Existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
User avatar
Dechen Norbu
Posts: 2986
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:50 pm

Re: Existence

Post by Dechen Norbu » Thu May 16, 2019 11:26 am

Rick wrote:
Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:30 am
Per Buddhism, what does "to exist" mean? Can this be answered (satisfactorily) without reference to the two truths? If so, please do. :namaste:
That depends. For Theravadins phenomena have ultimate existence, while the self doesn't, to put it simply.
In the context of Mahayana, no.
I mean, you may avoid using the words, but that doesn't matter.
Saying that something exists or not is only valid in the context of loka samvriti satya, provisional or conventional truth.
A chair exists. Sit on one and you can confirm this easily.
A flying blue hippopotamus doesn't not. Hippopotamus are neither blue, nor can they fly. So the later is untrue (asatya).
But these conventional truths obscure a more profound truth, the ultimate.
Then things get more complex when it comes to the exact interpretation of paramartha satya, ultimate or absolute truth. There are variations among schools. Some dispense the two truths entirely. Whatever the case, it's never conceptual. Intellectually you may try to gain some understanding, mostly by knowing what it isn't, but it is always conceptually absurd. So there's no surprise about the multiple intellectual interpretations about it, right?
Until we get proper training and spend thousands of hours practicing, all this won't be more than a neat philosophy or a matter of blind faith. It doesn't do us much good.

White Lotus
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Existence

Post by White Lotus » Thu May 16, 2019 1:03 pm

have you lost all personal feeling?
by this I wonder whether there is a "personal" feeling to the universe which you are, and yet are not. if you are nothing then you should have no personal feeling at all.

when I look at the universe it has no personal feeling attached to it. you could say that the mirror has been smashed. however when I focus on myself there is now a personal feeling. that personal feeling is emptiness. Buddha nature is emptiness. true self is emptiness. I am emptiness.

if I attach to 'me' there is still ego, if however I am not attached to me... I let it go then that is good. I is nirvana/emptiness and yet don't abide in it.
What do you think Tom or not Tom?
Tom is too impersonal... I think that "I am" is better or... who is Tom: "me".

to me I is empty and yet is 1. In the Complete Enlightenment Sutra it says that "when 'I' is void it is beyond slander". it also says that "I is nirvana", but to have nirvana without abiding there must be no attachment to the true self/I.

I appreciate you'r patience with me Muni. I am exploring my experience of Prajna. I genuinely see my own nature as I, a presence that is empty and yet 1. it is very good of you Muni to be so patient with me. thank you. a true expression of compassion.

if one attaches to 'I' then there is ego and there can be offense caused if that I is attacked. if however that I is not offended under attack then it is true self and empty.

I will read Sun Wu's poem and you'r article carefully Muni.
What do you think Tom or not Tom?
Tom is emptiness. Buddha nature is emptiness. I am emptiness and yet real. :anjali:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

muni
Posts: 4654
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Existence

Post by muni » Fri May 17, 2019 8:42 am

if I attach to 'me' there is still ego, if however I am not attached to me... I let it go then that is good. I is nirvana/emptiness and yet don't abide in it.

if one attaches to 'I' then there is ego and there can be offense caused if that I is attacked. if however that I is not offended under attack then it is true self and empty.
Thank you for your explanation, making it clear here above.

I see, nature like it appears-is cannot be offended, while ….There is then by attachment - by habits, an inner powerful reaction, or tense arising. This tense gives rise to actions of same quality. ( it is like an itch what need quick a scratch) Justice or rightness is such sometimes called. But is falling in confusion.

It is good to have patience, or it would at least help me to learn not to fall into grasping thought and solidifying an upcoming mental image/sensation triggered by emotion. This working of mind turns then into "other" (= an independence) which is then followed with confused action.
Patience, tolerance, compassion-in interconnections, probably can become more easier by repeatedly practices. Compassion, oh yes, I remember now this: when compassion is there; judgement is absent, when judgement is there; compassion is absent. This regarding the very misperceiving experience - what is turning into "an other independence" out there what needs a shower. Minds' working is magic.

I genuinely see my own nature as I, a presence that is empty and yet 1.
What is 1? 1 what? Empty 1?
I think to see based on your preceding writing, (inter)dependence-emptiness inseparability, this empty net of Indra, excluding nothing/none, all inclusive. So nothing to label. :meditate: Since in order to label there must be grasping => perception of mind of something independent directly is.

This because we identify with what is the basis of wrong view or misperception!


Correct me if wrong, please.

The smashed mirror is example of unsubstantial nature. Here as well there must pop up something solid, to be able to label. ( existence)

No abiding you said as well. That is like a drop falling in the ocean. The drop is not lost. The drop is ocean. All empty drops nicely together. No drop is abiding. There is not any longer a drop knowing "about" the ocean. Anyway I try to bear in mind the limitations of language and never grasp it as real.

Thank you, White Lotus. :anjali:
*Om Mani Peme Hung*

White Lotus
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Existence

Post by White Lotus » Mon May 20, 2019 11:42 am

I genuinely see my own nature as I, a presence that is empty and yet 1.
What is 1? 1 what? Empty 1?
own nature as the masters say is 'within'. it is a presence one sees within ones body. it is empty. since it is within and not external there is a separation from the external world and so it is 1. separate. emptiness is a presence and so it should not be confused with nothingness. emptiness is like radiant space. own nature or original self is like this. original self appears when the personal feeling of the universe has vanished. ultimate extinction of the universe leading to the empty presence of the original self, 1.

The smashed mirror is example of unsubstantial nature. Here as well there must pop up something solid, to be able to label. ( existence)
when we see the universe we see an aspect of the Dharmakaya. when the Dharmakaya ceases to be personal. it ceases to be oneself. it is smashed.
in a way the only thing that exists is the original self/emptiness. original nature is personal when the universe is impersonal. "I am" and yet I don't see myself as the summer, nor am I the ant. I am separate. I am 1. only the original self. Dharmakaya is smashed, only personal Buddha nature remains. perhaps 'i' am is the summer and the ant. only I don't personally experience it as so. at one time in the past I did.

No abiding you said as well. That is like a drop falling in the ocean. The drop is not lost. The drop is ocean. All empty drops nicely together.
there is a time when one becomes the ocean of the Dharmakaya. when one is all things. however, now I am not all things I am just I am, just 1. you are 'I am', everyone is 'I am' unless they have eliminated own nature. every I am is 1 I am. I am is not an ocean, it is unique and personal, discrete and limited. yet, I would say that without I am there is no original self. I am is original self. or just I.

this is returning to ones origin.

i will read you'r post carefully now Muni.

have a nice day!! best wishes, Tom x :anjali:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

muni
Posts: 4654
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Existence

Post by muni » Mon May 20, 2019 12:38 pm

What are you now playing?
own nature as the masters say is 'within'. it is a presence one sees within ones body. it is empty. since it is within and not external there is a separation from the external world and so it is 1. separate. emptiness is a presence and so it should not be confused with nothingness. emptiness is like radiant space. own nature or original self is like this. original self appears when the personal feeling of the universe has vanished. ultimate extinction of the universe leading to the empty presence of the original self, 1.

By looking within, the focus on in-out vanishes completely. No separation at all. Then no 1 no 2 no many ...........undescribable radiant space. Dharmakaya Sambhogakaya Nirmanakaya inseparable, are essence kaya. Not just emptiness.
when we see the universe we see an aspect of the Dharmakaya. when the Dharmakaya ceases to be personal. it ceases to be oneself. it is smashed.
in a way the only thing that exists is the original self/emptiness. original nature is personal when the universe is impersonal. "I am" and yet I don't see myself as the summer, nor am I the ant. I am separate. I am 1. only the original self. Dharmakaya is smashed, only personal Buddha nature remains. perhaps 'i' am is the summer and the ant. only I don't personally experience it as so. at one time in the past I did.

Dharmakaya is not a one, personal or impersonal, or any opposing whatever, cannot be smashed, ceases never to be this or that.

Smash your mirror of personally separate 1.

No universe can be impersonal while a self personal or that must be the description of being ego.

x :namaste:
*Om Mani Peme Hung*

White Lotus
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Existence

Post by White Lotus » Tue May 21, 2019 11:56 am

Dear Muni, about existence... it is neither real nor unreal? yes. we cant say it is real. nor can we say it is unreal. to take either position would be a judgement and so would deny the emptiness of all things. to even talk about emptiness and illusory/magical nature is a judgement. taking a dual position.

we can't reject that existence is real. nor can we assert that existence is real, this is because either position is a judgement dependent on words and not actuality. grasping at words falls short of things as they are.

if I pops up or 1 is seen, these are both picked and chosen, picking and choosing 1 is to fall into judgement and dualistic thinking and so is unhelpful. in the same way, when 'this' arises it will cease, so should not be picked.

I am trying to understand your logic and if I understand it correctly find that it is in the zen teaching of non duality. profound.

not a single word have you spoken Muni? yes. thought or words are not grounded in actuality. grasping words is not helpful.

im sorry for the nonsense I was spouting in my previous post, if it is nonsense!

bless you Muni!

rgds, Tom x :anjali:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Existence

Post by White Lotus » Tue May 21, 2019 12:09 pm

By looking within, the focus on in-out vanishes completely. No separation at all.
in a sense yes, because the focus of attention can only be on one thing at a time and so there is no awareness of separation on of the object of observation. in this case emptiness.
essence kaya. Not just emptiness.
surely essence is emptiness, emptiness is essence. then again that's a conceptual approach. essence kaya could be aware nothing, whilst emptiness just emptiness?
Dharmakaya is not a one, personal or impersonal, or any opposing whatever, cannot be smashed, ceases never to be this or that.
non-dual. therefore not one, nor two, neither smashed nor unsmashed. not this nor that (dual). not even emptiness?


an ego is something that grasps and won't let go. if there is no clinging there is no ego?

then again, if we talk about I we have picked and chosen something above everything else, we reify something. and that is not helpful. I should be held to lightly. not rejected, nor asserted.

best wishes, Tom x :anjali:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

muni
Posts: 4654
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Existence

Post by muni » Wed May 22, 2019 8:38 am

Best wishes Tom x :anjali:

Investigation heart sutra:
1) “Form is emptiness.” If we break a form down to the atomic level, we will lose the gross features of that form, and it will no longer be identifiable as the object we started with. And, as we saw in our discussion of the form aggregate, we can further subdivide these atoms into subatomic particles, or “partless atoms” as they are called in Buddhist philosophical terminology. When we do that, the form changes yet again.
Take this watch, for instance. All of us can see it. But if we break the watch into smaller parts, its identity as a solid, independently existing thing disappears. We cannot find a single “watch” among these various parts anymore. Thus it is with all phenomena. We see and feel that they exist until we begin to investigate and analyze them with our certainty wisdom [nges shes]. So, what is the nature of these phenomena? On the subatomic level, we see that all phenomena co-mingle inseparably with great emptiness. In other words, the ultimate, empty ground within which these countless “seeming-particles” arise is the basic reality of the phenomenal world.
It is not as though form and emptiness are two independently existing things, like “right” and “left.” Avalokiteshvara explains to Shāriputra that form is emptiness, rather than saying form is like emptiness, or form becomes emptiness, or used to be emptiness. He did this so students would avoid the mistaken views of eternalism and nihilism, which make form or emptiness into some kind of dualistic absolute. When we are liberated from clinging to forms, we will experience them as merely appearing instead of solidly existing. All appearances are empty from the beginning.

(2) “Emptiness is form.” Avalokiteshvara clarifies this idea with his second statement, the reverse of the first one. Emptiness cannot be separated from form any more than form can be separated from emptiness. Just as the nature of form is emptiness, the expression of emptiness is form. Emptiness is not a state of nothingness or a black hole, as put forth by the nihilistic view; rather, emptiness and form coexist in the same state. We could say that emptiness is the state of openness that allows things to manifest through dependent arising. Knowing this frees us from attachment to the relative appearances of the phenomenal world, including the non-existence of death and time.

(3) “Form is none other than emptiness.” At this point, you might be thinking there are two different things—form and emptiness—that exist in a unified state, both existence and nonexistence somehow forged together. Avalokiteshvara intends to free us from that notion in his third statement. Such a concept does not reflect the ultimate level of truth, because it represents some degree of clinging and fixation to the idea that there are two different, independent entities that have been joined together. The solidity of form and the “nothingness” of emptiness are only apparent, so it is incorrect to say that concrete existence and absolute nonexistence are in some way melded together. In the state free from all extreme concepts, emptiness and form have always existed inseparably, as one.

(4) “Emptiness is none other than form.” We have now seen that the very ideas of “existence” and “nonexistence” are faulty and extreme. Nevertheless, in his final statement, Avalokiteshvara wants us to know that we have still not transcended clinging, for the idea that existence and nonexistence do not exist is itself an extreme position. This axiom makes it impossible for us to hold on to any dualistic notions whatsoever. We are cut loose from the cycle of the subject-object duality to rest in the state of great equanimity, the state of simplicity, the great completion.

To summarize: (1) axiom one cuts attachment to things as substantially existent; (2) axiom two cuts attachment to things as substantially nonexistent; (3) axiom three cuts attachment to things as both existent and nonexistent; and (4) axiom four cuts attachment to things as neither existent nor nonexistent. These four statements include the whole scope of ideas a sentient being could have about existence and nonexistence. Again, things must either exist or not exist; or they must somehow exist and not exist simultaneously; or, finally, they must neither exist nor not exist.
Buddhism explains that the true nature is utterly beyond words, beyond the narrow limits of our imagination. If this were not the case, we could simply define it with our ordinary mind by means of one of these four statements. Therefore, Avalokiteshvara expresses the ultimate nature of the form aggregate as something inexpressible.” Venerable Rinpoches.

Gratitude for blessings.
*Om Mani Peme Hung*

muni
Posts: 4654
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Existence

Post by muni » Tue May 28, 2019 9:19 am

Dear White Lotus,

Perhaps words are just of same nature the mind can recognize to wake up: compounded fabrications. Mind is able to grasp these, as pointing to see its grasping.

Nonsense you wrote, indeed, my mind sees nonsense everywhere, just everywhere, but not its own grasping.

:anjali:
*Om Mani Peme Hung*

WesleyP
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:20 am

Re: Existence

Post by WesleyP » Fri May 31, 2019 2:44 pm

Isn't 20th century existential philosophy? . . . You know talking about Existence. :reading:

White Lotus
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Existence

Post by White Lotus » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:12 am

when awareness is seen in its non duality then it is known that all things are non dual. looking at the object I see the subject. looking at the subject I see the object. so there is no longer subject and object. within-without indescribable, no longer dual.

thank you dear Muni. I cracked the shell of original self and have emerged into non dual awareness. the knowledge you gave me and my intention were enough to go from original self to non dual awareness. I can no longer claim to see original self. if I say that there is neither self nor no self that is unhelpful and dualistic thinking.

because of non dual awareness I now have faith in non-duality. I no longer see own nature. the feeling of non dual awareness is neither personal nor impersonal. not born - unborn. not enlightened - deluded. not subject - object. all these words are judgements and miss the truth which is not truth. it is ineffable/wordless.

Muni. we say that words are fabrications. are perceptions all fabrications too? perceptions-words are a duality. can we make a judgement about words and perceptions? it seems that whatever I say is inaccurate.

if I say that all is "unreal-real", I am playing with judgement. the four propositions and 100 negations make it impossible to say anything accurate.

Muni, do we become like children, not knowing anything in particular, but playing with all things that we like. Professor Suzuki said that knowledge is the problem when we are talking about spiritual truth. that knowledge is ignorance. knowledge - ignorance.

Thank you so Much Muni for you'r compassionate guidance to me. I was wrong to assert true self/I and 1. and yet I am free to assert them if I want to.
All play!!!

I have been wrong twice now! I spoke about 'this' and now I have ditched my experience of True self (I) in favour of non dual awareness. how much I have to learn!

best wishes with gratitude, Tom x

Thanks Muni!!! :anjali:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Existence

Post by White Lotus » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:03 am

Dear Muni, I would like to share an idea with you. it seems that you are not practicing any more, but surely that's a heavy weight for you to carry. I would say 'just', just just, just just just. just meditate, just don't meditate, just have a barbecue, just be a vegetarian, just come, just stay, just go, just eat, just sleep, just think, just perceive, just speak, just silent. just. be free to just practice if you want to. its all just play.

if a master says that you cannot meditate any more and must give up all practice, he is binding you up in heavy chains. just do what you feel comfortable with. if you want to practice, just practice. if you don't want to practice, don't practice. you have gone beyond all dualities and judgements. you are free. why chain yourself to non practice. if however your practice is a heavy weight why practice? just be Muni.

you probably know this already!
Therefore, Avalokiteshvara expresses the ultimate nature of the form aggregate as something inexpressible.” Venerable Rinpoches.
yes, there is absolutely nothing we can say about form - emptiness that is not play, and we cant take it seriously!

:anjali:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

muni
Posts: 4654
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Existence

Post by muni » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:05 am

yes, there is absolutely nothing we can say about form - emptiness that is not play, and we cant take it seriously!
Thank you!

You talk like Drukpa Kunley. You tell me that not practising binds and practice binds. Because both have the "me" doing nothing- lost then in its fabrications, or the "me" doing something this or that with effort with a wanted or an expected result at the end of the path-tunnel.
You say it is all play, binding or not binding. Thinking-talking about is just missing the boat? I miss the boat!

Perhaps practice is very necessary to recognize "me"- forced practices? Me-me-me doing having-me-me....

I like to share, on my trip now, there were some words which I could not understand, I took a picture and tried to find out at home what they mean. "The first part is: to advance you need to turn back."

Then something about light and shadow. I make my own fabrication about, here it is: lost in fabrications, they are the shadow covering the light.

"Professor Suzuki said that knowledge is the problem when we are talking about spiritual truth". All I know: Suzuki is a motorbike.
When real and unreal both
Are absent from
before the mind,
Nothing else remains for mind to do
But rest in perfect peace,
From concept free.
~ Shantideva
To advance you need to turn back.

:anjali:
*Om Mani Peme Hung*

Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grigoris and 54 guests