[Iphone]

This is definitely beyond belief.

This thread was removed yesterday as it need clarification and explanation. It is intended to stimulate discussion which would take its own course in a kind of Zen tradition. Unfortunately I will have to give it a kick start.

There are a number of factors that show the end result of following Buddhism would be the realisation of its limitations and therefore its cessation. Here are the two main ones.

Buddha is purported to have said 'Be unto yourself your own Buddha'. This essentially means once you have grasped the basics, leave it alone and learn freely for yourself.

Anatta, a mark of existence, states that there is no permanent self. Again, once this is grasped, to be attached to anything is to add to the continuity of the self and therefore act in discord with not only anatta, but anicca as well.

I hope this paints the picture more clearly and will allow the discourse to develop, so we may all become closer to Buddhahood.

[zttrftwsq]

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you are proposing here.

I think it could be said that Realisation is the ending of the Self, but I think that gives the wrong emphasis.

Personally I would express it as "With the letting go of the Self, comes Realisation". Cause and effect are the other way round, in my view.

Buddha is purported to have said 'Be unto yourself your own Buddha'. This essentially means once you have grasped the basics, leave it alone and learn freely for yourself. Are you sure about this? Can you give the source of your information? The Buddha is never known to have used the term 'Buddha' himself, so that throws some doubt on the accuracy of your quote.

The Buddha is reported to have said "Monks, be islands unto yourselves..." (Attadiipaa Sutta) and the word 'island' is sometimes translated as 'lamp', but never 'Buddha'. In this quote, the Buddha is referring to the need to withdraw from activity in order to go into meditation practice.

With good wishes,

Woodscooter.

[mGUuZRyA]

Buddha is purported to have said 'Be unto yourself your own Buddha'.

The Buddha refered to himself as the "Tathagata" which literally means the one who has "thus gone".

His last words from DN 16 : Maha-parinibbana Sutta may be of interest:


Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort you: All fabrications are subject to decay.

Bring about completion by being heedful."

Those were the Tathagata's last words

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....5-6.than.html

[objennasweene]

I think it's a version of 'be a light unto yourself'. It amounts to the same thing.

What I am saying is that if one holds on to Buddhism as a system then the attachment will always be there. Whilst there is attachment there is continuity of the self. I don't know whether you see this. When the self is given continuity it continues in its daily cycle, building up layers of duality and then there can be no freedom. Buddhism may give a start but it isn't the journey, because there is no arrival. When you see there is no arrival, why would you need a path?

[indartwm]

Is Buddhism not an external refuge?

[vNGiDaFX]

Buddha is purported to have said 'Be unto yourself your own Buddha'.

Realisation is not creating beliefs from old wive's tales

Buddha is purported to have said:

This essentially means once you have grasped the basics, leave it alone and learn freely for yourself.

True. But what is realised should be the same as the realisation described in the recorded teachings.

But if we have the view that "realisation cannot be described" then this is not Buddhism.

Anatta, a mark of existence, states that there is no permanent self. Again, once this is grasped, to be attached to anything is to add to the continuity of the self and therefore act in discord with not only anatta, but anicca as well.

Sure, but "Buddhism" is not a "self". The mind can still recognise Buddhism but be completely selfless.

Buddhism is the body of recorded & established knowledge, passed down from generation to generation, which maintains & continues the teachings of anatta & anicca (impermanence). There is no "self" in a book, made from paper.

I hope this paints the picture more clearly and will allow the discourse to develop, so we may all become closer to Buddhahood.

Thanks for your sincere encouragements Joshu. But, imo, nihilism is not realisation.

Anatta & anicca are learned from Buddhism. Once the five aggregates conventionally called "ourself" anicca (end), Buddhism will continue

The reality of "Buddhism" will be more permanent (last longer) than the realisation of our minds.

[Trotoleterm]

Is Buddhism not an external refuge?

Buddhism contains the Dhamma. Imo, it is designed to be an internal refuge given it contains a description of the internal realities that must be abandoned & developed in order for realisation to arise. It is neither "internal" or "external". It just is: 'suchness'.

