[Qualarrizab]

This is a topic we had before changing the software and I thought I'd re-introduce it again here.


Early Buddhism and the Heart Sutra

by Santikaro Bhikkhu



"The Buddha never used terms like 'Mahayana' and 'Theravada'. These developed much later out of the inevitable concocting of cultures, time, and polemics. Could it be that their usefulness is past, especially in the melting pot of America?

My primary spiritual reference is 'Early Buddhism', by which I mean the Buddha- Dhamma recorded in the Pali suttas, especially when sifted according to principles found within those very suttas.

I accept that I am a 'Theravada Buddhist' with a tinge of reluctance. This is because much of Theravada Buddhism seems more committed to the commentary system and its lynchpin the Visuddhimagga, complied a thousand years after the Buddha's Paranibbana.

I prefer the original stuff. Further I flatly reject the pejorative term 'Hinayana' when applied to a whole school of Buddhism. Following my teacher, [Buddhadasa Bhikkhu] I aspire to 'Buddhayana' and take the Pali suttas as the primary starting point for discovering it.

My affection for the Pali suttas is not at the expense of so-called 'Mahayana sutras'. In fact, I find Buddhayana there as well. Often, I discover vibrant echos of the Pali suttas in classic Mahayana texts such as Shantideva's 'Bodhicaryavatara' and Hui Neng's 'Platform Sutra'.

In many cases Mahayana sutras contain direct copies and paraphrases of Pali texts. To illustrate this and to highlight the convergence of core Buddhism or Buddhayana, I offer a detailed look at the Heart Sutra."


continued here (3 and a half pages total )


http://www.liberationpark.org/study/...arly%20Bsm.pdf


ANY COMMENTS ?

[HonjUopu]

There's also a translation of the Heart Sutra here for anyone who wants to read it:


http://www.dharmafellowship.org/libr...eart-sutra.htm

[Keyclenef]

Personally, I think the following sutta from the Pali Canon spoken by the historical Buddha, is of great importance:


SN 20.7 Ani Sutta: The Peg



Staying at Savatthi.(The Buddha said):

"Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.

They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering.

But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....007.than.html

[BurdenRobert]

One can examine emptiness and the 5 aggregates below in SN 22.95.



SN 22.95 Phena Sutta: Foam


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.
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.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....095.than.html

[eEwbYjOH]

Santikaro mentions Kaccayanagotta Sutta.( SN 12.15) in connection with the Heart Sutra.

Just as an aside....this sutta is also used as a reference by Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhamakakarika and in Chapter 14 he refers directly to it as the "Discourse to Katyayana."




Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme.
Continued:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....015.than.html

[Eagevawax]

When one examines the parallels in the Pali Canon suttas shown by Santikaro and also investigates for oneself, I quite sincerely, and not looking for conflict, cannot understand how people actually believe the the text of the Heart Sutra can be other than a fictitious add-on to the already existing words of the Buddha....especially this part from the link #1 which states that a deity bodhisattva is giving the teaching :



1. "Thus have I heard: at one time, the blessed lord was dwelling on the vulture-peak mountain near Rajagriha, with a gathering of the great community of mendicant-religious and the great community of lay-religious.


2. At that time the blessed lord was absorbed in the contemplation known as "profound radiance" wherein phenomena are examined.


3. And in a coinciding time, holy Avalokitesvara the mahasattva-bodhisattva, was engaged in observing the practice of transcendental wisdom, wherein the actuality of the five complexes (aggregates) are observed as empty.


4. Then, through the mystical-power of the Buddha, venerable Shariputra enquired of holy Avalokitesvara, the mahasattva-bodhisattva, as follows:


5. "How should a son or daughter of noble lineage, who wishes to practice the profound transcendental wisdom, train themselves"


6. Thus questioned, holy Avalokitesvara the mahasattva bodhisattva explained as follows to venerable Shariputra:



7. O Shariputra, the son or daughter of noble lineage who wishes to practice the profound transcendental wisdom, should observe thus":................

etc etc

[andreas]

cannot understand how people actually believe the the text of the Heart Sutra can be other than a fictitious add-on to the already existing words of the Buddha....especially this part:

You are not alone in this consideration Aloka; this sutta as others of the Mahayana tradition were drop out by some Soto schools. Why? Because Soto is supposed to develop a direct understanding through meditation and silent understanding(known as Negemisho). This attitude needs to focus on the core teachins of the historical Buddha and nothing else. The add-ons given by the Mahayana approach are completely against the aim of Soto and its essential practice rooted in the day to day events.

[CesseOveldset]

Regarding the dating of the Heart Sutra (remembering that the Buddha's death was around 483 BCE) :

" Recent scholarship is unable to verify any date earlier than the 7th century CE."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Sutra

As for the deity Avalokiteshvara, do we really need to believe in deities ? Outside of practice devices in Vajrayana, isn't that just superstition? :

"Western scholars have not reached a consensus on the origin of the reverence for Avalokiteśvara. Some have suggested that Avalokiteśvara, along with many other supernatural beings in Buddhism, was a borrowing or absorption by Mahayana Buddhism of one or more Hindu deities, in particular Shiva or Vishnu"

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Avalokite%C5%9Bvara


Quite apart from all of that, and the obvious similarites to some of the Pali suttas, it doesn't seem to be addressing the way that the Buddha himself actually taught about emptiness.

Here's the Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness MN 121

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....121.than.html


I think maybe some people either get very confused about 'emptiness' and misunderstand what it means ..or else get obsessed with it.

My opinion is that perhaps when we let go and relax a little mentally and begin to fully understand impermanence and not-self, that a far more direct understanding of emptiness will be developed through our meditation practice, as well as through our everyday awareness on a moment-to-moment basis.

However, that's just a personal viewpoint.

[soprofaxelbis]

As for the deity Avalokiteshvara, do we really need to believe in deities ?

Hopefully not... but some people are needed so to think there will be something "there" that will save them. Mahayana share some features with Christianism and its corrupted version called Catholicism. Gods, saints, saviours, redeemers of human suffering, prayers and a holly guru are all around the Mahayana suttas.

Knowing that the historical Buddha just awaken, IMO is a much more healthier approach to his teachings.

Personally I don't think its particularly necessary for emptiness to be regarded as a philosophical view or even as an intellectual insight. I think maybe some people either get very confused about 'emptiness' and misundestand what it means..or else get obsessed with it.

Emptiness understood through impermanence should be experienced through meditation. Philosophical view and intellectual insight can lead to subtle attachments. Also the philosophical views and the extreme intellectual struggle have lead to the foundation of the many New Age mysticisms.

My opinion is that perhaps when we let go and relax a little mentally and begin to fully understand impermanence and not-self, that a far more direct understanding of emptiness will be developed through our meditation practice, as well as through our everyday awareness on a moment-to-moment basis.

That's it... no need to make this so difficult and elaborated...

[icedrakona]

I remembered this thread today and thought I'd revive it to see if anyone wanted to continue the discussion.

[Tw1anJOO]

Heart Sutra points to emptiness of self ie. aggregates and emptiness of phenomena ie. form/emptiness. Although it may not be from the Pali Canon, the sutra is very profound and points to the truth that is the Dhamma.



SN 22.95 Phena Sutta: Foam Emptiness of phenomena

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?

Kaccayanagotta Sutta.( SN 12.15) Emptiness of phenomena

Also this

If I were to say : 'Monks, whatsoever in the world . . . . of gods and
men whatsoever is seen . . . . . by the mind all that I do not 1
know' it would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say : 'I both
know it and know it not' that too would be a falsehood in me. If I
were to say : 'I neither know it nor am ignorant of it' it would be a
fault in me.

Thus, monks, a Tathàgata does not conceive of a visible
thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.

He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.

He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
who senses.

He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes.

Thus, monks, the Tathàgata being such-like in regard to all
phenomena seen, heard, sensed and cognized, is 'Such'. Moreover,
than he who is 'Such', there is none other greater or more excellent, I
declare.


Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or clung to,
is esteemed as truth by other folk,

Midst those who are entrenched in their own views
being 'Such' I hold none as true or false.

This barb I beheld, well in advance,
whereon mankind is hooked, impaled,

'I know, I see `tis verily so'---- no such clinging
for the Tathàgatas.

Kalakarama Sutta


The Magic of the Mind: An Exposition of the Kalakarama Sutta
by Ven. Nyanananda.

[StarsWorld]

I posted this on another forum.

According to Buddhism. a normal person usually views existence as permanent, satisfactory and having an essence. But reality is some thing quite different and is somewhat counterintuitive.

Our senses tell us that things are substantial and real but is this “reality”.

Let us try a thought experiment the way Einstein did with his theory of relativity.

Imagine that we are viewing things and events happening on Earth from a distant planet. We know that light takes time to travel and scientists have informed us that some stars are only detected long after the original stars have died out. If we are not aware of this fact, we would think that those stars are still there. Suppose the same thing happened to Earth.

