all i know is that each of us has all the answers we seek in life.Originally Posted by Drake
har har har
all i know is that each of us has all the answers we seek in life.
Registered User
Hi LFJ,
Well I would say that you are the one that is over-analyzing. It is clear you are trying very hard to make the quote say what you want it to say, because it does not agree with The Blood Sutra. There is no need to resolve the conflicts in these sutras. All Sutras and teachings are merely provisional and by being provisional they will of necessity teach what appears to be opposing principles. Provisional means not set in stone, not firmly established. Each of them is an expedient means and each one is subject to the clinging of readers who overly attach themselves to their teachings. No teaching is indispensable.
Understanding does not come from the sutras or teachers it comes from direct perception.
I am certainly not trying to insist that anyone should NOT have a teacher. However, attachment to ANYTHING binds us to delusion. That includes attachment to the need for a teacher or any particular teaching. Reinterpreting any teaching to say what we want it to say is indicative of attachment.
I am only using quotes here because it appears you appreciate them, for referring to sutras and teachings are unnecessary where there is direct perception/experience. I would not expect anyone to fully understand anything until they have direct perception/experience.
Teachings should not be taken too literally or they lead to further clinging. When we attach ourselves to teachers and teachings we mistake the finger for the moon, which is why they are considered provisional. There are many ways to point, which is expedient means. Fixed teachings of any kind bind the mind to delusion.
There are no teachings! There are no teachers. Until this is understood one is bound by the teachings and by teachers.
One of the salient points of the Diamond Sutra is that phenomena are NOT the labels we use to designate them. Thus, teachers are not teachers, they are just CALLED teachers! Teachings are not teachings, they are just CALLED teachings.
The Diamond Sutra:
“….there was no formula by which the Tathagata attained the consummation of incomparable enlightenment.”
“…there is actually no formula for the attainment of the consummation of incomparable enlightenment.”
Fixed teachings are formulas. The Blood Sutra is a formula; The Sutra of Hui-neng is a formula; The Diamond Sutra is a formula. Stating a teaching or teacher is necessary is a formula.
Lin Chi:
"Outside the mind there is no Dharma, and even inside the mind it cannot be grasped. So what is there to seek for?"
"Seeking Buddha, seeking Dharma - that's just creating karma that leads to hell. Seeking the bodhisattva - that too is creating karma. Studying sutras, studying doctrine - that too is creating karma."
“Students don’t have enough faith in themselves, and so they rush around looking for something outside themselves. But even if they get something, all it will be is words and phrases, pretty appearances.”
“If you want to be no different from the patriarchs and the Buddhas, then never look for something outside yourselves.”
“A true student of the Way never concerns himself with the Buddha, never concerns himself with bodhisattvas or arhats…..”
“Neither in this world nor in any other world is there any Buddha or any Dharma.”
“Followers of the Way, don’t be too taken with my pronouncements either. Why? Because pronouncements are without basis or underpinning, something painted for a time on empty sky, as in the simile of the painter with his colors.”
“Bodhisattvas and arhats are all so many cangues and chains, things for fettering people.”
Followers of the Way, don’t search for anything in written words.”
“Seek the Buddha and you’ll lose the Buddha. Seek the Way and you’ll lose the Way. Seek the patriarchs and you’ll lose the patriarchs.”
har har har
it's amazing how many people fail to understand this...
Registered User
Well I think LFJ will need to speak to that for himself, but it appears to me he understands that, he just believes that one must have a teacher point it out for them, or at least that most people need it pointed out to them.
This appears to be a very prevalent belief amongst followers of the Ch'an tradition.
It is absolutely unnecessary, but you can't convince people of this. They must learn it for themselves. But then this is true of any direct knowledge experience. I can tell you what an orange tastes like, but that information does you no good in understanding the taste of an orange until you taste an orange for yourself.
Until you taste an orange for yourself, at best you can be an expert on what others have said about the taste of an orange. But even then, once you taste an orange, your ability to communicate that experience to others will be limited by your ability to communicate. And no communication ability supersedes that actual taste of an orange!
har har har
well i am glad i know what this orange tastes like.
Itinerant practitioner
How many people fail to understand it?
I personally don't find it amazing at all. People don't want to apply these principles to their own living.
Why do you think they don't want to be able to do that?
Why do people not want to heal themselves and be better people?
That's what is more amazing to me. People know they have answers within, but many don't bother to go looking there.
It's normal I think. Many simply want to be loved and taken care of. They want to be brought back into the safety of their childhood to some extent and not take responsibility for themselves or their lives in general.
It's too hard I guess. no ego stroke, no gummy bear reward, just more fetch wood carry water.
Actually, I am more understanding of why people are intellectually, spiritually and philosophically lazy than why they aren't.
people who take on the burden of sustaining themselves are few and far between.
Kung Fu is good for you.
Registered User
actually the previous quote was also said by huineng.
first, if we fail to understand by ourselves we will have to find a teacher. and then later, that their instruction would be useless if we remain attached to our false views.
what conflict do you see in this? all i see is that you must do it. there's nothing the teacher can give you.
thats the first thing my teacher said to me meeting before chan class. he said "what do you want to learn?" "there is nothing i have that i can give you."
i understand his point. so no, i dont see a conflict between the two statements.
which is why it doesnt stop with just the first quote, that if we fail to understand on our own we will need to find a teacher. but also that their instruction is useless if we dont use it to point at our practice, to look at what we are.Understanding does not come from the sutras or teachers it comes from direct perception.
i only said if one fails to understand on their own, which is the quote of bodhidharma and huineng.
but that most people need it pointed out to them, that comes from an observation of most religious practitioners i meet. whether buddhist or other. many times its all about accumulation of knowledge- from the study of their religious texts or whatever it is. in most traditions people make a habit of turning it into an intellectual pursuit. but thats a human.
how many people do you know that really live like that? david jamieson makes a point here.
in my experience of the chan tradition, i've never had a teacher try to explain to me what an orange tastes like. have you?This appears to be a very prevalent belief amongst followers of the Ch'an tradition.
It is absolutely unnecessary, but you can't convince people of this. They must learn it for themselves. But then this is true of any direct knowledge experience. I can tell you what an orange tastes like, but that information does you no good in understanding the taste of an orange until you taste an orange for yourself.
all they ever do is bite into it and smile. so they encourage our practice and show us a direction. but thats all. and that in itself is not interesting.
anyhow, as you say: that information does you no good in understanding the taste of an orange until you taste an orange for yourself.
you've restated the quote and same explanation. but still you want to say we are somehow in disagreement, or that there is some "conflict" there. ?
Registered User
Well I guess I owe you an apology LFJ! Apparently I have misunderstood you. I appreciate your patience re-explaining to me your opinion!
My apologies to you!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote