help explain a tiny part of the Shurangama Sutra

[Procurator]

Thanks for the reply! not directly related to your comment, but why are only 6 senses mentioned?

becouse a human bodymind has no other way to sense, just these 6. Any other phenomenon has to be converted into one of the 6 stimuli.

[Procurator]

I'm trying to read the Shurangama Sutra. I'm using this english translation, which includes commentaries: http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Shurangama/Shurangama.htm .

 

I'm reading part of Volume 3, where the Buddha talks about the Six Entrances. He says:

 

 

 

First of all, what is "the wonderful nature of true suchness, the

Treasury of the Thus Come One?"

 

Next, I don't follow all his explanations. It seems the commentator also glosses over a lot of the explanation. For example, when talking about the eye entrance:

 

 

 

What is meant by "Bodhi" in the first paragraph?

same thing as suchness, the true undefiled consciosness which is wrapped into ordinary mind defiled be the 6 senses.

[Procurator]

This nature of seeing would have no self-nature? What does that mean, first of all?

 

 

 

************************it means that without external light/darkness your facility of seeing will not register anything.

 

 

 

 

And secondly, why does that invalidate the fact that seeing comes from the sense organ? To me it seems pretty sound to say that photons hit your retina, which activate certain cells in your eye, which send electrochemical signals to parts of your brain, which someone then interprets as seeing. Everything except for the last part is just the sense organ of sight. It seems like it directly produces the sense of seeing.

 

***** of course not . it will not produce anything w/out the photons. so it does not produce anything per se. it just transmits.

 

[beoman]

becouse a human bodymind has no other way to sense, just these 6. Any other phenomenon has to be converted into one of the 6 stimuli.

Isn't part of the idea to transcend these 6 senses? what happens at that point?

[forestofclarity]

I would suggest meditation and contemplation. Meditation will help you collect the mind and investigate these things. For example, if you want to understand impermanence, once you've collected your mind, you can look to all things that arise and see "do they last or no?"

 

Contemplation would be philosophizing, considering things, comparing and contrasting like what you're doing here.

 

Also in general how would I go from rationally understanding these things to actually understanding them? Meditation? Self-inquiry? Should I direct it towards these thoughts or let whatever happens happen? In the latter case, why talk about anything at all?

[C T]

Greetings yet again Beoman

 

I see you have many questions added on to the 'tiny' one you started off with haha!

 

That, imo, is highly commendable. Doubt, and doubt again, as the Buddha had implored to all, until you yourself come to experiential and conclusive insights to all your own inquiries. These insights are relevant only to your own unfolding wisdom. It really does not matter so much to find the right answers... sometimes asking the right questions far outweigh the vitality of answers, which in most cases simply mean one has reached a dead-end. Do not get too keen on dead-ends, as my teacher used to tell me years ago.

 

I am sure my learned friend Xabir will eventually address some of the questions you have expressed here. I assure you they are all very valid questions too. Some you will get a satisfactory understanding. Those (answers) that do give you some satisfaction, i would say caste them aside. Those that do not satiate your 'thirst' are the ones you ought to be more keen on.

 

You might be disappointed to learn that i have no answers to offer you, and moreover, even if i have, they would only be valid in regards to my own unfolding wisdom - therefore i would prefer to simply invite you to continue investigating your doubts, go to the very end if you can. Keep looking, dig deeper, and find the never-ending answer to the question, "Who am I?"... For some people, this is a life-time's worth of study, while for other more fortunate souls, realization comes pretty quickly. But that should not be the focus. On the contrary, one's main concern ought to be the sole willingness to look at the question with burning earnestness and absolute honesty in the finding out. That's all i can offer you, i'm afraid.

 

(As for the name i picked, well, its very simple: 'Cow', for me, is a symbol of peaceful abiding. 'Tao' is the Way of becoming. Together, they are a play on the word 'Kowtow', which could be taken to mean 'respect another with humility', to acknowledge another's abilities, and/or to always try to regard others as more knowledgeable and wiser than myself, and to remind myself to keep that in mind as often as possible. Thanks for asking, btw.. If it means anything, the name given me at birth is Ananda, which is not anything so special. Its a Sanskrit name suggested by my grandfather (and which my parents liked too, i guess) who is Sri Lankan, and speaks that language. Its quite a common name in that country and some other parts of South-east Asia. )

 

Much blessings! Keep on with the great questions!! Someday, it will all become clear... even when its not, it will. Ah ha!