So we see all the events taking place on Earth, the wars, famines, births, deaths, marriages, the World Cup, etc. Even the trees, mountains, lakes etc appear real and substantial. But the “reality” is all these things that we know to be true from seeing and hearing are an illusion. The Earth is gone but we remain convinced that this is not so. We see our families and friends doing their things. We have moments of joy, happiness, anger and sadness, getting involved in things. Everyone standing where we are will see exactly the same thing.

But in reality they don’t exist anymore!

If the scientists have not pointed out that we are only seeing the play of light and sounds in our consciousness, we would believe what our senses tell us. For some, even the scientific explanations are not enough to break our illusion.

You see. Our senses deceive us into believing that the world and everything in it truly exist. We grab on to existence as though it is something permanent and substantial whereas in truth everything is slipping away and nothing is substantial. There is nothing we can hold on to as real. All that we can perceive can only come through our senses. There is a time lag between contact of our retina and form, eardrums and vibrations and the actual process of seeing or hearing. Everything that we see or hear no longer exist. There is nothing that we can hold on to as permanent in such a world.

The world of our senses is neither existent or nonexistent but is dependent on the activity of our senses. Therefore is no 'the world' besides these ongoing activities.

In this experiment what is real becomes unreal. What we “know” to be substantial and permanent is in fact a conjuror’s trick.

The actual process of seeing or hearing takes place in microseconds between for example the light travelling from an object to reach the retina and eventually registering in the brain as visual consciousness. But the underlying principle is similar.

The past is over, the future is yet to come. Even the now doesn't truly exist.

For the objects for sights, sounds, smells, taste and sensations are no longer there by the time they register in our consciousness. They have already slipped away.

This is the one meaning of impermanence(anicca). When we are convinced that this is so, we develop dispassion as our reality fades (viraga) and finally disappears(nirodha). We know now that nothing whatsoever is to be clung to. We begin to give up things that we previously thought was important(patinisagga).


" . . . . . . . Suppose, monks, a magician or a magician's apprentice
should hold a magic-show at the four cross-roads; and a keen-sighted
man should see it, ponder over it and reflect on it radically. Even as
he sees it, ponders over it and reflects on it radically, he would find it
empty; he would find it hollow; he would find it void of essence.
What essence, monks, could there be in a magic show?

Even so, monks, whatever consciousness --- be it past, future or
present, in oneself or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
far or near -- a monk sees it, ponders over it and reflects on it
radically. And even as he sees it, ponders over it and reflects on it
radically, he would find it empty; he would find it hollow; he would
find it void of essence. What essence, monks, could there be in a
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."

Phena Sutta
Foam

[leacturavar]

Oh, I like this discussion very much.

I don't actually see a direct correlation between the excellent sources you quote and the Heart Sutra per se.

The link to the Kaccayanagotta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....015.than.html
details what are referred to as the 12 links of dependent origination,

and the words of the Phena Sutta: Foam are obviously repeated, or paraphrased later in the final chapter of the Diamond (Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā ) Sūtra.

As far as believing in deities goes, this should be understood two ways. In Vajrayana practice, 'deity' does not really convey the full meaning of Avalokiteshvara as a 'yidam'. In this context, Avalokiteshvara and other 'yidams' are visualized as personifications of one's own original enlightened mind, not as gods to be prayed to. If this sounds a bit far fetched, consider that it is done in the context of the understanding that the very real sensation of who we are when we wake up each morning is equally just a creation of our imaginations.

This does not mean that over the centuries people have not developed superstitious customs. Alternately, in popular usage throughout the countries where Mahayana Buddhism is prevalent, Buddha, Avalokiteshvara & co. are definitely treated like gods, prayed to, and so forth. But by the same token, there is now a cult of Mao in China, where people have shrines and make offerings, light incense and burn candles to Chairman Mao. This is frowned on by the Government but illustrates that people can make gods out of anything. The difference may be that while the Chinese government condemns the Mao cult, Mahayana Buddhist masters and temple managers have not discouraged the 'folk custom' of deifying Buddha. But I think there is a lot more involved, centuries of things like people's needs, politics, temple funds, the integration of Buddhism into already existing cultural environments, honest as well as corrupt motives, etc. that would have to be looked at before passing any final judgments.

As for whether Avalokiteshvara is anything beyond that, I can only consider my own experiences some 30 years ago, which involve supplication to Kuan Yin (Chinese version of Avalokiteshvara, and female) and which seemed to have resulted in some very unusual events.

However, I think that to dismiss too quickly anything not directly attributed to the words spoken by the historical Buddha in India is a mistake. Here is why:

If one considers that only his words are valid, or only his words are necessary, and at the same time declares anything else to be mere religious elaboration, this I think elevates Buddha to divine status, to a god-like status, and one ends up quoting Buddha the way an evangelical christian quotes Jesus.

If what Buddha taught can in fact lead others to enlightenment then the commentaries and meditation practices developed based on his teachings can be considered valid if tested, as the Buddha instructed, tested to see if they are gold or not. Conversely, if what the Buddha taught does not lead others to enlightenment, then there is no point in regarding his words as enlightening teachings.

So, it's kind of a catch-22. If we begin with a premise that Buddha is the only one who can teach the way to enlightenment, that only his words are valid, then that means nobody else has become enlightened by his teachings otherwise their words would be equally valid, so this invalidates the premise. If we begin with the premise that Buddha's teachings are like flames being passed from one candle to many, then all of the flames are valid, and the idea that Buddha was not some divine god but rather an ordinary person who understood the true way of things that anyone can learn, and in turn teach, this is validated.

I am sorry, I really did not focus on the Heart Sutra aspect of this discussion, but i wanted to bring this up in the context of the discussion. As a big fan of the Heart Sutra and also as someone who holds great reverence for the Theravada tradition, I look forward to more discussion on this topic.

[lammaredder]

To directly know things as empty of self or anything pertaining to self is to gain release.

To claim that all things are, therefore, 'empty of inherent existence' is a philosophical, discursive stance and has nothing to do with the insight of the Buddha.

[GypeFeeshyTes]

Here is a link to an interpretation of the Heart Sutra by a good friend. Don't know how to post the file permanently.

http://rapidshare.com/files/45541753...utra_-_PDF.pdf

[Aagotiq]

How about this:

Loka Sutta: The World

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world."

[Herimoisige]

You can see the sheer intellect and depth of the Lord Buddha. He saw and penetrated the truth of existence!

[fujitsusi]

The Fire Sermon

"Bhikkhus, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?

"The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

"The ear is burning, sounds are burning...

"The nose is burning, odors are burning...

"The tongue is burning, flavors are burning...

"The body is burning, tangibles are burning...

"The mind is burning, ideas are burning, mind-consciousness is burning, mind-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with mind-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in the eye, finds estrangement in forms, finds estrangement in eye-consciousness, finds estrangement in eye-contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful- nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, in that too he finds estrangement.

"He finds estrangement in the ear... in sounds...

"He finds estrangement in the nose... in odors...

"He finds estrangement in the tongue... in flavors...

"He finds estrangement in the body... in tangibles...

"He finds estrangement in the mind, finds estrangement in ideas, finds estrangement in mind-consciousness, finds estrangement in mind-contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with mind-contact for its indispensable condition, in that too he finds estrangement.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.

Now during his utterance, the hearts of those thousand bhikkhus were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

[Ifroham4]

As far as believing in deities goes, this should be understood two ways. In Vajrayana practice, 'deity' does not really convey the full meaning of Avalokiteshvara as a 'yidam'. In this context, Avalokiteshvara and other 'yidams' are visualized as personifications of one's own original enlightened mind, not as gods to be prayed to. If this sounds a bit far fetched, consider that it is done in the context of the understanding that the very real sensation of who we are when we wake up each morning is equally just a creation of our imaginations.

Sure. I was taught, learned, and regularly did a number of yidam practices when I was a Vajrayana practitioner, with some very interesting results. I could also recite complete pujas by heart in Tibetan.

However there is no doubt that some Vajrayana practitioners still consider yidam deities to be existent outside of themselves and supplicate them as such.

[ExelePlavisseu]

And these

Kotthita Sutta: To Kotthita

"Now tell me, friend Sariputta, is the eye the fetter of forms, or are forms the fetter of the eye? Is the ear... Is the nose... Is the tongue... Is the body... Is the intellect the fetter of ideas, or are ideas the fetter of the intellect?"

"It is through this line of reasoning that one may know how the eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye, but whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds... The nose is not the fetter of aromas... The tongue is not the fetter of flavors... The body is not the fetter of tactile sensations... The intellect is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the intellect, but whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there."

Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey

"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

"When there is no ear...

"When there is no nose...

"When there is no tongue...

"When there is no body...


Dharmapada 13.170 –
The World : See it as a bubble, see it as a mirage: one who regards the world this way the King of Death doesn't see.


Mogharaja's Question

View the world, Mogharaja,
as empty —
always mindful
to have removed any view
about self.

This way one is above & beyond death.
This is how one views the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king.


Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets

"'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said.