Originally posted by An Eternal Now:updated.
And I certainly agree with Display Name that 'mahayana is not the same as "talk without practice".'
I wonder how much more wrong can such a view be! (that mahayana is talk without practice) Where on earth did one get such an idea?? lol
And if you understand what I wrote above (click Show), you'll have a glimpse of what Mahayana practice is like.
BUT... only my conceptual understanding... I'm not a Bodhisattva, you have to be a Bodhisattva to really know!
talk without practice,i donot mean mahayana do not meditate,the pratice here means strickly follow the precepts of buddhism, and some ascetic way.the precepts and different from different sects,Therayana or Mahayana,but seems that 律宗,is a minority sect in chinese buddhism.Not many interested to follow the precepts exactly but into the theory and the meditation experience.
And this is just a opinion among chinese folks.And i just recite it.
Originally posted by rokkie:Of course buddhism and hinduism are different ,because they are totally difference religions ,hindusim worship shiva,vinshnu.buddhism worship buddha,But they have a lot connections.
thx for letting me know the history of india ,i appreciate it.
The core of the buddhism of different sects are similiar,but the path of awaking is different.But u know a lot of buddhist strickly follow their own tradition ,no compromise to others.I think we really need to go beyond the apprearance,but see the core of the different sects are same.So ppl could see beyond it,and follow the ultimate path to awaken easily
I agree that there are some similarity. For example, some brahma practitioners who managed to enter samadhi also developed some supernatural power to see different realms like heaven, ghost and hell. But buddhism is about liberating from samsara, so having supernatural power cannot relate to buddhism.
Likewise, Buddha himself also taught some method to stay healthy, but one cannot be considered as buddhist by practicing this healthy lifestyle alone.
There was a saying that some hindusm deity was subdued by some buddhism masters and vow to be dharma protectors after converting to buddhism. :) I think that's why there are some dharma protectors who is also worshipped by hindusm.
every religion is about liberating ppl from suffering ,trust me,and some buddhist claim to have supernatural power as well.And it's one point attact ppl into buddhism,but that's not buddhism all about.
=======================
There was a saying that some hindusm deity was subdued by some buddhism masters and vow to be dharma protectors after converting to buddhism. :) I think that's why there are some dharma protectors who is also worshipped by hindusm.
========================
could u please write down the name of the hinduist as a protector of dharma ,so that i can search it on google .it's quite new to me ,thx in advance
Originally posted by rokkie:Of course buddhism and hinduism are different ,because they are totally difference religions ,hindusim worship shiva,vinshnu.buddhism worship buddha,But they have a lot connections.
thx for letting me know the history of india ,i appreciate it.
The core of the buddhism of different sects are similiar,but the path of awaking is different.But u know a lot of buddhist strickly follow their own tradition ,no compromise to others.I think we really need to go beyond the apprearance,but see the core of the different sects are same.So ppl could see beyond it,and follow the ultimate path to awaken easily
On the surface it seems very similar. For example, Hinduism teaches Self-realisation, Non-ego, and purportedly provides a path to enlightenment and liberation for its followers. (Mystical) Taoism, Christian Mysticism, Islamic Sufism, Judaist Kabbalah and so on are also very similar.
Because when we're talking about the core of religions, it's the mystics/contemplatives that are the 'highest level' practitioners... who seek to understand the truth of their religions not just by belief, theories or even feelings/emotions (common religious seekers may have powerful life-changing experiences or encounters with the divine force/spirit, or miracles, but it will always seem to be "separate" from the "seeker" until they realise union/its true nature) but by complete union with the true essence of god.
But for the mystics, its a direct experience of the UNION with the Divine Presence of God, or in Hinduism they call it the realisation of the (true) Self, which is a non-personal Self, its the true self, the God-self. "God-consciousness". It's a complete dissolving of any sense of individuality into God/true-Self, a sort of non-dual experience (but not the kind of non-duality in Buddhism) and realising the true identity of luminous pure consciousness as God.
In Hinduism its the identity of atman with Brahman (God, the Whole). Means completely dropping false notions of self and become/realise the true divine mind.
In Christianity, Paul said: I no longer live, but Christ lives in me! (Gal. 2.20) -- see http://frimmin.com/faith/mysticismintro.php
In Taoism, Chuang Tzu calls it entering the Divine, the One. The Tao. And the forgetting of the 'self'.
The falling away of self is common to all religions. But in Buddhism, No-Self is not a state or stage of the falling away of the ego or personality or a state of union with divine, it's actually a Dharma Seal or the nature of reality. And, there is no identification with an eternal witnessing consciousness as the Self, the view and experience of other mystics.
That means, those mystics experience Consciousness/Awareness as an Eternal Watcher (which is God), a non-judging and permanent watcher watching everything in life yet remaining unaffected and unchanged. But when non-duality is realised, it's seen that there is no Observer apart from Observed. The true face of consciousness is seen. Scenery sees, there is no seer. Sound hears, there is no hearer. Thought thinks, there is no thinker. All along the transience rolls and knows; no separate watcher is real or needed.
Also the core difference in Buddhism is the teaching of Dependent Origination, Emptiness. It's difficult to explain, but even for the Hindu Advaita-Vedantins for example when they experience pure consciousness, they will make Consciousness into a permanent luminous-void background reality where phenomenon arise and subsides within while the background is unchanged (notice the duality here)... they will fail to realise that consciousness is everything without a background. And furthermore, they will fail to see that consciousness and conditions cannot be separated, and the nature of consciousness is Empty.
For example, Shaivism which worships Shiva teaches that since all things are Shiva, and Shiva is real, everything is real. This is the realist point of understanding, but they will fail to understand that consciousness is Empty and inseparable from conditions.
I am not good at explaining, but just want to say that the subtlety of spirituality cannot be overlooked. Have a good understanding of No-Self, Emptiness/Dependent Origination, and everything will be very clear.
You probably read this, but if you haven't, this is our moderator Thusness's Six Stages of Experiences, from the realisation of the pure consciousness of I AM, to No-Self, to Emptiness. All are related to pure consciousness, but just that whether the true nature of pure consciousness is realised.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Updated my post on the eternal witness.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The falling away of self is common to all religions. But in Buddhism, No-Self is not a state or stage of the falling away of the ego or personality or a state of union with divine, it's actually a Dharma Seal or the nature of reality. And, there is no identification with an eternal witnessing consciousness as the Self, the view and experience of other mystics.
That means, those mystics experience Consciousness/Awareness as an Eternal Watcher (which is God), a non-judging and permanent watcher watching everything in life yet remaining unaffected and unchanged. But when non-duality is realised, it's seen that there is no Observer apart from Observed. The true face of consciousness is seen. Scenery sees, there is no seer. Sound hears, there is no hearer. Thought thinks, there is no thinker. All along the transience rolls and knows; no separate watcher is real or needed.
--------------
When this is realised, practice becomes spontaneous, effortless and natural, and there is no attempt to maintain a conscious witnessing (which is related to holding onto a self), no 'effort' required, because it is seen that all transient phenomena has always been self-luminous, no watcher/witness is needed. (I think this is where the problem of insomnia may be overcome in those practitioners suffering from the side effects of intense Presence coupled with strong propensities/bond to Self)
Also in my experience and I believe all others experience, if we attempt to use "effort" to maintain a witnessing, we may experience that the observer is an entity in the center of the head or somewhere in the body. In actuality, this is not true.
Rather, it is based on the association that arises over time between thinking of one's self and the subtle muscular contractions in the forehead region. It makes us think that this is where we are. This is the propensity/bond and identification of a self with the body.
And by dropping the witness/center, one opens up to a vastness without a center. As Longchen said: Additionally, the need to stay conscious through the meditation is also dropped away. This opens up a vastness without center. (Meditation and spontaneous manifestation)
Nevertheless, prior to enlightenment the practice of maintaining mindfulness is taught, and is a very important practice, but to the dualistic mind it is often seen as 'stage-based' and 'effortful'.
Also a strong practice of witnessing (so does self-inquiry and certain practices) can quickly lead to a vivid experience of the I AM, which is a transcendental and precious experience that serves as a condition for further insights, but the experience itself does not come with the understanding its nature as anatta. (and when one has experienced the I AM, one still has to switch to proper insight-practice/vipassana, but with the condition of Presence one may develope insights faster.)
However, it should be noted that the kind of witnessing described above is not exactly the same as the mindfulness practiced in Vipassana/Insight-Practice, which leads to a more gradual and systematic way to experience insight, without going through the "I AM". (of course this is just speaking generally, it depends alot on the condition of the practitioner, some might take 7 years, while people like Bahiya got enlightened in one day) This practice is taught by Buddha. Vipassana is not so much focusing on experiencing/being the witness -- there is mindful awareness, but the "focus" is on the impermanence, suffering, and no-self nature of phenomenon. Means for example there is only the awareness of the minutest detail of every arising and passing sensations without abiding, and without attempting to be the unchanging watcher watching changes. Through this practice one will traverse many stages of insights (nanas) all the way to enlightenment. In this method, there will not be quick experience of Presence, but when Presence is experienced it comes with the realisation of non-duality/insight of Anatta (no-self).
But in whichever case, what is necessary is the insight into the 'nature' (of non-duality and anatta/no-self as dharma seal) which is 'always so', its an awakening, a quantum shift in perception. With this awakening of insight, the pathless path is known.
Thusness says, The key point about mindful awareness is there is no keeping of the mind on anything and by not resting on anything, it fuses into everything; therefore it cannot be concentrated; rather it is to relax into nothingness empty of self, empty of any artifical doing so that the natural luminosity can take its own course. There is no focusing, there is only allowing the mirror bright clarity to shine with it natural radiance. In essence there is no one there, only the phenomenon arisng and ceasing telling their stories.
And here is how Buddha taught mindfulness and non-duality to Bahiya:
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
~ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
Separated them because the second post isn't really relevant to topic, just something I thought of and wanted to mention.
Does Thusness and Longchen have any comments?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:On the surface it seems very similar. For example, Hinduism teaches Self-realisation, Non-ego, and purportedly provides a path to enlightenment and liberation for its followers. (Mystical) Taoism, Christian Mysticism, Islamic Sufism, Judaist Kabbalah and so on are also very similar.
Because when we're talking about the core of religions, it's the mystics/contemplatives that are the 'highest level' practitioners... who seek to understand the truth of their religions not just by belief, theories or even feelings/emotions (common religious seekers may have powerful life-changing experiences or encounters with the divine force/spirit, or miracles, but it will always seem to be "separate" from the "seeker" until they realise union/its true nature) but by complete union with the true essence of god.
But for the mystics, its a direct experience of the UNION with the Divine Presence of God, or in Hinduism they call it the realisation of the (true) Self, which is a non-personal Self, its the true self, the God-self. "God-consciousness". It's a complete dissolving of any sense of individuality into God/true-Self, a sort of non-dual experience (but not the kind of non-duality in Buddhism) and realising the true identity of luminous pure consciousness as God.
In Hinduism its the identity of atman with Brahman (God, the Whole). Means completely dropping false notions of self and become/realise the true divine mind.
In Christianity, Paul said: I no longer live, but Christ lives in me! (Gal. 2.20) -- see http://frimmin.com/faith/mysticismintro.php
In Taoism, Chuang Tzu calls it entering the Divine, the One. The Tao. And the forgetting of the 'self'.
The falling away of self is common to all religions. But in Buddhism, No-Self is not a state or stage of the falling away of the ego or personality or a state of union with divine, it's actually a Dharma Seal or the nature of reality. And, there is no identification with an eternal witnessing consciousness as the Self, the view and experience of other mystics.
That means, those mystics experience Consciousness/Awareness as an Eternal Watcher (which is God), a non-judging and permanent watcher watching everything in life yet remaining unaffected and unchanged. But when non-duality is realised, it's seen that there is no Observer apart from Observed. The true face of consciousness is seen. Scenery sees, there is no seer. Sound hears, there is no hearer. Thought thinks, there is no thinker. All along the transience rolls and knows; no separate watcher is real or needed.
Also the core difference in Buddhism is the teaching of Dependent Origination, Emptiness. It's difficult to explain, but even for the Hindu Advaita-Vedantins for example when they experience pure consciousness, they will make Consciousness into a permanent luminous-void background reality where phenomenon arise and subsides within while the background is unchanged (notice the duality here)... they will fail to realise that consciousness is everything without a background. And furthermore, they will fail to see that consciousness and conditions cannot be separated, and the nature of consciousness is Empty.
For example, Shaivism which worships Shiva teaches that since all things are Shiva, and Shiva is real, everything is real. This is the realist point of understanding, but they will fail to understand that consciousness is Empty and inseparable from conditions.
I am not good at explaining, but just want to say that the subtlety of spirituality cannot be overlooked. Have a good understanding of No-Self, Emptiness/Dependent Origination, and everything will be very clear.
You probably read this, but if you haven't, this is our moderator Thusness's Six Stages of Experiences, from the realisation of the pure consciousness of I AM, to No-Self, to Emptiness. All are related to pure consciousness, but just that whether the true nature of pure consciousness is realised.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
IMO, I think this is very well written
Yah... Buddhism is the only religion that talks about "emptiness". It is a very profound realisation.... even more profound that the "non-dual".
Basically, 'emptiness' resolve a lot of mystery.
The word 'emptiness' and 'empty' is used in many other religions and spiritual practices too. This include Taoism, but the understanding is not the same. In many of these religion, 'emptiness' is referring to the Void. The Void in this case is the transcendental experience of All-pervading presence in a state of no thought.
Yes agreed... the term 'Void' is used in many different traditions but have different meaning... so are terms like 'no self' and so on.
BTW the Shaivism I'm talking about is more specifically Kashmir Shaivism, a Hindu non-dual tradition.
It's closer to non-duality than Advaita Vedanta, but clearly lacks the understanding of Dependent Origination. From what I have seen, many Neo-Advaitin masters have that level of experience, but I haven't seen one who has realisations of Emptiness.
There has been some interesting discussions on this in the E-Sangha forum, and Loppon Namdrol, who Thusness thinks is highly enlightened and clearly experienced all 6 stages... pointed out the difference to us. BTW, Namdrol is also a Dzogchen practitioner under Chogyal Namkhai Norbu (but has some other gurus as well). If I remember correctly some rinpoche once asked him to teach dzogchen teachings but he turned down the offer. But I may have misunderstood.
But he still clarifies alot of concepts for us and is a strong 'promoter' of dzogchen in e-sangha. BTW, there was once a dzogchen forum in e-sangha, but Chogyal Namkhai Norbu said no discussion of his teachings, and so the forum was closed down.
The forum was very interesting and I believe has helped alot of people, but perhaps certain things shouldn't be discussed and can create karma.
Thusness was also of the opinion there should be no public discussion of Dzogchen. I think it can cause confusions. But I guess if just brief overview it's ok, and refer people to the books and the teacher himself if he's interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism
Kashmir Shaivism:
Among the various Hindu philosophies, Kaśmir Śaivism is a school of Śaivism categorized by various scholars as monistic[1] idealism (absolute idealism, theistic monism[2], realistic idealism[3], transcendental physicalism or concrete monism[4]). These descriptors denote a standpoint that Cit - consciousness - is the one reality. Matter is not separated from consciousness, but rather identical to it. There is no gap between God and the world. The world is not an illusion (as in Advaita Vedanta), rather the perception of duality is the illusion.
I see.... thanks for the info.
I too feel that Dzogchen (大圆满 ) should not be openly discussed.
Without non-dual realisation, chances of leading to wrong understanding is very high. Even worse than not coming in contact with the teaching at all.
That's right... better to refer people directly to the Master and the Master's books instead, if he's interested.
Btw I must say that regarding Dependent Origination/Emptiness, it is central to Buddhism and must not be taken lightly at all... it sounds simple but actually is really profound. This is also the central and unique doctrine of Buddhism. Most people simply overlook it and thought it's clear and understood.
Buddha:
"He who sees the Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma he who sees the Dhamma sees the Dependent Origination."
"He who sees me, sees the Dhamma, He who sees the Dhamma, sees me."
Hence, our Buddha-Nature/Dharma-Nature cannot be properly understood apart from understanding Dependent Origination/Emptiness.
-------
Ananda: "O wonderful is it, Reverend Sir? O marvelous is it, Reverend Sir! How profound, Reverend Sir, is Dependent Origination, and of how profound an appearance! To me, nevertheless, it is as clear as clear can be."
Buddha: "O Ananda, say not so! O Ananda, say not so! Profound, Ananda, is Dependent Origination, and profound of appearance. It is through not understanding this doctrine, Ananda, through not penetrating it, that thus mankind is like to an entangled warp, or to an ensnarled web, or to muñja-grass and pabbaja-grass, and fails to extricate itself from punishment, suffering, perdition, rebirth.
Originally posted by rokkie:could u please write down the name of the hinduist as a protector of dharma ,so that i can search it on google .it's quite new to me ,thx in advance
I don't have the list, if I remember correctly, mahakala, ganesh are some of them.
The are many other protectors who was subdued by buddha sakyamuni and padmasambava.
We need to know that some of them are actually emanations of buddhas and maha bodhisatvas which is what we normally call as 出世护法or 智慧护法.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The falling away of self is common to all religions. But in Buddhism, No-Self is not a state or stage of the falling away of the ego or personality or a state of union with divine, it's actually a Dharma Seal or the nature of reality. And, there is no identification with an eternal witnessing consciousness as the Self, the view and experience of other mystics.
That means, those mystics experience Consciousness/Awareness as an Eternal Watcher (which is God), a non-judging and permanent watcher watching everything in life yet remaining unaffected and unchanged. But when non-duality is realised, it's seen that there is no Observer apart from Observed. The true face of consciousness is seen. Scenery sees, there is no seer. Sound hears, there is no hearer. Thought thinks, there is no thinker. All along the transience rolls and knows; no separate watcher is real or needed.
--------------
When this is realised, practice becomes spontaneous, effortless and natural, and there is no attempt to maintain a conscious witnessing (which is related to holding onto a self), no 'effort' required, because it is seen that all transient phenomena has always been self-luminous, no watcher/witness is needed. (I think this is where the problem of insomnia may be overcome in those practitioners suffering from the side effects of intense Presence coupled with strong propensities/bond to Self)
Also in my experience and I believe all others experience, if we attempt to use "effort" to maintain a witnessing, we may experience that the observer is an entity in the center of the head or somewhere in the body. In actuality, this is not true.
Rather, it is based on the association that arises over time between thinking of one's self and the subtle muscular contractions in the forehead region. It makes us think that this is where we are. This is the propensity/bond and identification of a self with the body.
And by dropping the witness/center, one opens up to a vastness without a center. As Longchen said: Additionally, the need to stay conscious through the meditation is also dropped away. This opens up a vastness without center. (Meditation and spontaneous manifestation)
Nevertheless, prior to enlightenment the practice of maintaining mindfulness is taught, and is a very important practice, but to the dualistic mind it is often seen as 'stage-based' and 'effortful'.
Also a strong practice of witnessing (so does self-inquiry and certain practices) can quickly lead to a vivid experience of the I AM, which is a transcendental and precious experience that serves as a condition for further insights, but the experience itself does not come with the understanding its nature as anatta. (and when one has experienced the I AM, one still has to switch to proper insight-practice/vipassana, but with the condition of Presence one may develope insights faster.)
However, it should be noted that the kind of witnessing described above is not exactly the same as the mindfulness practiced in Vipassana/Insight-Practice, which leads to a more gradual and systematic way to experience insight, without going through the "I AM". (of course this is just speaking generally, it depends alot on the condition of the practitioner, some might take 7 years, while people like Bahiya got enlightened in one day) This practice is taught by Buddha. Vipassana is not so much focusing on experiencing/being the witness -- there is mindful awareness, but the "focus" is on the impermanence, suffering, and no-self nature of phenomenon. Means for example there is only the awareness of the minutest detail of every arising and passing sensations without abiding, and without attempting to be the unchanging watcher watching changes. Through this practice one will traverse many stages of insights (nanas) all the way to enlightenment. In this method, there will not be quick experience of Presence, but when Presence is experienced it comes with the realisation of non-duality/insight of Anatta (no-self).
But in whichever case, what is necessary is the insight into the 'nature' (of non-duality and anatta/no-self as dharma seal) which is 'always so', its an awakening, a quantum shift in perception. With this awakening of insight, the pathless path is known.
Thusness says, The key point about mindful awareness is there is no keeping of the mind on anything and by not resting on anything, it fuses into everything; therefore it cannot be concentrated; rather it is to relax into nothingness empty of self, empty of any artifical doing so that the natural luminosity can take its own course. There is no focusing, there is only allowing the mirror bright clarity to shine with it natural radiance. In essence there is no one there, only the phenomenon arisng and ceasing telling their stories.
And here is how Buddha taught mindfulness and non-duality to Bahiya:
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
~ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
I updated this post last night, with my understanding of Vipassana and Presence.