A question for Vaj the Buddhist

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

Bad pc skills.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that

[ralis]

For someone like me, who was raised in poverty around highly under-educated people, except my mother who recently got her PHD in 1998 while in her mid to early 50's in womens arts and spirituality, who I rebelled against fiercely during various periods of my life. I didn't finish high school, though if I afforded slight effort got A's and B's very easily, and I denied the gifted program and AP studies so that I could play in the streets with thugs, and is mostly completely self taught in spiritual "jargon." Having been literally homeless a number of times in various cities including NY, San Francisco and Albq. NM, due to karmic circumstance and not getting hired. I think I do quite well though I looooong to have the finances to go to school, and be able to take care of me and my wife at the same time who I can't even afford to pay the fee's for her ability to get a social security number due to the fact that she's from Canada.

 

Anyway... I look at Ralis and Songs like promoters of my ability to remain calm in the face of adversity. A life long forced upon me practice... obviously.

 

Why not go to your local community college and study for your GED. That would be helpful in obtaining employment. There is probably gov't assistance available if you can't afford it. If you obtain your GED and take the college entrance exams, you may be able to apply for a scholarship. Also there are gov't assistance programs for college.

 

If you truly want to improve yourself, the opportunities are there.

 

In fact, there are almost infinite resources online if you are motivated enough to study on your own.

 

BTW, employers will not hire you if you don't have at least a high school education.

 

Since I am an employer, I know what I am talking about.

 

If you would care to discuss personal traits that are necessary to improve yourself in the job market or even your own business, I would be more than happy to discuss.

 

ralis

Edited June 25, 2010 by ralis

[adept]

Hi Adept,

I was wondering if you can prescribe a relatively practical way that can be shown to such inquiring minds?

 

According to the view you hold, you are without blinkers, so in fact, this means you are able to 'see more' than those who have blinkers. I too am blinkered, so i am willing to learn how, in what practical, step-by-step manner, did you arrive at this unblinkered state of being?

 

The 'blinkered' quote was for Vaj, who, whilst being very knowledgeable and passionate about his path of cultivation, holds a one-sided view of the superiority of his brand of Buddhism.

I, too have been on the spiritual merry- go- round for many years, and it was only when I let my preferences and past conditioning drop that I had an awakening of sorts.

I won't bore you with all the details, but the most simple teachings, which are also the most profound, were the starting point for my inner quest, all those years ago. At the time, I just didn't understand. It was through practice and study of countless other systems and traditions that brought me back to that starting point, but now with a full understanding.

It had been right in front of my eyes all along, only I couldn't see it. I had been wearing blinkers.

Now, without the blinkers, I could see everything for what it was.

No system, labels, tradition or cultural conditioning.

Non attachment. The emptiness of emptiness.

 

Different people have different 'methods'. Mine is not superior to anyone else's.

The turning point for me was reading the words of Bankei and the Hsin Hsin Ming. Simple, direct and utterly profound.

 

We each have our own 'roadmap'.

I have a lot of time for anyone who puts in the effort and cultivates the Way.

However, I will not hold a wrong view that my way is best or the only way.

Vaj should be a bit more diplomatic.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

If you would care to discuss personal traits that are necessary to improve yourself in the job market or even your own business, I would be more than happy to discuss.

 

ralis

 

I did get my GED. I meant I didn't finish the school house curriculum. Thank you for caring enough to state the above. My life is complicated right now, but the above stated is my goal!

 

What's your business?

[Sunya]

The emptiness of emptiness.

 

That doesn't really make sense. You're saying 'the lack of self' of 'the lack of self.' Emptiness is the quality of phenomena lacking inherence and selfhood, so it's not really a thing nor is it an underlying substance that everything is part of nor is it a source. It is a description of how things are.

[Vajrahridaya]

That doesn't really make sense. You're saying 'the lack of self' of 'the lack of self.' Emptiness is the quality of phenomena lacking inherence and selfhood, so it's not really a thing nor is it an underlying substance that everything is part of nor is it a source. It is a description of how things are.