[Procurator]

Isn't part of the idea to transcend these 6 senses? what happens at that point?

any and all buddist ideas are based on the tripartite model of the human consciousness:

 

1. unperturbed true nature which is wrapped into 2. the ordinary human mind, defiled by 3. the 6 senses.

 

the end goal of training is to disassemble and remove the layer no. 2. At that point the trainee will no longer identify himself with suffering mind no. 2 . Instead he will realise that he is in fact the undestructible mind no. 1 which will make use of the senses without suffering from the desires and pain caused by the senses.

 

as to actually reaching that goal - you cant do it on your own. the method is secret and (as all these links with nothing but hot air show) is not available in the West in an open transmission.

[beoman]

 

 

as to actually reaching that goal - you cant do it on your own. the method is secret and (as all these links with nothing but hot air show) is not available in the West in an open transmission.

Really? This seems to directly contradict Buddhist ideas, which is that you can only do it on your own.

[Lucky7Strikes]

If there wasn't such a thing as photons... we probably would not have developed eyesight, no. we'd use our other senses to get around. seeing does inherently depend on photons existing, now that I think about it. but I think that's different than what you were getting at?

 

there are different kinds of blindness. some have eyes that don't work, so then the dark they see is just absence of receptors replying to photons, which is the same as the dark we see. or, their eye can work, but their visual cortex impaired. in that case it's from a lack of neurons working properly. in any case, considering the whole brain pathway as the eye "organ", it's something wrong with the organ. so I guess the dark the blind "see" doesn't come from the eyes exactly, but it still comes from some part of the organ that isn't being stimulated....

Hi Beoman,

 

Then the problem you suggest is that our consciousness and awareness are based on material realities. But that is a much deeper problem. As for this specific example, then seeing that there is no eye, as in the eye is totally taken out of the sockets, but the pathway of "seeing" remains. You can't then designate an "organ" can you? The organ is rather a process of "seeing" itself, very much like how if I picked up a book, you wouldn't say "picking up a book" is an organ. So "eye" and "seeing" are one, and not of the relation where one "comes from" the other.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

any and all buddist ideas are based on the tripartite model of the human consciousness:

 

1. unperturbed true nature which is wrapped into 2. the ordinary human mind, defiled by 3. the 6 senses.

 

the end goal of training is to disassemble and remove the layer no. 2. At that point the trainee will no longer identify himself with suffering mind no. 2 . Instead he will realise that he is in fact the undestructible mind no. 1 which will make use of the senses without suffering from the desires and pain caused by the senses.

 

as to actually reaching that goal - you cant do it on your own. the method is secret and (as all these links with nothing but hot air show) is not available in the West in an open transmission.

I don't think this is accurate, please check the thread on "coffins on non-existent self" for details.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Also in general how would I go from rationally understanding these things to actually understanding them? Meditation? Self-inquiry? Should I direct it towards these thoughts or let whatever happens happen? In the latter case, why talk about anything at all?

I had a rough introduction to Buddhism, and really am just as new to it as you. But Xabir's site http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ has great information on it. Daniel Ingram's teachings are also very practical in methods and theory, his book can be found here for free, http://www.interactivebuddha.com/.

 

Good luck!

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you wouldn't find coming and going within the true and eternal nature, how can coming and going fundamentally be the true and eternal nature?

 

If you were coming, the action of "coming" itself, would you "see" coming? As in if you were running, could you "see" the act of running? Seeing change presupposes a relativity of stillness separate from change, which is a delusional dual view.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hmm but apparently, there wasn't firewood "before", and then there "was" firewood, and "then" there "was" no more "firewood", but ash instead. Why is it wrong to say firewood is the past of ash?

 

What is "the phenomenal expression of firewood"? (I understand it doesn't mean "wonderful" =P). Is it its manifestation as phenomena, like the smell it emits, the way it looks, etc? Why does it fully include past and future? at some point those molecules weren't combined in such a way as to produce firewood in the past, and then at some point they break apart to form something else. It feels like the "firewood" really only exists at one point in time, not encompassing all of past and future.

Now the problem you bring up is with time. When we identify what is the past, the past is brought up into the present in order for it to be identified. So if we investigate into whether we can "find" the past, we see that this is actually impossible because the moment upon perceiving "past" it has become the present. As so with the present, the moment we try to find "presence" we see that it is ridiculous because the act of "finding presence" is actually presence itself! But the nature of presence always changes, because if there really was some static state called presence, we wouldn't be able to act at all, we would be frozen in time. So past, present, and future are all wrong views of interpreting experience.

 

It is the same with identifying causes and conditions. We cannot perfectly know all the causes and condition that bring about this very moment, because truly the list is infinite as time itself. It's like tracing your evolutionary history through various cycles of the universe from molecule to molecule, from atom to atom and so on...it is as infinite as drawing line within infinite space. But moreover, the conditions are truly unknowable, because knowing also arises from conditions. Knowing is an experience within those causes and conditions. You never stand outside of the entire process, as much as we assume, and say: this is exactly how the universe works. The most we can be certain is that there is arising of this experience, then that experience. And that each moment cannot be found, for it is not found "in" anything, there is no one, for there is no "doer," there is no when because events do not happen "in" time, but time and events are one experience, and so on. So we should see experience, NOT try to see that there is some sort of greater or more "real" reality, with least assumed delusions as we can, in its most bare form.

[Procurator]

This seems to directly contradict Buddhist ideas, which is that you can only do it on your own.

no, this ridiculous concept is a perversion of buddha's words about cultivating the self. it was perverted in the West by the western newagee "gurus" to mean that one does not need a teacher to receive the secret method. This perversion a) helps to sell what they peddle and 2) justifies them not having a transmission themselves.

[xabir2005]

any and all buddist ideas are based on the tripartite model of the human consciousness:

 

1. unperturbed true nature which is wrapped into 2. the ordinary human mind, defiled by 3. the 6 senses.

 

the end goal of training is to disassemble and remove the layer no. 2. At that point the trainee will no longer identify himself with suffering mind no. 2 . Instead he will realise that he is in fact the undestructible mind no. 1 which will make use of the senses without suffering from the desires and pain caused by the senses.

 

as to actually reaching that goal - you cant do it on your own. the method is secret and (as all these links with nothing but hot air show) is not available in the West in an open transmission.

Not all methods are secret. Some methods are, some are not. Some very effective methods are far from secret. Usually methods that are secret belong to the Esoteric school (密宗).

 

But regardless whether the method is secret - having an experienced teacher is still useful. This is more effective than practicing blindly not knowing where you're heading.

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I don't think this is accurate, please check the thread on "coffins on non-existent self" for details.

Shurangama Sutra leads the practitioner to realize the I AM first, before non-dual and anatta (it talks about non-dual and anatta as well, but leads the practitioner to realize the I AM first). It is a direct path teaching. So what Tian Shi said about realizing the 'indestructible mind' is not exactly wrong, just that the I AM is not the final realization.

 

p.s. I appreciate your replies to beoman, I think they are well said.

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

Hmm but apparently, there wasn't firewood "before", and then there "was" firewood, and "then" there "was" no more "firewood", but ash instead. Why is it wrong to say firewood is the past of ash?

Because firewood is firewood, ash is ash! They are each complete and whole itself.

 

For example, you are now thinking of a girl... but 5 minutes ago you are thinking of your mother.

 

Can you say that the thought of your mother is the past of the thought of the girl? No link!

 

They are very different thoughts, and each is an unconditioned whole in itself.

 

Similarly, you don't say that summer is the beginning of autumn, autumn the beginning of winter, or winter the beginning of spring.

 

Winter is winter... complete expression of winter. Summer is summer, etc.

What is "the phenomenal expression of firewood"? (I understand it doesn't mean "wonderful" =P). Is it its manifestation as phenomena, like the smell it emits, the way it looks, etc? Why does it fully include past and future? at some point those molecules weren't combined in such a way as to produce firewood in the past, and then at some point they break apart to form something else. It feels like the "firewood" really only exists at one point in time, not encompassing all of past and future.

Yeah sure, firewood is no longer here. But without firewood, would there be ash now? It's interdependent.

 

That's why Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh said:

 

In this food,

I see clearly

the entire universe

supporting my existence.

 

...

 

 

This food is the gift of the whole universe

the earth, the sky, and much hard work.

[xabir2005]

About the link on the emptiness video: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/11/non-locality-and-teleportation.html . If it's all an illusion, and we have these self-imposed restrictions.. wouldn't enlightened people be able to teleport themselves and other beings around at will? Why don't they?

There are stories of advanced yogis who through deep realization of emptiness is able to walk through walls, teleport, fly, etc.

 

Not exactly necessarily the case for all yogis though.

 

These siddhis are usually the effects of Shamatha/concentration practice, but Thusness did suggest from his experience that these 'non-local' activities can result from very deep realization/insight/clarity. Non-local activities like seeing and hearing without the limitation of distance is possible precisely because of Emptiness.

 

See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/different-degrees-of-non-duality.html

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

 

I'll check it out (and the 4 other links here). But what conditioned us that way? It seems like its just how we evolved to view the world. Or if a baby was the child of enlightened parents, and only lived around enlightened people, would s/he grow up enlightened, or would s/he have to attain it him/herself?

When we use our concepts to grasp the world and our self... it is inevitable that we hold on to dualistic and inherent thought... because we think that is the sole way of understanding the world (the teaching of D.O. and emptiness is an antidote to that). Even if your parents are enlightened you will still be unenlightened. When enlightenment happens, we realize all concepts are conventions and do not refer to inherent things... like 'red flower' doesn't really mean there is not even a truly existing 'redness' much less a 'red flower' out there, yet we continue describing it this way out of convenience. 'Self' doesn't really mean that there is truly an independent, separate self here.

 

Only through yogic realization do we see the faults of our dualistic mind.

 

Our conditioning and propensities and ignorance do not have an origin - they are beginningless - i.e. dependently originated in infinite regress without beginning, and that is the cause of our continuous falling back into samsaric rebirth.

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Ah so there is no hierarchy. It's not that A causes B. It's that A, along with everything else in the universe (including B?), causes B, which then affects the rest of the universe?

On the relative level we can say that the appearance is caused, but in terms of luminosity and emptiness (which cannot be separated from the appearance) its uncaused and unconditioned.

 

This moment... this experience... is unconditioned, uncaused, whole and complete, 'end-in-itself' as David Loy puts it.

But a leaf on one side of the planet is so far from a leaf on the other. How do they affect each other? The slight pull of gravity?

I don't know. Dependent origination does not have to work in a space time limitation. The teaching of Emptiness and D.O. lets you see through the illusory nature of time and locality. For example, see

 

http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

 

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

 

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations...(See link)

 

Simpo/Longchen wrote:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Teleportation

 

The non-solidity of existence

 

This article describes a spiritual insight. It may be quite hard to understand.

 

The things that we experience are registered by all the sense organs. The eye sight registers vision, the ears register sound, the body registers sensations. These perception, sensations and experiences are not happening in some places. They are the experience of the arising of certain conditions. There is no solidity and physicality in the actual experience.

 

What we experienced is not universal and common to all. Here's an example to illustrate that: We know that as human beings, we see in term of colours. Some animals are however colour-blind, thus they see differently from us. But none of us, is really seeing the truth nature directly. The senses of different species of sentient beings experience things differently. So who is seeing the real image of an object? None.

 

Likewise, the various planes of existence are due to different conditions arising. In certain types of meditation, one is said to be able to access these planes of existence. This is because they are not specific locations. They are mental states and are thus non-localised. In these meditations, our consciousness changes and 'aligned' more with these other states or planes of existence.

 

All the planes of existence are simultaneously manifesting, but because our senses are human-based conditioned arisings, we only see the human world and other beings that shared 'similar' resonating arising conditions. But nevertheless, the other planes of existences are not elsewhere in some other places.

 

What we think of as places are really just consciousness and there is no solidity whatsoever. Even our touch sense is just that. The touch sense gives an impression of feeling something that is physical and three-dimensional. But there is really no solid self-existing object there. Instead, it is simply the sensation that gives the impression of physical solidity and form.

OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.

 

For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading.

 

These articles are parts of a series of spiritual realisation articles.

