Originally posted by allkosong:Hi Sinweiy -
We are digressing here... but if there is no "self", then there should be no "others" either, ie. we are all one. Right? In which case we should take care of the wellbeing of all ie. "self"+"others".
ya, to aviod nihilism, the simple formula is
Sunyat/Anatta Affirms the Existence of Existence/self;
Sunyata/Anatta Negates the Self-nature of Existence/self.
yes we are very much interconnected like a net. it's happier if everyone is happy together, instead of one person along in an isle with nobody to share per se.
there's indeed a state where vow (for others) can override karmic control.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:ya, to aviod nihilism, the simple formula is
Sunyat/Anatta Affirms the Existence of Existence/self;
Sunyata/Anatta Negates the Self-nature of Existence/self.
yes we are very much interconnected like a net. it's happier if everyone is happy together, instead of one person along in an isle with nobody to share per se.there's indeed a state where vow (for others) can override karmic control.
/\
Hi sinweiy,
Have you achieved/experienced anatta and sunyata? What does it feel like? How do you know if you have experienced it?
Has anyone here experienced them? Care to share?
:) haha...解悟 bah....
Originally posted by allkosong:Hi realization -
Am I correct to conclude that our ultimate goal is to find that state of mind that is completely independent of ALL external conditions? ie. Freedom from all external conditions? And that state of mind is blissful and peaceful? And that bliss is nirvana?
"Develop a mind that is vast like space, where experiences both pleasant and unpleasant can appear and disappear without conflict, struggle or harm. Rest in a mind like vast sky."
~ Buddha, Majjhima Nikaya
Originally posted by sinweiy:ya, to aviod nihilism, the simple formula is
Sunyat/Anatta Affirms the Existence of Existence/self;
Sunyata/Anatta Negates the Self-nature of Existence/self.
yes we are very much interconnected like a net. it's happier if everyone is happy together, instead of one person along in an isle with nobody to share per se.there's indeed a state where vow (for others) can override karmic control.
/\
I don't say 'affirms existence', since 'existence', 'non-existence', both and neither don't apply to Anatta and Shunyata
It is like a mirage, shunyata does not affirm anything, but negates the inherent existence of the mirage so that you realize that while appearing vividly it is completely illusory, coreless and substanceless.
"The great 11th
Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts
that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that
Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of
opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a
position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states
"does not propose the non-existence of existents, but
instead rejects claims for the existence of existents",
there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent
found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated;
likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no
existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be
rejected."
Oh but one more thing: luminous clarity is not rejected, but it is not affirmed either, since luminous clarity, the vivid awareness, the display itself cannot be denied, but neither can be affirmed as 'it is' or 'it is not'. Luminous clarity is also empty of inherent existence and is not other than the entire display itself.
Originally posted by allkosong:Hi Sinweiy -
We are digressing here... but if there is no "self", then there should be no "others" either, ie. we are all one. Right? In which case we should take care of the wellbeing of all ie. "self"+"others".
No we are not one...
Because conventionally, we are different and unique, different personality, different karma, different life, different experience, different history.
Ultimately, there is no I, no you, and no 'we' to be 'one'. There is not even a 'one'.
Conventionally: mindstreams are unique and individual. Ultimately: mindstreams are empty of a self.
The notion of a universal, cosmic consciousness is alien to Buddhism: this is more of Hinduism.
Originally posted by Demon Bane:So why do some people remember their past lives while others dun ? Is that becos of karma too ?
It is well known (there are scientists who researched into this) that there are children who had memories from past life, but as they grow up they tend to forget. When you are young, you can still remember cos its still kind of fresh in the memory.
Also, when you attained great mental power through deep states of mental absorption and concentration called Jhanas, you can also remember past lives. You need to practice meditation to recall past lives and there are countless people past and present even in this forum who have done it.
Originally posted by mancha:Religion offers hope.
Hope of betterment.
That hope may lessen current dissapointments.
Not just hope, but in Buddhism it is definitely possible (as I know from experience) to experience actualization in the here and now.
Awakening/enlightenment in the here and now.
Liberation from sufferings and all afflictions, peace, wisdom, clarity, in the here and now.
Originally posted by allkosong:Hi sinweiy,
Have you achieved/experienced anatta and sunyata? What does it feel like? How do you know if you have experienced it?
Has anyone here experienced them? Care to share?
You can find Thusness (but he seldom posts) and Simpo_ who speak from deep experiential realization. I'm still learning but I do keep an e-journal: Click Here (Regularly Updated)
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:I am worried that i am not practising/meditating enough sometimes. Do you have a personal gauge?
Just try your best, best is to at least have 30 minutes to 1 hour everyday to sit. Then if you really have time to sit, you can sit a little longer.
You can do a sitting in morning and at night if you have time.
In daily life try to practice as well.
Originally posted by allkosong:
Thank you for your reply. Yes, I understand that if I want mango fruits, I have to plant a mango seed to begin with. I guess it is the part where I am not guaranteed mango fruits even when I plant a mango seed due to so many external conditions (which are really beyond my control) which bothers me. Planting a mango seed only ensures that the probability of getting mango fruits is not zero, but then the probability could be just 1 percent with the other 99 percent dependent on external conditions. It is a bit like buying a lottery ticket - the ticket gives you a chance to win the lottery, but the probability of winning is 0.000000001 percent, so why bother?It just seems to me that with so many external factors in life which are beyond our control, what we reap is really quite randomly determined. So does it really matter what we do?
I want to believe in karma but I just haven't come across any explanation/observation/analogy that is sufficiently convincing.
If you have a lot of good karma, a lot of virtuous thoughts and actions such that your entire consciousness is pervaded by virtue, it is very likely that in the immediate next life you will be reborn in the celestial planes of devas.
Many Buddhists have a wrong grasp of kamma and this can lead one further from nibbana. I find Bhante Punnaji's words very wise. The parentheses are my additions.
Svakkhato bhagavata dhammo, Well-expounded is the Exalted One’s Dhamma,
sanditthiko, to be seen by oneself,
akaliko, here and now, not delayed in time,
ehipassiko, (inviting one to) come and see,
opanayiko, leading inward,
paccatam veditabbo to be seen by the wise men
vinnuhi’ti. for themselves.
[Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive about a seer. [seeing without a seer]
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing; he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer. [hearing without a hearer]
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one who senses.Originally posted by allkosong:Hi sinweiy,
Have you achieved/experienced anatta and sunyata? What does it feel like? How do you know if you have experienced it?
Has anyone here experienced them? Care to share?
Hi Allkosong,
The experiences of anatta and sunyata have been mentioned many times on this forum.
Although the concept of thinking beyond your own personal needs and putting others before yourself aka selfless is very good and significant, it is NOT the insight of No-self. This must be clear. The former which is based on compassion can arise before or after or even without any insight of no-self.
The insight of no-self should have the following characteristics:
1. Non-dual. There is no 'self/observer/you' experiencing experiences. There is seeing, but no seer, there is hearing but no hearer, etc.
2. Direct experience of the Deathless. There is a direct experience of 'Presence' that is borderless, all-pervading. In the normal perception, your experience seems to be bounded within the confines of the body via the sensory inputs. In the direct experience of Deathlessness, awareness realise that awareness is never confined by any limited vehicle... This give one the unshakeable conviction that death is an illusion. However, the Presence can be very easily misconstrued as God, I AM Presence or Eternal Watcher. Only in Buddhism is the true characteristic of Deathless clearly spelled out. In fact, I experienced the Presence long before i had real insight into the no-self and non-dual characteristics... and thus got mistaken and unable to progress for quite a while.
IMO, this Presence can be experienced via 2 'methods' :
1. Single-point meditation focusing on breathe. This leads to an absorption. This way, which was first experienced by me can lead to a wrong assumption of its characteristic... unless one is being guided by an experienced Teacher.
2. Natural release of grasping and attachment due to dropping away of 'self'. This one often is also accompanied by bliss. This is the way the Enlightened experience it, IMO
Originally posted by simpo_:Hi Allkosong,
The experiences of anatta and sunyata have been mentioned many times on this forum.
Although the concept of thinking beyond your own personal needs and putting others before yourself aka selfless is very good and significant, it is NOT the insight of No-self. This must be clear. The former which is based on compassion can arise before or after or even without any insight of no-self.
The insight of no-self should have the following characteristics:
1. Non-dual. There is no 'self/observer/you' experiencing experiences. There is seeing, but no seer, there is hearing but no hearer, etc.
2. Direct experience of the Deathless. There is a direct experience of 'Presence' that is borderless, all-pervading. In the normal perception, your experience seems to be bounded within the confines of the body via the sensory inputs. In the direct experience of Deathlessness, awareness realise that awareness is never confined by any limited vehicle... This give one the unshakeable conviction that death is an illusion. However, the Presence can be very easily misconstrued as God, I AM Presence or Eternal Watcher. Only in Buddhism is the true characteristic of Deathless clearly spelled out. In fact, I experienced the Presence long before i had real insight into the no-self and non-dual characteristics... and thus got mistaken and unable to progress for quite a while.
IMO, this Presence can be experienced via 2 'methods' :
1. Single-point meditation focusing on breathe. This leads to an absorption. This way, which was first experienced by me can lead to a wrong assumption of its characteristic... unless one is being guided by an experienced Teacher.
2. Natural release of grasping and attachment due to dropping away of 'self'. This one often is also accompanied by bliss. This is the way the Enlightened experience it, IMO
Hi Simpo, thanks for sharing the 2 methods above. I've lately been exploring Awareness (Presence) teachings.
Some say to take many moments out of a day to simply rest in Awareness, and that formal meditation is actually not conducive to realising Awareness. According to these proponents (mainly modern Non-Duality teachers), it's because striving in meditation leads to mistaking that there is something to work towards; when actually, Awareness is already ever present.
There are also Mahamudra teachings that talk about sitting in a sort of meditation where one rests in naturalness, giving no thought to past or future, adding nothing to the experience, and neither altering the experience.
Yesterday, I also came across these instructions by Jack Kornfield:
"From this broad perspective, when we sit or walk in meditation, we open our attention like space, letting experiences arise without any boundaries, without inside or outside. Instead of the ordinary orientation where our mind is felt to be inside our head, we can let go and experience the mind's awareness as open, boundless and vast. We allow awareness to experience consciousness that is not entangled in the particular conditions of sight, sound and feelings, but consciousness that is independent of changing conditions—the unconditioned. Ajahn Jumnien, a Thai forest elder, speaks of this form of practice as Maha Vipassana, resting in pure awareness itself, timeless and unborn. For the meditator, this is not an ideal or a distant experience. It is always immediate, ever present, liberating; it becomes the resting place of the wise heart." ~Jack Kornfield
Which method is, in your opinion, more conducive to recognising and realising this Awareness/Presence?
Await your sharing :)
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I don't say 'affirms existence', since 'existence', 'non-existence', both and neither don't apply to Anatta and Shunyata
It is like a mirage, shunyata does not affirm anything, but negates the inherent existence of the mirage so that you realize that while appearing vividly it is completely illusory, coreless and substanceless.
"The great 11th Nyingma scholar Rongzom points out that only Madhyamaka accepts that its critical methodology "harms itself", meaning that Madhyamaka uses non-affirming negations to reject the positions of opponents, but does not resort to affirming negations to support a position of its own. Since Madhyamaka, as Buddhapalita states "does not propose the non-existence of existents, but instead rejects claims for the existence of existents", there is no true Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be formulated; likewise there is no false Madhyamaka position since there is no existent found about which a Madhyamaka position could be rejected."
Oh but one more thing: luminous clarity is not rejected, but it is not affirmed either, since luminous clarity, the vivid awareness, the display itself cannot be denied, but neither can be affirmed as 'it is' or 'it is not'. Luminous clarity is also empty of inherent existence and is not other than the entire display itself.
i can understand such negation of neither this nor that. but it's also best to be careful of nihilism for starters. a beginner reading not this not that can easily lead to nihilism(formless realm). they need to go through the steps. perhaps u'd like to differentiate?
Originally posted by sinweiy:i can understand such negation of neither this nor that. but it's also best to be careful of nihilism for starters. a beginner reading not this not that can easily lead to nihilism(formless realm). they need to go through the steps. perhaps u'd like to differentiate?
I am more confused than ever. What should I do? Is it possible to practise (precepts, meditation and chanting) without understanding any of these profound concepts (anatta, sunyata, kharma, rebirth)? Kindly advise.
Originally posted by allkosong:I am more confused than ever. What should I do? Is it possible to practise (precepts, meditation and chanting) without understanding any of these profound concepts (anatta, sunyata, kharma, rebirth)? Kindly advise.
stick to the practices of meditation and precepts.
there's no need to understand these teachings at this point in time, they will unravel along the way.
Originally posted by realization:Hi Simpo, thanks for sharing the 2 methods above. I've lately been exploring Awareness (Presence) teachings.
Some say to take many moments out of a day to simply rest in Awareness, and that formal meditation is actually not conducive to realising Awareness. According to these proponents (mainly modern Non-Duality teachers), it's because striving in meditation leads to mistaking that there is something to work towards; when actually, Awareness is already ever present.
There are also Mahamudra teachings that talk about sitting in a sort of meditation where one rests in naturalness, giving no thought to past or future, adding nothing to the experience, and neither altering the experience.
Yesterday, I also came across these instructions by Jack Kornfield:
Which method is, in your opinion, more conducive to recognising and realising this Awareness/Presence?
Await your sharing :)
Hi Realization,
If possible going for short Vipassana course can be quite helpful.
I think both sit-down meditation and 'waking hour noting of the mind' can be helpful. Vipassana course often have both sit-down meditation and walking meditation.
The key point is consistency of practice.
The other way that Presence can be felt is when one is undergoing high level of stress/suffering. During high stress, tell yourself to let go and not be caught up by the problem. The actual letting go.. often occurs when one is not actively doing it.... at this point the awareness/presence may be experienced. I am not going to talk too much... not too beneficial.
Do keep us posted. :)
Originally posted by allkosong:I am more confused than ever. What should I do? Is it possible to practise (precepts, meditation and chanting) without understanding any of these profound concepts (anatta, sunyata, kharma, rebirth)? Kindly advise.
I think Sinweiy was simply warning about not jumping in at the deep end of the pool.
So long as we can conceptually understand what is taught in a "Basics of Buddhism" type of book where these topics are covered, it's good enough. As we practise to gain direct knowledge, we will no doubt be revisiting these teachings for deeper clarification and for strengthening Right View.
Originally posted by simpo_:Hi Realization,
If possible going for short Vipassana course can be quite helpful.
I think both sit-down meditation and 'waking hour noting of the mind' can be helpful. Vipassana course often have both sit-down meditation and walking meditation.
The key point is consistency of practice.
The other way that Presence can be felt is when one is undergoing high level of stress/suffering. During high stress, tell yourself to let go and not be caught up by the problem. The actual letting go.. often occurs when one is not doing actively doing it.... at this point the awareness/presence may be experienced. I am not going to talk too much... not too beneficial.
Do keep us posted. :)
Thanks for the advice!
Personally, sitting 30 mins to 1 hour of meditation everyday can be helpful nonetheless since it builds a foundation of tranquility. Without that foundation it is difficult to gain realization or even 'rest as Awareness'. Of course, it is true that 'resting as awareness' is not and cannot be confined to sitting periods but is an everyday living thing.
Genuine question from someone who is almost completely ignorant about Buddhism: Even if (big if) there is such a thing as reincarnation, why should I care about karma?
My next life, if any, will be completely unknown to me. The person (or thing) in my next life will be as good as a stranger to me.
So hypothetically, if I am given the opportunity to steal or rob and never get caught, why should the concept of karma even impact my decision?
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:Genuine question from someone who is almost completely ignorant about Buddhism: Even if (big if) there is such a thing as reincarnation, why should I care about karma?
My next life, if any, will be completely unknown to me. The person (or thing) in my next life will be as good as a stranger to me.
So hypothetically, if I am given the opportunity to steal or rob and never get caught, why should the concept of karma even impact my decision?
You see, there is not even a 'you' right now. Even if you can remember things, those are transient causally arisen memories/bubble-like metal imagery and phenomena that don't stay - like a lightning strike. This is the truth of Anatta - no self.
Since there is no 'you' that can be pinned down even now, you cannot say there will be a 'different you' next life.
You think that you have a 'you' right now... and that the next moment 'you' are still the same, a 'you' that remains until you die, and then maybe another 'you' is created. This is false. So the notion to benefit the this-life-self and heck care about the next-life-self is baseless and based on an illusion (that there is a self).
In actuality there is just mental and physical sensations arising and subsiding moment by moment.... no unchanging you. There is no you... in the same way there is no such thing as 'a weather', the word 'weather' is merely a label for a vast conglomerate of phenomena changing moment by moment... not a thing or an entity.
And yet, that doesn't mean we should prevent foolish things that cause suffering in a future moment (maybe tomorrow, next week, next year, or next life). There is this tendency to incline towards end of suffering, rather than suffering... and the 'I' notion is not necessary for this. Anyone sensible will seek an end to suffering rather than continual suffering.
For even if there is no 'you', thoughts, speech and actions done in this moment still can lead to a causal reaction or effect in another day or time. Sensible people will know not to rob the bank to get caught the next day, sensible people will know the importance to quit smoking if they want to live a healthy life, etc. Therefore it is for this reason you watch your behaviour in this moment. The effect in next day, next month, or next life, is not the same as this moment, nor different from this moment - they are causally related but not in terms of an unchanging self (there isn't).
But conventionally speaking (which presumes the concepts of self), you are the owner of your deeds and reaper of your karma: no one else, since your karma doesn't ripen in someone elses's mindstream, and someone elses's karma doesn't ripen in yours. Ultimately speaking: deeds are done, no doer, and karmic action and consequences roll on without doer and recipient.
p.s. you can remember your past life through meditation, it is not that memories are forever gone, just not accessible at the moment.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You see, there is not even a 'you' right now. Even if you can remember things, those are transient causally arisen memories that don't stay - like a lightning strike. This is the truth of Anatta - no self.
Since there is no 'you' that can be pinned down even now, you cannot say there will be a 'different you' next life.
You think that you have a 'you' right now... and that the next moment 'you' are still the same, a 'you' that remains until you die, and then maybe another 'you' is created. This is false. There is just mental and physical sensations arising and subsiding moment by moment.... no unchanging you. There is no you... in the same way there is no such thing as 'a weather', the word 'weather' is merely a label for a vast conglomerate of phenomena changing moment by moment.
And yet, that doesn't mean we should prevent foolish things that cause suffering in a future moment (maybe tomorrow, next week, next year, or next life). There is this tendency to incline towards end of suffering, rather than suffering... and the 'I' notion is not necessary for this.
p.s. you can remember your past life through meditation, it is not that memories are forever gone, just not accessible at the moment.
The thing about this forum is that it's like everyone talks in riddles. :)
So are you saying that my existence is a continuous chain comprising of multiple links, and my current consciousness is only one of these links -- it only makes sense in the context of the entire chain?
Or are you saying that we are tiny parts of of a massive ecosystem (like the concept of Gaia)?
Either way, decisions are made on an individual level, as individuals.
Even if you can remember your past life through meditation -- a claim I'm innately suspicious about -- you cannot "experience" your future life. In other words, that future life is still someone or something else, for all intents and purposes. Why should I care about him/it?
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:The thing about this forum is that it's like everyone talks in riddles. :)
So are you saying that my existence is a continuous chain comprising of multiple links, and my current consciousness is only one of these links -- it only makes sense in the context of the entire chain?
Or are you saying that we are tiny parts of of a massive ecosystem (like the concept of Gaia)?Either way, decisions are made on an individual level, as individuals.
Even if you can remember your past life through meditation -- a claim I'm innately suspicious about -- you cannot "experience" your future life. In other words, that future life is still someone or something else, for all intents and purposes. Why should I care about him/it?
I'm saying there is no self even now (this life), so how can there be a different self in the future (next life). So the notion to benefit the this-life-self and heck care about the next-life-self is baseless and based on an illusion (that there is a self).
There is no such thing as 'a self'.. there is only ever-changing, mental and physical sensations arising and subsiding moment by moment. Rather than 'self' it is more like 'self1, self2, self3, self4,' etc arising and subsiding moment by moment.
Like you try to locate a thing called weather - cannot be found. 'Weather' is just a human created label for a conglomerate of everchanging rain, cloud formations, wind, lightning, etc
And 'human being' is also just a label collating a conglomerate of everchanging mental and physical sensations and manifestations. There is no real self.
The basis of watching your action is that since actions lead to causal reaction, sensible people are inclined towards end of suffering rather than more suffering, so you don't do things that create more suffering in the future. The notion of an "I" is not necessary.
Since every action is done for a future reaction (notice that the notion of an 'I' is not necessary - you don't need to think in terms of benefitting a 'self', but in terms of the wholesome/unwholesome action that can result from it), might as well make it for a good future reaction. But even better is to be liberated, then you no longer make karmic causes for future rebirths, but that is at a higher level. For people not liberated, we should seek liberation, and watch our thoughts, speech and actions so that they produce wholesome results rather than unwholesome ones.