|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 17, 2021 0:14:39 GMT -6
Has anyone gotten the meaning of the following verse from the previous post?
The pot whether perishable by nature or not, cannot be destroyed by a hammer or other cause. Such a cause would either be useless or incapable; or because this cause might not occur for an eaon, the pot might not perish.
I certainly didn't immediately. It seems like a hammer is quite capable of destroying a pot. The translator in a note to this verse gives a clue as to its meaning. The hammer is useless, if the pot is perishable by itself (i.e., momentary in existence) and incapable if the pot has an imperishable nature.
|
|
|
Post by meeno8 on Dec 17, 2021 12:50:27 GMT -6
Energy = mass times the constant (the speed of light) squared.
And energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be transformed into mass and vice versa.
That is our current understanding at this time (or at any non-existent time?).
Does not the Sanskrit word sakti connotate energy? And saktiman would then be the energetic, correct? The wielder of power is the one who is an infinite reservoir of energy. That is one way of looking at it.
|
|
|
Post by meeno8 on Dec 17, 2021 17:31:56 GMT -6
E=MC2 is a valuable equation along with the laws of thermodynamics in terms of our technologies.
As far as any attempt to link modern physics and quantum mechanics to Buddhist doctrines, well that could be quite tenous at best. From what I have observed in my own reading, philosophical texts reflect the body of knowledge of the cultures that give birth to the philosophers that pen them.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 18, 2021 11:25:44 GMT -6
The translator of the text, Dezso, has a nice note on this topic:
The monk's exposition of the doctrine of momentariness is based on two well-known arguments: "the inference of momentariness from the perishing nature of produced entities" (vinAzitvAnumAna) and "the inference of momentariness from the existence of things" (sattvAnumAna). Cf. Hetubindu p.4,6f.: "Whatever is existent must be momentary. If it were not momentary, because non-momentariness contradicts causal efficacy, it would be deprived of being a real thing, since this condition [being a real thing] has causal efficacy as its defining mark." (yat sat tat kSaNikam eva, akSaNikatve'rthakriyAvirodhAt tallakSaNaM vastutvaM hIyate)
I think the thing about causal efficacy is that it is the force behind the fundamental idea of dependent origination, this chain of eleven elements that forms an unending cycle that characterizes the state of bondage. They are all causally related and thus causally efficient and will continue until one of the links is broken (ignorance). The elements of the chain are:
ignorance, on which depends karma, on which depends consciousness, on which depend name and form, on which depend the six organs of sense, on which depends contact, on which depends sensation, on which depends desire, on which depends attachment, on which depends existence, on which depends birth, on which depend old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair.
Again, the weak link is ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Dec 19, 2021 4:00:50 GMT -6
Thank you, Nitai das ji!
Here's what else I want to say. Nirvana is not something final. In particular, nirvana is not the ultimate goal and cannot be the ultimate goal. Rather, nirvana is ever-present. In any situation a little bit of calm can be found as the basis of clarity. Whatever is defined, these will be combinations of dharmas in a series of cittas (moments of consciousness, or states of mind). This is the universality of dharma theory. But the streams of dharmas (citta series, in the abhidharma language) is a relative consideration.
Absolute reality is seen as two elements: sansara and nirvana. The element of nirvana is non-composite. The element of sansara is composite. The Nagarjuna’s equality of sansara and nirvana can be explained in many ways, and let's say for now, something definite, or dicriminated, is a special case of indefinite.
The minimum composition of the sansara element is citta + caitasika sanskara. Caitasika - quality of mind. It is impossible to consider the citta without the caitasika. It is impossible to reduce the caitasika to citta. As soon as citta is considered, there are a a series of cittas to consider. As soon as citta is considered, the caitasika and the rupa should be considered. If the moment of citta is not viewed, then only nirvana is considered.
As soon as rupa is added to the combination of citta + caitasika sanskara, the caitasika vedana and caitasika samjna immediately appear. And this is immediately expressed in a series of citta. Also, the caitasika vedana and the caitasika samjna are possible without the caitasika rupa (this is arupaloka).
These are elements of the ultimate reality. Either nirvana or chitta-caitasika-rupa is observed. There is nothing concrete beyond that. These four elements make up the complete picture of paramartha. This classification precedes any (formed) concepts (prajnapti). Often absolute reality is believed to be abstract, but that is how it is most concrete.
It is to observe, to notice, not to classify. First discover it, and then pick up a name for it. Because the caitasika is more meaningful than the citta, they constitute two different elements of reality. Nirvana is constant. Citta as a sign of the moment of discrimination arises with different combinations of caitasikas; rupa can arise and not arise.
The word "arises" has a confusing form in time: “it was not - now it is”. Pratyaya (in Pratityasamutpada, dependent arising) as a term has a slightly different meaning. “Where is this - there is that. Where this is not, there is not that."
And this is what is revealed as an absolute reality. Not extended in time, but, in modern terms, informational. Here's a look at the text. You can look at different places in the text and you will find letters, words. They do not appear one after another, they are not generated by one another, they are connected, attention can slide over the text. In this sense, absolute reality has an informational nature. You can direct your attention to nirvana. Here is nirvana. Nirvana has a distinguishable quality - no sanskara. This means there is no citta, no caitasika, no rupa. You can direct your attention to the sanskara. This attention is scattered into the whole space of citta + sanskara. That is, it is this direction of attention (sanskara) that determines the citta. The very movement of attention determines the space of the mind, this very absolute reality of citta, caitasika and rupa.
But it's all like one big space. This is not yet the definiteness of individual moments and their connection in a series or streams. This is the potential for further certainty. This is the closest thing to nirvana - arupaloka. Forms have not yet been defined, only motion has been defined. It is still neither perception nor non-perception. This is already a sanskara, and only sanskara defines citta. Abandon movement - and here is nirodha samapatti. This is the citta of cessation of movement. Thus, from neither perception nor non-perception, the cessation of feelings and cessation of perception is revealed. It is only the arising and the cessation of the sanskara that distinguishes the eighth dhyana from the nirodha samapatti.
Following the movement of the sanskara one more step, the simplest perception is formed. There is nothing. That is, it is the certainty that there is nothing definite. Seventh dhyana. One more movement - and the certainty becomes the infinity of perception, the consciousness of infinity. Sixth dhyana. One more movement - and a new perception is determined - the limitless space of consciousness, distinguishable from the consciousness that perceives this limitless space. This is the fifth dhyana. Further, movement and space breaks up into countless forms, which are still undefined, but are perceived as infinite diversity. As if you look at the sand in the desert, not a single grain of sand, not a single composition of grains of sand stands out, but only the design itself. Rupa. This is the fourth dhyana. The first four dhyanas are rupa-dhyanas.
This is the essence of the teachings of the paramartha, they are the result of the most subtle study of the mind. There is nothing subtler. This reveals the meaning of the epithet “the final beatitude or completion” of nirvana, in the book previously cited here. It is final in the informational sense and the most subtle in the sense of observing the progression of more and more elusive states of mind.
Information has no other essence than the information itself, that is, meaning. Information has no carrier, because the carrier itself is determined by information (distinction, distinctive characteristics of its elements and qualities). This is the direct meaning of anatman quality of all dharmas - no owner. Aggregates are found born and dying. The birth (jati) of aggregates is found to arise with existence (bhava). The existence (bhava) is found to arise with covet (tanha) and clinging (upadana). In this way all twelve nidanas convey the principle. This is not any kind of metaphysics, these are the ultimate elements of research, informational elements, in other words, meanings. In the language of computer science - data, datum.
Every moment of consciousness is citta. Citta is simply the difference of one object from others, which means that the citta takes an object. This object has the attributes of form (rupa), feeling (vedana), perception (samjna) and aspiration (sanskara), the last three are mental factors, caitasika. Prajnapti are combinations of objects, a structure over form and mental factors. What we usually call objects are all prajnapti. An untrained person cannot recognize paramartha, only prajnapti, only concepts.
Consciousness as a process (i.e., awareness) consists of acts of awareness. I am opposed to the abstraction of some kind of universal consciousness that is not associated with its distinctive features and formed ideas. This is not constructive, and I consider this approach to be misleading. People who do not understand the principle of anatman elevate to the absolute a certain living principle, the essence of which they can neither understand nor describe. It is the quintessence of the fear of losing individuality and the ability to live.
The clarity of the mind is based primarily on the ability of the psyche to form images-representations not with the help of logical means of successive checks, but with the help of intuitive means of direct association.
In practice, we have experience both the ability of consistent logical understanding - fact by fact, and the ability of instant penetration-recognition. In other words, when we take a sip of water, we immediately recognize the taste of the water. We do not need additional comprehension - what it might be, we do not select hypotheses, testing them over and over again.
And, in my opinion, the practice of developing a clear mind is a method of freeing oneself from the limited stream of sequential thinking. The method of releasing extralogical, direct perception of any situation, going beyond attempts to describe understanding every time, to an extra-descriptive, pre-descriptive understanding of the situation.
But, since this is just my personal opinion, which is also rational (that is, explanatory), I will not support it too much.
|
|
|
Post by meeno8 on Dec 19, 2021 13:58:33 GMT -6
Not being a student of Buddhism, let alone an HR scholar on the various schools of it, I wonder what a good English translation would be of the concept of nirvana. Anyone care to take a stab at that one?
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Dec 20, 2021 5:46:02 GMT -6
If you want a skilled extract of the Buddha's teachings, take the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. This is an extract given by the Buddha himself.
Nirvana is incomprehensible to the mind. It has no qualities other than the cessation of qualities. All nirvana properties are background, contextual.
It is called true (absolute) peace (= cessation of impulses / sanskara) and true (absolute) clarity (purity, emptiness = cessation of discriminating awareness / vijnana).
You can study this craving for certainty. For example, right now, this wanting to put the incomprehensible into some kind of formula. This craving is not permanent. Citta is always a sign of something specific. Nirvana is of the same nature as citta. Whenever a series of cittas is interrupted and the next begins, this is the citta of cessation - nirvana. To make it simple, just notice the citta with no craving.
Reason, conceptual thinking, does not even embrace perception. Not possible to substitute reasoning for sleep, eating, looking at a picture, or listening to music. Likewise, the study of the dharmas, including nirvana, cannot be replaced by concepts and reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Dec 21, 2021 12:26:55 GMT -6
Has anyone gotten the meaning of the following verse from the previous post? The pot whether perishable by nature or not, cannot be destroyed by a hammer or other cause. Such a cause would either be useless or incapable; or because this cause might not occur for an eaon, the pot might not perish.
I certainly didn't immediately. It seems like a hammer is quite capable of destroying a pot. The translator in a note to this verse gives a clue as to its meaning. The hammer is useless, if the pot is perishable by itself (i.e., momentary in existence) and incapable if the pot has an imperishable nature. The logic is this: if something is constant, it cannot at one time produce something, and then not produce it. After all, it is the same thing. Therefore, if something is changeable, it cannot have an unchanging cause. This logic is typical for Nagarjuna (in Mulamadhyamaka Karika). This is necessary if someone unreasonably believes the reality of some reasons for granted. Criticism of Nagarjuna is aimed at any kind of reification (objectification) of facts (signs). Whatever it is. There is no support for dharmas, because dharmas in their aggregates are the only support for themselves. This hammer-pot relationship is analogous to how the pixels on the screen do not affect each other's color. It is easier to take the hammer-pot relationship as a mind concoction if these things are visible on the screen. These mentally constructed objects, including the concepts of action and influence, are a metaphor for prajnapti, and pixels are a metaphor for paramartha. It may seem difficult only because of the attachment to the idea that something had to be there in order for something to arise. But such an idea is completely optional. As soon as this becomes clear and the search for the basis, substance, substrate stops, the law of interdependent emergence turns out to be extremely simple and obvious, and is directly observed in any act of consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 1, 2022 15:42:43 GMT -6
Greetings Kirtaniyaji,
Thanks for the lessons in Buddhist thought. You have obviously gone deeply into the subject. I am a fan of Buddhism. I think that Buddhism and Hinduism in general and Vaisnavism in particular are sister philosophies and spiritual disciplines, having grown up in the same family, out of the same soil, nourished by the same experiences and influences, and in dialog with each other for centuries. They have influenced each other, taught each other, learned from each other for millennia. In my sadhana I have benefited immensely from the practice of VipassanA practice which I learned to do at the Naropa Institute in Boulder Colorado through a series of weekend retreats called The Sacred Path of the Warrior. In fact, I would recommend the book accompanying these practices called Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior by Chogyam Trungpa. Trungpa, in spite of all his faults, was a consummate meditation master and presenter of the Buddhist tradition in its Tibetan expression.
That said, though I marvel at the profundity of the philosophy developed by later Buddhist thinkers, I regard the Buddha himself as a profoundly practical person. His real concern was not so much with philosophy, but with practice. Thus he is represented in the Pali texts as saying on his death bed:
"And now, O priests, I take my leave of you; all the constituents of being are transitory; work out your salvation with diligence."
And this was the last word of The TathAgata.
(Maha-Parinibbana-Sutta (61.15-)
From the Majjhima-Nikaya, Sutta 63:
Malunkyaputta thinks to himself:
These theories which The Blessed One has left unelucidated, has set aside and rejected---that the world is eternal, that the world is not eternal, that the world is finite, that the world is infinite, that the soul and the body are identical, that the soul is one thing and body is another, that the saint exists after death, that the saint does not exist after death, that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death---these The Blessed One does not elucidate to me.
Malunkyaputta goes to The Blessed One and tells him if he does not elucidate these things he will leave the order.