 

This does in fact make sense Mikaelz. Because emptiness also does not inherently exist as it is a quality of phenomena that do not inherently exist. Thus, the emptiness of emptiness.

 

It releases clinging to the experience of emptiness as well, but this is what emptiness means anyway to begin with, which is what I think you were trying to say thus making this explanation of "emptiness of emptiness" unnecessary. It's just a further elaboration on meaning for the sake of a mind that takes up emptiness as an ultimate view in and of itself. As if it were a Self of all.

 

Here...

 

By... Bhikshu Dharmamitra

 

The Emptiness of Emptiness

 

 

As for "the emptiness of emptiness," it refers to employing

emptiness to demolish emptiness of the subject, emptiness of the object,

and emptiness of both the subject and the object. It is on account of

its demolishing of these three kinds of emptiness that it is referred to

as the emptiness of emptiness.

Another way of stating this is that, having first employed the

emptiness of dharmas to demolish [all] subject- related and object-

related dharmas, one then employs this emptiness to demolish these three

[resultant] varieties of emptiness. This is what is meant by the

emptiness of emptiness.

Then again, [one may also say that] in the emptiness samdhi one

contemplates the five aggregates as being empty and thereby achieves the

realization of the eightfold path of the aarya, the cutting off all

afflictions and the gaining of the nirvaa.na with residue. When that

bodily life produced from the karmic causes and conditions of previous

lives draws to an end, because one then desires to set aside [even] the

eightfold path one then brings forth the samaadhi of the emptiness of

emptiness. This is what is meant by the emptiness of emptiness.

Question: What are the differences between emptiness and the

emptiness of emptiness?

Reply: Emptiness demolishes the five appropriated aggregates.

The emptiness of emptiness demolishes emptiness.

Question : If "emptiness" [here] refers to the emptiness of

dharmas, they have already been demolished. If it is not the case that

"emptiness" refers to the emptiness of dharmas, what is it that it

demolishes?

Reply: Emptiness demolishes all dharmas so that the only thing

which abides is emptiness. After emptiness has already demolished all

dharmas, emptiness itself should also be set aside. It is on account of

this that we require this "emptiness of emptiness."

Then again, whereas emptiness conditions all dharmas, the

emptiness of emptiness conditions only emptiness.

 

["Champion" & "Dispensing With Medicine" Analogies]

 

 

This is analogous to a stalwart young fellow being able to drive

off all outlaws, and to there being yet another man who is able to come

along and defeat even this stalwart young fellow. The emptiness of

emptiness is just like this.

This is also analogous to taking medicine. Medicine is able to

overcome disease, but once the disease has been overcome, one ought to

dispense with the medicine. If the medicine is not dispensed with, then

yet another pathology manifests thereby. Although emptiness is able to

cure the disease of the afflictions, still, because it is to be feared

that emptiness itself may develop into yet another disorder, one employs

emptiness to dispense with emptiness. This is what is meant by the

emptiness of emptiness.

Finally, it is because emptiness is employed to demolish the

seventeen [other] kinds of emptiness that this is referred to as the

emptiness of emptiness.

 

 

End Notes:

 

This is the fourth of the "Eighteen Emptinesses" the discussion of which

comprises the whole of fascicle 31.

 

Nagarjuna refers here to the first three emptinesses which he just

finished discussing at length in the initial section of "Eighteen

Emptiness." As you missed the discussion, it is only fair to point out

that these three emptinesses refer basically to the emptiness of the

"self," the emptiness of all that belongs to the objective sphere

(including, obviously, "others"), and the emptiness of everything which

relates to both.

 

EDIT: So, as you can see, emptiness is not an ultimate subject. Thus unlike all Theisms and substantial metaphysic paths where everything is considered the modification of one supreme Truth; Buddhism is not a subjective idealism where one takes up an exalted experience as an ultimate view. So, non-dual in Buddhism means, not-one, not-two. So, the emptiness of emptiness.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

... it was only when I let my preferences and past conditioning drop that I had an awakening of sorts.

...

Now, without the blinkers, I could see everything for what it was.

No system, labels, tradition or cultural conditioning.

Non attachment...

 

However, I will not hold a wrong view that my way is best or the only way.

 

You are taking up an experience as an ultimate signifier. Or a view of no view as the ultimate view. This is not what is meant by the viewless view of "right view". Taking any view as ultimate which is what most paths do and what new agism and Hinduism in general does is take up "no view" as ultimate, thus thinking that any view will do as long as you meditate, but this just will not do if one wishes for Buddhahood.

 

The Buddha can be quoted as saying that Buddhadharma is unique and is the only teaching that leads to true cessation of the seeds of becoming as it's the only path that really explores "right view" with depth and methods for realizing it directly.

 

This doesn't mean that an individual anywhere cannot come to this without taking refuge in the triple jewel, but it's said to take countless lifetimes for this to happen. Of course, one without Buddha omniscience can't really know where anyone is at in the process of countless lifetimes to awakening. Though awakening can happen at any time for someone with the right inner conditions, for practical purposes I do take up the Buddhadharma and take refuge in the triple jewel. I do this in order to speed the process and learn how to share the process with accuracy and hopefully without muddled thinking in order to set up these conditions for clarity.

 

So, if you take refuge in the triple jewel, then you don't believe that an experience no matter how exalted is a signifier of an ultimate view which all things are one with. The Buddhas teaching reveals that the universe is much more complex than that, and also more chaotic with many destinations according to which view you take up. Thus the explanation of the different jhanas and the 31 planes of existence showing where yogi's make mistakes in their idealization of a supreme experience as an ultimate view.

 

Vaj should be a bit more diplomatic.

 

Yes, I agree... at times I am most likely out of order. Thus I am a Buddhist, not a Buddha... so please forgive me.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[johndoe2012]

[Sunya]

Interesting quotes, Thanks.

[garuda]

[CarsonZi]

I thouroughly enjoyed your post Garuda. Thank you _/\_

 

Love!

[garuda]

 

Not that this is exactly related, but the other week I had to go away for a week so my ex came to look after my dog. In any case, when I came back I went into the bathroom and as I looked in the mirror I realized my trip had done me a lot of good, as I looked far more healthy than before, it could even be said my skin had a certain glow to it. It was then I realized my ex had cleaned the mirror.

 

 

Ninpo, there have been lots of people out there helping me clean my mirror. I am thankful for them.

[garuda]

[C T]

This is a repost (for those who may have missed it the first time it was put up a few months ago) of Jed McKenna's clip on "Where Is Enlightenment?", courtesy of Ahab Capt. Not that its terribly important or anything - just a bunch of words that sounded quite right (to me), and he has a pleasant way in trying to express the inexpressible. So if it interests you, please have a listen:

 

 

 

 

 

"You are dreaming you are unenlightened; You are dreaming you are awake..."

(Jed)

Edited June 25, 2010 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Sincerely,

Wind bag.

P.S. - I'll try not to be so windy in the future, sorry.

 

Dude... let it flow... no self judgement. Just let it happen. We loved it! Thank you...

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

 

 

 

"You are dreaming you are unenlightened; You are dreaming you are awake..."

(Jed)

 

CowTao... I would love to watch this but my Wifi connection is super slow and it would take an hour to download that. It seems even slower than dial up as I'm getting it from quite a distance away. But, thanks for the quotes!

[Vajrahridaya]

Interesting quotes, Thanks.

 

They are interesting, but I don't know if I could fully agree with the synopsis. Eh... whatever... :lol:

 

Alaya Vijnana is considered in Indian Buddhism to be unique for each individual, but experienced as universal for any large group of sentient beings with the same attachment to a universal soul.

 

Chan and Zen seems to reify the concept of Buddhamind as well as they seem to equate emptiness with a meditative absorption too much in my opinion, even experientially, so it seems clouded by reified selfness. Indian, Tibetan and other forms of Buddhism like in Thailand and Shree Lanka seems to differ in the understanding of inter-dependent origination/emptiness than China and Japan for the most part, not in all examples though.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

CowTao... I would love to watch this but my Wifi connection is super slow and it would take an hour to download that. It seems even slower than dial up as I'm getting it from quite a distance away. But, thanks for the quotes!

Hi Vaj how you doin?

 

Because your connection is super-slow, i have extracted this: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/12388-enlightenment-for-all/page__pid__157043__st__20& for you! Its the contents of the clip typed out in full (find post #22). Sorry my comp skills are fairly zero, meaning i'm just as super-slow, i guess - haven't yet possess the savvy to snip the specific post with the contents displayed in order to save a bit of your time.

 

Good day!

Edited June 26, 2010 by CowTao

[adept]

[adept]

Yes, I agree... at times I am most likely out of order. Thus I am a Buddhist, not a Buddha... so please forgive me.

 

No problems brother. I forgive you.

We have much to share, and I look forward to more dharma dialogues with you.

[Vajrahridaya]

I did not re-edit this post to CowTao. Seems we have a gremlin aboard?

Edited June 26, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

No problems brother. I forgive you.

We have much to share, and I look forward to more dharma dialogues with you.

[xabir2005]

Chan and Zen seems to reify the concept of Buddhamind as well as they seem to equate emptiness with a meditative absorption too much in my opinion, even experientially, so it seems clouded by reified selfness.

Well, it actually depends on which Chan or Zen teacher you're talking about.

 

This is actually a problem that isn't limited to Chan or Zen. It is pervasive to all kinds of traditions of Buddhism. It is pervasive in Theravada (particularly the Thai Forest Tradition) tradition, it is pervasive in Ch'an or Zen, it is also pervasive in Vajrayana (particularly those with shentong leanings). Though it could be argued that Chan or Zen has relatively a higher number of 'reification-inclined' teachings.

 

Let me quote from Ch'an Master Sheng Yen who listed three stages of meditation, the first stage is merely relaxation, the second stage is the Big Self, and the third stage is No Self:

 

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Modern%20Teachers/Sheng%20Yen/What%20is%20Ch%27an/What%20is%20Ch%27an%20-%20Master%20Sheng-yen.htm

 

When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the "I" does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognize that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena.

.

.

.

One who has entered Chan (Zen) does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vaj how you doin?

 

Because your connection is super-slow, i have extracted this: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/12388-enlightenment-for-all/page__pid__157043__st__20& for you! Its the contents of the clip typed out in full (find post #22). Sorry my comp skills are fairly zero, meaning i'm just as super-slow, i guess - haven't yet possess the savvy to snip the specific post with the contents displayed in order to save a bit of your time.

 

Good day!

 

Wow. someone edited my last comment under my own name.

 

I said something like. Yes, I remember him, he is funny! :lol:

 

Though in Mahayana/Vajrayana we set up the conditions for expression through the practice of transformation while de-conditioning from the inappropriate for enlightened display. We don't take refuge in the non-conceptual, nor do we take refuge in the conceptual either.

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, it actually depends on which Chan or Zen teacher you're talking about.

 

This is actually a problem that isn't limited to Chan or Zen. It is pervasive to all kinds of traditions of Buddhism. It is pervasive in Theravada (particularly the Thai Forest Tradition) tradition, it is pervasive in Ch'an or Zen, it is also pervasive in Vajrayana (particularly those with shentong leanings). Though it could be argued that Chan or Zen has relatively a higher number of 'reification-inclined' teachings.

 

Yes, I do agree. It's really a pervasive habit of Samsarin's to begin with, and those on the path just deepen it or experience the subtle versions of this craving for supreme existence, or an ultimate reality of ourself and most just take up this exalted experience as a true and self sustained self of all. I certainly used to.