« The longer and better route | Main | Even Buddhists have Kumarés »

March 21, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Is that right? He doesn't seem to think that the Lanka uses the tetralemma dialectical of the Madyamika. That's a little strange. But if I hang out with you and your friends who have all had low level enlightenment experiences, can I ask Charles Manson for his autograph? Or would that be rude?

Steven, if I were you and just´ve been tasting the Hammer coming down on me from bodhiratna, I would contemplate all possible meanings of the phrase, "silent as the grave".

He is one of those sentients I told u about...(grins)

Steve wrote:

"No it isn't. It is an attempt to communicate. With the understanding that while assertions make all ambiguous, we communicate using words like Mind or Empty or Void to point to at the inconceivable."


->> Master Lin-chi says one has to truly be the 'first rated fellow' in order to practice Buddhism. One's own mind has to vibrate with the One-Mind. No communication or words need to be expressed.

Again, what does it mean when a master opens his mouth and says: "the cypress tree in the courtyard"? but to a first rated fellow, he understands it quite well!

(link to Lin-chi's Teaching, http://www.angelfire.com/space2/light11/diction/linchi.html#lc5)


Steve then wrote:

"Moreover, I think that using conventional logic is something that is encouraged BY the Lanka so that ultimately the knowledge gained thereby can transcend itself. It is pointing at the ultimacy of the meditative experience over logic, but it is not saying that one shouldn't use logic."


->> The Lanka, I must sorry to say, was not intended to be read by the 'common folks'. And show me where in the Lanka it encouraged using conventional logic?

One can read it hundred thousand times but without the sustaining power of the Buddha (also mentioned in the Lanka), one can never attain its true meaning that leads to mind illumination.

(Link to Lanka, http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm)


Then finally, Steve wrote:

"My original point restated in a different way is that often when I read the Zennist, it sounds like he is saying that the world is "nothing but mind" or that it is "made of mind only". And that if this is the case, then it is counter to the principle of the Middle Way against all one-sided extremes and reductionist statements, and would be confusing a metaphor (i.e. a figure of speech used to approximate, and not describe, reality) with reality itself. And tohe use the Lanka to justify such a reductionist statement would be counter to the point of the Lanka."


->> The author wrote the same thing as stated in the Lanka, no conflict there. Here is an excerpt lifted from the url above:

"Further, Mahāmati, those who, afraid of sufferings arising from the discrimination of birth-and-death, seek for Nirvana, do not know that birth-and-death and Nirvana are not to be separated the one from the other; and, seeing that all things subject to discrimination have no reality, imagine that Nirvana consists in the future annihilation of the senses and their fields. (62) They are not aware, Mahāmati, of the fact that Nirvana is the Ālayavijñāna where a revulsion takes place by self-realisation. Therefore, Mahāmati, those who are stupid talk of the trinity of vehicles and not of the state of Mind-only where there are no images. Therefore, Mahāmati, those who do not understand the teachings of the Tathagatas of the past, present, and future, concerning the external world, which is of Mind itself, cling to the notion that there is a world outside what is seen of the Mind and, Mahāmati, go on rolling themselves along the wheel of birth-and-death."


Again, I advise you not to read the Lanka anymore. It can lead to confusion and it can create more sufferings to one own's mind.

It is like a 2 year old child looking at the college calculus textbook and trying to figure out what it is...........well, it is rather an overly exaggerated example but this is precisely what the Lanka to some people.

I don't think the pope has capacity to understand it either!


Bodhiratna

Bodhihiratna,

You wrote: "In Steve's comment, he said: "Mind is beyond existence or nonexistence." < this is nothing but his own discriminated and habitual belief that 'Mind' is some sort of object that exists or ceases to exist!"

No it isn't. It is an attempt to communicate. With the understanding that while assertions make all ambiguous, we communicate using words like Mind or Empty or Void to point to at the inconceivable.

Moreover, I think that using conventional logic is something that is encouraged BY the Lanka so that ultimately the knowledge gained thereby can transcend itself. It is pointing at the ultimacy of the meditative experience over logic, but it is not saying that one shouldn't use logic.

My original point restated in a different way is that often when I read the Zennist, it sounds like he is saying that the world is "nothing but mind" or that it is "made of mind only". And that if this is the case, then it is counter to the principle of the Middle Way against all one-sided extremes and reductionist statements, and would be confusing a metaphor (i.e. a figure of speech used to approximate, and not describe, reality) with reality itself. And tohe use the Lanka to justify such a reductionist statement would be counter to the point of the Lanka.

Hi Azanshi,

I too was pointing out the divil in your head with the one in my head as well. Thats all.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo