Empty Your Cup

[Apech]

21 minutes ago, ralis said:

Define the so called nature of reality.

 

It cannot be defined.

[Mark Foote]

3 hours ago, ralis said:

Define the so called nature of reality.
 

How about, "define the nature of human reality?"
 

There can… come a moment when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a certain location in the body, or at a series of locations, with the ability to remain awake as the location of attention shifts retained through the exercise of presence.

... When a presence of mind is retained as the placement of attention shifts, then the natural tendency toward the free placement of attention draws out thoughts initial and sustained, and brings on... concentration:

 

… there is no need to depend on teaching. But the most important thing is to practice and realize our true nature… [laughs]. This is, you know, Zen.

 

(Shunryu Suzuki, Tassajara 68-07-24)

 

 

(Shunryu Suzuki on Shikantaza and the Theravadin Stages)

 

 

(in 500 words or less...)

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:28 PM by Mark Foote

[stirling]

15 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

They should be skilfully manipulated, so the practitioner can awaken to reality (wuzhen). The goal of one line of neidan. 

 

My answer is being answered from a Buddhist perspective. That might be the philosophy of cultivation traditions, but it is not shared in Buddhism, generally speaking. In Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Zen Buddhism it is understood that one is always ALREADY enlightened, but lacks the insight to see that it is so. From the perspective of enlightened mind NO practice actually illuminates the student, they merely make one "accident prone". 

 

Quote

“Gaining enlightenment is an accident. Spiritual practice simply makes us accident-prone.” - Shunryu Suzuki Roshi

 

[stirling]

4 hours ago, ralis said:

Define the so called nature of reality.

 

I am referring to: Dao, emptiness, Buddha nature, non-duality, "Self", etc.

 

Define it? There are thousands of ways to do that, but today it looks like the simple, still awareness that underlies all experiencing, having no center, "self", time, or space. 

[old3bob]

7 hours ago, Apech said:

 

It cannot be defined.

 

Even by the Beatles?

[ralis]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I am referring to: Dao, emptiness, Buddha nature, non-duality, "Self", etc.

 

Define it? There are thousands of ways to do that, but today it looks like the simple, still awareness that underlies all experiencing, having no center, "self", time, or space. 

 

That is how nihilism is defined. No self is Advaita Vedanta belief system. None of your definitions are provable, but are based on myth. 

[stirling]

22 minutes ago, ralis said:

That is how nihilism is defined. No self is Advaita Vedanta belief system. None of your definitions are provable, but are based on myth. 

 

Nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless. Life as an individual IS ultimately meaningless, but not at all in the way one would imagine, and certainly not in a nihilistic fashion. The Advaita Vedanta system believes in the "Self" - NO-self is Buddhism. 

 

Only experiential knowledge is proof, though it is possible to point to emptiness where the student has a few months of decent meditation under their belt. It isn't based in myth my friend, it is based on thousands of years of realization. There are enlightened beings all over the place, if you care and you are paying attention. If you live near a decent sized town there will be a few even there that could point you in the right direction. I know a number in my town. If the teachings were nonsense, why would anyone bother. Why do you bother with Qigong?

[ralis]

25 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless. Life as an individual IS ultimately meaningless, but not at all in the way one would imagine, and certainly not in a nihilistic fashion. The Advaita Vedanta system believes in the "Self" - NO-self is Buddhism. 

 

Only experiential knowledge is proof, though it is possible to point to emptiness where the student has a few months of decent meditation under their belt. It isn't based in myth my friend, it is based on thousands of years of realization. There are enlightened beings all over the place, if you care and you are paying attention. If you live near a decent sized town there will be a few even there that could point you in the right direction. I know a number in my town. If the teachings were nonsense, why would anyone bother. Why do you bother with Qigong?

 

There is a vast difference between myth and fact which is my point. You assume I know nothing of which I am talking about. Moreover, I have been around most every teaching that is known in this world, and you assume I am not paying attention, or need direction! I have been around teachers that are dangerous and.................

 

Many over thousands of years have believed in nonsense, and yet, e.g., there are believers in a flat earth, and a young earth of 6k years old, but still vehemently adhere to religious mythos in the face of contradictory fact based evidence.

 

The Pali Canon is said to be the exact words of the Buddhas teachings, and was an oral transmission for over 500 years before it was written down. Is that factual, or based on myth? 

[liminal_luke]

If someone is doing something and they find it to be helpful in their own life, that´s good enough for me.  What´s the use of going around telling people not to do what they like?  Doesn´t mean, of course, that I need to take the philosophical underpinnings of their system as absolute gospel.  I listen and make up my own mind.  But this business of constantly putting down what everyone else is doing seems like a big energy sink to me -- don´t any of us have to go to work?

[Forestgreen]

18 hours ago, stirling said:

 

My answer is being answered from a Buddhist perspective. 

So is mine. Shaolin. Supported by the abhidhamma, texts from tibetan buddhism,  and so on.

Maybe I should say that I am not referring to doing some contrieved breathing method or a bunch of slow movements here, those are just initial stepping stones in my practice. 

Quote

 

That might be the philosophy of cultivation traditions, but it is not shared in Buddhism, generally speaking.

Much has been removed in modern, post-reform buddhism. It can still be seen in for example texts used by the Nyingma tradition, although Asa in the infamous podd with Damo showed that much of this isn't actually taught (to westerners at least). I am aware that zen do not focus on this, neither does the burmese lineages that has samma sati as their base ( I disagree about their definition of correct mindfulness, because I use mindfulness myself, but again, I can only say that I practice differently and that I have textual support for my practice).

Quote

In Mahayana, Vajrayana, and Zen Buddhism it is understood that one is always ALREADY enlightened, but lacks the insight to see that it is so. From the perspective of enlightened mind NO practice actually illuminates the student, they merely make one "accident prone". 

That is just play with words. Hopefully you are aware of that. 

If I said "I am already strong, I just have to go to the gym four times a week for five years", that would be from the perspective of a potential future "me", but not an actual description of my capabilities today. 

Dependant origination, proper practice sets the conditions. "cause" something to happen.

Edited yesterday at 03:02 PM by Forestgreen
Added stuff. Twice.

[stirling]

14 hours ago, ralis said:

You assume I know nothing of which I am talking about. Moreover, I have been around most every teaching that is known in this world, and you assume I am not paying attention, or need direction! I have been around teachers that are dangerous and.................

 

I don't assume anything about you at all. I responded to you based on your words and my understanding. If I have insulted you I apologize.

 

14 hours ago, ralis said:

Many over thousands of years have believed in nonsense, and yet, e.g., there are believers in a flat earth, and a young earth of 6k years old, but still vehemently adhere to religious mythos in the face of contradictory fact based evidence.

 

Belief is not interesting to me. I am interested in direct experiential gnosis. As you say, people believe in all sorts of things. 

 

14 hours ago, ralis said:

The Pali Canon is said to be the exact words of the Buddhas teachings, and was an oral transmission for over 500 years before it was written down. Is that factual, or based on myth? 

 

... don't forget the Mahayana, Vajrayana and Zen teachings.... oh, and almost all historical "spiritual" teachings.Was there really a historical Buddha or Jesus? I don't think it matters, and, at this point, it is unlikely that we will ever know. Is it factual or mythological? I think this is the wrong question. In my opinion what one should be concerned about it whether or not those teachings are TRANSFORMATIVE, once put into earnest practice for a few months. My experience is that most non-dual traditions contain enough perspective and simplicity of practice at their core to be transformative, and I have verified that to my personal satisfaction as well. 

[stirling]

12 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

Much has been removed in modern, post-reform buddhism. It can still be seen in for example texts used by the Nyingma tradition, although Asa in the infamous podd with Damo showed that much of this isn't actually taught (to westerners at least).

 

I worked for 20 years in the Nyingma tradition (Dudjom Rinpoche lineage) and can confirm that some of the old school energy channel stuff isn't taught in the West, for the most part. There is actually a reason for that.

 

12 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

I am aware that zen do not focus on this, neither does the burmese lineages that has samma sati as their base ( I disagree about their definition of correct mindfulness, because I use mindfulness myself, but again, I can only say that I practice differently and that I have textual support for my practice).

 

Thank you for your practice. _/\_

 

12 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

That is just play with words. Hopefully you are aware of that. 

 

It isn't though. It becomes immediately clear when insight dawns. There is ultimately no person to enlighten, no practice that does it, and no separation between "Buddha" mind and ours. On a practical level, every time your mind is still you are actualizing this truth. The 4th Noble Truth is cessation - not cessation in the future, but cessation here/now, with no-self. There is no difference between the mind in formless jana and enlightened mind. In Zen, resting in that formless nature... cessation,  is "practice". 

 

12 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

If I said "I am already strong, I just have to go to the gym four times a week for five years", that would be from the perspective of a potential future "me", but not an actual description of my capabilities today. 

Dependant origination, proper practice sets the conditions. "cause" something to happen.

 

There are no metaphors about daily life that apply to a knowledge that has no time, space or "self". It doesn't make sense because it isn't explicable by our subject/object language convention. There IS no "future" you. What you are is inseparable from Dependent Origination, not a "part" of it, inextricable from a seamless whole. Yes, causes and conditions arise in a relative sense, but that always happens NOW as part of a fictional timeline. The past and future only ever exist as thoughts happening now. Where is your story about your practice history when your mind is still? Where is the "self" you believe you are? Where are the past and the future?

[Forestgreen]

15 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

It isn't though. It becomes immediately clear when insight dawns. 

I agree 100%. When insight dawns. When. As in after. As in, for most practitioners, not now.  Most people, meditators or not, lack that insight. 

Sort of fits in with my metaphor. Before that insight, one is still trapped in appearances, and spiritual traditions recommend that we do stuff, for example meditation, and changes of behaviour, to increase the chance of insight. 

I did notice that you specified "from the perspective of the enlightened mind", my bad, I should have specified the above and pointed out that the vast majority is in no place to share that view. 

 

Some neidan traditions use descriptions that imply that the practice creates something immortal. Being a total bore, I do not agree with that either. Probably because my practice is buddhist, not daoist. 

[Surya]

In «Aleph» by Coelho there is this little segment about how Chinese bamboo doesn’t start growing before after five years, and then shoots up to 25 meters in no time. So IF we view this as a metaphor for the mind, then… well, idk.

 

 

[Surya]

Music, perhaps?

 

 

[Surya]

Alright, so goes without saying I am no teacher, but I have been in love with my brilliantly foolish intellect. A few observations on what might have opened my mind a little bit:

 

First, compliment them on what is good about their full cup. «Good you study,» or «you have putten a lot of work into this» or whatever. Then I think somehow breaking their automatic programming trough dancing or singing or whatever can be good, and then you can SHOW them what REAL wisdom LOOKS like. And when trust is established, perhaps they will be eager to learn from you, submissively.

 

 

[ralis]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

I worked for 20 years in the Nyingma tradition (Dudjom Rinpoche lineage) and can confirm that some of the old school energy channel stuff isn't taught in the West, for the most part. There is actually a reason for that.

 

 

Thank you for your practice. _/\_

 

 

It isn't though. It becomes immediately clear when insight dawns. There is ultimately no person to enlighten, no practice that does it, and no separation between "Buddha" mind and ours. On a practical level, every time your mind is still you are actualizing this truth. The 4th Noble Truth is cessation - not cessation in the future, but cessation here/now, with no-self. There is no difference between the mind in formless jana and enlightened mind. In Zen, resting in that formless nature... cessation,  is "practice". 

 

 

There are no metaphors about daily life that apply to a knowledge that has no time, space or "self". It doesn't make sense because it isn't explicable by our subject/object language convention. There IS no "future" you. What you are is inseparable from Dependent Origination, not a "part" of it, inextricable from a seamless whole. Yes, causes and conditions arise in a relative sense, but that always happens NOW as part of a fictional timeline. The past and future only ever exist as thoughts happening now. Where is your story about your practice history when your mind is still? Where is the "self" you believe you are? Where are the past and the future?

 

”There is actually a reason for that.” I probably know the reason, but enlighten us. 

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Forestgreen said:

I agree 100%. When insight dawns. When. As in after. As in, for most practitioners, not now.  Most people, meditators or not, lack that insight.

 

While not complete, some insight into this particular point can come with everyday cessation in meditation. It isn't hard to demonstrate what this means to most students who have managed to become somewhat familiar with learning to become a witness to their thoughts instead of being their thoughts. I find most students can come to understand to some degree, with direct pointing, what "emptiness" (or the Dao) is and begin questioning the constructed nature of their worlds. Seeing all things as "buddha nature" is a fairly common Mahayana practice that you don't have to be any kind of expert to do.... again with some ability to find cessation in meditation practice.

 

1 hour ago, Forestgreen said:

Sort of fits in with my metaphor. Before that insight, one is still trapped in appearances, and spiritual traditions recommend that we do stuff, for example meditation, and changes of behaviour, to increase the chance of insight. 

I did notice that you specified "from the perspective of the enlightened mind", my bad, I should have specified the above and pointed out that the vast majority is in no place to share that view. 

 

Yes, agreed, one is trapped in appearances, but any decent teacher is going to be showing the student how to recognize this and "wake up" over and over again in the moment they occupy. Realizing you are "asleep" is big part of waking up, but so is getting some taste of what "awake" IS. 

 

1 hour ago, Forestgreen said:

Some neidan traditions use descriptions that imply that the practice creates something immortal. Being a total bore, I do not agree with that either. Probably because my practice is buddhist, not daoist. 

 

Being an immortal enlightened "person" is ultimately an oxymoron, from my perspective. Emptiness/Dao is immortal. I think that is the only "thing" that is.

[stirling]

31 minutes ago, ralis said:

”There is actually a reason for that.” I probably know the reason, but enlighten us. 

 

The reason is "skillful means". It is generally abstract and unnecessary for the Western mind to use those particular concepts as a lens for the dharma. Some of those teachings are meant for a different culture framework and time. Westerners think they are learning the carefully guarded secrets only taught to the select few, but the truly important stuff that actually gets you anywhere is so simple that most can't believe it. 

 

Quote

Four Faults of Natural Awareness 

 

So close you can’t see it.
So deep you can’t fathom it.
So simple you can’t believe it.
So good you can’t accept it.

– Kalu Rinpoche

 

Among the actual Tibetan teachers I have encountered or worked with in the West, many teach preliminary teachings alongside Dzogchen... "...swooping down from above while climbing from below". While I have had teachings on a few obscure items, most of it has been the basics, and I am happy to say that they work, in my experience. 

[Mark Foote]

20 hours ago, ralis said:

 

The Pali Canon is said to be the exact words of the Buddhas teachings, and was an oral transmission for over 500 years before it was written down. Is that factual, or based on myth? 
 

Oh, be like that, Ralis! 

 

I believe the myth, ha ha.

There's a voice in those early Nikayas, the first four, that I haven't found anywhere else. Things are said there that relate to my experience, that unfold for me over time.  I have to believe that in the sermons attributed to Gautama, the first four Nikayas do indeed capture the voice of one unique individual.

