Mindstream

[Mark Foote]

In my understanding the mind is neither in the head nor in the heart. It's not located anywhere.

 

Is this the Chinese "heart-mind" (maybe other cultures too, I don't know)? Are you saying there is no sense of physical location associated with awareness, or are you simply affirming that awareness has no fixed location?

 

Strange about physically measuring the biomagnetic field associated with the heart. I have to remind myself that the ability to feel can exceed what is known through the six senses at any given moment; perhaps our unconscious just takes in that much more that what our consciousness is permitted to realize, but if so some of it is like radio energy or other bio-energy that can come from the other side of the world and probably of the universe, in my estimation. I don't know how you measure it other than by the sychronicity of events; you think of someone, and they call. Your feet lead you to a place where you meet an old friend; such as that.

[goldisheavy]

Is this the Chinese "heart-mind" (maybe other cultures too, I don't know)? Are you saying there is no sense of physical location associated with awareness, or are you simply affirming that awareness has no fixed location?

 

Awareness has no fixed location. Locations are artifacts of functioning awareness. In my understanding there is nothing besides awareness. In other words, awareness is not aware of anything other than its own state. That's why I also call it mind instead of awareness.

 

I don't think of my beliefs in terms of nationality. Chinese people have certainly thought the same way I think, I have no doubt. But then I am sure so have Italians, Russians, Arabs, Egyptians, Peruvians, Greeks and what have you. So I don't think there is anything original about my belief but at the same time, I don't exactly copy it from somewhere. Many people have similar ideas. For example, have you read "Illusions" by Richard Bach? It's a great book and it talks about the same things I believe.

 

What attracts us to various teachings? I find that for the most part, when I was interested in some teaching, it wasn't because it taught me something, but it was only because it validated and confirmed what I have known and believed all along. I haven't learned a damn thing from any teaching. The reason I love Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra is simply because it confirms what I always believed.

 

In the best case a teaching have awoken something I forgot. For example, when I read Castaneda for the first time, he talked how waking is a certain type of dreaming, and how dreaming is the same as waking. And I went, "Aaahhhhhh... YES!!!" It was like a light bulb going on. It was like something that makes sense and something that I know, but forgot or simply didn't pay attention to. Now it was brought to my attention and I recognized it immediately. There were a couple of moments like this when I had these "aha!" moments of recognition, and then every other teaching either refined or confirmed what I already knew/believed.

 

The teachings are still useful because they give me a chance to reflect, to refine my beliefs, to challenge at least some of them, and so on. But the teachings are not like a fresh software install into my mind. So even if some Chinese people think this way, I won't be calling it Chinese.

 

Strange about physically measuring the biomagnetic field associated with the heart. I have to remind myself that the ability to feel can exceed what is known through the six senses at any given moment; perhaps our unconscious just takes in that much more that what our consciousness is permitted to realize, but if so some of it is like radio energy or other bio-energy that can come from the other side of the world and probably of the universe, in my estimation. I don't know how you measure it other than by the sychronicity of events; you think of someone, and they call. Your feet lead you to a place where you meet an old friend; such as that.

 

I agree that this happens. This is one of the possibilities. In general all experiences are possible. For example, it's possible to experience life without sleep. It's also possible to experience a life that lasts 10 aeons or a life that lasts 1 day. It's possible to experience oneself as one body or as a pack of bodies or as no body at all, but rather as an abstract individuality. These are just some examples of what's possible, but the possibilities are limitless and if you can think it, it is possible.

 

I think when it comes to our lives though, we have to take into account probabilities and habits in addition to possibility, which is limitless. Because habits exist and because we have beliefs which structure our experience in a certain way, some possibilities are probable while others are not very probable. What exactly is probable and how much exactly? Ultimately you determine that in your life.

 

If you can see that your mind contains the entire universe-appearance, it's very normal that your intent affects the entire universe as you know it. Then, synchronicity is only the working of your own intent. Intent works across mind and because the mind isn't anywhere and has no size, it works across all that appears, which is to say non-locally.

Edited December 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Mal]

Is this the Chinese "heart-mind" (maybe other cultures too, I don't know)?

