Re: Question about Mahayana.
- Hi Thomas,
>< KH: We can see from Lukas's quote that the view "everything is empty of both existence and non-existence" was not the sort of view held by the Buddha. It was just as wrong as "everything exists" or "everything does not exist." "----
> T: I think the view "everything is empty of both existence and non-existence" was found in the Samyutta sutta (Samyukta sutras).
KH: I couldn't find the Samyatta Sutta, but are you aware of a formula (found, not only in the Kokanuda Sutta quoted by Lukas, but frequently throughout the suttas) describing wrong views as, for example, "The self exists, the self does not exist. The self both exists and does not exist. The self neither exists nor does not exist"? Or, in another example, "I shall be reborn, I shall not be reborn, I shall be both reborn and not reborn, I shall be neither reborn nor not reborn."
I am assuming that the same formula would apply to your example of "everything exists" and it would show clearly that "everything is empty of both existence and non-existence" was a wrong view.
Basically, all wrong views assume a permanent existence of some kind. And so they are all wrong, no matter what they say. They are doomed from the start.
The view "everything exists" is a view about lasting (conventionally known) things. It is not a view about the conditioned things described by the Buddha. Therefore, that view, along with "everything neither exists nor does not exist," must be wrong.
> T: Existence and non-existence are linked to the view "everything exists" and "everything does not exist." These views all come from self-attachment, and are regarded as the two extremes (see SN 22.90).--------
KH: I am not sure what you mean by "come from self attachment." It sounds suspiciously like something Thanissaro B might have said on Access to Insight. I hope you are not saying that anatta is a mere mediation technique (in which attachment to thoughts of self and no-self are temporarily suppressed).
If you are saying that then some serious re-education is urgently required. :-)
- Hi Sarah.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> S: Better to just talk about realities, paramattha dhammas that can be understood now. I think this is more productive than discussions about formal meditation.
> This morning at breakfast, another swimmer started asking me about retreats and meditation because of stress issues. I just started talking about 'now', about seeing now, hearing now, 'meditation' now, even in the noisy cafe. Otherwise, there's always a thinking about another time, another place, never any understanding or awareness now. She appreciated it!
I continue to think this is a very "zen" approach to Dhamma - I think if you called it "zen" you'd probably convert a bunch of Mahayanists, as it is very appealing, and I agree really is the heart of becoming aware, which can only happen at this moment now.
A favorite quote of mine is sort of analogous in its simplicity, from the avant-garde saxaphonist/bass clarinetist Eric Dolphy, now deceased: "Music, after it's over, it's gone in the air - you can never capture it again."
- - - - - - - - - - - -