You might like this, something I wrote awhile back:
 

By Gautama’s own admission, enlightenment is not required to enjoy (his own) “pleasant way of living”:
 

Formerly… before I myself was enlightened with the perfect wisdom, and was yet a Bodhisattva, I used generally to spend my time in this way of living.
 

(SN 54.8; tr. PTS vol. V p 280: “the Tathagatha’s way of life”, 289)

 

If a person can exhibit a mindfulness like Gautama’s without having become enlightened (his way of living), and can have “seen by means of wisdom” without having completely destroyed the cankers (sense desire, desire for being, desire for not being), then how can one know who to trust as a teacher?
 

Gautama’s advice was to go by the words of the teacher rather than any claim to authority, to compare the instructions of a teacher to the sermons Gautama himself had given and to the rules of the order that Gautama himself had laid down (DN 16 PTS vol. ii pp 133-136).
 

Nevertheless, activity solely by virtue of the free location of consciousness, the hallmark of the fourth concentration, has been conveyed by demonstration in some branches of Buddhism for millennia. The transmission of a central part of the teaching through such conveyance, and the certification of that transmission by the presiding teacher, is regarded by some schools as the only guarantee of the authenticity of a teacher.
 

The teachers so authenticated have in many cases disappointed their students, when circumstances revealed that the teacher’s cankers had not been completely destroyed. Furthermore, some schools appear to have certified transmission without the conveyance that has kept the tradition alive, perhaps for the sake of the continuation of the school.
 

Gautama himself refused to name a successor (DN 16, PTS vol. ii p 107). 

(One Way or Another, parentheticals paraphrase original)

 

 

 

[forestofclarity]

17 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

So is mine. Shaolin. Supported by the abhidhamma, texts from tibetan buddhism,  and so on.

 

I'd be curious to hear more about how Buddhism is practiced from a Shaolin perspective. I think Buddhism is practiced from different angles in different traditions. I personally don't think one way is right or wrong.

 

3 hours ago, ralis said:

”There is actually a reason for that.” I probably know the reason, but enlighten us. 

 

Personally, I think the reason is that these practices require a lot of work and teacher supervision or they go wrong. 

 

On the other hand, I think the energy body stop develops anyway. 

 

I also think Westerners tend to "lower the bar" and miss out on a lot of possibility, but that might just be me. 

[Mark Foote]

5 hours ago, stirling said:

The 4th Noble Truth is cessation - not cessation in the future, but cessation here/now, with no-self. There is no difference between the mind in formless jana and enlightened mind. In Zen, resting in that formless nature... cessation,  is "practice". 
 

 

 

Third noble truth is cessation, the fourth is the way leading to cessation.

In MN 70, Gautama distinguished between the attainment of "those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes" (the formless jhana) and the complete destruction of the cankers that he said was synonymous with enlightenment.

 

In Soto Zen, "shikantaza" is the complete cessation of willful or intentional activity of the body, or "just sitting".

Easier said than done! From a post I'm working on now:

 

It is not possible to continue (shikantaza) more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy.

(I have nothing in my mind, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969, San Francisco)

 

Gautama spoke similarly:

 

… seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind.

(AN 5.28, tr. PTS vol. III pp 18-19, see also MN 119 PTS vol. III pp 132-134)
 

“The pureness of mind” Gautama referred to is the pureness of the mind without will or intent with regard to the activity of the body. In Gautama’s teaching, the extension of “purity by the pureness of mind” belonged to the last of the initial concentrations, the fourth concentration.
 

 

 

Quote

 

 

There are no metaphors about daily life that apply to a knowledge that has no time, space or "self". It doesn't make sense because it isn't explicable by our subject/object language convention. There IS no "future" you. What you are is inseparable from Dependent Origination, not a "part" of it, inextricable from a seamless whole. Yes, causes and conditions arise in a relative sense, but that always happens NOW as part of a fictional timeline. The past and future only ever exist as thoughts happening now. Where is your story about your practice history when your mind is still? Where is the "self" you believe you are? Where are the past and the future?
 