 

I think Mark ment this

Heart / Mind / Spirit xīn

kokoro

심

This word would often be translated as heart. However, because it was believed in Chinese culture thousands of years that your consciousness and thoughts came from the big red organ in the middle of your chest, it also means mind or spirit and sometimes even soul.

 

In Korean, beyond heart, mind, and spirit, this character can mean moral, nature, mind, affections, intentions, core, and center. In fact, it is used in Chinese to mean "center" as well, but only with another character in front of it. For instance, "medical center" or even "shopping center". Separately and alone, it will not be read with that "center" meaning unless thought of as "the center of your soul".

 

more so than "Chinese people"

[SFJane]

Ah I see, it seems like you are speaking of delving deeper into one's own unconscious. In a way your method answers for the ending of Gold's previous post of delving deeper into one's buried imprints and intentions...

 

I think your practice also relates to concentration practices but it's but into a different vocabulary..the Buddhist samatha jnanas, and in a way it's not so different than gaining insight into one's "mindstream" as you use it. I think they call this emtying out the jnanas in Buddhism, but I'm not so sure.

 

On another note,

 

Are you aware of Kunlun practice? The water methods of Frantzis and Kunlun go really well together imho. .

 

It's hard to say because to me the Buddhist terms get hopelessly confusing, samatha jnanas whatevas. It's just too cerebral for me. I didn't have to empty out anything except my projective thinking to find it. In the Taoist framework that I learned, and in my own experience, the mindstream is just another layer of your reality. It's the water upon which everything else floats. It's much easier said then felt, but when you notice it, it will be a clear and distinct emergence along with an attending increase in awareness.

 

Re: Kunlun. I had never heard of it until I came to TTB so I would not know.

[SFJane]

Hi SFJane,

Thank you SO MUCH for posting this!

I've read Bruce's description before, but your personal experience and understanding is very helpful to my practice.

 

Adeha

 

 

You are very welcome.

[goldisheavy]

It's hard to say because to me the Buddhist terms get hopelessly confusing, samatha jnanas whatevas. It's just too cerebral for me.

 

I actually agree with you about the Buddhist jnanas. I never liked the idea of categorizing and boxing up the meditative states like that. However, the Buddhist idea of the mindstream is the opposite of cerebral. It's simple: it's simply the continuity of experience. That's all.

 

I didn't have to empty out anything except my projective thinking to find it. In the Taoist framework that I learned, and in my own experience, the mindstream is just another layer of your reality. It's the water upon which everything else floats. It's much easier said then felt, but when you notice it, it will be a clear and distinct emergence along with an attending increase in awareness.

 

That's a very interesting way to define the term, but when defined in this way, it becomes something vastly different from the Buddhist definition. And that's fine. But now because there are two incompatible definitions floating around, we should be careful about which one we mean.

 

So when you became aware of the mindstream in the Taoist sense, how did your life change, if at all? What do you see in the mindstream?

Edited December 22, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Mark Foote]

[manitou]

 

i.e. if I killed someone, you won't have to suffer for 'my' karma (even though there is no doer, just a process of volition, action and ripening, etc) It is not the case that 'we are one and the same'.

 

 

But this is interesting. Maybe we all do have to suffer your karma if you kill someone; it's just that it's so subtle that we wouldn't notice it? Maybe karma weighs in at different levels too. Individual karma vs. national karma. But it might go back to the old 'if a butterfly flaps her wings on one side of the world....' If we are truly One, if our brains are One but for different habits, then we must share each others karma as well.

[Vajrahridaya]

But this is interesting. Maybe we all do have to suffer your karma if you kill someone; it's just that it's so subtle that we wouldn't notice it? Maybe karma weighs in at different levels too. Individual karma vs. national karma. But it might go back to the old 'if a butterfly flaps her wings on one side of the world....' If we are truly One, if our brains are One but for different habits, then we must share each others karma as well.

 

Well, thank goodness that we're not "one" then. We are connected though. So yes, Xabir killing someone will lead to a chain of events that effects more than just him, but on different levels, only because we are all connected. But, because we are not "one", we will not experience the karma of killing someone to the same degree that the killer will.

 

Sorry Xabir, I know you would never consciously kill someone, but this is just an example.

 

The idea that we are all "one" ultimate thing is incompatible with Buddhist realization. It's in fact, considered a trap, even if blissful, still a trap and won't lead to complete realization or the nature of ones mindstream, so the identification with oneness will limit ones wisdom and insight. It's a sweeping generalization and can impede deeper investigation. As being awake to things is seeing into their details.

 

Now, all Buddhas are "one" in intention, or "one" in the realization of the nature of things, but they are not "one" grand thing. Though they have all equally realized the dharmakaya, the dharmakaya is merely the realization of the empty and mutable nature of all things, including oneself. So the dharmakaya as well is not established as a supreme source of everything, or "one thing" that all things are, thus is not an "atman." It's merely the ultimate insight into everything. Though, if an individual realizes the Dharmakaya, they will know what their "atman" (self) is and what their ultimate and relative "dharma" is.

 

I do agree that there is individual karma, group karma, national karma, racial karma... etc.

 

Take care!

Edited December 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

How do we "know"? How do we "know" what this moment is? That there is a me, or rather "thisness"? Or that this is now and there was a past, and that there will be a future? How do we see movement from one point to the next? How do we know that there is a person sitting in front of me, that it is a person and not a statue, a dream, an imitation? Where do we delineate between this moment then the next, from one thing to another? How do we know if there is or there isn't a universal consciousness, or whether if we are the only consciousness, or that there are separate mindstreams? How do we know whether or not the person in front me is a hallucination, or whether or not I am the butterfly and not the dreamer?

 

Xabir, How is there the knowledge of dependent origination, of Maha? Of interconnectedness if in sitting there is JUST sitting, that in hearing there is JUST sound? If in thinking there is JUST thinking. Where do we draw the boundaries of that "just beingness? Where is the boundary of the experience of hearing and then to the experience of smelling? We can't draw any boundaries...

 

Gold, what you seem to be saying is that we cannot know; there is never a certainty. We cannot know that we know, so we know that we don't know and then there is nothing established and nothing to be negated! Establish the unestablishment, negate negation! Empty the emptiness! Hence the right view takes us to the brink of collapsing everything into uncertainties...and even that view is unestablished...!

 

The entire process of Thusness's stages is the stripping of establishments: the I Am deconstructs our materialist universe, the first stanza strips away an inherent dooer, the second stanza deconstructs everything down to momentary experience! But this is not enough, because even this very experience cannot be grasped because sound is never JUST sound, there is a potential to it, a context to it. Tarin can say all he wants about just feeling the senses..but does he not write about it? Doesn't he return with a perspective on it? It still leaves him imprints, tendencies...there is never JUST experiences of "sound"....to Tarin there is no such thing...there is still an establishment of a view or the real way to experience, and a false way...

 

But, and I think this is very very important, this sense of interconnectedness does NOT arise from establishing a universe, a background, or anything. We do not think universe or a set of causes and conditions and say "A + B + C = D"...It comes from a sense of uncertainty, of ungraspable nature of things. Hence the word dependence is used. Dependent on WHAT? If this sound is not inherent, unestablished, it must arise from something, somewhere, from a cause, from a condition, but Xabir as you said, We don't know! There is no way of knowing because the new moment of "trying to know" arises. Dependence breeds dependence...so we say it is dependent, uncertain, unknownable!

 

Thus the very presence is deconstructed to the uncertainty, uncertainty of this very moment itself! Where does it come from? Where does it go? But then it's GONE! Ungraspable, no boundaries...we are completely and totally OPEN to anything...

 

BUT! the mind, no mind-phenomena-luminosity... still appears through delineation...it works through concepts...It draws the boundaries of "here" "now""sound", when stripped to its very bareness, the "non-dual" experience of things...and it MUST...it must because that is what experience is...we never really, truly experience movement, we experience an impression of a movement, we don't experience space...we experience the impression of space...a THIS...insight is into its ungraspability, D.O, emptiness, whatever else, unsubstantiated..

 

So they say the union of emptiness and luminosity..the uncertainty of certainty...viewless view..

 

So I get it! I get it now when Xabir, you asked me months ago what it meant that sound liberated sound, that touch liberated touch...just as the Buddha upon enlightenment touched the earth as a "witness" to his enlightenment, the arising and passing away fo experience certifies from moment to moment its own very uncertainty! Everything in a let go...let go..let goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

:lol: .

The causes and conditions can be comprehended... but they cannot be established as inherent.

