe dhamma anatta, all dhammas are not self. 4. "if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’” So this wasn't a general refusal, it was a refusal to answer Vacchagotta, who actually posed the question oddly in terms of absolute existence, it was not silence in the face of anatta, but natthatta. Cf to SnP 5.19, where the Buddha tells the questioner to remove the view of self.

That is hair splitting of the highest order. It seems like he is denying the statement "there is no self" but rather affirming the statement "there is nothing which is a self." TB therefore avoids the somewhat idiotic position put forward by Daniel Dennett who says we are not conscious, reading these words, and so on. I would say this position is not commonly accepted in Buddhist circles, but is commonly misunderstood in that way, including by ancient Vedantins who say that the very assertion denying a self refutes it, because who is then making the statement (modern Vedantins like Swami Sarvapriyananda know better!). I recall TB's article on the not-self strategy caused a lot of stir, and that folks tried to use to to say there is a self. But I think this misses the point (since TB never asserts a self in the Upanishadic or quasi-Upanishadic sense, although he has been accused on that). Bhikkhu Bodhi allegedly wrote a refutation, and TB a refutation to that refutation, etc. Now there are some Theravadin teachers who have gone whole hog and embraced the atman or self, but they are very much in the minority and tend to come from a practitioner point of view. There are Western and Indian scholars (many who aren't Buddhist) who make assertions, but their views are generally refuted by the folks with a solid understanding of the suttas and Pali. I don't have an issue with people who choose to go that route, but I don't agree that it is the objectively correct route, or even the most common one. Because there are all these debates, I am always asking people to define what they mean by self, and usually no definition comes (as we see here). The self that is denied is any x that is permanent, unitary, and independent. However, this is a conventional teaching, and ultimately all concepts are rejected. Simply put, our experience doesn't fit into neat, tidy mental boxes. In Mahayana terms, I would say there is a difference between refuting a self, and setting forth no self (which is also considered an extreme or a position). It is difficult for the mind to accept no positions--- due to its tendency to grasp.

@dmattwads, you really need to consolidate! I would encourage you to study more deeply, preferably with a teacher. It took me a long, long time to even begin to understand it. It is an amazing teaching. I'm not clear what you (or @dwai) mean by self. Certainly the Buddha rejected both the notion of eternalism and nihilism. Maybe we should start a new thread? I don't know what you mean. Mahayana rejects any notion of atomic things, whether they are dharmas or units of time. Of course, everything is empty, meaning without a permanent, independent, unitary self. A few reasons. First, I came to the conclusion that Theravada worked better in a monastic retreat environment, and I am a householder. Second, I thought its explanations didn't fully cover my range of experience. Third, I discovered Nagarjuna, and found the teachings so compelling I couldn't stick with Theravada anymore.

I don't have anything to argue with the statement below--- evidently, Lopon Tenzin Namdak encouraged teachers to teach and point out to anyone interested, rather than say reserving it for a select few or requiring years of preliminary practice. However, this seems to be a much different approach than publicly discussing the teachings without limit. What I have been taught is that Dzogchen is very subtle and very precise. Accordingly, it must be taught from a living teacher to a living student, and it cannot be captured in words and concepts. It is easy to get wrong and develop mistaken views about, many of which then have to be removed later. In addition, even under the best of circumstances, many people miss the point or make errors (this can include authorized lineage masters, but their own admission). Of course, there are often many preliminary practices and teachings that are offered in the event a student "doesn't get it." Finally, only a living teacher can really confirm whether one has gotten it. I only say this because I wish I had known this many years ago. Of course, not being omniscient, it is impossible to judge anyway. Do Bon teachers encourage everyone to discuss Dzogchen publicly?

I think that's what the suttas say, and the Abidhamma developed the bhavanga citta. I don't really do Theravada anymore, so my memory is a bit rusty.

I actually meant the kosa model--- it is easier to grasp on an experiential level. I should add that I have strong reservations about that article, but that would likely be a separate thread. I might also argue the inverse--- rather than saying there is a Self in Buddhism, that at the highest level, there is no Self in Vedanta.

Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious.

So in later Theravada, there is the idea developed of the bhavanga citta. In Yogacara, this was developed further into the 7th and 8th consciousnesses (the first six being the sensory and mental consciousnesses), including the all base or alaya-vijnana (as ilumairen pointed out). This contains all your karmic seeds, carries from life to life, etc.

This explanation is not entirely different from the Buddhist conception, but the language is different. Instead of causal body, the Buddhist might say alaya. If things are arising and dissipating without attaching, there is no intention and therefore no karma. In many ways, I think that the 5 alaya model is better than the 5 skandha model. How do mantras work from the Vedanta POV?

I'd say don't worry about it. I'm just rambling anyway.

For the Bon, the emphasis seems to be on the "was" whereas with the Nyingma is "is." I note that some here talk about Dzogchen fairly plainly and openly--- do you think that such public expressions are warranted nowadays?

I think what Apech wrote is pretty spot on. The challenge is having a sufficient container that can handle the maras, especially as they get stronger. Some of my early teachers said that meditation is like building a ship that allows you to go into deeper and more treacherous waters. One of the best ways to construct a container in my experience is having a well-balanced life and psyche. In meditation, this means putting in work at the level of shamatha -- which in my view means the ability of the mind to rest and relax with whatever is arising. A lot of people like to skip over shamatha for the more exciting vipassana aspects, but I think this is a mistake. Another way to use qigong to help calm the energy body a bit. In Vajrayana, faith, devotion, and confidence int he teacher and lineage also help fulfill this function. Of course, there are also practices that can take the edge off, like Chenrezig. For some, this might also mean working in non-meditation modalities, such as therapy. If I had to guess @dmattwads, the instability in your regular life is bleeding over into your meditation. You've talked somewhat about various difficult relationships, money issues, job changes, etc. Because we're not monks, unfortunately we have to deal with these, but I bet once you clear up your daily life these meditation problems will be easier to deal with.

I suppose it depends on what your conception of divinity is, because it is different for different people. I will give one interpretation, but know that it is necessarily partial, incomplete, etc. But desire tends to drive what we spend our time, energy, and (perhaps most of all) our attention on. And we tend to suffer when we don't have what we want--- when what we want is absent from experience. Desire is basically for happiness, although what this means is defined differently by different traditions. The curious thing is that what we generally want and believe will make us happy are tangible (and also intangible) things--- things usually with form, shape, color, texture, etc. This can range from food, money, sexual partners to high spiritual states (which is why I say usually, many of these states would not be considered tangible). We may expect to find lasting happiness from somehow arranging these things or having these things, but it never happens because they are all impermanent. Now spirituality comes along and promises us that what we are looking for is not the expression or display of the divine but the divine itself. And surprise, surprise, the divine is not only present in every moment of experience , but it actually transcends and infuses all things. However, we are largely blinded from this astonishing fact by our desire for the display which comes and goes. If we could just loosen our obsession with the display shift our attention, then we could see this and relax, we would find the happiness we seek.