15181[Meditation Society of America] Re: Meditation Advice
- Jan 24, 2007Hi Marc -
Thanks for your response.
Yes, it really wouldn't make much sense to take a website as some kind
of final authority on what is so.
And, in the same way, it wouldn't make sense to take your remarks or
my remarks as the authority for what is so.
Thus, the Buddha advised to find out for oneself what is so.
A resource on the internet can be taken as nothing more than a
resource on the internet.
Including our remarks, here, of course. ;-)
The conventional life in which we encounter beings who appear to us to
be suffering, isn't appearing separately from the one to whom it appears.
Which means, that if I understand you to be suffering, I can't divorce
my own suffering from my perception of you. How else can I perceive
your suffering, if I have no experience of suffering?
In the realm of conventional truth, I can offer help to you. In
helping you, though, I am helping myself.
With regard to the aconventional truth, there is no separable you or
me to be getting or giving help.
These two truths are not-two.
This can be said in a simple way, but that doesn't mean it is easy to
Thanks for clarifying the points that you clarified.
I appreciate that you took the time to share your views on emptiness
and inherent existence with us. Those are important points.
--- In email@example.com, Marc Moss
>something like the descriptions listed within this link to be very
> Dear Dan,
> Thank you for the link. I caution practitioners that will read
careful in understanding the implication that "nothing exists". This
contradicts the teachings of Lord Buddha, Je Tsongkhapa, Nagarjuna,
Chandrakirti and other masters that instruct the fine line between
eternalism and nihilism.
>findable lasting essence to phenomena. BUT, that doesn't change the
> True, things do not exist in an ultimate sense. There is no
fact that suffering is still experienced, that false views still bring
about results from causes that made them seemingly manifest. It's not
that things do NOT exist, but that they do not exist INHERENTLY; from
their own side, coming AT us, independently from a perceiving
>the situation. Even when one becomes an Arya on the Path of Seeing,
> This is where words fail so much to give the correct rendering of
they do not cease to see the deceptive side of reality. They can still
get hit by a bus on the corner, they can still feel pain when they
stub they're toe...after coming down out of the direct perception of
emptiness. In that moment, which is the Path of Seeing, there is no
conceptualization of an "I", a "self", an object or expressions of the
sense faculties. After that experience on the first level of the form
realm, they come out of that meditation and are now on the path of
familarization, or sGom pa'i lam, some call the path of meditation.
This latter interpretation of the tibetan term is confusing for many,
for when is it a path of meditation? Isn't every meditation practice I
do the "path of meditation?" No, meditations on the path of
preparation are dealing with certain points of the Lam pa'i Rim pa,
the graduated steps of the path
> to enlightenment. The Path of "meditation" should be translated asthe path of familiarity, since the term sGom means familiarity, which
is what meditation is giving us with our object.
>ourselves with the knowledge in postmeditation from the path of
> With what are we becoming more familiar? We are familiarizing
seeing. In the path of seeing, we see emptiness directly; we are
looking into the dharmakaya itself. we are seeing the mind of a
Buddha. There is no difference between the dharmakaya of a buddha and
the dharmakaya of ourselves...both are empty of any inherently
>translations that are coming to the West from the authentic lineages
> Inherent existence is another tough term. The sad thing about the
is that they have become the folly of philosophers who typically like
language that distances their intellectual expressions from those of
the common man. Yet, in the Buddha's own Sangha, there was a monk that
couldn't remember the simplest of phrases, the simplest of prayers.
But the Buddha, with omniscience, saw into the monk's mind and new
that there was a simple practice that he COULD remember...he asked the
monk to be responsible for sweeping out the gompa everyday and as he
did to repeat Duru pang, Drima pang...clear the dust, clear the
defilements. And that monk gained enlightenment.
>becomes a seed that gets planted into the consciousness and manifests
> Thoughts are the most subtle form of all phenomena. A thought
as it grows from all the ripening conditions necessary become
available to it. Speech is first found in thought, action is first
found in thought. And as things have NO inherently existent nature,
they manifest in their various forms in our consciousness. It is the
most difficult part of our practice to understand that that terrible
thing that is appearing before us IS dharmakaya expression, working
precisely the way the mechanism should work. You thought it, it became
manifest. You have a low self-esteem and things seem to be bringing
you down, why are you upset?? That's what you've asked for!
>kun rdzob ldenpa, samvritisattya. This has been translated as
> Remember that of the Two Truths, we are almost always experiencing
'conventional truth', which is again another wonderful rendering from
our philosophical giants that seem only intent on helping the highest
of intellects, forgetting that we must help all beings...the greatest
common denominator would be to put it into simplest language that all
can comprehend in words. The base of these two words (kun rdzob, and
samvriti in snskt) mean "fake" or "artificial". Fake truth?? What does
that mean? It can't be a truth, can it? When weighed against the
Ultimate Truth, it must mean that fake truth isn't the final truth.
There can only really be ONE truth. You can't be a man AND a woman at
the same time. You cannot be two contradictory things at the same
time, they would cancel each other out. An electron and an
antielectron cannot coexist. So, can we really have TWO Truths?
>investigation. We look at this computer screen and can agree that it
> Here, the convention of language is giving us an indication for
isn't permanent, it is a changing thing. Therefore, we can see on the
surface that the computer is not emerging as an Ultimate thing...it
willl cease. The forces that have brought these molecules together
have made them appear at this moment as a computer. BUT, that would be
to assume that those things are all happening OUT THERE...coming at me
and that's the only way they can be.
>the NEGATIVE of form. The Heart Sutra says: gzugs stong pao,
> Now, the Ultimate nature of the computer is emptiness, which is
stongpanyid gzugs so. Form is empty, emptiness is form. There have
been translations that say "form is emptiness..." This is incorrect.
sTong pa means empty. Nyid means "ness" or "hood". Form is not
emptiness, that is a characteristic of phenomena. Emptiness is the
characteristic and form is not THAT characteristic, but HAS that
characteristic. That's why the next part of the Heart Sutra says sTong
pa Nyid gZugs so...Emptiness is form. For that characteristic to
exist, there must be 'form", or matter or some "thing" being
perceived. So, as we look at the computer, we can recognize that
because it is a changing, dependent, and non-self-standing thing, it
must be empty, a characteristic, of inherent existence.
>our typing on it could do nothing to change it. It has no flexibility
> See, if this computer had any essence to it that was permanent,
without emptiness. If it is independent, we could have no contact with
it. If it were self-standing, it wouldn't need to be plugged into the
wall to work. It would work independent of a power source that
couldn't really effect it's permanent nature anyway. So, you can see
the viewpoint of emptiness at work from the Lower Buddhist
Philosophical venues at work here. But, that still hasn't changed our
suffering nature. As long as we thing about that non-inherently
existent "computer" out there, we're still dealing with a "thing"
infront of us, not appearingly so, but materially so.
>it is there. It appears to be infront of you because your eye is
> This does not deny that that computer is there, emptiness is HOW
experiencing a form, your touch is sensing something solid, your ear
is hearing the typing of your fingers or some pretty song you have in
another window (hopefully a mantra recitation), your nose can smell
the coffee or tea next to your mouse, etc. These are all working to
organize the data that your mind has conditioned to experience...to
make "real". And for all intents and purposes, it is real. It
functions and it will do what you want it to do as long as the karmic
seeds for that to happen continue to ripen for you. When those seeds
run out, you have either turned off the computer, walked into the
other room, had a power outage, or died. That's it. Your perceptions
at this moment are aligned to this experience but if they were better
(from better karmic seeds) you could have a secretary reading this
letter to you, or be a tantric angel
> enjoying a paradise. But, you are having karmic seeds ripen as ahuman. You are having karmic seeds ripen to see all the things you see
as seemingly real...as seeming to exist from their own side, but they
do not. This is the only meaning of "not exist" as explained in the
weblink that you gave.
>Mahamudra link will be more helpful. You would be much better to
> If you can understand that, the reading of the information in the
receive teachings on the Mahamudra directly from a qualified lama,
spiritual teacher. There is so much more power in the organic process
of receiving the teachings from the lama directly. I know this
intuitively; many more blessings have come to my practice and journey
since I took vows from my Holy Lama, and he then led me to the
beautiful and precious teacher that gave me my Bodhisattva Vows. To
them both I am endebted eternally.
>stronger...and I do apologize if it fails, but it is my own and no one
> Now, I'm going to try to use an analogy to make this point a bit
else's so I'll take full responsibility for any misinformation or
mistakes from it...but I think it's pretty damned close. This is ONLY
an analogy based upon Pranagika-Madhyamikan ideals, so keep in mind
it's got a little ways to go before it's spot-on, but it will help
those that struggle with emptiness get to here, I hope:
>transmitting signals. As you know, in America we use hertz below two
> Let us think of our consciousness as a radio, receiving and
hundred, but in europe they don't use anything below 1,000 (I might be
off on this one, but I know they are a lot more cognizant to
infrasound than Americans). Your consciousness is currently tuned into
receive other "human" transmissions, and can also pick up faint traces
of animal transmissions. You can see them, you can hear them, you can
sort of understand them (animals, and not always the case with humans)
, taste them (if you're into licking total strangers), anything
involved with the sense data that your own little radio consciousness
can detect. Now, there are these other beings around you, angels
(dakinis) or spirits, or "gods"...or buddhas. We haven't done anything
to change the wiring in our "radios" to receive that information. We
don't believe those "signals" exist because we don't pick them up on
our radios, so we deny them. We
> believe that we can refine and retune our radios and might work onthat in yoga classes, meditation or study. But, we only see the
picture getting a bit more clear for our fellow human and even animal
signals. We haven't changed or shifted our "channels" to tune-in to
higher frequencies...and that's what our spiritual practice is about.
>analogy above, all of the experiences we have are "signals". They are
> The problem with our misunderstanding emptiness is that, from the
coming at us and disappear the next instant. Much like listening to a
real radio, if you missed what the DJ said, you can't really rewind
him, you just missed what he said and that's that. So it is with all
of our signals. As long as our perceptions, or receptors aren't
shifting to receive higher "frequencies", we're gonna lose a great
opportunity. We will die and be cast wherever karmic winds through us.
Our minds are scattered now, why wouldn't they be scattered at death?
>Madhyamika): we're still seeing the data "out there", and not
> The problem with the above analogy is simply this (Lower
simultaneously expressed in the consciousness- the same karmic seed is
producing all the things that you are now and all the things that you
experience now. There is no separate substance. You're organizing that
data into what you make of it now, only to dodge or embrace it. But,
even the data is without inherent existence...it is all Dharmakaya
>path and may all your precious lamas, all your protectors, and the
> I hope that this may help. May this and the link help you on your
wisdom of the Holy Dharmakaya itself leave enough "popcorn" to keep
leading you out of the "woods of samsara".
>then - may I too remain to dispel the sufferings of the world. -
> Sonam Tsering
> As long as space remains, as long as living beings remain, until
>email and get things done faster.
> Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>