Empty Your Cup

[Forestgreen]

9 hours ago, stirling said:

 

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. 

It's not abstract, or at least less abstract than 90% of other buddhist terms and concepts used.

Those terms describe things that happens within the body and the consciousness. 

So there must be another reason that explain why those particular concepts have been dropped. 

[Forestgreen]

6 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

I think Buddhism is practiced from different angles in different traditions. I personally don't think one way is right or wrong.

There are, and have been, numerous buddhist schools. They have argued most about every word in the sutras, and about how to practice. I try to narrow it down to "what I do", as long that it has support in texts and tradition. 

6 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

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

 

That would be my guess.

[Forestgreen]

10 hours ago, stirling said:

 

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.

Here we use different frames of reference. 

For me, touching stillness and being mindfull of how conventional reality relates to dependant origination are early stages and still far removed from seing the buddha nature ( and the practitioner still needs methods/tools to develop further).

If this is the frame that is taught in the traditions you are familiar with, then that is fine, and there is no point in taking this discussion further. 

[stirling]

12 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

It's not abstract, or at least less abstract than 90% of other buddhist terms and concepts used.

Those terms describe things that happens within the body and the consciousness. 

So there must be another reason that explain why those particular concepts have been dropped. 

 

There certainly could be other reasons. This is what I was told. 

[stirling]

11 hours ago, Forestgreen said:

For me, touching stillness and being mindfull of how conventional reality relates to dependant origination are early stages and still far removed from seing the buddha nature ( and the practitioner still needs methods/tools to develop further).

If this is the frame that is taught in the traditions you are familiar with, then that is fine, and there is no point in taking this discussion further. 

 

Setting aside traditions, my experience is that "emptiness" is present in any moment it is looked for. It isn't hard tor students to learn to recognize it, and rest in it. Bringing it to as many moments are possible is part of the practice.

 

Dependent origination is ultimately a "relative teaching", in my tradition.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

 

Nagarjuna uses it as a bridge to full understanding in his Madhyamaka teachings. 

 

Yes, we may come from different practice or tradition perspectives, but the result is ultimately the same, at least in my discussions with the few realized Theravadan monks I have encountered. The insight of "no-self" naturally leads to the recognition that all appearances lack "self". Our shared goal is the welfare and enlightenment of sentient beings.

[FluffyGuardian]

My teacher would warn aspiring students about learning from him due to how physically challenging and painful the practice is.

Of course, plenty of people thought they knew what hard work, pain, and misery were like due to past martial arts experiences. Some of them were instructors with over a decade of experience in a martial art. 

Then, they come to my teacher to learn on their first day. 

Lesson 1 is about holding a basic stance. It is short and high-stance. This isn't a low and wide stance. 

And those people could not stand for more than a few seconds. That is how utterly painful and physically demanding it is, even though it's an unassuming short stance.

Some of these people could go through their own forms that can last for 40 minutes. 

Our form also lasts for about that long. The difference is that a fraction of 1 sequence in our form is more physically demanding than the entirety of other people's forms. 

Hence, there is a very high quitting rate because my teacher has no intention of watering the art down to accommodate a wider audience.

So when people have their own ideas of past martial art experience helping them learn this particular art, they very quickly realize how useless those experiences were in the most fundamental stances that are unique to this lineage.
 

Edited 26 minutes ago by FluffyGuardian