|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Apkallu
France
108 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 11:53:58 AM
|
My understanding is that AYP, which I  , belongs to the Mahayana movement ?
While on the intellectual side, I feel the Theravada is the real thing.
Are both compatible within AYP? |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 15 2016 : 12:57:05 PM
|
Hi Apkallu,
AYP bears a lot of similarities with Mahayana Buddhism, but it is not part of the Mahayana movement. As I am sure you know, there is not just one Mahayana school, but many, so it is not easy to make any straight comparison with Mahayana Buddhism.
As for Theravadan Buddhism being the real thing, it is certainly closer to what the Buddha would have been practising and teaching. Mahayana Buddhism involves many additions and adaptations which came later. That does not make Mahayana Buddhism any less real though and many would say that the additions to the practices make it a more powerful spiritual path.
In terms of compatibility with AYP, if you are combining practices, there is no reason why either of these two Buddhist paths would not be compatible. The only thing to watch out for when combining two sets of spiritual practices, is doubling up, especially with energetic practices. This would be less of a concern with Theravada Buddhist practices as they involve very few energetic practices. Mahayana Buddhism involves a few more, especially with the visualization practices.
Personally I have combined Theravada Buddhist practices with AYP successfully for many years. I have also combined AYP with Mahayana Buddhist practices, without any issues. A few Mahayana Buddhist visualization practices involve the crown chakra, so you would want to be especially careful there, possibly leaving those out all together until you have reached lesson 199 in the main AYP lessons and have become stable at the crown.
Christi |
 |
|
|
Apkallu
France
108 Posts |
Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 07:00:22 AM
|
Thank you Christi,
I am also wondering why should her High Self not exist and that we should just "dissolve" when we stop the reincarnation process.
Are we but just commiting a kind of suicide (which is not possible if we do not exist of course) whereas it is considered to prevent illumination if we want to cease to exist (which is not the case you might say if it is not our primary intent)
Nihilism ?
Thanks. |
|
|
|
BlueRaincoat
United Kingdom
1734 Posts |
Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 2:49:13 PM
|
A wave will always be part of the ocean - it was That before, and will continue to be That after its transitory form has disappeared.
If you're identified with your transitory form, then yes, you will dissolve. But when you've realised you are one with everything, then how can you possibly die? It is this realisation we work towards, with our yoga practices.
Asking these question at intellectual level will not give you the answer. Sticking to your practice will, as your perception of Self will gradually shift to a point where the answers you are seeking will become self-evident.
Enjoy your practice and godspeed  |
Edited by - BlueRaincoat on Sep 16 2016 2:57:08 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 5:22:34 PM
|
Hi Apkallu,
Yes, as Blue says, what dissolves is simply a mis-identification with a limited sense of being. Nothing more or less than that.
Identification with form, falls away, and we come to know ourselves as that which is unborn, undying and uncreated. That which is "prior to" all things that arise and cease to be.
When the Buddha taught, he taught in a very negative sense. So he would say (paraphrasing) "there is no Brahman, and no Atman. You are not this that you see, and not this that you hear etc. Wherever you look, there is no self." and so on... .
This is very much a Neti Neti teaching, meaning "not this and not this". By letting go of what we are not, we come to know what we are. But the Buddha never said what it is that we are. He let everyone come to know for themselves, through their own direct experience, as they awaken.
What we are, is not something that can be known by the mind, as it is beyond the mind.
From an intellectual point of view, this could seem nihilistic, especially where identification with form is strong. From a spiritual point of view, it is not nihilistic, as we are only letting go of that which is not real, which never existed in the first place.
The Neti Neti approach to enlightenment is discussed at length in Yogani's book on Self-inquiry, as is the process of the dissolution of identification with limited form, and with that which is not eternal.
Christi |
|
|
|
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts |
Posted - Sep 16 2016 : 7:22:33 PM
|
The tricky thing about Buddhism (whether Mahayana or Theravada) is much like the tricky thing about Christianity (whether Catholic or Protestant), and that is...it's hard to definitively pinpoint what the respective avatars truly said or did. We have to take the scriptures with a grain of salt. We also have to consider that each religion has crafted and constructed dogma, over time, to suit their needs and to maintain order and hierarchy. So, things like reincarnation, no-self, entering the stream, and other teachings are susceptible to the influence of the powers that be.
For me, I find value in the Buddha, just as much as Jesus. I feel that Buddha covers the mind, and Jesus cover the heart (and of course, they criss-cross). And to taste any substantial depth of enlightenment, we have to awaken and align the heart and mind, which are essentially one anyway. For instance, in the samyama book of AYP, the sutra "heart" yields knowledge of the mind. Very intertwined.
My quest is to find the Buddha within me (buddha-nature), and the Christ within me (Christ consciousness). Tapping into stillness is a very necessary step to becoming closer to the essence of the avatars.
Buddha said (or possibly said  ): "The mind is everything. What you think you become."
That is why samyama is so powerful—because it uses the mind to manifest miracles in accordance with the flow of stillness in action. We can only transcend the mind by mastering it. The mind is a divine instrument of creation. The essence of our being is both within the mind and beyond it. The mind and the body are the vehicles of enlightenment. A brilliant design.
What works for me regarding Buddhist teachings is to take what resonates and leave the rest. It doesn't have to be swallowed whole. Same with AYP. We have a baseline, with room for modifications. We are entering an age in which information is so easily available that individuals can make their own decisions and form niches without as much fear of losing cohesiveness. As AYP evolves, there will surely be offshoots and interesting tangential groups that draw from the baseline. It's an ideal time for freedom of individuality and autonomy. 
Best of luck on your path!  |
|
|
|
jonesboy
USA
594 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 10:02:39 AM
|
Just some food for thought .
The Buddha taught Sunyata which is not neti neti. There have been many Buddhas such as Guru Rinpoche which taught tantra. Also, Buddhism doesn't believe in universal consciousness nor a soul/atman. |
Edited by - jonesboy on Sep 17 2016 10:07:05 AM |
|
|
|
sunyata
USA
1513 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 1:57:07 PM
|
Sunyata means emptiness.
Neti Neti means not this not that.
Ultimately emptiness becomes fullness and not this not that become everything is That.
Buddha simply means the awakened one. As the saying goes if you see Buddha on the way kill him/her. |
Edited by - sunyata on Sep 17 2016 1:58:12 PM |
|
|
|
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 2:51:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sunyata
Ultimately emptiness becomes fullness and not this not that become everything is That.
Unity. Oneness. Self. |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 3:04:22 PM
|
Hi Jonesboy,
quote:
The Buddha taught Sunyata which is not neti neti.
The concept of Sunyata in Buddhism, is an aspect of the Neti Neti practice.
The Buddha's Neti Neti practice, is outlined in the Samyutta Nikaya. It reads something like this:
"The body, monks, is impermanent. What is impermanent, that is suffering. What is suffering, that is not-self. What is not-self should be considered as 'This is not mine,' 'I am not this,' 'This is not myself': in this manner it should be seen according to actuality with perfect wisdom.
"Feeling is impermanent... Perception... Mental activities... Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent, that is suffering. What is suffering, that is not-self. What is not-self, should be considered, 'This is not mine,' 'I am not this,' 'This is not myself': in this manner it should be seen according to actuality with perfect wisdom."
So it is a practice of taking all things: Forms, perceptions, thoughts, everything that can arise within consciousness and even the field of consciousness itself, and regarding them as being intrinsically "not me" and "not mine".
In the early days of Buddhism, Sunyata, or emptiness, was a word used to describe the direct perception of all phenomena, as having no inherent self. In other words it is the state that one comes to realize, as a result of letting go of identification with all phenomena. It is also the nature of that phenomena, as being inherently devoid of self. Later on, with the development of Mahayana, the concept was expanded to include the direct perception that all form is inherently empty of any intrinsic independent existence or nature, as are we.
Yogani puts it like this, in lesson 333:
"Emptiness/void is awareness with no objects. Nothing to be aware of. Pure potential, beyond all that exists. The source of all. We can also be that in the body/mind. We are that. It expresses as consciousness and the witness through the body/mind, and as everything we see and do." [Yogani]
quote:
Buddhism doesn't believe in universal consciousness nor a soul/atman.
The Buddha's teachings on the nature of the Atman (soul/ Self) are quite subtle and hard to grasp. One question that anyone could ask is: "If there is no atman (Self), then who is it who becomes a stream-enterer, or a once-returner, or a non-returner, or an Arahat?" "Who is it who becomes a Buddha?". So without positing an Atman (Self), the whole religion would have no sense or meaning.
I find it can be more useful to understand the teachings of anatta (the non existence of Self), as being of the non-existence of a separate, independent Self. In terms of practice, this can be more helpful. In other words it is not that enlightened beings do not exist, but rather that they know themselves to be fundamentally not separate from anything and anyone.
The Buddha actually referred to the Self. He was once asked by his main disciple, Ananda, who would be his (Ananda's) refuge after the Buddha had left his body (attained paranibbana). The Buddha replied:
"... O Ananda, be a lamp [diipa] unto your self [attan]. Be a refuge unto your self. Take no external refuge. Hold fast to the truth as a lamp. Take the truth as your refuge. Look not for
refuge to any one besides yourself." [Mahaparinibbana Sutta]
So the Buddha's teachings on the nature of Atman (Self), and anatta (non-self), are subtle and were not designed to be philosophical doctrines. They were teachings designed to help people awaken, as an aid to their spiritual practice. Unfortunately, as is often the case, people have taken teachings on practice and have turned them into doctrines, things to believe in and to become attached to. This actually goes against what the Buddha taught. He always taught people not to believe in things, just because they heard them from others, but to come to know the truth through direct experience instead. This is a quote from the Kalama Sutta:
"Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them." [Buddha]
Christi
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 3:57:55 PM
|
Hi Sunyata and Bodhi,
We cross-posted.  |
|
|
|
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 5:10:13 PM
|
Neti neti is a doorway to sunyata (emptiness). But there are many other doorways, especially in self-inquiry. We can also use affirmation, by saying: I am That. I am the stillness, and all objects within stillness. As Sunyata (the forum member ) pointed out, when emptiness becomes fullness, the individual is no longer stuck in the witness stage of denying identification with objects of perception. The individual has merged with all objects of perception, so that identity encompasses all. Neti neti is just a halfway maneuver.
Also, just wanted to say something about philosophy. Philosophy is a necessary part of awakening. Yogani likes to emphasize the importance of practical methods, but he also uses quite a bit of philosophical language: stillness in action, unity, an outpouring of divine love, ecstatic bliss, self-pacing, and so on. These concepts are linked to physical and energetic realities, so they can bolster and enhance our experience.
If I adopt a philosophy that I want to massage people in an effortless manner that will generate ecstatic bliss, that will help lead me to the more specific techniques and material methods to achieve the desired result. There's nothing wrong with adopting a philosophy (spiritually, professionally, or otherwise); we just want to follow through with the philosophy and make sure it translates into palpable reality. Similarly, I don't think Buddha was opposed to philosophy at all; he used philosophy to complete the picture.
Yogani doesn't write anecdotally, because his anonymity prohibits him from doing so (of course, there are a few exceptions scattered throughout the lessons and forum posts). So, in lieu of real-life anecdotes that are tied to physical reality, he uses philosophical language to add to the actual instructions regarding techniques.
Obviously, I'm more inclined to write anecdotally, because I have no need for anonymity, so my transparency affords me more flexibility and use of concrete language to demonstrate (or show how I'm failing to demonstrate  ) these philosophical principles and truths. Other people are doing this as well, so it's great that we can move beyond stillness and ideas to a more visible and tangible reality. Seeing is believing.
We're not here to disappear. We're here to appear, and we can do miraculous things while in the form of appearance.
Form is just as real as formlessness. Note it. |
|
|
|
jonesboy
USA
594 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 6:53:11 PM
|
Thank you very much for your reply Christi.
If you don't mind I will add a couple of comments.
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Jonesboy,
quote:
The Buddha taught Sunyata which is not neti neti.
The concept of Sunyata in Buddhism, is an aspect of the Neti Neti practice.
The Buddha's Neti Neti practice, is outlined in the Samyutta Nikaya. It reads something like this:
"The body, monks, is impermanent. What is impermanent, that is suffering. What is suffering, that is not-self. What is not-self should be considered as 'This is not mine,' 'I am not this,' 'This is not myself': in this manner it should be seen according to actuality with perfect wisdom.
"Feeling is impermanent... Perception... Mental activities... Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent, that is suffering. What is suffering, that is not-self. What is not-self, should be considered, 'This is not mine,' 'I am not this,' 'This is not myself': in this manner it should be seen according to actuality with perfect wisdom."
So it is a practice of taking all things: Forms, perceptions, thoughts, everything that can arise within consciousness and even the field of consciousness itself, and regarding them as being intrinsically "not me" and "not mine".
Emptiness is not a practice but a state of being, of what all reality is. First it is experienced as emptiness of self. A Buddha is one that has also realized emptiness of ultimate reality.
The above quote is saying that all things, perceptions, excreta are not them. That is all arises from within. The most important part of the quote is what I bolded above. "actuality with perfect wisdom" Wisdom in Buddhism is the realization of... So he isn't talking about a practice but the realization of that truth. That all suffering arises from the mental attachment.
quote:
In the early days of Buddhism, Sunyata, or emptiness, was a word used to describe the direct perception of all phenomena, as having no inherent self. In other words it is the state that one comes to realize, as a result of letting go of identification with all phenomena. It is also the nature of that phenomena, as being inherently devoid of self. Later on, with the development of Mahayana, the concept was expanded to include the direct perception that all form is inherently empty of any intrinsic independent existence or nature, as are we.
Yogani puts it like this, in lesson 333:
"Emptiness/void is awareness with no objects. Nothing to be aware of. Pure potential, beyond all that exists. The source of all. We can also be that in the body/mind. We are that. It expresses as consciousness and the witness through the body/mind, and as everything we see and do." [Yogani]
I would say that Yogani's quote isn't just about emptiness. More I think he is describing the Natural State. I will add a second post for a deeper description.
quote:
quote:
Buddhism doesn't believe in universal consciousness nor a soul/atman.
The Buddha's teachings on the nature of the Atman (soul/ Self) are quite subtle and hard to grasp. One question that anyone could ask is: "If there is no atman (Self), then who is it who becomes a stream-enterer, or a once-returner, or a non-returner, or an Arahat?" "Who is it who becomes a Buddha?". So without positing an Atman (Self), the whole religion would have no sense or meaning.
I find it can be more useful to understand the teachings of anatta (the non existence of Self), as being of the non-existence of a separate, independent Self. In terms of practice, this can be more helpful. In other words it is not that enlightened beings do not exist, but rather that they know themselves to be fundamentally not separate from anything and anyone.
The Buddha actually referred to the Self. He was once asked by his main disciple, Ananda, who would be his (Ananda's) refuge after the Buddha had left his body (attained paranibbana). The Buddha replied:
"... O Ananda, be a lamp [diipa] unto your self [attan]. Be a refuge unto your self. Take no external refuge. Hold fast to the truth as a lamp. Take the truth as your refuge. Look not for
refuge to any one besides yourself." [Mahaparinibbana Sutta]
So the Buddha's teachings on the nature of Atman (Self), and anatta (non-self), are subtle and were not designed to be philosophical doctrines. They were teachings designed to help people awaken, as an aid to their spiritual practice. Unfortunately, as is often the case, people have taken teachings on practice and have turned them into doctrines, things to believe in and to become attached to. This actually goes against what the Buddha taught. He always taught people not to believe in things, just because they heard them from others, but to come to know the truth through direct experience instead. This is a quote from the Kalama Sutta:
"Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them." [Buddha]
Christi
I believe they are teachings on the nature of reality.
I think the Buddha says it quite clear in the Lankavatara Sutra.
The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, and imperishable. Is there, or is there not a difference?
The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What I teach is Tathágata-hood in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unborn-ness, unqualified ness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathágata-hood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of ego-less-ness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imageless-ness. The religious teaching of the Tathágatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rod, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathágatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold ego-less-ness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realization of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathágata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosophers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of "soul" as being something self-existent may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightenment. All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathágata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathágata-hood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.
http://buddhasutra.com/files/lankavatara_sutra.htm
|
|
|
|
jonesboy
USA
594 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 6:57:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bodhi Tree
Neti neti is a doorway to sunyata (emptiness). But there are many other doorways, especially in self-inquiry. We can also use affirmation, by saying: I am That. I am the stillness, and all objects within stillness. As Sunyata (the forum member ) pointed out, when emptiness becomes fullness, the individual is no longer stuck in the witness stage of denying identification with objects of perception. The individual has merged with all objects of perception, so that identity encompasses all. Neti neti is just a halfway maneuver.
Also, just wanted to say something about philosophy. Philosophy is a necessary part of awakening. Yogani likes to emphasize the importance of practical methods, but he also uses quite a bit of philosophical language: stillness in action, unity, an outpouring of divine love, ecstatic bliss, self-pacing, and so on. These concepts are linked to physical and energetic realities, so they can bolster and enhance our experience.
If I adopt a philosophy that I want to massage people in an effortless manner that will generate ecstatic bliss, that will help lead me to the more specific techniques and material methods to achieve the desired result. There's nothing wrong with adopting a philosophy (spiritually, professionally, or otherwise); we just want to follow through with the philosophy and make sure it translates into palpable reality. Similarly, I don't think Buddha was opposed to philosophy at all; he used philosophy to complete the picture.
Yogani doesn't write anecdotally, because his anonymity prohibits him from doing so (of course, there are a few exceptions scattered throughout the lessons and forum posts). So, in lieu of real-life anecdotes that are tied to physical reality, he uses philosophical language to add to the actual instructions regarding techniques.
Obviously, I'm more inclined to write anecdotally, because I have no need for anonymity, so my transparency affords me more flexibility and use of concrete language to demonstrate (or show how I'm failing to demonstrate ) these philosophical principles and truths. Other people are doing this as well, so it's great that we can move beyond stillness and ideas to a more visible and tangible reality. Seeing is believing.
We're not here to disappear. We're here to appear, and we can do miraculous things while in the form of appearance.
Form is just as real as formlessness. Note it.
What do you experience when you become that energy? All things are energy.. When you are able to realize that.. You have realized the Wisdom of Sunyata..
It is not about disappearing :) |
|
|
|
sunyata
USA
1513 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 7:28:34 PM
|
I heard an Enlightened man say he once read a 500 page book on Emptiness and then started laughing uncontrollably.
As Yogani says do your practices and go out and live your life fully. Even five minutes of practice equals reading 500 books.
Sorry going back to posting about AYP. As the Tibetans say Tashi Delek
|
Edited by - sunyata on Sep 17 2016 8:26:52 PM |
|
|
|
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 8:18:05 PM
|
There is nothing better than feeling like I am immersed in inner silence, and to sense how it stretches eternally into the past and future. Then my worries dissipate because I know that nothing can truly go wrong. It is that unshakable core witnessing, penetrating, enveloping change.
And I feel it best when surrounded by other people who are oriented towards the same goal, which is no coincidence, because wouldn't the Master of the Universe design things so that people would unify and pursue sublime peace after getting tired of banging their heads against particular material obstacles?
It's all a game, a show, a dream returning to the original dreamer. But the dream is real because we're all dreaming it together. For me, that's the key thing to keep in mind.
I think the Buddha would be in agreement with these sentiments. |
|
|
|
sunyata
USA
1513 Posts |
Posted - Sep 17 2016 : 9:03:14 PM
|
quote:
Then my worries dissipate because I know that nothing can truly go wrong
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 18 2016 : 06:19:34 AM
|
Hi Jonesboy,
quote:
Emptiness is not a practice but a state of being, of what all reality is. First it is experienced as emptiness of self. A Buddha is one that has also realized emptiness of ultimate reality.
That's right, Sunyata, or emptiness is a state of being, or the direct perception of the reality of existence.
But the direct perception of truth does not arise without the spiritual practices that help to clear our perception. So it is the practices that are the key thing rather than the end result.
With self-inquiry practices, such as the contemplation of all things as being "not me" and "not mine", we need to first of all have developed a sufficient degree of inner silence for these practices to work. So the first stage is the practice of meditation, to cultivate the qualities of inner silence and the witness. Then, when we have reached a sufficient level of inner silence, we can begin to also use these contemplation practices (self-inquiry).
The combination of meditation and self-inquiry can bring us to the direct perception of the true nature of being as emptiness. The qualities of this state are ecstatic bliss, joy, peace, divine love and freedom.
If we attempt to engage in self-inquiry too early, before a sufficient level of inner silence has been cultivated, it can lead to a building of castles in the air. This is when we find ourselves becoming attached to philosophical ideas, to the detriment of the realization of truth. If this is happening, then instead of philosophical ideas acting as an aid on the path, leading to greater freedom and greater realization, they can simply lead us towards becoming stuck on fixed points of view.
All of this is the operation of non-relational self-inquiry. In terms of spiritual practices, it is getting the cart in front of the horse. Best to cultivate inner silence (the witness), first, and then all these things that we are discussing here become simple matters, that are actually falling away in the mind, almost as quickly as they arise.
With inner silence as the core of our nature, contemplation of the Self (I am That), or of not-self (this is not me, not mine), or of emptiness, become the same thing. Everything becomes transparent and clear, and what remains is what is real.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Bodhi Tree
2972 Posts |
Posted - Sep 18 2016 : 10:23:08 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
With inner silence as the core of our nature, contemplation of the Self (I am That), or of not-self (this is not me, not mine), or of emptiness, become the same thing.
Exactly. |
|
|
|
lalow33
USA
966 Posts |
Posted - Sep 18 2016 : 8:58:57 PM
|
I'm jumping in.
Christi,
This quote: "So it is a practice of taking all things: Forms, perceptions, thoughts, everything that can arise within consciousness and even the field of consciousness itself, and regarding them as being intrinsically "not me" and "not mine".
This struck a chord here. Especially the part about the field of consciousness not being me or mine. If there's a pointer or something, that'd be great. It's kinda where I am, and I'm a bit lost.
|
|
|
|
Apkallu
France
108 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2016 : 11:35:02 AM
|
quote:
[i]The Buddha actually referred to the Self. He was once asked by his main disciple, Ananda, who would be his (Ananda's) refuge after the Buddha had left his body (attained paranibbana). The Buddha replied:
"... O Ananda, be a lamp [diipa] unto your self [attan]. Be a refuge unto your self. Take no external refuge. Hold fast to the truth as a lamp. Take the truth as your refuge. Look not for
refuge to any one besides yourself." [Mahaparinibbana Sutta]
From a Theravadan expert (Walpola Rahula), this is a confusion caused based by a wrong and old translation into English from Rhys Davids.
It is not a reference to the Self. It is not "Lamp" but "Isle" (Dipa).
It was to comfort Ananda with regard to how the sangha will go on when the buddha was about to die. |
Edited by - Apkallu on Sep 19 2016 12:10:49 PM |
|
|
|
Apkallu
France
108 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2016 : 11:53:46 AM
|
quote:
"The body, monks, is impermanent. What is impermanent, that is suffering. What is suffering, that is not-self. What is not-self should be considered as 'This is not mine,' 'I am not this,' 'This is not myself': in this manner it should be seen according to actuality with perfect wisdom.
"Feeling is impermanent... Perception... Mental activities... Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent, that is suffering. What is suffering, that is not-self. What is not-self, should be considered, 'This is not mine,' 'I am not this,' 'This is not myself': in this manner it should be seen according to actuality with perfect wisdom."
Majjhima-nikaya:
A translation in English (done by me... oups) from a French version written by Walpola who is a specialist of Pali:
O Bikkhus, while neither the Self nor anything belonging to the Self can truly or really be found, this speculative view : "this universe is this Atman; after death, I will be that, which is permanent, which remains, which lasts, which does not change, and I will be like that until the end of times" - isn't it totally and completely insane ?
Another example of bad translation :
atta hi attano natho from Dhammapada (verse #160)
Does not mean "The Self is the lord of the self"
But : "Everyone is his own refuge"
verse #279:
Sabbe DHAMMA anatta : All the dhamma are without self
While in the previous verses (277/278) he was only using "samkhara" on purpose, he now adds that even the non-conditioned things (Nirvana) are without self.
If we would be part of something after the illumination, he would have told.
But he never did !? |
Edited by - Apkallu on Sep 19 2016 12:34:01 PM |
|
|
|
Blanche
USA
873 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2016 : 12:12:41 PM
|
Hi Apkallu,
If the examples discussed are acceptable alternative translations of the same passage from a sutta, I really wonder what Buddha said! The differences between translations are profunde. How does one manage to cope with the cognitive disagreements? |
|
|
|
Apkallu
France
108 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2016 : 12:31:28 PM
|
I do not think it is a problem of alternative translations.
