What exactly is "grasping"?

[Tibetan_Ice]

What is there to fight for?

 

Isn't TTB's forum about sharing?

 

If the forum is about sharing, why didn't you share your gender in your profile?

[Tibetan_Ice]

More on grasping from "As It Is vol II 2"

 

 

This is why miracles are possible. When the display of deluded mind vanishes at the moment of enlightenment, one realizes that ordinary appearances are merely illusion. The realized yogi is not burned by fire. He can walk on water and traverse solid matter. An ordinary person like us is certain to get burned by fire, blown away by the wind, and drowned in water. How does a yogi manage to experience these in a different way? Because buddha mind doesn’t hold onto anything, appearances can’t cause any harm. That is why we are told again and again: don’t grasp at anything, don’t fixate on anything. Simply recognize the state of rigpa and become stable in it. Dzogchen training is all about exactly this. The ability to perform miracles doesn’t happen by glimpsing the awakened state just once or twice. It happens only when you attain stability in rigpa, in the essence of mind. Stability in rigpa is the reason all the great masters of India and Tibet were unable to be harmed by fire, crushed by mountains or drowned by water. This is not the case of merely a few masters — there were many, many accomplished beings.

 

There is a song by the Tibetan Master Götsangpa:

All these appearances are deceptive trickery.

This relative reality is like a magical show.

The rock behind my back is transparent.

 

 

A yogi like Götsangpa could traverse freely through solid rock, like the mountain behind my hermitage. Why, because he attained stability in rigpa. It wasn’t that he was so strong that he could force his way through the mountain. It is because in actuality all appearances are a magical trickery. In Götsangpa’s experience, all fixation was brought to exhaustion.

 

 

Grasping: fixation

 

[xabir2005]

...grasping...

 

Means the AHHHH is the total exertion of self-luminous clarity without any sense of a subject/object or self, and at the same time, you must also release every moment, rather than trying to cling/hang on to that moment/make it last longer/etc (which is impossible since everything is impermanent + empty). Let each moment of thought, sensation, etc - which is Pure Presence - release itself without a trace and not get carried to the next moment (prior dharmas and subsequent dharmas do not relate to each other), like drawing image on water does not amount to anything or leave a trace. Everything is fundamentally non-arising reflection. This totality of AHHHH yet non-staying is total exertion yet natural formation. But if you try to make that moment of Pure Presence stay longer, hang on to it, grasp it in any way, there is no release.

 

Mazu said:

The Buddha said, "It is just the dharmas that combine to form this body. When it arises, it is simply the dharmas arising; when it ceases, it is simply the dharmas ceasing. When these dharmas arise, [the bodhisattva] does not state, 'I arise'; when these dharmas cease, he does not state, 'I cease'." "In prior thought moments and subsequent thought moments, the moments do not relate to each other; in prior dharmas and subsequent dharmas, the dharmas do not oppose each other. This is called the the ocean seal Samadhi.

Edited April 14, 2014 by xabir2005

[idiot_stimpy]

If the forum is about sharing, why didn't you share your gender in your profile?

 

I certainly don't think this forum is about fighting.

[GrandmasterP]

Back on topic: Some Buddhists claim that you can only recognize the natural state/primordial awareness by becoming clairvoyant. This is supported by the fact that many many teachings say that shamatha/vispassana or the corresponding version of it in the different schools is a necessary preliminary practice. Most all teachers claim that shamatha practice will develop the mundane siddhis (psychic powers). Could it be that clairvoyance, a mundane siddhi, is necessary in order to realize rigpa/primordial wisdom/the natural state? Several Bon teachings indicate that first you practice the preliminary practices, and then once having achieved a certain stability of mind, the teacher points out the nature of mind to the student. Therefore, the implication being, that stabilizing the mind through gradualy refined forms of grasping to non-grasping is part of the process and will reveal the natural state all on it's own. Even Buddha, teaching the jhanas, said that the jhanas are a stepping stone to enlightenment. The jhanas empower the mind. With the empowered mind, it is easier to see that this reality is no different from the dream worlds, the astral planes, the illusion of it all.

 

I found an interesting definition of grasping in "Pointing Out the Nature of Mind - Dzogchen Pith Instructions of Aro Yeshe Junge.

He says:

 

 

 

Clairvoyance exists across all faith paths and those Buddhist apologists maybe reverse engineered their own take onto it .

