Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition

[xabir2005]

how do you know something without perceiving it.

pure knowing without reifying or establishing a knower or something being known

[Lucky7Strikes]

pure knowing without reifying or establishing a knower or something being known

Do you still perceive things?

 

Perceive means:

 

1) Become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.

 

2) Become aware of (something) by the use of one of the senses, esp. that of sight.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Only pure perception without perceiver or something perceived.

 

Conventionally you can say 'I saw the sight', but ultimately there is no seer, and no thing that can be established as being seen.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Only pure perception without perceiver or something perceived.

 

Conventionally you can say 'I saw the sight', but ultimately there is no seer, and no thing that can be established as being seen.

Look, the question is simple. Do you perceive conventional factors or not? When someone hits you, you perceive fist, then the pain. Yes?

[xabir2005]

Look, the question is simple. Do you perceive conventional factors or not? When someone hits you, you perceive fist, then the pain. Yes?

There is just the pure sensation of the pain (without the words of it), but it is not established as "I am in pain".

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is just the pure sensation of the pain (without the words of it), but it is not established as "I am in pain".

Not many people do say "I am in pain" either. You aren't so special in such a reaction.

 

So you conceive pain. You perceive fist. You perceive conventions but just choose not to consciously label them.

 

So basically your little enlightenment is choosing not to label things when you experience them. It's a very lame attainment if you ask me.

 

So now please go back o post 266 and 267 for a reply. I realize you are busy, so I don't mind waiting for a reply.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Not many people do say "I am in pain" either. You aren't so special in such a reaction.

 

So you conceive pain. You perceive fist. You perceive conventions but just choose not to consciously label them.

 

So basically your little enlightenment is choosing not to label things when you experience them. It's a very lame attainment if you ask me.

 

So now please go back o post 266 and 267 for a reply. I realize you are busy, so I don't mind waiting for a reply.

Nope. It is not about not choosing to label things, or not labelling things.

 

It is about not viewing or seeing an existent - not seeing 'there it is', 'it is', or 'I am'. This is viewing conventions. I do not see such conventions at all. So I do not cling to any sense of a self, a watcher, or an object of perception.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It is about not viewing or seeing an existent - not seeing 'there it is', 'it is', or 'I am'. This is viewing conventions. I do not see such conventions at all. So I do not cling to any sense of a self, a watcher, or an object of perception.

You realize language is a conventional form of communication right? So if you don't see conventions at all, how are you able to read this?

 

You have a very bad understanding of the term "conventions." Conventions is not about seeing things as established "here I am" "there you are" kind of thing. Conventions are related to practicality and communication. They are known to be subjective and learned elements of our daily lives that we use to, well, survive and function. So in the definition, the term "conventions" points to man made definitions, categories, and basically the way you choose to organize experience for what you are trying to do. It's at the base of everything little thing you do, like closing a door.

 

Also, who consciously says (but only occasionally) "there it is" or "here I am" or "it is" when they act? How many times have you closed a door thinking "I am going to close this door" or when seeing something, say to yourself "there it is and here I am." These are instinctual and habitual activities formed long time ago when as a child you understood the conventional idea of a door, its function, which is to open and close, how to act with that door, to push pull. Conventions are perceptions formed relative to your own stature in the world for practical living. So you should probably go an re examine what conventions mean.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

You realize language is a conventional form of communication right? So if you don't see conventions at all, how are you able to read this?

 

You have a very bad understanding of the term "conventions." Conventions is not about seeing things as established "here I am" "there you are" kind of thing. Conventions are related to practicality and communication. They are known to be subjective and learned elements of our daily lives that we use to, well, survive and function. So in the definition, the term "conventions" points to man made definitions, categories, and basically the way you choose to organize experience for what you are trying to do. It's at the base of everything little thing you do, like closing a door.

 

Also, who consciously says (but only occasionally) "there it is" or "here I am" or "it is" when they act? How many times have you closed a door thinking "I am going to close this door" or when seeing something, say to yourself "there it is and here I am." These are instinctual and habitual activities formed long time ago when as a child you understood the conventional idea of a door, its function, which is to open and close, how to act with that door, to push pull. Conventions are perceptions formed relative to your own stature in the world for practical living. So you should probably go an re examine what conventions mean.

Conventions can be used purely for practical purpose, but because you clearly realize that all conventions are utterly false and have no basis in reality, one does not believe or view things in terms of conventions. So there is just pure perception unfettered by conventional views, while not impeding the ability to understand someone's conventions or make use of conventions in language and so on.

 

Practical action does not require views of existence - like the existence of a chair, a table, etc. And conventions are actually just labels which are understood by the worldly beings to imply existence of something (self, chair, weather, etc), but it is not understood as just mere empty and illusory labels but are taken have some kind of truth which thus becomes a magical spell in how we see and navigate the world (in terms of true existence of self, things, etc), and awakening allows us to see through the falsity of conventions and drop it. It is not just about not consciously thinking in labels (as you said most people do not consciously label everything all the time but still the view of existence is affecting their perception, leading to clinging) but rather the dropping of the false view of existents that serves as a basis for taking conventions to be reality.

 

Understanding the world's parlance of conventions does not mean you perceive in terms of conventions - Buddhas know the conventions of worldly deluded beings and can have no problem talking in terms of self, things, etc, but it does not mean he navigate or perceive the world through conventions and his actions are completely non-conceptual and spontaneous.

Edited January 28, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Oh you're so wrong. You have no clue at all about any of this don't you? I don't expect anything from you nor am I approaching things intellectually or in madhyamika style of analysis. I'm speaking outside of Buddhism, something you just don't seem to be able wrap your head around: the world outside of Buddhism. But what I really want to do is reveal the utter lack of actual insight you and Thusness' ideology have, and the hypocrisy of dismissing other's "personal experiences" while enthroning your own "personal experiences" as the true enlightenment or whatever.

Not just experiences, but the insight and realization of right view - i.e. realizing anatta and emptiness, realizing that there never was a self, or substance of phenomena.

The more and more I engage in this discussion, the more you reveal not only a lack of insight but an inability to present your experiences in a coherent manner. The only way you explain yourself is via doctrine, "dependent origination, dependent origination, dependent origination." You don't even know how exactly to support your view of "dependent origination." You take that term simply as this magical tool to dismiss all ideas into the box of emptiness.

I don't know what you find incoherent. Dependent origination is really important and central, the key to understanding Buddhism.

All the seeming logic or "science" you have to justify the maha, the anatta, the emptiness experiences you have come to are entirely pretentious and laughable. You have come to a certain experience of reality but have no idea how to fully understand it, so heavily rely on experience. At the end of the day, all you have to say, as you say in this post, is mere "I see it this way, this is my personal experience" and say that your vision is the truth while others are false. So all you engage is in is a shouting match and not a constructive discussion. This is bigotry at best.

Not just experience but realization. The only justification is that it is a truth that can be directly realized, and all arguments are sort of pointless, like trying to argue the colour and shape of elephants to the blind. You need to see it, or take it by faith then open your eyes (contemplate and then realize). Arguing about it endlessly is going to lead nowhere and so I find very little point in continuing this conversation.

Ha! A future master of insight! :lol:

Insight does not lie in arguing and intellectual analysis or theories.

 

"This doctrine is profound, hard to see, difficult to understand,

calm, sublime, not within the sphere of logic, subtle, to be

understood by the wise." Majjhima Nikaya

I am fine with what you wrote here, that you are an anti-intellectual. You don't like thinking about things or contemplating them. But also know that you likely don't even know what the process of intellect is, since you have merely dismissed it without contemplation just as you did everything else that is not in line with your devoted faith to Thusness' way.

 

....

 

No it isn't. It shows your incompetence, and incapability to explain or stand up for your own realizations if there are any. It's not nonsense at all, seeing that your excuses for these tendencies, ("they say it more eloquently"), are apparently untrue. We are not on the path of faith, it's not a monotheistic religion where quoting the bible suddenly proves one person right over the other. I am not having this discussion in the realm of Buddhism, but in reality. You have no reason to constantly quote authority figures when they don't add anything to the discussion.

It is not the case that after arising of insight you still depend on faith for your understanding (in that case your understanding is from your own realization that arose after contemplation), but before understanding faith is necessary. And as for quoting, it is just that some people or texts can explain something very eloquently and even if it is some unfamous person, I can still quote him/her, authorship doesn't matter so much as its wisdom. (just so happens that sutras or some people have said things of interest here very well)

 

SN 48.44

PTS: S v 220

CDB ii 1689

Pubbakotthaka Sutta: Eastern Gatehouse

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 1997–2012

 

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at the Eastern Gatehouse. There he addressed Ven. Sariputta: "Sariputta, do you take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation? Do you take it on conviction that the faculty of persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation?"

"Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation."

 

"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation.

Edited January 28, 2012 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Not just experiences, but the insight and realization of right view - i.e. realizing anatta and emptiness, realizing that there never was a self, or substance of phenomena...

This wasn't the post I was asking you to reply to.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Conventions can be used purely for practical purpose, but because you clearly realize that all conventions are utterly false and have no basis in reality, one does not believe or view things in terms of conventions. So there is just pure perception unfettered by conventional views, while not impeding the ability to understand someone's conventions or make use of conventions in language and so on.

So one does not view things in terms of conventions but understands them? How does one understand something he does not perceive? You are suggesting a dual mode of perceptions here: one of seeing, and the other of understanding that take place separately.

 

Practical action does not require views of existence - like the existence of a chair, a table, etc. And conventions are actually just labels which are understood by the worldly beings to imply existence of something (self, chair, weather, etc), but it is not understood as just mere empty and illusory labels but are taken have some kind of truth which thus becomes a magical spell in how we see and navigate the world (in terms of true existence of self, things, etc), and awakening allows us to see through the falsity of conventions and drop it. It is not just about not consciously thinking in labels (as you said most people do not consciously label everything all the time but still the view of existence is affecting their perception, leading to clinging) but rather the dropping of the false view of existents that serves as a basis for taking conventions to be reality.

Does the object we label "chair" then, exist? You need to clarify whether you are calling the label of "chair" the illusory aspect or the object of chair itself the illusion. If you are saying the object of chair is itself the illusion, the material of wood, its physical make up, how it interacts with your body, etc. then so far you have not yet said anything to sufficiently support that claim. Dependent origination by theory does not deny the existence of the world itself, it just says that the world is made interconnectedly. If the chair itself is in fact not an illusion, then the label "chair" is indeed not a false view of an "existent," but merely one way of viewing an "existent" through the idea of a chair. If we take this analysis further, one can say that the idea of a chair is just as real as the material of the chair, if not more true, since the idea of a chair persists through time and time through generations, and has the ability to produce varying types of chairs: since it has a more lasting and stronger impact on our livelihoods, it is more real. So just because its not labeled doesn't make it an illusion all of a sudden.

 

By the way,many people who study linguistics know that terms are mere labels that are just tools and not the reality. But to use terms like "magical spell" is an extreme way of putting it. You are using that term solely because it's in the scriptures.

 

Furthermore, "clinging" does not arise from labeling things. Labeling may be one aspect of it, but it's not a direct cause or have some strong correlation to clinging. It can be argued that people who are strongly addicted to an activity or a substance are in fact very much enclosed in their addictions because they have stopped labeling their activities, dulled their perceptions, and the clinging has seeped into their identities. Hence the first step to facing your addiction is usually acknowledgement, i.e. labeling your problems.

 

On the other hand, if you are saying viewing something as existing and real is the source of clinging and so one should stop viewing world as something that exists, again, you haven't yet provided any satisfactory evidence to deny the world, besides that one's label of the world is untrue. The world exists before labels, or else animals who do not have capacity for language would not be able to eat, since well, they haven't had the chance to "label" their food.

 

Understanding the world's parlance of conventions does not mean you perceive in terms of conventions - Buddhas know the conventions of worldly deluded beings and can have no problem talking in terms of self, things, etc, but it does not mean he navigate or perceive the world through conventions and his actions are completely non-conceptual and spontaneous.

So here you are describing an ability or a certain way of experiencing. But you are not able to explain how this is so.

 

If someone has an understanding of conventions, he may not perceive an experience only in terms of them, but conventional understanding is a necessary part of that perception if Buddha is going to be able to relate to others in conventional terms especially when faced with a new experiences. He will also be unable to learn new conventional ideas if he does not perceive conventions at all.

 

For instance if your so called "Buddha" were to learn a new language, he must draw upon conventional perception to relate his own language to the new one to draw a new conventional understanding.

 

Or when he faces lets say a "car" for the first time, in order to relate to others who have already experience the car, he must perceive the car through new labels, even if it comes with the knowledge that the labels are ultimately false.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Not just experience but realization. The only justification is that it is a truth that can be directly realized, and all arguments are sort of pointless, like trying to argue the colour and shape of elephants to the blind. You need to see it, or take it by faith then open your eyes (contemplate and then realize). Arguing about it endlessly is going to lead nowhere and so I find very little point in continuing this conversation.

...so...the only "justification"...is that it's true and can be experienced. Hahaha! What a wonderful explanation. Many fanatics argue in this way as well: "My God is true, because he is true, I can feel Him. His truth justifies his existence." All arguments are not pointless. Our experiences are often unreliable as well as our senses. The best we can do is weave them together, compare varying evidences, and through inquisitiveness, direct experiences, experiments, and yes, logic to come to an understanding. Depending too heavily on such "you need to see it or take it by faith" is an irresponsible way to approach spirituality. Spirituality is a science, not a mere religion. Blind people can argue their own elephants! Why not? To them their elephant is different than the elephant seen by someone with eyes. One who trusts "blindly" only on his sight is the truly blind person.

 

Insight does not lie in arguing and intellectual analysis or theories.

Neither does it lie with faith or trusting too heavily on first hand experience. Insight comes from inquisitiveness, of questioning, observing, and understanding.

 

"This doctrine is profound, hard to see, difficult to understand,

calm, sublime, not within the sphere of logic, subtle, to be

understood by the wise." Majjhima Nikaya

IMO, those who are truly unwise rely on partial scripture or authoritative teachings to justify their ways of behavior. Their wisdom hence does not belong to them, but to a tradition and to a religion. They are bound by doctrine and their enlightenment is revealed to be a cheap imitation.

 

It is not the case that after arising of insight you still depend on faith for your understanding (in that case your understanding is from your own realization that arose after contemplation), but before understanding faith is necessary. And as for quoting, it is just that some people or texts can explain something very eloquently and even if it is some unfamous person, I can still quote him/her, authorship doesn't matter so much as its wisdom. (just so happens that sutras or some people have said things of interest here very well)

This is simply untrue. The heart sutra is not eloquent (it basically says: no blah, no blah, no blah), neither is the Buddha's quote above. Neither are Namdrol's little snippets you choose to quote. You have the capabilities in language to say precisely the same things they say and actually you have done so in several instances. But for some reason you choose to add their little quotes at the end of posts which reveal a certain level of insecurity and the need for validation for your own insights. It would be appropriate to quote the Buddha or Namdrol if we are speaking about Buddhism, or me speaking as a Buddhist. But we are not. We are delving into your claims to know the truths of human experience and reality.

 

Really, your tendency to quote often to support yourself makes sense because as you say above, the path to your "insight" or whatever has been through faith in the language of these people, you even deem it necessary. So the only way you know how to justify any points you make is through quotations and scriptures, and even more glaringly, examples borrowed from authority figures.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

So one does not view things in terms of conventions but understands them? How does one understand something he does not perceive? You are suggesting a dual mode of perceptions here: one of seeing, and the other of understanding that take place separately.

In the same way you can understand someone's delusion without being deluded yourself.

Does the object we label "chair" then, exist? You need to clarify whether you are calling the label of "chair" the illusory aspect or the object of chair itself the illusion.

Chair is illusory, not the label. Well the label is also illusory but besides the point.

If you are saying the object of chair is itself the illusion, the material of wood, its physical make up, how it interacts with your body, etc. then so far you have not yet said anything to sufficiently support that claim. Dependent origination by theory does not deny the existence of the world itself,

Actually it does.

it just says that the world is made interconnectedly.

What dependently originates is empty, unborn, uncreated. Why? There is utterly no substance or core or inherent existence in whatever dependently originates. If an arising depends on conditions for its arising and ceases upon the cessation of its conditions, such an activity has no substance or core at all, is completely empty.

By the way,many people who study linguistics know that terms are mere labels that are just tools and not the reality.

So the problem actually lie in perceiving that labels refer to true existents, or the view of existents.

But to use terms like "magical spell" is an extreme way of putting it. You are using that term solely because it's in the scriptures.

Oh you mean Thusness sutra?

 

Anyway I said magical spell because that is how our views affect us indeed.

Furthermore, "clinging" does not arise from labeling things.

Buddha labels things for sentient beings - for example he explains in details what are the five skandhas, the eighteen dhatus and so on. Fine. But he does not establish the five skandhas or eighteen dhatus to be real or existing, so whatever spoken is purely conventional truth, and not perceived as such. In other words he does not establish or reify the labels he makes but the labeling are simply purely spontaneous undeluded wisdom, a skillful means in teaching.

Or when he faces lets say a "car" for the first time, in order to relate to others who have already experience the car, he must perceive the car through new labels, even if it comes with the knowledge that the labels are ultimately false.

Yes but he don't perceive the car through new labels, but understand sentient beings delusion through new labels. Edited January 29, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

...so...the only "justification"...is that it's true and can be experienced. Hahaha! What a wonderful explanation. Many fanatics argue in this way as well: "My God is true, because he is true, I can feel Him. His truth justifies his existence." All arguments are not pointless. Our experiences are often unreliable as well as our senses. The best we can do is weave them together, compare varying evidences, and through inquisitiveness, direct experiences, experiments, and yes, logic to come to an understanding. Depending too heavily on such "you need to see it or take it by faith" is an irresponsible way to approach spirituality. Spirituality is a science, not a mere religion. Blind people can argue their own elephants! Why not? To them their elephant is different than the elephant seen by someone with eyes. One who trusts "blindly" only on his sight is the truly blind person.

Spirituality is a science, but the science comes from yogic meditation and comtemplation and realization, not empirically observable data.

Neither does it lie with faith or trusting too heavily on first hand experience. Insight comes from inquisitiveness, of questioning, observing, and understanding.

Contemplation, inquisitiveness and so on are the process of trying to understand. But when realization arises, a truth can no longer be unseen, and it is not an inferred understanding, but an experiential realization of the way things are. If inference can lead to awakening, there is no need for meditation or vipassana at all, all you need is to keep thinking and thinking. But inference in fact, cannot lead to awakening. That is why Buddha's practice instructions always talk about meditation, not spending hours intellectually analyzing his words.

 

Anyway again, it's not just 'experience' but a 'realization', a waking up. Experience can be temporary, but insight/realization is permanent.

This is simply untrue. The heart sutra is not eloquent (it basically says: no blah, no blah, no blah), neither is the Buddha's quote above. Neither are Namdrol's little snippets you choose to quote. You have the capabilities in language to say precisely the same things they say and actually you have done so in several instances. But for some reason you choose to add their little quotes at the end of posts which reveal a certain level of insecurity and the need for validation for your own insights. It would be appropriate to quote the Buddha or Namdrol if we are speaking about Buddhism, or me speaking as a Buddhist. But we are not. We are delving into your claims to know the truths of human experience and reality.

 

Really, your tendency to quote often to support yourself makes sense because as you say above, the path to your "insight" or whatever has been through faith in the language of these people, you even deem it necessary. So the only way you know how to justify any points you make is through quotations and scriptures, and even more glaringly, examples borrowed from authority figures.

So you don't think what I quoted is valuable... I see it otherwise.

 

I went to check where I quoted Heart Sutra.

 

I found out that it was in reference to anamatva's post, not your post.

 

anamatva posted this thread on Heart Sutra, and said that my understanding does not correspond with the Buddhist sages or something. This is why I needed to quote from relevant texts to point out that my views are in fact in accord with the scriptures.

 

I don't think I kept quoting Heart Sutra to you except in brief mentions when relevant.

Edited January 29, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

The importance of Realization I posted in the other thread:

No it is not. It is that I have personally realized and verified certain things on my own accord, and such a realization does not depend at all on conditioning, inference, faith, or what not. It is like 'Kensho, Satori' -

 

The mystical experience in Zen is called Satori (wu in Chinese). Satori is that which lies beyond most forms of insights such as those arising from contemplation or via imagery and is a intuitive grasp of the reality "beyond forms." Suzuki says Satori has these characteristics:

 

1. Irrationality. "By this I mean that satori is not a conclusion to be reached by reasoning, and defies all intellectual determination. Those who have experienced it are always at a loss to explain it coherently or logically."

 

2. Intuitive Insight. "That there is noetic quality in mystic experiences has been pointed out by (William) James...Another name for satori is "kensho" (chien-hsing in Chinese) meaning "to see essence or nature," which apparently proves that there is "seeing" or "perceiving" in satori...Without this noetic quality satori will lose all its pungency, for it is really the reason of satori itself. "

 

3. Authoritativeness. "By this I mean that the knowledge realized by satori is final, that no amount of logical argument can refute it. Being direct and personal it is sufficient unto itself. All that logic can do here is to explain it, to interpret it in connection to other kinds of knowledge with which our minds are filled. Satori is thus a form of perception, an inner perception, which takes place in the most interior part of consciousness.

 

4. Affirmation. "What is authoritative and final can never be negative. Though the satori experience is sometimes expressed in negative terms, it is essentially an affirmative attidude towards all things that exist; it accepts them as they come along regardless of their moral values."

 

5. Sense of the Beyond. "...in satori there is always what we may call a sense of the Beyond; the experience indeed is my own but I feel it to be rooted elsewhere. The individual shell in which my personality is so solidly encased explodes at the moment of satori. Not, necessarily, that I get unified with a being greater than myself or absorbed in it, but that my individuality, which I found rigidly held together and definitely kept separate from other individual existences, becomes lossened somehow from its tightening grip and melts away into something indescribable, something which is of quite a different order from what I am accustomed to. The feeling that follows is htat of complete release or a complete rest---the feeling that one has arrived finally at the destination...As far as the psychology of satori is considered, a sense of the Beyond is all we can say about it; to call this the Beyond, the Absolute, or God, or a Person is to go further than the experience itself and to plunge into a theology or metaphysics."

 

6. Impersonal Tone. "Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Zen experience is that it has no personal note in it as is observable in Christian mystic experiences."

 

7. Feeling of exaltation. "That this feeling inevitably accompanies satori is due to the fact that it is the breaking-up of the restrction imposed on one as an individual being, and this breaking up is not a mere negative incident but quite a positive one fraught with signification because it means an infinite expansion of the individual."

 

8. Momentariness. "Satori comes upon one abruptly and is a momentary experience. In fact, if it is not abrupt and momentary, it is not satori.

Source: Suzuki, D.T. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings of D.T, Suzuki, (New York: Anchor Books, 1956), pp. 103-108.

[Lucky7Strikes]

In the same way you can understand someone's delusion without being deluded yourself.

No, then you'd be perceiving someone else's delusion, or your own memory of a certain delusion, even though knowing it as delusion, it is still perceived. This contrasts to what you said earlier about not perceiving conventions at all. To understand someone else's conventions you must have a memory or some reference to it. And in referring to it, you are perceiving it, hence perceiving conventional factors.

 

Chair is illusory, not the label. Well the label is also illusory but besides the point.

 

Actually it does.

It does not, and I will show you why below.

 

What dependently originates is empty, unborn, uncreated. Why? There is utterly no substance or core or inherent existence in whatever dependently originates. If an arising depends on conditions for its arising and ceases upon the cessation of its conditions, such an activity has no substance or core at all, is completely empty.

So the problem actually lie in perceiving that labels refer to true existents, or the view of existents.

This does not somehow indicate that the material world is illusory, or somehow that the chair does not exist. Really, this is just purely stupid. You are equating "core" to mean "reality" when they are different issues altogether. Something that obviously does not have a core, say a wind, is taken to be real by almost everyone. When you ask them, do you think the wind has a core or an essence, they will likely say no, it's just blowing wind that arises and disappears when there is movement in the air. But people are not foolish to conclude from this that the wind is an "illusion." An entirely different criteria is applied when you are measuring the degree of reality.

 

The "chair" as a label may be something that is untrue but dependent origination cannot dismiss the reality of the phenomena of the chair itself as an illusion. Why? Because the chair is consequential, as in, you can sit on it without the chair suddenly disappearing. Also the chair has a consistent and lasting effect, as in the chair won't disappear after you rub your eyes or wake up tomorrow and come back to see it. Consequence and consistency are what we use to decide whether or not an experience is illusory or real, and labels arise afterwards for practical use. We say a dream is an illusion because it lacks these characteristics.

 

Another error you are committing is pretty obvious. You are initially suggesting the world of "things." The world of essences. Then you disprove the world of "things" and conclude therefore that the world is actually an illusion...whoa! an extreme conclusion there don't you think? You are only offering two alternatives, one of "things" and the other as an illusion. But consider innumerable ways the world can be, besides these options. Maybe the world isn't made of "things" but is, let's say a movement or a flow. Or a vibration. Or an imagination. Or instead of things, it's really made out of tiny strings as in the string theory. Dependent origination just disproves the world of ultimate "things" and essences, but that's really it. It says experiences arise out of causes and conditions, and in the practical sense no one should really deny that. But does it offer a comprehensive insight into the intricacies of reality and life? Not really. It offers one aspect of life that can be observed.

 

Buddha labels things for sentient beings - for example he explains in details what are the five skandhas, the eighteen dhatus and so on. Fine. But he does not establish the five skandhas or eighteen dhatus to be real or existing, so whatever spoken is purely conventional truth, and not perceived as such. In other words he does not establish or reify the labels he makes but the labeling are simply purely spontaneous undeluded wisdom, a skillful means in teaching.

Yes but he don't perceive the car through new labels, but understand sentient beings delusion through new labels.

Oh, so the Buddha does perceive labels. Labels are conventions. So the Buddha perceives conventions, yes?

Edited January 29, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Spirituality is a science, but the science comes from yogic meditation and comtemplation and realization, not empirically observable data.

Contemplation, inquisitiveness and so on are the process of trying to understand. But when realization arises, a truth can no longer be unseen, and it is not an inferred understanding, but an experiential realization of the way things are. If inference can lead to awakening, there is no need for meditation or vipassana at all, all you need is to keep thinking and thinking. But inference in fact, cannot lead to awakening. That is why Buddha's practice instructions always talk about meditation, not spending hours intellectually analyzing his words.

It can be unseen. Anything seen can be unseen. You still don't understand anything I'm trying to say! I'm not favoring inferred analysis over direct experiences. I'm not saying logic triumphs all. What I'm suggesting is comprehensiveness, and just as valuable an experience can be, so is the contextual understanding of that experience, and a logical grasp of it. If your experience does indeed hold to be true, you should be able to present it coherently and logically, but so far you just cannot stand up to any of my criticisms, and always at the end of a point, you are left to say, "I just see it that way! Take your analysis away!"

 

...Bur really, your problem lies in poor imagination, not lack of inference. Inference and inquisitiveness are just part of what goes into contemplation.

 

To me, you will never truly attain genuine enlightenment until you truly consider the possibility that the Buddha may have been wrong: that his enlightenment could've been false. Only then can you genuinely be open to an incredible array of possibilities, call your contemplation contemplation, and your meditation meditation. You are only an imitator now, a disciple who does not own his attainments.

 

Anyway again, it's not just 'experience' but a 'realization', a waking up. Experience can be temporary, but insight/realization is permanent.

Realization is just a paradigm shift. If your realization is based on falsities, you awakening is also a falsity. Believing it as something permanent only empowers the false paradigm.

 

So you don't think what I quoted is valuable... I see it otherwise.

 

I went to check where I quoted Heart Sutra.

 

I found out that it was in reference to anamatva's post, not your post.

 

anamatva posted this thread on Heart Sutra, and said that my understanding does not correspond with the Buddhist sages or something. This is why I needed to quote from http://www.thetaobums.com/public/style_emoticons/default/glare.gif relevant texts to point out that my views are in fact in accord with the scriptures.

 

I don't think I kept quoting Heart Sutra to you except in brief mentions when relevant.

No, I find your dependence on them pitiful.

 

You've quoted the heart sutra several times in this discussion. Um...but that wasn't really the point of what I was saying. It wasn't about the heart sutra at all really.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

The importance of Realization I posted in the other thread:

No it is not. It is that I have personally realized and verified certain things on my own accord, and such a realization does not depend at all on conditioning, inference, faith, or what not. It is like 'Kensho, Satori' -

Seems like you are just reifying satori. .

[wowee]

"Chair is illusory, not the label. Well the label is also illusory but besides the point."

 

Yeah this is utterly stupid and retarded to say, for someone who is best at copying-pasting large chunks of quotes here and there from various masters and people and talks as if he knows everything about buddhism. Since chair is illusory and car is illusory, try going out onto the highway and wait there and see what happens.

[xabir2005]

"Chair is illusory, not the label. Well the label is also illusory but besides the point."

 

Yeah this is utterly stupid and retarded to say, for someone who is best at copying-pasting large chunks of quotes here and there from various masters and people and talks as if he knows everything about buddhism. Since chair is illusory and car is illusory, try going out onto the highway and wait there and see what happens.

The appearance of road, the appearance of car, and the appearance of car accident are all illusory, magical emanations.

 

As Nāgārjuna states:

 

"Why? This action

does not arise from conditions,

and does not arise without conditions,

therefore, there is also no agent.

 

If there is no agent,

how can there be an result which arises from an action?

If there is no result,

where will a consumer be observed?

 

Just as the Teacher's emanation

is emanated through his consummate magical power,

if likewise the emanation also makes an emanation,

there is again a further emanation;

 

in same the way, though that agent

performs an action, it has the form an emanation.

For example, it is like another emanation created by an emanation

making a [third] emanation.

 

Affliction, actions, bodies,

agents, and results

are like fairy castles

mirages, and dreams.

[xabir2005]

This does not somehow indicate that the material world is illusory, or somehow that the chair does not exist. Really, this is just purely stupid. You are equating "core" to mean "reality" when they are different issues altogether. Something that obviously does not have a core, say a wind, is taken to be real by almost everyone. When you ask them, do you think the wind has a core or an essence, they will likely say no, it's just blowing wind that arises and disappears when there is movement in the air. But people are not foolish to conclude from this that the wind is an "illusion." An entirely different criteria is applied when you are measuring the degree of reality.

 

The "chair" as a label may be something that is untrue but dependent origination cannot dismiss the reality of the phenomena of the chair itself as an illusion. Why? Because the chair is consequential, as in, you can sit on it without the chair suddenly disappearing. Also the chair has a consistent and lasting effect, as in the chair won't disappear after you rub your eyes or wake up tomorrow and come back to see it. Consequence and consistency are what we use to decide whether or not an experience is illusory or real, and labels arise afterwards for practical use. We say a dream is an illusion because it lacks these characteristics.

 

Another error you are committing is pretty obvious. You are initially suggesting the world of "things." The world of essences. Then you disprove the world of "things" and conclude therefore that the world is actually an illusion...whoa! an extreme conclusion there don't you think? You are only offering two alternatives, one of "things" and the other as an illusion. But consider innumerable ways the world can be, besides these options. Maybe the world isn't made of "things" but is, let's say a movement or a flow. Or a vibration. Or an imagination. Or instead of things, it's really made out of tiny strings as in the string theory. Dependent origination just disproves the world of ultimate "things" and essences, but that's really it. It says experiences arise out of causes and conditions, and in the practical sense no one should really deny that. But does it offer a comprehensive insight into the intricacies of reality and life? Not really. It offers one aspect of life that can be observed.

The point is that sentient beings conceive things in terms of 'existence' and 'non-existence', even if the 'existence' is not seen as having some sort of 'unchanging, independent, etc' existence.... nonetheless it is still taken as 'it is there', 'it is', 'exists'. To very view of 'it-ness' is the existence or inherent view I talk about.

 

Dependent origination is what removes the view of 'existence' and 'non-existence', just as Buddha said: "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

 

Chair is dependent on various factors - without space there can be no chair, or if the planet heats up by 5000 degrees the chair will also indeed disappear, and so on. Of course the heating up is not likely to happen, which is why the phenomena you label as 'chair' is likely to appear consistent for some time, yet it does not mean there is independent existence without supporting conditions.

Oh, so the Buddha does perceive labels. Labels are conventions. So the Buddha perceives conventions, yes?

Not really. Even their 'understanding' of conventions are completely spontaneous and non-conceptual. The conventions are totally non-conceived. Such thoughts do not land in the awakened consciousness.

 

SN 1.25

PTS: S i 14

CDB i 102

Araha.m Sutta: The Arahant

translated from the Pali by

Maurice O'Connell Walshe

© 2007–2012

The Pali title of this sutta is based on the PTS (Feer) edition.

 

[Deva:]

He who's an Arahant, his work achieved, Free from taints, in final body clad, That monk still might use such words as "I." Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." ... Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?

 

[The Blessed One:]

Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.[1] That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use.[2]

Notes

 

1.

Ya.m mata.m: "whatever is thought." Mrs Rhys Davids's emendation of yamata.m in the text (paraphrased as "conceits and deemings of the errant mind," following the Commentarial maññana.m "imagining").

2.

Cf. DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them."

Edited January 30, 2012 by xabir2005

[wowee]

The appearance of road, the appearance of car, and the appearance of car accident are all illusory, magical emanations.

 

As Nāgārjuna states:

 

"Why? This action

does not arise from conditions,

and does not arise without conditions,

therefore, there is also no agent.

 

If there is no agent,

how can there be an result which arises from an action?

If there is no result,

where will a consumer be observed?

 

Just as the Teacher's emanation

is emanated through his consummate magical power,

if likewise the emanation also makes an emanation,

there is again a further emanation;

 

in same the way, though that agent

performs an action, it has the form an emanation.

For example, it is like another emanation created by an emanation

making a [third] emanation.

 

Affliction, actions, bodies,

agents, and results

are like fairy castles

mirages, and dreams.

 

Yes yes, I know I know. So please, since it's illusory, go do what I've said, go out on the highway and get yourself an accident. The world would do better without you.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes yes, I know I know. So please, since it's illusory, go do what I've said, go out on the highway and get yourself an accident. The world would do better without you.

This comment is uncalled for. It's never right to wish harm on anyone. We are just having a discussion here.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

The point is that sentient beings conceive things in terms of 'existence' and 'non-existence', even if the 'existence' is not seen as having some sort of 'unchanging, independent, etc' existence.... nonetheless it is still taken as 'it is there', 'it is', 'exists'. To very view of 'it-ness' is the existence or inherent view I talk about.

...uh..of course a sentient being will view the phenomena of chair as something that exists. If he doesn't believe it is real, he will not interact with it, and maybe even run his hand through it denying its appearance of solidity...but alas, the chair is there to interact with his body. If you truly believe that you don't believe in the existences of object, you won't be able to navigate through life at all, since you'd be denying the realities of anything you encounter.

 

But again here you are linking two different ideas together. One of existent reality and the other of inherent existence. Reality of something or a situation does not demand an inherent existence of "things." Sentient beings conceive of existences, because the reality of what is experienced is, as I have noted above, consequential and consistent, not because in their minds the object has an inherent property to it. The belief in something' inherent nature is only an afterthought that arises from labels due to the reality of the object. For instance people don't believe dreams are inherently true because their degree of reality is very weak, not because they believe it has no independent or unchanging property to it.

 

 

Chair is dependent on various factors - without space there can be no chair, or if the planet heats up by 5000 degrees the chair will also indeed disappear, and so on. Of course the heating up is not likely to happen, which is why the phenomena you label as 'chair' is likely to appear consistent for some time, yet it does not mean there is independent existence without supporting conditions.

And how does this at all show that the phenomena, however temporary, of the chair is an illusion? Or that it does not exist or is unreal?

 

It merely shows a characteristic of a certain phenomena of chair, that is is fluid, and within the context of a larger universe. It doesn't at all show that the phenomena itself is illusory, but only the belief in the inherent labels is, or the belief in some indestructible chair (which I don't think many people hold anyways).

 

Not really. Even their 'understanding' of conventions are completely spontaneous and non-conceptual. The conventions are totally non-conceived. Such thoughts do not land in the awakened consciousness.

I never mentioned anything about the way a convention is conceived. You said the Buddha doesn't at all perceive them (but understands). Whether it's spontaneous or contrived, it wasn't the point of my inquiry. My question was targeted towards your insistent claim that a Buddha doesn't at all perceive conventional terms. Furthermore, since thoughts come by the form of language, which are conventional, it seems like you are also suggesting that a Buddha doesn't think at all.

 

So you haven't really answered my question correctly. And you seem to believe a Buddha can't think.