How are the 5 aggregates (khandas/skhandas) suffering

[seekingbuddha]

Currently my practice is focused on penetrating deeper into the first 2 noble truths - suffering and origin of suffering. Buddha has given numerous ways to penetrate into these, through different perspectives/views/angles. One of the ways/methods/views that i am using is penetrating Buddha's often repeated statement - "In short, the 5 aggregates are suffering/origin of suffering".

 

So, i would like input from those who have spent many years in practice of mindfulness and equanimity/calmness of mind........These are the 5 aggregates i consider : (physical form, feeling, perception/cognition/discrimination, mental formation/fabrication/volition/impulse/thoughts and coinciousness/awareness/the watcher). While it is easy to see how form, feeling and conciousness are suffering and that they are the origin of suffering, i would like to understand more about how perception & volition aggregates are suffering. I can see how these two can be the cause/origin of suffering. I have read the top articles i can find in a search of internet, about five aggregates (khandas), but none i have read go deep into an explanation of how these 2 aggregates are suffering.

 

My practice includes an attempt to see in personal experience how these 5 aggregates are suffering and are in fact the origin of suffering within my body+mind. I need to break into these 2 aggregates, that are eluding my experience, obviously because of my lack of understanding.

Edited February 6, 2015 by seekingbuddha

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I have less experience than you're asking for, no big expert, but here's my two cents anyway.

 

You're probably already aware of this, but remember to bear in mind that 'dukkha' is broader and subtler than 'suffering': here. Look in terms of the more subtle 'tightening' or 'friction' of samsara.

 

Perception - tends to feed into proliferation of views and attachment, biased and dualistic, limited, conditioned. But definitely not always suffering.

 

Volition - intentions cannot be guaranteed to be fulfilled (anatta - a self would be fully controllable) permanently (anicca) and are conditioned. But not always suffering.

 

Remember that the perceptions of impermanence, dukkha and anatta tend to feed into each other, so be open to all of them in your vipashyana. And recognising the first two noble truths to achieve the third comes about by practice of the fourth, in an integrated fashion. Wisdom feeds into, and is fed by, virtue and samadhi. A bit more shamatha may give you the sensitivity of perception you need to see dukkha more clearly.

 

Hope that helps.

[C T]

Perception and volition associated with an 'I' leads to solidification of identity - how can it not be 'suffering'?

 

We can investigate and reflect if it were possible to reverse the process so as to deconstruct this 'I' and see if there is still perception & volition occurring.

[seekingbuddha]

CT - I understand the underpinnings of self/no-self part of the teaching, and the relationship of 5 aggregates to self/no-self aspect of teaching. Currently my practice is more on the need to understand the words "Perceptions(recognitions) are suffering; Formations (thoughts/volition) are suffering".

[C T]

CT - I understand the underpinnings of self/no-self part of the teaching, and the relationship of 5 aggregates to self/no-self aspect of teaching. Currently my practice is more on the need to understand the words "Perceptions(recognitions) are suffering; Formations (thoughts/volition) are suffering".

Is perception and volition possible without an 'I' thought? The 'I' arise through ignorance, which is the first link in the chain of interdependent origination. Are you familiar with it?

[Apech]

CT - I understand the underpinnings of self/no-self part of the teaching, and the relationship of 5 aggregates to self/no-self aspect of teaching. Currently my practice is more on the need to understand the words "Perceptions(recognitions) are suffering; Formations (thoughts/volition) are suffering".

 

 

Look more closely the word dukkha translated as suffering. While it does include pain and discomfort it also means 'unsatisfactory' in the sense that samsara is not the answer. Perceptions tend to emphasise duality as in the perceiver and the perceived. Formations are a bit like habitual thought patterns which are dependent on ignorance, so they reinforce basic ignorance which is essentially not seeing things as they really are.

 

The cause of suffering is grasping/thirst (trsna) which is one of the 12 steps of dependent arising which are ultimately produced by ignorance.