Maybe I am wrong but it might be that Westerners rely on old translations of non experts in Pali and that our religions told us we would somehow "survive" for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2016 : 3:55:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apkallu
quote:
[i]The Buddha actually referred to the Self. He was once asked by his main disciple, Ananda, who would be his (Ananda's) refuge after the Buddha had left his body (attained paranibbana). The Buddha replied:
"... O Ananda, be a lamp [diipa] unto your self [attan]. Be a refuge unto your self. Take no external refuge. Hold fast to the truth as a lamp. Take the truth as your refuge. Look not for
refuge to any one besides yourself." [Mahaparinibbana Sutta]
From a Theravadan expert (Walpola Rahula), this is a confusion caused based by a wrong and old translation into English from Rhys Davids.
It is not a reference to the Self. It is not "Lamp" but "Isle" (Dipa).
It was to comfort Ananda with regard to how the sangha will go on when the buddha was about to die.
Hi Apkallu,
Dipa (Diipa) in Pali, can mean both Island or lamp (light). When I gave the translation for the verse above, I chose to use the translation of "lamp", because "island" would not make much sense, in the context of the Buddha's teachings. It also would not make much sense in the following verse (verse 34).
If we did use "island", as a translation for "dipa". It would read like this:
"... O Ananda, be an island [diipa] unto your self. Be a refuge unto your self. Take no external refuge. Hold fast to the truth as an island. Take the truth as your refuge. Look not for
refuge to any one besides yourself."
The remainder of the verse would read:
"And how, Ananda, is a monk an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?"
And then the next verse (verse 34) would read:
"When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge."
It is an O.K. translation, and works to some extent, but what does "having the Dhamma as his island" mean? To me it does not really make much sense, as the Dhamma (spiritual teachings), is not really an "island" or someone's "island"? Whereas, to say that the Dhamma is a "lamp" or a "light", carries much more meaning, in the sense of "the spiritual teachings are a light which shine the way".
Also, the translation: "be an island unto yourself", would not make much sense in the context of the Buddhist teaching on dependent origination (pratityasamutpada). The whole of the Buddha's teachings in fact, were that we are anything but islands, being fundamentally, both dependent and interdependent in our existence, at every level of our being.
So I prefer to use "lamp" or "light" in this case, rather than "island" for those reasons.
In Pali and Sanskrit, many words have several meanings. Some words can have as many as 10 meanings, or more. So when it comes to translations, it is not always an easy task, especially when it comes to spiritual texts, where knowledge of the teachings through direct experience, is also necessary to give an accurate translation. Even the scholars sometimes make mistakes!
And it is true that in this verse the Buddha is not giving a discourse on the nature of the Self. As you say, he is comforting Ananda (and some other's who were with him), over his immanent departure from this Earth.
But the important thing is that it shows that the Buddha could talk about the self in one way, in one context (giving comfort) and in another way, when giving teachings on spiritual practice.
So what seems like a paradox on the surface, makes sense only when we put the teachings into practice.
quote:
If we would be part of something after the illumination, he would have told.
But he never did !?
What we are after illumination, is only something that you can find out for yourself. Nobody can tell you what it is, not even the Buddha.
But as I said above, all these things become simple when we have cultivated inner silence, and are engaged in the process of self-inquiry as a letting go. Trying to figure things out with the mind, or comprehend these aspects of truth using reasoning, simply doesn't work, because the mind is not capable of understanding these things.
If we have the witness (inner silence) established, when these questions arise, we can simply say: "This is not me, this is not mine", and release it into stillness.
Otherwise it just becomes a philosophical game (castles in the air), that does not serve any purpose.
Christi
|
|
|
|
sunyata
USA
1513 Posts |
Posted - Sep 19 2016 : 4:21:45 PM
|
Hi Apkallu,
The origin of my native language is derived from Sanskrit and Pali. So, second Christi on the word "diipa"- it means lamp. It can also mean light. Depends on the context one uses it.
Also, it's great to read texts and draw inspiration. But if we start over-analyzing on which translation is the best, it may defeat it's purpose.
Better to engage in twice daily practices and find out for yourself. Your own realization and experience is the best translation.
|
Edited by - sunyata on Sep 19 2016 4:24:55 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Mahayana or Theravada ?