 

Remember the butterfly effect - the idea that butterfly wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? Anyway here's something to ponder:

 

"Chaos theory breaks determinism, breaks boundary, yet does not deny order... a higher order that is too complex to be determined. Initial cause does not result into a predetermined action. From a spiritual perspective, the rigidity of ‘I’ as a fixed pattern order must be broken down for life to be experienced in its full dynamics as wondrous manifestation." ~ Thusness

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

The sound doesn't come from the drum itself, but it comes from the air molecules being pushed by the taut skin on the drum vibrating. Isn't that how the sound originates? I agree that the drum and the stick are different from it, but the sound depends on the drum to be "created".

 

 

 

Hmm... I agree it arises due to all those factors. Is he simply saying that the eye and the visible form are different from the seeing, because for the seeing to occur, all those factors must take place, so it is a separate but interdependent phenomenon?

 

When trying to trace out the full "organ" of the eye I got stuck at the part where the neurons get activated in the brain. Because what is reacting to those neurons to see? What are we exactly? I sppose that is the point of all this =).

It is that all those factors such as organs and sense object etc, including a previous moment of mind-consciousness (well a dead corpse cannot hear) come together, that a visual consciousness manifest.

 

Consciousness is distinct from all its conditions but interdependent with them.

 

As Thusness explains in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/06/bodhidharma-on-awareness-and-conditions.html ,

Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting but rather a manifestation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.

 

One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

[xabir2005]

What if I flick a lighter on, move it, then release the gas pedal? Wouldn't the flame have originated where I turned it on, and disappeared when I turned it off? Or is it that the flame, at every moment of "time" from when I was "moving" it, has actually been a different flame, one separate but interdependent with all the other flames, and all the flames come into existence and go out of existence as I am "moving" it?

When the flick, the oil, the air, all these conditions come together... flame manifest.

 

When you turn it off, flame disappears.

 

But can you say that flame originated from somewhere? Did it originate from the fingers, or the flick, or the oil, or the air? No!

 

Flame is a whole and complete end-in-itself.

 

Furthermore: can you say that the flame has 'gone to somewhere' after disappearing? Buddha often uses the analogy of fire to point out that the disappearance/cessation of an arising does not imply that things have 'gone somewhere'. That is - has the flame gone to the east, or the north, or south, or west, or up, or down? Or does it just disappear due to the absence of conditions for continued burning?

 

It just disappears, and such is the nature of Nirvana, you cannot say where the Arhant has gone after physical death.

 

Coming from, and going to, has no place in the understanding of D.O.

How are illusory and false things, in nature, the substance of enlightenment? I still don't understand this phrase.

First of all you need to understand what is the substance of enlightenment.

 

If you follow Shurangama Sutra, then my advice is to practice self-inquiry until you realize your true essence, presence-awareness. It is the self-shining, self-knowing and all-illuminating presence-awareness that shines as the core of existence-being. Then investigate how all phenomena themselves are the substance of presence-awareness... observer-observed dichotomy breaks down. Then further investigate into emptiness.

 

Step by step... like Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

Edited July 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[Mark Foote]

Edited August 1, 2010 by Mark Foote

[xabir2005]

Hi Mark Foote,

 

Although I agree that the Pali Suttas are the closest representation to the words of the original appearance of the Buddha, I disagree that Shurangama Sutra is a sutra that is fully faith based rather than verifiable through personal experience.

 

Shurangama Sutra is actually a meditation sutra, it actually provides the method, and tells you how to practice and investigate so that deep experiential wisdom will arise, as well as the many different kinds of meditation experience and pitfalls that one may encounter during the process. It also talks about the importance of samadhi and precepts. That is why many Ch'an/Zen teachers use this text a lot as reference - it is a very helpful and informative guide. It is deeply experiential. They are truly the words of an enlightened master - whether it was the Buddha or not. I can verify the Sutra for myself, because I can see some of my experiences being described there.

 

That said, with regards to the authenticity of Mahayana Sutra, I think those interested to know may find this thread - Are Mahayana Sutras Taught by Buddha? - enlightening.

 

Also with regards to what I said earlier regarding Direct Path vs Gradual Path: those who wish to go through 'direct path' and realize the I AM (and then move on to non-dual and anatta), should read the Shurangama Sutra. Those who wish to focus on Theravadin Vipassana would do well to focus on the Pali Suttas. There is an 'experiential correlation' and technique difference.

Edited August 1, 2010 by xabir2005