Originally posted by Short Ninja:

Let me tell you if you want to talk about 'the situation now'.Jews and Muslims are starting to eat pork .We bend one rule too many and the next thing you wake up being an atheist.

Actually, it's not compulsory for Buddhists to be vegetarian. I still eat meat.

Originally posted by Rick555:

First I would like to say that I admire you for your willingness to quit your job for a retreat.  As a buddhist, I would think that it is very important to go for a good retreat, esp. one which is probably going to be the last.  Moreover, everything in life is actually pre-destined.  Whether you can get a job in the future is already pre-determined.  How much you're going to earn, who you are going to meet etc have already been decided.

However, as a working adult, I can understand your dilemma.  Also, we should try to make all sentient beings happy, esp. your parents, so don't make them worry too much also.  Follow your heart!

Whatever your decision, after you've made it, leave any regrets behind.  We should always abide by the true Buddhist's way of non-abiding.

I agree with you about whatever your decision, if you made it don't leave any regrets behind.

However, it's not true that everything is pre-destined.

This is the greatest financial crisis we have faced in many generations and perhaps many generations to come.

If you quit your job now it sure ain't easy to get another one.

I heard that Singapore companies are going to start to retrench soon.

If you want to go retreat perhaps you can go for a shorter one.

This is just a suggestion, of course ultimately its your descision.

This is an article I posted at my blog yesterday...

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/

Right View and Spiritual Practices

(Last edit: 12 October 2008)

Spiritual practices come in countless different forms, so what I am covering is limited and general. Also, I have written on the importance of Right View (near the bottom) that is required for the arising of Prajna wisdom, the insight into Emptiness (Stage 6 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience). Much of the following post is based on what Thusness/PasserBy have said.

Self Inquiry

Some practices are very helpful in giving an initial glimpse of Presence. The I AMness can be experienced through practices where the object of concentration is the Self. One of such practices is self-inquiry. This is most widely practiced throughout Advaita Vedanta but also practiced in some some Zen/Ch'an (as Koan practice), Tibetan (Mahamudra and Dzogchen), Theravada (Thai Forest tradition) traditions of Buddhism. Through this practice the practitioner can experience the I AMness (see Stage 1 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience, where Thusness experienced I AMness through the Self-Inquiry of "Before Birth, Who am I?"). It can be a question "Who am I" that leads one to the experience of the subject-object becoming one, i.e. attaining absorption. Till a point the practitioner simply experiences a pure sense of existence. However such mode of experiencing has no understanding of its luminous clarity and its nature as Anatta (Buddhist term for No-Self).

Apart from recommending the practice Vipassana (insight meditation), Thusness sometimes (depending on conditions and the practitioners' inclinations) also recommend the practice of self-inquiry to practitioners (sometimes he would ask them to contemplate on questions such as, “Without using any languages, ‘I’, ‘me’ or any signs or symbols, how is ‘I’ experienced?”). However, this practice does not provide further insights into the non-dual and Empty nature of Presence.

Although having glimpses of this Presence is important, it cannot be misunderstood as the final aim. It cannot even be treated as any sort of arising insight that liberates us from suffering. It's nature tends to be misunderstood, and hence appears to the practitioner as a void/formless background witness, an Eternal Witness, or a Self/Atman. It's nature as No-Self and Emptiness (not 'Void', but as Dependent Origination) isn't realised.

(Related: Also see a good youtube video by Vishrant on the downside of self inquiry -- Satsang with Vishrant self inquiry. He too implied that Self-Inquiry can lead to the I AM experience (he calls it awareness turning on itself) but that realisation/experience of "awareness aware of itself is really only the beginning, it is not the end, it is only the first day in kindergarten". Yes, of course, because that is only Stage 1 of Thusness's Six Stages of Experience. He also talks of the downside of Self-Inquiry as potentially being misused into avoiding painful/unpleasant experiences by turning awareness upon itself and avoid/escape everything, and also on the 'technique' he prefer -- the 'surrendering to/allowing' whatever appearing, and thus dissolving the self.)

Dropping/Dissolving and Mindfulness/Naked Awareness/Bare Attention

The key point about the practice of mindful awareness (see Chapter 13: Mindfulness (Sati) of 'Mindfulness In Plain English' by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, on the practice of Mindfulness and its relation to Vipassana/Insight Meditation) is there is no keeping of the mind on anything (including on the I AM as in the case of self inquiry) and by not resting on anything, it fuses into everything; therefore it cannot be concentrated; rather it is to relax into nothingness empty of self, empty of any artificial doing so that the natural luminosity can take its own course. There is no focusing, there is only allowing the mirror bright clarity to shine with its natural radiance. In essence there is no one there, only the phenomenon arising and ceasing according to conditions, telling their stories.

As Longchen/Simpo wrote, "No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping." (The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality)

So, drop and dissolve away into vivid non-dual luminosity. Dissolve completely and arise as the scenery, sound, taste, smell, thoughts, touch sensations.

The ultimate purpose of dropping is to allow non-dual experience to arise.

There are certain types of people who advocate on the uselessness of practice (particularly the Neo-Advaitins), and that asking people to 'do practices' simply strengthens their sense of self. However, what is being spoken here is essentially not a 'doing'. It can more accurately be known as a 'non-doing'.

Nothing needs to be done here, as every single moment is it, and so there is no striving towards a 'better state' -- every state is equally pure, equally the expression of Buddha-Nature. This is It! Hence, as Longchen/Simpo wrote,

...However, there can be no progressing from a dualistic state into a non-dual state. Every single moment is it! There is no one state better than the rest! Every moment is as it is.

There is absolutely no need to do anything. Even if the efforting or anything arise, let it be! The effort arises automatically too... no-self there too!

By doing nothing, everything arises and passes away on its own accord.

Actually, there cannot be a 'doing nothing'... There can only be 'what is' at any single moment."

Thusness/PasserBy said,

"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising.

(source: Non-dual and karmic patterns)

As mentioned earlier, this is not a form of exercise in concentration or focused attention, but dropping and only Dharma spontaneously arising. (Also see Six Stages of Dropping by Thusness)

Awareness or Buddha-Nature is not the same as focused attention or concentration. Awareness is effortlessly happening right now, whether you like it or not, and whether you are paying attention or not. When causes and conditions is, manifestation is, when manifestation is, Awareness is. Naturally, sounds are effortlessly being heard, smells are effortlessly being smelled, even if the smell or sound is unpleasant and you try to avoid it, it's being awared. While paying attention to the breath, something still hears sounds. That is Buddha-Nature. It is the sum of all our parts, that which sees, hears, feels and tastes all at once as One Reality. Before you think that this awareness is a 'thing' -- a Mirror or a Witness, it's not separate -- it's just sound hearing, scenery seeing, it's not a something tangible (a Mirror or a Witness) yet is vividly manifesting.

So as Toni Packer said, "There is no need for awareness to turn anywhere. It's here! Everything is here in awareness! When there is a waking up from fantasy, there is no one who does it. Awareness and the sound of a plane are here with no one in the middle trying to "do" them or bring them together. They are here together! The only thing that keeps things (and people) apart is the "me"-circuit with its separative thinking. When that is quiet, divisions do not exist."

Joan Tollifson ("student" of Toni), "This open being is not something to be practiced methodically. Toni points out that it takes no effort to hear the sounds in the room; it's all here. There's no "me" (and no problem) until thought comes in and says: "Am I doing it right? Is this 'Awareness'? Am I enlightened?" Suddenly the spaciousness is gone—the mind is occupied with a story and the emotions it generates."

Also very helpful in the practice of mindful awareness is to contemplate (means, to experience in direct awareness) on certain pointers and instructions that the Buddha gave. For example, one can meditate based on the Bahiya Sutta (see The Buddha on Non-Duality),

In seeing, there is only the seen,
In hearing, there is only sound,
In sensing, there is only sensation,
In thinking, there is only thought

By contemplating as such, insight into Anatta (No-Self) can arise. What should be noted also is that whatever said is really “already is”. In seeing, there is always only the seen. In hearing there is always only the sound. Never was there a seer or hearer. All “already is”. Anatta is not just a non-dual experience, it must be regarded as a dharma seal, the ever-present nature of reality. That all along the dichotomy of a observer and observed duality is an illusion created by due to our deeply rooted inherent and dualistic tendency of seeing things.

From the comments section in Thusness's Six Stages of Experience,

...If a practitioner were to feel that he has gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’ or takes that ‘there is just mere sound’, then this experience is again distorted. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so...

....This is the seal of no-self and can be realized and experienced in all moments; not just a mere concept...

Next, in thinking, only thought: but what is thought? In your direct awareness you can notice that it is a kind of phenomena just like sound, sight, etc, but a different kind of phenomena. In Buddhism, there are 6 senses instead of the commonly accepted 5 senses within Science. Everything is the same, except that we include 'mind' in it. Thought is not seen with eyes, it is not heard with ears, yet the thought is undeniably present when it arises. Images are recalled, mental reasoning arises, relating, pondering, mental images and words appearing and then disappearing and then another appearing. But what is more important is that it is a 'knowing' or 'luminous' phenomenon. All along the transience rolls and knows; no watcher is real or needed. This thought, and another thought, and another thought, each thought is a complete and luminous manifestation of Buddha-Nature.

If we fail to see that each thought is a self-luminous/'knowing' manifestation, the tendency is to push, to relate to a 'center', a Self, a source, a background Knower/Witness, a void and limitless container. We think that Buddha Nature is not a thought, it is not the transience, it is the invisible Witness of thoughts, the void background wherein thoughts arise from and return to, itself unchanging. And that is a mistake. When we fail to see that there is no separation, we choose to stay as a Witness/Source, not realising All Appearances are the equally the Source/Witness, there is nothing to choose. So this 'practice' is really about 'choiceless awareness'.

See: Choiceless Awareness and Non-Fixation by Aaron

Choiceless awareness means to rest in whatever is present, understanding the conditioned nature of its arising and that whatever has arisen is an expression of the pure heart/mind, an expression of God. Seeing that, you cease to take a dual stance against that which has arisen, but let it point you back into the ground of your being, the divine core. Here equanimity is present, equanimity with arising, neither grasping or pushing away. For this "choiceless awareness" to be truly choiceless, everything that arises must be seen as divine play, divine expression. No exceptions. The difficulty is that you do make exceptions, taking stance against that which you judge as "other-than," the fear, anger, desire. Even this "other-than" judgment is not what fogs in your peace. Delusion grows from the belief that this arising thought is true and from the contractions that form about it.

When we know our nature as empty-luminosity, we'll see all as "ME". The "I AM" is not more "ME" than a passing thought, a passing sound, a moment of sensation when the feet touches the ground. There is no Self apart from phenomena arising and passing.

So one must feel the difference between "In thinking just thought" and the "Eternal Witness" -- the "Eternal Witness" is just a tendency to relate back and sink to a source and refuse to 'see' what is. Every arising of a thought carries with it deeply rooted imprints that 'blinds'.

Yet not only must the non-dual (no subject-object, no thinker/thought division) luminosity be experienced, it must also be experienced that each thought is unsupported, discrete and complete yet... and hence there is no chaining of one thought to another. Same goes to sight, sound, taste, smell, touch sensations. Hence Bahiya Sutta is deeply profound.

See The Mystique of Enlightenment (Part Two) by U.G. Krishnamurti: http://www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq2.htm

Is there in you an entity which you call the 'I' or the 'mind' or the 'self'? Is there a co- ordinator who is co-ordinating what you are looking at with what you are listening to, what you are smelling with what you are tasting, and so on? Or is there anything which links together the various sensations originating from a single sense -- the flow of impulses from the eyes, for example? Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The co-ordinator bridges that gap: he establishes himself as an illusion of continuity.

In the natural state there is no entity who is co-ordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. When there is a demand from outside which makes it necessary to co-ordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no co-ordinator, but there is a temporary state of co- ordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the unco-ordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the continuity is blown apart -- not that it was ever there; but the illusory continuity -- it's finished once and for all.

..............

 

Your movement of thought interferes with the process of touch, just as it does with the other senses. Anything you touch is always translated as 'hard', 'soft', 'warm', 'cold', 'wet', 'dry', and so on.

You do not realize it, but it is your thinking that creates your own body. Without this thought process there is no body consciousness -- which is to say there is no body at all. My body exists for other people; it does not exist for me; there are only isolated points of contact, impulses of touch which are not tied together by thought. So the body is not different from the objects around it; it is a set of sensations like any others. Your body does not belong to you.

Perhaps I can give you the 'feel' of this. I sleep four hours at night, no matter what time I go to bed. Then I lie in bed until morning fully awake. I don't know what is lying there in the bed; I don't know whether I'm lying on my left side or my right side -- for hours and hours I lie like this. If there is any noise outside -- a bird or something -- it just echoes in me. I listen to the "flub-dub-flub-dub" of my heart and don't know what it is. There is no body between the two sheets -- the form of the body is not there. If the question is asked, "What is in there?" there is only an awareness of the points of contact, where the body is in contact with the bed and the sheets, and where it is in contact with itself, at the crossing of the legs, for example. There are only the sensations of touch from these points of contact, and the rest of the body is not there. There is some kind of heaviness, probably the gravitational pull, something very vague. There is nothing inside which links up these things. Even if the eyes are open and looking at the whole body, there are still only the points of contact, and they have no connection with what I am looking at. If I want to try to link up these points of contact into the shape of my own body, probably I will succeed, but by the time it is completed the body is back in the same situation of different points of contact. The linkage cannot stay. It is the same sort of thing when I'm sitting or standing. There is no body.

Can you tell me how mango juice tastes? I can't. You also cannot; but you try to relive the memory of mango juice now -- you create for yourself some kind of an experience of how it tastes -- which I cannot do. I must have mango juice on my tongue -- seeing or smelling it is not enough -- in order to be able to bring that past knowledge into operation and to say "Yes, this is what mango juice tastes like." This does not mean that personal preferences and 'tastes' change. In a market my hand automatically reaches out for the same items that I have liked all my life. But because I cannot conjure up a mental experience, there can be no craving for foods which are not there.

Smell plays a greater part in your daily life than does taste. The olfactory organs are constantly open to odors. But if you do not interfere with the sense of smell, what is there is only an irritation in the nose. It makes no difference whether you are smelling cow dung or an expensive French perfume -- you rub the nose and move on.

..............

You have a feeling that there is a 'cameraman' who is directing the eyes. But left to themselves -- when there is no 'cameraman' -- the eyes do not linger, but are moving all the time. They are drawn by the things outside. Movement attracts them, or brightness or a color which stands out from whatever is around it. There is no 'I' looking; mountains, flowers, trees, cows, all look at me. The consciousness is like a mirror, reflecting whatever is there outside. The depth, the distance, the color, everything is there, but there is nobody who is translating these things. Unless there is a demand for knowledge about what I am looking at, there is no separation, no distance from what is there. It may not actually be possible to count the hairs on the head of someone sitting across the room, but there is a kind of clarity which seems as if I could.

Also one can contemplate on the pointing out instructions by Guru Padmasambhava wrote in Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness,

7.Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:

Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.

Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.

And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything, awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.

And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),

Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;

only a naked manifest awareness is present.

(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.

It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.

It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.

However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.

It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.

(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.

This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.

This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.

Tejananda (a current Buddhist teacher) wrote:

(Excerpt from http://tejanandajohnwakeman.googlepages.com/pureawareness -- a good and recommended article on 'Pure Awareness', also see some comments by Thusness/Passerby on this article here: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/331569)

Padmasambhava says ‘there is only this pure observing’ – in other words ‘in the seen there is just the seen, in the heard there is just the heard, in the sensed there is just the sensed, in the cognised there is just the cognised’. There is nothing added, nothing extra – just what is sensed by any of the six senses in this instant. No added concepts about it.

So he continues ‘there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer’. There is a clear cognition of whatever is arising to the sense fields, but no sense of a ‘me’ who is ‘having’ this ‘experience’. In the seen there is just the seen’ – not the seen plus you seeing it! Only a naked manifest awareness is present. There is just awareness, ‘naked’ (devoid) of any ‘egoing’. That’s all there is.

Right View

Right View is indispensible in Buddhism, it is the 1st of the 8 fold path. And that view essentially, is Emptiness/Dependent Origination.

In Buddhism, the path (naked awareness of everything as it is) alone cannot lead to fruition (liberation), having right view (Emptiness) is necessary and crucial. That is, only through having the right view with the right practices (path) then fruition of liberation can arise.

Even after the arising of non-dual insight, there is a period of desync between what is experienced and the existing paradigm we used to orientate the world. It is a de-synchronization between views and meditative experience. That is, a practitioner will find great difficulties when trying to express the experience based on a subject/object dichotomy. It can be quite frustrating and the practitioner may get himself confused during the process.

In Buddhism there is a complete system of thought to orientate ourselves non-dually, that is, the viewless-view of Emptiness. It is a raft but it is the antidote for the conventional mind to orientate itself in a non-dual and non-local context. It also led to the amazing insight that ‘duality’ is really the result of seeing and taking things ‘inherently’.

In the practice of non-conceptuality, the firm establishment of right view is not a problem.
In the practice of thoughtlessness, thought is not a problem.
In the practice of selflessness, self is not a problem.

Experiences of our non-dual nature can still surface intermittently even when the tendency to see things dualistically is still strong. At times when the layer that divides is temporary suspended, non-dual is most vivid and clear and practitioners may wrongly conclude that ‘concepts’ are the problem because the presence of ‘concepts’ divides and prevent the non-dual experience. This seems logical and reasonable only to a mind that is deeply root in a subject/object dichotomy. Very quickly ‘non-conceptuality’ becomes an object of practice. The process of objectification is the result of the tendency in action perpetually repeating itself taking different forms like an endless loop. This can continue to the extent that a practitioner can even ‘fear’ to establish concepts without knowing it. On the other hand, the continuous enquiry can also lead an inquirer into a situation of utter confusion to the extent that he/she doubts even his/her own existence.

It is not uncommon to find practitioners totally giving up this attempt to synchronize "views" and experience and conclude that it is an absolute futile endeavor to do that. They prefer to rest fully in naked awareness.

By doing so, the practitioner will miss something valuable -- the insight of the importance of "non inherent existence".

In fact, dualistic view is merely a subset of seeing things 'inherently'. Further understanding will also reveal that the bad habit of 'searching' is the result of seeing things 'inherently'. Our inability to sustain a non-dual experience is also the result of it. The formation of a 'center' that we are so unwilling to give up is merely a natural phenomenon of our deeply held 'inherent' views.

Like a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front of an observer, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an attribute of the mind... and in Buddhism we recognise that there are other realms' beings who can see something completely different. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena. They are empty of any inherent objective existence in a 'really-out-there' kind of way.

As you've seen, there is no ‘The Flowerness’ seen by a dog, an insect or us, or beings from other realms (which really may have a completely different mode of perception). ‘'The Flowerness' is an illusion that does not stay even for a moment, merely an aggregate of causes and conditions. Analogous to the example of ‘flowerness’, there is no ‘selfness’ serving as a background witnessing either -- pristine awareness is not the witnessing background. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This is the way of ‘seeing’ the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attributelessness of our nature. But this does not mean that awareness is void or nothing, it is full of forms, full of colours, as Emptiness is Form... just empty of 'inherent existence'. So Emptiness, in Buddhism, strictly means Dependent Arising.

There is something well written related to this topic:

http://www.nichirenscoffeehouse.net/dharmajim/DharmaView.html

<!--QuoteEBegin-->...Apophaticism rests on the idea that ultimate nature is somewhere else, than the realm in which we live. Utterly removed from, and different from, the realm of experience, ultimacy can then only be accessed through a step by step process which disengages me from this realm in which I dwell. In other words, apophaticism and mysticism are dualistic, creating a division in existence, minimally between the conceptual and ultimacy, and in extreme cases between ultimacy and everything which I experience.

My understanding of the Dharma does not regard the realm in which I dwell as removed from the ultimate nature of Interdependent Transformation. Ultimacy does not exist somewhere else. It is not a matter of contacting some other domain in order to access ultimacy. Rather it is a matter of shifting our attention so that I can perceive and comprehend the actuality of things. From this perspective, my understanding of existence is misconstrued and my perception of things is askew. The purpose of Dharma study and practice is to correct these misunderstandings, both conceptually and perceptually, to overcome ignorance and the habits that give rise to this ignorance. When that is done, the ultimate nature of all existing things and existence itself, stands forth as the Interdependent Transformation nature which permeates all of existence, unlocated, ever present, never far.

I realize that this way of comprehending the Dharma sets me at odds with those traditions which regard the ultimate nature of existence, Buddha Nature, Nirvana, as something which can not be accessed through study and thinking. I can only say that at one time I agreed with this view, but that my undersanding has now moved to a view which encompasses thought, conceptuality, study, and thinking within the domain of ultimacy without ejecting anything else from that domain. To set thought aside, from the perspective of Interdependent Transformation, makes no more sense than asking someone to set aside hearing, or to set aside seeing. Just as all visual phenomena have the nature of Interdependent Transformation, just as all sonic phenomena have the nature of Interdependent Transformation, so also all thoughts, all concepts, also have the nature of Interdependent Transformation. For this reason rejecting thoughts and concepts means limiting the extent of the play of ultimate nature. But Buddha Nautre as Interdependent Transformation marks all existing things. Marking all existing things, this nature marks all thoughts. Marking all thoughts and concepts, thoughts and concepts, when comprehended in their totality, and as Interdependent Transformations, graciously display the true nature of all existing things. Words also have a luminously clear nature. Thoughts also sparkle with elemental transformative energy. Concepts also shimmer with the ever flowing and present energy of all things. Rejecting nothing, the words of the Dharma compassionately guide me to ultimate realization...

Because liberation is empty of the four extremes (existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence), it is difficult to see. It is better and safer to practice with the firm establishment of right view as taught by Buddha. When we practice, the path of practice should be non-conceptual whether in bare attention or surrendering or dropping. When we have certain direct and transcendental experience, the experience must be validated with the right view. If both views and practices coincide and liberation is experienced from moment to moment, the holding of ‘right view’ will naturally dissolve in its own accord as it is fully authenticated in real time from moment to moment.

When the view and experience are harmonized, the practitioner can progress further. He rests neither in concepts nor non-conceptuality.

Of course, having the right view without right practice will also not bear fruit and simply remains an intellectual view/understanding. Right view (1st of the 8 Fold Path), right practice (remaining 7 of the 8 Fold Path), then fruition.

(Also see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/02/thusnesss-reply-to-longchen-at.html)

I see... Thanks for the clarification :)

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

 

Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma said,

 

Only the wise knows mind, this mind call nature, this mind called liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this mind. Nothing can. It’s also called the Unstoppable Tathagata," the Incomprehensible, the Sacred Self, the Immortal, the Great Sage. Its names vary but not its essence. Buddhas vary too, but none leaves his own mind. The mind’s capacity is limitless, and its manifestations are inexhaustible. Seeing forms with your eyes, hearing sounds with your ears, smelling odors with your nose, tasting flavors with your tongue, every movement or state is your entire mind. At every moment, where language can’t go, that’s your mind.

若智慧明了，此心号名法性，亦名解脱。生死不拘，一切法拘它不得，是名大自在王如来；亦名不思议，亦名圣体，亦名长生不死，亦名大仙。名虽不同，体即是一。

   圣人种种分别，皆不离自心。心量广大，应用无穷，应眼见色，应耳闻声，应鼻嗅香，应舌知味，乃至施为运动，皆是自心。一切时中但有语言道断，即是自心。

After some discussion with Thusness, there should be some corrections with the above translation I've gotten from the internet:

若智慧明了，此心号名法性，亦名解脱。

A better way to translate this should be:

With the illumination of wisdom (prajna), mind is known as Dharma Nature, mind is known as Liberation.

-----

comments: It is important to know that mind is itself liberation.  That is why knowing the nature of our mind is the way of liberation.  If Liberation is not experienced, then the clarity is still not there.  There is no true understanding of what mind is.
-----

应眼见色，应耳闻声，应鼻嗅香，应舌知味，乃至施为运动，皆是自心。

A better way to translate should be:

With the condition of the eye, forms are seen, With the condition of ears, sounds are heard, With the condition of nose, smells are smelled, With the condition of tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or states are all one's Mind.

-----

comments:

Although Advaita Vedanta spoke of Awareness, awareness is not the transience (thoughts, sound...etc) But here there are 2 important points to take note. First is that Buddha Nature is the transience. Second it is more of '应'. Means with the condition of the eye, forms arise.  With ears, sound arises.

Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting but rather a manifesation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.

One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

Conventionally we experience in the form of subject and object interaction taking place in a space-time continuum. This is just an assumption. Experientially it is not so. One should learn to experience awareness as the manifestation. There is no subject, there is only and always manifestation, all else are conditions of arising. All these are just provisional explanations for one to understand.

After one have intuitive experience of anatta (no-self), one should give up all views and conceptual and enter into direct vivid experiences. Before that, right view is important. After the experience of anatta, do not dwell too deeply into conceptual views, it will only serve as a disservice.

Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma said,

Only the wise knows mind, this mind call nature, this mind called liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this mind. Nothing can. It’s also called the Unstoppable Tathagata," the Incomprehensible, the Sacred Self, the Immortal, the Great Sage. Its names vary but not its essence. Buddhas vary too, but none leaves his own mind. The mind’s capacity is limitless, and its manifestations are inexhaustible. Seeing forms with your eyes, hearing sounds with your ears, smelling odors with your nose, tasting flavors with your tongue, every movement or state is your entire mind. At every moment, where language can’t go, that’s your mind.

若智慧明了，此心号名法性，亦名解脱。生死不拘，一切法拘它不得，是名大自在王如来；亦名不思议，亦名圣体，亦名长生不死，亦名大仙。名虽不同，体即是一。

   圣人种种分别，皆不离自心。心量广大，应用无穷，应眼见色，应耳闻声，应鼻嗅香，应舌知味，乃至施为运动，皆是自心。一切时中但有语言道断，即是自心。

.

.

.

Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it’s not Zen.

佛是自心，莫错礼拜。佛是西国语，此土云觉性。觉者灵觉，应机接物，扬眉瞬目，运手动足，皆是自己灵觉之性。性即是心，心即是佛，佛即是道，道即是禅。禅之一字，非凡圣所测。又云：见本性为禅。若不见本性，即非禅也。

Originally posted by rokkie:

you know that's why to continue this topic,it's so obvious what's the meaning of this sentence,即心是土，即土是心，即心成佛。如是虽未生净土，已如生净土。 means mind is land, land is mind, mind is buddha,

Maybe i have a wrong understand

 

Pure Mind, the Buddha Mind , i don't know what's the pure mind, buddha mind means, anyway when people who know chinese, read the line, the first impression, they get is what i said, this is not western philosophy, and theology, not involve of logic, the more you use logic to examine it, the more you confused, just like one guru said,无我相无人相，无众生相，无寿者相，有很强的感应能力，what's he is talking about, he is saying, when the first time you read it, without any conceptulisation you feel you r attracted, and you will resonate with it when you read it, even Huineng cannot read, he can understand, it's called manifestation of alaya conciousness

Mind is Buddha... but what is Buddha?

Thought cannot grasp that. It has to be an intuition... that resonance comes from intuitive awareness, not from the conceptual mind. All concepts are just symbolic definitions, words, language, that we impute on ourselves.

I'm this, I'm that... I'm Singaporean... I'm male... I'm Chinese (race)... I'm of this political view... I'm Buddhist... etc etc

Some are so called 'facts' but they are really just our projected symbolic representations, it is not reality itself.

It is not found in direct experience... 'Singaporean' is not a thing that can be found in our experience, it is just a thought! Ultimately 'I' am not the definitions I project unto myself, I am not what the birth certificate tell me, I am not the definitions I project unto myself.

And these definitions change along with times and circumstances, one day if I migrate to somewhere else, the country tells me I am of a new nationality, I project a new definition, a new view of 'myself'.

But none of these definitions are 'my self' -- they are just thoughts arising in your mind, that can be re defined any moment. It cannot be found in your own direct experience.

Before you knew anything, when you were a baby, before you learnt to define yourself, who are you?

As Thusness said, “Without using any languages, ‘I’, ‘me’ or any signs or symbols, how is ‘I’ experienced?”

What is the I AM before I am this or I am that?

If you can feel the truth intuitively, you are closer to what it is.

No language, no logic, no theory, no philosophy can answer that for you. They just give you new definitions, and all the definitions are your mental projection, they are not who you are.

Let go all of them, let go all thoughts, before all thoughts... and language.... who are you? How is 'I' experienced?

Of all teachings, no teaching is more important then a direct ‘touch’ of our Buddha essence; but of all dangers, none is more dangerous than misinterpreting our essence after the ‘touch’.

The ‘touch’ of the pure sense of existence is often wrongly understood due to our karmic tendencies. Use the doctrine of Anatta and Emptiness as antidote.

Originally posted by rokkie:

即心是土，即土是心，即心成佛。如是虽未生净土，已如生净土。
does this support my point?

No, because you have the wrong understanding of Mind-Only.

You think that "it is actually your thoughts that is important, your perception, they are just perception of what you are thinking".

This is not the Mind-Only that Buddha is talking about. This is the false concepts of philosophers.

The Mind that Buddha is talking about is the Pure Mind, the Buddha Mind. And the purity of Mind pervades all dharma realms: 清净本然，周遍法界

This is the experience of non-duality.

If you realise this Mind, you attain pure vision and see that Mind and Universe are not two, Universe is the manifestation of the Pure Mind. And in seeing that Pure Buddha Mind is all there is, that is as if you are living in pure land.

As Zen Master Han-Shan said,

57. The clearer the body, the brighter one’s Buddha Nature shines. In the beginning, we still need the body. It’s like a lamp. The Buddha Nature is this flame. But we may still be conscious of shadows. As we progress we feel that the body is the universe itself and that our Buddha Self shines throughout it like the sun.

~ Zen Master Han Shan

http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/HanShan/hanshan-maxims.html

The next thing is, although if you may realise that this place is pure land, it cannot also be denied that there is an Amitabha's pure land in the west, which is manifested due to Amitabha's vows as expedient means for sentient beings.

As I said, America is also Mind-Only, but you can't say it doesn't exist. It is beyond the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither. It appears as the manifestation of Mind along with causes and conditions.

Practice can be stated very simply. It is moving from a life of hurting myself and others to a life of not hurting myself and others. That seems so simple--except when we substitute for real practice some idea that we should be different or better than we are, or that our lives should be different from the way they are. When we substitute our ideas about what should be (such notions as "I should not be angry or confused or unwilling") for our life as it truly is, then we're off base and our practice is barren.

~ Charlotte Joko Beck

<!--Banner Start --> <!-- ADSPACE: clickability/print/top.728x90 -->

<!--Banner End -->   <!--Partner Logo Start--> <!--Partner Logo End --> Powered by  

   SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close 

 

<!--Article Goes Here-->

<!--Article End--> <!--Bibliography Goes Here-->

    Links referenced within this article

diets
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Diet_and_Nutrition
Watch CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta report on Angela Stokes' raw diet »
#cnnSTCVideo
Weight Loss
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Weight_Loss
Diet and Nutrition
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Diet_and_Nutrition
Health and Fitness
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Health_and_Fitness

<!--Bibliography End-->

 SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close 

<!--Copywrite Goes Here-->

<!--Copywrite End-->

<!--endPrintThis-->

Originally posted by Omnia:

Yes, both have statues but there is a big difference. One is praying to the one true God, the other is praying to something else which Christians would deem to be a 'false god', thereby violating God's commandment of not worshipping another as God.* Whether or not a statue is involved is irrelevant.

* I'm assuming the other person is praying to Buddha as god for the sake of argument. No insults intended towards any Buddhists.

 

 

Buddha is not a god, and isn't worshipped. But Buddhists pay respect and reverence to him and treat him as our greatest teacher.

I see...

Originally posted by Thusness:

In truth 'here-ness' and 'now-ness' is as inherent as 'selfness' that is equally e