small self to big self to no self

last SG · 2011-04-14T17:45:54+00:00

All eternal now, why do you like to post advanced topics?You should caution against confusing people.

sinweiy SG

noted.

Generally, when philosophers or religious figures reach the height of the second stage, they feel that their wisdom is unlimited, their power is infinite, and their lives are eternal. When the scope of the ‘I’ enlarges, self-confidence accordingly gets stronger, but this stronger self-confidence is in fact merely the unlimited escalation of a sense of superiority and pride. It is therefore termed large ‘I’, and does not mean that absolute freedom from vexations has been achieved. --SY

on another "stand point", a "whole one" can become more profound in meaning of 事事无碍 non-obstruction between phenomena.

THE WHOLE ONE

When master Du Shun was asked “Are everything exist?”, he answered “No, everything are empty, do not have their original nature, because everything arise depending on conditions”. Asked “So everything should be empty and not exist?”, answered “Also no, because everything have been existing ever since beginningless time”. Asked, “In this case, everything are exist and also empty?”, answered “No, [the exist] and [the empty] already become ONE, there is no dualistic appearance, just like gold and gold product are the same originally”. Asked, “So everything must be [not exist] and [not empty]?”, answered, “No, not like that, we can say that everything is exist and also empty, because of that, everything can exist simultaneously without interfering with one another”. Asked, “Everything that arise depending on conditions must be empty eventually?”, answered “Also no, because The Exist and The empty are mixed together, and all lose their own appearance, therefore everything do not exist anymore”.

The point for the above conversation is that master Du Shun always change his standpoint for answering the questions. We can say that master Du Shun does not have any standpoint, or he does not persist in his own opinions, or his answers are from the standpoint of the WHOLE ONE.

IF we think deeper for those all “NO” answers, the real intention of master Du Shun was trying to help [the questioner] to get rid of persisting in all kinds of passions. Because the “NO” is the sign for all negatives, the “NO” is also close to the “Empty’ too.

There was an old monk sitting in the room, doing nothing with one of his students standing behind him. Two of his students, student A and B were arguing about something outside the room, after a while, student A rushed into the room, giving the description of the argument to the old monk, and asking “Master, am I right?”, the old monk answering “You are right”, student A rushing to student B who is outside the room, few minutes later, student B also rushing to the room and giving his opinion about the argument to the old monk, and asking the same question “Master, am I right?”, the old monk answering “You are right”, student B so happy and leaving the room, in this moment the student behind the old monk asking the old monk with whispering voice “Master, if A is right, B must be wrong, if B is right, A must be wrong, how come they are all [right]?”, the old monk answering “You are right too”.

Because the old monk is already the WHOLE ONE, he can accept all kinds of opinions - he can also give negative answers to his students like “You are wrong”.

~Hank Fu

　　　　　　┌─分别我执──见　惑─┐

　　　┌─我执─┤　　　　　　　　　　　├─烦恼障──分段生死

　　　│　　　　└─俱生我执──思　惑─┘

二执─┤

　　　│　　　　┌─分别法执──尘沙惑─┐

　　　└─法执─┤　　　　　　　　　　　├─所知障──变易生死

　　　　　　　　└─俱生法执──无明惑─┘

geis SG

nice exchange. very beneficial indeed. thank you.

事事无碍 releases the need for phenomena to be a certain way. thoughts, sensations, forms, events, anything that arises is a perfect process of dependent origination. the recognition that all phenomena is a manifestation of dukkha, annica and anatta; and the ease of this recognition manifesting as this very life. the compassion that wraps up the distinction between nirvana and samsara, understanding the truth that it is no where else than samsara that nirvana is found. yet both are not states to be found anywhere. no self at some point is perceived as big self, atman, but that's ok cos by nature it's already anatta. no self then is perceived as just a mirage, that's ok cos by nature it's also already anatta. and then no self just manifests as everything and nothing. and there's just this life and so on.

just my half cents view thats probably not worth me holding on to haha.

anyway a colleague who also practices asked me out of the blue the other day. 'If given a choice, where would you want to be reborn?' spontaneously i answered ' human'. and smiled :)

Almond Cookies SG

sinweiy SG

http://www.dizang.org/rm/zxdfj/p56.htm

佛教共有多少宗派 Buddhism got how many sects

also by 圣严法师著述 Master Sheng Yen

这样算下来，中国佛教，共有十三宗之多了，其中除了成实与俱舍两宗属于小乘佛教，此外都是大乘佛教。

　　后来，由于各宗的相摄相抗，十三宗仅剩下了十宗，涅槃宗归入天台宗，地论宗归入华严宗，摄论宗归入法相宗。现在且把大小乘各宗与空有的关系，列表如下：

　　　　　　　　　 ┌─成实宗─────────空宗
　　　　　　　　　 │
　　　　 ┌─小乘─┤
　　　　 │　　　　│
　　　　 │　　　　└─俱舍宗─────────有宗
　　　　 │
　　　　 │
　　　　 │　　　　┌─三论宗（涅槃）─────空宗
　佛教─┤　　　　│
　　　　 │　　　　│　天台宗（摄论）─────空宗
　　　　 │　　　　│
　　　　 │　　　　│　唯识宗（地论）─────空宗
　　　　 │　　　　│
　　　　 │　　　　│　华严宗─────────有宗
　　　　 └─大乘─┤
　　　　　　　　　 │　南山宗─────────空宗．有宗
　　　　　　　　　 │
　　　　　　　　　 │　净土宗─────────有宗
　　　　　　　　　 │
　　　　　　　　　 │　禅宗──────────空宗
　　　　　　　　　 │
　　　　　　　　　 └─密宗──────────空宗．有宗

there are sects that stress on emptiness/sunyata and those that stress on existence/all things/sarvabhava(?). our old master CK is 净土宗 and 华严宗, though he ever taught ch'an before.

eventually, 真空非空妙有非有. as Han Shan stated:-

All teachings in the Tripitaka (Buddhist Canon) are tools to induce sentient beings to sever attachment. To those attached to Emptiness, Buddha Sakyamuni taught Existence to break that grasp. To those attached to Existence, He taught Emptiness so as to loosen that grasp. To those grasping at both Emptiness and Existence, He taught "neither Emptiness nor Existence" to break that grasp. Lastly, to those grasping at "neither Emptiness nor Existence," He taught both Emptiness and Existence to break that attachment. ⁽¹⁾

In short, the purpose is to draw all sentient beings away from attachments. That is the Buddhist teaching of salvation. There is no other way to return to the source [the Mind], though there are many different expedient methods. We Buddhist students and practitioners should not become attached to these methods. When thoughts arise in our mind discriminating between what method is right and what method is wrong, that is against the purpose of the Buddhas and is a deviation from the Buddhist path.

For example, when Buddha Sakyamuni taught the Dharma of Emptiness, His message was not that it was the opposite of Existence, but rather that it was Truth and Reality. What are Truth and Reality? Let me quote the T'ien T'ai Patriarch Chih I:

Similarly, when Buddha Sakyamuni taught Existence, this was not the opposite of Emptiness, but was rather to say:

We should understand the true meaning of Emptiness and Existence. Nothing we say about Emptiness or Existence is attainable (i.e., truly valid). And since this is so, why are we still attached to them?

The Great Master Han-Shan thoroughly understood the goal of the Buddhas. In tune with the minds of the Patriarchs, he spread the Dharma (teaching), grasping at neither Emptiness nor Existence, neither Non-Emptiness nor Non-Existence -- thereby manifesting the Middle Way. Thus, he promoted the cultivation of both Zen and Pure Land, pointing to the non-duality of Emptiness and Existence. That teaching is "Wonderful Enlightenment" .

When practicing Zen, at the beginning of cultivation the expedient of Emptiness is used. But Zen does not mean Emptiness, nor does it mean Existence. Pure Land uses the expedient of Existence at the start of practice, but Pure Land does not mean Existence nor does it mean Emptiness. When Sakyamuni Buddha spoke of Emptiness and Existence, it was to reach human beings of different capacities. The Dharma itself transcends Emptiness and Existence. All methods taught by Buddha Sakyamuni are like prescriptions; since people suffer from different diseases, they need many kinds of prescriptions. It does not matter whether the medicine is expensive or cheap. As long as it is effective, it is a good medicine .

Those who practice Zen or Pure Land should all understand this truth: "all Dharma methods are equal and none is superior or inferior." No one who really understands the deep meaning of the Dharma can have the kind of obstinate prejudice that sees inferiority and superiority between the various Buddhist methods. No one with that kind of obstinate prejudice can gain any real benefit from the Dharma.

http://www.ymba.org/han/hanfrm.htm

if one want to "mix", one need to be skillful in the understanding.

geis SG

thank you for pointing out :)

Thusness SG

Interesting but there will be no ending to this.

In my opinion Buddha taught the way to sever attachment with right understanding. All else is attachment in disguise. :-)

sinweiy SG

ya hor. :)

how about, no ending Is Emptiness in disguise? as in, it doesn't need to end, yet it's a form of "ending". unattainable. :)

attachment doesn't really mean attachment, detachment doesn't really need to detach.

as 烦恼即菩堤 afflictions is bodhi. bodhi is afflictions.

Sentient beings are endless, May i liberate them all.

anyway think can see it as a doctor treating different patient with different medicine. medicine itself no high or low. when the patient is cured, no need the medicine already.

imho,

Thusness SG

When the mind is unclear, confuse, unsure, the routes appear diverse and many. When insight arises, the path is clear and direct. The mind becomes unshakable.

ya hor. :)

how about, no ending Is Emptiness in disguise? as in, it doesn't need to end, yet it's a form of "ending". unattainable. :)

attachment doesn't really mean attachment, detachment doesn't really need to detach.

as 烦恼即菩堤 afflictions is bodhi. bodhi is afflictions.

Sentient beings are endless, May i liberate them all.

When such insight arises, do not see a doctor treating different patient with different medicine; rather see that the sentient being liberates Buddha and patients treat doctors.

sinweiy SG

bravo!

sinweiy SG

Ananda, you should know that this state of clarity is not real. It is like rapidly flowing water that appears to be still on the surface. Because of its rapid speed, you cannot perceive the flow, but that does not mean it is not flowing. If this were not the source of thinking, then how could one be subject to false habits?

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html

last time Buddha used the flowing water analogy. now i think we have the filmstrip as analogy to simile the continuum of the mind. filmstrip are made out of "Still" images.

Thubten Yeshe adds:

Every mind moment arise in dependence on the previous mind moment. Without the immediately prior moment there is nothing to act as a cause of the next moment. There is no time in our life, including in deep sleep, deep meditational states or apparently 'thought-less' moments of relaxation, when that continuum of mind moments (or mental events) is not occurring.

Because it happens at such a great rate of speed, 65 moments in a single finger snap (which works out the about three milliseconds per mind moment!) we are mostly unaware of what is going on in our minds.

As stated in the teachings, buddha nature is defined as the emptiness of the fundamental clear light mind. The clear light of death is still a relative level of mind. But, because of the lack of conceptual thought at this level - its clear, luminous nature - it is see as analogous to buddha nature and used in meditation to approach complete union with buddha nature.

The mirror is an imperfect, but useful, analogy for the mind. Like a mirror mind 'reflects' what it comes in contact with. In that sense it also changes from moment to moment. The basic clear and knowing nature of the mind is sustained, just as the mirror's clear, reflective nature does not change.

That which is clear and knowing (the definition of mind) is eternal, as opposed to permanent. Eternal because it never ceases; it continues in its momentary, ever-changing (impermanent) flow into eternity. So, it is eternal and impermanent.

It is true that no contaminated aspect of consciousness/mind travels from life to life, BUT the potential for contaminated thoughts, words and actions does travel from life to life in the form of karmic imprints. These imprints may be understood as a kind of influence or memory that can affect our behavior in the future.

佛在《仁王经》上讲, 一弹指六十刹那,一刹那九百生灭'。这种说法是方便说,不是真实说。真实说,一刹那是不思议的生灭。 佛经讲‘不生不灭',其实是生灭的.

neither production nor destruction actually do have production and destruction.

ok, i'm just concern with either the sphear of neither Thought nor non Thought or higher level a bit a fake nirvana(偏真涅磐) of the hinayana arahat.

(46) Further, the good person has thoroughly seen the formations skandha as empty. He has ended production and destruction, but he has not yet perfected the subtle wonder of ultimate serenity.

He may speculate that there is an emptiness within the perfect brightness, and based on that he denies the myriad transformations, taking their eternal cessation as his refuge. If he interprets this as a supreme state, he will fall into the error of taking what is not a refuge to be a refuge. Those abiding in Shunyata in the Heaven of [Neither Thought nor] Non-Thought will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html

我空法有，大概是说“五蕴上无我，但涅磐无为法和轮回诸有为法确有实体”。

人法二空，大概是说“五蕴上无我，而且涅磐无为法和轮回诸有为法亦无实体”。

不同宗派有不同说法。

按照唯识宗的说法，二乘证“人无我”除烦恼障而证偏真涅磐；大乘证“法无我”除所知障而证菩提胜果。而且这“人我和法我二执”各最细微之一分，直至成佛才彻底断除，此时二障才真正断除。照此说来，也就是说，最细微的一分人我执和最细微的一分法我执，成佛时（方才）双断。反过来说，实际上“二乘圣人证人无我”实际只是部分证“人无我”；即使二乘回小向大入大乘也并非先完证“人无我”之后再逐渐分证“法无我”，因为即使十地菩萨也是未证全人无我，因此需要同时断除细微烦恼障和细微所知障呢。

An Eternal Now SG

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx

If we glance through the Jain literature, we again find that no Jain scholar mentions that the Buddhists believed in an eternal / permanent non-dual cognition as the ultimate reality. At least, those Jain scholars after Asanga should have done so, if that was how the Uttara Tantra had been interpreted in India.

If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Śāntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged.

The Hindu âtmà is not only non-dual cognition but is also unchanging, eternal, and truly existing. Sankaràcàrya defines existence (sat) in his Tattvaboda as that which remains the same in all the 3 times (past, present, future). In the commentary by Gaudapàda (who was Sankaràcàrya’s Guru’s Guru), of the Màndukya Upanishada, in verse number 96, he calls the eternally really existing non-dual cognition is non-relational, i.e., free from reference points. In the 37th verse of the same work it is said that this non-dual, eternal, really existing cognition is free from all sense organs, i.e., free from the dualistic mind (namshe). So the Upanishadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the âtmà, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankaràcàrya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by Śāntarakṣita as a wrong view.

An Eternal Now SG

Actually this is not the Hinayana Nirvana. This is Thusness Stage 3. (41) is like stage 1. (42) is like stage 2. (43) is like stage 2. (44) is like stage 2 to 4. (46) is stage 3. (47) is taoism immortality practice

« Previous Page