Very unpopular opinions

[forestofclarity]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

With the greatest respect because I’ve been there - but I feel madyamika just leads to this kind of formulation which is ultimately meaningless.  

 

I'm sorry it didn't work for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for anyone, ever. 

 

Our experiences are clearly different, and that's ok. As I've said before, feel free to disagree. 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

While I agree with much of this post, I think this is a common misunderstanding from a typical Kagyu/Nyingma Buddhist perspective in my experience. This is a common question or suggestion I've seen posed to many teachers and every one of them rejected it. 

 

Everything is empty, i.e. it lacks a unitary, independent, permanent self or essence, but not everything is aware. Classic examples are pots and pillars. A pot is empty of a unitary, independent, permanent "pot nature," but we would not say that it is therefore aware. Further, specific to Nyingma based Dzogchen teachings, emptiness is generally considered a non-affirming negation, a minus without a plus. So when we say X is empty, it doesn't not mean that we are asserting anything positive about X. 

 

Of course, one is free to disagree with this perspective.

 

 

I'm not saying that individual things have intrinsic self-awareness, but that Rigpa is the nature of all phenomena. Rigpa means pure awareness.

 

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Awareness

 

It is tough to talk about since every discussion of just what or how these things are will be wrong, since conceptually discussions tend to focus on individual features of the topic, and it is so much broader. Really only experiential gnosis can be counted on, as Nagarjuna reminds us:

 

Quote

Due to having faith one relies on the practices, Due to having wisdom one truly knows. Of these two wisdom is the chief, Faith is its prerequisite. - Nagarjuna, The Precious Garland

 

When I talk these things I rely on insight and how it appears to "me", and try to use the simplest language I can, rather than terminology from traditions. From my perspective, leaving out many details, all appearances in consciousness are luminously aware, still, silent, have no separateness.

 

Glad to see another Vajrayana practitioner! I am originally from the Dudjom Tersar lineage of Nyingma via Ngakpa Chogyam (Aro Ter), Gyatrul Rinpoche, and Tharchin Rinpoche. Are you also a Nyingmapa?

Edited May 28 by stirling

[doc benway]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

The idea of there being a single causal relative reality just isn't real, in my opinion.

 

It’s not just your opinion or even that of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Bönpos. It is also completely consistent with the theories and experimental results of the most powerful and predictive paradigm in the history of physics. The act of observation by an observer (duality) collapses the wave function of probability (unbounded potential) into an object, having an unavoidable effect on the observation (reality).

 

My samsaric existence is that of unbounded awareness being bounded by a set of perceptive faculties and interpretation in a living entity/community.  When “I” am actively engaged I am creating reality. Buddha is the unbounded, undefined potential embodied when we are not limited by the role of observer. The observation is occurring but the perspective is not restricted by a particular frame of reference, no subject-object duality. This can become the primary abiding state of “mind.” The extreme is to dissolve in a rainbow of light. 

 

This is elegantly captured in the Four Goodnesses teaching of Tapihritsa in the Bön tradition. I love the intersection between spirituality and scientific endeavor - physics, biology, systems, etc…  

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

I think that fruit loops may be the most unreal food in existence.

 

have you tried them with coca-cola on them instead of milk ? 

 

One might even think they where  ....

 

unpopular. 

 

I never knew how popular they where  until I did catering in the film industry .  They like a big spread  for breakfast ;  cereals, milks, fruits, eggs, bacon, fried tomatoes, mushrooms, various breads, porridge, congee and other things ,  but .....

 

Where are the fruit loops ?

 

We ran out .

 

Whaaaaat !?

 

- that and cocco pops .  Not the kids,  but full grown working adults  ( and some famous actors ) shoving  shoving  hard crunchy mini donuts  dyed natural bright colors  with milk poured over them .

 

 

Limnal Luke may well be hiding a secret film star identity behind that name .

[Nungali]

13 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

you guys are so funny with this 'walk through the tree a reality test' business.;) i can walk through air - is air unreal? a radio-wave goes right through the tree - is the tree unreal? i cannot walk through a wall in my dream - is the wall real? hehe;)

 

Dude !   You dont walk through air !  

 

When you move along ( by walking or other means , OR you stand still and the air walks around  you )  , the air parts and goes around you , you go between it, not through it . 

 

 

[Nungali]

12 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

oh so there are at least two different reality tests, hope they do not clash or anything. hey if i never ever have a chance to try walking through that tree for myself - is it real for me?

hell yeah! i blame not enough padding in my kindergarten.  on the positive side  naked in public dreams stopped. almost.

from the river to the sea...

 

I dont  dream about being naked .

 

I dream about other people being naked though  ;

 

Taoist Texts , Apech, Steve , Limnal Luke  ....

 

 

 

Edited May 29 by Nungali

[Mark Foote]

On 5/26/2024 at 9:34 AM, Apech said:

 

No but read this:

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/budd/hd_budd.htm#:~:text=In the earliest Buddhist art,empty space beneath a parasol.
 

 

I ask for examples of:

 

The art work of early Buddhism shows what early Buddhism and the Buddha was like.  He is not depicted but represented by a pair and sandals, or an empty cushion and so on.  He is surrounded by dancing and singing, by nature spirits including voluptuous female nature spirits, and naga serpents.

 

and you give me a parasol over an empty seat.  Tsk, tsk.

 

Quote

 

The Muslim invasion was about 1200 AD and Naropa dates to the 10th century.  Their practices were transmitted to Marpa and this became one of the four schools of TB namely Karma Kagyu.  But there were various waves of Buddhism to Tibet including Padma Sambhava in 9th Cent and Atisha in 10th.

 

 

 

I see that you're right, northwestern India suffered Muslim incursions in the 7th century, but the wider invasion of India and the destruction of the Buddhist universities was not until the 12th-13th centuries.   

 

Edited May 28 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

On 5/25/2024 at 3:12 PM, Apech said:

Skandha banana

 

 

I am sure we are all familiar with the idea that phenomena at five levels (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) are the result of 'bundles' 'heaps' or 'baskets' of causes and conditions and that the phenomena have no independent existence, are temporary and empty.  This is basic Buddhist doctrine.

 

But on the other hand - if we see, touch, experience a tree - it is real.  Indisputably real.  Where does its reality come from? 

 

 

 

So strange that you characterize the skandhas that way. 

 

They are identifications of "self" with phenomena, not the phenomena.  Dependent causation has to do with the source of suffering, which suffering (old age, sickness, death) Gautama referred to as "in short, the five skandhas".

They don't have to do with whether or not a tree is real, or what caused the tree, or what caused us to perceive the tree.  Pass the olives, please.

 

[Mark Foote]

On 5/27/2024 at 4:10 AM, Brad M said:

 

I have this vague memory of being a child, sitting in my parents living room in a one piece pair of pajamas.  Everything was new.  I had no conceptions of what anything should look like, or any conceptions about myself or society.  It was just me, coexisting and being with my loving family.  For me, that is what reality is.  Over time, that childhood presence has since been clouded by a complex web of conceptions and mental patterns that have built up my mind.  Yet, when the clouds break, the same child emerges.  The reality of this world is you sitting in your backyard like a child, admiring the energy of a magnificent tree with no reflection on what it means or entails. 

 

In other words, this life is very real (and wonderful), its our conceptions of it that are empty.  
 

 

 

'You are not your body, but you are the consciousness in the body, because of which you have the awareness of 'I am'. It is without words, just pure beingness. Meditation means you have to hold consciousness by itself. The consciousness should give attention to itself. 

 

(Gaitonde, Mohan [2017]. Self - Love: The Original Dream [Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj's Direct Pointers to Reality]. Mumbai: Zen Publications. ISBN 978-9385902833)
 

 

Question is, how to Incorporate that experience in daily life, no?
 

Dogen wrote:

 

When you find your place where you are, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point.

 

(“Genjo Koan”, Dogen, tr. Tanahashi)

 

 

Given a presence of mind that can “hold consciousness by itself”, activity in the body begins to coordinate by virtue of the sense of place associated with consciousness.  A relationship between the free location of consciousness and activity in the body comes forward, and as that relationship comes forward, “practice occurs”.  The “place where you are”, the “fundamental point”, is “actualized”.

 

Dogen went on:
 

When you find your way at this moment, practice occurs, actualizing the fundamental point…

 

(“Genjo Koan”, Dogen, tr. Tanahashi)
 

Activity can take place solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. “When you find your way at this moment”, habit and volition in the activity of the body has ceased, first and foremost with regard to the movement of breath.  Instead, the activity of the body comes automatically with the free location of consciousness.

 

I sit down first thing in the morning and last thing at night, and I look to experience the activity of the body solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness. As a matter of daily life, just to touch on such experience as occasion demands—for me, that's enough.

(hopefully part of an upcoming post of mine)
 

 

As Neil Young sang:

 

It's hard to make that change
When life and love turns strange
And cold

 

To give a love
You gotta live a love
To live a love
You gotta be part of
When will I see you again?

("A Man Needs A Maid")

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, dwai said:

I highly doubt that claim

But, he certainly made it more accessible to the masses. 
 

 

 

Gautama taught the cessation of "determinate thought" in the activities of speech, body, and mind.  

 

My impression is that the cessation of "determinate thought" in the activity of the body coupled with the "excellence of the heart's release" through the extension of compassion and sympathetic joy ("throughout the four quarters of the world, above, below, without limit") is what passes for enlightenment, for the most part.  

 

Gautama studied under two of the masters of his day.  They did not attain the cessation of "determinate thought" in feeling and perceiving, the attainment associated with Gautama's enlightenment ("dependent causation").  They were dead by the time he finally surpassed them, something he realized as he thought to go back and teach it to them.

I don't think even the first cessation is very accessible to the masses, plain though Gautama's teaching may be, much less the final cessation.

 

(what's a mother to do!)

 

Edited May 28 by Mark Foote

[Apech]

12 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

I ask for examples of:

 

The art work of early Buddhism shows what early Buddhism and the Buddha was like.  He is not depicted but represented by a pair and sandals, or an empty cushion and so on.  He is surrounded by dancing and singing, by nature spirits including voluptuous female nature spirits, and naga serpents.

 

and you give me a parasol over an empty seat.  Tsk, tsk.

 

 

Oh no --- two tsks ... are you an elephant?

 

The quote came from Dalrymples Empire podcast which I posted above - which might like to listen to if you have time.  Otherwise the artwork at Sanchi might be a start.

 

or look here

 

https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/tree-and-serpent/exhibition-objects

 

Quote

 

I see that you're right, northwestern India suffered Muslim incursions in the 7th century, but the wider invasion of India and the destruction of the Buddhist universities was not until the 12th-13th centuries.   

 

 

Yes the Mahayana/Vajrayana style of Buddhism became prominent during the Indian Medieval period which is about 600 - 1300 AD after which Buddhism (more or less) died out in India itself.  This was the period of the mahasiddhas - this is a good book on the subject:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B008D30MMW/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

 

Edited May 29 by Apech

[Apech]

11 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

So strange that you characterize the skandhas that way. 

 

They are identifications of "self" with phenomena, not the phenomena.  Dependent causation has to do with the source of suffering, which suffering (old age, sickness, death) Gautama referred to as "in short, the five skandhas".

They don't have to do with whether or not a tree is real, or what caused the tree, or what caused us to perceive the tree.  Pass the olives, please.

 

 

Maybe I was taught in a non-standard way ... or maybe not.  But certainly the skandhas were applied to phenomena to 'show' emptiness and then the same process applied to oneself.

 

I think the issue may be that Buddhism doesn't really use ontological proofs at all.  Unlike other systems.  But this may be yet another of my unpopular opinions

 

 

[old3bob]

There is no 1st or last cessation of Spirit, things come an go but not No-Thing, I'd say take heart where heart is due. 

[forestofclarity]

16 hours ago, stirling said:

It is tough to talk about since every discussion of just what or how these things are will be wrong, since conceptually discussions tend to focus on individual features of the topic, and it is so much broader. Really only experiential gnosis can be counted on, as Nagarjuna reminds us:

 

That's true, but it is very rare for some one to "get it" right away. If there wasn't, the would dispense with relative, conventional teachings but they do not. 

 

Nagarjuna also states (MMK XXIV:10): 

 

Quote

Without a foundation in the conventional truth, The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, Liberation is not achieved.

 

As Ju Mipham put forth in the Sword of Wisdom: 

 

Quote

 

46. The absolute as well has its two aspects:
Categorized and uncategorized conceptually,
And then to evaluate them, two types of validity
For looking into what is ultimately true.

 

47. It is by relying on the former that one reaches the latter.
Like impaired vision that is healed and made pure,
When the eye of valid cognition is fully developed,
The truth of purity and equalness can be seen.

 

 

Nature of mind teachings are precise and it is easy to make mistakes as I know from experience (unless one is immediately enlightened upon pointing out, which is very, very, very rare). Letting go is harder than it sounds IME. Different people have different points of clinging, which is why Vajrayana (and Vedanta) is so vast in my opinion. Our perception literally needs to be refined in many cases. 

 

16 hours ago, stirling said:

Glad to see another Vajrayana practitioner! I am originally from the Dudjom Tersar lineage of Nyingma via Ngakpa Chogyam (Aro Ter), Gyatrul Rinpoche, and Tharchin Rinpoche. Are you also a Nyingmapa?

 

No, all of my Vajrayana teachers are Rime and experientially based (being in the lineage of Changchub Dorje and Tulku Urgyen). I don't identify with any tradition in particular, or any conclusion. 

 

There was a well known Dzogchen teacher who I saw some years ago. He said when some one asked if he realized rigpa, he said "I don't know," and seemed sincere. Initially, I thought this was a weakness, but as it turns out, it is a strength.  

 

[snowymountains]

16 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

They are identifications of "self" with phenomena, not the phenomena.  

 

 

Correct 👍, according to Buddhism they're empty of self, not empty in a general sense.

 

I don't agree with the Buddhist view on this but the above is an accurate description of what the Buddhist view is.

[Taoist Texts]

17 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

I ask for examples of:

 

The art work of early Buddhism shows what early Buddhism and the Buddha was like.  He is not depicted but represented by a pair and sandals, or an empty cushion and so on.  He is surrounded by dancing and singing, by nature spirits including voluptuous female nature spirits, and naga serpents.

here you are. they are voluptuous all right

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

 

However, in 1990, the notion of aniconism in Buddhism was challenged by Susan Huntington, initiating a vigorous debate among specialists that still continues.^[5] She sees many early scenes claimed to be aniconic as in fact not depicting scenes from the life of the Buddha, but worship of cetiya (relics) or re-enactments by devotees at the places where these scenes occurred. Thus the image of the empty throne shows an actual relic-throne at Bodh Gaya or elsewhere. She points out that there is only one indirect reference for a specific aniconic doctrine in Buddhism to be found, and that pertaining to only one sect.^[6]

 

^{so the notion of early Buddhist aniconism is outdated}

 

[Taomeow]

Yeah, digging deeper/earlier is always fun.  You can uproot a whole lot of very unpopular opinions this way. ))

  

Here's a recent example I've encountered.  (Departing from the buddhist debate for a while, or at least trying to.  )The oldest known written literary work in the Slavic language, The Tale of Igor's Campaign (aka Slovo o Polku Igoreve), an epic poem dated 1185-1187, poses considerable difficulties for translators -- although some of the original can still be understood by a non-specialist if you know a language originating from Old East Slavic the epic is written in.  That's "some," not a whole lot.  However, it's been studied for centuries and some sort of consensus emerged regarding this or that passage, and accepted translations became more or less carved in stone.

 

That's until a Kazakh, Olzhas Suleimenov, who happened to be both a Russian writer and a Turkologist, published his revised versions with corrections, and corrections concerned multiple words from Common Turkic language which appear here and there in the original and which had escaped the comprehension of Slavists who went before.  Here and there in the text, the new translation immediately made a whole lot more sense, and the "weirdness" of the ancestors became quite a bit less weird as more logical passages replaced the misconstrued ones.  

 

Needless to say this opinion, which in my opinion was one hundred percent correct (and a work of genius), immediately became very very unpopular among both the mastodon specialists and lay folks who studied the old version in school.  Neither were ready to let go of the nonsense they are used to taking at face value.

 

"Such is the nature of man." -- Gurdjieff                 

[Apech]

39 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

here you are. they are voluptuous all right

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

 

However, in 1990, the notion of aniconism in Buddhism was challenged by Susan Huntington, initiating a vigorous debate among specialists that still continues.^[5] She sees many early scenes claimed to be aniconic as in fact not depicting scenes from the life of the Buddha, but worship of cetiya (relics) or re-enactments by devotees at the places where these scenes occurred. Thus the image of the empty throne shows an actual relic-throne at Bodh Gaya or elsewhere. She points out that there is only one indirect reference for a specific aniconic doctrine in Buddhism to be found, and that pertaining to only one sect.^[6]

 

^{so the notion of early Buddhist aniconism is outdated}

 

 

That makes a great deal of sense!  Marvellous thank you.

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

Yeah, digging deeper/earlier is always fun.  You can uproot a whole lot of very unpopular opinions this way. ))

  

Here's a recent example I've encountered.  (Departing from the buddhist debate for a while, or at least trying to.  )The oldest known written literary work in the Slavic language, The Tale of Igor's Campaign (aka Slovo o Polku Igoreve), an epic poem dated 1185-1187, poses considerable difficulties for translators -- although some of the original can still be understood by a non-specialist if you know a language originating from Old East Slavic the epic is written in.  That's "some," not a whole lot.  However, it's been studied for centuries and some sort of consensus emerged regarding this or that passage, and accepted translations became more or less carved in stone.

 

That's until a Kazakh, Olzhas Suleimenov, who happened to be both a Russian writer and a Turkologist, published his revised versions with corrections, and corrections concerned multiple words from Common Turkic language which appear here and there in the original and which had escaped the comprehension of Slavists who went before.  Here and there in the text, the new translation immediately made a whole lot more sense, and the "weirdness" of the ancestors became quite a bit less weird as more logical passages replaced the misconstrued ones.  

 

Needless to say this opinion, which in my opinion was one hundred percent correct (and a work of genius), immediately became very very unpopular among both the mastodon specialists and lay folks who studied the old version in school.  Neither were ready to let go of the nonsense they are used to taking at face value.

 

"Such is the nature of man." -- Gurdjieff                 

 

I think the art of translation must be one of the greatest human skills to acquire.  

 

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

 

Correct 👍, according to Buddhism they're empty of self, not empty in a general sense.

 

I don't agree with the Buddhist view on this but the above is an accurate description of what the Buddhist view is.

 

That's not what Mark is saying I don't think.

 

 

[Mark Foote]

55 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

That's not what Mark is saying I don't think.

 

 

 

“‘What do you think about this, monks? Is material shape permanent or impermanent?’

‘Impermanent, revered sir.’

‘But is what is impermanent painful or is it pleasant?’

‘Painful, revered sir.’

‘And is it right to regard that which is impermanent, suffering, liable to change as “This is mine, this am I, this is my self”?’

‘No, revered sir (similarly for feeling, perception, the habitual tendencies, and consciousness).’”
 

(MN III 19-20, Vol III p 69)

 

 

Whatever ... is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, [a person], thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling ... perception... the habitual tendencies... whatever is consciousness, past, future or present... [that person], thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. [For one] knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.

 

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol III p 68)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stirling]

4 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

That's true, but it is very rare for some one to "get it" right away. If there wasn't, the would dispense with relative, conventional teachings but they do not.

 

Absolutely. Skillful means and all of that. There are times and places for attempts at direct pointing, but also for using a scaffolding of ideas to support inquiry. In my past both might be employed within minutes of each other, and direct pointing right at the beginning in the hopes of sudden awakening, as rare as that seems. I guess it must be happening occasionally?

 

Quote

No, all of my Vajrayana teachers are Rime and experientially based (being in the lineage of Changchub Dorje and Tulku Urgyen). I don't identify with any tradition in particular, or any conclusion.

 

There was a well known Dzogchen teacher who I saw some years ago. He said when some one asked if he realized rigpa, he said "I don't know," and seemed sincere. Initially, I thought this was a weakness, but as it turns out, it is a strength.  

 

Yes, similar to the Suzuki Roshi lineage I am a teacher in and the concept of "don't know" mind. Along those lines:

 

Quote

 

I prostrate to Gautama'


Who through compassion'


Taught the true doctrine,


Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.


- Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika (Fundamental Wisdom
of the Middle Way), translated by Jay Garfield

 

Not knowing is most intimate.
- Luohan Guichen, Case 20 of The Book of Equanimity, translated by Gerry Shishin Wick

 

If even one thought appears, that is already a mistake.
- Zen Master So Sahn, The Mirror of Zen, translated by Hyon Gak

 

I do not teach Buddhism. I only teach don’t know.
- Zen Master Seung Sahn, The Compass of Zen

 

 

... I collect things along these lines when I come across them.

[forestofclarity]

15 hours ago, stirling said:

I guess it must be happening occasionally?

 

I am skeptical. But I have an old school definition of enlightenment, as opposed to the folks you regularly encounter on say, BATGAP (not saying this applies to anyone here specifically, just making a general statement). 

 

I practiced in the Zen world for some years, mostly in the Katagiri line. One issue I had was that when I had an intellectual concern, I was always told to ignore it, repress it, or set it aside. Sometimes I would get an unsatisfying answer. One story I heard is that Katagiri Roshi went to a students house, and she wanted to show him her collection of dharma books. He looked at it, laughed, and said, "Oh, no, a really big problem!"

 

But for me, if the thinking mind wasn't on board, the practice doesn't follow. I had intellectual knots that could only be undone intellectually. Now of course, the Tibetans tend to go overboard on that side, and the teachings can often dry out and become rote, so to speak, as they become distanced from first hand experience. 

 

It sounds positive that you've agreed to the teacher role--- just my (very unpopular) opinion but I think Soto Zen needs more teachers who seem to have actually realized something.  

 

 

[SirPalomides]

On 5/27/2024 at 5:12 PM, Apech said:

 

I'm looking for a solution to a problem posed by the 'unreal' position in Buddhism, where we are often encouraged to view the world as like a dream or a magic display etc.  I find this unsatisfactory although I understand the basis for it.  In my view the tree is a real tree as distinct to an imaginary tree - this distinction is perhaps magnified by the modern tendency towards 'fantasy' and the the like and the preference for the imaginary digital world over the substantial 'real' existence - even though the latter may at time be dull and uninspirational.

 

I'm currently reading Brook Ziporyn's book Emptiness and Omnipresence which gives an overview of Tiantai Buddhism and its approach to emptiness which, for now at least, I do find more satisfying than the usual Madhyamaka explanations, and maybe you will too. Ziporyn also authored the Stanford encyclopedia article on Tiantai Buddhism so this might be a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddhism-tiantai/

 

It seems that the Tiantai perspective arose in part from a certain ambiguity in the Chinese translation of Nagarjuna- their view might be seen as a misreading by more orthodox Nagarjunans. On the other hand I read that the Geluk scholar Thuken Losang Chokyi Nyima had a high opinion of Zhiyi so maybe the views are compatible. 

 

 

[stirling]

3 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

I am skeptical. But I have an old school definition of enlightenment, as opposed to the folks you regularly encounter on say, BATGAP (not saying this applies to anyone here specifically, just making a general statement). 

 

I agree with you, honestly. When people start talking about awakening-s, for example, it is pause for concern. While the understanding deepens (or ripens) there is a definite and unmistakeable before and after, and once there is an after the deepening doesn't stop unless possibly something has stopped the process which I find hard to believe. My experience is that it is a roller coaster - you aren't jumping off. Having said all of the above, I have found that there is some clarity to be had from some of the more recently realized, including both traditional teachers AND those who have come to it by unconventional circumstances, Buddhist or not.

 

Quote

I practiced in the Zen world for some years, mostly in the Katagiri line. One issue I had was that when I had an intellectual concern, I was always told to ignore it, repress it, or set it aside. Sometimes I would get an unsatisfying answer. One story I heard is that Katagiri Roshi went to a students house, and she wanted to show him her collection of dharma books. He looked at it, laughed, and said, "Oh, no, a really big problem!"

 

I am certainly against any kind of repression of thoughts (or ideas) of any kind, though I do think that where someone is trying to cobble together their own version of something or create some definitive conceptual construct about reality that it is a trap. Definitely the Zen teachers of a generation or two ago had taken the rather severe flavor of their teachers to heart. I think that is rarely of service to others.

 

Quote

There is one Dharma, not many;
distinctions arise from the clinging needs of the ignorant.
To seek Mind with discriminating mind
is the greatest of all mistakes. - Seng T'san, Hsin Hsing Ming 

 

My teacher had a massive library. A few years before I met her there was a flood and it destroyed the entire thing. It took that event for her to realized that she had built a "fortress of competence" out of those books - a sort of physical, unassailable proof that she was intellectually unassailable. She will tell you that the destruction of that "fortress" was a gift.

 

Quote

But for me, if the thinking mind wasn't on board, the practice doesn't follow. I had intellectual knots that could only be undone intellectually. Now of course, the Tibetans tend to go overboard on that side, and the teachings can often dry out and become rote, so to speak, as they become distanced from first hand experience. 

 

I agree that sometime the intellectual scaffolding of some ideas about how things might be can help us relax enough to get the whole framework out of our way. I have seen that be the case. At the same time, it is good to reinforce that intellectual understanding of Nagarjuna is not seeing the actual Prajna of enlightened mind to a student, in my opinion. The internet is full of people arguing the dharma and getting nowhere. For me, that is a difficult thing to watch.  

 

Quote

It sounds positive that you've agreed to the teacher role--- just my (very unpopular) opinion but I think Soto Zen needs more teachers who seem to have actually realized something.  

 

Thank you. _/\_  I agree with you. Teachers are hit and miss in general, and Soto is no stranger to that. I have sat sesshin with a number of brown robes that I was sure didn't truly understand. This isn't to say that there isn't value in having teachers who may not have insight, but can teach people how to reduce their suffering. I do think, however, that direct pointing on a regular basis is possibly the most important thing a teacher can impart, and obviously that takes some specific understanding. 

Edited May 30 by stirling