 

 

I've mentioned before that I associate the three cankers with prejudice toward particular time frames--sense desire with an inclination toward  the present, desire for being with an inclination toward the future, and desire for not being with an inclination toward the past.

 

As I'm sure you'll agree, an inclination toward a particular time frame can trip a person up.

 

 

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, Surya said:

Alright, so goes without saying I am no teacher, but I have been in love with my brilliantly foolish intellect. A few observations on what might have opened my mind a little bit:

 

First, compliment them on what is good about their full cup. «Good you study,» or «you have putten a lot of work into this» or whatever. Then I think somehow breaking their automatic programming trough dancing or singing or whatever can be good, and then you can SHOW them what REAL wisdom LOOKS like. And when trust is established, perhaps they will be eager to learn from you, submissively.

 

Sounds right, except for the "submissively" part. 

Acknowledging that if they have been able to see/feel what "REAL wisdom LOOKS like", they have already learned all they need to know?

 

 

[Surya]

31 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

Sounds right, except for the "submissively" part. 

Acknowledging that if they have been able to see/feel what "REAL wisdom LOOKS like", they have already learned all they need to know?

 

 

You’re right. Or rather, there is a balance. There was a time where it was proper for me to stfu. Now I delay judgement on things I don’t understand, or engange in conversation. The good side of my rebel nature is that being a blind follower is pretty much impossible for me. 
 

But yes, let’s scratch submissively 💃

 

Humbly, perhaps?

[stirling]

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

Third noble truth is cessation, the fourth is the way leading to cessation.

 

Right you are sir! I should spend more time revising my posts.

 

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

In MN 70, Gautama distinguished between the attainment of "those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes" (the formless jhana) and the complete destruction of the cankers that he said was synonymous with enlightenment.

 

Yes, the jhanas are "states" not the the actual object at hand. Still, it can be advantageous to get a feel for what is being pointed at, so that when there is insight it is recognized for what it is. This is one way of acquainting oneself. 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

In Soto Zen, "shikantaza" is the complete cessation of willful or intentional activity of the body, or "just sitting".

 

It is less complicated than that, even. Shikantaza is not a state, but merely resting in the reality of this moment, as it is. Learning not to contrive your experience and recognize "just being" takes some work.

 

Quote

Seigen Gyoshi went to study with the Zen master Daikan Eno and asked, “What work is to be done so as not to fall into stages?” The Zen master inquired, “What have you done?” Seigen Gyoshi said, “I do not even practice the holy truths.” The Zen master said, “What stage do you fall into?” Seigen Gyoshi said, “If I do not even practice the holy truths what stages are there? The Zen master recognized his profound capacity. - Denkoroku, or Transmission of Light, Keizan

 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Foote said:

It is not possible to continue (shikantaza) more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy.

(I have nothing in my mind, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969, San Francisco)

 

I looked at your link, Mark and what Suzuki actually says there is:

 

Quote

So most teacher may say shikantaza is not so easy, you know. It-- it is not possible to continue it more than one hour, because it is intense practice to take hold of all our mind and body by the practice which include everything. So in shikantaza, our mind should pervade every parts of our physical being. That is not so easy. Did you understand? If you actually practice zazen you will understand it, you know. As I always say, to count your breathing like this is not zazen [laughs], you know. Just to count our breathing is not counting breathing practice, actually. With, you know, with your whole body and mind, you should count your breathing. - (I have nothing in my mind, Shunryu Suzuki, July 15, 1969, San Francisco)

 

I think his qualifier is important - Suzuki is not saying that, he says that OTHERS do. Once understood shikantaza becomes easier... with insight it is actually just how life actually IS. He also says that if you have a good Zazen practice, shikantaza will be comprehensible to you. This is true... it just needs pointing out by a teacher. Zazen IS the process of learning to let go of "doership", which I often think is where your personal investigation is headed.