The original and the ultimate spiritual cultivation method

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
In this moment look toward your next thought. Watch the next thought arise. The one that is 'looking' is silent. The one that notices thought arise is the one constant in an ever changing scene. Know yourself as that - knowingly.
All seeing, all knowing and ever present.

edit on 9-3-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Actually, what you're doing there is involving all the skandhas together, but particularly you're talking about an involvement of the third and fourth frames of reference in Anapana, the consciousness and space elements - consciousness and conception skandhas, mixed together in a process (meaning the first frame of reference, the air element/process skandha is far from being transformed) with a small degree of concentration in its knowing function.

This is far from what the Anapana sutra intends. You are merely identifying with a more rarefied person formation, which is more geared towards consciousness-space in their knowing function than it is towards emotion process, as normal persons are.

One last question,

Are oneness and Nibbana different?

Originally posted by dodol
One last question,

Are oneness and Nibbana different?

Who is at one with what?

And if there is one who it at one with everything, is there really one, or anything?

Oneness is a state of consciousness purity. People obsess over purity of consciousness, but the Buddha said that clinging to consciousness is wrong. Even in its purity aspect, consciousness is coming and going, everchanging, so even if by meditative practice you reach an experience of pure consciousness, this is still dependent on karma and will eventually go away.

The Buddha explains that he taught two Nibbanas. Initial Nibbana, the Arhat's Nibbana, where one can rest after realizing no-self and cultivating to the level of an Arhat (the first 9 samadhis). Then there is true Nirvana, which is a Buddha's inherent state, and it it's not a state at all. If it's inherent and fundamental, then it's not a state, it's not passing, it's not form or consciousness or a concept.

So whether you call it Nibanna or not, it doesn't matter. If you call it Nibanna, people will seek it, or deny it. If you explain it as the Buddha does in he following passage:

"I consider the positions of kings and rulers as that of dust motes. I observe treasures of gold and gems as so many bricks and pebbles. I look upon the finest silken robes as tattered rags. I see myriad worlds of the universe as small seeds of fruit, and the greatest lake in India as a drop of oil on my foot. I perceive the teachings of the world to be the illusion of magicians. I discern the highest conception of emancipation as a golden brocade in a dream, and view the holy path of the illuminated ones as flowers appearing in one's eyes. I see meditation as a pillar of a mountain, Nirvana as a nightmare of daytime. I look upon the judgment of right and wrong as the serpentine dance of a dragon, and the rise and fall of beliefs as but traces left by the four seasons."

Then people might say "oh I'm already enlightened, there is no Nibbana, it's all a game of words.

And it's really not.

Here's what the Buddha said about some of the qualities of Buddhahood

1. He could manifest one body as many bodies.
2. He could display one body the size of a mote of dust
which filled three thousand great thousand world systems.
3. He had a great body which could float and travel
long distances.
4. He could manifest in limitless ways while constantly
residing in one land.
“Limitless waysŸ include in the body of a Buddha, of a
Bodhisattva, a Sound-
Hearer, One Enlightened to Conditions,
a god, a man, an asura, a ghost, an animal, and so forth.
5. He had the mutual functioning of all sense faculties.
It may sound strange to people who have never heard
såtras before that the eyes can eat, the ears can see, the nose
can speak, and the mouth can hear and see as well as eat.
However, it is possible for the six faculties of eyes, ears, nose,
tongue, body, and mind to function mutually so that each has
the abilities of all the others.
6. He obtained all dharmas without the thought of
dharmas.
7. He could speak the meaning of one gàthà for limit-
less kalpas,
8. He had a body which could pervade all places like
empty space

So I leave you with a Zen Koan.

A student of Tendai, a philosophical school of Buddhism, came to the Zen abode of Gasan as a pupil. When he was departing a few years later, Gasan warned him: "Studying the truth speculatively is useful as a way of collecting preaching material. But remember that unless you meditate constantly your light of truth may go out."

And with two sutras.

The first is the Heart Sutra, central to Zen, and compiled from a collection of sutras on wisdom spanning thousands of pages. So it is their essence.

webspace.ship.edu...

This is a bit of a modern version, using language easily understood. It's very short, if you focus on it daily you'll cut many of your hidden delusions.

Also, here is a mantra of Manjushri Buddha, the Buddha of wisdom.

Om A Ra Pa Ca Na Dhih

the Ca is pronounced Cha, as the ch in "church" + an a.

And the Diamond Sutra, also central to Zen

fodian.net...

It will give you an understanding of how a Bodhisattva practices no-self and compassion at the same time, and how to still one's mind while contemplating both the emptiness and miraculous aspects of existence.

But pay no attention to what I say, and simply read the sutras.

reply to post by Fevrier

Yes there's clearly two types of reason, one which holds everything and all reality including one's own conceptions of themselves, at arms length, the other, by slicing away everything that is of no value and meaningless or what I like to call absurd, embraces the Reality as that which is what's left over when reason has done it's work, at which point it may be said to transform again into some sort of ultra-reason or supra-rationalism as a quantum leap into whole new domains of reason and logic ie: the logic of love, the reason for everything, etc.

Until it turns inwards for a true self examination, ti's not really real reason though, more like a crafty defense against reason's inquiry and therefore ignorance itself cloaked as reason.

They don't even teach the most rudimentary form of reason anymore, when in the old days of all the great civilizations reason and logic often served as the very basis and foundation of that society/civilization.

It's as if there are now two worlds, two very distinct and separate realities and paradigms or worldviews.

Originally posted by Fevrier

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
In this moment look toward your next thought. Watch the next thought arise. The one that is 'looking' is silent. The one that notices thought arise is the one constant in an ever changing scene. Know yourself as that - knowingly.
All seeing, all knowing and ever present.

edit on 9-3-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Actually, what you're doing there is involving all the skandhas together, but particularly you're talking about an involvement of the third and fourth frames of reference in Anapana, the consciousness and space elements - consciousness and conception skandhas, mixed together in a process (meaning the first frame of reference, the air element/process skandha is far from being transformed) with a small degree of concentration in its knowing function.

This is far from what the Anapana sutra intends. You are merely identifying with a more rarefied person formation, which is more geared towards consciousness-space in their knowing function than it is towards emotion process, as normal persons are.

All arises presently. Thought is an apparent object that appears and disappears - always presently. Emotion and sensation also arise presently - nothing can arise without presence.
I am the seer of all that arises - whatever arises is transitory but I am constant.

Not sure what any of your post means - it seems a complicated way to know thyself.

Originally posted by Fevrier
Sorry friend, but your post is chock-full of ego and delusions.

The way of true cultivation is not so much about the mechanics of the cosmos, but about uncovering the true nature of Mind and cultivating this current form until it is no longer an impediment, but a perfect Buddha body.

Working with the confrontations of the ego puts you firmly within the neverending road of karma working with karma.

Using a fundamental method for uncovering your fundamental nature takes you firmly out of karma.

Through virtuous deeds, concentration, and an attempt to directly realize the truth of Mind, you can awaken without method, but this in fact depends a lot on one's own potential, which itself depends on past life practice.

But since it all stems from the original Fundamental Nature, it's irrelevant whether or not you have more or less potential, or you reached some degree of awakening by yourself or by following a true method.

With compassion for yourself and others you should put away such distinctions and simply do your best - and when you have a method, not using it is akin to a lack of compassion for your own situation, and a lack of compassion for others, because by achieving real growth through a fundamental method you'd be better able to help them.

There is also no "genuine true self" within karma. A discussion of "true self" is extremely complicated, and would benefit absolutely nobody here, since there is nobody here who has broken the bounds of karma, thus nobody here to understand such a discussion. But I can tell you that someone who has seen some degree of fundamental nature and opened the middle heart (a prerequisite for enlightenment and, from the perspective of a human being, a terrifying experience) does not throw around concepts of true self, and certainly doesn't do it so lightly.

Lastly, enlightenment is not "to me", or to you, or to anyone, it is the fundamental state, and therefore cannot be described through opinions, and is beyond opinions.

This is not spiritual mumbo-jumbo, it's a way of saying that you should be careful that when you encounter the true teachings, even if you don't want to practice them yourself, you should not become very loud with your wrong (and self/belief/will-based) concepts of enlightenment.

In fact, initial awakening happens when one can break through the conceptual macro-attachment of the mind. This is when the real heart opens, but it's a rather high level, and not really accessible without hardcore practice (or should I say, very rarely accessible without).

Also, the concept that the cosmos is taking care of us and perfecting us is a new age concept, and wrong. Your astral being is living the same karma as you are, so it's in a nasty place, with no answers. And unless in your last life you were a high-level Bodhisattva, with powers beyond anything being discussed on these forums, way beond the paranormal, then you did not choose to come here - but rather came here by force of karma alone, and with no control over the process.

While Reality itself is perfect and beautiful, and we are always in it, and IT, we obscure it into this shadow we call existence. And existence is a mean and nasty place, and within existence, you need all the help you can get, and you need to put your shoulder up against that wall and push for all its worth, with compassion and without making any concepts of true self while you're still firmly in the gutter.

Who are you talking to?

since you think their approaches are not good, what is the best approach to open the eyes of modern ignorants around the world, in your opinion?

Why do you care? Proselytizing Buddhism, really?

note that i'm talking about global scale awakening.

Leave it alone.

because we cannot just appear in TV, Radio, forums, etc and tell people 'hey this world is illusion! there is no god!'
try this to any modern christian, and they will call you demons or false prophets
so there must be a better way to open these modern people' eyes through dharma teachings, right?

You sound pretentious and immature.

these days religions to me is no more than psychotherapy for mental patients, only to make it worst. this includes buddhism, hinduism, christians, and the rests. and i see their shrines as mental hospitals.
new agers imho do better job than them.

All religion/spirituality is psychotherapy, whether you want to use that term disparagingly or not. With your distain for religion, good or bad, why then desire to propagate a teaching to the masses, and in that act, create a religion?

btw OP, i don't doubt buddha's teachings, in fact i honor them. it's also what i will study next.
but i feel that it wont work against modern people anymore.

Honestly, you're too dumb at the moment to be worried about other people.

Originally posted by Turq1

since you think their approaches are not good, what is the best approach to open the eyes of modern ignorants around the world, in your opinion?

Why do you care? Proselytizing Buddhism, really?

note that i'm talking about global scale awakening.

Leave it alone.

because we cannot just appear in TV, Radio, forums, etc and tell people 'hey this world is illusion! there is no god!'
try this to any modern christian, and they will call you demons or false prophets
so there must be a better way to open these modern people' eyes through dharma teachings, right?

You sound pretentious and immature.

these days religions to me is no more than psychotherapy for mental patients, only to make it worst. this includes buddhism, hinduism, christians, and the rests. and i see their shrines as mental hospitals.
new agers imho do better job than them.

All religion/spirituality is psychotherapy, whether you want to use that term disparagingly or not. With your distain for religion, good or bad, why then desire to propagate a teaching to the masses, and in that act, create a religion?

btw OP, i don't doubt buddha's teachings, in fact i honor them. it's also what i will study next.
but i feel that it wont work against modern people anymore.

Honestly, you're too dumb at the moment to be worried about other people.

edit on 3/10/2013 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)

Yes i'm dumb. Thanks for telling me that

Originally posted by Fevrier

Originally posted by dodol
One last question,

Are oneness and Nibbana different?

Who is at one with what?

And if there is one who it at one with everything, is there really one, or anything?

Oneness is a state of consciousness purity. People obsess over purity of consciousness, but the Buddha said that clinging to consciousness is wrong. Even in its purity aspect, consciousness is coming and going, everchanging, so even if by meditative practice you reach an experience of pure consciousness, this is still dependent on karma and will eventually go away.

The Buddha explains that he taught two Nibbanas. Initial Nibbana, the Arhat's Nibbana, where one can rest after realizing no-self and cultivating to the level of an Arhat (the first 9 samadhis). Then there is true Nirvana, which is a Buddha's inherent state, and it it's not a state at all. If it's inherent and fundamental, then it's not a state, it's not passing, it's not form or consciousness or a concept.

So whether you call it Nibanna or not, it doesn't matter. If you call it Nibanna, people will seek it, or deny it. If you explain it as the Buddha does in he following passage:

"I consider the positions of kings and rulers as that of dust motes. I observe treasures of gold and gems as so many bricks and pebbles. I look upon the finest silken robes as tattered rags. I see myriad worlds of the universe as small seeds of fruit, and the greatest lake in India as a drop of oil on my foot. I perceive the teachings of the world to be the illusion of magicians. I discern the highest conception of emancipation as a golden brocade in a dream, and view the holy path of the illuminated ones as flowers appearing in one's eyes. I see meditation as a pillar of a mountain, Nirvana as a nightmare of daytime. I look upon the judgment of right and wrong as the serpentine dance of a dragon, and the rise and fall of beliefs as but traces left by the four seasons."

Then people might say "oh I'm already enlightened, there is no Nibbana, it's all a game of words.

And it's really not.

Here's what the Buddha said about some of the qualities of Buddhahood

1. He could manifest one body as many bodies.
2. He could display one body the size of a mote of dust
which filled three thousand great thousand world systems.
3. He had a great body which could float and travel
long distances.
4. He could manifest in limitless ways while constantly
residing in one land.
“Limitless waysŸ include in the body of a Buddha, of a
Bodhisattva, a Sound-
Hearer, One Enlightened to Conditions,
a god, a man, an asura, a ghost, an animal, and so forth.
5. He had the mutual functioning of all sense faculties.
It may sound strange to people who have never heard
såtras before that the eyes can eat, the ears can see, the nose
can speak, and the mouth can hear and see as well as eat.
However, it is possible for the six faculties of eyes, ears, nose,
tongue, body, and mind to function mutually so that each has
the abilities of all the others.
6. He obtained all dharmas without the thought of
dharmas.
7. He could speak the meaning of one gàthà for limit-
less kalpas,
8. He had a body which could pervade all places like
empty space

So I leave you with a Zen Koan.

A student of Tendai, a philosophical school of Buddhism, came to the Zen abode of Gasan as a pupil. When he was departing a few years later, Gasan warned him: "Studying the truth speculatively is useful as a way of collecting preaching material. But remember that unless you meditate constantly your light of truth may go out."

And with two sutras.

The first is the Heart Sutra, central to Zen, and compiled from a collection of sutras on wisdom spanning thousands of pages. So it is their essence.

webspace.ship.edu...

This is a bit of a modern version, using language easily understood. It's very short, if you focus on it daily you'll cut many of your hidden delusions.

Also, here is a mantra of Manjushri Buddha, the Buddha of wisdom.

Om A Ra Pa Ca Na Dhih

the Ca is pronounced Cha, as the ch in "church" + an a.

And the Diamond Sutra, also central to Zen

fodian.net...

It will give you an understanding of how a Bodhisattva practices no-self and compassion at the same time, and how to still one's mind while contemplating both the emptiness and miraculous aspects of existence.

But pay no attention to what I say, and simply read the sutras.

Thanks for your time on this
It is really helpful.
I will give more attention on sutras and anapana.

Originally posted by Fevrier

This is far from what the Anapana sutra intends. You are merely identifying with a more rarefied person formation, which is more geared towards consciousness-space in their knowing function than it is towards emotion process, as normal persons are.

There is no 'person'.
All there is; is this.

'This' is all there is. Within and as 'this' - appearances appear and disappear. The appearance can be a thought, a sensation, a colour or a noise. None of those 'things' (appearances) are me.
There is no 'me'. There is no person ever.

There is just seeing and there is a knowing of the seeing.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Fevrier

This is far from what the Anapana sutra intends. You are merely identifying with a more rarefied person formation, which is more geared towards consciousness-space in their knowing function than it is towards emotion process, as normal persons are.

There is no 'person'.
All there is; is this.

'This' is all there is. Within and as 'this' - appearances appear and disappear. The appearance can be a thought, a sensation, a colour or a noise. None of those 'things' (appearances) are me.
There is no 'me'. There is no person ever.

There is just seeing and there is a knowing of the seeing.

More study needed, my friend. And definitely more practice. You say the "things" I talk about are a complicated way of knowing thyself, but if there is no person, there is no thyself.

And indeed there isn't, but still, as I told you earlier, for you, in this karmic body, there still is a person, and it is very obvious.

As I also told you, you have a bend towards being a perception-based person formation with the knowing function engaged with perception.

Your dialogue of "now", "this" and "appearances" is also perception based.

I explained everything in my last post to you.

More practice, study Anapana, and stop reducing enlightenment to "seeing the here-now".

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Fevrier

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
In this moment look toward your next thought. Watch the next thought arise. The one that is 'looking' is silent. The one that notices thought arise is the one constant in an ever changing scene. Know yourself as that - knowingly.
All seeing, all knowing and ever present.

edit on 9-3-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Actually, what you're doing there is involving all the skandhas together, but particularly you're talking about an involvement of the third and fourth frames of reference in Anapana, the consciousness and space elements - consciousness and conception skandhas, mixed together in a process (meaning the first frame of reference, the air element/process skandha is far from being transformed) with a small degree of concentration in its knowing function.

This is far from what the Anapana sutra intends. You are merely identifying with a more rarefied person formation, which is more geared towards consciousness-space in their knowing function than it is towards emotion process, as normal persons are.

All arises presently. Thought is an apparent object that appears and disappears - always presently. Emotion and sensation also arise presently - nothing can arise without presence.
I am the seer of all that arises - whatever arises is transitory but I am constant.

Not sure what any of your post means - it seems a complicated way to know thyself.

If all arises presently, you make a present, which is a concept, and a process of the arising, which is a consciousness-concept process.

Thought, whether as form (object), concept or process, or as thought consciousness, whether perceived as appearance through samadhi or without samadhi, or not seen as appearance, with samadhi or without samadhi, as long as it is seen by a "seer", this is a concept of self further engaging the conception-perception process through the perceived "present" act of seeing.

Same for emotions.

This is firmly within ALL the skandhas, and far from enlightenment.

It also makes an idea of a constant self, based on a speed differential between the apparent arising of thoughts and emotions, and the stability of the seeing form-self.

But this apparent stability that you base your "unchanging" seer self on, is merely a small degree of samadhi on the level of form.

Fevrier,

Sorry I have another question. I promise this will be my last one.

Currently i'm on vipassana (and already did this for 2 mths)
Should i change back to anapana?

Thanks

reply to post by Fevrier


Hey, thanks for the reply.

So you subscribe that our astral proper is in danger, as we are aligned here in the
"reformatory of the lost" - not your words, but the common sense I see in this and
other forums.

On a side note, the online book "War in heaven" comes to mind....

I´ve been in some very turbulent places. Very. Shadow people encounters, not the
observer type. Had to call my spirit guide once. Huge debt.

I often feel very pessimistic about dharma. Are we cogs needed by higher beings
to be moved out of lower emissions of prana? Does our suffering create the very
contrast needed by just some of us ascend? Or, in the worst case scenario, we
are being farmed to neg 4 and 5d entities and learn what we can in the process,
like finding gold in a very very difficult place?

I have issues on trusting teachers. Sorry if that sounded harsh to your POV.

I enjoy collaborative research. Thats why my focus is on astral mechanics...

Peace,
RP

My friend, I'm not particularly teaching anything, but just giving a transitory bridge to the actual original methods of spiritual practice, which people who are not familiar with the sutras and their language - modern people - might need.

There is no astral proper. You are merely refering to a different experience of existence, that of a subtle expression of the Nirmanakaya body, or what a Christian saint might call an extension of the Holy Spirit.

This is one of the three bodies we are all endowed with - Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmanakaya. But if you go down the path of trying to study what people say about these bodies, you'll never get out. There is so much confusion out there, and so little practice - and it doesn't even matter anyway, because these bodies themselves are not the essence, but only aspects of it. Within a Buddha body, their functioning is perfectly united. A Buddha does have absolute access to any realm, including any astral realm, and not as part of a karmic existence, but as part of absolute reality - peaceful, still, absolutely powerful, compassionate, and Mind-only.

To focus on one of the bodies, or even worse, on one of its aspects, such as you and others are doing, with your obsession with spirit guides and astral bodies, which are just little Nirmanakaya projections that you have little or no control over, is akin to madness within madness.

You are already experiencing the madness of karmic existence, and instead of cultivating this very body and this very mind to liberation, you take it one step deeper and focus on even more complicated madness, which to you seems to hold more freedom, as the astral realms do have that allure about them, that they are less limited than the apparently material realms.

But in truth, because you have very little power over your Nirmanakaya projection, you are very vulnerable there, in addition to that vulnerability, you are bound to the same karma as you are here, and you actually have LESS ability to awaken there than you have here.

Other than that, your post is full of concepts and procedural ideas that are just self self self self.

Instead of focusing on collaborative research, which is one way of saying you are clinging to your self-views and using them as a mirror for everything else - why don't you take up ACTUAL and REAL spiritual cultivation, which is hard, it's an every day every moment kind of thing, but it holds the promise of growth and awakening, but it requires you to truly let go of all these concepts and stories and self-views.

Originally posted by RobertPaulsim
reply to post by Fevrier

 

Hey, thanks for the reply.

So you subscribe that our astral proper is in danger, as we are aligned here in the
"reformatory of the lost" - not your words, but the common sense I see in this and
other forums.

On a side note, the online book "War in heaven" comes to mind....

I´ve been in some very turbulent places. Very. Shadow people encounters, not the
observer type. Had to call my spirit guide once. Huge debt.

I often feel very pessimistic about dharma. Are we cogs needed by higher beings
to be moved out of lower emissions of prana? Does our suffering create the very
contrast needed by just some of us ascend? Or, in the worst case scenario, we
are being farmed to neg 4 and 5d entities and learn what we can in the process,
like finding gold in a very very difficult place?

I have issues on trusting teachers. Sorry if that sounded harsh to your POV.

I enjoy collaborative research. Thats why my focus is on astral mechanics...

Peace,
RP

reply to post by Fevrier

It does sound as though you are teaching - but who?
Who is there to teach?
And 'who' can practice?

If there is no 'seeing' - can any thing be known?

You don't have to promise it's the last one.

I'm not going anywhere, ask anything.

Here's my take on vipassana. I would have to look through the Theravada sutras thoroughly, just to be sure, but most likely the Buddha never taught vipassana as a method by itself.

There are many reasons for this. One is that, like our friend above, who speaks about being the seer, the knower of the seeing of thoughts and so on, people are already very attached to the seeing/conceptual function, and vipassana tends to involve them together.

That's why it's easy for people to practice vipassana, and they tend to navigate towards it (and why modern vipassana has evolved into many weird practices, that many times end up unbalancing people) - it's basically what they've been doing all their life, being involved with their thought-concepts and their perception of it.

But this is just a form of involving karma with karma. Thoughts arise according to your karmic situation, and you perceive them within this karmic body, with it.

The karmic body finds it hard to concentrate and reach samadhi, especially when you are doing what always keeps the karmic body unbalanced - being involved with thoughts and perception.

With anapana, eventually you end up truly letting go of thoughts as they come naturally. You end up letting go of all other formations as well. But this is what anapana does, it naturally builds up the samadhi and clarity required for letting go.

Your karmic body watching thoughts is a formation involved with formations. It's pretty much endless, in the negative sense.

Anapana extinguishes formations, does not directly involve itself with thoughts, and it uncovers the natural factors of samadhi and wisdom throughout all the aspects of a being. All throughout the practice of anapana, you may or may not be faced with thoughts, according to your own circumstances, but when you are, you can let go of them with samadhi and clear wisdom.

Thoughts have no meaning. There is nothing special about your own thoughts. People doing vipassana secretly want to find out the meaning behind their own thoughts. They are holding on to beliefs about something special lying there, which are heavy self-beliefs. That's why they're doing anapana in the first place.

But the path is universal, it's the same for all beings. You struggle more, or less, according to your karma, but the path itself is the same, and anapana takes you on this path.

The very "insight" that vipassana claims it leads to has to be let go of. There is no insight. Insight suggests a realization of "something", but wisdom is not insight into something. Wisdom is the equal knowing that clings to nothing, and therefore can know anything without having a view on it. Insight is a view.

People practice vipassana with hope that by watching enough thoughts they will get enough insight into the nature of thoughts, and self, in order to realize no self. But the nature of thoughts and self is what is keeping them from realizing no-self, and guess what, if they do manage to realize it, they're really just back to step one - which is having to cultivate samadhi and the elements of the body and function within this universe - so they'd end up having to practice anapana anyway.

So vipassana is, at best, mild samadhi based on the perception process. If it is with letting go, it's better, if it's with clinging to a need for insight, it's absolutely hopeless.

Study Anapana. Practice, but also study, try to understand the frames of reference and the factors for awakening. The Heart Sutra will really help you with this, and the Diamond Sutra will give you a wider, universal frame of reference for the whole process.

And ask me anything you need to ask me, but remember, I'm not Anapana, or the Heart Sutra, or the Diamond Sutra.

Originally posted by dodol
Fevrier,

Sorry I have another question. I promise this will be my last one.

Currently i'm on vipassana (and already did this for 2 mths)
Should i change back to anapana?

Thanks

edit on 10-3-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2013 by dodol because: (no reason given)

They are not 'my' thoughts!!

Ah, more of this lovely nonsense.

There are illusory beings to be taught. These illusory beings,despite their karma, are in fact true Buddha bodies, so they can be taught to practice back to that.

And they can practice.

As for your final question, it's framed in a tricky manner, but you're only really tricking yourself.

By asking "If there is no 'seeing' - can any thing be known?" you're not really coming from an experience of Mind explaining no-form and emptiness, but rather from a procedural understanding that objects are apparently illusory and this can be let go into some experience of not-knowing.

But to answer your question. Yes and no. There is no thing to be known. But as the knowing function is objectless and pristine at the source, it is in fact always there. But it is not the knowing function that is there, but fundamental nature, Mind.

Sight, and all objects, and objects which are not sight related, are just Mind, and so to Mind they are available in any combination of knowing and not knowing, with or without perception, with or without form, and so on.

Your approach is very reductive. Your whole existential peace is based on it. If you do not want to find out why your approach is wrong, don't come here. But especially, don't come here with reductive wisdom trying to cover up the Anapana sutra.

Here's a Zen Koan for you:



Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Fevrier

 

It does sound as though you are teaching - but who?
Who is there to teach?
And 'who' can practice?

If there is no 'seeing' - can any thing be known?

edit on 11-3-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Of course they aren't your thoughts.

They are merely thoughts.

But they appear according to your karma, which of course, is not "your" karma, but still, you have to empty it.

And of course, "you" don't exist, but still, you have to empty it.

And so you see, it doesn't matter who's thoughts they are. As long as you are faced with perception and thoughts, and you practice according to perception and thoughts, then they are, in fact, your thoughts.

Saying they are or aren't your thoughts merely adds another layer. It is not realization of no-self.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
They are not 'my' thoughts!!