 

For example, the Buddha comprehended very precisely the 12 links of interdependent origination. (with ignorance as condition, karmic formation arose, etc etc...)

 

He also said thus,

 

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

 

 

 

However, 'understood' here is not conceptual knowledge which as you pointed out is uncertain. 'Understood' is to see exactly how and with what conditions things arose through clear, observant mindful awareness of things. Only with Buddha's depth of insight can we see with precision the exact interrelation of the 12 links of interdependent origination.

 

 

Btw, if you have ever wondered what directly caused Buddha's awakening... it was his contemplation on interdependent origination and the four noble truths:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it was actually present, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

 

 

Regarding non-establishment: There is nothing that can be established in actual experience.... like what we call 'universe' is really 'universing'... what we call 'tree' is really 'treeing'... what we call 'wind' is really just the experience 'blowing'... a flow that cannot be pinned down or grasped or established in any way. As you said, everything is letting go every moment... there is just thoughts after thoughts, impressions, sensations, sounds, breathe, etc. We can't establish 'something' that is ever-evolving, 'streaming', dependently originated and non-substantial as being this or that, existing or non-existing, etc.

 

Our experience must not only transform to non dual, it must transform (not really transform as this is already the case, but rather a 'shift' of perception, an insight) to a non-substantial stream of experience.

 

There is nothing that can be established in actual experience.... like what we call 'universe' is really 'universing'... what we call 'tree' is really 'treeing'... what we call 'wind' is really just the experience 'blowing'... a flow that cannot be pinned down or grasped or established in any way, its manifestation being dependent on various supporting conditions.

 

You said well about there being no movement and no space, only impressions... in actuality, only ever this arising without movement. What dependently originates is empty of inherent existence and hence have no movement, no origin, no location (and no space), no 'coming from', 'going to', etc. When supporting conditions are present, 'it' (whatever 'it' is) appears and when the conditions cease, 'it' ceases. Apparition-like appearance that appears out of no where and goes no where (but is sustained by conditions), has no movement and is unborn.

 

The insight of non-dual, as well as anatta, no-agent, and dependent origination leads to a transformation of view and perception of reality... no longer are we seeing an 'Awareness' perceiving 'things' and thus fabricate a world of a subjective agent and an objective universe... we see that all there is is a constant stream-ing of experiences that is empty and dependent on supporting factors.

Edited December 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[manitou]

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

 

If this quote is attributable to Buddha, isn't he inferring Oneness here? If he considers the inclination of I and mine to be vainglorious, isn't he saying that the correct inclincation is us and ours? One?

[xabir2005]

If this quote is attributable to Buddha, isn't he inferring Oneness here? If he considers the inclination of I and mine to be vainglorious, isn't he saying that the correct inclincation is us and ours? One?

No, the 'Perfect One' is simply a name, an attribute (one of the ten) to Shakyamuni Buddha, who has attained the 'complete and unexcelled awakening'. It is not referring to some ultimate Oneness of sorts.

 

There is no cosmic mind. There are unique mindstreams, but there is no 'I' or a self inherent in any mindstreams. Nor is there some unified self or oneness underlying all mindstreams.

Edited December 24, 2010 by xabir2005

[manitou]

No, the 'Perfect One' is simply a name, an attribute (one of the ten) to Shakyamuni Buddha, who has attained the 'complete and unexcelled awakening'. It is not referring to some ultimate Oneness of sorts.

 

There is no cosmic mind. There are unique mindstreams, but there is no 'I' or a self inherent in any mindstreams. Nor is there some unified self or oneness underlying all mindstreams.

 

 

At some point within Buddhism do you lose the structure?

[Lucky7Strikes]

The causes and conditions can be comprehended... but they cannot be established as inherent.

 

For example, the Buddha comprehended very precisely the 12 links of interdependent origination. (with ignorance as condition, karmic formation arose, etc etc...)

 

He also said thus,

 

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

I think the causes and conditions are comprehended for their ignorance, their unestablishment, not necessarily for how they "really" are...

 

Btw, if you have ever wondered what directly caused Buddha's awakening... it was his contemplation on interdependent origination and the four noble truths:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it was actually present, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

Yes yes, it is undone, not reestablished. It is the ending of ignorance...the chain and causes were established by nothing but mind...all a mind's play seen through...

 

[Vajrahridaya]

At some point within Buddhism do you lose the structure?

 

And flail around in formless chaos?

 

When does the cosmos loose it's structure, it's progress of process? Different dimensions of experience expand and collapse, into potential for other dimensions of expression based upon the end of the previous. Solar systems do the same, but what's behind these? Liberation is understanding how structuring happens, seeing directly without the filter of subjective projection.

 

Structuring never ceases, but it's always empty of inherent existence and it's really just freedom.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Mark Foote]

At some point within Buddhism do you lose the structure?

 

Some wonderful stuff every which way, on this thread, methinks-

 

I was up at Sonoma Mountain Zen Center the other day, and Issho Fujita gave a presentation on the stretches involved in zazen. He ended by pointing out that we put our hands on our heads when we wonder what to do or what to think about something; we cross our hands over our heart when we seek humility; what, he asked, is the mind that goes with the posture of zazen? When we sit, we experience that mind, he said.

 

The Gautamid started out teaching the four fields of mindfulness, the seven factors of enlightenment, the four truths, and the eight-fold path. In my estimation, something changed after the suicide of many of his monks due to the meditation on the unlovely, which he also taught (it's in Samyutta Nikaya volume 5 in the chapter on "the intent concentration on in-breaths and out-breaths"). When he came out of retreat and realized the situation, he described his practice before and after enlightenment as "concentration on in-breaths and out-breaths", and he said this was a thing that was lovely in and of itself, and a pleasant way of life too. Notice that he no longer is directing his monks to the unlovely as a means for the recognition of impermanence, nor is he advocating striving for enlightenment in some other way. Of course, the concentration on in-breaths and out-breaths he describes involves in part the experience of impermanence, detachment, cessation, or relinquishment in connection with the breath in or out, yet the emphasis is markedly changed.

 

He also describes the experience of sense organ, sense object, consciousness, impact, and feeling with respect to each of the senses as a way that fevers of the mind and body diminish, and the eight fold way, the factors of enlightenment, and all the rest go to development and fruition (Majjhima-Nikaya, Pali Text Society volume 3 pg 337-338, ©Pali Text Society). This too represents a different emphasis than that of the earlier teachings, at least it does to me.

 

When the Gautamid died, he said, "everything changes- work out your own salvation". He told the monks they didn't have to observe all the rules anymore, just the principal three, but nobody could say which three he meant with any certainty so they went on observing them all.

 

So at what point do I lose the structure? I think only out of a necessity at the moment, that is somehow realized. As Shunryu Suzuki said, it's a mistake to think you can sit zazen- only zazen can sit zazen. I would say, it's a mistake for me to think that I can lose the structure. It helps me to know that the Gautamid's practice concerned mindfulness connected with in-breaths and out-breaths; it helps me to know that the anatomy behind that is the support for the 4th and 5th lumbar vertebrae provided by the ilio-lumbar ligaments, and to know that this support is crucial to the free movement of the sacrum in the cranial-sacral rhythm. It helps me to know that it's about consciousness out of sense organ and sense object, impact in the fascial structure as a result of consciousness, and the ability to feel that follows out of activity generated by impact. Most of all, it helps me to know that aversion to the particular of feeling, attraction to the particular, or ignorance of it can condition the subsequent occurrence of consciousness; I can witness the conditional nature of consciousness for myself, and experience the cessation of volitive activity in perception and sensation as a result of such a witness. There's a certain happiness in this that draws me as a necessity, at any given moment.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Mark Foote

[C T]

[xabir2005]

I think the causes and conditions are comprehended for their ignorance, their unestablishment, not necessarily for how they "really" are...

 

 

Yes yes, it is undone, not reestablished. It is the ending of ignorance...the chain and causes were established by nothing but mind...all a mind's play seen through...

 

Yes.. By comprehending causes and conditions, even causality collapses and is 'unestablished'...

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy10.htm

The irony of Nagarjuna's approach to pratitya-samutpada is that its use of causation refutes causation: having deconstructed the self-existence or being of things (including us) into their conditions and interdependence, causality itself then disappears, because without anything to cause/be effected, the world will not be experienced in terms of cause and effect. Once causality has been used to refute the apparent self-existence of objective things, the lack of things to relate-together refutes causality. If things originate (change, cease to exist, etc.), there are no self-existing things; but if there are no things, then there is nothing to originate and therefore no origination...

 

... In Derridean terms, the important thing about causality is that it is the equivalent of textual differance in the world of things. If differance is the ineluctability of textual causal relationships, causality is the differance of the "objective" world. Nagarjuna's use of interdependence to refute the self-existence of things is equivalent to what Derrida does for textual meaning, as we have seen. But Nagarjuna's second and reverse move is one that Derrida doesn't make: the absence of any self-existing objects refutes causality/differance. The aporias of causality are well known; Nagarjuna's version points to the contradiction neces-sary for a cause-and-effect relationship: the effect can be neither the same as the cause nor different from it. If the effect is the same as the cause, nothing has been caused; if it is different, then any cause should be able to cause any effect. [18]

 

Therefore pratitya-samutpada is not a doctrine of "dependent origination" but an account of "non- dependent non-origination." It describes, not the interaction of realities, but the sequence and juxtaposition of "appearances" -- or what could be called appearances if there were some non-appearance to be contrasted with. Origination, duration and cessation are "like an illusion, a dream, or an imaginary city in the sky." (MMK VII:34) What is perhaps the most famous of all Mahayana scriptures, the Diamond Sutra, concludes with the statement that "all phenomena are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble and a shadow, like dew and lightning." As soon as we abolish the "real" world, "appearance" becomes the only reality, and we discover

 

a world scattered in pieces, covered with explosions; a world freed from the ties of gravity (i.e., from relationship with a foundation); a world made of moving and light surfaces where the incessant shifting of masks is named laughter, dance, game. [19]

Edited December 25, 2010 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Thank you, sir. I enjoyed this insight.

 

Yea... me too... felt that!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Therefore pratitya-samutpada is not a doctrine of "dependent origination" but an account of "non- dependent non-origination." It describes, not the interaction of realities, but the sequence and juxtaposition of "appearances" -- or what could be called appearances if there were some non-appearance to be contrasted with. Origination, duration and cessation are "like an illusion, a dream, or an imaginary city in the sky." (MMK VII:34) What is perhaps the most famous of all Mahayana scriptures, the Diamond Sutra, concludes with the statement that "all phenomena are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble and a shadow, like dew and lightning." As soon as we abolish the "real" world, "appearance" becomes the only reality, and we discover

 

a world scattered in pieces, covered with explosions; a world freed from the ties of gravity (i.e., from relationship with a foundation); a world made of moving and light surfaces where the incessant shifting of masks is named laughter, dance, game. [19][/i]

 

Ah yes... I did need this reminder just now.

 

Thanks Xabir! Happy Holidays!

[manitou]

Most of all, it helps me to know that aversion to the particular of feeling, attraction to the particular, or ignorance of it can condition the subsequent occurrence of consciousness; quote]

 

Thank you Mark for that post. Very edifying.

 

I so love that the Buddha returned to the basic focus. The in and out breath. The actual connection with all that breathes, all that grows, all that feels, all that Is. Sometimes when I'm laying face down and breathing into the warm grass the connection with life is made and it makes me tingle all over. It's indescribable.

 

This is an interesting comment about aversion to the particular of feeling. What is it that makes us not want to feel? I've always hated to feel - HATED to cry, even in private. Afraid to love. And I HATE that feeling of dread in the stomach when something seemingly awful is about to happen. These are all merely visceral events. What the heck is the problem with this? It's like we're all little bags of visceral sensations in denial. How quickly we want to cover up the visceral feelings with substance..or meditation. Anxiety doesn't feel good in the stomach. This is such an odd thing....

 

Of course the answer is to Be Here Now, whether in conscious in/out breathing or by total relaxation from the outside to the inside. To the place WHERE THERE IS NO FEELING. Huh?

 

I've heard it said that when souls are disembodied, they desperately wish to be incarnate again. I don't know who came up with this or whether there's anything to it at all. But if there is truth to it, isn't it odd that the soul wants to get back into the realm of FEELING once more? And yet, here we are.....all of us trying desperately to get out of feeling and back into the nothingness and Not Being. What kind of a funny Catch-22 did the Wizard create here?