Bon predates Tibetan Buddhisms by quite a stretch.

Shaman shows involving the 'clairs for cash' have been around as long as market squares in villages.

Anywhere an audience can be gathered you'll find a psychic or related trade going about her or his business.

Daoist fortune tellers make a good living in HK and Taiwan.

Every Mind, Body and Spirit magazine, forum and website is choc-a-bloc with adverts for Psychics.

We all of us ( I am a semi pro medium who gets paid for platform work and has done this 30- years and more past) ) hang out our shingle in our own especial ways.

Factoring out the religious labels ( which is all any dogma is... 'Consumer labelling') the best advice from an old pro to anyone tempted by adverts or posts from 'psychics' etc is...

'Caveat Emptor'.

( Let the buyer beware).

There are some total shysters and crooks out there selling the 'clairs for cash'.

[deci belle]

Some Buddhists claim that you can only recognize the natural state/primordial awareness by becoming clairvoyant.

 

The recognition of the absolute is by dropping-off the skin-bag and seeing your nature for the first time.

 

Clairvoyance has nothing to do with seeing one's nature, essence, buddha-mind.

 

Evidently these clairvoyant buddhists are mistaking their thieving mind for the source of enlightening being?

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

From The Attention Revolution, Alan Wallace:

 

With the refined attention shamatha helps to cultivate, one may attain various kinds of extrasensory perception and other paranormal abilities. While Buddhist masters caution that seeking paranormal abilities can easily sidetrack one from the central endeavor of purifying the mind, these abilities also can be put to good service for the benefit of others if they are used with wisdom and altruism.

 

Atisha comments in this regard: Just as a bird with undeveloped wings Cannot fly in the sky, Those without the power of extrasensory perception, Cannot work for the good of living beings. The merit gained in a single day By someone with extrasensory perception Cannot be gained even in a hundred lifetimes By one without extrasensory perception. Without the achievement of shamatha Extrasensory perception will not arise. Therefore make repeated effort To accomplish shamatha.114

 

The First Panchen Lama described the significance of shamatha for the achievement of such abilities: Due to such practice, the nature of meditative equipoise is limpid and very clear, unobscured by anything. Since it is not established as any entity having form, it is vacuous like space, as it were. Moreover, whatever good and bad objects of the five senses arise, it clearly, luminously takes on any appearance, like the reflections in a limpid mirror. You have the sense that it cannot be recognized as being this and not being that. However stable such samadhi may be, if it is not imbued with the joy of physical and mental pliancy, it is single-pointed attention of the desire realm, whereas samadhi that is so imbued is said to be shamatha; and that is the source of many qualities, such as extrasensory perception and paranormal abilities.115

 

Buddhist sources commonly list five mundane kinds of extrasensory perception: 1. Remote viewing, or clairvoyance 2. Clairaudience 3. Knowledge of others minds 4. Paranormal abilities, such as the ability to mentally control the four elements of earth, water, fire, and air. Examples include moving through solid objects, walking on water, mental control of fire, flying, and mentally multiplying and transforming physical objects at will. 5. Recollection of past lives

 

 

[doc benway]

Clairvoyance - from the French clair (clear) and voir (to see) = to see clearly.

Def. from Merriam-Webster :

1. the power or faculty of discerning objects not present to the senses

2. ability to perceive matters beyond the range of ordinary perception

 

In terms of the etymology of the word and the aspect of its precise definition, I would say that is quite an apt description of awakening to one's true Nature. Not so much in terms of the popular use of the word to refer to connote more mundane psychic powers… Although some such "powers" are a natural consequence of awakening.

[doc benway]

I had some thoughts about grasping after my morning practice. The word grasping implies to me an intentional reaching and taking hold of something. What occurs in my mind is infinitely more insidious and subtle, occurring well before I'm aware of any conscious intention. At times I am able to see the process unfold. At other (most) times, I have already grabbed hold well before knowing kicks in. So to me grasping is more like a stickiness, like cobwebs, they are all over your face before you ever see them coming, unavoidable, and then there is the process of letting them ago or clearing them away, which sometimes is nearly effortless, and sometimes quite difficult - again the cobweb image comes to mind.

[Cheshire Cat]

Is it possible that a practitioner cannot practice not grasping, unless they have first developed the mudane psychic powers, as these aforequoted texts are revealing?

 

I agree.

 

Who can claim to be beyond sexual desire?

It's something that cannot be conquered easily (or maybe cannot be conquered at all). And yes, it's a form of grasping.

[doc benway]

I agree.

 

Who can claim to be beyond sexual desire?

It's something that cannot be conquered easily (or maybe cannot be conquered at all). And yes, it's a form of grasping.

 

I don't see sexual desire as grasping, necessarily, depending on how we are using the word desire.

Sexuality is a natural condition of human existence.

One can have the experience of the sexual drive without attachment, without grasping.

This is, in fact, a well established practice as one tries to integrate residing in the Nature of Mind with a variety of virtuous, neutral, and non-virtuous activity.

[Cheshire Cat]

 

Sexuality is a natural condition of human existence.

One can have the experience of the sexual drive without attachment, without grasping.

This is, in fact, a well established practice as one tries to integrate residing in the Nature of Mind with a variety of virtuous, neutral, and non-virtuous activity.

 

Historically, even killing other human beings was a natural condition of human existence (and still is, in some of the most primitive groups).

It doesn't matter how natural and healthy it is: in the moment the eyes meet the hot chick, grasping is there... naturally.

Cultivating a sexual drive is to cultivate grasping... at least, so said people like the Buddha who established communities of monks, for example.

imho.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:wub:

[doc benway]

Historically, even killing other human beings was a natural condition of human existence (and still is, in some of the most primitive groups).

It doesn't matter how natural and healthy it is: in the moment the eyes meet the hot chick, grasping is there... naturally.

Cultivating a sexual drive is to cultivate grasping... at least, so said people like the Buddha who established communities of monks, for example.

imho.

 

I don't disagree with you there, all good points.

And your original point is quite valid - the desire is grasping.

I still feel that there is the opportunity to develop our ability to rest in the Nature of Mind to the point where the awareness and experience of sexual drive and impulse can occur without the grasping aspect. I'm certainly not there.

And maybe it is not possible at all...

I do know it is something that is the object of practice.

[GrandmasterP]

Isn't grasping after celibacy still grasping after something?

Aspiration sound nicer than 'grasping' but maybe there's still ambition in it.

Edited April 15, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Cheshire Cat]

I still feel that there is the opportunity to develop our ability to rest in the Nature of Mind to the point where the awareness and experience of sexual drive and impulse can occur without the grasping aspect. I'm certainly not there.

And maybe it is not possible at all...

I do know it is something that is the object of practice.

 

Yes, I've heard that people practice sex as a form of spiritual cultivation, but it's done in a tantric context in which sexual desire is skillfully transformed into the mind of enlightenment.

So, it's the "hard" way to deal with the strongest grasping of all.

The Dalai Lama teaches that in order to become a Buddha, one should have a strong desire to become a Buddha.

This is tantra.

 

Speaking about Nature of Mind and "being aware" sounds more like zen buddhism which is fine. It's my favorite form of buddhism...

But the theory here is different: desire must be radically destroyed. The ideal advanced practitioner may appear to have "erection problems" in the eyes of ordinary people, since his mind is beyond lust. There are stories of buddhist saints tested by kings in all manners to see if they still retained sexual desire in their hearth.

 

Isn't grasping after celibacy still grasping after something?

Aspiration sound nicer than 'grasping' but maybe there's still ambition in it.

 

Good point.

Celibacy was conceived as a skillful mean, an expedient to conquer sexual desire.

Since almost none can conquer sexual desire today, the method doesn't work well in the traditional sense.

 

[forestofclarity]

Different Buddhist teachings have different approaches to dealing with sexual desire. For example, in Theravada Buddhism, there is contemplation of disgust on the human body in an effort to eliminate it. According to Namkhai Norbu, in Vajrayana, desire is transformed and in Dzogchen, it is allowed the self-liberate.

 

The Zen approach, which I am familiar with, is not about eliminating it, but dealing with it. As Hui Neng says, no-thought is not the elimination of thought, but freedom from thought in the midst of thought.

 

There is a Zen story about a woman and her daughter who supported a monk. In order to test the monk, the woman sent her daughter to embrace him. He said she was like a dead tree, no warmth. The woman knew he was a fake, drove him off, and burned down his hermitage.

[Cheshire Cat]

The Zen approach, which I am familiar with, is not about eliminating it, but dealing with it. As Hui Neng says, no-thought is not the elimination of thought, but freedom from thought in the midst of thought.

 

Hui Neng the famous monk who embraced dozens of young maidens?

... or maybe was he a celibate?

 

There is a Zen story about a woman and her daughter who supported a monk. In order to test the monk, the woman sent her daughter to embrace him. He said she was like a dead tree, no warmth. The woman knew he was a fake, drove him off, and burned down his hermitage.

 

This is not the original story.

I've never heard of this version.

[GrandmasterP]

 

Hui Neng the famous monk who embraced dozens of young maidens?

... or maybe was he a celibate?

 

 

 

This is not the original story.

I've never heard of this version.

Here it is....

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2014/03/the-old-woman-burns-down-the-hut-a-dharma-talk.html

 

In the poor old hermit's defence, he could have been describing himself rather than insulting the lady's daughter as she seemed to have imagined he was.

 

Hope that helps.

Edited April 16, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Tibetan_Ice]

Sure, it is hard not to grasp at a sexually stimulating image.

But it is even harder not grasp at the self.

It is also very hard to watch TV without grasping, to see just the images as appearances of light.

The kind of Grasping that I believe Buddhists talks about, though, occurs at a much deeper level from before we have created these images and appearances.

[dawei]

It seems, according to Gyatrul Rinpoche, that you can look directly at an appearance and not grasp it. But what exactly does that mean?

 

Seems to me this is similar to the Zen master who responded to the request of bondage: "Show me what binds you?" Meaning, produce it in your hands.

 

Can you hold the sun and moon in your hands? Isn't this appearance and not grasping? Only the mind can grasp it... but this is in our physical state, and can't our minds trick us too?

 

Grasping? Thinking, contemplating, realizing, understanding, wanting to post it, posting it, waiting for responses, reading, posting, etc.

 

Not Grasping?

[Cheshire Cat]

Here it is....

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2014/03/the-old-woman-burns-down-the-hut-a-dharma-talk.html

 

In the poor old hermit's defence, he could have been describing himself rather than insulting the lady's daughter as she seemed to have imagined he was.

 

Hope that helps.

 

I'm looking for the original version in the canons.

Teachers always change stories to convey different meanings (especially to present difficult things to westerners).

 

The original story is much more enigmatic and has nothing to do with sexuality, but only with meditation: there's a state called "emptiness without substance" and it means that meditation had gone wrong.

It's purely a meditation matter. Nothing to do with desire.

[GrandmasterP]

 

I'm looking for the original version in the canons.

Teachers always change stories to convey different meanings (especially to present difficult things to westerners).

 

The original story is much more enigmatic and has nothing to do with sexuality, but only with meditation: there's a state called "emptiness without substance" and it means that meditation had gone wrong.

It's purely a meditation matter. Nothing to do with desire.

 

Try...

交絡バインズ

Kōraku bainzu

Hope that helps.

Edited April 16, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[doc benway]

I'm looking for the original version in the canons.

Teachers always change stories to convey different meanings (especially to present difficult things to westerners).

 

The original story is much more enigmatic and has nothing to do with sexuality, but only with meditation: there's a state called "emptiness without substance" and it means that meditation had gone wrong.

It's purely a meditation matter. Nothing to do with desire.

I read a passage today describing "the mistake of Shamatha" referring to practicing Shamatha and resting in a dull state, absent the spark of active presence (my paraphrase)… I don't know if that's what you could be referring to. This was a Bön source, which is what my earlier comments relate to as well, not Zen - though there are significant similarities.

[ChiForce]

I'm looking for the original version in the canons.

Teachers always change stories to convey different meanings (especially to present difficult things to westerners).

 

The original story is much more enigmatic and has nothing to do with sexuality, but only with meditation: there's a state called "emptiness without substance" and it means that meditation had gone wrong.

It's purely a meditation matter. Nothing to do with desire.

Is called the dead tree Zen. One shouldn't attach to that state. This is the state of stupor. I am sure most of us at one point find ourselves in this meditative state. Like your are sleeping while meditating. Or you kind of dose off while meditating. In meditation, you are supposed to arrive to a samadhi state with an alert and emptied mind.

[idiot_stimpy]

RE: Dead Tree Zen - Like resting in the space of meditation, and divorcing yourself from experiencing physical sensations.

Edited April 19, 2014 by idiot_stimpy