Which tradition uses mind as meditation object? - Discussion
Which tradition uses mind as object?
All buddhist traditions as a far as I am aware. It's in the sattipattana sutta (foundations of mindfulness sutta) There's 4: Body, Vedana, Mental formations, Phenomena/Mind. Even one's that seem focused on body sensation, theres a reason for this (usually that we can clearly recognize vedana, nama-rupa etc) before moving to the mind where it's easy to be lost in imagination and conceptual proliferation.
e.g. Goenka addresses in Satipattana Sutta (and reportably all subsequent courses)
Mahasi it's there from the get go, we note the mental thought and return to the breath.
also in 'silent illumination' / 'shikentaza' / 'just sitting' / 'choiceless awareness' it's there from the beginning since it's just part of what arises.
There is a reason a large proportion of material in buddhist tradition begins with the breath / body and even where advanced pratitioners return as their default practice. An important insight early is knowing non-intellectually the distinction between vedana (raw feels - pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), nama-rupa (the solid base physical reality) and sañña (perception). Early on, and most people I would assume, have vedana and sañña conflated. With mental phenomena it's quite possible that people get lost easily so it's common even for advanced practitioners to cultivate that clear knowing which see's the distinction between a sensation and feeling-quality (vedana) and subsequent perception of an object before moving to mental phenomena.
seeing the sensation as it is is a wonderous thing, almost like light, or seeing something for the first time, even the most neutral "boring" sensations can become vistas and landscapes of interest - this of course is using language to hint at it - it's not imagination or visualization of landsapes of interest. This curiosity, interest, energy and enthusiasm at investigation is known as 'viriya' one of the factors for awakening.
Of course, just to sit in the first place, involves some awareness of mental phenomena - where we are proliferating, where we are 'off track' from observing the breath.
In order to know the sky we need a telescope - some sort of instrument - that amplifies our ability. Or perhaps when investigating a plant we might take it into parts with a scalpel in order to see clearly the cross section of its parts. In many cases the best way to know the mind is to focus on the breath - all of that 'distration' - we are taking a good cross section of the mind when we try to return to the breath again and again.
All buddhist traditions as a far as I am aware. It's in the sattipattana sutta (foundations of mindfulness sutta) There's 4: Body, Vedana, Mental formations, Phenomena/Mind. Even one's that seem focused on body sensation, theres a reason for this (usually that we can clearly recognize vedana, nama-rupa etc) before moving to the mind where it's easy to be lost in imagination and conceptual proliferation.
e.g. Goenka addresses in Satipattana Sutta (and reportably all subsequent courses)
Mahasi it's there from the get go, we note the mental thought and return to the breath.
also in 'silent illumination' / 'shikentaza' / 'just sitting' / 'choiceless awareness' it's there from the beginning since it's just part of what arises.
There is a reason a large proportion of material in buddhist tradition begins with the breath / body and even where advanced pratitioners return as their default practice. An important insight early is knowing non-intellectually the distinction between vedana (raw feels - pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), nama-rupa (the solid base physical reality) and sañña (perception). Early on, and most people I would assume, have vedana and sañña conflated. With mental phenomena it's quite possible that people get lost easily so it's common even for advanced practitioners to cultivate that clear knowing which see's the distinction between a sensation and feeling-quality (vedana) and subsequent perception of an object before moving to mental phenomena.
seeing the sensation as it is is a wonderous thing, almost like light, or seeing something for the first time, even the most neutral "boring" sensations can become vistas and landscapes of interest - this of course is using language to hint at it - it's not imagination or visualization of landsapes of interest. This curiosity, interest, energy and enthusiasm at investigation is known as 'viriya' one of the factors for awakening.
Of course, just to sit in the first place, involves some awareness of mental phenomena - where we are proliferating, where we are 'off track' from observing the breath.
In order to know the sky we need a telescope - some sort of instrument - that amplifies our ability. Or perhaps when investigating a plant we might take it into parts with a scalpel in order to see clearly the cross section of its parts. In many cases the best way to know the mind is to focus on the breath - all of that 'distration' - we are taking a good cross section of the mind when we try to return to the breath again and again.
Stirling Campbell:
John H:
Is this different or maybe how is this different from using consciousness as a kasina? I'm tending to the conclusion that most if not all aspects of the second and third turning are only elaborations or variations of what was present in Buddhism from the beginning.
I think you'd be right. Certainly no Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner I have ever met would say that it isn't true. This is why they are all considered Buddhism. The difference is that the emptiness teachings obviously loom MUCH larger and are of much greater import later on.
My favourite theory about the prajna paramita suttas (Mahayana) such as the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra is they were written by people who had obtained and were close to pratice as a sort of 'parody' to get rid of alot of the reification and philosophization that would likely have developed with institutions over time. The tathagata being the tathagata but the buddha in them not being the historical Shakyamuni
There's also a good essay on the Theravada and simularities to Dzogchen called 'Ajahn Chah's View of 'The View'' by Ajahn Amaro, it's a chapter in a longer book.
There's also a great pali word that reminds me of some of Baizang & Yunmen's teachings (along of the lines of 'don't make an understanding') from the zen linneage, it's "atammayatā". Literally:
a (not), tam (that), maya (to make, create, fabricate, or produce), and tā (the state of being or suffix “-ness
[quote= Ultimately, IMHO, there is no path, or practice, and no person who becomes enlightened.
]
This is certainly the perspective of one of my theravada teachers I only take it on intellectual level
]
This is certainly the perspective of one of my theravada teachers
I only take it on intellectual level
Chris Marti:
Cronauer, not Krakauer.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
an irishman never lets fact checking get in the way of a good story...
Dan Jones:
My favourite theory about the prajna paramita suttas (Mahayana) such as the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra is they were written by people who had obtained and were close to pratice as a sort of 'parody' to get rid of alot of the reification and philosophization that would likely have developed with institutions over time. The tathagata being the tathagata but the buddha in them not being the historical Shakyamuni
They might be funny, if they weren't spot on, I suppose. The emptiness teachings absolutely based in reality. Supposedly, many of the Mahayana texts, like the Vimalikirti Sutra, ARE supposed to be funny though - usually with Sariputra as the hapless butt of the jokes.
Of course, we have to assume ALL of the suttas (or sutras) were unlikely to have been the direct teachings of the Buddha since the earliest among them committed to writing dates to 400+ years after his death. I think Michael Owens (Buddhist text scholar and teacher at SF Dharma Collective) theory of why Mahayana texts started to appear is that Buddhism had become too rigid and dogmatic (which is no reflection on how things are now necessarily) and the emptiness teachings had came to the fore. I forget which of his podcasts he discusses this in, but almost all of his dharma talks on suttas and sutras are great, IMHO:
https://soundcloud.com/lotus-underground
What is the reality of the situation? Dunno. Not sure if anyone ever will, or that it ultimately matters who the author/s were.
It's great to have Buddhism in all of its flavors, just as they are.Dan Jones:
This is certainly the perspective of one of my theravada teachers I only take it on intellectual level
I only take it on intellectual level Which is probably appropriate - until it isn't possible to see it that way anymore.
Dan Jones:
Stirling Campbell:
John H:
Is this different or maybe how is this different from using consciousness as a kasina? I'm tending to the conclusion that most if not all aspects of the second and third turning are only elaborations or variations of what was present in Buddhism from the beginning.
I think you'd be right. Certainly no Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner I have ever met would say that it isn't true. This is why they are all considered Buddhism. The difference is that the emptiness teachings obviously loom MUCH larger and are of much greater import later on.
My favourite theory about the prajna paramita suttas (Mahayana) such as the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra is they were written by people who had obtained and were close to pratice as a sort of 'parody' to get rid of alot of the reification and philosophization that would likely have developed with institutions over time. The tathagata being the tathagata but the buddha in them not being the historical Shakyamuni
aloha dan,
Nagarjuna's work resulted in mahayana's acceptance of "the two views," the absolute and the relative. In the first view, there is no differentiation, all is One Pearl and void of any characteristics or names or individuality. In the relative view, individual things exist. The One and the Many. It is understood that the One is the parent and source of the Many. That the One is the True Reality and the Many only an appearance.
The heart and diamond sutras are paradoxical, blatantly and deliberately, no subtlety about it. The Real is not real, therefore it is really Real. The phenomenal world is a projection of ego and desire, the worlds of a species impassioned. The absolute is unknowable but True. We know the absolute is Real because the phenomenal isn't.
The sufis speak of "perplexity" as a stage of spiritual progress, and by this they are speaking of the aspirant who knows the absolute is the True Reality but who also sees god in every creature and in every situation. God is wholly hidden, and yet god is wholly manifest, and Reason is perplexed. Eventually Reason is drowned (in the ocean of perplexity) and individual self (nafs) is burnt to a crisp (fana) in the fire of love (universal compassion). The perplexity is resolved by what may be described as a simultaneous awareness of god unmanifest and god manifest (both at the same time one and the same). As the sufis say: "in the world but not of it." All of manifest existence is acknowledged as reflections of the divine names, while the absolute unknowability of god is also accepted as locus and ground. Of course, the unkowable cannot be known except as such. And the phenomenal is entirely transformed from desire objects into means for spiritual development.
In buddhism, I think you are right that the heart and diamond sutras were meant as an antidote for reified thinking. They assumed people knew the conventional teaching, the 4nt's, and they stood them on their head: there is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no release from suffering, and no path. This sort of negation, aka via negativa, is often used to poinnt out the ineffability of the Truth, its transcendant and unknowable character. Despite these sutras, zen buddhism constantly brings its methods down to earth, emphasizing practice (dhyana - zen was always known as the meditation sect) and an enlightened way of life.
What is interesting me these days is the way the phenomenal world is transformed from a place of struggle to a place where all beings are in the process of attaining enlightenment. This is the resolutoin of perplexity, the integration of the two views. All being seen through the lens of skillful means. The bodhisattva, the buddha, the pir, the qtub, "see" the manifesttions of god and the divine nature in apparent phenomena as symbolic representations of the ongoing process of the spiritual progress of all beings.
I used to think the absolute was really real and the phenomenal not so much. Now there is no difference.
terry
from "sufism and taoism" by toshihiko izutsu:
What we must emphasize before everything else is that, in Ibn ‘Arabi’s world-view, the whole world is the locus of theophany or the self-manifestation of the Absolute, and that, consequently, all the things and events of the world are self-determinations of the Absolute. Therefore, the world of Being cannot be grasped in its true form except as a synthesis of contraditions. Only by a simultaneous affirmation of contradictories can we understand the real nature of the world. And the ‘perplexity’ is nothing other than the impression produced on our minds by the observation of the simultaneous existence of contradictories.
terry:
Dan Jones:
Stirling Campbell:
John H:
Is this different or maybe how is this different from using consciousness as a kasina? I'm tending to the conclusion that most if not all aspects of the second and third turning are only elaborations or variations of what was present in Buddhism from the beginning.
I think you'd be right. Certainly no Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner I have ever met would say that it isn't true. This is why they are all considered Buddhism. The difference is that the emptiness teachings obviously loom MUCH larger and are of much greater import later on.
My favourite theory about the prajna paramita suttas (Mahayana) such as the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra is they were written by people who had obtained and were close to pratice as a sort of 'parody' to get rid of alot of the reification and philosophization that would likely have developed with institutions over time. The tathagata being the tathagata but the buddha in them not being the historical Shakyamuni
aloha dan,
Nagarjuna's work resulted in mahayana's acceptance of "the two views," the absolute and the relative. In the first view, there is no differentiation, all is One Pearl and void of any characteristics or names or individuality. In the relative view, individual things exist. The One and the Many. It is understood that the One is the parent and source of the Many. That the One is the True Reality and the Many only an appearance.
The heart and diamond sutras are paradoxical, blatantly and deliberately, no subtlety about it. The Real is not real, therefore it is really Real. The phenomenal world is a projection of ego and desire, the worlds of a species impassioned. The absolute is unknowable but True. We know the absolute is Real because the phenomenal isn't.
The sufis speak of "perplexity" as a stage of spiritual progress, and by this they are speaking of the aspirant who knows the absolute is the True Reality but who also sees god in every creature and in every situation. God is wholly hidden, and yet god is wholly manifest, and Reason is perplexed. Eventually Reason is drowned (in the ocean of perplexity) and individual self (nafs) is burnt to a crisp (fana) in the fire of love (universal compassion). The perplexity is resolved by what may be described as a simultaneous awareness of god unmanifest and god manifest (both at the same time one and the same). As the sufis say: "in the world but not of it." All of manifest existence is acknowledged as reflections of the divine names, while the absolute unknowability of god is also accepted as locus and ground. Of course, the unkowable cannot be known except as such. And the phenomenal is entirely transformed from desire objects into means for spiritual development.
In buddhism, I think you are right that the heart and diamond sutras were meant as an antidote for reified thinking. They assumed people knew the conventional teaching, the 4nt's, and they stood them on their head: there is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no release from suffering, and no path. This sort of negation, aka via negativa, is often used to poinnt out the ineffability of the Truth, its transcendant and unknowable character. Despite these sutras, zen buddhism constantly brings its methods down to earth, emphasizing practice (dhyana - zen was always known as the meditation sect) and an enlightened way of life.
What is interesting me these days is the way the phenomenal world is transformed from a place of struggle to a place where all beings are in the process of attaining enlightenment. This is the resolutoin of perplexity, the integration of the two views. All being seen through the lens of skillful means. The bodhisattva, the buddha, the pir, the qtub, "see" the manifesttions of god and the divine nature in apparent phenomena as symbolic representations of the ongoing process of the spiritual progress of all beings.
I used to think the absolute was really real and the phenomenal not so much. Now there is no difference.
terry
from "sufism and taoism" by toshihiko izutsu:
What we must emphasize before everything else is that, in Ibn ‘Arabi’s world-view, the whole world is the locus of theophany or the self-manifestation of the Absolute, and that, consequently, all the things and events of the world are self-determinations of the Absolute. Therefore, the world of Being cannot be grasped in its true form except as a synthesis of contraditions. Only by a simultaneous affirmation of contradictories can we understand the real nature of the world. And the ‘perplexity’ is nothing other than the impression produced on our minds by the observation of the simultaneous existence of contradictories.
I keep thinking I'm missing something...I know: where are the spade and club sutras?
t
terry:
Dan Jones:
Stirling Campbell:
John H:
Is this different or maybe how is this different from using consciousness as a kasina? I'm tending to the conclusion that most if not all aspects of the second and third turning are only elaborations or variations of what was present in Buddhism from the beginning.
I think you'd be right. Certainly no Mahayana or Vajrayana practitioner I have ever met would say that it isn't true. This is why they are all considered Buddhism. The difference is that the emptiness teachings obviously loom MUCH larger and are of much greater import later on.
My favourite theory about the prajna paramita suttas (Mahayana) such as the Diamond Sutra and the Heart Sutra is they were written by people who had obtained and were close to pratice as a sort of 'parody' to get rid of alot of the reification and philosophization that would likely have developed with institutions over time. The tathagata being the tathagata but the buddha in them not being the historical Shakyamuni
aloha dan,
Nagarjuna's work resulted in mahayana's acceptance of "the two views," the absolute and the relative. In the first view, there is no differentiation, all is One Pearl and void of any characteristics or names or individuality. In the relative view, individual things exist. The One and the Many. It is understood that the One is the parent and source of the Many. That the One is the True Reality and the Many only an appearance.
The heart and diamond sutras are paradoxical, blatantly and deliberately, no subtlety about it. The Real is not real, therefore it is really Real. The phenomenal world is a projection of ego and desire, the worlds of a species impassioned. The absolute is unknowable but True. We know the absolute is Real because the phenomenal isn't.
The sufis speak of "perplexity" as a stage of spiritual progress, and by this they are speaking of the aspirant who knows the absolute is the True Reality but who also sees god in every creature and in every situation. God is wholly hidden, and yet god is wholly manifest, and Reason is perplexed. Eventually Reason is drowned (in the ocean of perplexity) and individual self (nafs) is burnt to a crisp (fana) in the fire of love (universal compassion). The perplexity is resolved by what may be described as a simultaneous awareness of god unmanifest and god manifest (both at the same time one and the same). As the sufis say: "in the world but not of it." All of manifest existence is acknowledged as reflections of the divine names, while the absolute unknowability of god is also accepted as locus and ground. Of course, the unkowable cannot be known except as such. And the phenomenal is entirely transformed from desire objects into means for spiritual development.
In buddhism, I think you are right that the heart and diamond sutras were meant as an antidote for reified thinking. They assumed people knew the conventional teaching, the 4nt's, and they stood them on their head: there is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no release from suffering, and no path. This sort of negation, aka via negativa, is often used to poinnt out the ineffability of the Truth, its transcendant and unknowable character. Despite these sutras, zen buddhism constantly brings its methods down to earth, emphasizing practice (dhyana - zen was always known as the meditation sect) and an enlightened way of life.
What is interesting me these days is the way the phenomenal world is transformed from a place of struggle to a place where all beings are in the process of attaining enlightenment. This is the resolutoin of perplexity, the integration of the two views. All being seen through the lens of skillful means. The bodhisattva, the buddha, the pir, the qtub, "see" the manifesttions of god and the divine nature in apparent phenomena as symbolic representations of the ongoing process of the spiritual progress of all beings.
I used to think the absolute was really real and the phenomenal not so much. Now there is no difference.
terry
from "sufism and taoism" by toshihiko izutsu:
What we must emphasize before everything else is that, in Ibn ‘Arabi’s world-view, the whole world is the locus of theophany or the self-manifestation of the Absolute, and that, consequently, all the things and events of the world are self-determinations of the Absolute. Therefore, the world of Being cannot be grasped in its true form except as a synthesis of contraditions. Only by a simultaneous affirmation of contradictories can we understand the real nature of the world. And the ‘perplexity’ is nothing other than the impression produced on our minds by the observation of the simultaneous existence of contradictories.
from "the zen teachings of huang po," trans blofeld:
Many people are are afraid to empty their minds lest they may plunge into the Void. They do not know that their own Mind is the void. The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena.