Resentment ,Anger and Frustration :3 fires burning life

• Bodhi hut

  17 Dec 08, 00:26

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  谢谢了，�过最近比较懒，�想看佛�的东西了，佛教的东西，浩如烟海，读�完呀

  
  如是，如是。。。佛法�在�上或论�上，因为佛性是能起用的，�是个人的障���，有很多人学佛，就�了法相。。。还是�实念佛。。呵呵。。

  就选其中几张我作的桌�图赠现个��。。

  阿弥陀佛

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  

• An Eternal Now

  17 Dec 08, 02:19

  Originally posted by Bodhi hut:

   

  如是，如是。。。或许你指的是�六特胜。

  I don't know what is �六特胜, what Thusness wrote is just based on his personal experience.

• rokkie

  17 Dec 08, 15:23

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  There is no 'non dualism school' in Buddhism -- non-duality is not a specific sect but is the nature of reality. Insight into non-duality is found in every single Buddhist sect, from Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana. Anyone who has not realised non-duality is not enlightened. But the term 'non-duality' can mean a lot of things -- most of what are unrelated to real enlightenment.

  A lot of people misunderstood what non-duality mean. They think it is no absolute right and wrong, or no absolute polarities. All these are not the non-duality I am talking about. As Longchen wrote before:

  http://www.dreamdatum.com/nondual-misinfo.html

  ...The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct.

  
  

  Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity...

   

  Also other religions also talk about 'non-duality' but they may have slightly different meanings. So as you can see the term 'non-duality' is very diverse and though many people talk about it, it might not mean the same thing.

  The non-duality I am talking about is the nature of reality as no subject and object division. This is related to the insight into Anatta (no-self), that there is no separate, distinct, permament agent or Self that is the doer, thinker, observer/feeler of things. As such when you are hearing a sound, there is no hearer apart from the sound. There is just sound, without subject/object division. This is the sort of insight one must come to to awaken.

  All schools of Buddhism will talk about this, though the way they describe it might be slightly different. They might not use the same words but the essence is exactly the same.

  i give you this link on wiki of Non dualism, see whether there is non dualism sect or not

   

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

• rokkie

  17 Dec 08, 15:37

  Aen, besides you keep saying Non duality, i think you should read stuff from different sect, in fact different sects all seeing the reality, but in a different way, they put emphasize on different factors,

  To enhancing you practice on buddhism, at least you need to know what's the different sects talking about,

  You have talent in buddhism, if you could learn chinese, and read chinese sutras, or chinese article about buddhism, that's better.

  You keep saying avoiding habit and conceptualisation, as long as you don't attach to them, i think conceptualisation is fine, if you talk to a guru, but you don't know what's he talking about, i think your experience with buddhism will also be restrained.

   

• An Eternal Now

  17 Dec 08, 15:45

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  i give you this link on wiki of Non dualism, see whether there is non dualism sect or not

   

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

  The link you gave me is already very clear that Non-Duality is present in All Buddhist traditions. As such, it is not a particular tradition, because it is found in ALL traditions. Emptiness, non-duality, is the nature of reality -- anyone that denies this is obviously not in accord with Buddhism.

  The wikipedia link you provided quotes from Theravada, then talks about Mahayana and Zen, then Vajrayana and Dzogchen and Mahamudra. All these traditions talk about non-duality.

  Because non-duality is the nature of reality, to become enlightened IS to realise non-duality. There is no other way around.

• An Eternal Now

  17 Dec 08, 15:47

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  Aen, besides you keep saying Non duality, i think you should read stuff from different sect, in fact different sects all seeing the reality, but in a different way, they put emphasize on different factors,

  To enhancing you practice on buddhism, at least you need to know what's the different sects talking about,

  You have talent in buddhism, if you could learn chinese, and read chinese sutras, or chinese article about buddhism, that's better.

  You keep saying avoiding habit and conceptualisation, as long as you don't attach to them, i think conceptualisation is fine, if you talk to a guru, but you don't know what's he talking about, i think your experience with buddhism will also be restrained.

   

  I do read about all the different sects (including Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, etc etc), and I can tell you that all the sects are saying the same thing with slightly different wordings.

  If you can't see that they're talking about the same thing, then you are not seeing it at all. Don't get caught up in the words, we have to see what they are pointing to.

• An Eternal Now

  17 Dec 08, 16:13

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  You keep saying avoiding habit and conceptualisation, as long as you don't attach to them, i think conceptualisation is fine, if you talk to a guru, but you don't know what's he talking about, i think your experience with buddhism will also be restrained.

   

  There's no problem with conceptualisation. But concepts are second hand knowledge. It is useful and important for functioning in the mundane world, it helps us navigate in our lives. But it is utterly useless in regards to knowing our true nature. Because our true nature is too intimate for words and concepts, words and concepts overlay and obscure that intimacy. Ask yourself, without using concepts, how do you know you are alive? How do you know you are breathing? You don't need other people to tell you, you don't need concepts.

  You cannot know what/who you really are by second hand knowledge -- not by what others tell you -- it must be first hand direct experience. Before thoughts and concepts, your true nature is already present and aware. Your sense of being, presence, awareness, is undeniable and present even without thoughts. And even during thoughts your true nature is present and aware. It knows everything and manifests as everything.

  Practicing means direct, inner, first hand knowing/awareness. Naked awareness of what is. Our true nature is not second hand knowledge, it is always here, present, direct. So we should abide as pure awareness. Pure awareness does not reject thoughts and conceptualisation, but to be in pure awareness means one is not relying or attached to the thoughts and concepts. There is a whole dimension of awareness that transcends and is prior conceptual knowing.

  When we abide in pure awareness, thoughts play a secondary role -- only for practical mundane purposes to help us navigate in the world. And also for the purpose of communicating, like what I am doing now. They no longer take the predominant role in our lives, we are no longer caught up in repetitive streams of thoughts. The habitual patterns of thinking and labelling will not be so strong. When looking at a flower you do not allow yourself to be overwhelmed by streams of thinking about the flower -- there is just the flower.

  Hence to practice, we must get in touch with awareness that is direct and intuitive and first-hand -- that which is prior to all conceptualisations, second hand knowledge. It is just pure presence. This is important, and is a fundamental practice in ALL traditions.

• An Eternal Now

  17 Dec 08, 16:29

  Chapter 13

  Mindfulness (Sati)

  Mindfulness is the English translation of the Pali word Sati. Sati is an activity. What exactly is that? There can be no precise answer, at least not in words. Words are devised by the symbolic levels of the mind and they describe those realities with which symbolic thinking deals. Mindfulness is pre-symbolic. It is not shackled to logic. Nevertheless, Mindfulness can be experienced -- rather easily -- and it can be described, as long as you keep in mind that the words are only fingers pointing at the moon. They are not the thing itself. The actual experience lies beyond the words and above the symbols. Mindfulness could be describes in completely different terms than will be used here and each description could still be correct.

  Mindfulness is a subtle process that you are using at this very moment. The fact that this process lies above and beyond words does not make it unreal--quite the reverse. Mindfulness is the reality which gives rise to words--the words that follow are simply pale shadows of reality. So, it is important to understand that everything that follows here is analogy. It is not going to make perfect sense. It will always remain beyond verbal logic. But you can experience it. The meditation technique called Vipassana (insight) that was introduced by the Buddha about twenty-five centuries ago is a set of mental activities specifically aimed at experiencing a state of uninterrupted Mindfulness.

  When you first become aware of something, there is a fleeting instant of pure awareness just before you conceptualize the thing, before you identify it. That is a stage of Mindfulness. Ordinarily, this stage is very short. It is that flashing split second just as you focus your eyes on the thing, just as you focus your mind on the thing, just before you objectify it, clamp down on it mentally and segregate it from the rest of existence. It takes place just before you start thinking about it--before your mind says, "Oh, it's a dog." That flowing, soft-focused moment of pure awareness is Mindfulness. In that brief flashing mind-moment you experience a thing as an un-thing. You experience a softly flowing moment of pure experience that is interlocked with the rest of reality, not separate from it. Mindfulness is very much like what you see with your peripheral vision as opposed to the hard focus of normal or central vision. Yet this moment of soft, unfocused, awareness contains a very deep sort of knowing that is lost as soon as you focus your mind and objectify the object into a thing. In the process of ordinary perception, the Mindfulness step is so fleeting as to be unobservable. We have developed the habit of squandering our attention on all the remaining steps, focusing on the perception, recognizing the perception, labeling it, and most of all, getting involved in a long string of symbolic thought about it. That original moment of Mindfulness is rapidly passed over. It is the purpose of the above mentioned Vipassana (or insight) meditation to train us to prolong that moment of awareness.

  When this Mindfulness is prolonged by using proper techniques, you find that this experience is profound and it changes your entire view of the universe. This state of perception has to be learned, however, and it takes regular practice. Once you learn the technique, you will find that Mindfulness has many interesting aspects.

  The Characteristics of Mindfulness

  ....(continued in http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe13.html)

• longchen

  17 Dec 08, 17:09

  Non-duality is no-self. Non-dual means there is no two things. No-self means that there is no self vs the environment. They are the same thing but different words only.

  No-self is the fundamental teaching in all sects of Buddhism.

• An Eternal Now

  17 Dec 08, 17:41

  Originally posted by longchen:

  Non-duality is no-self. Non-dual means there is no two things. No-self means that there is no self vs the environment. They are the same thing but different words only.

  No-self is the fundamental teaching in all sects of Buddhism.

  Nicely put!

• Display Name

  18 Dec 08, 10:02

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  Aen, besides you keep saying Non duality, i think you should read stuff from different sect, in fact different sects all seeing the reality, but in a different way, they put emphasize on different factors,

  To enhancing you practice on buddhism, at least you need to know what's the different sects talking about,

  You have talent in buddhism, if you could learn chinese, and read chinese sutras, or chinese article about buddhism, that's better.

  You keep saying avoiding habit and conceptualisation, as long as you don't attach to them, i think conceptualisation is fine, if you talk to a guru, but you don't know what's he talking about, i think your experience with buddhism will also be restrained.

  Actually his dharma centre conduct dharma talk in chinese. Maybe he find it difficult to type in chinese.
  Anyway, put the language side apart, I agree that different sects are actually pointing towards same objective with slight different emphasis and phrasing.
  btw, which dharma centre you go 1.

• JitKiat

  18 Dec 08, 10:04

  What AEN said is true. Non-dualsim is the ultimate reality common to all traditions. However, the confusion probably arise due to different terms used in different sects but ultimately it all refer to the same truth that is basically beyond language.

  Quoted from "The way to Buddhahood" from Master Yin Shun:

  ... 法性──一切法的真實 相，「本�來是「無二�無別，...。二乘，�薩，佛，都是證 入這�樣的法性。....。佛是�緣起而覺證法性的，也就�緣起而開示法性。這雖本無差別，但在「 隨機�巧「說�時，�能�「��為別「異�的教說。因為法性甚深，如�甚 深義說，有些人�但�肯信�，而且還會誹毀。這樣，佛就�能�有善巧的異 說了。

  Quoted from 黄念祖：

  所以《维摩诘�》指示�二法门。一切相�二，把这个体会了，就入�二
  法门了。一切颠倒执著，都是佛的法身。一切事都是佛的法身，所以「一切事
  究竟�固�。你在这里还有什么分别对待？还有什么�「二�？当然入�二法
  门很难，但�以由此��二法门趋近。若真正能够信�承担，就入�二法门了。
  

  The key is 入�二法门很难. However, we cannot deny that the advanced level of 念佛 also can achieve non-dualism. Quote again from Master Yin Shun:

  佛是平等空性，觀佛�契如性；智如相應，�為念佛。『金剛經� 說：「離一切相，�見如來�，平常稱此為實相念佛。念佛而�此階段，實已斷 除煩惱，證悟無生法�了。

  For me, 念佛还没一心�乱, hah hah hah

• rokkie

  18 Dec 08, 11:33

  Originally posted by Display Name:

  Actually his dharma centre conduct dharma talk in chinese. Maybe he find it difficult to type in chinese.
  Anyway, put the language side apart, I agree that different sects are actually pointing towards same objective with slight different emphasis and phrasing.
  btw, which dharma centre you go 1.

  
  i didn't attend any dharma talk, or go to any dharma centre, i mainly on my self, and my knowledge about buddhism is from internet or books, and some self experience

• rokkie

  18 Dec 08, 12:24

  Originally posted by JitKiat:

  What AEN said is true. Non-dualsim is the ultimate reality common to all traditions. However, the confusion probably arise due to different terms used in different sects but ultimately it all refer to the same truth that is basically beyond language.

  Quoted from "The way to Buddhahood" from Master Yin Shun:

  ... 法性──一切法的真實 相，「本�來是「無二�無別，...。二乘，�薩，佛，都是證入這�樣的法性。....。佛是�緣起而覺證法性的，也就�緣起而開示法性。這雖本無差別，但在「隨機�巧「說�時，�能�「��為別「異�的教說。因為法性甚深，如�甚深義說，有些人�但�肯信�，而且還會誹毀。這樣，佛就�能�有善巧的異 說了。

  Quoted from 黄念祖：

  所以《维摩诘�》指示�二法门。一切相�二，把这个体会了，就入�二
  法门了。一切颠倒执著，都是佛的法身。一切事都是佛的法身，所以「一切事
  究竟�固�。你在这里还有什么分别对待？还有什么�「二�？当然入�二法
  门很难，但�以由此��二法门趋近。若真正能够信�承担，就入�二法门了。

  The key is 入�二法门很难. However, we cannot deny that the advanced level of 念佛 also can achieve non-dualism. Quote again from Master Yin Shun:

  佛是平等空性，觀佛�契如性；智如相應，�為念佛。『金剛經�說：「離一切相，�見如來�，平常稱此為實相念佛。念佛而�此階段，實已斷除煩惱，證悟無生法�了。

  For me, 念佛还没一心�乱, hah hah hah

  i never can understand this Non duality, or�二法门，even after someone explain to me, maybe it's kind of similar to 物我两忘，so i don't understand why it's essential to buddhism.

  And in chinese �二，could mean many things, like in the sentence you quote一切相�二, it could mean 圆�，i think the �二 here is still abit different with the non duality, Aen is trying to talk.

• An Eternal Now

  18 Dec 08, 13:28

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  i never can understand this Non duality, or�二法门，even after someone explain to me, maybe it's kind of similar to 物我两忘，so i don't understand why it's essential to buddhism.

  And in chinese �二，could mean many things, like in the sentence you quote一切相�二, it could mean 圆�，i think the �二 here is still abit different with the non duality, Aen is trying to talk.

  The Non-Duality that JitKiat is saying is exactly the same as what I am saying, just slightly different words.

  Let me quote from 黄念祖 more completely, especially the paragraph right after it, he said:

  
  
      所以《维摩诘ç»�》指示ä¸�二法门。一切相ä¸�二，把这个体会了，就入ä¸�二
  法门了。一切颠倒执著，都是佛的法身。一切事都是佛的法身，所以「一切事
  究竟�固�。你在这里还有什么分别对待？还有什么�「二�？当然入�二法
  门很难，但�以由此��二法门趋近。若真正能够信�承担，就入�二法门了。
     
  这个��很难懂，引��典，�上是这么说的，但是怎么去体会呢？密教
  大圆满里说：如我们在水上，拿个手指头在水上写字，在水上画画。（大家回
  去拿个脸盆，�以试一试。）脸盆中是水，譬如咱们的本心，清净的心。你在
  水�上写个字，就出了字形，这是事相。这个事相是水上画出�的，就�水上
  生波一样。波代表妄想，水代表本心。但是波�是�外一件东西，波就是水里
  出�的。所以，波就是水。波�是水，是什么？虽有波之形相，但它就是「水
  �。所以，《资粮》讲这个讲得很深入，大家�以�考。但是，若是水很�的
  时候，�以照�月亮�一些形相。水乱动，这会什么都�能�映了。但是，它
  还是水，�是别的。这一点，我们�知�，它还是水。有波，波就是水。波代
  表妄，水代表真。妄就是真，就是真，就是法身。在水上写字，这说明什么呢？
  �处出生，�处消�。写的时候，出一�，写过之�，这一�就没了。没有形
  迹，�是净水。

  �于此信入，诸佛法身，无处�现。】
      ä½ è¦�在这个地方能够相信ã€�能够入门，那么，诸佛的法身没有一处ä¸�实现
  。所以，咱们有很多修四臂观音法的，四臂观音法大圆满�：「所�一切皆法
  身�。修这个法的人，今天��了此论，�以增加信心，与此论是一致的。看
  �所有这一切都是法身了。禅宗有此�：「��竹�，尽是法身；��黄花，
  无�般若�。��的竹�，一片一片的，那是什么？�是什么�物的��，都
  是佛的法身。一朵朵的黄花��花，都是般若，都是大智慧。所以，大居士庞
  婆说：「百�头上祖师��。���的头上，都是祖师的心�。祖师的心�，
  都在百�的头上。这些�都是�一鼻孔通气的。这些是无上��。但是，一个
  ��心，它就��「毒��。既然都平等了，�戒跟犯戒平等了。那我就专犯
  戒��淫怒痴�戒定慧具是梵行，那我的淫怒痴就�用��了。这就�为毒�
  了。应知：
  
  
  This has been similar to my analogy with regards to thoughts. (water and waves)
  
  When you realised the true nature of thoughts, there is NO thinker apart from thought.
  
  Why? All thoughts are Mind-only. They are all the manifestation of Buddha-Nature, as such, it is not that there is a Mind who is the watcher of thoughts, the thoughts themselves are Mind-Essence.
  
  This is also called 'One Taste'. Why? All phenomena, all thoughts, have the same taste of our Mind-Essence.
  
  When you cannot separate yourself from the object of observation and discriminate them, that is non-duality. There is completely no more Inside and Outside -- there is only One Taste in everything, pure empty awareness. When Mind-Essence manifest in the manifold, it is non-singularity. It is neither one nor many. All phenomena have a single taste, yet manifest in the variety of different experiences according to conditions.

  When looking at the flowers, the trees, the mountains, there is no 'you' that is looking at the mountain -- Mountains, Trees, Flowers, are all Mind Only -- in other words you ARE the mountains, trees, flowers. Mountains and rivers are not 'out there', it is your Buddha-Nature.

  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

  ...Because as you rest in the infinite ease of consciousness, spontaneously aware of all that is arising, there will soon enough come the great catastrophe of Freedom and Fullness: the Witness itself will disappear entirely, and instead of witnessing the sky, you are the sky; instead of touching the earth, you are the earth; instead of hearing the thunder, you are the thunder. You and the entire Kosmos because One Taste – you can drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp, hold Mt. Everest in the palm of your hand; supernovas swirl in your heart and the solar system replaces your head…
  
  You are One Taste, the empty mirror that is one with any and all objects that arise in its embrace, a mindlessly vast translucent expanse: infinite, eternal, radiant beyond release. And you… are… That…
  
  So the primary Cartesian dualism – which is simply the dualism between… in here and out there, subject and object, the empty Witness and all things witnessed – is finally undone and overcome in nondual One Taste. Once you actually and fully contact the Witness, then – and only then – can it be transcended into radical Nonduality, and halfway home becomes fully home, here in the ever-present wonder of what is…
  
  And so how do you know that you have finally and really overcome the Cartesian dualism? Very simple: if you really overcome the Cartesian dualism, then you no longer feel that you are on this side of your face looking at the world out there. There is only the world, and you are all of that; you actually feel that you are one with everything that is arising moment to moment. You are not merely on this side of your face looking out there. “In here” and “out there” have become One Taste with a shuddering obviousness and certainty so profound it feels like a five-ton rock just dropped on your head. It is, shall we say, a feeling hard to miss.
  
  At that point, which is actually your ever-present condition, there is no exclusive identity with this particular organism, no constriction of consciousness to the head, a constriction that makes it seem that “you” are in the head looking at the rest of the world out there; there is no binding of attention to the personal bodymind: instead, consciousness is one with all that is arising – a vast, open, transparent, radiant, infinitely Free and infinitely Full expanse that embraces the entire Kosmos, so that every single subject and every single object are erotically united in the Great Embrace of One Taste. You disappear from merely being behind your eyes, and you become the All, you directly and actually feel that your basic identity is everything that is arising moment to moment (just as previously you felt that your identity was with this finite, partial, separate, mortal coil of flesh you call a body). Inside and outside have become One Taste. I tell you, it can happen just like that!
  

• An Eternal Now

  18 Dec 08, 13:56

  14th Century Mahamudra Master Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:

  
  "When you vividly perceive a mountain or a house, no matter how this perception appears, it does not need to disappear or be stopped. Rather, while this perception is experienced, it is itself an intangible, empty awareness. This is called seeing the identity of perception."
  
  "Previously you cleared up uncertainties when you looked into the identity of a perception and resolved that perceptions are mind. Accordingly, the perception is not outside and the mind is not inside. It is merely, and nothing other than, this empty and aware mind that appears as a perception. It is exactly like the example of a dream-object and the dreaming mind.
  
  "From the very moment a perception occurs, it is a naturally freed and intangible perceiving emptiness. This perceiving yet intangible and naked state of empty perception is called seeing the natural face of innate perception or perception dawning as dharmakaya.

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

  
  Take the metaphor of a wave on water. The wave is nothing other than the water, and yet it is seen as a wave. Although it appears as a wave, it has never changed from being of the nature of water. In the same way, with the various types of thoughts, from the very moment they appear, they are nothing other than the aware emptiness of unidentifiable mind.

• rokkie

  18 Dec 08, 14:59

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  The Non-Duality that JitKiat is saying is exactly the same as what I am saying, just slightly different words.

  Let me quote from 黄念祖 more completely, especially the paragraph right after it, he said:

  
  
      所以《维摩诘ç»�》指示ä¸�二法门。一切相ä¸�二，把这个体会了，就入ä¸�二
  法门了。一切颠倒执著，都是佛的法身。一切事都是佛的法身，所以「一切事
  究竟�固�。你在这里还有什么分别对待？还有什么�「二�？当然入�二法
  门很难，但�以由此��二法门趋近。若真正能够信�承担，就入�二法门了。
     
  这个��很难懂，引��典，�上是这么说的，但是怎么去体会呢？密教
  大圆满里说：如我们在水上，拿个手指头在水上写字，在水上画画。（大家回
  去拿个脸盆，�以试一试。）脸盆中是水，譬如咱们的本心，清净的心。你在
  水�上写个字，就出了字形，这是事相。这个事相是水上画出�的，就�水上
  生波一样。波代表妄想，水代表本心。但是波�是�外一件东西，波就是水里
  出�的。所以，波就是水。波�是水，是什么？虽有波之形相，但它就是「水
  �。所以，《资粮》讲这个讲得很深入，大家�以�考。但是，若是水很�的
  时候，�以照�月亮�一些形相。水乱动，这会什么都�能�映了。但是，它
  还是水，�是别的。这一点，我们�知�，它还是水。有波，波就是水。波代
  表妄，水代表真。妄就是真，就是真，就是法身。在水上写字，这说明什么呢？
  �处出生，�处消�。写的时候，出一�，写过之�，这一�就没了。没有形
  迹，�是净水。

  �于此信入，诸佛法身，无处�现。】
      ä½ è¦�在这个地方能够相信ã€�能够入门，那么，诸佛的法身没有一处ä¸�实现
  。所以，咱们有很多修四臂观音法的，四臂观音法大圆满�：「所�一切皆法
  身�。修这个法的人，今天��了此论，�以增加信心，与此论是一致的。看
  �所有这一切都是法身了。禅宗有此�：「��竹�，尽是法身；��黄花，
  无�般若�。��的竹�，一片一片的，那是什么？�是什么�物的��，都
  是佛的法身。一朵朵的黄花��花，都是般若，都是大智慧。所以，大居士庞
  婆说：「百�头上祖师��。���的头上，都是祖师的心�。祖师的心�，
  都在百�的头上。这些�都是�一鼻孔通气的。这些是无上��。但是，一个
  ��心，它就��「毒��。既然都平等了，�戒跟犯戒平等了。那我就专犯
  戒��淫怒痴�戒定慧具是梵行，那我的淫怒痴就�用��了。这就�为毒�
  了。应知：
  
  
  This has been similar to my analogy with regards to thoughts. (water and waves)
  
  When you realised the true nature of thoughts, there is NO thinker apart from thought.
  
  Why? All thoughts are Mind-only. They are all the manifestation of Buddha-Nature, as such, it is not that there is a Mind who is the watcher of thoughts, the thoughts themselves are Mind-Essence.
  
  This is also called 'One Taste'. Why? All phenomena, all thoughts, have the same taste of our Mind-Essence.
  
  When you cannot separate yourself from the object of observation and discriminate them, that is non-duality. There is completely no more Inside and Outside -- there is only One Taste in everything, pure empty awareness. When Mind-Essence manifest in the manifold, it is non-singularity. It is neither one nor many. All phenomena have a single taste, yet manifest in the variety of different experiences according to conditions.

  When looking at the flowers, the trees, the mountains, there is no 'you' that is looking at the mountain -- Mountains, Trees, Flowers, are all Mind Only -- in other words you ARE the mountains, trees, flowers. Mountains and rivers are not 'out there', it is your Buddha-Nature.

  一切相�二 is understandable, because 相没有自性，是空的，虚妄的，空的和空的自然是一样的，

  And i am trying to understand what you mean by this water and wave example, water is the 自性，wave is the  ç›¸ of water, so no matter what's wave like, the water is the same.

  And i am trying to figure it out the relation of the example with the suject and object you keep saying, object is the 相 of subject?

• An Eternal Now

  18 Dec 08, 15:14

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  一切相�二 is understandable, because 相没有自性，是空的，虚妄的，空的和空的自然是一样的，

  And i am trying to understand what you mean by this water and wave example, water is the 自性，wave is the  ç›¸ of water, so no matter what's wave like, the water is the same.

  And i am trying to figure it out the relation of the example with the suject and object you keep saying, subject is the 相 of object?

  Subject means 'you'... or 'Mind'. Mind is you, the subject.

  Everything is Buddha-Nature means there is no You in here, watching something Out There.

  Inside and outside is one. Subject and object is never two. When hearing sound, the sound is not out there. It's your buddha nature. It's you. It's Mind. It's pure awareness and emptiness inseparable.

  性(Mind-Essence) 相(Form/Appearance)一如, is totally one.

  Also, emptiness is not just empty, it's not void or nothingness, because it's filled with presence/awareness/luminosity. Luminosity and emptiness is inseparable. So when we talk about Buddha-Nature, it is awareness and emptiness inseparable.

  When you hear the sound, it's pure awareness. But it's also empty.

• An Eternal Now

  18 Dec 08, 15:21

  Normally we think we are a separate self, separated from the 'universe' consisting of numberless objects interacting in time and space.

  When non-duality is realised, there is no 'me' versus 'countless objects out there' -- there is only One Mind. Everything is Buddha-Nature. One Taste.

• An Eternal Now

  18 Dec 08, 16:54

  Thusness just had a discussion with me... there's some things that are not so correct with your (rokkie) reply on 一切相�二

  First of all the statement "water is the 自性，wave is the  ç›¸ of water, so no matter what's wave like, the water is the same." is wrong understanding...

  Because if we propose there is a 自性 (Water), then there is no need for 一切相�二. The illustration also implies there is a permanent unchanging essence (water) in this case, 一切相�二 is no more necessary.

  The purpose of telling ppl 一切相�二 is not to discard 相. It is to tell ppl that because 一切相�二, there is no need to be attached to a particular 相. For the illustration, one must be aware that both water and wave are all 相.

  It is wrong to say water is 自性 and wave is 相. Therefore you must see water as 相 and wave as 相, therefore 一切相�二. Thus 无自性 = 空性

  When one speaks of 性, people think that there is a  性 call water, that is call ç�€ç›¸. It makes ppl seek for 自性  therefore giving ppl the impression of 有所得.

  In actual case there is always only 相 and  相 is already the 妙有but 其性 is 空. It is not that waves are all 相 and we should shunt from 相 whereas as water is 性 and we should seek and attach to 性. This will lead to 有所得 and 有ä½�于心. The reason why we think that there is truly a 自性 is because it is the tendency of the conventional (dualistic) mind to trend towards 'å¾—'. 

  The idea that 'there must be something otherwise how...' is due to a deeply latent dualistic tendency of seeing things inherently (This is similar to the question 'if there is no soul then what is being reborn'). If this 'knot of essence' is gone, practitioner will naturally feel that there is no need to have a something to grasp.

  Once we truly see that there is always and only 妙有 and nothing else, then all experiences is naturally non-dual (no-self) as there is no a 性 that separates from 相.

  So 离相无佛性å�¯è¨€.  We cannot separate 性 from 相 and to be more precise there is not really a 性 that can be grasped anywhere -- 性空. The nature of all 相 is luminous/aware, it's essence is empty, i.e. no findable, inherent essence.

• JitKiat

  19 Dec 08, 11:59

  Personally, I prefer explanation from Nagajurna's Mahyamaka tradition compared to that of tathagarthagarbha or yogacara, it is represented by the classic verse:

  因缘所生法，我说�是空，亦�为��，亦是中�义

  空,中�为��，�是真的有个空,中�

   

  索甲�波切（以下称索）：当您与xxx对谈�，有什么特别的�现�？例如在空性方�。

   

  圣严法师（以下称师）：我没有�现什么特殊的。因为空性就是空性，空性的��是�抓�边，�抓左边，中间也�执�。这是龙树的中观。 佛都信�港

  索：是的，龙树��说中观的智慧亦�执�中间。

   

  师：但我看您的书里�很少讲空性。 佛都信�港

  索：有的，在第四章。 

  师：对ï¼�但很少 

  索：因为我ä¸�常用“空性”这个字眼，在西方“空”这个字常带有负é�¢çš„æ„�æ€�，“空”常æ„�è°“ç�€ä»€ä¹ˆä¸œè¥¿éƒ½æ˜¯ç©ºçš„，有点接近虚无主义的概念。所以我想å�¯èƒ½ç”¨“开放性”这类的字眼会好一些。 佛都信æ�¯æ¸¯

  所以我较常用“心性”（nature mind）这样的字眼æ�¥è¡¨è¾¾ï¼Œæˆ–者以æ��述它的性质的方å¼�表达，而é�žä»¥“空性”这个å��相æ�¥é™ˆè¿°ã€‚ 佛都信æ�¯æ¸¯

  师：确实，在西方如果没有说清楚，åƒ�“佛性”ã€�“法身”ã€�“空性”ç­‰è¯�，有时候会被西方人误会是与“上å¸�”ã€�“基ç�£”ã€�“耶稣”等类似或å�Œç­‰çº§çš„概 念。这ç§�æ–¹å¼�çš„ç�†è§£å½“然对西方人或有西方宗教背景的人å�¯ä»¥å¾ˆæ¸…楚的认知，但也å�¯èƒ½ä¼šè®©è¥¿æ–¹äººè§‰å¾—佛性就是上å¸�，就是神，而样的解释是会有问题的。 佛都信æ�¯æ¸¯

  索：那的确是很�险的误解。

   

  对于这个问题，我记得xxxçš„è€�师，也是我的一ä½�è€�师顶果钦ä»�波切，他便å�‘现西方人é�žå¸¸å–œæ¬¢è°ˆæ¦‚念性的事物。例如谈到“空”，他们会é�žå¸¸çƒ­è¡·åœ¨è¿™ä¸ª 字上，以å�Šå…³äºŽè¿™ä¸ªå­—里头许多微细的概念。结果执ç�€äºŽå­—义å�Šæ¦‚念，å��而失去了整体的观照，这样就很容易掉入我们刚æ‰�所举的那ç§�å�±é™©çš„状æ€�。

   

  师：ä¸�过最åˆ�开始让他们接触时，这样的方å¼�å�¯ä»¥è®©ä»–们愿æ„�接å�—，å�ªæ˜¯æŽ¥ç�€ä¹Ÿè¦�慢慢让他们知é�“真正的æ„�涵。 

  索：没错，如果�是入门的介�，这�方�是相当正确的

   

• rokkie

  19 Dec 08, 14:08

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Thusness just had a discussion with me... there's some things that are not so correct with your (rokkie) reply on 一切相�二

  First of all the statement "water is the 自性，wave is the  ç›¸ of water, so no matter what's wave like, the water is the same." is wrong understanding...

  Because if we propose there is a 自性 (Water), then there is no need for 一切相�二. The illustration also implies there is a permanent unchanging essence (water) in this case, 一切相�二 is no more necessary.

  The purpose of telling ppl 一切相�二 is not to discard 相. It is to tell ppl that because 一切相�二, there is no need to be attached to a particular 相. For the illustration, one must be aware that both water and wave are all 相.

  It is wrong to say water is 自性 and wave is 相. Therefore you must see water as 相 and wave as 相, therefore 一切相�二. Thus 无自性 = 空性

  When one speaks of 性, people think that there is a  性 call water, that is call ç�€ç›¸. It makes ppl seek for 自性  therefore giving ppl the impression of 有所得.

  In actual case there is always only 相 and  相 is already the 妙有but 其性 is 空. It is not that waves are all 相 and we should shunt from 相 whereas as water is 性 and we should seek and attach to 性. This will lead to 有所得 and 有ä½�于心. The reason why we think that there is truly a 自性 is because it is the tendency of the conventional (dualistic) mind to trend towards 'å¾—'. 

  The idea that 'there must be something otherwise how...' is due to a deeply latent dualistic tendency of seeing things inherently (This is similar to the question 'if there is no soul then what is being reborn'). If this 'knot of essence' is gone, practitioner will naturally feel that there is no need to have a something to grasp.

  Once we truly see that there is always and only 妙有 and nothing else, then all experiences is naturally non-dual (no-self) as there is no a 性 that separates from 相.

  So 离相无佛性å�¯è¨€.  We cannot separate 性 from 相 and to be more precise there is not really a 性 that can be grasped anywhere -- 性空. The nature of all 相 is luminous/aware, it's essence is empty, i.e. no findable, inherent essence.

  
  i know 性 is empty, or as you said the emptiness is filled with luminosity, actually to say there is a 自性，is actually a ��，as

  JitKiat said, it's an expedient way, but if we say everything is empty, even dharma even buddha seeds, alaya conciousness, seems we fall into the trap of 空，actually i am standing at a middle way point of view, é�žç©ºé�žæœ‰ï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦æœ‰ï¼Œé�žé�žç©ºé�žæœ‰ã€‚

   

• An Eternal Now

  19 Dec 08, 14:19

  Originally posted by rokkie:

  
  i know 性 is empty, or as you said the emptiness is filled with luminosity, actually to say there is a 自性，is actually a ��，as

  JitKiat said, it's an expedient way, but if we say everything is empty, even dharma even buddha seeds, alaya conciousness, seems we fall into the trap of 空，actually i am standing at a middle way point of view, é�žç©ºé�žæœ‰ï¼Œäº¦ç©ºäº¦æœ‰ï¼Œé�žé�žç©ºé�žæœ‰ã€‚

   

  Everything is empty... but 真空妙有

  BTW emptiness itself is already free from the 4 extremes, which is that of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non existence. Emptiness is empty of all these extremes.

• rokkie

  19 Dec 08, 14:40

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Everything is empty... but 真空妙有

  BTW emptiness itself is already free from the 4 extremes, which is that of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non existence. Emptiness is empty of all these extremes.

  
  what you said is Nagajurna's point of view, but i think the right way to say it is, not FREE from the 4 extremes, but actuall is OF the 4 format in chinese is �有�空，亦有亦空，��有�空，actually, it mainly point out the emptiness is hard to conceive and it's complicated,

  and nagajurna mainly attack the old school of buddhism, and he is trying to build something new, because the old school is neither 有 or 空，china use 有 to represent �乘 theravada, 空 represent 大乘，Mahayana.

• JitKiat

  19 Dec 08, 15:35

  Empty (sunyata) means "empty of inherent existence" (空无自性). You are not the 1st one who thinks "empty " leads to misunderstanding:

  『大智度論�說：「畢竟空�是畢竟清淨，以人�空，故 言清淨�（大正二五‧五�八下）。

  何期自性本自清淨 - Hui Neng,

  If you ask the Mahyamaka people, they will interpret above as 何期自性本空