obviously there is no....

[old3bob]

 

Obviously there is no particular manifest (in any form) Buddha that exists outside of the manifest or subtle universe, as for Buddha nature that is not bound by the laws of manifestation such does not apply.  Thus or anyway for someone in the manifest or subtle universe that walks around saying there is no god or manifest being/universe is incongruently nuts if or while they also walk around profoundly proclaiming or implying there is (or was) a particular manifest Buddha. (outside the laws of manifestation)

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:46 PM by old3bob

[BigSkyDiamond]

is the view expressed above saying that if someone says the physical (manifest) universe is "not real" or is an illusion, then that also includes that Shakyamuni (or any of the masters) are also "not real" and are illusion?    

 

i am seeking to understand the gist of the opening post, which at first reading i like.

 

Edited yesterday at 05:07 PM by BigSkyDiamond

[stirling]

 

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

Obviously there is no particular manifest (in any form) Buddha that exists outside of the manifest or subtle universe, as for Buddha nature that is not bound by the laws of manifestation such does not apply. 

 

Absolutely. All appearances that seem to have their own intrinsic separateness are ultimately god/Buddha/nature of mind.

 

Quote

To recognize as the deity whatever forms appear is the crucial point of the development stage; 

Clinging to appearance as beautiful or ugly is liberated into its own nature. 

Free of clinging, mind as it appears is the body of Supreme Chenrezi. 

In the self-liberation of visual experiences, recite the six-syllable mantra.

- Ocean of Attainments: The Creation Stage of the Glorious Guhyasamāja, King of All Tantrask, Khedrup Jé Gelek Palsang

 

 

Quote

“In this sense, all appearances are Chenrezi's body, all sounds are his mantra, and all thoughts are the bliss- void unity of compassion and voidness. When you realize this true voidness of phenomena, you will spontaneously feel an all-embracing, non-conceptual compassion for all beings who are immersed in samsara's ocean of suffering because they cling to the notion of an ego. “ - Dilgo Khyentse, Heart Treasure of the Enlightened Ones

 

 

Quote

Thus or anyway for someone in the manifest or subtle universe that walks around saying there is no god or manifest being/universe is incongruently nuts if or while they also walk around profoundly proclaiming or implying there is (or was) a particular manifest Buddha. (outside the laws of manifestation)

 

The Buddha that matters is the one you can see RIGHT NOW. Anything else is a story - a belief the mind has adopted.

[old3bob]

 

So we agree on part of the post submitted, cool.    

I do not agree on your idea or the Buddhist idea often called, "nature of mind", with mind ultimately, intrinsically and only at best being like a super computer with super software...

 

Btw, much of the Buddhist jargon starting from a couple thousand years ago is overly convoluted and complicated to me, granted though that some people love it and are experts with it.  And in that case to each their own.

 

Edited yesterday at 06:56 PM by old3bob

[stirling]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

So we agree on part of the post submitted, cool.    

I do not agree on your idea or the Buddhist idea often called, "nature of mind", with mind ultimately, intrinsically and only being like a super computer with super software...thus the best of both.

 

"Nature of mind" is an allusion to it being what is ultimately underneath all thoughts, concepts, and states... not any kind of super computer.

 

God/Buddha/nature of mind/buddha nature/Dao/emptiness/void, ad nauseum are all just terminology. I'd be happy with "Self" if you prefer it, but even that is hopelessly wide of the mark. I would say that NONE of these words are actually any kind of proper appellation for what is being alluded to. 

 

Quote

“The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom.” - Hui Hai

 

Hui Hai says this for this to mean that the "Self" or whatever you might want to call it makes ALL systems of religion or philosophy fall away when understood. No "system" is accurate, or was ever necessary for illumination.

[old3bob]

 

well ok, but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water either,  btw the first echo, or the first prana/light  may not be the source but is dam close and connected. (thus discounting same with cosmic sounding generalization is kind of like smiting one's own face)

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:10 PM by old3bob

[stirling]

58 minutes ago, old3bob said:

well ok, but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water either,  btw the first echo, or the first prana/light  may not be the source but is dam close and connected. (thus discounting same with cosmic sounding generalization is kind of like smiting one's own face)

 

You always say that.

 

Practices and systems have their place, yes. I always say THAT. Haha. 

 

-

 

There are mystics and monastics. They have an uneasy alliance because their understanding of the "truth" is very different. 

 

The mystics have realization, then tell others about their lives and experiences, but many ask that what they say not be written down, knowing that if someone copies their life exactly it is unlikely that such a person will arrive at illumination.

 

Monastics have no realization. They hear the teachings of a mystic and copy it down, codify and solidify it into a rigid set of practices and rules that might still be helpful, but can only point at the deeper reality. They protect this secret knowledge at all costs. Sometimes another mystic in that tradition appears, but often the teachings from that mystic (while utterly compatible from the perspective of any other mystic) are different and sometimes seemingly contradictory to the monastics. Those mystics are often outcasts in the systems they practiced in, though not always.

[Lairg]

The expression   Learning by doing   may be relevant.

 

 

[Annnon]

why you saying buddha didn't exist?

Edited yesterday at 09:47 PM by Annnon

[forestofclarity]

5 hours ago, old3bob said:

I do not agree on your idea or the Buddhist idea often called, "nature of mind", with mind ultimately, intrinsically and only at best being like a super computer with super software...

 

Yoga Vasistha Book Three, Chapter 5, trans. Swami Jyotirmayananda states: 

 

Quote

 

Sri Rama asked: Oh Sage, what is the source of the mind? Whence did this mind, which is the worker of such great illusions, arise? If one were to know the source of the mind, he would know the source of all that exists.

 

Sri Vasistha replied: Oh Child, during the dissolution of the universe, the imperishable Self alone exists. That Self is imperishable, immutable, self-effulgent, and the very embodiment of bliss. The followers of Sankhya call Him Purusha, while the Vedantins call Him Brahman. The nihilistic school of Buddhism describes Him as the Void.

 

 

And in 3:10:

 

Quote

That Self is beyond all mental concepts. It is called Sat (Absolute Existence) from a symbolic point of view. In fact. It is neither light nor darkness, neither seen nor unseen, neither existence nor nonexistence.

 

Which sounds like:

 

Self Liberation Through Seeing with Naked Awareness, trans John Myrdhin Reynolds

 

Quote

 

As for this sparkling awareness, which is called "mind," Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist. (On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara. And as for it’s being something desirable; it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.

 

With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).

 

Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."

 

Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."

 

 

How can this be? 

Ramana Maharshi, Talk 445:
 

Quote

 

Mr. G. Duff: The Buddhists deny the world; the Hindu philosophy admits its existence, but says that it is unreal. Am I right?

 

Ramana Maharshi.: The difference of view is according to the difference in the angles of vision.

 

 

As the Swamis sometimes say, "True philosophers never agree, true sages never disagree." 

 

[Nungali]

As Nungali  sometimes says , "  I never knew true philosophers were supposed to agree in the first place , how else are we going to get the full range of the human perspectives on 'reality' ?    "   Only one of them can be right , eh ?    

[Nungali]

 

 

 

[old3bob]

17 hours ago, stirling said:

 

You always say that.

 

Practices and systems have their place, yes. I always say THAT. Haha. 

 

There are mystics and monastics. They have an uneasy alliance because their understanding of the "truth" is very different. 

 

The mystics have realization, then tell others about their lives and experiences, but many ask that what they say not be written down, knowing that if someone copies their life exactly it is unlikely that such a person will arrive at illumination.

 

Monastics have no realization. They hear the teachings of a mystic and copy it down, codify and solidify it into a rigid set of practices and rules that might still be helpful, but can only point at the deeper reality. They protect this secret knowledge at all costs. Sometimes another mystic in that tradition appears, but often the teachings from that mystic (while utterly compatible from the perspective of any other mystic) are different and sometimes seemingly contradictory to the monastics. Those mystics are often outcasts in the systems they practiced in, though not always.

 

umm,  I'd say that is a major generalization; lets not forget the mystical monastics. 

 

[old3bob]

16 hours ago, Annnon said:

why you saying buddha didn't exist?

 

What I meant was that a particular Buddha does not exist outside of the laws of manifestation,  although "Buddha nature" does.

[steve]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

What I meant was that a particular Buddha does not exist outside of the laws of manifestation,  although "Buddha nature" does.

 

This is a point I find worthy of inquiry so I’ll ask a rhetorical question, where is the distinction between a Buddha and Buddha-nature?

[BigSkyDiamond]

50 minutes ago, steve said:

This is a point I find worthy of inquiry so I’ll ask a rhetorical question, where is the distinction between a Buddha and Buddha-nature?

 

A historic person who lived, a physical human = Shakyamuni.  He later became known as Buddha. The teachings of Buddhism then grew around this person.

 

Buddha nature = everyone of us also has within us the capactiy for "enlightenment" that Shakyamuni is known for.  Whether we explore and cultivate and uncover that is up to each of us individually using our free will and free choice.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by BigSkyDiamond

[old3bob]

48 minutes ago, steve said:

 

This is a point I find worthy of inquiry so I’ll ask a rhetorical question, where is the distinction between a Buddha and Buddha-nature?

 

righto, a rhetorical question to a non-Buddhist,  but I'll give it a shot which is not exactly kosher on my part because of that.

A (full) Buddha has realized the "Buddha nature" which is beyond a particular vehicle as a person or Being that exists in time and space and which even though an advanced form is still under related laws of manifestation.

 

[Cobie]

 

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

a rhetorical question to a non-Buddhist,  but I'll give it a shot which is not exactly kosher on my part because of that.

 

I think it’s ok, as the thread is in ‘General Discussion’.  
 

imo

Buddha = body; Buddha-nature = soul 

 

imo

The mind is part of the body and subject to ‘emptiness’ (impermanent and interdependent).
The dual aspect is the existence of the soul.

 

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

… public discussion of nonduality?  I suspect … such talk might be socially ill-advised.  

 

I say, live dangerously.  You put me up to it. 
 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Cobie

[Mark Foote]

6 hours ago, steve said:

 

This is a point I find worthy of inquiry so I’ll ask a rhetorical question, where is the distinction between a Buddha and Buddha-nature?
 

 

 

"Got no money, oh but honey, ain't we got fun!"

 

(29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty."

 

("Gospel of Thomas", tr. Thomas O. Lambdin)

 

 

“Udayin, as an emerald jewel, of all good qualities, might be strung on a thread, blue-green or yellow or red or white or orange coloured; and a [person] with vision, having put it in [their] hand, might reflect; ‘this emerald jewel... is strung on a thread, blue-green... or orange-coloured’–even so, Udayin, a course has been pointed out by me for disciples, practising which disciples of mine know thus: This body of mine... is of a nature to be constantly rubbed away... and scattered, but this consciousness is fastened there, bound there....”

 

(MN 77, tr. Pali Text Society, vol II p 217)

 

 

Dzogchen tantras explain that rigpa can be located in the center of the human body, in the heart centre. The Realms and Transformations of Sound Tantra states: "The jewel present within the heart in the center of one’s body is great pristine consciousness."
 

(Smith, Malcolm (2016). Buddhahood in This Life: The Great Commentary by Vimalamitra. Simon and Schuster.)

 

 

Edited 4 minutes ago by Mark Foote