[contrivedname!]

"Subhuti said to Buddha: World-honored One, will there always be men who will truly believe after coming to hear these teachings?

 

Buddha answered: Subhuti, do not utter such words! At the end of the last five-hundred-year period following the passing of the Tathagata, there will be self-controlled men, rooted in merit, coming to hear these teachings, who will be inspired with belief. But you should realize that such men have not strengthened their root of merit under just one Buddha, or two Buddhas, or three, or four, or five Buddhas, but under countless Buddhas; and their merit is of every kind. Such men, coming to hear these teachings, will have an immediate uprising of pure faith, Subhuti; and the Tathagata will recognize them. Yes, He will clearly perceive all these of pure heart, and the magnitude of their moral excellences.

 

Wherefore? It is because such men will not fall back to cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. They will neither fall back to cherishing the idea of things as having intrinsic qualities, nor even of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities.

 

Wherefore? Because if such men allowed their minds to grasp and hold on to anything they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality; and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities. This is the reason why the Tathagata always teaches this saying: My teaching of the Good Law is to be likened unto a raft. The Buddha-teaching must be relinquished; how much more so mis-teaching!"

 

"Subhuti, what do you think? Has the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment? Has the Tathagata a teaching to enunciate?

 

Subhuti answered: As I understand Buddha's meaning there is no formulation of truth called Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. Moreover, the Tathagata has no formulated teaching to enunciate. Wherefore? Because the Tathagata has said that truth is uncontainable and inexpressible. It neither is nor is it not. Thus it is that this unformulated Principle is the foundation of the different systems of all the sages."

 

"Buddha said: Subhuti, what do you think? In the remote past when the Tathagata was with Dipankara Buddha, did he have any degree of attainment in the Good Law?

 

No, World-honored One. When the Tathagata was with Dipankara Buddha he had no degree of attainment in the Good Law.

 

Subhuti, what do you think? Does a Bodhisattva set forth any majestic Buddha-lands?

 

No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because setting forth majestic Buddha-lands is not a majestic setting forth; this is merely a name.

 

[Then Buddha continued:] Therefore, Subhuti, all Bodhisattvas, lesser and great, should develop a pure, lucid mind, not depending upon sound, flavor, touch, odor, or any quality. A Bodhisattva should develop a mind which alights upon no thing whatsoever; and so should he establish it. Subhuti, this may be likened to a human frame as large as the mighty Mount Sumeru. What do you think? Would such a body be great?

 

Subhuti replied: Great indeed, World-honored One. This is because Buddha has explained that no body is called a great body. "

 

"At that time Subhuti addressed Buddha, saying: World-honored One, if good men and good women seek the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment, by what criteria should they abide and how should they control their thoughts?

 

Buddha replied to Subhuti: Good men and good women seeking the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment must create this resolved attitude of mind: I must liberate all living beings, yet when all have been liberated, verily not any one is liberated. Wherefore? If a Bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality, he is consequently not a Bodhisattva, Subhuti. This is because in reality there is no formula which gives rise to the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment.

 

Subhuti, what do you think? When the Tathagata was with Dipankara Buddha was there any formula for the attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment?

 

No, World-honored One, as I understand Buddha's meaning, there was no formula by which the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment.

 

Buddha said: You are right, Subhuti! Verily there was no formula by which the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. Subhuti, had there been any such formula, Dipankara Buddha would not have predicted concerning me: "In the ages of the future you will come to be a Buddha called Shakyamuni"; but Dipankara Buddha made that prediction concerning me because there is actually no formula for the attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. The reason herein is that Tathagata is a signification implying all formulas. In case anyone says that the Tathagata attained the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment, I tell you truly, Subhuti, that there is no formula by which the Buddha attained it. Subhuti, the basis of Tathagata's attainment of the Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment is wholly beyond; it is neither real nor unreal. Hence I say that the whole realm of formulations is not really such, therefore it is called "Realm of formulations."

 

Subhuti, a comparison may be made with [the idea of] a gigantic human frame.

 

Then Subhuti said: The World-honored One has declared that such is not a great body; "a great body" is just the name given to it.

 

Subhuti, it is the same concerning Bodhisattvas. If a Bodhisattva announces: I will liberate all living creatures, he is not rightly called a Bodhisattva. Wherefore? Because, Subhuti, there is really no such condition as that called Bodhisattvaship, because Buddha teaches that all things are devoid of selfhood, devoid of separate individuality. Subhuti, if a Bodhisattva announces: I will set forth majestic Buddha-lands, one does not call him a Bodhisattva, because the Tathagata has declared that the setting forth of majestic Buddha-lands is not really such: "a majestic setting forth" is just the name given to it.

 

Subhuti, Bodhisattvas who are wholly devoid of any conception of separate selfhood are truthfully called Bodhisattvas. "

 

"Subhuti, do not say that the Tathagata conceives the idea: I must set forth a Teaching. For if anyone says that the Tathagata sets forth a Teaching he really slanders Buddha and is unable to explain what I teach. As to any Truth-declaring system, Truth is undeclarable; so "an enunciation of Truth" is just the name given to it.

 

Thereupon, Subhuti spoke these words to Buddha: World-honored One, in the ages of the future will there be men coming to hear a declaration of this Teaching who will be inspired with belief?

 

And Buddha answered: Subhuti, those to whom you refer are neither living beings nor not-living beings. Wherefore? Because "living beings," Subhuti, these "living beings" are not really such; they are just called by that name."

 

"Furthermore, Subhuti, This is altogether everywhere, without differentiation or degree; therefore it is called "Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment." It is straightly attained by freedom from separate personal selfhood and by cultivating all kinds of goodness.

 

Subhuti, though we speak of "goodness", the Tathagata declares that there is no goodness; such is merely a name."

 

"Subhuti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathagata cherishes the idea: I must liberate all living beings. Allow no such thought, Subhuti.

 

Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be liberated by the Tathagata. If there were living beings for the Tathagata to liberate, He would partake in the idea of selfhood, personality entity, and separate individuality.

 

Subhuti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the Tathagata declares that ego is not different from non-ego. Subhuti, those whom the Tathagata referred to as "common people" are not really common people; such is merely a name. "

 

"Subhuti, if one Bodhisattva bestows in charity sufficient of the seven treasures to fill as many worlds as there are sand-grains in the river Ganges, and another, realizing that all things are egoless, attains perfection through patient forbearance, the merit of the latter will far exceed that of the former. Why is this, Subhuti? It is because all Bodhisattvas are insentient as to the rewards of merit.

 

Then Subhuti said to Buddha: What is this saying, World-honored One, that Bodhisattvas are insentient as to rewards of merit?

 

[And Buddha answered]: Subhuti, Bodhisattvas who achieve merit should not be fettered with desire for rewards. Thus it is said that the rewards of merit are not received. "

 

 

 

These are excerpts from the sutra. you can find a full reading of it here: http://community.palouse.net/lotus/diamond26-33.htm. it is actually part of Mahaprajnaparamita sutra.

 

 

Does this sutra reify a self or reify no-self?

 

some of the buddhist toned discussions seem to revolve a lot about some of the things addressed in this sutra, one coming to mind (already quoted above):

 

...and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities.

[Lucky7Strikes]

"Subhuti said to Buddha: World-honored One, will there always be men who will truly believe after coming to hear these...

Is this a rhetorical post?

[contrivedname!]

[Lucky7Strikes]

 

Well, it seemed like you sort of answered your own question...

Edited March 30, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

 

...and if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as having intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Likewise, if they grasped and held on to the notion of things as devoid of intrinsic qualities they would be cherishing the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities.

I don't think this translation is good. Actually a better translation would be:

 

Why? If those living beings' minds cling to appearances, that would be attachment to a self, others, living beings and a life. If they cling to appearances of dharmas, that would be attachment to a self, others, living beings and a life. Why? If they cling to the appearances of non-dharmas, that would be attachment to a self, others, living beings and a life. Therefore, you should not cling to dharmas; you should not cling to non-dharmas. Because of this principle the Thus Come One always says, 'Bhikshus, you should all know that the Dharma I speak is like a raft. You must let go of dharmas. Even more so let go of non-dharmas.'"

 

Dharma Master Lok To says:

 

Because the idea of the existent is set up by that of the non-existent, and the notion of the non-existent is made manifest by that of the existent. However, if originally the existent is not postulated, then the non-existent has nowhere from which to arise. Truthfully, the Real Supramundane is neither existent nor non-existent. This is the Dharma of True Activity. The Diamond Sutra says: "If one grasps the concept of Dharma, that is attachment to the false notion of an ego and a personality. In contrast, if one grasps at the concept of non-Dharma, that also is attachment to the false notion of an ego and a personality. Therefore, one should not hold either the notion of Dharma or of non-Dharma." This is really holding the True Dharma. If one can understand this doctrine and the Dharma of non-duality, then he is truly liberated.

 

In other words:

 

If you grasp that a self is non-existent, that is still implying there is an entity called 'self' in the first place that is 'non-existent'. Since self cannot be located in the first place like 'weather' is not an entity found anywhere in reference to the patterns of wind blowing, clouds, rain, etc - it would make no sense to say that an entity called 'self' could exist, and then become non-existent, etc. The notions of existence, non-existence, etc. only make sense in reference to an entity with solidity, inherent existence, characteristics, etc.

 

Emptiness means empty of the four extremes of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence. So what is denied here is the four extremes: existence, non-existence, both and neither. However what is true is that there is no inherent existence anywhere to be found. If with reference to phenomenal appearance, no solidity, inherency, characteristics, etc could be located, then the 4 extremes are immediately transcended.

 

Hence it is true that all phenomenal appearance are devoid of intrinsic qualities. Heart Sutra: "Shariputra, all dharmas are empty of characteristics. They are not produced, not destroyed, not defiled, not pure, and they neither increase nor decrease."

 

Existence, non-existence, etc. are all reification. However you cannot reify non-inherency of self since nothing is established in this case.

 

p.s. I am Chinese and I know the original text from which it was translated.

Edited March 30, 2010 by xabir2005

[contrivedname!]

 

Well, it seemed like you sort of answered your own question...

 

i did?

[contrivedname!]

...you should all know that the Dharma I speak is like a raft. You must let go of dharmas. Even more so let go of non-dharmas.'"[/i]

 

i like this rendering more, it seems clearer

 

If you grasp that a self is non-existent, that is still implying there is an entity called 'self' in the first place that is 'non-existent'. Since self cannot be located in the first place like 'weather' is not an entity found anywhere in reference to the patterns of wind blowing, clouds, rain, etc - it would make no sense to say that an entity called 'self' could exist, and then become non-existent, etc. The notions of existence, non-existence, etc. only make sense in reference to an entity with solidity, inherent existence, characteristics, etc.

 

i see it somewhat similarly. however i would posit that for a lot of people they create a 'self' (ie they conceive an ego identity) then as time passes and this 'self' is extinguished as the ego shifts dependent on conditions, and another is born. thus one is subject to constant "birth and death". i can relate this to the concepts surrounding profit and fame, in daoist philosophy.

 

Hence it is true that all phenomenal appearance are devoid of intrinsic qualities.

 

to me this is another condition. if phenomena are devoid of intrinsic qualities, what is it that informs us they are devoid?

[xabir2005]

On the four extremes, someone just coincidentally posted a relevant discourse the Buddha taught into my Buddhist forum.

 

Does the Buddha Exist After His Death?

 

The question: 'Does the Buddha exist after His death or not', is not a new question. The same question was put to the Buddha during His lifetime.

 

When a group of ascetics came and asked the same question from certain disciples of the Buddha, they could not get a satisfactory answer from them. Anuradha, a disciple, approached the Buddha and reported to Him about their conversation. Considering the understanding capacity of the questioners, the Buddha usually observed silence at such questions. However in this instance, the Buddha explained to Anuradha in the following manner:

 

'O Anuradha, what do you think, is the form (Rupa) permanent or impermanent?' 'Impermanent, Sir.' 'Is that which is impermanent, painful or pleasant?'

 

'Painful, Sir.'

 

'Is it proper to regard that which is impermanent, painful and subject to change as: 'This is mine; this is I, this is my soul or permanent substance?' 'It is not proper, Sir.' 'Is feeling permanent or impermanent?' 'Impermanent, Sir.' 'Is that which is impermanent, painful or pleasant?'

 

'Painful, Sir.' 'Is it proper to regard that which is impermanent, painful and subject to change as 'This is mine, this is I, this is my soul'?' 'It is not proper, Sir.' 'Are perfection, formative tendencies and consciousness, permanent or impermanent?'

 

'Impermanent, Sir.' 'Is that which is impermanent, painful or pleasant?'

 

'Painful, Sir.' 'Is it proper to regard that which is impermanent, painful and subject to change as: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my soul?'?'

 

'It is not proper, Sir.' 'Therefore whatever form, feeling, perception, formative tendencies, consciousness which have been, will be and is now connected with oneself, or with others, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near; all forms, feelings, perceptions, formative tendencies and consciousness should be considered by right knowledge in this way: 'This is not mine; this not I; this is not my soul.' Having seen thus, a noble, learned disciple becomes disenchanted with the form, feeling, perception, formative tendencies and consciousness. Becoming disenchanted, he controls his passion and subsequently discards them.' 'Being free from passion he becomes emancipated and insight arises in him: 'I am emancipated.' He realizes: 'Birth is destroyed, I have lived the holy life and done what had to be done. There is no more birth for me.' 'What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard the form as a Tathagata?' 'No, Sir.'

 

'O Anuradha, what is your view, do you see a Tathagata in the form?' 'No, Sir.' 'Do you see a Tathagata apart from form?' 'No, Sir.' 'Do you see a Tathagata in feeling, perception, formative tendencies, consciousness?'

 

'No, Sir.' 'O Anuradha, what do you think, do you regard that which is without form, feeling, perception, formative tendencies and consciousness as a Tathagata?' 'No, Sir.' 'Now, Anuradha, since a Tathagata is not to be found in this very life, is it proper for you to say: 'This noble and supreme one has pointed out and explained these four propositions:

A Tathagata exists after death; A Tathagata does not exist after death; A Tathagata exists and yet does not exist after death; A Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death?'

 

'No, Sir.'

 

'Well and good, Anuradha. Formerly and now also I expound and point out only the truth of Suffering and cessation of Suffering.' (Anuradha Sutta - Samyutta Nikaya.) The above dialogue between the Buddha and Anuradha may not be satisfactory to many, since it does not satisfy the inquiring mind of the people. Truth is such that it does not give satisfaction to the emotion and intellect. Truth happens to be the most difficult thing for man to comprehend. It can only be fully comprehended by Insight. Buddhahood is nothing but the embodiment of all the great virtues and supreme enlightenment. That is why Buddhas who could enlighten others are very rare in this world.

 

Someone posted: Can i have a summary ?

 

So I did a short one:

 

 

What we call 'self' is really just like weather. There is nothing solid. For weather, there are all kinds of phenomenon - clouds, winds, air pressure, rain, lightning, etc. All these patterns of weather are changing moment to moment. But no entity called "weather" can be found anywhere except in thinking and talking about it. It is not a solid, locatable 'thing' - you cannot say it is located in that cloud, or located in that drop of rain, as those are also changing moment to moment.

 

Similarly, every mindstream is only the 5 aggregates: forms, feelings, perception, volition, and consciousness. It just like the "weather" — an ongoing, ever changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creations and destructions, feelings and sensations, which thought keeps calling "I," "me," and thereby solidifying what is evanescent. In actuality no such an entity as "me," "I," "myself" can be found or located anywhere.

 

If from the very beginning an inherently existing self cannot be found, how can you say that a self then cease to exist/becomes non-existent? Already no self from the beginning. Thus the question is invalid.

 

The article What Is The "Me"? is good and the author is writing from direct experiential insight on Anatta.

 

The realisation of Anatta/No-Self in Buddhism is enlightenment, freedom, liberation - for then we stop solidifying the evanescent, we stop trying to grasp the ungraspable, and directly experience reality as it actually is.

 

Basically: the Buddha is teaching No-Self in this discourse.

Edited March 30, 2010 by xabir2005

[contrivedname!]

...and directly experience reality as it actually is

 

how is reality actually? in your opinion?

 

we're always directly experiencing reality, through what ever framework we chose (or feel compelled, forced, trapped, etc.) to use. the buddha-dharma is such a frame work. the objective to not be trapped by frameworks and thereby condition/create/form existence with/according to your ego. but it is still a framework. hence the saying quoted earlier "...you should all know that the Dharma I speak is like a raft. You must let go of dharmas. Even more so let go of non-dharmas."

 

crossing treacherous waters is good. learning to swim in the ocean is in the essence of the teaching.

[C T]

The essence of the teaching is to accept that one cant swim in the first place. It is the non-acceptance of inherently ever-changing self-imposed conditions that create discord. As the saying goes, "Tis wise he that knows he is a fool; tis foolish he that thinks he is wise."

[xabir2005]

i see it somewhat similarly. however i would posit that for a lot of people they create a 'self' (ie they conceive an ego identity) then as time passes and this 'self' is extinguished as the ego shifts dependent on conditions, and another is born. thus one is subject to constant "birth and death". i can relate this to the concepts surrounding profit and fame, in daoist philosophy.

Yes what we think of as a solid personality are also just more thoughts and concepts that arise and subside from moment to moment dependent on conditions, it is nothing solid. If we perceive what we call as ego grasping as simply more thoughts which is impermanent by nature, then we are observing its reality. If we are however totally identified with the perspective of being the ego as a solid 'me', then that is being lost.

 

Perhaps you can share about the profit and fame part.

to me this is another condition. if phenomena are devoid of intrinsic qualities, what is it that informs us they are devoid?

Insight. Edited March 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

how is reality actually? in your opinion?

 

we're always directly experiencing reality, through what ever framework we chose (or feel compelled, forced, trapped, etc.) to use. the buddha-dharma is such a frame work. the objective to not be trapped by frameworks and thereby condition/create/form existence with/according to your ego. but it is still a framework. hence the saying quoted earlier "...you should all know that the Dharma I speak is like a raft. You must let go of dharmas. Even more so let go of non-dharmas."

 

crossing treacherous waters is good. learning to swim in the ocean is in the essence of the teaching.

Reality is 'what is'. It is the first basis of experience. It is what is present even before conceptualization steps in. In mystical religions they may refer to the first basis as 'Consciousness/Awareness'. In the original Pali teachings of Buddha, the first basis is actually our sensate reality. However they are actually in the end not two different things when we realise that consciousness is by nature non-dual and non-inherent. But of course none of these words actually tell us what Consciousness/Sensate Reality actually is, yet if we look ourselves directly it is as clear as day.

 

Anyway as we experience reality without concepts or intermediary, a sense of unshakeable confidence arises because we are touching something undoubtable - reality itself. And that is non-dual, there is no sense of being separate from the reality we experienced. There is just that. Any sense of separation is again conceptual mental construct, and with that around we will not be able to experience the 'unshakeable confidence' as a result of direct perception. When we practice, we aim to experience this directly, whether you are practicing Vipassana, or Self-Inquiry, or any direct and attentive bare mode of observation that allows the seeing of things as they are.

 

However I have also mentioned before that a non-dual non-conceptual direct meditative experience is being reified into a metaphysical essence without even us noticing it. Ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual meditative state. Hence, a teacher is necessary to point out the right view, otherwise we will reify our meditative experience and get stuck on a false view. We may start to reify consciousness as something permanent, independent, as an ultimate source.

 

Hence, in Buddhism, the path (naked awareness of everything as it is) alone cannot lead to fruition (liberation), having right view (Emptiness) is necessary and crucial. That is, only through having the right view with the right practices (path) then fruition of liberation can arise.

 

In a practical world, there is no way we can avoid dirtying our hands and remain free from conceptualization; we have to face 'thinking'. It seems that whenever thinking steps in, the 'sense of self' surfaces and division is again experienced. The ‘background’, the ‘ultimate source’ will arise and there is no way of getting rid of this split for this is the nature of dualism. Every time we recall or think there will always be a division; the background, the source will surface. And as long as our fundamental way of analyzing and thinking rest on a subject-object paradigm, there will always be a mismatched between non-dual experience and the 'views' for a non-dualist - a de-synchronization between views and meditative experience. That is, a practitioner will find great difficulties when trying to express the experience based on a subject/object dichotomy. It can be quite frustrating and the practitioner may get himself confused during the process. He may say things like "I am You", "You are Me", or "everything is inseparable from Awareness" - not knowing that he has again fallen into the Subject/Object framework to express a non-dual experience.

 

In Buddhism there is a complete system of thought to orientate ourselves non-dually and non-inherently, that is, the viewless-view of Emptiness. It is a raft but it is the antidote for the conventional mind to orientate itself in a non-dual and non-local context. It also led to the amazing insight that ‘duality’ is really the result of seeing and taking things ‘inherently’.

 

And hence Thusness says:

 

In the practice of non-conceptuality, the firm establishment of right view is not a problem.

In the practice of thoughtlessness, thought is not a problem.

In the practice of selflessness, self is not a problem.

 

It is not uncommon to find practitioners totally giving up this attempt to synchronize "views" and experience and conclude that it is an absolute futile endeavor to do that. They prefer to rest fully in naked awareness.

 

By doing so, the practitioner will miss something valuable -- the insight of the importance of "non inherent existence".

 

In fact, dualistic view is merely a subset of seeing things 'inherently'. Further understanding will also reveal that the bad habit of 'searching' is the result of seeing things 'inherently'. Our inability to sustain a non-dual experience is also the result of it. The formation of a 'center' that we are so unwilling to give up is merely a natural phenomenon of our deeply held 'inherent' views.

 

When the view and experience are harmonized, the practitioner can then progress further. He rest neither in concepts nor non-conceptuality. He frees himself from erroneous views like "I am You and You are me". He sees “Everything as Awareness” (not everything inseparable from Awareness - there is no 'inseparability' when there is No Subject to be in union with objects) but that is because in the world of Empty Luminosity, the practitioner is not bounded in a subject/object or object/attributes paradigm. “Awareness as Everything” should never be understood from a dualistic perspective.

 

The seen, sound are the non-dual luminous experience; but direct experience of non-dual luminosity is not suffcient. Though perfectly clear and vividly present as in non-dual experience, the 'seen' is radically different from the 'sound' -- this is its emptiness nature. This viewless view must be fused into our non-dual insight. When views are firmly established and non-dual experience thoroughly authenticated, a practitioner will see everything as Awareness without conflict in both views and experiences. Not bounded within an inherent and dualistic paradigm, he will not be confused. When the real cause and the empty nature of our pristine awareness are understood, this ‘Emptiness’ view too must be discarded.

 

But not before insight arises. Only after the 'raft' has served its purpose, it is discarded.

Edited March 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[contrivedname!]

The essence of the teaching is to accept that one cant swim in the first place. It is the non-acceptance of inherently ever-changing self-imposed conditions that create discord. As the saying goes, "Tis wise he that knows he is a fool; tis foolish he that thinks he is wise."

 

if you cant swim why would you relinquish the raft? to drown in ignorance?

 

i agree with the statement ...is to accept that one cant swim... this is a part of it, hence the use of the raft. i was also trying to point out that once, as you put it, "non-acceptance of inherently ever-changing self-imposed conditions that create discord" is reached by rafting and you relinquish the raft... what then? Arhatship? to me the raft is a part of learning to swim in the ocean. once you learn to swim in the ocean (i.e. non-acceptance of inherently ever-changing self-imposed conditions that create discord) you dont need the raft. you are free to "come and go". in thinking of my statement i was also contemplating a couple of Zen teachings. The Oxherding pictures, and hui-neng's quote: "To search for enlightenment apart from the world is as absurd as to search for a horn on a hare." ... i understand that hui-neng's stance isnt one always accepted by buddhists.

 

As another saying goes:

 

"False views make up the world

true views are the world beyond

when true and false are both dismissed

your buddha-nature will be manifest

this is simply the straightforward teaching

also known as Mahayana

delusion lasts coutless kalpas

awareness takes but an instant"

 

The quote from the dhamapada is excellent, but it still holds to the dualism of wisdom/ignorance. the concepts ignorance and wisdom are "self-imposed conditions that create discord".

 

 

xabir -

 

As to profit and fame, these are conditions based on 'externals' and peoples true nature (buddha-nature if you wish) is obscured by this fixation. Profit can be understood as anything 'external' which the ego identifies with as benefitting its position, to lose identification with the source of profit, results in "loss". Fame can be understood as ego's preception of itself. If the condition of fame is lost, this results in the condition of infamy, worthlessness, etc. Cutting through the conditioning of profit and fame (or delusion and greed) is where this framework is similar to the buddhist.