[Ambrakam]

Gassho

This is definitely beyond belief.

This thread was removed yesterday as it need clarification and explanation. It is intended to stimulate discussion which would take its own course in a kind of Zen tradition. Unfortunately I will have to give it a kick start.

There are a number of factors that show the end result of following Buddhism would be the realisation of its limitations and therefore its cessation. Here are the two main ones.

Buddha is purported to have said 'Be unto yourself your own Buddha'. This essentially means once you have grasped the basics, leave it alone and learn freely for yourself.

Anatta, a mark of existence, states that there is no permanent self. Again, once this is grasped, to be attached to anything is to add to the continuity of the self and therefore act in discord with not only anatta, but anicca as well.

I hope this paints the picture more clearly and will allow the discourse to develop, so we may all become closer to Buddhahood.

Yes. That is entirely consistent with the dharma

True. But what is realised should be the same as the realisation described in the recorded teachings.

Why?

If we repeat what is in the recorded teachings than how do we know that we have actually achieved a realisation? This could be "learnt" without a realisation.

I realise (using that word guardedly and in the generally accepted way it is used) that many schools have different approaches. Zen asks for something different from the "recorded teachings". A realisation that can be described depends on the level and views of both the describer and the describee. Only if there is a common view will the description be adequate for both.

But if we have the view that "realisation cannot be described" then this is not Buddhism. Hmmm ... Zen is notoriously silent on many things ... including Awakening ...


Buddhism is the body of recorded & established knowledge, passed down from generation to generation, which maintains & continues the teachings of anatta & anicca (impermanence).


And if you apply the concept of impermanence to the recorded and established teachings? Are you saying that these teachings are permanent?

[Glanteeignile]

And if you apply the concept of impermanence to the recorded and established teachings? Are you saying that these teachings are permanent?

Dhamma teachings point to Nibbana - 'the unconditioned'.

[IRMartin]

Are you saying that these teachings are permanent?

the Dhamma (law of nature) is permanent. but knowledge of the law of nature to humanity is not permanent

Buddha taught it is only conditioned phenomena (sankhara dhamma) which are impermanent

regards

[HowardtheDuck]

If we repeat what is in the recorded teachings than how do we know that we have actually achieved a realisation?

if "realisation" is not the same as the recorded teachings, how can it be trusted to be genuine realisation?

Zen asks for something different from the "recorded teachings".

if that is the case, is it a different dharma (or doctrine)? is it really "Buddhism"?

please keep in mind the historical Buddha rejected the spheres of nothingness, infinite consciousnes, non-perception, etc, as Nirvana

And if you apply the concept of impermanence to the recorded and established teachings?

where is Zen the most established? in the USA? if so, what explains its decline & impermanence?

This could be "learnt" without a realisation.

it could be. If so, what is wrong with this?

Hmmm ... Zen is notoriously silent on many things ... including Awakening ...

is this an appeal to authority & dogma? can esoteric philosophy also become a dogma, attached to?

is attachment to silence, attachment? is attachment to non-becoming, attachment? is resistence to conventional truth, attachment?

[RalfDweflywex]

Dhamma teachings point to Nibbana - 'the unconditioned'.

Gassho

As a finger points to the Moon ...

[largonioulurI]

Dhamma teachings point to Nibbana - 'the unconditioned'.

what is the relevence of this in relation to peace & suffering?

for example, each time reference is made to a conditioned phenomena, e.g. "tree", does suffering arise?

or are you referring to the physical ending of physical rebirths, where there is some sort of culmination of a vaccum?

what exactly is this "unconditioned" referred to?

[radicalvolume]

As a finger points to the Moon ...

is not the moon, conditioned? is not a finger, conditioned?

[55Beaphable]

or are you referring to the physical ending of physical rebirths, where there is some sort of culmination of a vaccum?

What do you mean?.....that one is reborn as a vacuum cleaner? .....

what exactly is this "unconditioned" referred to?

The cessation of (not conditioned by) greed, hatred and delusion.


.

[Emapymosy]

Gassho

I appreciate your questions.

if "realisation" is not the same as the recorded teachings, how can it be trusted to be genuine realisation?

Who is to trust it? I have no need to judge another's realization, so I have no need to know how to answer that question. I can only follow my own path.

How do I know I have had a realization? My view of the world changes.

Do I have any idea if my view matches that of Gautama? Again, I have no need to know the answer to that.

if that is the case, is it a different dharma (or doctrine)? it it really "Buddhism"? Hmmm ... I accept the Four Nobles Truths, I follow the Eightfold Path and I meditate. Is that not the core of the dharma? (I do not like to talk of Buddhism. It is a hugely diverse world religion. I follow the dharma ...)

If that is not Buddhism, then so be it. My aim is not to be a Buddhist. My aim is to follow the dharma.

please keep in mind the historical Buddha rejected the spheres of nothingness, infinite consciousnes, non-perception, etc, as Nirvana Yes. Nirvana is not my goal. I understand that is the goal of the dharma. I have no idea what the word Nirvana/Nibbana means. My goal is to follow the dharma. So far that has proved to be a positive thing in my life. Whatever happens next happens ..

A novice gos to the Zen mster and asks: "What happens when you die?"

The master responds "Why are you asking me?"

"Well," says the novice, "you are the master, you are enlightened."

"Yes," replies the master. "But I am not dead yet!"

where is Zen the most established? in the USA? if so, what explains its decline & impermanence? Maybe - I have no idea of where Zen is most established, (I do not live in the USA and I have had no contact wth teachers in the USA). I do not understand the point of your question.

I do not know what explains it's decline (Is it declining?) The dharma explains Zen's impermanence.


it could be. If so, what is wrong with this? Well, nothing exceptional. But "learning" alone will not acheive realization.



is this an appeal to authority & dogma? can esoteric philosophy also become a dogma, attached to?

is attachment to silence, attachment? is attachment to non-becoming, attachment? is resistence to conventional truth, attachment?

No, I am not appealing to authority ... there are answers to koans that are not given in "the recorded teachings". Such answers directly show the realisation directly to the Master. These may not even be in words. And there are many recorded instances of Masters rejecting the written word. This can lead to an anti-intellectual stance in Zen, but this is incorrect. There is a vast body of written Zen knowledge. But this is not all Zen. Zen is here, NOW NOW NOW. In this it differs from other traditions - just as other traditions all differ from each other.

Of course esoteric philosophy can become a dogma. What is esoteric about the feel of the sun on your back, the taste of the tea and your mouth? The sharing of the dharma with others? What is esoteric about Being? What is esoteric about NOW?

Of course all those things are attachments. I know where my attachments lie. It is not to Nirvana, nor to Buddhism, nor to resisting conventional truth (whatever that might mean). My attachments are to the dharma. Maybe one day I will shed that too.

If you see the Buddha on the road - Kill Him!

[staisacic]

If you see the Buddha on the road - Kill Him!

Time for a nap.....

[seooptiman]

is not the moon, conditioned? is not a finger, conditioned?

yes and yes.

In Zen there is a saying - do not look at the finger pointing at the Moon. (If you look at the finger you will not see the Moon.) In this context you said "Dharma teachings point to Nibbana" ... I am responding in that context.

[Feflyinvelf]

Time for a nap.....

Gassho

I am sorry, do you not wish to engage with me?

If not, I will continue my wanderings.

[AdSuiteAdobe]

I hope this paints the picture more clearly and will allow the discourse to develop, so we may all become closer to Buddhahood.

i just bought lunch. there were three sandwiches left to choose from: (1) roast beef & salad; (2) corned beef & salad; and (2) chicken & lettuce

i said to the lady: "i will have the corned beef sandwich"

is using the term "corned beef sandwich" taking me closer to Buddhahood, further from Buddhahood or is it irrelevent?