question about the "source"
-
i have this question to ask..
if there is no source/ no God, then why do we feel this loving kindness for others, aversion on others and other emotions... ?
where does this emotion comes from? -
Dear Isis, long time no chatOriginally posted by Isis:i have this question to ask..
if there is no source/ no God, then why do we feel this loving kindness for others, aversion on others and other emotions... ?
where does this emotion comes from?
There is Source. You can all it God, but there are too many connotations with the word 'God' that it's almost always misunderstood, that's why in Buddhism we don't, or very rarely, use this word.
Source is not an entity or any existence that can be found, and neither is it a personal creator as in some religious beliefs. Source is simply our luminous Buddha Nature, it is just the nature of intrinsic Awareness.
Funny, something made me post the following text just a while ago in, which I find very suitable for this thread
Master Padmasambhava said (Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness),
....6.As for this sparkling awareness which is called "mind,"
Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist.
(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.
And as for its being something desirable, it is cherished alike in the Eleven Vehicles.
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).
Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."
The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or "the Mind."
Some call it the Prajnaparamita or "the Perfection of Wisdom."
Some call it the name Tathagatagarbha or "the embryo of Buddhahood."
Some call it by the name Mahamudra or "the Great Symbol."
Some call it by the name "the Unique Sphere."
Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or "the dimension of Reality."
Some call it by the name Alaya or "the basis of everything."
And some simply call it by the name "ordinary awareness."....
Everything, everything is an expression of Awareness. There is absolutely nothing in the world that is not the expression of our Buddha Nature.
But then if everything is Buddha Nature, why is there suffering in the first place? Because our primordially Luminous Mind is clouded by attachment, by defilements. This causes suffering.
The Buddha taught:
Luminous is this mind,
Brightly shining, but it is
Colored by the attachments
That visit it.
This unlearned people do not
Really understand,
And so do not cultivate the
Mind.
Luminous is this mind,
Brightly shining,
And it is free of the
Attachments that visit it.
This the noble follower
Of the way really understands;
So for them there is
Cultivation of the mind.
- Anguttara Nikaya
The following is one of the Q&A in the Lankavatara Sutra sharing session with Thusness earlier this year: Transcript of the Lankavatara Sutra Sharing Session by ThusnessParticipant 1: The question is “Does that mean that we try to practise the right conditions such as meditation for the mind in order to let the luminosity to arise.”
Thusness: Luminosity will always arise. It never fails to arise. Now, let me tell you what is luminosity in the simplest sense. Have you ever experienced suffering? Or you experience anything. Suffering... Suffering is actually luminosity. Otherwise how do you know it is suffering? Why the pain is so real? Anything that is real, that you feel, that you touch, anything that you feel so real. It is actually luminosity. How can you know what suffering is all about? Without thoughts or what, you still feel suffering, right? The presence of suffering, any kind of existence that is made available is actually the manifestation of this luminous clarity. You get it? However, they are fused with the momentum. They are fused with attachment. And the entire fusing and the entire working of the momentum, that instance, the manifestation is suffering. Everything is like that, you have to feel the pain. Can you understand what I mean or not? When you feel the sand, or you see the texture or you take the stone out, and the texture is so and so, that is actually luminosity also.[/quote]
So where does emotions come from? From our karmic momentum, from our karmic propensities, our conditioned reaction, dualistic attraction and aversion to various things causes emotions to rise up.
As I replied to TheGoodEarth regarding the question of "where does Samsara originate?"
I said:
[quote]Originally posted by An Eternal Now:My Master's answer to that question is -- movement and ripples on the surface of the source (i.e our Buddha Nature) has given rise to sentient beings and those realms. That is, the winds of karma arising out of conditions, creating ripples on the surface.
Also see another article by my friend (Longchen) who writes from his own personal experience, Ripples on the surface of the Source -
try the "Wisdom Opener" - Shurangama Sutra.
The Reason for Continual Arisal:
http://online.sfsu.edu/%7Erone/Buddhism/Shurangama/ps.ss.02.v4.020526.screen.pdf
Shurangama Sutra, Volume 4, Part One
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/shurangama_sutra.htm
The Buddha said, "Purna, you have asked why in fundamental purity the mountains, the rivers, and the great earth suddenly arise.
....
you read on, very interesting.
...
"The womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, and transformation-born beings come about in response: the egg-born come from thought, the womb-born are due to emotion, the moisture-born arise from union, and transformations occur through separation.
"Emotion, thought, union, and separation go through further changes, and the maturation of such karma causes one to rise or sink. From such causes and conditions comes the continuity of beings....
/\ -
I supposed the "Source" and the the "Beginning" has the same meaning here. Our curiosity to know how we began and how all things 'originate' has been around for a long long time, and the answers are as varied as our beliefs.
Honestly, I don't think any religion has an answer, not even science yet!
Before Buddha, is there 'Buddha naure'? Which comes first? Buddha-nature or Buddha? -
Before Shakyamuni Buddha, there is Buddha Nature. In fact, all beings' Buddha Nature is already complete, they just don't know.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:I supposed the "Source" and the the "Beginning" has the same meaning here. Our curiosity to know how we began and how all things 'originate' has been around for a long long time, and the answers are as varied as our beliefs.
Honestly, I don't think any religion has an answer, not even science yet!
Before Buddha, is there 'Buddha naure'? Which comes first? Buddha-nature or Buddha?
There's a term for the first Buddha -- Adi Buddha, or the Primordial Buddha, that is the First Buddha, "a metaphor for our true condition".Question: Is it possible to conceive of a being that has never entered into dualism, into samsara?
Answer: Reading certain tantras it would seem that originally, by the magic of knowledge and of ignorance, on one side there arose Samantabhadra, the first Buddha, and on the other side beings who transmigrate. However, this should be mainly understood as a metaphor to enable us to discover our real condition. If we deem Samantabhadra an individual being, we are far from the true meaning. In reality, he denotes our potentiality that, even though at the present moment we are in samsara, has never been conditioned by dualism. From the beginning, the state of the individual has been pure and always remains pure: this is what Samantabhadra represents. But when we fall into conditioning, it is as if we are no longer Samantabhadra because we are ignorant of our true nature. So what is called the primordial Buddha, or Adibuddha, is only a metaphor for our true condition.
Question: What does it mean, then, that Samantabhadra is the "first" enlightened one and that he has never transmigrated?
Answer: We cannot talk about the true condition of the primordial state in terms of "before" and "after," as if there was somebody before and then something else arose. These are all limited concepts, and it is necessary to go beyond time. Samantabhadra means our state, and should not be interpreted as God in the sense of a supreme entity who is the only creator, for example.
~ EPILOGUE:
On The Nature of Samantabhadra
A Conversation with Chogyal Namkhai Norbu[/quote]
So, it is here, all the time, and "before" time. No, actually, it is beyond all notions of time, "before" or "after", it is timelessly ever-present. So to say it is the beginning is still not quite right, because there is NO beginning in time. You must know it is only a metaphor.
There is NO time ultimately, reality is Timeless. Buddha Nature has no beginning, no end, no time. With that, there is no birth, no death, no increase, no decrease. (see Heart Sutra)
The Buddha Nature is Unborn. And all things are actually manifestation of Buddha Nature, and is of the essence of Buddha Nature, and is also in its essence, empty, and Unborn. Ultimately, Manifestation is the Source. Do not think that there is a creator-created division, this is duality. (also see: http://www.dreamdatum.com/source-thing.html) There is no particular existence of a creator, and nothing is ever born/created ultimately (they're empty). Yet, Source, like the great ocean is the unmanifested ground where all manifestations, the waves, are apparently happening, but do not think waves and ocean separate, they are one. Awareness is like the great ocean where all phenomena is simply happening, all manifestation are manifestations of Awareness.
Only by illusions do we see entities/independent objects with inherent existence, time, beginning and end/birth and death.
In The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana by Asvhaghosha:The Mind in terms of the Absolute is the one World of Reality (dharmadhatu) and the essence of all phases of existence in their totality.
That which is called "the essential nature of the Mind" is unborn and is imperishable. It is only through illusions that all things come to be differentiated. If one is freed from illusions, then to him there will be no appearances (lakshana) of objects regarded as absolutely independent existences; therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness. All explanations by words are provisional and without validity, for they are merely used in accordance with illusions and are incapable of denoting Suchness.
The term Suchness likewise has no attributes which can be verbally specified. The term Suchness is, so to speak, the limit of verbalization wherein a word is used to put an end to words. But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness.The way to correct this error is to make clear that the five components are unborn in their essential nature and, therefore, are imperishable - that what is made of the five components is, from the beginning, in nirvana.
All phenomenal existence and the 5 skhandas is from the beginning Unborn, Imperishable and in Nirvana. Only through ignorance we do not see their Emptiness, and thus perceive the existence of the 'World' and 'Samsara'. We begin to perceive a Subject (self in here) and an Objective reality (world out there).
So since originally all things are by nature empty and unborn, already in Nirvana, Nirvana is simply Samsara rightly seen.
See: Ripples on the surface of the Source
[quote]
The followings are just descriptions of my understanding. Nothing definitive though.
The impression of there being a 'me/self' interacting with the environment and others can be compared to the ripples on the surface of Being. The ripples can be liken to individuals/selves. The ripples are the perceptions of sensorial and thought experiences. Different beings/individuals will have different experiences that are dependent on their sense characteristics. Being/Absolute can be liken to the entirety which is the vast ocean.When the feeling/impression of the observer-being observed(outward interaction- 'ripple percieving other ripples') is recognised, the impression dissolves as/into the all-pervading un-manifested whole. Then, all that is percieved becomes like a mere happening. This mere happening are like reflections on the vast mirror.
Why is that so? Perhaps, it is because when this (self-recognition) occurs, attention/self-knowingness re-blends with the unmanifested ground-base that is Oneness with all. Here, there is no subject-object division. However, the surface and reflections are still there... and they appears like mere happenings in the phenomenal world.
From the above description, we call also postulate that everything is the Source itself... which is no-thing at all. -
Here are some Dzogchen teachings:
The Dzogchen teachings themselves view the process of cosmic origination in a way that is parallel to, but slightly different from, the Bon tradition. In the Dzogchen teachings, it is considered that the primordial state, which is beyond time, and beyond creation and destruction, is the fundamentally pure base of all existence, both at the universal and the individual levels. It is the inherent nature of the primordial state to manifest as light, which in turn manifests as the five colors, the essences of the elements. The essences of the elements interact (as explained in the Bon cosmology) to produce the elements themselves, which make up both the individual's body and the whole material dimension. The universe is thus understood as the spontaneously arising play of the energy of the primordial state, and may be enjoyed as such by an individual who remains integrated with his or her essential inherent condition, in the self-liberation, self-perfected state, the state of Dzogchen.
But if, through fundamental misperception of reality, the individual enters into the confusion of dualism, primordial consciousness, which is in fact the source of all manifestation (even of dualistic consciousness and, in fact, of all phenomena), itself becomes obscured. The individual's deluded mind then mistakes the manifestations of its own pure, innate primordial awareness for an external reality existing separately from itself, which it endlessly, and ultimately unsuccessfully, attempts to manipulate, trying in vain to bring an end to the continual underlying sense of dissatisfaction and unease which is the inevitable experience of the obscuration of pure awareness. The experience of underlying dissatisfaction (or 'dukha', in Sanskrit) that unavoidably arises with a deluded mind, continues, no matter how 'successful' the individual becomes in dealing with his or her world in materialistic terms, until the individual regains the experience of the primordial state.
All the various passions arise from the fundamental misperception of reality just described, and the passions once they have arisen continually condition the individual into dualism, deepening the individual's sense of confusion about the nature of reality. This is why samsara, the endless round of conditioned existence, is often described in the teachings as bing a 'vicious cycle'.
The Dzogchen teachings, in the explanations of the Base, the Path, and the Fruit, set out to show how the illusion of dualism has come about, how it can be undone, and what the experience of an individual is when it is undone. But all examples used to explain the nature of reality can only ever be partially successful in describing it because it is, in itself, beyond words and concepts. As Milarepa said, we may say that the essential nature of the mind is like space, because both are empty, but mind is aware, while space is not. Realization is not knowledge about the universe, but the living experience of the nature of the universe. Until we have such living experience, we remain dependent on examples, and subject to their limits.
~ 'The Crystal and the Way of Light - Sutra @ Tantra, and Dzogchen' by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu p.93-94"Buddha and God" (7)
The relevant scripture is not officially a sutra (although it does on occasion refer to itself as such), but a Buddhist "tantra" (a more mystical, secret manual for Buddhist practice). It is entitled The All-Creating King. This is what it teaches: all things spring from the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta), which is called Samantabhadra Buddha. "Samantabhadra" means "All-Good" (we remember that one of the definitions of God earlier in this study stated that God is "all good"). This Samantabhadra Buddha is the source of all Buddhas and all beings. Apart from Samantabhadra Buddha, nothing truly exists, since all depends on Buddha, but Buddha depends on nothing. This Primaeval Buddha is called "Adi-Buddha" (Primordial Buddha) elsewhere in Buddhism, and is sometimes named Vairochana or Vajrasattva. The important point, however, is that this Buddha represents the Ultimate Source of all things, whether of the past, present or future. Without Samantabhadra Buddha - the all-good, universal Mind of Awake-ness - nothing can exist. Here are some quotes from the All-Creating King Tantra, in which Samantabhadra speaks directly to the listener:
"I, the supreme source ["All-Creating King"], am the sole maker, and no other agent exists in the world. The nature of phenomena is created through me ... The very manifestation of existence itself depends on me ... I am self-arising wisdom that has existed from the beginning. I am the supreme source of everything, pure and total consciousness ...'Consciousness' means that self-arising wisdom, the true essence, dominates and clearly perceives all the phenomena of the animate and inanimate universe. This self-arising fundamental substance, not produced by causes and condition, governs all things and gives life to all things ... As my nature is unhindered and all-pervading, it is the celestial abode of wisdom and luminous space: therein abides only self-arising wisdom. As I am the substance whence everything arises, the five great elements, the three worlds [i.e. the worlds of Desire, Form, and Formlessness] and the six classes of beings [hell-denizens, ghosts, animals, humans, Titans, and gods] are only my body, my voice, and my mind: I myself create my own nature ... The root of all phenomena is pure and total consciousness, the source. All that appears is my nature. All that manifests is my magical display. All sounds and words express only my meaning ...
"I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am 'the core', because I contain all phenomena. I am 'the seed', because I give birth to everything. I am 'the cause', because all comes forth from me. I am 'the trunk', because the ramificationsof every event sprout from me. I am 'the foundation', because all abides in me. I am called 'the root', because I am everything [emphasis added]" (Translation of "The All-Creating King", published as The Supreme Source, tr. by Adriano Clemente and Andrew Lukianowicz, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York 1999, pp. 137-141, 157). -
There is Source. You can all it God, but there are too many connotations with the word 'God' that it's almost always misunderstood, that's why in Buddhism we don't, or very rarely, use this word.
The sad thing about humanity is that there has been so many killings, wars and sufferings over disagreements on a divine identity to be ascribed to this "Source".
Source is not an entity or any existence that can be found, and neither is it a personal creator as in some religious beliefs. Source is simply our luminous Buddha Nature, it is just the nature of intrinsic Awareness.
Apparently, such delusions over the anthropomorphization of this "source" has contributed to the attachment and defilements which ironically separated humanity from our Buddha nature. -
Yes yes.. so true. It is so sad that such things are so easily turned into an object of egoic identification.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:The sad thing about humanity is that there has been so many killings, wars and sufferings over disagreements on a divine identity to be ascribed to this "Source".
Apparently, such delusions over the anthropomorphization of this "source" has contributed to the attachment and defilements which ironically separated humanity from our Buddha nature.
I wrote a year ago:
Exerpt from A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle, page 13 to 19
THE ARISING NEW CONSCIOUSNESS
Most ancient religions and spiritual traditions share the same common insight – that our “normal” state of mind is marred by a fundamental defect. However, out of this insight into the nature of the human condition – we may call it the bad news – arise a second insight: the good news of the possibility of a radical transformation of human consciousness. In Hindu teachings (and sometimes in Buddhism also), this transformation is called enlightenment. In the teachings of Jesus, it is salvation, and in Buddhism, it is the end of sufferings. Liberation and awakening are other terms used to describe this transformation.
The greatest achievement of humanity is not the works of art, science, or technology, but the recognition of its own dysfunction, its own madness. In the distant past, this recognition already came to a few individuals. A man called Gautama Siddhartha, who lived 2,600 years ago in India, was perhaps the first who saw it with absolute clarity. Later, the title Buddha was conferred upon him. Buddha means “the awakened one.” At about the same time, another of humanity’s early awakened teachers emerged in China. His name was Lao Tzu. He left a record of his teaching in the form of one of the most profound spiritual books ever written, the Tao Te Ching.
To recognise one’s own insanity is, of course, the arising of sanity, the beginning of healing and transcendence. A new dimension of consciousness had begun to emerge on the planet, a first tentative flowering. Those rare individuals then spoke to their contemporaries. They spoke of sin, of suffering, of delusion. They said, “Look how you live. See what you are doing, the suffering you create.” They then pointed to the possibility of awakening from the collective nightmare of “normal” human existence. They showed the way.
The world was not yet ready for them, and yet they were a vital and necessary part of human awakening. Inevitably they were mostly misunderstood by their contemporaries as well as by subsequent generations. Their teachings, though both simple and powerful, became distorted and misinterpreted, in some cases even as they were recorded in writing by their disciples. Over the centuries, many things were added that had nothing to do with the original teachings, but were reflections of a fundamental misunderstanding. Some of the teachers were ridiculed, reviled, or killed; others came to be worshiped as gods. Teachings that pointed the way beyond the dysfunction of the human mind, the way out of the collective insanity, were distorted and became themselves part of the insanity.
And so religions, to a large extent, became divisive rather than unifying forces. Instead of bringing about an end of violence and hatred through a realisation of the fundamental oneness of all life, they brought more violence and hatred, more divisions between people as well as between different religions and even within the same religion. They became ideologies; belief systems people could identify with and so use them to enhance their false sense of self. Through them, they could make themselves “right” and others “wrong” and thus define their identity through their enemies, the “others,” the “nonbelievers” or “wrong believers” who not infrequently they saw themselves justified in killing. Man made “God” in his own image. The eternal, the infinite, and unnameable was reduced to a mental idol that you had to believe in and worship as “my god” or “our god.”
And yetÂ…. And yetÂ… in spite of all the insane deeds perpetrated in the name of religion, the Truth to which they point still shines at their core. It still shines, however dimly, through layers upon layers of distortion and misinterpretation. It is unlikely; however, that you will be able to perceive it there unless you have at least already had glimpses of that Truth within yourself. Throughout history, there have always been rare individuals who experienced a shift in consciousness and so realised within themselves that toward which all religions point. To describe that nonconceptual Truth, they then used the conceptual framework of their own religions.
Through some of those men and women, “schools” or movements developed within all major religions that represented not only a rediscovery, but in some cases an intensification of the light of the original teaching. This is how Gnosticism and mysticism came into existence in early and medieval Christianity, Sufism in the Islamic religion, Hasidism and Kabala in Judaism, Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, Zen and Dzogchen in Buddhism. Most of these schools were iconoclastic. They did away with layers upon layers of deadening conceptualisation and mental belief structures, and for this reason most of them were viewed with suspicion and often hostility by the established religious hierarchies. Unlike mainstream religion, their teachings emphasised realisation and inner transformation. It is through these esoteric schools or movements that the major religions regained the transformative power of the original teachings, although in most cases, only a small minority of people had access to them. Their numbers were never large enough to have any significant impact on the deep collective unconsciousness of the majority. Over time, some of those schools themselves became too rigidly formal or conceptualised to remain effective. -
In a nutshell: There is no beginning and no ending. There is existence yet no existence. There is myself yet noself.
I am beginning to understand Duality but not Reality.
So some kind of 'nature' existed long before Gautama 'discovered' this nature. This is termed the First Buddha. So where did First Buddha come from?
Nowhere, it merely existed out of Emptiness!
There were indeed tortures, atrocities, wars and inhumanities brought about by our desires to find the Source, the Beginning, the God. Often-times, these were the 'works' of the very people in the organisations and hierarchies of religious orders. So sufferings and devastations were brought about in the name of God. But in truth, they were our own doings, coming from our defiled nature - foolishness, mindlessless, unconsciousness and unawareness?
Indeed, Man make God. If there is God, would such things happen?
And why it is the animals don't do the silly things that human does? -
Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:
That's right.
In a nutshell: There is no beginning and no ending.There is existence yet no existence.
No, and I didn't say that.
Emptiness means Empty of the 4 extremes: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non existence.
You cannot say there is existence, yet you also cannot say there is no existence. Both belong to the understanding of eternalist/realist and nihilist. Buddha did not teach these extremes, he taught middle way, and middle way = Emptiness. Empty of all the 4 extremes.
I need to explain emptiness a bit.
Why empty of any inherent, separate existence? Because all things are conditioned arising/interdependent origination, completely transient and not even staying for one moment, ungraspable.
Let's take cloud as an example. As you know cloud is always changing form, and we know that we cannot find any graspable entity, or the 'cloudness' of cloud. Such things simply cannot be found, it is in a constant state of fluctuation, transiency. Or let's say weather. Weather is not an entity that can be found, but is actually a completely random, well not random but 'conditioned' and ever-changing patterns of clouds, wind, rain, lightning, and etc. It is ever changing, empty of any inherent existence or 'thingness'.
Now, 'Self' is also like that. There is no 'Self' at all apart from the everchanging thoughts, emotions, feelings and perceptions, in other words the 'clouds' of 5 aggregates passing by and ever changing. There is really no self to be found, just as the word 'weather' really does not mean any permanent and findable entity. Since there is no self to be found, there is no separate and permanent Agent such as a Self -- means there is NO Watcher, NO Doer, NO Thinker. There is only watching, doing, and thinking arising moment to moment. This part clear?
So as you can see, 'clouds', 'weather', and 'self' are empty of inherent existence. In reality ALL phenomena are empty. Not only are they empty of inherent existence, they are also empty of non-existence, neither, and both. Why empty of non-existence, etc? Because if 'cloud', 'weather', 'self' is ultimately not even a findable entity in the first place, how can they have non existence? Non-existence is the flip-side of existence, and they always refer to a 'something', but there is really 'no-thing' to be found. Get it?
HOWEVER, for conventional purpose, for communication, we have to use relative truths and our conceptual models to communicate with others, so we say 'cloud' or 'weather' and 'self'. No problem, like I said, as long as you recognise they are only relative truths and NOT ultimately true.There is myself yet noself.
No, there is really no self, the notion 'myself' is illusory. In fact I stressed this a lot of times, didn't I say clearly that even 'physical self' and 'metaphysical self' or 'conscious self' and all the kinds of self are also empty? There is only completely empty and transient aggregates, the 5 aggregates. No self to be found.
But we do not have choice but to talk about 'myself', this is just a conventional way to communicate with other people, to understand things conceptually. No problem with this as long as you do not take it as ultimately True. The Ultimate Reality is that it is empty.I am beginning to understand Duality but not Reality.
That's because you misunderstand my words. Try to understand the essence of what I am saying, don't just sweep through the words without understanding. But if you really don't get it pls ask.So some kind of 'nature' existed long before Gautama 'discovered' this nature. This is termed the First Buddha. So where did First Buddha come from?
Our Buddha Nature does not come out of Emptiness. It IS Emptiness! It is Luminous-Emptiness. It is Unborn. Since it is unborn, you also cannot say it has 'inherent existence', yet it has Awareness. So Buddha Nature is Luminous(Aware)-Emptiness inseparable. All things are empty, but not just empty otherwise you can't even be here. You are also aware. Everything you touch, hear, see, everything that feels so real including suffering is an expression of intrinsic Luminosity, Awareness. All phenomena are expressions of this Luminous-Emptiness nature, our Buddha Nature.
Nowhere, it merely existed out of Emptiness!
Oh and, do you understand the meaning of the word 'nature'? The reason why the word 'nature' is used is to tell you that it's not an entity or a 'something'. It's more like an intrinsic characteristic. For example, people say 'it's my nature to help the animals', 'he is by nature compassionate'.
Similarly, Buddha Nature is not a 'thing' or an 'entity', it is the characteristic of Reality, and of all beings. All beings are BY NATURE Buddhas (though they didn't realise it), and ALL phenomena in their essence is also the expression of Buddha Nature. Just like 'Impermanence' is not a thing, but is the nature of all things, get it? Emptiness and Awareness are not 'things', they are the NATURE of all phenomena.
I believe this should clear some of your confusion.There were indeed tortures, atrocities, wars and inhumanities brought about by our desires to find the Source, the Beginning, the God. Often-times, these were the 'works' of the very people in the organisations and hierarchies of religious orders. So sufferings and devastations were brought about in the name of God. But in truth, they were our own doings, coming from our defiled nature - foolishness, mindlessless, unconsciousness and unawareness?
Yes I agree... so much ignorance and violence has been attributed to religion and God, supposingly a holy figure but really just a mask for our egos.
Indeed, Man make God. If there is God, would such things happen?
And why it is the animals don't do the silly things that human does? -
Elaboration:
Just like 'Impermanence' is not a thing, but is the nature of all things, get it?
Since Emptiness, Awareness, Impermanence, are not even a 'thing', but rather is the nature and characteristic, it doesn't make sense to say things like 'Where does Impermanence come from'? or worse, 'Who created impermanence?' It is silly to ask this way. It just is -- all phenomena is just impermanence, and permanence is just an illusory concept, a cognitive error. Similarly you can't ask 'where does Emptiness or Awareness or Buddha Nature comes from?' It just is!
It is only our illusions that make up ideas about existence, self, permanence and etc, and obscures our instrinsic luminosity. Actually all along it is just so.
------------
Questions on No Self
Regarding Source and Unborn nature, I posted this reply to Omniknight regarding the existence of God:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The world is empty, ungraspable, and yet miraculously there is awareness of all appearances. But they are just that -- dream-like appearances, no solidity or objective reality.
There is also something you must know. Nothing is ever created, ever. Nothing is ever born and all is empty, unborn.
Look at my forum signature:
The world exists only when we think about it; creation stories are for children. In reality the world is created every moment. ~ Jean Klein
You can talk about Source, but Manifestation is the Source, ultimately. Just like waves do not exist apart from ocean.
If you see manifestation as apart and created from a Source, then that is because you are caught up with ideas that the world is inherently existing, created in time. This is a fallacy. All there is is what is apparently happening in Awareness, arising and passing away simultaneously moment to moment.
"There is only Source appearing. All that manifests is always and only the appearance of Source-the apparent universe, the world, the life story, the body- mind, feelings, the sense of separation, and the search for enlightenment. It is all the one appearing as two-the nothing appearing as everything." -- Tony Parsons
Oh and, don't think too much and practise. Don't think about creation theories and creator and things like that. Buddha said these topics are useless and does not lead to Liberation.
Lastly, Source is not an entity or a 'something' that can be found anywhere and is empty of inherent existence. Unfortunately whenever you think of a Creator or a God, it's almost inevitable to think of it as some sort of entity. -
Oh and TheGoodEarth, I really hope you have read my latest replies at Questions on No Self I have corrected many of your misunderstandings.
-
Why do you think that if people "feel this loving kindness for others, aversion on others and other emotions..." it means that there is a God or that God put it there.Originally posted by Isis:i have this question to ask..
if there is no source/ no God, then why do we feel this loving kindness for others, aversion on others and other emotions... ?
where does this emotion comes from?
You have to be careful because many times, people tend to "blame God" or "conclude that it is God". This is a human tendency.
Man used to think that Lightning was caused by a God (Zeus) and thunder also (Thor).
You should learn to find out the real reasons instead of blaming God or conclude that it is the work of God. You do that, you will be filled with delusions in your head (like the delusion that a God caused lightning).
Where do emotions come from? The short answer based on science is evolution. The long answer is very long. -
Ya lor. Why does emotions have anything to do with a Creator?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Why do you think that if people "feel this loving kindness for others, aversion on others and other emotions..." it means that there is a God or that God put it there.
You have to be careful because many times, people tend to "blame God" or "conclude that it is God". This is a human tendency.
Man used to think that Lightning was caused by a God (Zeus) and thunder also (Thor).
You should learn to find out the real reasons instead of blaming God or conclude that it is the work of God. You do that, you will be filled with delusions in your head (like the delusion that a God caused lightning).
Where do emotions come from? The short answer based on science is evolution. The long answer is very long.
Anyway conventionally the emotions come from ourselves what. -
Let me try to understand one thing at a time:
Emptiness means Empty of the 4 extremes: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non existence.
So, if Emptiness is not the same as Nothing. Emptiness = No Extremes and that/there is the Middle thingy, since there are No Extremes.
You cannot say there is existence, yet you also cannot say there is no existence. Both belong to the understanding of eternalist/realist and nihilist. Buddha did not teach these extremes, he taught middle way, and middle way = Emptiness. Empty of all the 4 extremes.
How could the Middle thingy be empty of the 4 extremes: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non existence? -
That's right. Emptiness is not 'nothing' or 'void'. It is not a void as opposed to phenomena, it is in fact the nature of all phenomena -- that there is no inherent, separate, graspable existence to be found in anything. There is no objective reality in them.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Let me try to understand one thing at a time:
So, if Emptiness is not the same as Nothing. Emptiness = No Extremes and that/there is the Middle thingy, since there are No Extremes.
How could the Middle thingy be empty of the 4 extremes: existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non existence?
Everything arises interdependently, they are conditioned arising, and utterly transient, but no inherent existence can be found.
Just like 'Weather' is not an entity and has no findable inherent existence, but is just made of utterly transient conditioned arising and the aggregation of various conditions -- clouds, lightning, rain, etc. Weather is not a fixed entity -- it is completely momentary, just Weather1, Weather2, Weather3, Weather4, arising and passing away simultaneously and another conditioned arising happens. It is empty of inherent existence, there is only conditioned arising, interdependent origination and transience. Reality is just activities apparently happening, dream-like and ungraspable.
So now you know, all phenomena are empty of inherent existence. But why also say they are also empty of non-existence, etc?
Because if 'cloud', 'weather', 'self' is ultimately not even a findable entity in the first place, how can they have non existence?
Non-existence is the flip-side of existence, and they always refer to a 'something', but there is really 'no-thing' to be found.
Existence is always of a something, Non-existence is also always of a something, of an entity. If there is no entity to be found in the first place, but only empty and transient conditioned arising, then on what basis do we talk about Existence or Non-existence? Therefore, Emptiness is Empty of Existence, Non-existence, Both existence and non existence, Neither existence nor non existence. -
I call it death.
-
It depends on what you mean by death. If you hold onto the view that death is annihilation, that is one of the false views and extremes that Buddha has rejected.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I call it death. -
Did Buddha reject death? Annihilation is not rejected.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It depends on what you mean by death. If you hold onto the view that death is annihilation, that is one of the false views and extremes that Buddha has rejected. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
No, Buddha did not reject death at the relative level.
Did Buddha reject death?
Although in Ultimate truth, Reality is Emptiness, there is no birth and no death.Annihilation is not rejected.
Annihilation is definitely rejected BOTH at the relative and ultimate level.
At the ultimate level, to annihilate there has to be a 'self' to be annihilated. In the first place, there is no self, and no self can be found.
At the relative level, one does not end at death but is always being reborn.
Therefore, Annihilation is rejected at both levels (ultimate and relative) in Buddhism. -
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm
...The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away. This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming... -
Then at ultimate level, there should not be even cause and effect present.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Annihilation is definitely rejected BOTH at the relative and ultimate level.
At the ultimate level, to annihilate there has to be a 'self' to be annihilated. In the first place, there is no self, and no self can be found.
At the relative level, one does not end at death but is always being reborn.
Therefore, Annihilation is rejected at both levels (ultimate and relative) in Buddhism.
At relative level, rebirth cannot be even proven true but birth and death can be proven. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
What talking you? How is this related to what we are discussing?
Then at ultimate level, there should not be even cause and effect present.At relative level, rebirth cannot be even proven true but birth and death can be proven.
No, rebirth has been proven by uncountable people.
Buddha himself has seen rebirth, his uncountable disciples has seen rebirths, other religions' yogis also have recalled past lives, today there are many children who still recall past lives, adults who recall past lives through therapy, and meditation, and etc. There are also forummers here who have recalled their past lives. And not to forget there are many studies made that shows so much proof of rebirth. And the point of all this is, rebirth can be proven if you practise. Buddhism itself contains the scientific method to lead to all spiritual realisations, whether Enlightenment or even things like rebirth.
And, if memory serves, this topic has been discussed countless times
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
1st statement:
quote:
What talking you? How is this related to what we are discussing?
No, rebirth has been proven by uncountable people.
Buddha himself has seen rebirth, his uncountable disciples has seen rebirths, other religions' yogis also have recalled past lives, today there are many children who still recall past lives, adults who recall past lives through therapy, and meditation, and etc. There are also forummers here who have recalled their past lives. And not to forget there are many studies made that shows so much proof of rebirth. And the point of all this is, rebirth [b]can be proven if you practise. Buddhism itself contains the scientific method to lead to all spiritual realisations, whether Enlightenment or even things like rebirth.
And, if memory serves, this topic has been discussed countless times[/b]
If there is no self, there is no cause for a cause and hence no recipent of the effect.
2nd statement:
But do you realise that it is presented by people who have influence with asian culture only? -
[quote]2nd statement:Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
1st statement:
If there is no self, there is no cause for a cause and hence no recipent of the effect.[/quote]
You're right, there is no doer and no recipant of karma. BUT this does not mean there is no karma, it just means there is no self. Remember, Emptiness does not mean void. It means Dependent Co-Arising/Conditioned Arising, thus lacking in inherent existence.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.
No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.
No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all."
- Visuddhimagga XVI 90
Editor's note: Pls do not misunderstand that there is no karma and karmic fruits, but there is no Self - all phenomena are empty, depending on conditions do they arise. [conditioned arisings]
But do you realise that it is presented by people who have influence with asian culture only?Obviously not. Western people equally have past life memories. Lots of them. In fact I mentioned before, alot of non-Buddhist and non-Hindus ang mohs in places like America believe in past lives due to many evidences presented to them, or memories, etc.
You think only Indian and Chinese children can remember past lives? I remember posting this before: Boy remembers Past Life Being Shot in WWII This boy, and his parents, are not Buddhists or Hindus. His parents did not believe in past lives until the evidences are presented to them right in front of their eyes.
Of course, there are lots more other such cases among westerners.