Someone explain this to me

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
I was perfectly aware of each word I chose, I don't think mindfulness means what you think it does.
"Right mindfulness" is one of the eight parts of the Eightfold Path.

"And what, monks, is right mindfulness? (i) There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (ii) He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (iii) He remains focused on the mind in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (iv) He remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. This, monks, is called right mindfulness.
Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
"Right mindfulness" is one of the eight parts of the Eightfold Path.
"And what, monks, is right mindfulness? (i) There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (ii) He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (iii) He remains focused on the mind in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (iv) He remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. This, monks, is called right mindfulness.
Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path

Now say it in your own words.

Also, ask who is mindful, for it is highly likely this is confirming belief in a self.

Recall that Buddha ultimately insists upon anatta.

You are very much pre-occupied with various texts it seems, why do you wish to strengthen this knower which is only an illusion of self? What are you actually trying to achieve by studying Buddha and others?

Be honest with yourself, then see this is just another thought.

The whole search ceases, what remains?

You will assert this and that, but these too relate to a you, a self.

Look into this, what is the true nature of the self?

The body is an accumulation of atoms, they are formed through consumption of food - energy. Thoughts are simply acquired information, a way you have allowed yourself to view existence, various ideas you have accepted, more accumulation... if anatta is true, what validity can any thought the self is having have?

To say another way, what is the nature of the accumulator?

Do not get lost in the learning, the learner only solidifies as a belief.

If all is empty, what exists?

Only perception insists any thing is real.

As a fan spins, we perceive a circle.

Find the blade in the circle, then realize even this is just another layer of illusion.

What remains?

Nibbana - no thing remains.

We say Nirvana is pleasurable, it is all these positive qualities.

These are just more appearances.

They appear for no one.

Chop wood, carry water.

There is no chopper or anyone carrying.

Just the river, flowing as it may.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
"Right mindfulness" is one of the eight parts of the Eightfold Path.
"And what, monks, is right mindfulness? (i) There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (ii) He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (iii) He remains focused on the mind in & of itself — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. (iv) He remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, aware, & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. This, monks, is called right mindfulness.
Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path
Now say it in your own words.
It was in regards to these posts:
It is only ever mind which tries to define, tries to divide.

Existence has already done Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, why try to repeat these men?

Far better is to stand on their shoulders and let existence reach a new height in you.

So much for Zen mindfulness. :rolleyes:

I was perfectly aware of each word I chose, I don't think mindfulness means what you think it does.
Right mindfulness means to divide--to focus upon the body, or feelings, or mind, etc., in and of themselves.

Also, ask who is mindful, for it is highly likely this is confirming belief in a self.

Recall that Buddha ultimately insists upon anatta.
There is no atman in and of itself to be found--

You are very much pre-occupied with various texts it seems, why do you wish to strengthen this knower which is only an illusion of self? What are you actually trying to achieve by studying Buddha and others?
Actually, I'm careful about misrepresentations, so I do use a lot of source texts. Your assertion that it is anything else is your own imagining and projection.

Be honest with yourself, then see this is just another thought.

The whole search ceases, what remains?

You will assert this and that, but these too relate to a you, a self.

Look into this, what is the true nature of the self?
Not traceable.

The body is an accumulation of atoms, they are formed through consumption of food - energy. Thoughts are simply acquired information, a way you have allowed yourself to view existence, various ideas you have accepted, more accumulation... if anatta is true, what validity can any thought the self is having have?
Circular reasoning. Your premise regarding anatta seems to be faulty.

To say another way, what is the nature of the accumulator?

Do not get lost in the learning, the learner only solidifies as a belief.

If all is empty, what exists?
Look at the three marks of existence. Anatta, impermanence, and dukkha are how we identify something as existing--that it is not just all a product of our mind--reality is stranger than we can imagine--assurance against solipsism.

Only perception insists any thing is real.
This is solipsism
To this statement, my Sen-sei might twist your ear and ask you, "Is this real?"

As a fan spins, we perceive a circle.

Find the blade in the circle, then realize even this is just another layer of illusion.

What remains?

Nibbana - no thing remains.
That would be making the error of going towards nihilism.

We say Nirvana is pleasurable, it is all these positive qualities.
Nibbana is beyond concepts--untraceable. It's not all about bliss.

These are just more appearances.

They appear for no one.

Chop wood, carry water.

There is no chopper or anyone carrying.
Mountains are Mountains
The famous saying of Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin (Seigen Ishin):
[FONT=Osaka&#8722]老僧三十年前未參[FONT=Osaka&#8722]禪時、見山是山、見水是水、及至後夾親見知識、有箇入處、見山不是山、見水不是水、而今得箇體歇處、依然見山[/FONT][FONT=Osaka&#8722]是[/FONT][FONT=Osaka&#8722]山、見水[/FONT][FONT=Osaka&#8722]是水[/FONT](The Way of Zen 220 k)[/FONT]

Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters. 13
13 Ch'uan Teng Lu, 22. (The Way of Zen 126)

"Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters." (Essays in Zen Buddhism – First Series 24)


Zen masters say "Don't seek the truth - just drop your opinions
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
Perhaps this will help. Anatta mean not atman. Apply neti-neti: this is not atman, that is not atman. This is anatta, that is anatta. This is empty of self, that is empty of self. Atman is not traceable, in an of itself. Form is empty, consciousness is empty, etc. You seem to be stuck at the emptiness of emptiness--you are making a form of emptiness. (Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.) Is it reasonable to make this jump? Is this not a presumptive bias/form that obscures reality giving you an excuse not examine it first? The universe might be anatta, but that does not mean that it does not exist. We know that it is not a product of mind because upon examination, it is stranger than we can imagine. It is real. Before examination, mountains are mountains--you see things according to your presumptions of reality. Upon examination, you see reality is not what you thought it was--mountains are not what you thought mountains were. However, upon further examination, the mountains do not disappear--they are just not what you thought they were before.
 

A Cup Of Tea

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,311
Reaction score
569
Points
108
Lunitic has the same right to be here as anyone, but I don't understand why anyone is arguing against his points. From his point of view he is enlightened and you are not. Whatever you say, whatever you quote what he has said is true and if you are arguing against that you are wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
Lunitic has the same right to be here as anyone, but I don't understand why anyone is arguing against his points. From his point of view he is enlightened and you are not. Whatever you say, whatever you quote what he has said is true and if you are arguing against that you are wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's good for me to go back and review all these things again--I might catch something I missed before, or someone might bring up a point that I hadn't considered.

Skeptical viewpoints are quite valuable, even if you have to go through a bunch of gravel to find the nugget of gold, metaphorically speaking.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Right mindfulness means to divide--to focus upon the body, or feelings, or mind, etc., in and of themselves.

I have tried to bring you out of the idea of mindfulness.

To cause you to look at who is mindful.

Mindfulness is a good practice, for without judging the appearances and not becoming involved in them, we can easily see the space and know we are not what appears.

With this, mindfulness is dropped, the other shore is reached.

There is no atman in and of itself to be found--

Nothing at all exists without something to confirm it.

What confirms the atman? What confirms perception?

See that it is only another perception.

Actually, I'm careful about misrepresentations, so I do use a lot of source texts. Your assertion that it is anything else is your own imagining and projection.

I am not concerned with representing anything, I am no more entangled in belief systems or any other form of delusion. You try to limit my words, define them within a larger system.

The problem is that it is mind which decides what is right and wrong, you devour information and gradually it shapes your reality. I only wish to bring you out of this, your definitions make it impossible to reach truth - you already have the answers, so the questions bounce off you.

I imagine and project nothing, I only want to point out these things are not original, it is all just more accumulation. Shake off the dust and find out what is original, "what is your face before your mother was born?"

Circular reasoning. Your premise regarding anatta seems to be faulty.

The self is a pattern of thoughts which give you solidity, that define you.

Anatta points at the delusion in this.

Look at the three marks of existence. Anatta, impermanence, and dukkha are how we identify something as existing--that it is not just all a product of our mind--reality is stranger than we can imagine--assurance against solipsism.

