Informer Posted September 15, 2011 When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time. At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free! In commemoration, she wrote a poem: In this way and that I tried to save the old pail Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about to break Until at last the bottom fell out. No more water in the pail! No more moon in the water! http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/29nowaternomoon.html 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) What is what is? That is quite an accusation. what is is what is is what is is what what is is what and is what is also what is. Two sides make one line. One line makes the entrance. But the exit? It's just my statements that is the perverted absurdity. Edited September 15, 2011 by XieJia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Hahaha me like the way this thread is going. Though I am not familiar with a Koan tradition. Let me try... Dust is dust Mirror is mirror mirror itself, the dust. dust itself, the mirror. The two comes together stands together goes together How can we be partial and wipe the mirror? both are dusts, both are mirrors what is there to see when two mirrors reflects? dust and mirror becomes one, what does one goes to? @Xabir There's some realisation but yet to pass through the gate. I still see myself outside. I am still partial between the Dukkha, Anitjun, Anatta. @Informer +1 hahaha Goodluck to one or not even two, not even one. Scenery sees, the one hand claps. Seeing is the seen, no seer. In hearing just the heard, no hearer. Maybe take some time to contemplate on bahiya sutta. It is what got me to the breakthrough - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-commentary-on-bahiya-sutta.html?m=0 Edited September 15, 2011 by xabir2005 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) @Xabir Thanks for the guidance The scenary seen, the hearing is the heard. what is it that you see in me? thus is what I heard; heating, melting, liquid metal and condense it on glass. the glass itself is made of sand. the glass is then polished (loads of scratching). This is how mirrors are made. need not to break the mirror just a scratch, to see the mirror not as a mirror but the combination of its aggregates. thus is what I heard... "Without words, without silence; how can you express the truth?" -Wumengguan c.24 what is it that you see in me? Edited September 15, 2011 by XieJia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) @Xabir Thanks for the guidance The scenary seen, the hearing is the heard. what is it that you see in me? thus is what I heard; heating, melting, liquid metal and condense it on glass. the glass itself is made of sand. the glass is then polished (loads of scratching). This is how mirrors are made. need not to break the mirror just a scratch, to see the mirror not as a mirror but the combination of its aggregates. thus is what I heard... "Without words, without silence; how can you express the truth?" -Wumengguan c.24 what is it that you see in me? good. When you see self, seeing, awareness, as a mere convention or label collating the transient but self-luminous aggregation (which is the meaning of 'seeing is the seen'), then there are just aggregated direct experiences, moment by moment experiences of thoughts, sensations and sounds and so on, but never a solid or inherent self, experiencer or seer. This effectively is breaking the mirror because a reflector behind reflections is not required - all along just the aggregation of mere reflections that arise according to various conditions. Edited September 15, 2011 by xabir2005 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted September 15, 2011 This effectively is breaking the mirror because a reflector behind reflections is not required - all along just the aggregation of mere reflections that arise according to various conditions. eh? Something is being reflected to have a reflection. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) @Xabir Thanks for the guidance The scenary seen, the hearing is the heard. what is it that you see in me? thus is what I heard; heating, melting, liquid metal and condense it on glass. the glass itself is made of sand. the glass is then polished (loads of scratching). This is how mirrors are made. need not to break the mirror just a scratch, to see the mirror not as a mirror but the combination of its aggregates. thus is what I heard... "Without words, without silence; how can you express the truth?" -Wumengguan c.24 what is it that you see in me? Nice post, I really like that. You would be stuck pointing at it. or playin Charades I would probably just laugh and dance. Edited September 15, 2011 by Informer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 15, 2011 eh? Something is being reflected to have a reflection. Not even a 'something' - just reflections, shimmering appearances, much like a dream but very vivid. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted September 15, 2011 Sorry, I don't fallow. There is not a reflection without something being reflected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 15, 2011 Sorry, I don't fallow. There is not a reflection without something being reflected. In a dream, is there a real tiger being reflected? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) In a dream, is there a real tiger being reflected? An interpretation of what you percieve as a real tiger. Of course depending on what sort of dream it is. The mind can manifest myserious calculations that is the epiphany of infinty and chaos. Edited September 15, 2011 by Informer 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted September 15, 2011 let me join you with the dancing and laughing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted September 15, 2011 let me join you with the dancing and laughing. HOORAY! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Xabir, how important is the heart center to your practice and at what point does it come into play. How is the Heart center described and what are its "roles" so to speak? Does your practice include the subtle energy body and at what point does this start being practiced? Thanks! Edited September 15, 2011 by Informer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Xabir, how important is the heart center to your practice and at what point does it come into play. How is the Heart center described and what are its "roles" so to speak? Does your practice include the subtle energy body and at what point does this start being practiced? Thanks! Currently no, that would be the more tantric side of Buddhism and I haven't practiced any of it. Though I am interested in Dzogchen so might pick up related practices in the future. Edited September 15, 2011 by xabir2005 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Informer Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Currently no, that would be the more tantric side of Buddhism and I haven't practiced any of it. Though I am interested in Dzogchen so might pick up related practices in the future. I take it that Mettā is not part of the practice at all? That may be a good start towards Primary if there is free awareness. What ever allows a shifting of perspective, not from the mind, but within the body. Edited September 15, 2011 by Informer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 15, 2011 I take it that Mettā is not part of the practice at all? That may be a good start towards Primary if there is free awareness. What ever allows a shifting of perspective, not from the mind, but within the body. Oh incidentally, recently I was practicing metta (for the first time, lol) and noted this: I wrote to Thusness some time ago: I was reading the book 'beyond mindfulness' by bhante gunaratana, its a book about jhana practice. He recommends either metta or breathing mindfulness to reach jhana. He said metta can lead to jhana cos the feeling of metta is very close to jhanic bliss. I didn't understand this until I practice metta today... Just thinking over, may others be well, happy, and free from afflictions... Then there's this feeling of metta like emanating from the heart region and its blissful, I can definitely see how this can lead into jhana. There is also a freedom from all unwholesome mental states, aversions, etc... Even tho I wasn't practicing that in a meditation setting, just standing. When you experience metta, everyone who do harm to you, you don't feel a bit of aversion at all - you see the worse person as friend. There is an uber transcendence from all mental afflictions - its almost a kind of altered state, but not really. You need to truly experience this. p.s. Thusness said, " Yes and indeed an important practice. Do not think of the experience of jhana but rather relax and with utmost sincerity practice and metta. May others be well, happy and free from affiictions. " Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harmonious Emptiness Posted September 16, 2011 with dust and the broken shards... the answer is there but i dare not speak. @Harmonious Emptiness I am replying to your thread, but I am too lazy to add a new reply. In my experience, what you said is true; I can't deny any of that. From my experience, there are only Buddhism and not such and such schools; I don't think the Gautama Buddha ever want this. There can be no-selves in the pride/vanity/conceit as well as there can be no-selves in the Boddhisatva-like qualities. The Boddhisatva-qualities are the anatta version of the pride/vanity/conciet. When such is seen and experience all can be let go, such as letting go of the Dharma. When the fetters are uprooted, the tools for the uprooting is only good for that job. Keeping it will only be a fetter aswell. People with higher realizations struggle with even more fetters, for it is more that they see. For if the self-arised any way, they do have to be become; this is done up to the process of extreme enlightenment -> become a Buddha that is. I wish you goodluck and wisdom; it is not that you are far off in anyway. I yet to be there myself aswell. To avoid giving the wrong impression, first: I do not disbelieve in teachings of Emptiness, dependent origination, and no-self; or in the wisdom and liberation from suffering gained from them. Also, imho, their realization is an end in itself, the path and the goal, and not the end of the journey; and residual benefits are not superior to the realization.. I suppose they reflect each other inseparably or along that ideation.. "People with higher realizations struggle with even more fetters, for it is more that they see." Balancing on a stool... no problem. Now put that stool 60 feet in the air... Don't look down! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted September 16, 2011 To avoid giving the wrong impression, first: I do not disbelieve in teachings of Emptiness, dependent origination, and no-self; or in the wisdom and liberation from suffering gained from them. Also, imho, their realization is an end in itself, the path and the goal, and not the end of the journey; and residual benefits are not superior to the realization.. I suppose they reflect each other inseparably or along that ideation.. "People with higher realizations struggle with even more fetters, for it is more that they see." Balancing on a stool... no problem. Now put that stool 60 feet in the air... Don't look down! what you stated is all true, is true and no other than truth. I agree with you whole-hearty. Even us, we reflects upon eachother and a lot can be learn about ourselves by observing the self in others. What I was pointing out before, by enduring it and understand it we can reduce our ego. Use this as a reflection to take out what is excesses; I am not perfect myself but I will also use it to fill the lacking. By bringing it out, for we see ourselves in others. It is not the other that we can truly sees. Ignorance can fully knows ignorance, I can't see you as you can't see me without putting the selves in it. When there is no selves, there wouldn't be me or you. Like the two mirrors that reflects, even the mirror are no longer needed. Apologies for my word plays, for it is my fetters. But there is something that I wanted to point out that what one views as the ultimate truth or nirvana or enlightenment may not be what it seems. After we finished this, we can all laugh about it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Intellectual percolations here... I'm going to say that there is Earthly Enlightenment, and there is Celestial Enlightenment. Earthly is seeing the true reality of ego dust ( you like that term ? You can use it... ? Celestial Enlightenment is Rainbow Body et all To stop playing and living in make believe... this is, imo, the first goal towards peace and harmony and Earthly Enlightenment To know "primary enlightenment" (made that one up m'self...) is more than enough to change the hegemonic consciousness towards wisdom.. ?? In Dzogchen, since you mentioned Rainbow Body, the realization of the two emptiness* is achieved at Third Vision at which point you become an awakened 1st Bhumi bodhisattva. From Third Vision to Fourth Vision you traverse 1~7 bhumi, and then 8~16 bhumis in the fourth, after which you achieve rainbow body and become a fully enlightened Buddha. This is not exactly 'celestial enlightenment' since it is nothing 'celestial' (celestial realms are still part of samsara), rainbow body happens when the elements of the body revert into wisdom light. *two emptiness: there are two levels of realizing emptiness, one is the emptiness of self, one is the emptiness of phenomena Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Dear Xabir, Could I dare suggest... the notion. the emptiness of self in phenomena... Edited September 16, 2011 by XieJia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Dear Xabir, Could I dare suggest... the notion. the emptiness of self in phenomena... There are two emptiness: Emptiness of self in person (as in atman, soul, independent self, agent, perceiver, controller, etc), Emptiness of self in phenomena (self in phenomena means seeing mental and material phenomena as having independent, inherent existence) Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) and what about the emptiness of self in the two emptiness? if there's still holding on to such notions, who is the person holding it? we might understood the same thing, but it's the limitation in language. or your realisation is by far greater than mine. Edited September 16, 2011 by XieJia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xabir2005 Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) and what about the emptiness of self in the two emptiness? if there's still holding on to such notions, who is the person holding it? we might understood the same thing, but it's the limitation in language. or your realisation is by far greater than mine. The two emptinesses can simultaneously authenticated, however, there are two steps to the realization. In other words, you first realize emptiness of self in atman, before you realize emptiness of phenomena. Realizing the emptiness of subject (a perceiver, seer, doer, etc) is not the smae as realizing the emptiness of objects (realizing that all phenomena dependently originates, are empty, like a magical illusion). There are those who realize the emptiness of a subject, and still hold that dharmas/phenomena have intrinsic existence. For such persons, even though they do not see an agent behind phenomena, phenomena cannot reveal its 'illusion-like and empty' nature. It is said that Arhats only realize the first emptiness, while bodhisattvas realizes both. So these are two different levels of views - the view of a subjective self, and the view that objects have its own existence, and both views must be liberated through the insights into the two emptinesses. Edited September 16, 2011 by xabir2005 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) aha so one have to separates the object and subject? isn't the self-created by the separation? wouldn't the separation be empty that of self? it's parody of statement isn't it? knower, knowing and the known take out one where does the other goes? can emptiness, self, phenomena, form exist independently? this is my last attempt in understanding what you are trying to teach me; if not I will just give it up and get back to my thing of absurd moments. Don't worry too much though, I am sure you did your best to make me see. Edited September 16, 2011 by XieJia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
