The Heart Sutra

[xabir2005]

@sereneblue: one more point, even though accumulating merits and cultivating virtue is important, that in itself is insufficient for gaining enlightenment.

 

Also, trying to stop thoughts itself will not bring enlightenment. Even if your thoughts stop, it is merely a temporary state of tranquility, not the realization of the nature of reality.

 

In order to attain realization, awakening and then liberation, you need to practice contemplation. This may include methods like self-inquiry or vipassana (but these two can lead to somewhat different insights). In other words, insight meditation is important.

 

As Thusness said before:

 

 

Participant 1: Yeah I think so. This means that I still need to do insight meditation?

 

Thusness: Yes you have to do insight meditation. Even if you attain calmness you still have to do insight meditation. You must feel the awareness... You must sense it everywhere... That is very important for liberation... Etc (continued in http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/262408 )

[xabir2005]

Btw greg goode books are about nondual, one mind. Not really about anatta but has deep clarity about nondual realization. He is coming out with a new book soon.

[RyanO]

Xabir, thanks for your detailed response. Putting aside the atman/anatta questions for a moment, I want to address your understanding of what 'real' means.

 

I am inclined to think part of this is a semantic issue. Are you saying that my experience isn't real/existing? I could grant that my experience is real in the same way a dream is. Both are temporary and when one wakes up from a dream they say "Oh it wasn't real". But the experience happened. So how isn't it real?

 

So I would grant that when we perceive things in physical reality we are not perceiving their ultimate nature. But how is even an illusory experience possible if there is not some existing stimulus? How is experience possible at all if nothing is 'real'?

 

Also,my other question about Greg Goode remains, which is why he chooses to focus on nondual teachings if he feels emptiness is a 'higher' truth? I know you're not him so you don't know but I'm wondering what your opinion is.

 

Best!

Edited February 3, 2012 by RyanO

[xabir2005]

Xabir, thanks for your detailed response. Putting aside the atman/anatta questions for a moment, I want to address your understanding of what 'real' means.

 

I am inclined to think part of this is a semantic issue. Are you saying that my experience isn't real/existing? I could grant that my experience is real in the same way a dream is. Both are temporary and when one wakes up from a dream they say "Oh it wasn't real". But the experience happened. So how isn't it real?

 

So I would grant that when we perceive things in physical reality we are not perceiving their ultimate nature. But how is even an illusory experience possible if there is not some existing stimulus? How is experience possible at all if nothing is 'real'?

Real in the sense of what I said means truly existing, truly 'there' or 'here', substantial, with core, or having the characteristic of permanence, unchanging, inherent (having an essence in itself), independent existence.

 

There is no ultimate reality, but clearly and undeniably, the knowing and appearance is manifesting - but not reified as 'real' - as in inherent, existing, graspable.

 

Anyway when you see a movie, the things you see are not truly real - or like special effects, computer animation and so on, it looks real but isn't really real - or like dreams, magical illusions, which looks real but isn't really real - a merely dependently originated and empty, insubstantial, illusory appearance. Can't deny appearance, but cannot reify as 'real'.

Also,my other question about Greg Goode remains, which is why he chooses to focus on nondual teachings if he feels emptiness is a 'higher' truth? I know you're not him so you don't know but I'm wondering what your opinion is.

 

Best!

His understanding about emptiness is still theoretical, he has not given rise to direct experiential realization.

 

Before I realized anatta and emptiness, even at the I AM and non-dual stages, I already had some conceptual or theoretical understanding about the teachings of anatta and emptiness. But I was unable to 'see' it.

 

The truth of anatta must be realized directly, then the 'One Mind' is deconstructed.

[RyanO]

Xabir, ok, at least it's clear what your stance is!

 

There's one thing I never understood about this and other radical nondual/emptiness perspectives, perhaps it's never been explained to me very well so maybe you can help me out. And that is if there is no ultimate reality, and everything is an illusion, why cultivate? Why try to be a better or more loving person?

 

I have my own answers to these questions, and obviously how one answers them will depend on their metaphysical/philosophical understanding. So I'm wondering what you think.

 

Conventional Buddhism would say that unless we achieve Nirvana (which requires cultivation) we will be endlessly stuck in the pain of Samsara. This assumes truths about reincarnation and karma. Is this your view as well?

 

It seems though that a consequence of what you're saying is that because even being stuck in the illusion trap isn't 'real', then that state is just as perfect as a nirvanic state. If there is no ultimate reality, or whatever you want to call it, to be a litmus or ground for evaluation of various states of realization, then why call one state/realization better or more true than another?

[xabir2005]

Even though everything is empty, like a dream and illusory, nonetheless sentient beings are deceived by appearances and believe in a self and a real world, so even within their dream they suffer. It is like being in a nightmare not knowing that the nightmare is only a dream.

 

Awakening means you realize the dream as illusory. So it becomes like lucid dreaming, you no longer suffer because of the dream and you can even control and do whatever you like in the dream.

 

So even though everything is primordially pure, realizing it is what makes a difference. Waking up is what is important, much like if a beggar has a diamond hidden in his pillow but does not realize it, he will not benefit from it and still be poor.

 

Because sentient beings, though illusory, have mistakenly taken self and phenomena as real, they are suffering. This why it is sensible to have compassion for them.

 

So it is said that emptiness and compassion is inseparable. Aspirants of Mahayana give rise to the thought of bodhicitta and vow to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all suffering sentient beings. Not only do we want to wake ourselves up, we want to wake everyone up. The attainment of Buddhahood is the highest attainment and result of Mahayana/Bodhisattva practice, but it is true that even Buddhahood is illusory and thus not something to be clung to. The only truth here is that of emptiness.

 

As for rebirth, yes I believe in literal rebirth. Apart from Buddha who remember countless past lives, lots of practitioners I personally know have clear vivid memory of their past lives. Furthermore there are research done by scientists like dr ian stevensons which back rebirth, and such research into children's past lives (they are able to prove the child's memories are right) are fascinating and even published in well known scientific and medical journals. Anyway remembering past lives through meditation is not rare.

Edited February 6, 2012 by xabir2005

[RyanO]

Found this commentary on the Heart Sutra by DT Suzuki:

 

"4. "Empty" (sunya) or "emptiness" (sunyata) is one of the most important notions in Mahayana philosophy and at the same time the most puzzling for non-Buddhist readers to comprehend. Emptiness does not mean "relativity", or "phenomenality", or "nothingness", but rather means the Absolute, or something of transcendental nature, although this rendering is also misleading as we shall see later. When Buddhists declare all things to be empty, they are not advocating a nihilistic view; on the contrary an ultimate reality is hinted at, which cannot be subsumed under the categories of logic. With them, to proclaim the conditionality of things is to point to the existence of something altogether unconditioned and transcendent of all determination. Sunyata may thus often be most appropriately rendered by the Absolute. When the sutra says that the five Skandhas have the character of emptiness, or that in emptiness there is neither creation nor destruction, neither defilement nor immaculacy, etc., the sense is: no limiting qualities are to be attributed to the Absolute; while it is immanent in all concrete and particular objects, it is not in itself definable. Universal negation, therefore, in the philosophy of Prajna is an inevitable outcome." From A Manual of Zen Buddhism

 

This sounds very Taoist to me and points to emptiness being more of a 'reality' than you (xabir) are letting on.

 

My opinion is that Buddhism is a wonderful method for freedom from dukkha, which is all Buddha claimed it was. He was famously silent on metaphysical topics. And Taoist metaphysics make more sense to me than certain post-Siddarthan Buddhist metaphysics (notably those which don't posit an origin).

 

It seems to me that the teaching of non-clinging is taken to extreme levels in certain Buddhist understandings. Why is it that having an understanding of an ultimate reality means one is clinging to an ultimate reality? An extreme clinging to non-clinging is not only paradoxical but falls short of the virtue of moderation.

[konchog uma]

Found this commentary on the Heart Sutra by DT Suzuki.

 

thats lovely, thanks for posting!

 

i also think its more accurate to say that i am illusory than to say that i don't exist at all. Same goes for everything, its dreamlike and holographic at best, but its very misleading to people to think that it isn't there.. lends itself to abnormalities like escapism and nihilism.

 

But i have said as much already, and this could go round and round ad nauseum so i'll leave it alone

[xabir2005]

Found this commentary on the Heart Sutra by DT Suzuki:

 

"4. "Empty" (sunya) or "emptiness" (sunyata) is one of the most important notions in Mahayana philosophy and at the same time the most puzzling for non-Buddhist readers to comprehend. Emptiness does not mean "relativity", or "phenomenality", or "nothingness", but rather means the Absolute, or something of transcendental nature, although this rendering is also misleading as we shall see later. When Buddhists declare all things to be empty, they are not advocating a nihilistic view; on the contrary an ultimate reality is hinted at, which cannot be subsumed under the categories of logic. With them, to proclaim the conditionality of things is to point to the existence of something altogether unconditioned and transcendent of all determination. Sunyata may thus often be most appropriately rendered by the Absolute. When the sutra says that the five Skandhas have the character of emptiness, or that in emptiness there is neither creation nor destruction, neither defilement nor immaculacy, etc., the sense is: no limiting qualities are to be attributed to the Absolute; while it is immanent in all concrete and particular objects, it is not in itself definable. Universal negation, therefore, in the philosophy of Prajna is an inevitable outcome." From A Manual of Zen Buddhism

 

This sounds very Taoist to me and points to emptiness being more of a 'reality' than you (xabir) are letting on.

 

My opinion is that Buddhism is a wonderful method for freedom from dukkha, which is all Buddha claimed it was. He was famously silent on metaphysical topics. And Taoist metaphysics make more sense to me than certain post-Siddarthan Buddhist metaphysics (notably those which don't posit an origin).

 

It seems to me that the teaching of non-clinging is taken to extreme levels in certain Buddhist understandings. Why is it that having an understanding of an ultimate reality means one is clinging to an ultimate reality? An extreme clinging to non-clinging is not only paradoxical but falls short of the virtue of moderation.

No. D.T's explanation of shunyata is not in accord with the Buddhist understanding of shunyata. As Thusness told me many many years ago, the problem with D.T.Suzuki is his inclination in conceiving an ontological essence.

 

As long as you have the view of a true existent, there will be a clinging to that. If you conceive an ultimate reality, you will cling to that. This has been my experience and is unmistakeably so.

 

Anyway Buddhism from the start (not just post Siddharthan Buddhist), I.e. From the Buddha's pali teachings, already does not posit an ultimate origin... We speak only of interdependent origination

 

I am not too familiar with Taoist doctrine so I cannot comment... Thusness would have been the right person (but he isn't around though he has a secret account here but rarely ever posts), since he was trained under a Taoist master about two decades ago. He did mentioned before however that Taoist understanding of nothingness and buddhist shunyata are different teachings, but neither is Taoist experience, view or method similar to Hinduism since it talks more about dissolving to nothingness than about realizing the Self. He has since converted to Buddhism, but Taoism remains his second favourite religion (Buddhism the first), then followed by Hinduism. He also likes Christianity (he went to a church and listened to a sermon in recent years and said he would have converted if he was still in his youth) but it is a pity that Christianity (like the bible) has been heavily distorted by political agendas, so it remains his "number 4" in that list. Anyway, gone off topic.

[xabir2005]

[konchog uma]

[xabir2005]

[RyanO]

No. D.T's explanation of shunyata is not in accord with the Buddhist understanding of shunyata. As Thusness told me many many years ago, the problem with D.T.Suzuki is his inclination in conceiving an ontological essence.

 

As long as you have the view of a true existent, there will be a clinging to that. If you conceive an ultimate reality, you will cling to that. This has been my experience and is unmistakeably so.

 

Anyway Buddhism from the start (not just post Siddharthan Buddhist), I.e. From the Buddha's pali teachings, already does not posit an ultimate origin... We speak only of interdependent origination

 

I am not too familiar with Taoist doctrine so I cannot comment... Thusness would have been the right person (but he isn't around though he has a secret account here but rarely ever posts), since he was trained under a Taoist master about two decades ago. He did mentioned before however that Taoist understanding of nothingness and buddhist shunyata are different teachings, but neither is Taoist experience, view or method similar to Hinduism since it talks more about dissolving to nothingness than about realizing the Self. He has since converted to Buddhism, but Taoism remains his second favourite religion (Buddhism the first), then followed by Hinduism. He also likes Christianity (he went to a church and listened to a sermon in recent years and said he would have converted if he was still in his youth) but it is a pity that Christianity (like the bible) has been heavily distorted by political agendas, so it remains his "number 4" in that list. Anyway, gone off topic.

 

Dang thought I had you with Suzuki lol. Thought you were a fan since you cited him before.

 

I don't really see how conceiving of an ultimate reality necessarily means one clings to it. I guess I would if one interpreted 'ultimate' to mean having more inherent value. Perhaps 'absolute' is the better term.

 

But yes, my understanding of sunyata and the heart sutra is informed by the Taoist Wuji: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuji_(philosophy) Wuji is the primordial nothingness which gives birth to the One, which in turn gives birth to yin/yang. But it's all happening simultaneously, so in yin there is yang, and in yang there is yin: In stillness there is movement and vice versa. Sounds very similar to 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form".

 

I haven't done so but it would be a worthwhile project to research the comparison of shunyata/wuji.

 

Wuji can't be reified since it is beyond concepts. The clinging you refer to then would be a mental projection, but not a faulty metaphysical understanding.

Edited February 9, 2012 by RyanO

[xabir2005]

Dang thought I had you with Suzuki lol. Thought you were a fan since you cited him before.

 

I don't really see how conceiving of an ultimate reality necessarily means one clings to it. I guess I would if one interpreted 'ultimate' to mean having more inherent value. Perhaps 'absolute' is the better term.

 

But yes, my understanding of sunyata and the heart sutra is informed by the Taoist Wuji: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuji_(philosophy) Wuji is the primordial nothingness which gives birth to the One, which in turn gives birth to yin/yang. But it's all happening simultaneously, so in yin there is yang, and in yang there is yin: In stillness there is movement and vice versa. Sounds very similar to 'form is emptiness, emptiness is form".

 

I haven't done so but it would be a worthwhile project to research the comparison of shunyata/wuji.

 

Wuji can't be reified since it is beyond concepts. The clinging you refer to then would be a mental projection, but not a faulty metaphysical understanding.

The establishing of any form of metaphysical essence is going to cause clinging... And it will not be apparent until you have passed through them into deeper phases of insights. This has beeen my experience.

 

Anyway, Tao should be understood as "flow".

[konchog uma]

I was sitting tonight (not with the heart sutra or the mantra, just doing samatha-vipassana) and i started to follow my breath out with my mind, going out farther and farther with each breath. I went out to the edge of my own personal energy field, then i went out into the solar system, then the galaxy, then i went out into the cosmos with all the galaxies. I breathed out and my mind expanded to embrace all those galaxies until i came to the edge of reality, the cosmos, and i went out into a great void, only to realize that out there in the void are other cosmoses and realities, and that it went on forever, as far as the mind could reach, inner and outer dimensions in infinite worlds, and it seemed like the stars and galaxies and realities were like the atoms and molecules in my body, and then all of a sudden, POP i was nobody gazing at nothing. I lost all sensation of my body for about 2 seconds and went completely blank, but more than that, even the hypnogogic imagery was gone, i myself was gone and nobody was there to care that i was gone, but a point of perception remained, that is to say, something observed this null state, but wasn't able to care in the least.

 

When i came back i was really mentally elated, but i couldn't care emotionally until later.. i felt like i had finally had a direct realization of emptiness. I don't feel very different, and my emotions came back later although they were strangely absent for the time immediately after the experience.

 

Do you think i had a realization of emtpiness? or did my mind play a trick on me? I want to ask on dharma-wheel but i have a lurk-only policy that i would have to break. Hopefully someone here can help Blessings and thanks

[JustARandomPanda]

Do you think i had a realization of emtpiness? or did my mind play a trick on me? I want to ask on dharma-wheel but i have a lurk-only policy that i would have to break. Hopefully someone here can help Blessings and thanks

 

Send an email to Mat Black. 100% Grade A Authentic Buddhist.

[konchog uma]

Send an email to Mat Black. 100% Grade A Authentic Buddhist.

 

thanks SereneBlue i just did

[Creation]

a point of perception remained, that is to say, something observed this null state

...

Do you think i had a realization of emtpiness?

Not that I know anything about this stuff, but emptiness is a very technical term, and putting those statements next to each other...

 

The guys at Dharma Overground or Kenneth Folk Dharma would definitely have some feedback for you.

[xabir2005]

No not emptiness realization...

 

It is good to keep this in mind: “All forms are but illusions, in seeing that all forms are illusory , one sees the Tathagata”. (Diamond Sutra)

 

Try to practice mindfulness meditation such as anapanasati or the four foundations of mindfulness, or the instructions I gave, or this url: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html

 

It is quite common to get into hypnogogic states when the mind is sufficiently relaxed. When hypnogogic states arise, rather than entertaining or getting excited about them, it is best to go back to mindfulness of the breathe. Insights do not arise out of vision but awareness-discernment and insight contemplation.

 

Your meditation shows you have achieved some kind of progress in inner tranquility or the shamatha aspect (and you experienced what Buddha calls tranquilizing bodily formation (one of the earlier stages of the 16 anapanasati stages to nirvana) to the point where body seems to disappear)... But do not lose your mindfulness lest you fall into a dull state.

Edited February 14, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Everyone who practice breathing meditation should read this carefully:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

[konchog uma]

Your meditation shows you have achieved some kind of progress in inner tranquility or the shamatha aspect (and you experienced what Buddha calls tranquilizing bodily formation (one of the earlier stages of the 16 anapanasati stages to nirvana) to the point where body seems to disappear)... But do not lose your mindfulness lest you fall into a dull state.

 

thank you xabir!

[konchog uma]

 

It is quite common to get into hypnogogic states when the mind is sufficiently relaxed. When hypnogogic states arise, rather than entertaining or getting excited about them, it is best to go back to mindfulness of the breathe. Insights do not arise out of vision but awareness-discernment and insight contemplation.

 

 

i like that urbandharma link, thanks.

 

by hypnogogic imagery, i just mean the soft yellows and reds that float around in the blackness, they disappeared too. I wasn't having any sort of visualization or hallucination at the time. I wouldn't call it a hypnogogic state that i was in per se, just that i stopped seeing anything for a few moments, just blackness.

 

does a realization of emptiness change a person's way of relating to the world? That is to say, are they fundamentally different after than they were before?

 

I don't feel that way about last night's happening btw. I am essentially the same.

[xabir2005]

I see.

 

The effect of realizing emptiness is that you truly realize and see everything as being like a magical illusion, apparent yet utterly without substance, so everything becomes self-releasing.

 

But don't worry about that for now. What you experienced is not realization of emptiness, but a shamatha or calm abiding state where you are temporarily able to let go of body and mind. Realization of emptiness is an advanced realization. Realization of emptiness will occur much later on your path. For now just focus on the luminous clarity, experiencing the intensity of luminosity in the minutest details of the sensate world through mindfulness. Then along with that, with a few pointers and contemplation of no-self, the insight into no-self can arise. After that, then contemplate on emptiness of all phenomena.

[konchog uma]

I see.

 

The effect of realizing emptiness is that you truly realize and see everything as being like a magical illusion, apparent yet utterly without substance, so everything becomes self-releasing.

 

But don't worry about that for now. What you experienced is not realization of emptiness, but a shamatha or calm abiding state where you are temporarily able to let go of body and mind. Realization of emptiness is an advanced realization. Realization of emptiness will occur much later on your path. For now just focus on the luminous clarity, experiencing the intensity of luminosity in the minutest details of the sensate world through mindfulness. Then along with that, with a few pointers and contemplation of no-self, the insight into no-self can arise. After that, then contemplate on emptiness of all phenomena.

 

again, thank you xabir