I would go even further than solipsism, for even the self depends something to confirm it. The very assumption that because these things appear to be happening, we must be, it is simply flawed. We seem to look at everything except this self when we apply impermanence, we do not understand that anatta is exactly impermanence applied to the self. In belief that the self is real lies all dukkha, it is not true and we notice its changeability, we want to think we are real though, we don't want to see that what we believe ourselves to be is just another arising in consciousness.

In truth, we are not even the awareness which sees all in consciousness. Many fall into the trap of clinging to this because they want to insist they are SOMETHING. This very idea of being something is the problem though, liberation is when this is overcome.

To this statement, my Sen-sei might twist your ear and ask you, "Is this real?"

It is a temporary appearance, since it is impermanent it cannot be called real.

The pain seems intimate, but it is because we wrongly position ourselves, we say "I am in pain" because we place ourselves in the body. We label this sensation pain and so we suffer trying to move past it.

Howsoever the body responds to this action of the sen-sei, to become attached to the sensation will ensure we can no longer respond to his next action.

That would be making the error of going towards nihilism.

To the simple mind, it seems this way.

Nihilism first necessitates defining something as meaningful though. It is more a reaction to eternalism, but both are false. In reality there is nothing to subtract, there is nothing to add - it is all just the play of the mind.

Nibbana is beyond concepts--untraceable. It's not all about bliss.

This is what I am constantly trying to show.

You have many concepts, you want something which is traceable as "me".

Of course, bliss is a effect in the mind, it is a still mind but still an appearance, for whom is the bliss? Yet what else to call this? It is simply utter and complete no-thing-ness, before things to drop, before anyone to drop them.

The problem is we fall into the trap of doing, we want to think our actions are getting somewhere, but this is all happening in the illusion.

Mountains as mountains

This is a long drawn out version of the koan "before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water".

Yet, please understand the fallacy of language here, we have decided a sequence of letters or a particular sound IS the thing we reference. We will tell ourselves a story, or recollect some past encounters with mountains, maybe we hiked with our family on one and begin to think of the fire that we told stories around. We are no longer seeing the mountain, we are now lost in thought.

The beauty of Zen is that now only the mountain is there, and it can be appreciated anew. We no more project something, we no longer look at some bunch of flowers or a tree that might be there, things we prefer to see. We finally simply see what is there.

Yet we are not the seer.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I would suggest you again look at the Diamond and Heart Sutras.

The Dhammapada has given you too many ideas, the beauty of these texts is they destroy them all.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Lunitic has the same right to be here as anyone, but I don't understand why anyone is arguing against his points. From his point of view he is enlightened and you are not. Whatever you say, whatever you quote what he has said is true and if you are arguing against that you are wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Enlightenment is a false projection.

Awakening is a false projection.

The only thing I insist is that all concepts and ideas are false.

Of course, because I have said it, this itself looks like an idea, a concept.

Speaking to an illusion engine about reality is tricky.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,598
Reaction score
2,754
Points
108
Sin means "to miss the mark".
If you're Greek and discussing archery, yes.

If you're Greek and discussing philosophy, it has a more nuanced meaning. In Aristotle's Poetics, the term is usually translated as a mistake or error of judgment.

In the Greek tragedies, for example, hamartia is used to describe a character's "tragic flaw", and in the same sense sin is a tragic flaw that wounds human nature.

Their hearts by incense and reverent vows and libations and the savour of sacrifice do men turn from wrath with supplication, whenso any man transgresseth and doeth sin. For Prayers are the daughters of great Zeus, halting and wrinkled and of eyes askance, and they are ever mindful to follow in the steps of Sin. Illiad IV
The citizen who has leprosy or the white sickness may not come into town or mingle with other Persians. They say that he is so afflicted because he has sinned in some way against the Sun. Herodotus, CXXXVIII

Whilst hamartia was used to mean 'sin', the idea of 'sin' itself is ually ill-defined and an uncertain (if not entirely misunderstood) theological concept. Harmatia's implication of sin as a deficit or disorder is close to the Catholic notion of man as essentially good, but wounded in his nature (as opposed to the Reformation notion of man been inherently corrupted).

To disagree with this only shows ignorance.
I disagree with that, too! :D
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,598
Reaction score
2,754
Points
108
What your Bible calls God, and thus the basis for Theology, is exactly what I mean by awareness.
You might think so, but you'e be wrong.

The problem is that Theology projects this outward...
I can see why you might think that.

the Kingdom of God is within, the Kingdom of Heaven is within, be still and know. So much points at something within us, but somehow this is missed on your theologians.
Gosh! D'you think maybe we never noticed those verses in Scripture? :rolleyes: And yet, it seems to me, I can cite ...

The point is, AdvaitaZen, that when you make sweeping statements like this, all you do is illustrate how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

This in turn tends to imply a degree of assumption and prejudice on the matter, as well as leading one to doubt everything you say ... I mean, if you're that wrong about Christian doctrine and history, you're probably equally wrong about every other claim you make.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
It is a temporary appearance, since it is impermanent it cannot be called real.
Well, we are going to have some difficulty if what you call real and what I call real are different. Impermanence is a mark of existence in my book.

The beauty of Zen is that now only the mountain is there, and it can be appreciated anew. We no more project something, we no longer look at some bunch of flowers or a tree that might be there, things we prefer to see. We finally simply see what is there.
I can agree with this.

Yet we are not the seer.
The act of seeing is an interactive process, which involves and affects both the seer and that which is seen. If we do not project our biases into this interactive act of seeing, then it can be said that there is no projection separating subject and object. Both subject and object are participating in the same reality.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
The point is, AdvaitaZen, that when you make sweeping statements like this, all you do is illustrate how little you actually know about what you're talking about.

What value is there in your knowledge though?

All this information does is strengthen ego, do you think Jesus studied at length? Little if anything he says actually complies with Judaic texts, he has spoken from his heart.

This is exactly what is meant by "unless you be like these children, you cannot enter the kingdom of god", knowledge is useful for any trade we might partake in during our lives, great. The problem is we begin to live life from this knowledge, it begins to shape our perspectives. It creates distance between your neighbor and yourself, because you are bound to disagree.

Do not get me wrong, by being like those children, it is not intended we be ignorant, no, it is to be innocent. We must approach each moment in a pure way, not from any knowledge.

For me, Christians today are as the priests that Christ scorns, they follow the letter because they have no idea of the spirit.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Well, we are going to have some difficulty if what you call real and what I call real are different. Impermanence is a mark of existence in my book.

A thing can exist and still not be real.

Form is empty - nothing which exists is real.

Emtpiness is form - still experiences are there.

They are a matter of perception only, consider that all are only atoms, yet atoms themselves consist of even tinier things called quarks, and there are levels even below this. Ultimately, there is simply nothing, it is all an abstraction of the mind that creates an experience. We then label things within the experience, and this shapes our definitions and concepts about life.

I would suggest "Mind" (big m) is consciousness, the container for all that is experienced.

Mind (small m) is ego-centered consciousness, it stems from some belief in the body.

Yet, in the heart sutra, it is said even Mind (big m) is false, it depends on the perceiver.

Yet, the perceiver itself is perceived, no self is perceived by many, enlightenment is perceived by many... they are all dependent on a perceiver. In deep sleep, this perceiver is no more there, so it too is transient, unreal.

Deep sleep is the closest many come to truth.

Spiritual paths have been discovered because of the exhaustion with keeping up appearances - which is why we must sleep. It takes great energy to create this experience, none of it is retained at the peak.

The act of seeing is an interactive process, which involves and affects both the seer and that which is seen. If we do not project our biases into this interactive act of seeing, then it can be said that there is no projection separating subject and object. Both subject and object are participating in the same reality.

Both object and subject are empty.

Each brings about the appearance of the other - dependent origination.

"If a tree falls in the woods, and no one was there to hear it, did it make a sound?"

No, because a hearer is necessary for something to be heard.

Likewise, without a seer, there is nothing to see.

Without something to see, there can be no seer.

All is interdependent.

All is an abstraction of emptiness, an expression of nothingness.

Without this, that cannot be.

You can say this is cyclic reasoning again, but then is this not the meaning of samsara?

The mind functions in this way.

To show you the function of mind, I have to say something cyclic.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
A thing can exist and still not be real.

Form is empty - nothing which exists (nothing that arises in consciousness) is real.

Emtpiness is form - still experiences are there.

They are a matter of perception only, consider that all are only atoms, yet atoms themselves consist of even tinier things called quarks, and there are levels even below this. Ultimately, there is simply nothing, it is all an abstraction of the mind that creates an experience. We then label things within the experience, and this shapes our definitions and concepts about life.
Ahh, but reality is much stranger than we can possibly imagine, so it cannot be wholly a product of mind.

Both object and subject are empty.
Empty of atman.

Each brings about the appearance of the other - dependent origination.
This is where I disagree. Subject and object do not cause each other.
Multiple causes and conditions are involved, many of which are ultimately untraceable, as effect and cause can become ambiguous in this chaos of multiple interacting causes and conditions.
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Ahh, but reality is much stranger than we can possibly imagine, so it cannot be wholly a product of mind.

Reality is not strange at all, there is simply nothing.

All else is imagined, perceived, impermanent... this is what is strange, that such a compelling story can be told without any true props.

Empty of atman.

Empty of emptiness.

This is where I disagree. Subject and object do not cause each other.

I have not said they cause each other, I have said they depend each other.

Can the inside be without an outside?

Multiple causes and conditions are involved, many of which are ultimately untraceable, as effect and cause can become ambiguous in this chaos of multiple interacting causes and conditions.

There is no cause and effect, these are functions of time which is a construct of consciousness, again, this is why time can "fly when you're having fun" yet seem to barely move when waiting on something - although if we measure some object within consciousness, as a clock does, time appears constant and so we accept it as real. In reality, things are just happening, and to make sense of this, they are sequenced and reconstructed according to our ideas and beliefs.
 

seattlegal

Mercuræn Buddhist
Messages
6,877
Reaction score
275
Points
83
Location
Pacific Ring of Fire
Reality is not strange at all, there is simply nothing.

All else is imagined, perceived, impermanent... this is what is strange, that such a compelling story can be told without any true props.
Impermanence is a mark of reality. Permanence is a sign of clinging with your mind. <edit> Make that permanence can be a sign of clinging with your mind. {Don't want to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.} :p


Empty of emptiness.
If you choose to make a form out of emptiness as a bias by which you shape reality, you are missing what is real, no?
I have not said they cause each other, I have said they depend each other.

Can the inside be without an outside?
Lightwaves coming from object which intersect with subject will still transfer energy via the virtual particles known as photons irregardless of whether some of these photons are detected by sensory apparatus or not.
Unseen light is still light. An unheard sound is still a sound.

There is no cause and effect, these are functions of time which is a construct of consciousness, again, this is why time can "fly when you're having fun" yet seem to barely move when waiting on something - although if we measure some object within consciousness, as a clock does, time appears constant and so we accept it as real. In reality, things are just happening, and to make sense of this, they are sequenced and reconstructed according to our ideas and beliefs.
Just because time is relative and not absolute does not mean it is unreal, and does not negate cause and effect. (Although time does make identifying cause and effect easier.)
 

AdvaitaZen

Well-Known Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Impermanence is a mark of reality. Permanence is a sign of clinging with your mind.

It is because reality is Sunyata, nothingness.

By clinging to anything, we solidify the belief in its being real.

If you choose to make a form out of emptiness as a bias by which you shape reality, you are missing what is real, no?

Emptiness is a word, subject to perception.

The pointer is not the real thing.

Lightwaves coming from object which intersect with subject will still transfer energy via the virtual particles known as photons irregardless of whether some of these photons are detected by sensory apparatus or not.

I do not understand how this relates.

You describe an objective observation to show that an observer is not necessary.

Can you prove anything has happened without experiencing it?

You can only infer.

Just because time is relative and not absolute does not mean it is unreal, and does not negate cause and effect. (Although time does make identifying cause and effect easier.)

It depends on the perceiver of it, thus is unreal.
 
Top