Edited December 25, 2010 by manitou

[Mark Foote]

...The actual connection with all that breathes, all that grows, all that feels, all that Is. Sometimes when I'm laying face down and breathing into the warm grass the connection with life is made and it makes me tingle all over. It's indescribable.

 

This is an interesting comment about aversion to the particular of feeling. What is it that makes us not want to feel? I've always hated to feel - HATED to cry, even in private. Afraid to love. And I HATE that feeling of dread in the stomach when something seemingly awful is about to happen. These are all merely visceral events. What the heck is the problem with this? It's like we're all little bags of visceral sensations in denial. How quickly we want to cover up the visceral feelings with substance..or meditation. Anxiety doesn't feel good in the stomach. This is such an odd thing....

 

Of course the answer is to Be Here Now, whether in conscious in/out breathing or by total relaxation from the outside to the inside. To the place WHERE THERE IS NO FEELING. Huh?

 

I've heard it said that when souls are disembodied, they desperately wish to be incarnate again. I don't know who came up with this or whether there's anything to it at all. But if there is truth to it, isn't it odd that the soul wants to get back into the realm of FEELING once more? And yet, here we are.....all of us trying desperately to get out of feeling and back into the nothingness and Not Being. What kind of a funny Catch-22 did the Wizard create here?

 

First of all let me thank you for the question, and all the other Tao Bums here for the moving insights and comments, and appreciations; ain't Tao Bums swell!

 

 

"The actual connection with all that breathes, all that grows, all that feels, all that Is." To my mind, you exactly sum up how the structure is lost here, among other things. I would pick out "all that grows" as a key to practical buddhism 101; all that grows means the stretch that we find ourselves in at the moment, how we recognize and accept that stretch and relax the activity that is generated.

 

The stretch that generates activity can come close to painful sprain at any given moment, yet there is reciprocity, and the length of the given movement of breath can actually become the appropriate stretch. A mystery, as consciousness takes place.

 

Have you read "emotional intelligence", by Daniel Goleman? He talks about how we store memories charged with adrenalin in connection with experiences we have even before we have language, for instant recall in similar circumstances, and how our behaviour can be dictated from that part of the brain (the amygdala). Beyond our cognitive control. The Gautamid spoke of how mindfulness is set up, then attention is withdrawn from the object of mindfulness, and equanimity continues in absorption; this equanimity is the equanimity with respect to the particular of feeling when consciousness, impact, and feeling takes place. The sensation of falling and our reflexes of posture triggered through memories stored by the amygdala can perhaps make the transition to single-pointedness of mind and equanimity a tough sled.

 

I think the theory is that it is only possible to resolve karma when one has the ability to feel, and so is incarnate. That our attraction, aversion, or ignorance of the contents of feeling blinds us to consciousness, impact, and the ability to feel is not solely a human characteristic, but that we have memories in words apparently is; most animals only have image memory, not thought, if I understand correctly. Somewhere in the Pali Cannon the followers of the Gautamid are praised for being like wild animals; that's a favorite notion for me. At the same time, in Vinaya the Gautamid chastised a group of monks for their intention to hold a silent retreat, saying that the discourse on the dhamma was helpful to all beings. A rule was made prohibiting silent retreat, I believe; don't hear about that one at Zen centers much!

 

I digress. Love and hate, dread in the stomach- behaviour that is impulsive and habitual- ain't we got fun. The insight into causality may be instantaneous, but the cessation of the volitive activity of speech, body, and mind is gradual- so said the Gautamid. As to form is emptiness and emptiness is form- no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, and also no extinction of them- as Foyan said in 12th century China, if we cannot find it where we are right now, where will we find it?

Edited December 25, 2010 by Mark Foote

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes.. By comprehending causes and conditions, even causality collapses and is 'unestablished'...

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/loy10.htm

The irony of Nagarjuna's approach to pratitya-samutpada....

 

I read in the diamond sutra today

 

"How do I know this? Because this person must have discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self, of other people, or of a universal self. Otherwise their minds would still grasp after such relative conceptions. Furthermore, these people must have already discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self. Otherwise, their minds would still be grasping at such notions. Therefore anyone who seeks total Enlightenment should discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts."

 

...

 

Edited December 26, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes