non-dualism & the need for practice

[Pero]

[rex]

Perhaps this debate on the authenticity or otherwise of Tibetan Buddhism should go to another thread as it's clogging up a nice non-sectarian thread?

 

Anyway it's interesting to see critiques of Tibetan Vajrayana centre on the one aspect of it that's usually taught to suitable indivduals after years of moral and philosphical training (BTW the Tibetan monks can't do this as it's against their Vinaya monastic vows; vows which were laid down by the historical Buddha): Buddhist vajrayana isn't about sex it's about continuum.

[林愛偉]

(BTW the Tibetan monks can't do this as it's against their Vinaya monastic vows; vows which were laid down by the historical Buddha): Buddhist vajrayana isn't about sex it's about continuum.

 

 

As all disciplines of the Buddha Dharma should be. Not all adhere to the Vinaya Pitaka.

 

 

Peace,

Lin

[voidisyinyang]

Just finished Geoffrey Samuel's amazing book -- highly recommend it as it's an excellent analysis of Buddhism in general while focusing on all the details of Tibet. This book is EXTREMELY well-researched. The dude did his work.

[.broken.]

Edited May 20, 2008 by .broken.

[Patrick Brown]

[gendao]

Alas, in my mind, this appears to conflict with the Zen story about polishing tiles. For those of you who do not know it, here's the gist of the story:

 

A master sits next to a monk who is meditating. The master picks up a stone/tile and begins to polish it. Curious, the monk eventually asks him what he is doing. The master responds, saying that he's polishing the stone/tile to make a mirror. The monk tells him that no amount of polishing will turn said object into a mirror. The master turns to the monk and says something along the lines of 'no amount of meditation will help you become enlightened.'

And no amount of polishing the mirror and perfecting the reflection will make the reflection the object (being reflected).

 

Enlightenment is when you stop looking in the mirror altogether, but directly at the object.

 

Which in our density, means to stop looking (cessation of the mind).

[.broken.]

And no amount of polishing the mirror and perfecting the reflection will make the reflection the object (being reflected).

 

Enlightenment is when you stop looking in the mirror altogether, but directly at the object.

 

Which in our density, means to stop looking (cessation of the mind).

 

I totally agree.

 

As I hinted in my previous post, polarities disturb the mind and create room for much attachment. Technically, therefore, the mind must be stilled.

 

I also applaud you on your use of wording, particularly "...in our density".

 

However, attempting to delve beyond our density (futile in itself), is the ceasing of the mind enlightenment? Is this where the intellect fails to comprehend as no polarities exist in this state?

 

I remember reading Leo Hartog's description that enlightenment is the awareness that lies behind the dualistic mind. If ceasing the mind is enlightenment, then how can an enlightened self be aware he thinks too?

[林愛偉]

A master sits next to a monk who is meditating. The master picks up a stone/tile and begins to polish it. Curious, the monk eventually asks him what he is doing. The master responds, saying that he's polishing the stone/tile to make a mirror. The monk tells him that no amount of polishing will turn said object into a mirror. The master turns to the monk and says something along the lines of 'no amount of meditation will help you become enlightened.'

 

 

'no amount of meditation will help you become enlightened.'

 

The Master was describing the attached mind, not the method. It is Chan language. The Master was saying how to not be attached, and too rigid in one's cultivation.

 

The polishing of the stone to make a mirror is significant in symbolizing the mind ground cultivation: The constant investigation of the mind to remove false thinking; desires, lust, discrimination, in order reveal the pure bright mind.

 

Thus the monk was moved by the Master polishing. He was moved to ask. Curiosity arose in his mind for he had not cut off the discriminating mind. He held views about cultivation, and those views resulted in his mind being moved by the polishing.

 

The Master saying : "No amount of meditation will help you become enlightened." meant that because the monk still had a discriminating mind, he had been moved by any one of the eight winds, and thus since he is not still, no amount of meditation will do him any good unless he cuts off his discriminating mind.

 

The 8 Winds are:

1. Praise/approval

2. Ridicule

3. Suffering

4. Happiness

5. Benefit

6. Destruction/devastation

7. Gain (or acclaim)

8. Loss (or bad repute)

 

 

Peace,

Lin

Edited May 20, 2008 by 林愛偉

[mat black]

For me at least, the last two posts, Lin's & Brokens hit it on the head (so to speak)

Lin

The polishing of the stone to make a mirror is significant in symbolizing the mind ground cultivation: The constant investigation of the mind to remove false thinking; desires, lust, discrimination, in order reveal the pure bright mind

Broken

I remember reading Leo Hartog's description that enlightenment is the awareness that lies behind the dualistic mind

To me it seems the purpose of what we call practce/cultivation is to be totally undisturbed, free and in peace. Some people have heavier atattchments than others, so certain 'provisional' methods might be used to slow down the thoughts, become calm, understand the source of the atattchments and be free of them. IOW- investigate where the desires, wants, aversions and various other afflictions of the mind come from:

The mind gives them their apparent reality, if we discover their source, we reailise they are empty.

Find out 'to whom do they arise' as Sri Ramana Maharshi always said. My feeling is that this is essentially what Buddha was directing us toward as well. To reveal the absolute source.

 

Hmmmmmm, just some words anyway.

Edited May 21, 2008 by mat black

[gendao]

I totally agree.

 

As I hinted in my previous post, polarities disturb the mind and create room for much attachment. Technically, therefore, the mind must be stilled.

 

I also applaud you on your use of wording, particularly "...in our density".

 

However, attempting to delve beyond our density (futile in itself), is the ceasing of the mind enlightenment? Is this where the intellect fails to comprehend as no polarities exist in this state?

 

I remember reading Leo Hartog's description that enlightenment is the awareness that lies behind the dualistic mind. If ceasing the mind is enlightenment, then how can an enlightened self be aware he thinks too?

The mind is the mirror.

So, to see the object directly (enlightenment?)

You must stop looking at its reflection in the mirror.

And look directly at the object itself.

 

It's that simple!

...As seeing the world through your big toe.

 

[.broken.]

My gratitude:

 

Thank you Ai Wei for the simplicity and sincerity of your post. What you wrote seems so obvious that I now think of myself as foolish for not spotting it. Your posts are always ones I read, though rarely respond to. I feel, and know, you do the dharma justice.

 

Thank you vortex for being there to simplify my understanding, I rarely find the words as sparcely and detailed as you do. Your humour is a needed boon too

 

Thank you Mat for always being there to start and re-ignite the topics I thrive in and thoroughly enjoy reading. You are a star - perhaps even a beacon for me to follow.

Edited May 21, 2008 by .broken.

[doc benway]

And no amount of polishing the mirror and perfecting the reflection will make the reflection the object (being reflected).

 

Enlightenment is when you stop looking in the mirror altogether, but directly at the object.

 

Which in our density, means to stop looking (cessation of the mind).

This is an interesting question you raise that I'd like to purse ...

who stops looking?

who is looking directly at the object?

I would phrase it slightly differently - looking occurs, it's the "who" that is in question...

I think we're saying the same thing with subtley different emphasis

[gendao]

This is an interesting question you raise that I'd like to purse ...

who stops looking?

who is looking directly at the object?

I would phrase it slightly differently - looking occurs, it's the "who" that is in question...

I think we're saying the same thing with subtley different emphasis

You are the object.

 

 

 

PAZ .broken

 

BTW, I haven't achieved this yet. It's not as easy as it might sound.

[forestofsouls]

How does one know what the Buddha did or did not say? What we have are texts handed down that we're told record the words of the Buddha. But how to know? Isn't it more important for the texts to contain truth than to be attached to an idea of authorship?

 

I suppose the Heart Sutra is out?

 

 

I won't believe it from the Tantra. If it is not of the Proper Buddha Dharma spoken by the Buddha, the many whom are spoken of in the Sutras, I would not pay attention. If its not spoken of in the Sutras, its not Proper Dharma.

 

I am stubborn in this, and so are my teachers. I'll believe my teachers before any one else.

 

[林愛偉]

How does one know what the Buddha did or did not say? What we have are texts handed down that we're told record the words of the Buddha. But how to know? Isn't it more important for the texts to contain truth than to be attached to an idea of authorship?

 

I suppose the Heart Sutra is out?

 

Not at all. How would the Heart Sutra be "out" ?

 

With minds full of doubts, its no wonder why this world is the way it is. Its just confusion; not being able to recognize wholesome from the unwholesome.

 

When you cultivate such methods and your results are wholesome. You won't know until you cultivate them. Or, unless you develop wisdom to know that the words spoken are the efficacious language of the universe.

 

The Sutras are handed down. What the Buddha spoke was memorized by the Venerable Ananda. There is no idea of authorship. The Sutras begin with, "Thus, I have heard..." This leaves out the manner of authorship. Even the Buddha said that he didn't even say a word.

 

The Sutras make sense. Its just that when in our cultivation we become utterly confused, stuck in desire, and lustful that we will have to question the method and the one cultivating it.

 

 

Another way, is to look at the virtue and wisdom of the teacher expounding the Sutras. If the Sutras are unwholesome, then the teacher would be questionable.

 

Peace,

Lin

Edited May 22, 2008 by 林愛偉

[forestofsouls]

I agree with everything you just said, Lin. The truth of the suttas/sutras is contained within them. However, you said

 

If it is not of the Proper Buddha Dharma spoken by the Buddha, the many whom are spoken of in the Sutras, I would not pay attention.

 

and thus ruled out Vajrayana. However, unless we were present when the Buddha spoke, or when the sutras/suttas were compiled, we cannot know whether they contain the words of the Buddha or other wise beings. But in the end, I don't think it matters, since Buddhism is about realizing for yourself the truths.

 

The reason I bring this up is because so often there is a division between Buddhist sects. Theravada believe they follow the real teachings of the Buddha. Mahayana often deride Theravada because of their alleged narrow view. Vajrayana is touted as the superior way, and often looked down upon by others.

 

If I followed the supposed Theravada view, then I would miss much of the wisdom in the Mahayana scriptures.

 

When some one's scriptures are rejected because of their supposed "authenticity" and not because of their "truth", then this troubles me.

[Patrick Brown]

I agree with everything you just said, Lin. The truth of the suttas/sutras is contained within them. However, you said

and thus ruled out Vajrayana. However, unless we were present when the Buddha spoke, or when the sutras/suttas were compiled, we cannot know whether they contain the words of the Buddha or other wise beings. But in the end, I don't think it matters, since Buddhism is about realizing for yourself the truths.

 

The reason I bring this up is because so often there is a division between Buddhist sects. Theravada believe they follow the real teachings of the Buddha. Mahayana often deride Theravada because of their alleged narrow view. Vajrayana is touted as the superior way, and often looked down upon by others.

 

If I followed the supposed Theravada view, then I would miss much of the wisdom in the Mahayana scriptures.

 

When some one's scriptures are rejected because of their supposed "authenticity" and not because of their "truth", then this troubles me.

I mentioned unwritten teachings earlier on this thread such as the esoteric teachings of the Vajrayana school although some doubted that such teachings exist:

 

Esoteric transmission (initiation) and samaya (vow)

 

The other conspicuous aspect of Vajrayana Buddhism is that it is esoteric. In this context esoteric means that the transmission of certain accelerating factors only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation and cannot be simply learned from a book. Many techniques are also commonly said to be secret, but some Vajrayana teachers have responded that secrecy itself is not important and only a side-effect of the reality that the techniques have no validity outside the teacher-student lineage.

 

Reginald Ray writes that "If these techniques are not practiced properly, practitioners may harm themselves physically and mentally. In order to avoid these dangers, the practice is kept "secret" outside the teacher/student relationship. Secrecy and the commitment of the student to the vajra guru are aspects of the samaya (Tib. damtsig), or "sacred bond", that protects both the practitioner and the integrity of the teachings."

 

The teachings may also be considered "self-secret" meaning that even if they were to be told directly to a person, that person would not necessarily understand the teachings without proper context. In this way the teachings are "secret" to the minds of those who are not following the path with more than a curious investigation.

I can go even further and say that such esoteric teachings can be understood without a teacher although this is more dangerous as the teacher has valid advice which he has accumulated through the practice of such esoteric teachings. It's somewhat like thinking the inventor of a device will somehow automatically be the master of it! Of course practice makes perfect and it would be folly to imaging that just because you understood something that you are the master of it.

 

My advice has always been the same which is to periodically throw everything away lest you get stuck in a rut! Things which are of use will find their way back to you and thus you attain more from less.

[seadog]

Not at all. How would the Heart Sutra be "out" ?

 

With minds full of doubts, its no wonder why this world is the way it is. Its just confusion; not being able to recognize wholesome from the unwholesome.

 

When you cultivate such methods and your results are wholesome. You won't know until you cultivate them. Or, unless you develop wisdom to know that the words spoken are the efficacious language of the universe.

 

The Sutras are handed down. What the Buddha spoke was memorized by the Venerable Ananda. There is no idea of authorship. The Sutras begin with, "Thus, I have heard..." This leaves out the manner of authorship. Even the Buddha said that he didn't even say a word.

 

The Sutras make sense. Its just that when in our cultivation we become utterly confused, stuck in desire, and lustful that we will have to question the method and the one cultivating it.

Another way, is to look at the virtue and wisdom of the teacher expounding the Sutras. If the Sutras are unwholesome, then the teacher would be questionable.

 

Peace,

I love your expression "efficacious language of the universe."Indeed our concious thoughts must at every instant discern wholesome from unwholesome, if we as concious thinking expressions of the universe has any hope of survival.

I know a apple tree is not a pear by the quality of its fruit.Enlightment is ths constant discernment.

 

Lin

[林愛偉]

I agree with everything you just said, Lin. The truth of the suttas/sutras is contained within them. However, you said

and thus ruled out Vajrayana. However, unless we were present when the Buddha spoke, or when the sutras/suttas were compiled, we cannot know whether they contain the words of the Buddha or other wise beings. But in the end, I don't think it matters, since Buddhism is about realizing for yourself the truths.

 

The reason I bring this up is because so often there is a division between Buddhist sects. Theravada believe they follow the real teachings of the Buddha. Mahayana often deride Theravada because of their alleged narrow view. Vajrayana is touted as the superior way, and often looked down upon by others.

 

If I followed the supposed Theravada view, then I would miss much of the wisdom in the Mahayana scriptures.

 

When some one's scriptures are rejected because of their supposed "authenticity" and not because of their "truth", then this troubles me.

 

Theravada, Mahayana were all taught by the Buddha. They were different methods for different minds, not one specific mannerism for all minds. In the argument of who is more proper, Mahayana or Theravada, neither are. The fact of their arguing speaks for itself, and the attachment of views they hold, saying that some of the cultivators are themselves not of a clear mind.

 

Its all the Buddha Dharma. If at one stage the Theravada methods assist in putting down views, then use it, until views of self are put down. Given that there are living beings with views who are subjecting themselves to their own causes and conditions, teach them. Here is the Mahayana teaching: Enlighten yourself and then, enlighten others. Its all very simple.

 

As for not truly know if the Buddha spoke the Sutras, attain the Samadhi of Non-Production and you will see/hear the Buddhas of the Ten Directions expounding the Dharma.

 

hehehe

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

 

 

Esoteric transmission (initiation) and samaya (vow)

 

The other conspicuous aspect of Vajrayana Buddhism is that it is esoteric. In this context esoteric means that the transmission of certain accelerating factors only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation and cannot be simply learned from a book. Many techniques are also commonly said to be secret, but some Vajrayana teachers have responded that secrecy itself is not important and only a side-effect of the reality that the techniques have no validity outside the teacher-student lineage.

 

Reginald Ray writes that "If these techniques are not practiced properly, practitioners may harm themselves physically and mentally. In order to avoid these dangers, the practice is kept "secret" outside the teacher/student relationship. Secrecy and the commitment of the student to the vajra guru are aspects of the samaya (Tib. damtsig), or "sacred bond", that protects both the practitioner and the integrity of the teachings."

 

The teachings may also be considered "self-secret" meaning that even if they were to be told directly to a person, that person would not necessarily understand the teachings without proper context. In this way the teachings are "secret" to the minds of those who are not following the path with more than a curious investigation.

 

 

This alone speaks of exclusivity. Exclusivity is not Proper Buddha Dharma. It is Lama Dharma.

 

Peace,

Lin.

 

 

 

(林愛偉 @ May 22 2008, 02:01 PM) *

 

Not at all. How would the Heart Sutra be "out" ?

 

With minds full of doubts, its no wonder why this world is the way it is. Its just confusion; not being able to recognize wholesome from the unwholesome.

 

When you cultivate such methods and your results are wholesome. You won't know until you cultivate them. Or, unless you develop wisdom to know that the words spoken are the efficacious language of the universe.

 

The Sutras are handed down. What the Buddha spoke was memorized by the Venerable Ananda. There is no idea of authorship. The Sutras begin with, "Thus, I have heard..." This leaves out the manner of authorship. Even the Buddha said that he didn't even say a word.

 

The Sutras make sense. Its just that when in our cultivation we become utterly confused, stuck in desire, and lustful that we will have to question the method and the one cultivating it.

Another way, is to look at the virtue and wisdom of the teacher expounding the Sutras. If the Sutras are unwholesome, then the teacher would be questionable.

 

Peace,

I love your expression "efficacious language of the universe."Indeed our concious thoughts must at every instant discern wholesome from unwholesome, if we as concious thinking expressions of the universe has any hope of survival.

I know a apple tree is not a pear by the quality of its fruit.Enlightment is ths constant discernment.

 

Lin

 

 

Hi Seadog,

Check your quote...lol you included your reply in the quote. Its been bolded.

 

Peace,

Lin

Edited May 22, 2008 by 林愛偉

[Patrick Brown]

This alone speaks of exclusivity. Exclusivity is not Proper Buddha Dharma. It is Lama Dharma.

That is one way to see it, another way is that the teacher is simply teaching right practice and alerting the student to possible pitfalls which is especially important with Tantra. Note that the Vajrayana school accepts the teachings of the Mahayana and the Hinayana schools.

 

Another interesting point, which may help a few of the uninitiated, is that there are whole teachings explicitly expressed in Buddhist art. These abstract teachings often convey more than words and appeal to the higher mind thereby aiding the student in his awakening. Such methods of teaching have always existed and a classic example are the Oxherding Pictures: http://www.buddhanet.net/oxherd1.htm Of course once such images are conceptualised the meaning can become distorted so it's often better to meditate on the images and ignore any commentary. There are also some pretty explicit teachings in the imagery of Buddhist and Hindu sculpture for those that can see.

[rex]

Note that the Vajrayana school accepts the teachings of the Mahayana and the Hinayana schools.

Exactly! The Vajrayana teachings were predicted by Shakymuni Buddha in the Nirvana Sutra:

 

Twelve years after

I pass into nirvana,

A person who is superior to everyone

Will appear from the anthers of a lotus flower

In the immaculate Lake Kosha

On the northwestern border of the country of Uddiyana

 

That person was Padmasambhava who introduced the Vajrayana to Tibet.

[Patrick Brown]

Did this a few years ago: http://www.esnips.com/doc/ad7951b7-cbcf-42...aafd64/Track-15

 

Enjoy

[林愛偉]

Exactly! The Vajrayana teachings were predicted by Shakymuni Buddha in the Nirvana Sutra:

 

Twelve years after

I pass into nirvana,

A person who is superior to everyone

Will appear from the anthers of a lotus flower

In the immaculate Lake Kosha

On the northwestern border of the country of Uddiyana

 

That person was Padmasambhava who introduced the Vajrayana to Tibet.

 

 

Its still not an excuse for how the Vajrayana school offers exclusive Dharmas. THat is not what the Buddha taught.

 

Peace,

Lin

[Patrick Brown]

Its still not an excuse for how the Vajrayana school offers exclusive Dharmas. THat is not what the Buddha taught.

I would say the Dharma of the Vajrayana school is completely obvious, in fact it's so obvious it's a bit of a joke. As I said above the teacher simply teaches correct practice so that the student doesn't physically or mentally hurt themselves. Anybody can practice the Dharma of the Vajrayana school although without a teacher it makes it that much more risky.

 

Remember the whole thing about Tantra and Vajrayana is that it's the fast track to enlightenment. Because of this some of the methods are, at the very least, slightly dangerous which is why people don't talk about them. Having said that the Dharma is as blatant and as explicit as you can get.