The essence of Buddhism

[RigdzinTrinley]

Being unborn what could depart?

[3bob]

a figure of speech,  clever guy

[Apech]

Am I the only one to find 'unborn' to be a hopeless expression?  Not having a go at you Rigdzin - but on first reading it's kind of meaningless.  One feels that you might start a campaign - 'the rights of the unborn phenomena' ... it's clumsy English but of course I don't have a solution for it since I know it's probably an accurate translation.

[ilumairen]

Am I the only one to find 'unborn' to be a hopeless expression?  Not having a go at you Rigdzin - but on first reading it's kind of meaningless.  One feels that you might start a campaign - 'the rights of the unborn phenomena' ... it's clumsy English but of course I don't have a solution for it since I know it's probably an accurate translation.

 

You aren't alone, and I think for many the word can lead to much confusion.

[doc benway]

If the vase is not empty then how do you fit the flowers in it? 

 

The water accommodates the flowers quite nicely.

[ilumairen]

The water accommodates the flowers quite nicely.

 

And the giggles bubble up once again...

 

Thanks.

[Geof Nanto]

When I was eating lunch yesterday on the front deck of my small cabin a goanna came and joined me. It was eating its own lunch - a large paper wasp nest. I was glad of it; those paper wasps pack a nasty sting and the nest must have been directly under the deck below my outside washing basin. After checking me out it set off on slow, meandering explorations along the deck, and then jumped across to the top of the tree-fern next to the water tank. I guess it could smell the freshly hatched egg shells there. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Yueya

[3bob]

I had never heard of a goanna so I looked them up and found some photos.  The little ones look non-threatening to humans but the big ones look like they could be a problem

 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by 3bob

[RigdzinTrinley]

Well just to say unborn is probably a little strange I can see that

 

Yes Tibetan is ma skyes pa - unborn or unproduced

 

How do you (whoever wants to answer) understand unborn in relation to phenomena?

Edited January 13, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[dawei]

How do you (whoever wants to answer) understand unborn in relation to phenomena?

 

Ok... I'll bite first and I'm the least/last person who should... as I know nothing of Buddhism or Tibetan origins.  Likely my explanation is more daoist but I'll accept the criticism. 

 

I first wanted to say that phenomena is born.  If we can have a thought about it, it arises, it is born... born of thought, etc.

 

So what I realized is that I am really describing thought as born (arising)... not phenomena itself.

 

As phenomena, generally speaking of that other than mankind and animals, it does not 'think'.  Thus, phenomena is unborn.

 

But the concept has a kind of 'birth' and therefore an origin of sorts.

 

So it seems to be more a state which transcends birth/death; arising/returning. It is a non-dual; not-two; not-one.

 

I could say it is a realization but now I think that would be wrong too... as realization is thought.

 

So is it 'no-thought'?  Based on Not-One... there is no answer to even that really...  Any answer is born.

[RigdzinTrinley]

See if one sits down to actually think about what "all phenomena are unborn" means it already starts challenging our perception of things

 

I won't answer for now I'll wait for more definitions of "unborn"

[Geof Nanto]

I had never heard of a goanna so I looked them up and found some photos.  The little ones look non-threatening to humans but the big ones look like they could be a problem

 

The goanna in question was about a metre long (that's 3 feet in American). They are not aggressive and do not hunt animals. Your photo is misleading in that the goanna shown would be eating the carcass of an already dead animal.

 

However my post was actually meant as a serious contribution to the discussion here. Are all these concepts really the essence of Buddhism??? Connection with the great teachings of our natural world seem to have been lost somewhere along the way.

[RigdzinTrinley]

Madhyamika seems heady yes, but you know these concepts are designed to self destruct

 

I get your point though, I was never into philosophy when I started to practice I felt what a waste of time

 

Isn't it better to just be present?

 

Something like that

 

My teachers just made me study, and still do (couple of hours a day for months sometimes)

 

I slowly know firsthand why they did that... And I'm very grateful to them

 

Meditation can be transformed through simple intellectual knowing what "meditation" or "being present" means

 

No joke

[Geof Nanto]

I appreciate your perspective, however I'm someone who had far too much conceptual knowledge and far too little direct connection with life. I've needed to leave the monasteries, meditation halls and human teachers and venture forth into the 'silence' that can still be found in remote wilderness areas. (Then again, I've found myself to be a Daoist at heart, so my contributions to these Buddhist threads are very much from that perspective.)

Edited January 13, 2016 by Yueya

[RigdzinTrinley]

Yes yueya

 

I know what you mean - also I don't think every single Buddhist in the Tibetan traditions gets a Buddhist education. Some are born cave yogis with a lot of faith in their gurus so straight into retreat with those some just have families and do some virtue etc

 

Seems my teachers saw a potential in me for this kind of training so in their kindness they teach me like that

 

And its not too cerebral if the being teaching has realisation - I'll call it transforming

 

But then again different paths you know 84.000 dharma doors

 

And the Chinese tradition emphasised meditation in nature over study (their daoist roots?)

 

The Indians like both

 

Tibetans like both but some go to one or the other extreme

 

(Me is just a chase study out of many)

Edited January 13, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

Ok... I'll bite first and I'm the least/last person who should... as I know nothing of Buddhism or Tibetan origins. Likely my explanation is more daoist but I'll accept the criticism.

 

I first wanted to say that phenomena is born. If we can have a thought about it, it arises, it is born... born of thought, etc.

 

So what I realized is that I am really describing thought as born (arising)... not phenomena itself.

 

As phenomena, generally speaking of that other than mankind and animals, it does not 'think'. Thus, phenomena is unborn.

 

But the concept has a kind of 'birth' and therefore an origin of sorts.

 

So it seems to be more a state which transcends birth/death; arising/returning. It is a non-dual; not-two; not-one.

 

I could say it is a realization but now I think that would be wrong too... as realization is thought.

 

So is it 'no-thought'? Based on Not-One... there is no answer to even that really... Any answer is born.

Dear dawai

 

Phenomena or dharmin (chos can) is all phenomena internal mind + mental events and "external" phenomena animate or inanimate

 

Think of it as everything possible that could exist "inside" and "outside" of you

 

Now when you say 'born' can you say how they are born?

[RigdzinTrinley]

If some wonder about why it is important to know what the sentence "all phenomena are unborn" means

 

Well f.e.: for meditation to be actual Buddhist meditation

 

And to cut through samsara/nirvana simultaneously

 

A quote from the madhyamikavatara:

 

If reifying thoughts had substantial entities (as their objects), they would always happen

But since the substantial entities have been established not to exist inherently

Without substantial entities, these thoughts do not arise.

For example, without firewood there is no fire

 

... Phenomena being unborn in the three times, means they are insubstantial

 

 

All conditioned phenomena

Are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow,

Like dew or a flash of lightning;

Thus we shall perceive them.

 

~diamondsutra

[3bob]

I'd say that the op was not based around orthodox Buddhist teachings, yet per the title alludes to being of such, thus a problem of sorts since the general forum is more for wide open and counter debates or points, unless those involved here have no problem with the string being like a mini-general forum?

[RigdzinTrinley]

I'm in tirvunammalai close to sri ramanashram, just came back from buying veggies and having a chai outside the gate

 

Its an incredible place

 

I'm a minority! But that's okay with me

 

I had great interactions with some of the old devotees of ramana, I hope to meet David Godman soon too

 

What to say I'm open to any sort of counter debates views etc. I think its very good to strengthen ones insight

 

Love from tiru to you 3bob

[Geof Nanto]

 

When I was eating lunch yesterday on the front deck of my small cabin a goanna came and joined me. It was eating its own lunch - a large paper wasp nest. I was glad of it; those paper wasps pack a nasty sting and the nest must have been directly under the deck below my outside washing basin. After checking me out it set off on slow, meandering explorations along the deck, and then jumped across to the top of the tree-fern next to the water tank. I guess it could smell the freshly hatched egg shells there. 

 

 

... my post was actually meant as a serious contribution to the discussion here. Are all these concepts really the essence of Buddhism??? Connection with the great teachings of our natural world seem to have been lost somewhere along the way.

 

Ilumairen sent me a PM with this message:  “I really liked the post you made yesterday. I had looked out the window and written one about flowers. Then I deleted it as I thought about the phrase 'off topic'...” 

 

Her message  reminded me of the Flower Sermon which explains why these experiences are very much on topic for those of us whose heart connects with Daoist / Zen teachings. 

 

 

Flower Sermon

 

Among adherents of Zen, the origin of Zen Buddhism is ascribed to a story, known in English as the Flower Sermon, in which Śākyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) transmits direct prajñā (wisdom) to the disciple Mahākāśyapa. In the original Sino-Japanese, the story is called nengemishō (拈華微笑, literally "pick up flower, subtle smile").

 

In the story, Śākyamuni gives a wordless sermon to his disciples (sangha) by holding up a white flower. No one in the audience understands the Flower Sermon except Mahākāśyapa, who smiles. Within Zen, the Flower Sermon communicates the ineffable nature of tathātā (suchness) and Mahākāśyapa's smile signifies the direct transmission of wisdom without words. Śākyamuni affirmed this by saying:

 

I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvana, the true form of the formless, the subtle [D]harma [G]ate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.

 

 

Jung and Kerényi demonstrate a possible commonality in intent between the Flower Sermon and the Eleusinian Mysteries:

 

One day the Buddha silently held up a flower before the assembled throng of his disciples. This was the famous "Flower Sermon." Formally speaking, much the same thing happened in Eleusis when a mown ear of grain was silently shown. Even if our interpretation of this symbol is erroneous, the fact remains that a mown ear was shown in the course of the mysteries and that this kind of "wordless sermon" was the sole form of instruction in Eleusis which we may assume with certainty.

 

The story of the Flower Sermon appears to have been created by Chinese Chán Buddhists. The earliest known version of the tale appeared in 1036.

 

Zen developed as a form of Buddhism that concentrated on direct experience rather than creeds, doctrines, or intellectual analysis. Zen is essentially an exploratory methodology for mapping consciousness, a meditative tradition that foregrounds direct experience of tathātā which may only be afforded by the entrance of the "gateless" Dharma Gate.

 

(from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia...i/Flower_Sermon)  

Edited January 13, 2016 by Yueya

[Jetsun]

Am I the only one to find 'unborn' to be a hopeless expression? Not having a go at you Rigdzin - but on first reading it's kind of meaningless. One feels that you might start a campaign - 'the rights of the unborn phenomena' ... it's clumsy English but of course I don't have a solution for it since I know it's probably an accurate translation.

It's basically a koan, so if it brings the mind to hopelessness then it's doing a good job

[3bob]

I'd say that any teaching that brings hopelessness is a thief of the life force.

what a Koan should do imo is bring the mind to the realization that it's devices are not enough to proceed any further thus making an opening for that which is beyond it's devices to come into play.

[RigdzinTrinley]

"Phenomena are unborn" this phrase is based on pretty clear logic and far from being a koan, the logic appears like a koan in some ways though

 

Its a bit hard to understand (made me hopeless actually ) but once the reasoning settles in - certainty is born

 

And certainty with regards to the view is very very precious.

 

The reasoning has to do with the three gateways of liberation

 

Investigating the cause (emptiness)

Investigating the essence (freedom of characteristics)

Investigating the result (wishlesness)

 

When investigating the cause then through the reasoning of neither one nor many (where phenomena are shown to be insubstantial even on subatomic levels). the cause of a phenomenon is shown to be "sky like"

 

When investigating the nature (of a phenomenon) through showing that a phenomenon can't arise from a cause different from itself, same then itself, both or neither - dreamlike depended origination is established

 

Through showing that the result can't be existent or nonexistent, the teachings show that the conceptual mind can't conceive of how phenomena arise (wishlesness, or being beyond expectancy)

 

That's a summary and not the actual reasonings - I won't be capable to just write about them from memory, not in a way that "settles the score" they take some pages to develop - the short version might be possible, but thats no real fun... And obviously i can't write from direct experience

 

But the 9th chapter of the bodhisattvacharyavatara deals with those three in great detail

 

Its an amazing shastra! Shantideva was such an incredible being - I'm still not sure how anyone could write something like that...

Edited January 14, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[3bob]

I differ from those grand summations RT - being that the only thing a reasoning mind can give is more reasoning mind along the lines of comparative if's and's or but's (obviously) thus by that very nature such can never be certain of anything.  

Edited January 14, 2016 by 3bob

[RigdzinTrinley]

I kindly refer you to Mipham Rinpoches "beacon of certainty" (that I called bacon of certainty - thought thats how one pronounces beacon...)

 

Anyway... In chapter three he discusses this point at great lenghts

 

Also in the bodhicharyavatara shantideva has some very good points on that - basically if the reasoning is done properly then once the basis of analysis (the vase f.e.) is shown to be empty the mind becomes free of an object to grasp and will subside as well, that's how the view is introduced

 

 

Anyway all of this is perfectly explained in those shastras so

No need for me to go into detail here

 

In short for a beginner of ordinary spiritual faculties its very important to eliminate the 4 conceptual extremes (existence, nonexistence, both, neither) in stages starting with "existence"

 

The final and actual meditation is beyond the 4extremes, non conceptual but endowed with the lamp of wisdom

 

So mipham advocated both: analysis into the true nature (emptiness) of phenomena using the pith instructions of dzogchen semde and madhyamika reasonings plus resting in the uncontrived state of treckcho without analysis (as well as possible)

 

Otherwise we all can follow a neo advaita guru who tells us we don't exist, these phenomena are all illusion, there is no path, you are the SELF; you're always great enlightenment etc blablabla

 

There are about 20 of those "gurus" liberating sentient beings working in tirvunammalai at the moment... One of them nutsos set herself on fire to teach her students a lesson some years ago (Google radha ma)

 

Oy weh!