Is enlightenment or nibbana worth it?

[Bindi]

Didn't Buddha teach that emotions are illusion and need to be controlled, thoughts are illusion and need to be silenced, and inner balance is created through not attaching to anything or any outcome?

[Apech]

16 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Didn't Buddha teach that emotions are illusion and need to be controlled, thoughts are illusion and need to be silenced, and inner balance is created through not attaching to anything or any outcome?

 

 

I don't think that early Buddhism has a separate word for emotions and they are seen as thoughts with a certain 'pull' or force perhaps.  In the type of Buddhism I study emotions are not controlled they are transformed into wisdom - in fact five key emotions become the five wisdom buddhas.  There is a sense of the need to not be a puppet of emotions and this is to do with deep seated identification with the outcome of experience or karma.  So there is no sense of controlling emotions in the sense of suppressing them.  In fact if your statement were correct what would be the point of controlling something that is illusory in the first place.

 

While in meditation in order to settle in shamatha there is a basic need to untrammel yourself from distrating mental chatter - and there are deep states where thoughts cease, the idea of silencing thoughts as I think you imply is wrong.  In fact if you try to silence thoughts they usually get worse.  It is more about letting go of identification with the stream of mental 'traffic' so that you can sit one-pointedly and ultimately realise the mind in its natural state.  But even then beyond this there is a need to link back to the active mind to see that it also has the same nature as the mind at rest.  Gampopa the great teacher of the Kagyu tradition went even further - he said 'the nature of thoughts is dharmakaya' - in other words the nature of thoughts is the ultimate reality.  He got a lot of stick for this because people didn't understand what he was saying.  But this was actually one of his great Mahamudra pointing out teachings.

 

Developing non-attachment is misunderstood I think, its more about seeing how things arise and case, letting them come and go and being able to see their nature.  Being attached is a form of identification wherein you limit your own freedom, put yourself in a box from which it is hard to get out again.

 

 

[kyoji]

On 10/9/2018 at 12:45 PM, yuuichi said:

It’s all a confusion.

an understatement of epic proportions 

 

[Bindi]

31 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

I don't think that early Buddhism has a separate word for emotions and they are seen as thoughts with a certain 'pull' or force perhaps.  In the type of Buddhism I study emotions are not controlled they are transformed into wisdom - in fact five key emotions become the five wisdom buddhas. 

 

How are emotions transformed?

 

31 minutes ago, Apech said:

There is a sense of the need to not be a puppet of emotions and this is to do with deep seated identification with the outcome of experience or karma.  So there is no sense of controlling emotions in the sense of suppressing them.  In fact if your statement were correct what would be the point of controlling something that is illusory in the first place.

 

While in meditation in order to settle in shamatha there is a basic need to untrammel yourself from distrating mental chatter - and there are deep states where thoughts cease, the idea of silencing thoughts as I think you imply is wrong.  In fact if you try to silence thoughts they usually get worse.  It is more about letting go of identification with the stream of mental 'traffic' so that you can sit one-pointedly and ultimately realise the mind in its natural state. 

 

I would propose that the yin/yang symbol is the clearest depiction of the nature of mind in its natural state, there is very little in Buddhism which accords with this, but then again I don’t know that neidan takes this position either  

 

31 minutes ago, Apech said:

But even then beyond this there is a need to link back to the active mind to see that it also has the same nature as the mind at rest.  Gampopa the great teacher of the Kagyu tradition went even further - he said 'the nature of thoughts is dharmakaya' - in other words the nature of thoughts is the ultimate reality.  He got a lot of stick for this because people didn't understand what he was saying.  But this was actually one of his great Mahamudra pointing out teachings.

 

Developing non-attachment is misunderstood I think, its more about seeing how things arise and case, letting them come and go and being able to see their nature.  Being attached is a form of identification wherein you limit your own freedom, put yourself in a box from which it is hard to get out again.

 

 

 

I think being logical and having a position is vital because we don't aspire to being aimless idiots being blown about in the wind, but being able to let go of an opinion when further and better information comes to light is absolutely required. Maybe a qualified non-attachment?  

[doc benway]

Apech nailed it but perhaps slightly different words can add something. And at the end of the day, we’ve discussed this before and I don’t intend to try to convince anyone of anything. We must see things in a way that make sense to us based on our unique conditioning and proclivities.

 

The yin yang symbol, taiji, is very consistent with and representative of various Buddhist principles and truths. Not surprising as there is profound interconnection between. Buddhism and Daosim, particularly in China and no Daosim system can be said to be without some Buddhist and Confucian influence. Granted, the symbol derives from Daosim and has a different focus, as do Daosim and Buddhism in general; but in my view they have far more in common than in opposition depending on your interpretation, of course.

 

Thoughts and emotions are not considered non-existent nor are they considered an illusion. They are a part of our direct human experience and are a part of the relative and manifest truth of our experience -yang. Their absolute nature and the nature of all experience, on the other hand, is described in the Bön teachings as emptiness (you cannot hold a thought in your hand), clarity (they occur in awareness), and warmth or energy (they have the capacity to manifest) - yin.

 

What is considered an illusion is the sense of a defined, tangible self. The self manifests differently in relation to circumstances. We have many selves based on the specific relationship we are referring to. Awareness mistakenly identifies with whatever particular self is active in any given situation, that is attachment. It feels as if that is who we are but that is only one of many facets, in reality it is always in flux and always dependent on circumstances, this is dependent origination. Non-attachment or self-empty refers to the direct insight into this mis-identification which is the root of our problems. Without that attachment life remains rich and fully experiential, even more so, because we are free to feel and respond differently as we express the full potential of our fundamental nature - openness, awareness, and unbounded potential.

 

Being logical and having positions is real and necessary in life. But most would agree it is better to not be too attached to our positions. They are always able to change given the right circumstances. Feeling and living that freedom to be flexible is the path. It is analogous with, dare I say identical to, wu wei - the ability to permit unrestricted manifestation of Dao (in the Bön paradigm, space/awareness/warmth) without interference or rigidity.

 

Edit - What I’m referring to here is informed by Daoist and Bön Dzogchen teachings (the path of self-liberation). This is a little different from the Tantric path of transformation that Apech is pointing out.

 

2nd edit - this has relatively little value as a belief or concept. When experienced directly through practice and integration in life, it is powerful juice!

Edited October 11, 2018 by steve

[Apech]

6 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

How are emotions transformed?

 

 

That's a long subject but certainly not by suppressing them.

 

6 hours ago, Bindi said:

I would propose that the yin/yang symbol is the clearest depiction of the nature of mind in its natural state, there is very little in Buddhism which accords with this, but then again I don’t know that neidan takes this position either  

 

The union of emptiness and luminosity. (yab/yum)

 

6 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

I think being logical and having a position is vital because we don't aspire to being aimless idiots being blown about in the wind, but being able to let go of an opinion when further and better information comes to light is absolutely required. Maybe a qualified non-attachment?  

 

OK but there's more - what do you fundamentally possess? what is fundamentally yours anyway?

 

[Bindi]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

That's a long subject but certainly not by suppressing them.

 

 

The union of emptiness and luminosity. (yab/yum)

 

 

OK but there's more - what do you fundamentally possess? what is fundamentally yours anyway?

 

 

Flogging a dead horse maybe, but your answer of yab/yum as the union of emptiness and luminosity captures what bothers me about Buddhism, if only for my own understanding. I;m fine with 'luminosity', but what it joins with in neidan's terms would not be 'emptiness'. Basically, there is a subtle something as opposed to an emptiness that is produced in neidan. This vital subtle ingredient is produced in the lower dantian, and brought up to the middle, and then the upper dantian. Neidan without this subtle ingredient or 'medicine' or 'elixir'  is a non-achievement, it's empty, a case of just spinning your wheels.

 

Perhaps it could be said that I possess this elixir in one of its stages, and even if I don't possess it now I at least possess the energy system potential supported by my body that will allow the elixir to be produced. 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Bindi

[3bob]

14 hours ago, steve said:

In Buddhism and Bön, there is no instruction to believe that something does not exist.

That is an error in understanding, the error of nihilism.

In the tradition I follow, there is no discarding either.

Discarding is an error.

There is awareness, open experiencing, and allowing without fixating.

 

 

For me, this second paragraph is far closer to my practice than your first.

Working with the body, using the subtle body, becoming more fully in touch with what it means to be human.

Opening to all experience without limiting or fixating.

 

hmm, "what is human with in us" sounds ok...but what may sound strange is that what is within us is not human per-se but Spirit, thus the human vehicle is a great and wonderful thing but it is still a vehicle.

Edited October 11, 2018 by 3bob

[Apech]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Flogging a dead horse maybe, but your answer of yab/yum as the union of emptiness and luminosity captures what bothers me about Buddhism, if only for my own understanding. I;m fine with 'luminosity', but what it joins with in neidan's terms would not be 'emptiness'. Basically, there is a subtle something as opposed to an emptiness that is produced in neidan. This vital subtle ingredient is produced in the lower dantian, and brought up to the middle, and then the upper dantian. Neidan without this subtle ingredient or 'medicine' or 'elixir'  is a non-achievement, it's empty, a case of just spinning your wheels.

 

Perhaps it could be said that I possess this elixir in one of its stages, and even if I don't possess it now I at least possess the energy system potential supported by my body that will allow the elixir to be produced. 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you understand what emptiness means in Buddhism.

[Patrick Brown]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

hmm, "what is human with in us" sounds ok...but what may sound strange is that what is within us is not human per-se but Spirit, thus the human vehicle is a great and wonderful thing but it is still a vehicle.

 

I think this is when it starts to get tricky as words are no longer functional. In mysticism/occultism I think the bridge between the realms of ego and whatever else there may be is known as the 'Causal body' which is something I've been unable to get my head around. I don't think anybody can really understand it as it's beyond conceptual mind and is sometimes said to be abstract in nature or possibly a kind of matrix! 

 

Of course the term 'causal' implies that it is the realm of cause effecting the journeying ego/soul/atman so it is the seed from which we unfold and which defines our being. So our unfolding manifests a vehicle/s to experience but this unfolding would yield windows of experience on all planes as we build our consciousness. So our perception of reality is defined by our seed matrix as it cascades through different states of being, building layer upon layer, culminating in us as a human entity.     

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_body

[Bindi]

29 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I don't think you understand what emptiness means in Buddhism.

 

I don't see how a term that encompasses the notion that  "everything is without substance or soul" could also encompass the fundamental concepts of 'medicine' or 'elixir' or 'immortal embryo' as a vital subtle body necessity that needs to be actively cultivated.  

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Bindi

[Apech]

21 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

I don't see how a term that encompasses the notion that  "everything is without substance or soul" could also encompass the fundamental concepts of 'medicine' or 'elixir' or 'immortal embryo' as a vital subtle body necessity that needs to be actively cultivated.  

 

 

 

[Bindi]

And yet...

Quote

...One of the most widespread and best-known images used to represent the Elixir... is that of an embryo, an infant, or a child. When the Elixir is depicted in this way, the three stages mentioned above respectively correspond to the conception, the gestation, and the birth of an immortal infant. Its conception occurs in the lower Cinnabar Field (dantian), located in the region of the abdomen; its gestation, in the middle Cinnabar Field, in the region of the heart; and its birth, in the upper Cinnabar Field, in the region of the brain. At the end of the process, the child is described as exiting the individual from the top of his head. Neidan texts refer to this event as the birth of a shen wai zhi shen, an expression that can be understood as "a body outside one's body," or as "a self outside one's self."

 

From: Awakening to Reality The "Regulated Verses" of the Wuzhen pian, a Taoist Classic of Internal Alchemy. Translated, with Introduction and Notes, by Fabrizio Pregadio

So many people have given so many interpretations of the Elixir. Some are more Buddhist influenced for sure, but there is this fundamental idea that Pregadio refers to (above), it's hard to square this up with emptiness beyond form and matter. Maybe you like to, because it suits your perspective, but it suits my perspective to see the elixir as having subtle form. 

[Spotless]

On 10/10/2018 at 3:43 AM, Bindi said:

 

I basically don't agree with his solution to the problem of unhappiness overall, it was a solution that might have worked for him and might resonate with others, but it requires discarding too much that is valuable and basically human in this life, and I don't think it is the 'ultimate' solution. To believe in so much not existing as he did is just a philosophy after all, I don't think it is a fundamental truth.

 

Personally I prefer the idea of actualising the human potential within the body, which as I see it is developing the subtle body according to natural laws, and using what is human within us to do it, valuing what seems meaningful to us instead of dismissing it. I don't think the two approaches are compatible. 

 

It is a misunderstanding of Buddhism and any and all paths of truth to see the pointing from the standpoint of position. 

These are not philosophies, they are not concepts and they in their essence are not beliefs that are by their nature set in past.

It is a mistranslation to read into the teachings as a Doing - the positioned identified polarized MEness that is pointed to by so many names of illusion is not to be discarded - it falls away. 

 

Not one realized Awakened Enlightening Being has ever discarded the prior blinded bound false personhood that obscured the Presence of the Unborn Divine Essence. Non has expunged the memory of that bound blind false imprisoned state.

 

It falls away - it is a Realization - not of mind, not in concept, not as in an epiphany - it is a though you are standing in “your house” and suddenly you are naked and rooted like a great tree in the middle of the cosmos.

 

It is not in trance, it is not ethereal, it is not other worldly - it is utterly visceral across subtle bodies of which no writing comes within an atom of conveying.

 

These “way” point too exquisite light intense full embodiment not remotely possible in the false personhood of position. A life far more of the realm of “the world” both relative and Absolute - untethered to Belief and tribal superstition and automated sleep reflex, trance and want.

 

Not one master has not brought up the inadequacy of words - go beyond the words - see the Forrest behind the tree - don’t not see a pointing because you don’t like the font it was written in - look at the judgement and the self importance of it - the pride of discarding a masters words.

 

“You” are not asked to believe anything - in fact you are asked NOT to believe - but to find out for your Self.

 

Conceptually you can die to the possibilities before you in the firm belief that your beliefs are well founded in the well founded positions that you have embraced and grasped well into the inculcation that you have accepted as shackles upon yourself - Pointing will have little possiblity in such dry hardened proud ground.

 

 

 

[3bob]

4 hours ago, Patrick Brown said:

 

I think this is when it starts to get tricky as words are no longer functional. In mysticism/occultism I think the bridge between the realms of ego and whatever else there may be is known as the 'Causal body' which is something I've been unable to get my head around. I don't think anybody can really understand it as it's beyond conceptual mind and is sometimes said to be abstract in nature or possibly a kind of matrix! 

 

Of course the term 'causal' implies that it is the realm of cause effecting the journeying ego/soul/atman so it is the seed from which we unfold and which defines our being. So our unfolding manifests a vehicle/s to experience but this unfolding would yield windows of experience on all planes as we build our consciousness. So our perception of reality is defined by our seed matrix as it cascades through different states of being, building layer upon layer, culminating in us as a human entity.     

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_body

 

I'd say concepts can not hold it although they may point to it, which is their purpose.

 

It can be understood since it is innate, while abstractions about it are like looking at a map but never traveling to and seeing first hand what the map is trying to help with in its always limited way.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by 3bob

[doc benway]

5 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

I don't see how a term that encompasses the notion that  "everything is without substance or soul" could also encompass the fundamental concepts of 'medicine' or 'elixir' or 'immortal embryo' as a vital subtle body necessity that needs to be actively cultivated.  

 

 

 

 

Emptiness does not mean without substance or soul. It refers more to the notion of things not existing independently, without being inter-related to and dependent on everything else. Soul is an important concept in Bön, although it’s meaning is nothing like what we think of in Abrahamic terms.

[3bob]

the key word Steve used above is "things"...and with the Self/Atman not being a thing it does not fall under the explanations or interpretrtations of Buddhist doctrine.

 

Thus no need to keep going there in debate after thousands of years of passing debates on the matter.  (if one relates to and studies the Upanishads and Vedic teachings)

 

[doc benway]

18 minutes ago, 3bob said:

the key word Steve used above is "things"...and with the Self/Atman not being a thing it does not fall under the explanations or interpretrtations of Buddhist doctrine.

 

Thus no need to keep going there in debate after thousands of years of passing debates on the matter.  (if one relates to and studies the Upanishads and Vedic teachings)

 

 

The word “things” was used for expediency and I disagree with your perspective. The debates will no doubt continue. The good news is these conceptual matters have little to do with practice so it doesn’t really matter much one way or another. The irony is that if the Self has independent, inherent existence as you suggest, then it does fit into the category of a thing... 

[dwai]

On 10/9/2018 at 12:26 PM, yuuichi said:

A long time ago, I got up to the 2nd jhana while meditating, and I was quite sure I found a good way to meditate to reach nibbana (some may call this enlightenment? I don’t know). But I stopped meditating. Because I heard that when one attains nibbana or enlightenment, one no longer enjoys things or experiences pleasure. Since I am so young, it seems like nonsense to do this. Why not enjoy life’s pleasures, like watching a good movie, having a girlfriend, eating good food, etc. I still have attachment to these things, and this is what is preventing me from continuing my meditation.

 

Quote

 

If enlightenment frees one from greed, lust, desire, etc. How does one feel pleasure? Surely a life without pleasure (enlightenment) is not a good thing?

The pleasure one experiences with "things" is not generated in the things themselves. Things don't have any inherent pleasure quality in them. The pleasure experienced is one's own nature. So enlightenment will free us from craving pleasure and shunning pain (in other words, free us from suffering), as we will be established in the bliss of our natural state. 

Quote

 

Edit: of course someone could say the usual answer of saying if there is pleasure, then there is suffering, but suffering isn’t that bad. Enlightenment seems to be defined as perfect equanimity, that is neither joy nor suffering. But doesn’t a life without joy nor suffering sound a bit boring?

 

Please serious answers only.

If you feel suffering is not bad then either you haven't really suffered, or you already are enlightened  (which you are, incidentally  )

Who gets bored? The one who gets bored or gets excited, is the one who suffers. But that one is just an idea, an identity. It changes every day, every minute, with the circumstances one finds oneself in. Find out who assumes the said identity and then see if you feel the same way.

Edited October 11, 2018 by dwai

[Apech]

5 hours ago, Bindi said:

And yet...

So many people have given so many interpretations of the Elixir. Some are more Buddhist influenced for sure, but there is this fundamental idea that Pregadio refers to (above), it's hard to square this up with emptiness beyond form and matter. Maybe you like to, because it suits your perspective, but it suits my perspective to see the elixir as having subtle form. 

 

It's not my preference or otherwise that counts I am quoting from Neidan texts themselves:

 

[Sol]

I don't agree with a lot of the traditional schools about detachment from self.

 

This formulation was promoted not as a spiritual endeavor to be achieved, but rather a desired psychological condition to promote in the masses to ease the ability for them to be governed. I believe many people over thousands of years have been duped.

 

Keep yourself. Enjoy yourself. But know thyself.

[3bob]

9 hours ago, steve said:

 

The word “things” was used for expediency and I disagree with your perspective. The debates will no doubt continue. The good news is these conceptual matters have little to do with practice so it doesn’t really matter much one way or another. The irony is that if the Self has independent, inherent existence as you suggest, then it does fit into the category of a thing... 

 

not so per the revealed teachings of the Self realized,  and to paraphrase such the Self does not fit into categories of aggregates (with aggregates being a Buddhist doctrine as I assume you are well aware of) or a thing, also one can not know Self by any mental means including the most advanced ones, for only the Self knows the Self...

Edited October 12, 2018 by 3bob

[Bindi]

7 hours ago, Spotless said:

It is a misunderstanding of Buddhism and any and all paths of truth to see the pointing from the standpoint of position. 

These are not philosophies, they are not concepts and they in their essence are not beliefs that are by their nature set in past.

It is a mistranslation to read into the teachings as a Doing - the positioned identified polarized MEness that is pointed to by so many names of illusion is not to be discarded - it falls away. 

 

Not one realized Awakened Enlightening Being has ever discarded the prior blinded bound false personhood that obscured the Presence of the Unborn Divine Essence. Non has expunged the memory of that bound blind false imprisoned state.

 

It falls away - it is a Realization - not of mind, not in concept, not as in an epiphany - it is a though you are standing in “your house” and suddenly you are naked and rooted like a great tree in the middle of the cosmos.

 

It is not in trance, it is not ethereal, it is not other worldly - it is utterly visceral across subtle bodies of which no writing comes within an atom of conveying.

 

These “way” point too exquisite light intense full embodiment not remotely possible in the false personhood of position. A life far more of the realm of “the world” both relative and Absolute - untethered to Belief and tribal superstition and automated sleep reflex, trance and want.

 

Not one master has not brought up the inadequacy of words - go beyond the words - see the Forrest behind the tree - don’t not see a pointing because you don’t like the font it was written in - look at the judgement and the self importance of it - the pride of discarding a masters words.

 

“You” are not asked to believe anything - in fact you are asked NOT to believe - but to find out for your Self.

 

In not finding truth in Buddha's conclusions I am discarding his words, which according to you is self-important and prideful, though in your very next sentence I am required to not believe anyone's words and find out for myself? 

 

Buddha himself advised people not to accept his words on blind faith, but to decide for themselves whether his teachings were right, do you think that this advice is so shallow that only agreement will be allowed after examining them? 

 

It so happens that what I have found out for myself doesn't align with Buddha, though it does align more or less with a few other paths.  

 

Not all 'masters' are saying the same thing, to accept them all as pointing to the truth would be nonsensical. Perhaps some are describing parts of the elephant, but I'd bet some aren't even doing that. 

 

 The fourth kosha (vijnanamaya kosha) is the sheath of discernment. Vijnana means “the power of judgement or discernment.” Is it so offensive to you that I choose to develop this kosha in its turn, so as to find my way clearly to the truth? All koshas need to be developed. They are a much undervalued path here in the West, if we followed them we wouldn't be so afraid to think and feel and discern for ourselves.

 

7 hours ago, Spotless said:

Conceptually you can die to the possibilities before you in the firm belief that your beliefs are well founded in the well founded positions that you have embraced and grasped well into the inculcation that you have accepted as shackles upon yourself - Pointing will have little possiblity in such dry hardened proud ground.

 

 

 

 

[Bindi]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

It's not my preference or otherwise that counts I am quoting from Neidan texts themselves:

 

 

 

"Wu Shouyang taught that the underlying essence of Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism was exactly the same..." 

Not surprisingly then he concludes that the Embryo is formless and apparently equivalent to Buddhist attainment. 

 

Just to be perfectly clear, I believe the Embryo has a subtle form, not a physical matter form. 

[Apech]

55 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

 

"Wu Shouyang taught that the underlying essence of Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism was exactly the same..." 

Not surprisingly then he concludes that the Embryo is formless and apparently equivalent to Buddhist attainment. 

 

Just to be perfectly clear, I believe the Embryo has a subtle form, not a physical matter form. 

 

OK but no.  This is my very last contribution and comes from the Cantong qi - the very first book written on Internal Alchemy in 142 AD and it in turn cites the Daodejing which is from about 500 BC - neither of these works have any Buddhist influence.