The Buddha responds:
Malunkyaputta, anyone who should say, "I will not lead the religious life under The Blessed One until The Blessed One shall elucidate to me either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal ... that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before The Tathagata had ever elucidated this to him.
It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man had been wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and comparions, his relatives and kinsfolk, were to procure for him a physician or surgeon; and that sick man were to say, "I will not have this arrow taken out until I have learnt whether the man who wounded me belonged to the warrior caste, or to the Brahman caste, or to the agricultural caste, or to the menial caste."
...
That man would die, Malunkyaputta, without ever having learnt this.
In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, ... that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before The Tathagata had ever elucidated this to him.
|
|
bets
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by bets on Jan 2, 2022 1:16:42 GMT -6
Delightful!
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Jan 3, 2022 2:53:59 GMT -6
Greetings Kirtaniyaji, Thanks for the lessons in Buddhist thought. You have obviously gone deeply into the subject. I am a fan of Buddhism. I think that Buddhism and Hinduism in general and Vaisnavism in particular are sister philosophies and spiritual disciplines, having grown up in the same family, out of the same soil, nourished by the same experiences and influences, and in dialog with each other for centuries. They have influenced each other, taught each other, learned from each other for millennia. In my sadhana I have benefited immensely from the practice of VipassanA practice which I learned to do at the Naropa Institute in Boulder Colorado through a series of weekend retreats called The Sacred Path of the Warrior. In fact, I would recommend the book accompanying these practices called Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior by Chogyam Trungpa. Trungpa, in spite of all his faults, was a consummate meditation master and presenter of the Buddhist tradition in its Tibetan expression. That said, though I marvel at the profundity of the philosophy developed by later Buddhist thinkers, I regard the Buddha himself as a profoundly practical person. His real concern was not so much with philosophy, but with practice. Thus he is represented in the Pali texts as saying on his death bed: "And now, O priests, I take my leave of you; all the constituents of being are transitory; work out your salvation with diligence." And this was the last word of The TathAgata. ( Maha-Parinibbana-Sutta (61.15-) From the Majjhima-Nikaya, Sutta 63:Malunkyaputta thinks to himself: These theories which The Blessed One has left unelucidated, has set aside and rejected---that the world is eternal, that the world is not eternal, that the world is finite, that the world is infinite, that the soul and the body are identical, that the soul is one thing and body is another, that the saint exists after death, that the saint does not exist after death, that the saint both exists and does not exist after death, that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death---these The Blessed One does not elucidate to me. Malunkyaputta goes to The Blessed One and tells him if he does not elucidate these things he will leave the order. The Buddha responds: Malunkyaputta, anyone who should say, "I will not lead the religious life under The Blessed One until The Blessed One shall elucidate to me either that the world is eternal, or that the world is not eternal ... that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before The Tathagata had ever elucidated this to him. It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man had been wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and comparions, his relatives and kinsfolk, were to procure for him a physician or surgeon; and that sick man were to say, "I will not have this arrow taken out until I have learnt whether the man who wounded me belonged to the warrior caste, or to the Brahman caste, or to the agricultural caste, or to the menial caste." ... That man would die, Malunkyaputta, without ever having learnt this. In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, ... that person would die, Malunkyaputta, before The Tathagata had ever elucidated this to him. Nitai das ji, thank you! I enjoy very much to come here. Practically like a guest in your house. Now I will take advantage of your hospitality. ^^ And happy New Year to all of us! The reason the Buddha did not answer the above questions is because they are metaphysical questions. This will be news to some. We can say that these are philosophical questions, but the term metaphysics is more specific. Metaphysics is a kind of standard bias. Presuming something "manifesting" behind the phenomena is metaphysics, and metaphysics is delusion. Those questions are labeled as unhelpful because they are driven by some bias. And the best way to solve these questions is with a technique that transcends explanation. Therefore, the conclusion in this sutta is not to be missed. “Māluṅkyaputta, you should remember what I have not declared as undeclared, and what I have declared as declared.”By the way, there is a very good site with translations of the Pali canon. Here are two translations of this sutta. Majjhima-Nikaya, Sutta 63 suttacentral.net/mn63/en/bodhisuttacentral.net/mn63/en/sujato(For the convenience of the reader, I will note that instead of the word “elucidate”, as in your quote, Nitai das ji, the word “declare” is used here, throughout the text.) And what is it - “declared”, or “elucidated”, at the end? It is four noble truths, directly perceived. Meaning, just like at this very moment these letters are clear enough, in the same way it is clear at the moment: ‘this is suffering,’ ‘this is the origin of suffering,’ ‘this is the cessation of suffering,’ ‘this is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.’This “practice” is as natural, as to notice the attention shifting from one part of the screen in front of you to another. It is beyond any explanation. It is beyond any imagination. Explaining wrong views is always rude and helps only as a compromise with a certain kind of imaginary picture of reality. As Linji said, “Those who understand and who do not understand are all wrong”. But basically all views can be customised as of three kinds, with no forth. By the way, Chogyam Trungpa mentioned by you, Nitai das ji, is the one of not many who explained the three kinds of views in his book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism (chapter 13 "Shunyata"). I would like to bring here my own explanation. These three are eternalism and nihilism as two extremes, and the middle way as a right view. Understanding of these three kinds of views can help to see how the Buddha’s regular way to label some questions as wrong is a part of his method to teach the middle way. First of all, adherence to sensual pleasures on the one hand and asceticism on the other hand are indicated as two extremes by the Buddha (SN42.12, SN56.11). We can understand that a view is not just a matter of opinion, but a matter of deep conviction that is the driving force behind a lifestyle and any perception. Sometimes we can view the marriage of a monk as a fault, but we can also view it as a virtue. And then there are suttas like SN12.15, SN12.47, with a regular line: “Everything exists” is one extreme. “Everything does not exist” is the other extreme. Avoiding these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma in a middle way.Middle way refers to the repeated formula of dependent arising (like in SN12.1-10, SN12.20 and some other suttas), which shows how from the causes the effects arise, without the participation of the "agent", "I", "self", "true essence" of the being. There are some more suttas in which all the same extremes are described through incorrect metaphysical questions, and it is possible to understand that they are incorrect if the main principle is grasped. One should learn how not to be charmed by any of views. This is a right view. Both extremes contain an implicit assertion. Again and again, in our daily life, we use the concept of "this thing exists" or "this thing does not exist" - in an absolute sense. For example, does God exist or not? Do siddhi exist or not? This man is there, sure thing. That man died, he is no more. One side (about absolute existence) asserts eternalism: there is something absolute, independent of the signs of distinction, non-empty in content, containing the differences of absolute nature, that is, some final truth, different from emptiness. The other side (about absolute non-being) asserts nihilism, i.e. nothing exists, it is enough to admit it, and it is not subject to any verification - and there is no method for that since there is nothing to investigate). In addition to these two extremes, there is a middle way that considers existence as a subject of research. How do we decide that something exists? Why does belief in existence arise? How can we check this? (As a side note, your trademark phrase, Nitai das ji, "What evidence is there for this?" once made strong impact to my thinking.) This path, in contrast to the stopping belief, leads to understanding (and not affirmation) of emptiness (i.e., the absence of any signs of difference) of the absolute. And it leads to understanding of the chain of conditions for the emergence and cessation of everything (all distinguishable phenomena). This path makes me to believe that Radha and Krsna are no less real than any of us. I will attract their special attention on the basis of our mutual interest. But such a belief, when in full bloom, is not cheap. The schizoid pays a great price to hear real voices in the whisper of a water heating pipe. Just he doesn’t know about it and shouldn’t know about it. Historically, they’ve been always afraid to put some of their innermost desires into the heart of God. I think, something like this is called awe and reverence by some acarya of late. The rasa-dance demands a greater courage. And to delve a little bit more, what is individual and what is collective? It is all arbitrary. There is a hint in SN12.48. Collectivity, plurality is only one side of the possible accents. Even an individual organism is a collective of organs interacting with each other. There is no individual karma, nor collective karma. There is no individual mind, nor collective mind. In this sense, the “collective” is a consequence of the delusion that "I am not a collective." While all the skandhas that form the "I" in fact are the "collective" of dharmas. The nature of the mind is to grasp the familiar. Therefore, forms are seen in the spots, in a series of similarities. And the whole world is filled with creatures on the basis of familiar images of personal. A couple of small mirrors shown to the large one can reveal how endless nirmanakayas arise in an instant. Hunger is a state in which any creature finds itself. And the hunger for secure certainty too. There is nothing individual about it. In the same way, exploring any craving, any state of mind, it is not possible to find a single individual one. Everything that arises does not arise because of individuality, but only because of conditions, among which one can nominally declare something individual. The plural is the nomination of the same kind as the individual. Just as skandhas form "I", so do "we" and "they" are formed. Chogyam Trungpa mentions an atomistic view as additional to the two extremes, and as partly true. But this kind of realism also belongs to the category of eternalism. There are views (often attributed to sarvastivadins) that the dharmas have some kind of real existence. In fact, they are mere differences, signs. They much more are quanta than atoms. The essence of dharmas is information. This is a mode of distinguishing (vijnana is the distinguishing, literally) of what is distinguishable (namarupa is literally the name of a form, or is a designation, denotation, nomination). It should be understood that there is no separate form in which this process takes place. The arising of rupa is not different from the arising of nama. This is one process. And it is wrong to think that rupa gives rise to nama and nama gives rise to rupa. They have one common root: bhava pratyaya jati. On condition of bhava (becoming, forming, concoction) - jati takes place (nama and rupa are born). Those who think that there is a rupa that perceives another rupa (like the rupa-tongue perceives the rupa-taste, the rupa-eye perceives the rupa-visible, etc.) do not overcome the delusion of eternalism. However, in the canon, authoritative for the sarvastivadins, the Buddha clearly stated that being is one extreme and non-being is the other extreme, the Tathagata teaches the middle path: interdependent arising. Therefore, in addition to talking about the everyday idea of a certain reality, substantiality, we should consider an idea of dharmata. It is a question of the reality of the existence of interdependent arising itself. And the sarvastivadins rightly say: yes, the interdependence of arising is the ultimate reality. Apart from this reality, there is no other existence. So how can we understand that Buddha is a deeply practical person? He could be a philosopher, he had the potential for that, but he instead prefers to develop certain skills? ; I think, different ways of teaching by different buddhas are deeply practical, and an inclination for some philosophy is a kind of upaya. Not many students are ready to take the straight path. Due to some clinging to fixed ideas, the Dharma degrades, and sometimes there is a need to restore it again through living practice. There is the Buddha person, and there is the Buddha nature, principle. There is a direct path, there are approaches to the direct path, and there are workarounds. The straight path is the four foundations of mindfulness. One should learn to pay attention to what is going on in the mind. Approaches to the straight path are the elimination of gross delusions and defilements. Workarounds are the use and transformation of gross delusions and defilements. Some needs subtle clever hints in particular situations, some needs lengthy explanations, some needs strict instructions. These three are universal ways of teachings. Vipassana is the vision as it is. Samadhi: unification, stabilization, pacification and direction of the mind through dhyana. Vipassana is a key practice of insight into noble truths. Samadhi is a supportive practice. Seeing as it is with an unsettled mind is painful. Soreness is removed by the practice of samadhi. Nitai das ji, your idea of sister philosophies, having grown up in the same family, out of the same soil, nourished by the same experiences and influences, and in dialog with each other for centuries, I would like to drag a little into the sphere of related practices. Practice is a true philosophy, and speculation is a philosophy by name only. It is may be not obvious, but tantras are essentially no different from mindfulness. For some people, nimitta in dhyana arises as a color-light perception. Some people think of nimitta as sound. Therefore, by setting color or sound as the object of meditation, some minds approach dhyana. This is kinda a hacker methods. The three ways of teaching are called the narrow path, the wide path, and the magical path. In the first case, the student relies on the personal vision of the truth. In the second case, the student relies on the teacher's guidance that he understands. In the third case, the student relies on trust in the teacher's ability to transform the minds of students without their understanding and conscious participation. The practice of virtue takes different forms along these three paths. In the first case, one clearly sees the five obstacles for dhyana and moves away from it. In the second case, one follows the vows and prescriptions that help, without recognizing negative states of mind, to refrain from them according to their consequences. In the third case, one follows the teacher's direct assignments, not knowing what exactly they are doing with one’s mind and not knowing what and when the result will be.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 8, 2022 13:24:04 GMT -6
Thanks for your long comment on my presentation of Sutta 62. you are certainly living up to your name, Kirtaniya. It is full of many fine thoughts and insights. As for translations of the Pali canon, thank you for the links. They lead to a beautiful site where on can read the canon in good English and learn many things. My favorite translation of the Pali texts is a collection of many of the main texts by Henry Clark Warren called Buddhism in Translations It was originally published by Harvard University Press in 1896. The language in the text is beautiful and when I first read it as part of an assignment in a class on Buddhism at the University of Colorado back in 1978, I loved it. I strongly felt that that book should be required reading for every student at the U of C, no exceptions. I felt that the insights presented in the book were essential to producing a thoughtful and more balanced citizenry than the one then dominant in the USA. Now, compared to that citizenry what we have is a hundred times worse. What we really needed in order to avoid the idiocy we have now fallen into in this country is a book like Warren's, presenting the insights of the ancient Tathagata, to broaden our minds, make us look into ourselves, question our egos, and carefully observe the world around us as a way of questioning the nonsense otherwise being taught us in most of our college classes. I say most because obviously in some classes, like the one in which I encountered this book, there was a real effort to make us stretch our minds and see things differently. I don't know if that was Professor Robert Lester's intent, but that was the effect it had on me. Anyway, I am re-reading it now in my old age and loving now as much as I did then. Hear the opening verse of "The Story of Sumedha" from the "Introduction to the Jataka" which opens the book: A hundred thousand cycles vast And four immensities ago, There was a town called Amara, A place of beauty and delights. It had the noises ten complete And food and drink abundantly. This is the beginning of the story of Sumedha who, after countless rebirths in which he gradually acquires the ten perfections, becomes the Buddha born in India (around 400-350 BCE). It is an amazingly cosmic story told in beautiful language. The primary rasa is Vira, or heroism, as the bodhisattva struggles toward full enlightenment and Buddhahood. I highly recommend it. I wish I could translate the Bhagavata (and Rupa and Sanatana and Jiva) so nicely. Let me give you another short passage from Majjhima-nikaya, Sutta 72 on the same topic of "metaphysics." [The Tathagata says:] Vaccha,the theory that the world is eternal, is a jungle, a wilderness, a puppet-show, a writhing, and a fetter, and is coupled with misery, ruin, despair, and agony, and does not tend to aversion, absence of passion, cessation. quiescence, knowledge, supreme wisdom, and Nirvana. The passage goes on beautifully, but this is all I will share today. I love this characterization this theory: is a jungle, a wilderness, a puppet-show, a writhing, a fetter. Especially puppet-show (an entertainment, a illusory fascination, the manipulation of wooden or cloth figures, etc. what a great metaphor!) Thanks for sharing your insights into Buddhism with us, Kirtaniya. It is "praiseworthy."
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Jan 12, 2022 13:04:52 GMT -6
Nitai das ji! It is very pleasant and delicious, all these your personal developments, impressions, feelings related to aesthetics. As a child, I had a book "Three Great Legends of Ancient India" by Temkin and Erman, 1978 (Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Canto 10 narrated extensively. Especially Erman V.G. was a big Russian indologist, translator, researcher of Indian epos and theater). As well, I had a large-format colorful book "The Tale of Rama" (a fairy tale for children by Prem Chand, issued in 1959 in the USSR). Look how nicely it was made. polny-shkaf.livejournal.com/66824.htmlshaltay0boltay.livejournal.com/46890.htmlAnd I had another book contained all sorts of passages, there were some selected Jatakas, which I did not read very carefully, because in that book I paid the main attention to the verses detailing the battle between Arjuna and Karna. OMG, that was trilling dramatic epico in its own right! Whose side would you take here if you don’t know who is who or what are their names? Isn’t it yet another case for gopis to file a case? And to wonder how did he get so meeeean? Mean and crooked! As we say, love is evil - you'd love even a goat. Later, when I met the Gita, I immediately went straight to absorb chapter by chapter in one gulp and could not understand at first why they talk for so long and do not start fighting. When it comes to insight, at the right time and in the right situation it hits the mark. Like a handful of Nitai's rice hits Advaita's leg. (Oh, I am shifting too rapidly from Buddhism to CV now…) So it is a tender and joyful hit. Just like now you reminded me about the dense thicket of views (jungle in MN72). I haven't developed the skill yet. The inclination for leaving this thicket, or jungle, at ease. But the principle is extremely universal. If I start to describe how aesthetics work I might hurt someone’s sacred feeling. And in fact it should not be done - as the explanation of how mind works is not by itself productive. Because of the principle. This is just wandering in the dense thicket of views. The eternalistic setting of the mind (described in this sutta MN72) is involved in such an attempt to explain what better should be seen. And thus the aparadha strikes, makes disturbance and turmoil, with no good result. The thing is, all delusions dissipate instantly with putting all down. There is no holder of them. This is incomprehensible to the reason but reality has no distinguishing features. So it works momentary just like all birds of sins fly away immediately with the attentive chant of mahamantra, as if a stone is thrown into the midst of a flock. Thus absolute reality is revealed as it is free from views. And it embraces all views, all directions. Practically that means, the best way for a practitioner is to use his ability to concentrate the way it is already done nicely. It can be any way. It doesn’t matter in this regard what kind of views he holds. What he can do with delight matters. It can be samadhi of translation work or samadhi of pealing potatoes on igm kitchen, or absorption in writing of Utkalika Vallari in the divine bushes, whatever. There are no levels here. Levels are upaya. One’s strong inclination to a certain beauty naturally works for softening the reflections of the mind. This is how citta masrnya is not something mysterious but practical. For setting the internal serenity of heart through making it stilled, settled, unified and concentrated. For strengthening the insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. Nitai das ji, sorry but my name is not kirtaniya. My name is rather jalpa-pratijalpa caturpada prajalpati maharaja. Buddhist topic will not go too far, from my part. There is a certain mistake which I am not ashamed to show off and which you nicely pointed out (because I was ready to learn something from you).
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 28, 2022 12:30:44 GMT -6
Most revered Kirtaniyaji,
রাধে রাধে!
I am sorry to have taken so long to respond to your last posting. I have been busy navigating my own jungle. Yes, the Buddha is absolutely right. Metaphysics is a jungle and our jungles, that of CV and that of Buddhism, exist alongside of each other, being sisters of the same family. In fact, in some places near the border of the two they look and feel the same. All the metaphysics one can imbibe will not save us. Only practice will save us. Twenty minutes with the Holy Name is worth more than 20 hours with Sri Jiva Goswami's Bhagavata-sandarbha. The former will fill one's heart and nourish one's nascent bhakti. The latter will furnish one's mind with delightful furniture. A well furnished mind is impressive and pleasing, but not necessarily an aid to cultivating bhakti. It may for instance, as it has in my case, make one arrogant and self-lauding. It is an avoidance to taking the medicine meant to cure us. We are like that man in the Buddha's analogy who has been shot by an arrow and this there bleeding. Instead of accepting the cure he wants to know everything about the arrow and the one who shot him. Indeed, by the time we get all our answers we will be dead, lost, no longer able to take the cure.
This pursuit of metaphysics is the Vedantic way. Study the Upanisads, and works based on them, gain knowledge, destroy ignorance, and gain liberation. Actually, the path of Bhakti is not so different. Bhakti is a kind of knowledge (jJAna-vizeSa), a more intimate knowledge that arises in close contact with Krsna through his name and his bhaktas. It, too, destroys ignorance and replaces it with the hladini-sakti, that je ne sais quoi which draws Krsna to us and gives him pleasure. Let us say that it is like Radhika's perfume. It drives Krsna crazy and brings him close to us. It is eau de cologne comprised of two components: samvit and hladini, awareness and pleasure. Now this, of course, is the theory which I picked up by wandering around that jungle. I have expressed it here. Am I now filled with Krsna-preman rolling around on the ground? No. I am sitting here nearly breaking my arm as I try to pat myself on the back. It is only when I have my beads in hand and have the Holy Names running off my tongue that I feel the slightest bit of bliss, a penumbra at best, but that will be the portal to sacred realm, to permanent departure from samsara, to nirvana, my own blowing out (like a flame).
Here, too, the Buddha helps us in his fundamental practice Vipassana where we learn how to focus our attention on the Holy Names, repeatedly drawing our minds back to the mantra, as we learned to do in Vipassana by drawing our minds back to our breath. One mala done in this way is worth a thousand done neglectfully with our minds wandering in every which direction. I have found practicing sitting meditation (under the guidance of the Naropa Institute) to be enormously helpful in my mantra and Hari Nama meditations.
Anyway, enough of my confabulations. This is what life in the jungle does to one. But there are such beautiful flowers and fruit here. And such creatures, some sweet and some decidedly dangerous! One must beware. An Ahankara goblin can gobble one up in two seconds! As my favorite Western philosopher Fritz Nietzsche says: "This is my path. Now where is yours?" Or, as the Buddha said on his death bed: "Work out your salvation with diligence."
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 29, 2022 11:14:45 GMT -6
One thing I left out of my last post, Kirtaniya, that supports my contention that you are living up your name on this forum and that is your honesty. Certainly, to speak honestly in any forum these days is praiseworthy. Thanks for your good example.
On another note, I am happy to report that I have finished Chapter Three of the First Skandha of the Bhagavata translation with the comms. of Sridhara and Srinathacakravartin. I am waiting for Dr. Betsy to go through Chapter Three and point out all the inconsistencies and spots that are incomprehensible in my efforts to stick as closely as possible to the original Sanskrit (sometimes butchering the English badly). Once she has done that (probably next week) I will post it here for the members of this forum to read and critique.
Chapter Four is underway. Srinathacakravartin has not commented on any of Chapter Four. So, it is only Sridhara's commentary there. I am thinking of adding Radharamana Goswami's commentary throughout the book (maybe in footnotes) because it is short and sweet (except on the first verse of Chapter One) and sometimes adds just the right note to provide an "aha!" in understanding Sridhara. Keep an eye out for that posting this coming week in the section of the forum reserved for the Bhagavata.
All for now. May Sri Radhika spray us all with her divine perfume!
|
|