 

The other way of looking at it is that suffering (dukkha) arises when a sense of self, or selfhood is attributed to what are ephemeral and empty phenomena. The idea of self adheres to the experience of the five skandhas and it is this mistaken attribution of selfhood which causes us to grasp at things, become attached and generate states of being, births and olde age and death = dukkha.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

CT - I understand the underpinnings of self/no-self part of the teaching, and the relationship of 5 aggregates to self/no-self aspect of teaching. Currently my practice is more on the need to understand the words "Perceptions(recognitions) are suffering; Formations (thoughts/volition) are suffering".

 

As Apech says ^^^ bear in mind the inter-relation of impermanence, dukkha and anatta. Often looking at two of them together leads to a deeper gnosis of all three, including the one you're primarily focused on. The three characteristics are three angles on the pointlessness of trying to grasp, and how it causes dukkha. Try looking at dukkha in relation to either anatta or impermanence.

[doc benway]

Currently my practice is more on the need to understand the words "Perceptions(recognitions) are suffering; Formations (thoughts/volition) are suffering".

 

Perceptions (recognitions) and formations (thoughts/volition) arise and establish duality.

Perception and thought imply the dichotomy of perceiver/perceived and thinker/thought.

This the foundation for judgement - satisfactory/unsatisfactory, like/dislike, good/bad ===> dukkha

 

A simple practice that I find useful is the following. Anytime a strong emotion or feeling arises, pleasant or unpleasant, try to notice how it is created by the existence of a sense of identity. If it is work related, it generally is linked to my identification with my role in my job. If it is relationship related, it is linked to my identification with my role as a father, lover, or son, and so on. At a more subtle level this phenomenon occurs with all perception and volition. That sound is sweet, that is too loud, this thought takes me here and that one there. It's all grasping at some level. When we are able to let go of the identification, the judgement of desirable vs undesirable no longer has a frame of reference and is meaningless.

 

Not sure if that's at all useful. Good luck in your studies.

[seekingbuddha]

I have less experience than you're asking for, no big expert, but here's my two cents anyway.

 

You're probably already aware of this, but remember to bear in mind that 'dukkha' is broader and subtler than 'suffering': here. Look in terms of the more subtle 'tightening' or 'friction' of samsara.

 

Seeker,

I looked at the link you gave, where you seem to have defined the pali word "dukkha" with 3 different meanings. I have usually seen dukkha translated into suffering (but i also have seen similar statements, with impermanance mentioned in them).

 

As an example, take a look at the following words of Venerable Sariputta (buddha himself has spoken these same words, if i remember correctly, in some other sutta):

 

"And what is suffering, what is the origin of suffering,

what is the cessation of suffering, what is the way leading to the

cessation of suffering?

 

Birth is suffering; ageing is suffering;

sickness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation,

pain, grief, and despair are suffering; not to obtain what one

wants is suffering; in short, the five aggregates affected by clinging

are suffering. This is called suffering...........(and he moves on to

explain other noble truths)"

 

Here, it is clear that Venerable Sariputta is not using dukkha to mean impermanence, but directly implies "suffering" itself, as indicated by sickness/sorrow/lamentation/pain etc. BTW, i assume that you have studied pali language, since you have clearly given 3 meanings to dukkha (possibly deriving from your knowledge of various suttas and their context).

 

In any case.....it is in this vein, that i was trying to figure out the answer to my original question. The mention of five aggregates in above quote, have been repeated in many suttas that i have read.

 

 

 

Perception - tends to feed into proliferation of views and attachment, biased and dualistic, limited, conditioned. But definitely not always suffering.

 

Volition - intentions cannot be guaranteed to be fulfilled (anatta - a self would be fully controllable) permanently (anicca) and are conditioned. But not always suffering.

 

Remember that the perceptions of impermanence, dukkha and anatta tend to feed into each other, so be open to all of them in your vipashyana. And recognising the first two noble truths to achieve the third comes about by practice of the fourth, in an integrated fashion. Wisdom feeds into, and is fed by, virtue and samadhi. A bit more shamatha may give you the sensitivity of perception you need to see dukkha more clearly.

 

Hope that helps.

 

While i contemplate how the five aggregates are suffering (as mentioned above), i tend not to think about anatta or anicha - not because i am ignoring them or do not understand them, but because i tend to create concentration on my object of meditation. I do not mean to say that there is no fruit in an effort spent on contemplating all 3 (anatta, dukkha, anicha) - i have spent time in past, contemplating all 3 as pillars of a tripod.

 

But, the breakthrough in my understanding of dhamma, during the wee hours of this morning, is potentially going to shift me away from thinking/conciousness/perception. I thank my Gods for showing a peek of sanity and starting a shift in my deluded, conditioned mind.

[seekingbuddha]

Perceptions (recognitions) and formations (thoughts/volition) arise and establish duality.

Perception and thought imply the dichotomy of perceiver/perceived and thinker/thought.

This the foundation for judgement - satisfactory/unsatisfactory, like/dislike, good/bad ===> dukkha

 

........

Not sure if that's at all useful. Good luck in your studies.

 

Yes, steve - this part is useful. My recent penetration related to duality, conciousness+material form and origin of dukkha ties in nicely with your words, and i thank you for them. Now, I understand it thus:

 

In the beginning there was nothing,

Then came nama rupa,

Giving rise to everything,

including origin of suffering.

Abiding in emptiness nothing,

Will take me back to nothingness.

Salutations to Supremely Enlightened,

For showing me the right path and practice.

[doc benway]

Yes, steve - this part is useful. My recent penetration related to duality, conciousness+material form and origin of dukkha ties in nicely with your words, and i thank you for them. Now, I understand it thus:

 

In the beginning there was nothing,

Then came nama rupa,

Giving rise to everything,

including origin of suffering.

Abiding in emptiness nothing,

Will take me back to nothingness.

Salutations to Supremely Enlightened,

For showing me the right path and practice.

Wonderful - glad that helps.

So the emptiness here is the lack of subject, lack of object, lack of distinction.

It cannot be experience as that implies subject, nor can it be said to not exist because we live our practice and see its effects.

Hence the four-fold negation...

Sutra study is magnificent - we are blessed to have this opportunity!

 

[seekingbuddha]

So the emptiness here is the lack of subject, lack of object, lack of distinction. It cannot be experience as that implies subject,..............

 

This is getting difficult for me, because now i feel that we are pushing the boundaries of language/words, in order to convey our experiences. What if i were to say, in the loose/common/general sense of the word experience, everything (including Nibbana) is an experience ? Why would this be a wrong view ?

 

Surely, one has to be conscious/subconscious/aware of an experience, otherwise one would not know it, remember it, and may not be able to describe it using any sort of word. So, in the emptiness nothingness, there is no-thing and then there is consciousness/awareness of the emptiness-nothing (which transcends description), because there seems to be layers/levels of emptiness nothingness. (yeah, i know :-), this is why i think we are pushing boundaries of language here ). Perhaps you are experiencing a different layer/level of emptiness-nothingness.

Edited February 9, 2015 by seekingbuddha

[Seeker of Wisdom]

...

Here, it is clear that Venerable Sariputta is not using dukkha to mean impermanence, but directly implies "suffering" itself, as indicated by sickness/sorrow/lamentation/pain etc.

 

BTW, i assume that you have studied pali language, since you have clearly given 3 meanings to dukkha (possibly deriving from your knowledge of various suttas and their context).

 

I think the issue with translating 'dukkha' as suffering is that it's excessively nihilistic - for example, it seems unreasonable to call the bliss of jhana 'suffering'. The satipatthana sutta refers to negative, neutral and positive feelings, implying that not all is suffering, making it important to see in what way positive feelings are dukkha too.

 

I haven't studied Pali, what I'm saying comes from reasoning like above, and the texts. For example SN 38:14, trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (emphasis mine):

 

 

On one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying in Magadha in Nalaka Village. Then Jambukhadika the wanderer went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After this exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to Ven. Sariputta: "'Stress, stress,' it is said, my friend Sariputta. Which type of stress [are they referring to]?"

 

"There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness."

 

[doc benway]

This is getting difficult for me, because now i feel that we are pushing the boundaries of language/words, in order to convey our experiences. What if i were to say, in the loose/common/general sense of the word experience, everything (including Nibbana) is an experience ? Why would this be a wrong view ?

 

Surely, if one has to be conscious/subconscious/aware of an experience, otherwise one would not know it, remember it, and may not be able to describe it using any sort of word. So, in the emptiness nothingness, there is no-thing and then there is consciousness/awareness of the emptiness-nothing (which transcends description), because there seems to be layers/levels of emptiness nothingness. (yeah, i know :-), this is why i think we are pushing boundaries of language here ). Perhaps you are experiencing a different layer/level of emptiness-nothingness.

 

Nicely stated, yes - when words and concepts come into the picture we are already in the realm of subject/object duality.

This is why I've been taught to only take discussion and thought so far, or should I say - as far as I'm personally capable of taking it - then it is time to let go and simply practice.

 

There's a quote I love from a very different perspective that I've posted before -

"And if you want a point of departure for this new journey of soul, don't choose an intention, don't choose a prayer, don't choose a therapy, and don't choose a spiritual method. Look inwards and discover a point of contradiction within yourself. Stay faithful to the aura and presence of the contradiction. Hold it gently in your embrace and ask it what it wants to teach you."

- John O'Donohue

 

The conceptual side is difficult for all and yet definitely worthwhile, after all the thinking mind is our only tool, hence the endless courtyard debates.

The Buddhists have that down to a science.

But don't expect the answer to be what you would expect.

 

It's not about the answer but the question, the process.

The answer is dead and the question, full of life.

Life is process, not stuff, after all.

 

I wouldn't try to negate or contradict your statement "everything is an experience," nor would I call it a wrong view.

The tricky part for me are the words everything and experience - when you list what goes into everything, you can only list experiences and concepts and the word experience defines an experiencer.

 

The (rhetorical) question is - what is beyond that?

 

Trying to answer that or think about that is already interfering and dividing, hence the basic pith instruction for practice - "...leave it as it is..."

 

There's also a nice thread going on right now on emptiness.

And, for me, one of the best books on this subject is The Journey to Certainty by Anyen Rinpoche.

Highly accessible (except for one or two tough chapters) and really takes one to the intersection conceptual and non-conceptual.

 

edited for spelling

Edited February 8, 2015 by steve

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Perceptions (recognitions) and formations (thoughts/volition) arise and establish duality.

Perception and thought imply the dichotomy of perceiver/perceived and thinker/thought.

This the foundation for judgement - satisfactory/unsatisfactory, like/dislike, good/bad ===> dukkha

 

A simple practice that I find useful is the following. Anytime a strong emotion or feeling arises, pleasant or unpleasant, try to notice how it is created by the existence of a sense of identity. If it is work related, it generally is linked to my identification with my role in my job. If it is relationship related, it is linked to my identification with my role as a father, lover, or son, and so on. At a more subtle level this phenomenon occurs with all perception and volition. That sound is sweet, that is too loud, this thought takes me here and that one there. It's all grasping at some level. When we are able to let go of the identification, the judgement of desirable vs undesirable no longer has a frame of reference and is meaningless.

 

Not sure if that's at all useful. Good luck in your studies.

You are attempting to explain a Buddhist concept by using Advaitan concepts.

 

There is no non-dualism in Buddhism.

 

I would suggest reading this link..

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

 

And finally, your last statement about judgements becoming meaningless without identity is a form of nihilism which I am sure Buddhism does not ascribe to. Buddha did not teach that there is no good or bad nor did he say that good or bad is meaningless.

[doc benway]

You are attempting to explain a Buddhist concept by using Advaitan concepts.

 

There is no non-dualism in Buddhism.

 

I would suggest reading this link..

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

 

And finally, your last statement about judgements becoming meaningless without identity is a form of nihilism which I am sure Buddhism does not ascribe to. Buddha did not teach that there is no good or bad nor did he say that good or bad is meaningless.

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

Peace

[Apech]

You are attempting to explain a Buddhist concept by using Advaitan concepts.

 

There is no non-dualism in Buddhism.

 

I would suggest reading this link..

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

 

And finally, your last statement about judgements becoming meaningless without identity is a form of nihilism which I am sure Buddhism does not ascribe to. Buddha did not teach that there is no good or bad nor did he say that good or bad is meaningless.

 

This is only true if you refute Nagarjuna as a buddhist which that article does ... so you should say that there is no non-dualism in Theravedan Buddhism but in Mahayana Buddhism there is a teaching of non-duality. You may not agree with it or uphold it but it would confuse the reader to say it is not there.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

This is only true if you refute Nagarjuna as a buddhist which that article does ... so you should say that there is no non-dualism in Theravedan Buddhism but in Mahayana Buddhism there is a teaching of non-duality. You may not agree with it or uphold it but it would confuse the reader to say it is not there.

I thought it was covered in the article when it is said:

 

The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

 

For "no-nature" is not dualism, nor is it not "non-dualism". We throw such concepts out of the window.

[seekingbuddha]

I think the issue with translating 'dukkha' as suffering is that it's excessively nihilistic - for example, it seems unreasonable to call the bliss of jhana 'suffering'. The satipatthana sutta refers to negative, neutral and positive feelings, implying that not all is suffering, making it important to see in what way positive feelings are dukkha too.

 

Seeker of Wisdom,

I accept that the pali word dukkha has multiple meanings. But one of the meanings is clearly suffering / stress / pain etc. Of course, not everything is directly suffering, but they are indirectly suffering (because they are impermanent, and hence will lead to their change, which is indirect suffering - ie. first jhana is over Ah, just re-read your second sentence; so, yes, you see it too. But, my original post was not because i could not see suffering in feelings, but i could not see suffering in perceptions/formations. But, when i add the concept of anicha & anatta to the tripod, yes suffering becomes deductible. Maybe I have lot of work to do, before i can feel these 2 forms of sufferings in my bones.

 

 

Steve,

There's also a nice thread going on right now on emptiness.

And, for me, one of the best books on this subject is The Journey to Certainty by Anyen Rinpoche.

Thanks for your comments. Will add that to my reading list. The emptiness thread sounds good. From your comments, it seems like your practice is more focused on dualism/non-dualism. Even though this is not discussed too much in buddhist scriptures, i do feel it in my practice. So, we are in sync i feel, but are taking different paths to the same mountain peak. I also concur with your views about practice being more important than courtyard discussions. And yes, what lies beyond all words/language/experience/definition/description, is Nibbana. But, even half nibbana or quarter nibbana or fraction of nibbana is highly fruitful, and the path we walk on provides that fractional benefit, right here and now, in this life and world.

 

 

Tibetian ICE,

I thought it was covered in the article when it is said:

 

For "no-nature" is not dualism, nor is it not "non-dualism". We throw such concepts out of the window.

Perceptive and well said.

 

 

I think the topic and understanding of dualism/non-dualism will arise automatically to anyone who practices seriously; for sure that topic crossed my mind during a moment of clarity, few days ago, even before i started this thread. But i did not direct my mind into that topic/words, because buddhist dhamma directs my mind to focus/stay on other aspects (like emptiness or awareness). I think we simply use different words, to refer to the same experiences. Maybe, different sects/dhammas use different words to convey how to transcend it all.

 

As i was writing this message, something struck my mind, regarding my original post/question here........

Perceptions/cognition aggregate & mental formations/thinking aggregate, both have the nature of clinging (to past). In other words, these 2 aggregates are affected by our past experiences/kamma. This we can feel intutively. Since clinging leads to suffering/stress/non-satisfactory conditions, these 2 aggregates are suffering/stressful/not-satisfactory.

 

Meanwhile, here is a link that i found useful, which has a collection (from different Suttas) on the topic of five aggregates:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html I spent several hours on youtube listening to various monks, but they were simply explanation of the 5 aggregates - none addressed my question, and i gave up after some time.

[Apech]

I thought it was covered in the article when it is said:

 

For "no-nature" is not dualism, nor is it not "non-dualism". We throw such concepts out of the window.

 

 

"For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective." ... from your quote.

[doc benway]

Steve,

From your comments, it seems like your practice is more focused on dualism/non-dualism. Even though this is not discussed too much in buddhist scriptures, i do feel it in my practice. So, we are in sync i feel, but are taking different paths to the same mountain peak.

 

My current practice is in the Mahayana tradition which, as Apech points out above, embraces a non-dual view.

And as you alluded to above, regardless of concepts, words, and scripture, the diligent practitioner will encounter issues and experiences related to subject/object duality/non-duality in the course of their development.

 

In my limited experience and understanding, the concepts of non-duality, karma, dependent origination, and emptiness are all inextricably related.

They may seem different on the surface but as we experience and understand them on deeper levels, they are not isolated.

 

One thing to be careful of, in my opinion, is that scripture speaks extensively about emptiness but tends to leave out the fact that the emptiness has aspects of clarity and warmth that are inseparable. Emptiness without clarity and warmth would be a nihilistic view. The clarity and warmth are best appreciated through direct experience (practice), whereas it is beneficial to 'exercise' the intellect with attempts at understanding emptiness. So I think it's important to remind ourselves of the inseparable nature of emptiness, clarity, and warmth lest we fall into the error of nihilism when we are studying sutra. The Bonpos speak of this as the union or inseparability of space, light, and warmth.

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

 

"For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective." ... from your quote.

The usage of the term "non-dualistic" is an adjective which describes a "perspective".

I didn't think that Mahayana taught non-dualism specifically, but something totally apart.

It is an interesting subject.

In this interview, Daniel Brown, a mahamudra teacher addresses the topic of Theravada Vs Mahayana as well as "non-dualism". He says that awakening is beyond non-dualism, that Non-dualism is a preliminary step.

He even talks about Nargajuna...

 

 

http://thepresentparticiple.blogspot.ca/2012/01/trans-duality-in-mahayana-mahamudra.html

 

 

.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[seekingbuddha]

In my limited experience and understanding, the concepts of non-duality, karma, dependent origination, and emptiness are all inextricably related.

They may seem different on the surface but as we experience and understand them on deeper levels, they are not isolated.

Yes, all these you mention are simply concepts that can be used to look at / reach nibbana, from different perspectives. I remember a place where Venerable Sariputta explains that dhamma could be penetrated using any/all of the above concepts. But for the purpose of my practice, i used to take each individually to consider and penetrate, because my mind is not developed to a stage where i can contemplate all at the same time. Sometimes, when i consider one aspect, during the course of thought, it will lead to another concept. But, lately i have abondoned this approach of thinking/contemplation, in light of some experiences. More focused on keeping my mindfulness + equanimity throughout the day, as i go about my daily activities. And sleep time is spent on awareness of being and aggregates + vipassana meditation + surrender to Buddha/dhamma/sangha so that i may receive the guidance.

 

The toughest time for me during daytime is the time when i start speaking and get engaged too much in that process. My mind gets overly agitated with human interaction, i suspect. Later i would reflect and find out that is where i lost my mindfulness and equanimity during the course of the day.

 

One thing to be careful of, in my opinion, is that scripture speaks extensively about emptiness but tends to leave out the fact that the emptiness has aspects of clarity and warmth that are inseparable. Emptiness without clarity and warmth would be a nihilistic view. ..............So I think it's important to remind ourselves of the inseparable nature of emptiness, clarity, and warmth lest we fall into the error of nihilism when we are studying sutra. The Bonpos speak of this as the union or inseparability of space, light, and warmth.

I am not following the exact meaning of these words.

1. What exactly do you mean by clarity and warmth ?
2. Why is nihilism coming into picture here ? I do not view any of these concepts as nihilistic. Pardon my ignorance - i now wish i had studied philosophy and religion in college.
3. The ending statement is not clear to me. It would be nice if you talk more on these set of statements.

Edited February 10, 2015 by seekingbuddha

[Apech]

The usage of the term "non-dualistic" is an adjective which describes a "perspective".

I didn't think that Mahayana taught non-dualism specifically, but something totally apart.

It is an interesting subject.

In this interview, Daniel Brown, a mahamudra teacher addresses the topic of Theravada Vs Mahayana as well as "non-dualism". He says that awakening is beyond non-dualism, that Non-dualism is a preliminary step.

He even talks about Nargajuna...

 

 

http://thepresentparticiple.blogspot.ca/2012/01/trans-duality-in-mahayana-mahamudra.html

 

 

.

 

Of course the philosophical views are preliminary to actual awakening, I think that is understood. The 'view' is a perspective in that it informs the way you look at things. The Mahayana view is classed as non-dualist. So it is not correct to say there is no non-dualism in Buddhism (as a general statement).

Edited February 10, 2015 by Apech

[doc benway]

Yes, all these you mention are simply concepts that can be used to look at / reach nibbana, from different perspectives. I remember a place where Venerable Sariputta explains that dhamma could be penetrated using any/all of the above concepts. But for the purpose of my practice, i used to take each individually to consider and penetrate, because my mind is not developed to a stage where i can contemplate all at the same time. Sometimes, when i consider one aspect, during the course of thought, it will lead to another concept. But, lately i have abondoned this approach of thinking/contemplation, in light of some experiences. More focused on keeping my mindfulness + equanimity throughout the day, as i go about my daily activities. And sleep time is spent on awareness of being and aggregates + vipassana meditation + surrender to Buddha/dhamma/sangha so that i may receive the guidance.

 

The toughest time for me during daytime is the time when i start speaking and get engaged too much in that process. My mind gets overly agitated with human interaction, i suspect. Later i would reflect and find out that is where i lost my mindfulness and equanimity during the course of the day.

Sounds like you are a committed practitioner. Bringing mindfulness into human interaction certainly takes practice!

 

Disclaimer -

I am not a teacher, scholar, or expert.

Take everything I saw with a generous helping of salt.

 

I am not following the exact meaning of these words.

1. What exactly do you mean by clarity and warmth ?

Clarity is essentially awareness but the specific aspect of awareness that is knowing as opposed to the awareness associated with the 6 senses and subject/object duality, it is also referred to as clear light and is what permits self-awareness. Warmth is much harder to explain without a common experiential ground. It is essentially the feeling of well-being associated with the experience of truth. As we rest deeper and deeper in what is without the intrusion of sense forms, that sense of belonging, being home, feeling supported, unconditional love - all this and more is spontaneously present. It's often referred to as bliss.

 

 

 

1. Why is nihilism coming into picture here ? I do not view any of these concepts as nihilistic. Pardon my ignorance - i now wish i had studied philosophy and religion in college.

In Buddhism, there are too fundamental errors - as we study sutra and the thinking mind wrestles with concepts related to reality it can deviate towards nihilism or eternalism. Nihilism is the error we make when our view is that of non-existence, mistaking emptiness for non-existence. In fact, the emptiness is fully alive with potential.

 

 

 

1. The ending statement is not clear to me. It would be nice if you talk more on these set of statements.

Can you be more clear on which part this refers to?