Topic: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7608
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Astus » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:10 pm

LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:43 pm
Denial itself is still a view because that’s the work of skandhas. What we want to do is surpass skandhas.
So it is, taking negation as a position is no better than taking affirmation. The question is what can help us move on from any object of clinging.

'The buddhas said “I am.”
They taught as well that self does not exist.
They also said that self
And no-self are completely nonexistent.'

(MMK 18.6, tr Padmakara)

In the end, to let go of the aggregates, to eliminate attachment, one has to recognise that they are empty. It is not really surpassing, but the end of clinging, as there is nowhere else to be beyond the aggregates.

'When you’ve left the three realms where would you go?'
(Record of Linji, p 23, tr Sasaki)
LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:59 pm
If thought is simply known as thought or view simply as view, then no issue but usually skandhas don’t keep it that simple.
Well, better not make an issue of whatever comes up, then how could one be fooled?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Simon E. » Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:13 pm

LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:59 pm
The issue here is whether we recognize grasping such as opposing to one side and holding or creating other. That would be grasping. If thought is simply known as thought or view simply as view, then no issue but usually skandhas don’t keep it that simple.
You are consistently concretising and reifying the skandhas. You seem to have internalised in part the model, but not sufficiently to see that they ARE a model, a sophisticated and workable model, but still, a model. They do not represents an absolute. Whole systems of Dharma practise exist which do not overtly reference them at all. And those systems are no less viable for it. But you pop up on Zen threads and on Dzogchen threads dragging your wee model with you. One of the results of that is you are deaf to what is being said to you by people who know Zen and Dzogchen from the inside, and who know that a degree of insight into those approaches to Dharma only begin with transcending the sutric view.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:33 pm

Thank you for replying! Astus!

Skandhas: consciousness starts, followed by intention, perceptions, and sensations (including emotions); all of those characterize delusional habits. Consciousness is to differentiate, intention is part of formations skandhas ‘the act,’ perceptions are not just one they are often associated with other perceptions in forms of mental images and projections (like when we talk about subject versus object there is some imagination there of what an object is) and run in cycle. Consciousness can involve into discerning wisdom if it doesn’t not follow by intention and other skandhas. It doesn’t have be followed by other skandhas if followed then that would be grasping. When consciousness isn’t followed by intention and other skandhas, it’s in the state of clarity or pure consciousness state. That’s where we want to be because it’s closest to “seeing” nature there. We can start training there at consciousness simply recognizes and let it not lead by other skandhas. If consciousness could clearly discern other skandhas that would good.
Make personal vows.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:39 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:13 pm
LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:59 pm
The issue here is whether we recognize grasping such as opposing to one side and holding or creating other. That would be grasping. If thought is simply known as thought or view simply as view, then no issue but usually skandhas don’t keep it that simple.
You are consistently concretising and reifying the skandhas. You seem to have internalised in part the model, but not sufficiently to see that they ARE a model, a sophisticated and workable model, but still, a model. They do not represents an absolute. Whole systems of Dharma practise exist which do not overtly reference them at all. And those systems are no less viable for it. But you pop up on Zen threads and on Dzogchen threads dragging your wee model with you. One of the results of that is you are deaf to what is being said to you by people who know Zen and Dzogchen from the inside, and who know that a degree of insight into those approaches to Dharma only begin with transcending the sutric view.
Thank you for commenting. I won’t post in Dogzchen or Tibetan again! However, you can freely post wherever you like whether it’s Zen or Mahayana. I have no issue with that. Sorry that you feel I’ve been muddling Tibetan traditions with sutric view. I am quite cool with going straight to Buddhahood practices by Dogzchen or other Tibetan traditions. I don’t have a pissing contest in mind and actual much respect for Tibetan traditions! However, if you think that people can just jump straight to nature even in Dogzchen without using anything belonging to skandhas, then there is no need for much practice is there?

We don’t have to agree, and we need not to read each other’s posts if that helps or avoid posting in each other’s posts all together. That would be a good agreement. I don’t have to put up with you and vice versa.
Make personal vows.

haha
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by haha » Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:56 am

Where does the problem lie?
“So too, friend, the eye is not the fetter of forms nor are forms the fetter of the eye, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there.

From Samyutta Nikaya
So, it can be applied in view, too.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7608
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Astus » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:25 am

LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:33 pm
It doesn’t have be followed by other skandhas if followed then that would be grasping.
There might be some terminological confusion here. The functioning of the aggregates is not a problem, furthermore, you don't (and generally can't) remove or stop the aggregates. Also, the universal mental factors (cetasika/caitasika) like feeling (vedana), perception (sanna/samjna), and volition (cetana) are always present, and they directly correspond to the first three mental aggregates.
When consciousness isn’t followed by intention and other skandhas, it’s in the state of clarity or pure consciousness state. That’s where we want to be because it’s closest to “seeing” nature there. We can start training there at consciousness simply recognizes and let it not lead by other skandhas. If consciousness could clearly discern other skandhas that would good.
The usual way to contemplate the aggregates is to recognise their individual and general characteristics, where the individual refers to the functions of the aggregate (e.g. good/bad/neutral feeling), and the general that it's impermanent, suffering, and not self. This can be done by all five of the aggregates, and that means that consciousness has no special position but it has to be recognised as just as empty and dependent as the others. Or to point to the traditional method, the cultivation of the four bases of mindfulness (satipatthana/smrtyupasthana) is the way.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Simon E. » Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:29 am

LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:39 pm
Simon E. wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:13 pm
LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:59 pm
The issue here is whether we recognize grasping such as opposing to one side and holding or creating other. That would be grasping. If thought is simply known as thought or view simply as view, then no issue but usually skandhas don’t keep it that simple.
You are consistently concretising and reifying the skandhas. You seem to have internalised in part the model, but not sufficiently to see that they ARE a model, a sophisticated and workable model, but still, a model. They do not represents an absolute. Whole systems of Dharma practise exist which do not overtly reference them at all. And those systems are no less viable for it. But you pop up on Zen threads and on Dzogchen threads dragging your wee model with you. One of the results of that is you are deaf to what is being said to you by people who know Zen and Dzogchen from the inside, and who know that a degree of insight into those approaches to Dharma only begin with transcending the sutric view.
Thank you for commenting. I won’t post in Dogzchen or Tibetan again! However, you can freely post wherever you like whether it’s Zen or Mahayana. I have no issue with that. Sorry that you feel I’ve been muddling Tibetan traditions with sutric view. I am quite cool with going straight to Buddhahood practices by Dogzchen or other Tibetan traditions. I don’t have a pissing contest in mind and actual much respect for Tibetan traditions! However, if you think that ifpeople can just jump straight to nature even in Dogzchen without using anything belonging to skandhas, then there is no need for much practice is there?

We don’t have to agree, and we need not to read each other’s posts if that helps or avoid posting in each other’s posts all together. That would be a good agreement. I don’t have to put up with you and vice versa.
If you can prevent yourself from jumping into Dzogchen or Mahamudra threads with redundant points about the skandhas, or other elements which are not germane to the topic, then you and I need never trouble each other again.
I suspect that actually you would be happier posting to the sister site Dhamma Wheel..and that’s fine. It’s horses for courses.
What is problematic is you attempting to interpret HYT, Dzogchen, Mahamudra etc etc using sutric methods of analysis.

Anyway :focus:
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:16 am

Simon E. wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:29 am
LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:39 pm
Simon E. wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 11:13 pm


You are consistently concretising and reifying the skandhas. You seem to have internalised in part the model, but not sufficiently to see that they ARE a model, a sophisticated and workable model, but still, a model. They do not represents an absolute. Whole systems of Dharma practise exist which do not overtly reference them at all. And those systems are no less viable for it. But you pop up on Zen threads and on Dzogchen threads dragging your wee model with you. One of the results of that is you are deaf to what is being said to you by people who know Zen and Dzogchen from the inside, and who know that a degree of insight into those approaches to Dharma only begin with transcending the sutric view.
Thank you for commenting. I won’t post in Dogzchen or Tibetan again! However, you can freely post wherever you like whether it’s Zen or Mahayana. I have no issue with that. Sorry that you feel I’ve been muddling Tibetan traditions with sutric view. I am quite cool with going straight to Buddhahood practices by Dogzchen or other Tibetan traditions. I don’t have a pissing contest in mind and actual much respect for Tibetan traditions! However, if you think that ifpeople can just jump straight to nature even in Dogzchen without using anything belonging to skandhas, then there is no need for much practice is there?

We don’t have to agree, and we need not to read each other’s posts if that helps or avoid posting in each other’s posts all together. That would be a good agreement. I don’t have to put up with you and vice versa.
If you can prevent yourself from jumping into Dzogchen or Mahamudra threads with redundant points about the skandhas, or other elements which are not germane to the topic, then you and I need never trouble each other again.
I suspect that actually you would be happier posting to the sister site Dhamma Wheel..and that’s fine. It’s horses for courses.
What is problematic is you attempting to interpret HYT, Dzogchen, Mahamudra etc etc using sutric methods of analysis.

Anyway :focus:
It’s cool with me that you represent Tibetan traditions and act on their behalf, and I show you respect by refraining from posting there all together. I prefer to post here unless you also represent the whole community here and really want me to leave. I too lack tolerance and patience, so I’d stick to our agreement that we don’t jump into each other posts. Also, if people have little tolerance, patience, and dicky might be best suited for sutric methods more so than the supreme methods that they can’t really understand.
Make personal vows.

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Simon E. » Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:29 am

I don’t represent anyone but myself. I am not a teacher. However it is clear that you do not understand the way that aspects of Vajrayana operate..and unless an individual has received the necessary empowerment and instruction they can’t possibly understand the issues.
By jumping into those threads you mislead yourself.
Vajrayana students with an established practise are not misled, it is obvious to them that you do not know what you are talking about on those subjects.
But you might confuse sincere seekers who read these pages for reasons other than boredom and needing acknowledgement.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by seeker242 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:45 am

LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:20 pm
Yet the knowing quality is present and infused with consciousness.
If you don't make up ideas or notions about "knowing quality", "present", "infused" or "consciousness", then where are they?
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:13 pm

seeker242 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:45 am
LastLegend wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:20 pm
Yet the knowing quality is present and infused with consciousness.
If you don't make up ideas or notions about "knowing quality", "present", "infused" or "consciousness", then where are they?
Well if you we are having a conversation, we need to use words right!
Make personal vows.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:27 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:29 am
I don’t represent anyone but myself. I am not a teacher. However it is clear that you do not understand the way that aspects of Vajrayana operate..and unless an individual has received the necessary empowerment and instruction they can’t possibly understand the issues.
By jumping into those threads you mislead yourself.
That’s fine! It depends on the practitioners you can be given empowerment and instruction and still be confused. If you think that I mislead people and create more harm, that’s cool. Regardless, I stick to my words and won’t bother to post there.

Vajrayana students with an established practise are not misled, it is obvious to them that you do not know what you are talking about on those subjects.
Now I usually don’t get it into it with people. But you are begging for a conversation. It seems to me you are still speaking on their behalf, and seems like the only who is bothered by me. But maybe I am just being a clown without knowing it.

But you might confuse sincere seekers who read these pages for reasons other than boredom and needing acknowledgement.
Like I said: we can agree not to jump into each other’s posts. I am not here to make you happy. The world doesn’t have to make you happy rather you adapt to people.
Make personal vows.

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Simon E. » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:48 pm

You are missing my point. As usual.
I would not dream of contributing to the Pure Land Land or Nicheren threads because they are not my tradition and I have received no instruction in those traditions. That seems to me to be common sense and also respectful to those traditions.
The same applies to Vajrayana and Dzogchen threads. You cannot simply apply a critique to those traditions using modalities that they themselves do not use.
Asking questions of other traditions is a good thing.
But that is not what you do. You pull out the only song you know “The Aggregates” and play it whether appropriate or not, and as a critique of posts you are not empowered to critique at all. If you want to discuss Dzogchen or Mahamudra then receive empowerment’s/pointing out and the instructions.

if you are simply interested and want to ask questions I’m sure that those questions would be welcomed.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:53 pm

Astus wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:25 am
There might be some terminological confusion here. The functioning of the aggregates is not a problem, furthermore, you don't (and generally can't) remove or stop the aggregates. Also, the universal mental factors (cetasika/caitasika) like feeling (vedana), perception (sanna/samjna), and volition (cetana) are always present, and they directly correspond to the first three mental aggregates.
I don’t really understand sutras or suttas and Sanskrit/Pali terms. I am just telling you what my teacher told me. Also, aggregates are understood as “covering.” Unless you suggest grasping is outside of aggregates or a single entity.
The usual way to contemplate the aggregates is to recognise their individual and general characteristics, where the individual refers to the functions of the aggregate (e.g. good/bad/neutral feeling), and the general that it's impermanent, suffering, and not self. This can be done by all five of the aggregates, and that means that consciousness has no special position but it has to be recognised as just as empty and dependent as the others. Or to point to the traditional method, the cultivation of the four bases of mindfulness (satipatthana/smrtyupasthana) is the way.
Whatever works for people. I am just telling what I was taught. But true all is empty. I think consciousness is aware; that also works. Sometimes my teacher asks me: what is that knows? The key here is not to answer the question ‘what’ but recognize in us the part that knows that’s not relying on aggregates. If we answer the question, that would under perceptions (projections and imagination).
Make personal vows.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:06 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:48 pm
You are missing my point. As usual.
I would not dream of contributing to the Pure Land Land or Nicheren threads because they are not my tradition and I have received no instruction in those traditions. That seems to me to be common sense and also respectful to those traditions.
The same applies to Vajrayana and Dzogchen threads. You cannot simply apply a critique to those traditions using modalities that they themselves do not use.
That’s fine and I repeat I will stay clear.
Out of respect, I won’t argue. But I want to say until we all are enlightened, we will be trapped in the five aggregates. Fact. We all use intention tell me if you start sitting to meditate without arising intention you are going to sit and meditate.

Frankly, I am not bothered by wherever you want to post. I don’t care to get it with people or even bother most of posts. But that’s personal. Out of respect, one person feels bothered by me is enough.

Asking questions of other traditions is a good thing.
But that is not what you do. You pull out the only song you know “The Aggregates” and play it whether appropriate or not, and as a critique of posts you are not empowered to critique at all. If you want to discuss Dzogchen or Mahamudra then receive empowerment’s/pointing out and the instructions.
No contest. But if you think supreme methods automatically surpass aggregates, then we all would be enlightened immediately.
if you are simply interested and want to ask questions I’m sure that those questions would be welcomed.
You don’t think that you play police right now? But I can accept that and for the last time, I do not want you to comment on my posts and I will not comment on your posts. How about that for a peaceful behavior contract? I think it’s also helpful to know each of us is imperfect as we are as a human being before we even bother with Dharma.
Make personal vows.

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Simon E. » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:26 pm

I don’t think Dzogchen or Mahamudra surpass the skandhas. Just as I do not think that Dzogchen or Mahamudra surpass shitting or breathing.
They simply don’t operate within the same modality. Not that one is superior or inferior. Just very different.
No Dzogchen teacher would deny the reality of the skandhas any more than they would deny the reality of the blood /oxygen exchange in the pulmonary system.
But...you would find many students of Dzogchen masters who have never heard their teacher mention the skandhas at all.

They operate within a different model.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:46 pm

Simon E. wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:26 pm
I don’t think Dzogchen or Mahamudra surpass the skandhas. Just as I do not think that Dzogchen or Mahamudra surpass shitting or breathing.
They simply don’t operate within the same modality. Not that one is superior or inferior. Just very different.
No Dzogchen teacher would deny the reality of the skandhas any more than they would deny the reality of the blood /oxygen exchange in the pulmonary system.
But...you would find many students of Dzogchen masters who have never heard their teacher mention the skandhas at all.

They operate within a different model.
What model would that be if you are allowed to share?

Tell you what you can sport a supreme method and meditate until you have reached a full blown nature, yet you still harbor a thought of superiority of that tradition or school, you bet that’s self and work of skandhas.

I am fine to be considered a inferior sutric approach because I practice prostration just to keep my head low and not hot.
Make personal vows.

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Simon E. » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:56 pm

Sutra and HYT are not inferior or superior to each other. Neither are they the same.
I mentioned Dzogchen teachers making little use of the skandhas model. As this thread is in the Zen section I will stick my neck out and say that I bet that there are many Zen Students who have sat for years at the feet of Zen teachers who have never mentioned the skandhas either. It’s a different way of practise. If I am wrong about that I am sure zen students will,let me know..
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by LastLegend » Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:26 pm

Correct! Don’t some Dozgchen teachers teach gentle(relaxed), firm (prevent distraction), clarity (not dull), and minor mindfulness as instruction to meditate after introduction? 1) If introduction goes straight to nature maybe perhaps, but if that’s the case then we all be enlightened. Where is that introduction really? Still at consciousness clarity! Still a skandha. 2) That instruction above make little use of other skandhas. That’s the point. Use less of them.
Make personal vows.

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Zen 6th Patriarch Statement regarding nature

Post by Simon E. » Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:42 pm

You don’t get it.
And the degree to which you don’t get it means that you don’t know that you don’t get it.

It’s actually pretty embarrassing.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

Post Reply

Return to “Zen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests