Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 201

Thread: Shaolin confused

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    uh huh.....

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn View Post
    why do u make such complex simplicity out of simple complexity?
    This from "Mr. Science Class"!

    Your teacher is a Taoist anyway, what do you know about REAL life?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    This from "Mr. Science Class"!

    Your teacher is a Taoist anyway, what do you know about REAL life?
    It's possible he has some insight on butterflies....or possibly some butterfly insight.
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Hey Guys,

    This 'everything is created by mind alone' thing.....

    ScottBrown: 'All perception occurs within the mind. Without mind to perceive it there is nothing to occur. This leads Buddhist to conclude that mind creates events. '

    I just want to interject on behalf of readers who don't know much about Zen... THis is not the only way of interpreting things.... When we say this it can be very confusing and a lot of people turn of straight away.

    Allow me to represent an interpretation;

    Certainly the reality we perceive is dependant on our ability to perceive. When we see something the act of us 'seeing' it is not the thing we see. What we see is a reflection in our mind of the thing we see. Because of the way we are constructed we can Never fully perceive anything, we rely on our senses. I.e we see a reflection in the eyes, we feel a nerve impulse as a result of touching something. When we touch a tree we are not really feeling the tree we are only feeling our minds interpretation of the tree. Yes. However this does NOT mean the tree only exists in our mind. If there was no mind to perceive it it would still exist. Only what we call a tree only exists in our minds, because the concept of the tree only exists in our minds. The true nature of the 'tree' is not perceivable to us.

    Let us take an example of a Chair. Look at a chair. Touch it. What is it that makes it a chair? Is it that we can sit on it? No, there are many things that can be sat upon that are not chairs, and a chair can be used as many things other than a seat. Is it that it is made of wood? No many things are made of wood, and a chair can be constructed of many things other than wood. Is it the shape, the structure? No, i could construct a dollhouse sized chair, it would look identical to a chair but to call it one would be a mistake as it is too small to be sat upon. So what is the Essences of Chairness? What is it to be a chair? We must come to the conclusion that there is NO single essence of a chair, the essence is only the void istself, thus the chair exists only in our minds. Here is the important point. THat is NOT to say the object we call a chair does not exist. It exists outside our mind and is a real thing. What does not exist is the concept of a chair. This only exists in our minds.

    When we think like this we do so to challenge our perceptions thus to improve our ability to understand reality and the world around us. For example if you only knew a chair could be used as a seat then you would be at a disadvantage. In the rain a chair can be shelter. In a flood it may be a raft. On a freezing night it can be fuel for the fire. In Danger it can be a weapon or a shield. To a carpenter it may be a blueprint of hundreds of years worth of carpentary evolution. This is an extremely simple example so that all can understand. The world around us is real and exists outside our minds, Zen causes us to think about the nature of this reality and why we perceive it so. Say an alien shaped like a sphere were to see a chair, it would have no concept of a chair so may only see it as the things i listed above, the fact it is a chair is invisible to it, it could not distinguish it from the other objects around it. Thus the entire construct of the world is dependant on our state of perception. That doesnt mean it is only in our minds, it means the only way we can perceive it is through our minds, and thus by improving our minds we can improve our perception of the world and thus our lives and our level.

    Awareness is utterly dependent on perception. Perception is utterly dependent on mind. Reality is real. How we perceive it is in our mind. If there is no mind to perceive then reality is still real, in fact it is uncorrupted and more real than ever. As soon as we perceive something it becomes corrupted by our minds inability to perceive.

    Rant over, hope someone read it.
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 05-11-2010 at 05:26 AM.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    It's possible he has some insight on butterflies....or possibly some butterfly insight.
    Well....according to my surveil........er observation, he does tend to flutter about!

    Do you think he might actually BE a butterfly?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    Well....according to my surveil........er observation, he does tend to flutter about!

    Do you think he might actually BE a butterfly?
    Well after the dream I had last night, I'm not certain I'm not a butterfly...
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    Well after the dream I had last night, I'm not certain I'm not a butterfly...
    after the dream I had last night, I'm pretty certain that you're not...

  8. #68
    Hi Ren,

    A very thoughtful post, and nicely said, but still a bit narrow in scope and probably not quite accurate.

    Let’s consider a few questions:

    You state that reality is real! How can you be sure? It seems, at best, all one could say is that reality "appears" to be real. But in order to determine if “reality” is indeed “real” it might be of benefit to first define what you mean by "real". Then perhaps define what you mean by "reality is real" and then what makes "reality" real.

    From the Buddhist, or at least Ch'an, perspective, phenomena that are transient in nature are NOT real, that is, not truly existent. If something is non-existent, how can it be real?

    Also Buddhism considers anything that is dependent upon anything else for its existence is NOT real! That is, anything that is codependent or mutually arising is NOT truly existent and thereby, NOT real!

    If, as you say, a tree is existent whether there is mind to perceive it or not, how can this be demonstrated? Where there is no mind there are no objects and nothing to perceive the objects. Therefore objects cannot be demonstrated to exist. If they cannot be demonstrated to exist, how can they be real?

    Absence of A mind from being present to perceive any particular object at any given moment in time is not the same thing as absence of Mind. What you are contending is absence of A mind, that is YOUR mind or MY mind, not absence of Mind. When there is NO Mind, there are NO objects. There are NO objects, because it is Mind that perceives objects in order for them to exist!

    For something to exist there must be a "thing" to perceive AND something to perceive that "thing", a "perceiving agent"! If there is no "perceiving agent" to perceive a "thing" can a "thing" be demonstrated to exist? If there is no "thing" to perceive can a "perceiving agent" be said to exist?

    It would appear they are mutually dependent and co-arising! Without “objects”, that is, “things” apparently separate from Mind, there isn’t anything to perceive. Without Mind that is separate from “objects” there is nothing present to perceive those “objects”, no “perceiving agent”.

    What we generally consider to be “real” objects are only manifestations of Mind. If Mind did not perceive objects what could exist within that mind? An object is anything that is set apart from something else, a “perceiving agent” from “that which is perceived”. If there is no separation between a "perceiving agent, and "that which is perceived" there is nothing left that exists and no reality!

    For example, imagine a mind that has no connection to what you consider to be the "real" world through sensation, no hearing, no taste, no smell, no touch. Without sensory input, there is only mind functioning of itself to create its own objects within itself. This mind would be completely ignorant of anything existing outside of itself and those “objects” could not affect that mind. If they do not affect the mind in any way, how can they be said to exist. They may exist for other minds, but they do not exist for THAT mind and there would be no way to demonstrate to THAT mind that they do exist because there is no interaction or effect on that mind in any way!

    ……something to consider!

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn View Post
    after the dream I had last night, I'm pretty certain that you're not...
    Since I was up all night, and therefore did not dream, does that make ME the butterfly?

    Or do I not exist?

    Or am I a manifestation of your dreams?

    If there is a mind that dreams are the dreams real if the mind makes up its own dreams out of itself?

    If the mind does not dream or create anything separate from itself in order to distinguish itself, does it exist?

    Prove it!!!!

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by RenDaHai View Post
    Because of the way we are constructed we can Never fully perceive anything, we rely on our senses. I.e we see a reflection in the eyes, we feel a nerve impulse as a result of touching something.
    or we (think we) "touch something" as a result of feeling a nerve impulse.

    explanation below:

    When we touch a tree we are not really feeling the tree we are only feeling our minds interpretation of the tree. Yes. However this does NOT mean the tree only exists in our mind. If there was no mind to perceive it it would still exist.
    our eyes only see color, a subjective language of our eye-consciousness translating rays of light. so we never see something outside. it only appears that way.

    our ears only hear sound, a subjective language of our ear-consciousness translating vibration. so we never hear something outside. it only seems that way.

    take and do the same with the rest of the senses.... its all subjective feeling, and not objective reality. but based on these experiences we deduce the existence of an external world, which is actually illusory.

    if we understand that, then how can we say something exists outside our consciousness? because many people have the same experience? but many people having the same subjective experience doesnt make it objective reality. some people are color-blind, some animals see only black and white. different karma. which one is correct?

    so based on what can we assert that something exists outside of our own consciousness? based on what?

    Here is the important point. THat is NOT to say the object we call a chair does not exist. It exists outside our mind and is a real thing. What does not exist is the concept of a chair. This only exists in our minds.
    based on what i have explained above, therefore the buddhist teaching is "all things are created by mind alone" (chin.: yīqiè wéi xīn zào 一切唯心造).

    a school that deals with this in greatly minute detail is called weishi (consciousness-only) in chinese. it is the chinese version of the yogacara school founded by xuanzang fashi.

    it is basically the teaching of correct dependent origination, which is not the 12 links of dependent origination as taught in classical buddhism. the heart sutra tears that apart, along the whole of hinayana style teachings. negating from the 5 aggregates, 18 sense realms, 12 links of dependent origination, to even the 4 noble truths!

    mahayana dependent origination is exactly "mind alone". so the four noble truths in the heart sutra; "there is no suffering, accumulation, cessation, nor path". why? because from the beginning "suffering" is a fabrication of the mind alone.

    look and you will not find this suffering thing. it is emptiness, like space. as bodhidharma said in the bloodstream sermon; "space has a name, but no form. its not something you can pick up or put down. and you certainly cant grab it".

    chan/zen is a mahayana school. the teaching is the same. only saying "mind" is already a mistake. so chan/zen masters dont allow thinking answers and break their student's dependence upon words to directly see, clearly. in one split second.

    nonetheless, as long as we are living humans we have this karma to see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and think. but seeing clearly we can just endure without grasping.

    seeing clearly, hearing clearly...

    then when someone is hungry, we give them food. thirsty, we give them drink. suffering, we just help.

    thats already "enlightenment" enough.

    anyway... peace!
    Last edited by LFJ; 05-11-2010 at 04:09 PM. Reason: spelling

  11. #71
    Very nicely said LFJ.....

    I think the only comment I would make is, karma is created by attachment. Where there is no attachment, there is no karma. That is not to say that there are no "world system" consequences to actions, but these are not "properly" considered karma!

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    Very nicely said LFJ.....

    I think the only comment I would make is, karma is created by attachment. Where there is no attachment, there is no karma. That is not to say that there are no "world system" consequences to actions, but these are not "properly" considered karma!
    okay, how about vipaka then.

  13. #73
    Hi LFJ,

    I would consider that "world system" effects from causes, which are not the same thing as karma, in this instance!

    When I touch something hot, if it is too hot, I will burn! This is "world system" cause and effect, the laws of physics. The consequence of burning your hand on something hot does not follow one throughout their life or from life to life if the event is absent emotional and mental attachment. If one attaches to the event then the effect may follow one throughout both this life and the next and this IS karma as I mean it in this instance. This is the kind of karma that interferes with direct unobstructed perception/seeing, not the "world system", cause and effect, karma!

    When I am referring to karma here, I am speaking of spiritual karma! The consequences of emotional or mental attachment to illusory objects. When there is no emotional or mental attachment, there is no karma, that is, the consequences do not follow one from life to life or throughout this life in a spiritual way, but physical/material consequences may follow one within this life!

    When the the Emperor of Wei asked Bodhidharma what merits he had gained from ordaining monks, building temples, etc. He was told, "None at all!". The benefits the Emperor gained were all "world system" benefits, subject to the cause and effect relationship created by society and its arbitrary expectations and value system. When we perform actions considered "good" we are commonly rewarded in some manner, usually by honor and respect, but sometimes also with material rewards as well. This is "world system" karma, cause and effect!

    But none of those actions were of any benefit in directly perceiving absent mental obstruction, which is caused by attachment to objects/phenomena. The Emperor of Wei had attachments, one of which was to gaining merits and his attachments prevented his direct unobstructed perception/seeing!
    Last edited by Scott R. Brown; 05-11-2010 at 04:40 PM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ᏌᏂᎭᎢ, ᏥᎾ
    Posts
    3,257
    yes, i see. "world system" cause & effect is still valid. however, my comment on karma in the post to rendahai was actually speaking of vipaka, the results of past karma, being here now.

    so even though this external world is illusory (all things are created by mind alone), nonetheless we as humans still see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and cognize in this human way.

    but yes, as bodhidharma said; "regardless of what we do, karma has no hold on us".

    so when you see, just see. when you hear, just hear. whatever you are doing, just do it.

  15. #75
    I see, thank you for taking the time to explain your meaning more clearly!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •