Could someone explain the Buddhist belief system to me?

[RongzomFan]

I don't think he even mentions nonarising once. If you read the Madhyamaka texts themselves, thats the main emphasis.

 

He is just parroting the Tsongkhapa view of emptiness being lacking inherent existence.

 

Stick to the original Indian authors.

Edited November 19, 2012 by alwayson

[deci belle]

I'll venture an on topic reprise and addendum…

 

There is nothing to believe. There is no self.

 

Nothing exists.

 

Mind is enlightened.

 

Activating the mind without dwelling on its contents comprises the totality of the buddhist canon.

 

Gradual practice after sudden illumination is another matter entirely.

 

 

 

 

ed note: add last line

Edited August 22, 2013 by deci belle

[RongzomFan]

Activating the mind without dwelling on its contents comprises the totality of the buddhist canon.

 

Recognizing unfabricated presence, and resting in that knowledge, is only step 1 for Vajrayanists.

 

People think that's all there is, because the rest of it is in restricted texts.

[Simple_Jack]

@ alwayson

 

That quoted part from deci belle's post looks like it's inspired by a line out of the Diamond Sutra; which could mean she's referring to prajnaparamita.

[RongzomFan]

@ alwayson

 

That quoted part from deci belle's post looks like it's inspired by a line out of the Diamond Sutra; which could mean she's referring to prajnaparamita.

 

I wouldn't know. The last time I was interested in the Diamond Sutra was around 2007.

[deci belle]

And what of the last line of my post, hmmmmm?

 

 

Gradual practice after sudden illumination is another matter entirely.

[RongzomFan]

The view side is based on direct introduction / fourth empowerment.

 

The practice side involves pranayama, dark retreat etc.

[deci belle]

uh-huh.

[3bob]

Hey man, Alan Watts has some good stuff on explaining/comparing east-west concepts.

 

But remember this is mostly concepts being shared here and one can't really live off of such.

In meantime you can trust nature not to lie to you, she is fair, true and palys no favorites.

 

By the way, a lot of this kind of stuff has to be put on the shelf and or taken with a grain of salt until you can relate to it through your own experience, and if you don't have such related experiences just keep on trying to do the kind and well-rounded balanced things in life and the same will come upon you. Also trying to correlate all these different ways can easily drive you or anyone else nuts, so don't overload your head with same!

 

Good luck.

Edited August 23, 2013 by 3bob

[deci belle]

until you can relate to it through your own experience, and if you don't have such related experiences just keep on trying to do the kind and well-rounded balanced things in life and the same will come upon you

 

…until then, always~❤

[gatito]

There's no such thing as "mind" there's only the current thought.

 

(Therefore mind cannot be enlightened.)

[Apech]

Never mind, eh?

[Bud Jetsun]

There's no such thing as "mind" there's only the current thought. (Therefore mind cannot be enlightened.)

 

There is only the illusion of perception of "current thought." Now couldn't involve something that requires thought, as a thought has a start, middle and end, and "now" couldn't hold these past present and future iterations, as it would require all phases of the thought being instant and overlapping.

 

"Now", the "Void", "Emptyness" are all phrases for the same indescribable state of being without delusion. If you're thinking, you're in a state of delusion.

 

The enlightened state of mind and thoughts are not compatible. A Buddha doesn't need to speak with another Buddha, there is nothing to say. When a Buddha speaks with a non-Buddha, to communicate requires dropping out of the state of enlightened mind and creating delusions in the arrangements of words rather than enjoying the infinite bliss of the enlightened state.

 

Words and thoughts and ideas can exclusively express delusions (and the non-real). If you cling to them, you cling to the mechanisms of your self-imposed suffering. This is why Buddha wasn't big on writing down his quotes, you end up with people worshiping the act of reading a book of quotes and calling it practicing.

[idiot_stimpy]

"Now", the "Void", "Emptiness" are all phrases for the same indescribable state of being without delusion. If you're thinking, you're in a state of delusion.

 

The enlightened state of mind and thoughts are not compatible. A Buddha doesn't need to speak with another Buddha, there is nothing to say. When a Buddha speaks with a non-Buddha, to communicate requires dropping out of the state of enlightened mind and creating delusions in the arrangements of words rather than enjoying the infinite bliss of the enlightened state.

 

I have to disagree. From my experience if you cling to a non-thought state you will be creating a duality between thoughts and no thoughts. The only difference between thoughts and non-thoughts is your perception that dictates that they are separate. There is no unity when there is a separation between things.

[DreamBliss]

Thinking about not thinking is still thinking.

 

It is not about non-thought or thought. Both are still thought.

 

Attachment to any state must be released. Non-attachment , non-aversion is the practice.

 

It is Initially about awarness of thoughts, observing thoughts, coming naturally, effortlessly, to a state that is empty of thoughts, yet full of emptiness. It is a state where there is only awareness.

 

The purpose of meditation is to bring you to this state, where you discover emptiness not only of thought, but even of someoone thinking.

 

This can not be put into words and understood intellectually. I have reached the extent to which I can express my understanding of this, and it must be considered incomplete. It is not, as Osho would say, the First Principle. This is the finger pointing at what I understand to be the moon at this moment.

 

This state is not a place you go to or work at. It is something you experience, and in that experience, you come to know it for yourself. You come to know the First Principle, which is wordless. You come to know the Truth, in your own experience.

 

Thoughts have no existance or non-existance in this state. There is no thought about thoughts. No awareness of thoughts. No thinking whatsoever. There is only awareness and Being.

 

I have not, at this moment, writing this, experienced thiis state, the Fist Principle, for myself.

Edited December 2, 2014 by DreamBliss

[idiot_stimpy]

The teaching of emptiness was profound, and the teaching of Buddha nature was a blessing and redemption.

[Bud Jetsun]

I have to disagree. From my experience if you cling to a non-thought state you will be creating a duality between thoughts and no thoughts. The only difference between thoughts and non-thoughts is your perception that dictates that they are separate. There is no unity when there is a separation between things.

 

 

In no-thought, there is nothing to cling, and no awareness of what could cling or what clinging would be. No desires, no suffering, only the indescribable state of being without delusion.

[DreamBliss]

Now if only I could experience this instead of knowing about it. And what kind of knowing can I have without experiencing?

 

The other day I was drinking a bottle of Odwalla Blueberry B. I remember shaking it up, drinking it, and at some point I noticed, on the underside of the lid, a red drop of liquid. I can't describe what I experienced. But I experienced something, just moving that single drop around the interior of that white circle on the underside of that lid.

 

I wrote this afterwards:

https://blisswriter.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/emptiness/

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I have a running thread trying to explain Buddhism here, which I hope is helpful.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...in Dharma, a correct conceptual understanding of emptiness is required to realize emptiness...

I thought Padmasambhava said something about how one can learn the conceptual view and use it to guide your meditation, or simply meditate and have the view arise from that?

 

I don't see why a correct conceptual understanding should be a prerequisite for realisation. Besides, concepts are only rough pointers in the right direction for this sort of thing.

 

Having an idea of the theory is helpful, but I think experience from meditation should erode false views by itself.

 

I agree meditation alone isn't enough, but for a different reason. We have to approach life skilfully, cultivating bodhichitta within it through action, as well as the cultivation on the cushion.

[Simple_Jack]

Jetsun, that sounds self-defeating, and lends itself to rebirth as a long lived god in the formless realms or as an animal according to buddhadharma, due to grasping to non-conceptual states of consciousness. The mind and its mental objects are a tool to be used on the path: which is why Right View is at the forefront of the Buddhist path, and why it's traditionally accepted that a person, begins the path by hearing, contemplating, and meditating on the teachings received by a reliable Buddhist teacher.

[sifuaminjani]

the simple version would be to perserve virtue and attain more virtue to dissolve karma by being a good person, doing good deeds, and cultivating your mind body and spirit to return to your orginal self and accend beyond the cycle of life and death in this reality.

Edited December 10, 2014 by sifuaminjani

[Jetsun]

To say you need the correct conceptual understanding of emptiness to realise emptiness is like saying you need the correct conceptual understanding of oranges to know what eating an orange is like.

 

All this Buddhist stuff is just maps, don't you see? the map is never the territory, they are completely different realms. Maps can help you get by, help you get to where you want to, but having a first class map of Paris and reading a thousand of the finest books about it is still not going to compare to the experience of going there and living there, getting a feel for the place.

[forestofclarity]

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing.

 

The reason I agree is that you certainly don't need concepts to see what is there. But I disagree because until I understood the concept of emptiness, I never saw it clearly in experience.

 

It is like when you write a paper, and you have trouble proof reading it. Your mind subtly overlays corrections onto errors. But someone else can come along and point out the errors.

 

To say you need the correct conceptual understanding of emptiness to realise emptiness is like saying you need the correct conceptual understanding of oranges to know what eating an orange is like.

[Jetsun]

But I disagree because until I understood the concept of emptiness, I never saw it clearly in experience.

 

It is like when you write a paper, and you have trouble proof reading it. Your mind subtly overlays corrections onto errors. But someone else can come along and point out the errors.

 

But you didn't have the "correct conceptual understanding" of emptiness, all you had was a general concept, right? all those concepts are are sign posts pointing you in a general direction.

 

The ironic thing about this is that emptiness will only be realised with any sort of stability when the mind realises, or submits, or gives up trying to fit emptiness into concepts. That is the whole point, it is the one thing the mind cant dominate or control or put in a nice neat box.