|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 21 2009 : 09:02:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by chinna
The ENTIRE thoughtstream, including the room and the thinker, cannot be an object, and cannot be in the room. It is Indefinable.
When this is completely and intuitively known, we are free, not-two, Indefinable, and live all-out, spontaneously, without self-concern.
chinna
This is correct. This is dependent origination and madhyamaka. Objects are emptiness. And this must be intuitively and directly known. Then, all objects, the room and the subject are directly liberated into the "dharmakaya"/emptiness. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 21 2009 09:37:44 AM |
 |
|
|
AnEternalNow
Singapore
9 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2009 : 11:26:37 AM
|
SN 22.95
PTS: S iii 140
CDB i 951
Phena Sutta: Foam
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1999–2009
On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?
"Now suppose that in the autumn — when it's raining in fat, heavy drops — a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?
"Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:
Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. Beginning with the body as taught by the One with profound discernment: when abandoned by three things — life, warmth, & consciousness — form is rejected, cast aside. When bereft of these it lies thrown away, senseless, a meal for others. That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer.1 No substance here is found. Thus a monk, persistence aroused, should view the aggregates by day & by night, mindful, alert; should discard all fetters; should make himself his own refuge; should live as if his head were on fire — in hopes of the state with no falling away. |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2009 : 11:44:24 AM
|
Yeah but noone knows what emptiness means.
Jigme Lingpa says it is unnecessary to talk about emptiness. Nagarjuna would say the same thing, because emptiness is simply a negation of a claim.
Emptiness is the reality of phenomenon from the beginning...it is unnecessary to use the term. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 21 2009 12:04:49 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2009 : 12:39:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Yeah but noone knows what emptiness means.
Jigme Lingpa says it is unnecessary to talk about emptiness. Nagarjuna would say the same thing, because emptiness is simply a negation of a claim.
Emptiness is the reality of phenomenon from the beginning...it is unnecessary to use the term.
What do you think the guru introduces you to in direct introduction? What do you think the pointing out instructions point out? What do you think "Natural Liberation" means? See Nagarjuna's "In Praise of Dharmadhatu." Conventional level emptiness is the negation of a claim, but ultimate truth emptiness is a directly contacted meditation.
Conventional truth and the ultimate. Awareness/knowledge of the present moment is not the way objects naturally liberate. It's not like the present moment is an automatic attachment disposal. One must directly perceive their emptiness (exactly like the image of a moon in water, the mind is like the water).
When you look directly at the thought/object in your mind, it cannot be found. But you must look directly at its indefinite/ineffible translucence AT THE MOMENT, AS IT APPEARS in the mind.
An image appears in your mind when you are fixated and attached to reality. When you turn attention away from the object, as object, and turn your attention to the mind itself, and LOOK directly at the image, it disappears and so does the mind. This happens because images and thoughts are interdependent with your mind's interest, reaching and grasping. When there is no reaching or grasping, the mind is emptiness. You don't have to drop emptiness, but this is the best description of the "clarity."
The mind is an activity, not a being. It is not a thing. Before the mind grasps objects, it has pre-grasping action, TRYING, FOCUSING and REACHING. Such is the action of the logical, discursive mind. Directly looking at the act of focusing and so forth, one directly perceives the translucence of it all.
"Neither reach for nor release any being or non-being (any object or non/negated-object [any X or -X)." |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 21 2009 1:00:32 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2009 : 1:02:22 PM
|
Oh ok, now I am starting to get it. I'll give that a shot.
You are saying look directly at thoughts as they arise? |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 21 2009 1:17:16 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2009 : 2:49:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Oh ok, now I am starting to get it. I'll give that a shot.
You are saying look directly at thoughts as they arise?
Exactly. Beyond that you look directly at the feelings, and subtle bodily sensations, still mind, directly at the silent mind, directly at the moving mind, the clear mind, etc., etc. Reread the pointing out instructions from Garuda. These are helpful. But looking directly at thoughts is the first order of business... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Why no Madhyamaka subforum?
