Any Comments On Mr. Xiao Pingshi?

• Bodhi hut

  4 Jun 08, 17:18

   

  Pardon my following words...we should not even give critics to anyone...look at the mirror..how well are we.....as we have not explore enough facts like the aurthor..or we have been blind by perception...cultivation also voice down not to give critics...even it is very very wrong...he might has his points..

   

  As tibetan ..i am not sure if you said debating...i find that you might only see or hear some of it...we must truly into the door of tibetan practise then we can justified..though i learned Mi Fa from a shifu...at times also has some debating topics..because i practise pureland and CHAN..so there is some spark at times..but must learn how to accept and think about the reasoning..and not immediately come to assumption that "I' am always right...there is no right or wrong...as again both are same entity at the first place...

   

   

• rokkie

  4 Jun 08, 17:30

  按照因明学体系的逻辑推ç�†æ–¹å¼�，辩论佛教教义的学习课程。è—�语称“æ�‘尼作巴”，æ„�为“法相”，是è—�传佛教喇嘛攻读显宗ç»�典的必ç»�æ–¹å¼�。多在寺院内空旷之地ã€�树阴下进行。最早æº�于赤æ�¾å¾·èµžæ—¶æœŸå¤§ä¹˜å’Œå°šå’Œå™¶çŽ›æ‹‰é”¡æ‹‰çš„公开辩论。辩ç»�为西è—�三大寺佛学的最大特色，辩ç»�者由较优秀僧人担任，其方å¼�å�„寺ä¸�å�Œï¼Œä¸»è¦�å�¯åˆ†ä¸ºå¯¹è¾©å’Œç«‹å®—辩两ç§�å½¢å¼�。①对辩。è—�语称“作朗”。辩者二人，其中一方æ��问，å�¦ä¸€æ–¹å›žç­”，且ä¸�许å��问；告一段è�½å�Žå†�å��过æ�¥ï¼Œç›´è‡³ä¸€äººæ— æ³•é—®å‡ºã€‚②立宗辩。è—�语称“当贾狭”。辩者无人数é™�制，立宗人自立一说，待人辩驳，多å��于地上，å�ªå�¯å›žç­”ä¸�å�¯å��问；问难者称达赛当堪，å�³“试问真æ„�者”，ä¸�æ–­æ��出问题，有时一人æ��问，有时数人æ��问，被æ��问者无å��问机会。立宗辩过程中问难者å�¯é«˜å£°æ€ªå�«ï¼Œä¹Ÿå�¯é¼“掌助å¨�，舞动念ç� ã€�拉è¢�æ’©è¡£ã€�æ�¥å›žè¸±æ­¥ï¼Œä¹Ÿå�¯ç”¨æ‰‹æŠšæ‹�对方身体等å�šå�„ç§�奚è�½å¯¹æ–¹çš„动作。

   

  玄奘在�度也�常跟别人辩�.

  as to xiao shiping ,u really need to read through it,i have read through the debate between the both camp this whole afternoon,and mainly a refute from tibetan,this guy is definitely a joke,and i learn something from him.Read the debate let me know more about real tibetan buddhism

• Bodhi hut

  4 Jun 08, 21:57

   

  If you keen to know..密宗秘法（原版扫�高清晰）

  �传那若六�就法
  
  �密修法精粹
  
  �密大圆满法选集
  
  �密大手�探奥

  http://bodhihut.17.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=814

  Let me know, I can send you the PDF..but i think it will take you a month to read all of it...

• Display Name

  5 Jun 08, 09:49

  Originally posted by Bodhi hut:

  If you keen to know..密宗秘法（原版扫�高清晰）

  �传那若六�就法
  
  �密修法精粹
  
  �密大圆满法选集
  
  �密大手�探奥

  http://bodhihut.17.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=814

  Let me know, I can send you the PDF..but i think it will take you a month to read all of it...

  I think è—�密修法 is not something that can be disclosed to public.
  Certain practice can only be done by people who receive samaya vow.
  After that, if one disclose the method to people who is not ready to receive the teaching, it will cause serious karma.

  Maybe you want to check with your vajra master on this.
• Bodhi hut

  5 Jun 08, 14:23

   

  Maybe a misinterpretation....

   

  These books are in PDF..it is release by a china forum members..he also receive some negative feedback by other forumers, however, he also gain support....importantly to practise mi zong or zang mi...you need to guang ding.....and those books that he posted, according to him, it is no big secret all., i remembered he said actually is publish outside, just that the book has been stop publishing...

   

  I only see a few page of it..just to broader my knowledge..my vagra master only teach me meditation so far...

• rokkie

  5 Jun 08, 14:29

  yup ,good ,if i got time i will read it ,but mizong ,claim that if u r not good enough to accept it ,it will seem to be quite abnormal.That's why mizong remain mysterious,and secret.Only pass man to man ,so i don't want to break the tradition,大日�,is one of the several famous book of mizong

  btw,are u taiwannese ,bodhti hut?

• Bodhi hut

  5 Jun 08, 14:36

   

  In my views Mi Zong actually is not big secret, if need to impart like what you say, that the spread of dharma is very slow......I have an overview of what is mi zong in bodhi hut forum..i think you know where to find it..as for those above mentioned, if you want let me know, then i email to you..actually got more things for that chinaman he posted, i only extracted a portion of it which is mi zong, there are some Dao Fa, that he posted too, i have downloaded the whole of it..

  As for 大日�, I do not think you are able to download it anywhere on the net...it is also one of the profound sutra like Hua Yen jing and leng yan jing...

  What makes you think I am a taiwanese...I am a Singaporean...

• rokkie

  5 Jun 08, 14:42

  so i see no reason u feel upset about my critisize to xiaopingshi,basically he is a joke.and please do not use the word china man,for conviniece,do not,

• An Eternal Now

  5 Jun 08, 14:47

  Originally posted by Bodhi hut:

   

  In my views Mi Zong actually is not big secret, if need to impart like what you say, that the spread of dharma is very slow......I have an overview of what is mi zong in bodhi hut forum..i think you know where to find it..as for those above mentioned, if you want let me know, then i email to you..actually got more things for that chinaman he posted, i only extracted a portion of it which is mi zong, there are some Dao Fa, that he posted too, i have downloaded the whole of it..

  As for 大日�, I do not think you are able to download it anywhere on the net...it is also one of the profound sutra like Hua Yen jing and leng yan jing...

  What makes you think I am a taiwanese...I am a Singaporean...

  If it's just an overview I think it's fine, but any information that needs a master's initiation... better not talk about it.

• Bodhi hut

  5 Jun 08, 15:02

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  so i see no reason u feel upset about my critisize to xiaopingshi,basically he is a joke.and please do not use the word china man,for conviniece,do not,

  
  Haha..okie..by the way..the chinaman i am referring is that china buddhism forum member...not xiaopingshi...

  AEN,

  As for the book..you really need to read the whole thing you will understand what it is talking about whether is indpeth or just an overview...i scan through...got some pictorial really like wu lin mi ji...i didnt read all of it..so i cant determind yet..too many pages..

• rokkie

  5 Jun 08, 15:58

  i know because it remind me that when i cannot work out my english ,i was called chinaman a lot of times.feel no good in deed

• An Eternal Now

  5 Jun 08, 16:07

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  i know because it remind me that when i cannot work out my english ,i was called chinaman a lot of times.feel no good in deed

  lol... your english is fine! honestly.

• Bodhi hut

  5 Jun 08, 16:33

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  i know because it remind me that when i cannot work out my english ,i was called chinaman a lot of times.feel no good in deed

  
  Well..dun get too over annoyed by the word china man..this is also part of cultivation...example, some mother who still call their 40yr old son, AH Boy..so there is nothing wrong..

  He is from china, and he is a man, so i just quickly use singlish..china man...china buddhism forum are very extensively active and many good articles..i go there everyday...and good photoshop maker who do buddhism poster and wallpaper..so can exchange infor with my forum as well...

   

• rokkie

  5 Jun 08, 16:38

  ok ic ,i am abit over reacted.which forum? i may have a look myself.i cannot find any chinese buddhism forum

   

  lol... your english is fine! honestly.

  after i come to this forum my english improved alot

• Bodhi hut

  5 Jun 08, 16:52

  rokkie,

   

  The chinese forum is host by china "chinese"....i set up my forum for dual languages, so that can cater different level of educated members...I hardly read English sutra or articles..i always go for mandarin ones..coz the translation of the chinese Da Zang Jing is complete, i presume the english one aint yet...and I personally find the chinese sutra are more comprehensive(chinese word are more define), or maybe my english not that good to understand english..so i choose to read chinese..my chinese improve alot also..haha..hopefully my english will not drop..

• rokkie

  6 Jun 08, 14:26

  Originally posted by Bodhi hut:

  rokkie,

   

  The chinese forum is host by china "chinese"....i set up my forum for dual languages, so that can cater different level of educated members...I hardly read English sutra or articles..i always go for mandarin ones..coz the translation of the chinese Da Zang Jing is complete, i presume the english one aint yet...and I personally find the chinese sutra are more comprehensive(chinese word are more define), or maybe my english not that good to understand english..so i choose to read chinese..my chinese improve alot also..haha..hopefully my english will not drop..

  yes ,i think most of the english buddhism sutra translate from the chinese text,not the oringinal text,which is written in梵文,which difficult for ppl to understand ,among all the world ,i think there r not many who can interprete it ,in china only the maste 季羡林,and his discples,in fact the the chinese r quite different from english written text,it think chinese is more literal ,and english easier to catch the meaning. In fact someone claim that learning chinese by reading sutras,good luck for u

• Uncreated

  7 Jun 08, 00:15

  Thanks for the inputs..............

• Bodhi hut

  7 Jun 08, 02:06

  Rokkie,

  Thanks...frankly speaking whichever language a person read, it will defintely improve the person language.

  Just to share abit on chinese ��

  大佛顶首楞严�浅释

  宣化上人讲述

   

   

  佛所说的�典，有七�立题，此七立题包括了如�所说三��二部一切�典，�是：�三��三和具足。�三是�用的有三�；�三是�的，是两个��在一起，也有三�；具足一是说有一�是具足的��。

   

  å�•ä¸‰ä¹‹ä¸­æœ‰‘å�•äººç«‹é¢˜’，譬如‘佛说阿弥陀佛’。因为佛是人，阿弥陀佛也是人，故å��；有‘å�•æ³•ç«‹é¢˜’，譬如‘大般涅槃ç»�’，这就是å�•ä»¥æ³•ç«‹å‡ºæ�¥çš„题目；å�ˆæœ‰‘å�•å–»ç«‹é¢˜’，譬如‘梵网ç»�’，这部ç»�比方大梵天王的网罗幢。这人ã€�法ã€�å–»å�«å�š‘å�•ä¸‰ç«‹é¢˜’。

   

  å¤�三：有‘人法立题’，如‘文殊问般若ç»�’，文殊是人，所问的般若是法，故称；有‘人喻立题’，如‘如æ�¥å¸ˆå­�å�¼ç»�’，如æ�¥æ˜¯äººï¼Œå¸ˆå­�å�¼æ˜¯ä¸ªæ¯”喻，æ„�æ€�是说：佛说法的时候有如狮å­�å�¼å£°é‚£ä¹ˆé›„伟；å�ˆæœ‰‘法喻立题’，如‘妙法莲å�Žç»�’，妙法是法，莲å�Žæ˜¯ä¸ªæ¯”喻，故立此题。

   

  具足一：比如‘大方广佛å�Žä¸¥ç»�’，大方广是法，佛是人，å�Žä¸¥æ˜¯æ¯”喻，这部ç»�比喻万行的因花，庄严无上果德，此题具足人ã€�法ã€�喻故å��。

   

  凡是讲�者，对这七�立题都需�明白清楚，��讲解�典，如果连七�立题都�明白，�怎样能教人家明白呢？比如：自己都�能觉悟，�怎能教人觉悟呢？这一点是很�紧的。�如连七�立题�五�玄义��门分别都�先明白，就自称法师，到处说法，于是把一般人都讲到地狱里去了，连他自己也到地狱去了，这还��紧，但�的人�连他们为什么会到地狱都�知�，这实在是很�怜的。因此，学佛的人必须真正懂得佛法，真正有了智慧，然��去教化众生，这��会出错。

   

   

   

  佛教全部��，共分为�二部：第一部是长行部，在�上分一行一行，很长的故�长行。第二部是�颂部，是��的�把�义说一�，把长行�文�说，是为�颂。

   

  第三部是授记部，在ç»�典上æ��å�Šä½›ä¸ºæŸ�一个è�©è�¨æŽˆè®°çš„，如：æ±�于æŸ�æŸ�劫，应当æˆ�佛，å��å�·ä¸ºä½•ï¼Ÿå¯¿å‘½æœ‰å¤šé•¿ï¼Ÿæ•™åŒ–众生有多少？在什么国土里……等等，都预先说明，这å�«æŽˆè®°ã€‚好比释迦牟尼佛是然ç�¯ä½›ä¸ºä»–授记的，当释迦佛在因地行è�©è�¨é�“时，é�‡åˆ°ç„¶ç�¯ä½›ï¼Œæ›¾ç»�布å�‘掩泥，他看è§�然ç�¯ä½›ä»Žä¸€æ�¡é�žå¸¸æ³¥æ³žçš„路上走过æ�¥ï¼ŒäºŽæ˜¯ä¾¿å°†è‡ªå·±çš„头å�‘打开，铺在积水的泥路上，让这ä½�è€�和尚走过，以å…�污泥沾染到这ä½�è€�比丘的å�Œè„šï¼Œè°�知这ä½�è€�和尚就是然ç�¯ä½›ï¼Œä»–看到这么虔诚的供养，就欢喜了，便é�“：‘如是，如是。’æ„�æ€�是：就是这个样å­�，你如是，我也如是，如是个什么呢？就是行è�©è�¨é�“是这个模样，因为然ç�¯ä½›è¿‡åŽ»è¡Œè�©è�¨é�“也是这样å­�的，故认为是对了，于是便为释迦佛授记：‘æ±�æ�¥ä¸–当得作佛，å�·é‡Šè¿¦ç‰Ÿå°¼ã€‚’因此，今生释迦佛就æˆ�佛，由于释迦佛的诚心感动了然ç�¯ä½›ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥è¿™ä½�å�¤ä½›å°±ç»™ä»–授记。

   

  第四部是因缘部，由于��的因缘而说��的法。第五部是譬喻部，是以�一件东西比喻�一件事，�说明佛法的妙处。

   

  第六部是本事部，释迦牟尼佛或�述他�生的事，或讲述�一个���生的事迹。第七部是本生部，是说释迦佛今生的事迹，或者是�一���今生的事。

   

  第八部是方广部，方是四方，广是宽广，表示所说的法�广大精微。第�部是未曾有部，这是从�没有说过，而现在�说的。第�部是自说部，是未�请法而佛自己放光动地的开演这个法。第�一部是孤起部，亦称讽诵，是在�一部�中与�文�相连，且与��的也�生关系，而孤�独立的�颂。

   

  最å�Žæ˜¯è®ºè®®éƒ¨ï¼Œæ˜¯é’ˆå¯¹æŸ�一项佛法的研论å�šè®®ï¼Œä»¥ä¸Šä¸€å…±æ˜¯å��二部，所以有首å�ˆå­�说：‘é•¿è¡Œé‡�颂并授记，孤起无问而自说，因缘譬喻å�Šæœ¬äº‹ï¼Œæœ¬ç”Ÿæ–¹å¹¿æœªæ›¾æœ‰ï¼Œè®ºè®®å…±æˆ�å��二部。’大家如想详细研究，å�¯ä»¥å�‚看大智度论，里é�¢å¯¹å��二部ç»�的分类有详细的解释。

   

  这�二部�是�是个别分开的呢？�是的�其实�一部�都包括这�二部，这�过说明�典中具有这�二部的体��内容而已.

   

  extracted:http://bodhihut.17.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=1255

   

   

   

   

• Uncreated

  7 Jun 08, 02:37

  I composed one very long comment just now,clicked on"Save Reply",but it did not appear.

   Reply to AEN's"Can you pls elaborate what the mulling is about",it seems that Mr.Xiao stresses on

  "realising,or attaining the 8th consciousness",what he calls"zheng ru lai zang."All other things other than this Alaya consciousness,it seems,arise dependently.

     Hence,what he is trying to say?The Alaya consciousness does not arise dependently?He further asserts that"realising or attaining the 8th consciousness" is of paramount importance,what all Buddhas want us to do.

    So,what he strives to do is help us "zheng ru lai zang" through his written works and his practices.

     Hmmmmm..........I'm still reading his works as he is able to cite canonical texts such as the Avatamsaka Suta to support his assertions..........

   

• An Eternal Now

  7 Jun 08, 14:32

  Hi Uncreated,

  The Alaya-consciousness is being attributed as the Tathagathagarbha. [Dharmakaya with defilements. After Buddhahood is attained, Tathagathagarbha transforms into Dharmakaya.]

  However first of all we have to have a proper understanding of the Tathagathagarbha. Tathagathagarbha cannot be understood apart from Emptiness [dependent origination] otherwise it will only end up with the eternalistic understanding, no different from the Hindus who sees atman as identical to an all-pervasive Brahman.

  In Buddhism there is no independent atman, or an all-pervasive atman, or any sort of essence at all, while without denying our luminous nature. Luminosity and emptiness is inseparable, luminosity cannot be separated from conditions. The problem is if we treat Alaya as a REAL background substance behind phenomena, it becomes eternalistic and dualistic. By positing luminosity as a formless uncreated substance, one will fail to see their inseparability [of luminosity and form], and one will fail to see that consciousness is inseparable from conditions, and empty.

  For example, the Dark Zen unorthodox school mistaken Buddha Nature as the Hindu sort of atman, which is really unfortunate. Those proponents have a very convincing experience of the I AM and refuse to look into its true nature, thinking they understood, and worse, distorting the true meanings of the scriptures.

  Let me quote some from Loppon Namdrol, who in my and moderator Thusness's opinion, is a truly experienced/enlightened and knowledgeable practitioner/teacher.

  ----------------
  
  Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:
  
  That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.
  
  Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:
  
  "Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.
  
  Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."
  
  So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:
  
  "Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.
  
  When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
  
  Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.
  
  The Bhagavan replied:
  
  “Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.
  
  Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.
  
  Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.
  
  Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.
  
  Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,
  
  Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.
  
  Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"
  
  Thus, the Lanka says:
  
  All yaanas are included
  in five dharmas, three natures,
  eight consciousnesses,
  and two selflessnesses
  
  It does not add anything about a true self and so on.
  
  If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:
  
  Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.
  
  Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.
  
  Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.
  
  And:
  
  Although tathaagatagarbha
  possesses seven consciousnesses;
  always engaged with dualistic apprehensions
  [it] will evolve with thorough understanding.
  
  
  If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:
  
  "`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.
  `Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.
  
  And:
  
  `Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.
  
  Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.
  
  Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:
  
  "Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.
  
  So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states
  
  "Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/b) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.
  
  Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.
  
  When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.

• An Eternal Now

  8 Jun 08, 00:20

  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html
  

  Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"

  
  Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
  
  Being freed from individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going.
  
  Practitioners should never mistaken this as the true Buddha Mind! "I AMness" is the pristine awareness. That is why it is so overwhelming. Just that there is no 'insight' into its emptiness nature. Nothing stays and nothing to hold on to. What is real, is pristine and flows, what stays is illusion. The sinking back to a background or Source is due to being blinded by strong karmic propensities of a 'Self'. It is a layer of ‘bond’ that prevents us from ‘seeing’ something…it is very subtle, very thin, very fine…it goes almost undetected. What this ‘bond’ does is it prevents us from ‘seeing’ what “WITNESS” really is and makes us constantly fall back to the Witness, to the Source, to the Center . Every moment we want to sink back to Witness, to the Center, to this Beingness, this is an illusion. It is habitual and almost hypnotic.
  
  But what exactly is this “witness” we are talking about? It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back, the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose.
  
  There is no mirror reflecting
  Manifestation alone IS.
  
  There is no invisible witness hiding anywhere. Whenever we attempt to fall back to an invisible transparent image, it is again the mind game of thought. It is the ‘bond’ at work. See Thusness's Six Stages of Experience.
  
  Very often it is understood that beingness is in the experience of "I AM", even without the words and label of "I AM", the 'pure sense of existence', the presence still IS. It is a state of resting in Beingness. But in Buddhism, it is also possible to experience everything, every moment the unmanifested.
  
  The key also lies in 'You' but it is to "see" that there is no 'You' instead. It is to 'see' that there is never any do-er standing in the midst of phenomenal arising. There is just mere happening due to emptiness nature, never an 'I' doing anything. When the 'I' subsides, symbols, labels and the entire layer of conceptual realm goes with it. What is left without a 'doer' is a mere happening.
  
  And seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling and not only that, everything appears as purely spontaneous manifestation. A whole Presence of the manifold.
  
  Since appearance is all there is and appearance is really the source, what gives rise to the diversities of appearances? “Sweetness” of sugar isn’t the “blueness” color of the sky. Same applies to “AMness”… all are equally pure, no one state is purer than the other, only condition differs. Conditions are factors that give appearances their ‘forms’. In Buddhism, pristine awareness and conditions are inseparable.
  
  Although there is non-duality in Advaita Vedanta, and no-self in Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta rest in an “Ultimate Background” (making it dualistic), whereas Buddhism eliminates the background completely and rest in the emptiness nature of phenomena; arising and ceasing is where pristine awareness is. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change.
  
  The mind likes to categorize and is quick to identify. When we think that awareness is permanent, we fail to 'see' the impermanence aspect of it. When we see it as formless, we missed the vividness of the fabric and texture of awareness as forms. When we are attached to ocean, we seek a waveless ocean, not knowing that both ocean and wave are one and the same. Manifestations are not dust on the mirror, the dust is the mirror. All along there is no dust, it becomes dust when we identify with a particular speck and the rest becomes dust.
  
  Unmanifested is the manifestation,
  The no-thing of everything,
  Completely still yet ever flowing,
  This is the spontaneous arising nature of the source.
  Simply Self-So.
  Use self-so to overcome conceptualization.
  Dwell completely into the incredible realness of the phenomenal world.
  
  -------------- Update: 15/5/2008
  
  An elaboration on Emptiness:
  
  Like a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front of an observer, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena.
  
  As you've seen, there is no ‘'The Flowerness'’ seen by a dog, an insect or us, or beings from other realms (which really may have a completely different mode of perception). ‘'The Flowerness' is an illusion that does not stay even for a moment, merely an aggregate of causes and conditions. Analogous to the example of ‘flowerness’, there is no ‘selfness’ serving as a background witnessing either -- pristine awareness is not the witnessing background. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This the way of ‘seeing’ the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attribute-less of our nature.
  
  Because the karmic propensity of perceiving subject/object duality is so strong, pristine awareness is quickly attributed to 'I', Atman, the ultimate Subject, Witness, background, eternal, formless, odorless, colorless, thoughtless and void of any attributes, and we unknowingly objectified these attributes into an ‘entity’ and make it an eternal background or an emptiness void. When this is done, it prevents us from experiencing the color, texture, fabric and manifesting nature of awareness. Suddenly thoughts are being grouped into another category and disowned. In actual case, thoughts think and sound hears. The observer has always been the observed. No watcher needed, the process itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga.
  
  In naked awareness, there is no splitting of attributes and objectification of these attributes into different groups of the same experience. So thoughts and sense perceptions are not disowned and “impermanence nature” taken in wholeheartedly in the experience of no-self. ‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so.
  
  Zen Master Dogen: "Impermanence is Buddha-Nature."
  
  (The above are paraphrasing my friend, Thusness's words with a little editing.)
  
  ------------------
  
  The following from another forummer posting at another forum:
  
  http://now-for-you.com/viewtopic.php?p=34809&highlight=#34809
  
  As I walked away from the computer, into the kitchen, and then the bathroom, I noticed that I can't make a distinction between the air out here, and me or the air and the sink. Where does one end and the other begin? I'm not being silly here. No, I'm saying, do you see the interplay. How could one be without the other?
  
  I'm taking air into my lungs right now, and noticing the interplay. This keyboard is just at the end of my fingertips, like an extension of me. My mind says "No, that is a keyboard, and these are your fingers. Very different things, " but the awareness doesn't make that distinction so cut and dry. Sure, there is a seeing that my fingers look this way, and the keyboard looks different. But again, the interplay.
  
  Why does the mind make such a distinction between silence and sound. Are we sure these are separate? I just said "yes" into the air. I noticed that there was silence, then the word came into the air, then silence again. These two "things" are married aren't they. How can one be without the other? And so are they separate? Sure, the mind says "yes" they are separate. It might even say something the teachers have said which is "you are awareness." But am I? What about these words, what about this desk. Is that awareness? Where is the distinction.
  
  We make this stuff up as we go don't we? Whatever we want to believe. "it's all one." "I am awareness." "Jesus Christ is my savior." "Peanut butter and jelly is gross." I'm being silly now. But how would I know if these things are separate, form and formlessness if I don't look here now, at this relationship, at how they interact. Again, this feels like an open question. I could say "it's all One" or whatever as I said above and miss the chance to look again at this interplay, and see how my fingers, the keyboard, the air, the space in front of the screen, and the screen play together.
  

• An Eternal Now

  8 Jun 08, 00:22

  Post by Longchen 2 days back:

  Here's a good thread: What is it that is reborn?

  
  

  Here's the reply by Dhammanando, the monk who debated on the Thai Forest Tradition Ajahns claim in a different thread.
  

  
  

  http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=41811&mode=linear
  

  
  

  ---------------------------

  QUOTE(Darkknight @ Jan 8 2007, 06:17 AM)

  Q. So there is no self (Atman). so what exactly is it that is reborn, and how does what is reborn pass from one body to another?
    Thanks in advance for any answers received. 
  

  -----------------------------

  The question is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?"
  
  The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity. For a more complete exposition of the subject see Mahasi Sayadaw's Discourse on Paticcasamuppada.
  
  Best wishes,
  Dhammanando Bhikkhu

  I think this passage summarises very nicely.

  The problem with the I AM experience is that it makes a person assume that there is a part of him/her (that is beyond the personality) that will go on forever. And more often then not, either this "I AM" or the alaya is mistaken as a permanent soul.

  However, to a person who experiences non-duality (and emptiness), he understands that 'this is it!' and there is nothing beyond this. There is no self-existing soul that is apart from the personality. All are just changes according to the condition at that precise moment. To a non-dual person, there is no preference towards an assumed permanent part that is beyond the thoughts and personality. It is non-dual (not two), there is no seeing in terms of separate parts. That also means, there is no seeing 'any body' as a person out there. All are just perceptions and the amazing power of cognition discriminates and see many things, persons and object outside of the self.

  This truth of no-self and non-separation may sound very scary or disturbing to a person who only understand it mentally or conceptually. But the actual experience is not so. To the non-dual person, permanent or impermanence, things and objects are just concepts... if one don't get bothered by it... it is not an issue at all.

• An Eternal Now

  8 Jun 08, 00:59

  Xiao Pingshi criticised the master as eternalist.

  But he himself is probably the true eternalist of the outer-path! LOL. what irony.

• An Eternal Now

  8 Jun 08, 03:06

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Post by Longchen 2 days back:

  I think this passage summarises very nicely.

  The problem with the I AM experience is that it makes a person assume that there is a part of him/her (that is beyond the personality) that will go on forever. And more often then not, either this "I AM" or the alaya is mistaken as a permanent soul.

  However, to a person who experiences non-duality (and emptiness), he understands that 'this is it!' and there is nothing beyond this. There is no self-existing soul that is apart from the personality. All are just changes according to the condition at that precise moment. To a non-dual person, there is no preference towards an assumed permanent part that is beyond the thoughts and personality. It is non-dual (not two), there is no seeing in terms of separate parts. That also means, there is no seeing 'any body' as a person out there. All are just perceptions and the amazing power of cognition discriminates and see many things, persons and object outside of the self.

  This truth of no-self and non-separation may sound very scary or disturbing to a person who only understand it mentally or conceptually. But the actual experience is not so. To the non-dual person, permanent or impermanence, things and objects are just concepts... if one don't get bothered by it... it is not an issue at all.

  The following paragraph sent to me by a forummer, written by Mr. Xiao Pingshi clearly shows that his understanding and experience is clearly of the formless, Permanent I AM level.

  He sees the I AM as a pure formless substance that is separate from all thoughts, personality and sense experiences. Even though he says 无 「我�性, he's just talking about non-personality and his understanding of 心 is without doubt the I AM understanding. He sees the I AM as the vast permanent "container"/background of experiences where phenomena arise and subside within.

  As Longchen said, "The problem with the I AM experience is that it makes a person assume that there is a part of him/her (that is beyond the personality) that will go on forever"

  "To a non-dual person, there is no preference towards an assumed permanent part that is beyond the thoughts and personality."

  It's such a pity he fail to see the various masters teachings and attack them instead, and created for himself so much demerits.

   http://www.foyun.com/xinfa/xiao16-12.htm

  ��所�者，乃是第二转法轮�中所说「�心心�无心相心�无�心��念心�之第八识心，此心从�� 与六尘相应，故是真实无相之法；此第八识心从�离�自�分，故从��了知自我，从��与我�相应，从��生我�，故从��起「我�觉「我�知，故从�皆无 「我�性，方是无我之法。此心�是第三转法轮所说之第八识阿赖耶，此第八识所�分段生死之烦�断尽时，改为第�异熟识�，�阿赖耶识�；悟�进修�智，所 �烦�障习气���眠断尽，亦断尽所�无始无明一切上烦��眠时，改�第�无垢识，亦�真如；至此究竟佛地已，�是第八识心体，唯是所���之净与�净层 次差别，为作��境界表示，故作第��第�识�，体实唯一第八识也。此第八识心，方是��因地所应�悟之心，此心从�无「我�相�无「有�相，�是�佛果 地所觉�之第八识真如心体，方符《楞严�》中所开示之「因地心与果地觉�目相应�之�也，方是因地心与果地觉为�一心也，是�一第八识体故。此心从��与 六尘相到�相应，�论眠熟�或清醒�中，皆�与六尘相应，方是真正之无相心也�此心从��曾了知「有自我存在�，方是真正之无我心，方是��之所应�者 也。

   

  And his comments on the Masters teaching:  《为使佛å­�大众，普皆了知如是事实：「佛教已被圣严ã€�惟觉ã€�星云ã€�è¯�严……等大法师引入常è§�外é�“法中，这是现代佛教的大å�±æœºã€‚ã€�是故附录上列公案拈æ��六则，以专门说禅之圣严与惟觉二师所说为è¯�，藉以警觉佛门四众弟å­�，共æ€�如何挽救之é�“。》

   

  just makes me *sigh*

  It just reminds me of the Dark Zen fools who also attack other teachers due to other wrong understanding and experience of Buddha-nature is I AM.

• An Eternal Now

  8 Jun 08, 03:48

  He totally misinterpreted Zen Master Huang Po's "Mind" as the I AM.

  He wrote: 临济之师黄檗希�禅师曾开示云：「学�人勿疑：四大为身，四大无我，我亦无主，故知此身无我亦无 主；五阴无我亦无主，故知此心无我亦无主。六根六尘六识和�生�亦�如是，�八界既空，一切皆空，唯有本心�然清净《景德传�录》��。�则是明说六识心 与六根中之�根心等七识之外，别有清净本心�时存在，符�诸� 佛说八识心王�时并行�作之�，亦与平实《邪�与佛法》书中所言涅盘之�完全相符。

   

  Here's what Zen Master Huang Po said:

  25. The term unity refers to a homogeneous spiritual brilliance which separates into six harmoniously blended 'elements'. The homogeneous spiritual brilliance is the One Mind, while the six harmoniously blended 'elements' are the six sense organs. These six sense organs beome severally united with objects that defile them -- the eyes with form, the ear with sound, the nose with smell, the tongue with taste, the body with touch, and the thinking mind with entities. Between these organs and their objects arise the six sensory perceptions, making eighteen sense-realms in all. If you understand that these eighteen realms have no objective existence, you will bind the six harmoniously blended 'elements' into a single spiritual brilliance -- a single spiritual brilliance which is the One Mind. All students of the way know this, but they cannot avoid forming concepts of 'a single spiritual brilliance' and 'the six harmoniously blended elements'. Accordingly they are chained to entities and fail to achieve a tacit understanding of original Mind.

  Chinese:

  所言�是一精明，分为六和�；一精明者一心也，六和�者六根也；此六根�与尘�：眼与色�，耳与声�，鼻与香�，舌与味�，身与触�，�与法�；中间生六 识，为�八界；若了�八界无所有，�六和�为一精明。一精明者�心也，学�人皆知此，但�能�作一精明六和�解，�被法缚，�契本心。

   

  What Zen Master Huang Po said is clearly explaining that all dependently arisen phenomena are empty of inherent existence and objective reality, are all only One Mind.

  Thusness: ...This is also the understanding of why Everything is the One Reality incorporating causes, conditions and luminosity of our Empty nature as One and inseparable. Everything as the One Reality should never be understood from a dualistic/inherent standpoint...

   

  But Mr. Xiao Pingshi's understanding is that beyond phenomena there is an underlying unchanging substance. He sees a duality here.

   

  I can see now that Mr. Xiao Pingshi has a tendency of distorting and misunderstanding the scriptures and then attacking the true masters due to his ignorance. Just like the Dark Zen fools.

  Fools who misunderstood the teachings, and on account of this wrong understanding, attack others, misrepresent buddha-dharma, and destroy himself and accumulate much demerits.

  There's so much he has distorted that I'm not going to waste my effort correcting them. Just given this as an example.

   

  Buddha to Sati:

   

  "Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

   

  Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."