Posts by Joseph Davis5

placidharbor7 said:Whose school is this, and what exactly are they teaching?

It doesn't really belong to anyone. It teaches how to become a realized individual on the Way.

placidharbor7 said:What exactly is that "real" guy doing over there? 🙄

I asked the same thing once. They just told me, "see for yourself."

placidharbor7 said:So, what exactly qualifies as a "real" job in your book?👋

If you're living over in Astoria, it’s not even that much of a trek. Just hop on the uptown R train, get off at Grand Ave, walk a few blocks, and look for 90-56 Corona Ave. Find the guy there...

I need to add a few points to what Parsifal mentioned here.
First off, if she claims there is a permanent loss of the skandhas, then she hasn't quite grasped the teaching on the five aggregates.
The skandhas aren't independent, fixed entities; they are merely provisional concepts Buddha used to describe the nature of a sentient being. In discussions regarding the five aggregates (pancaskandhaka), we identify them as 1. form, 2. sensation, 3. mental formations, 4. perception, and 5. consciousness.
From a relative standpoint, one could argue that even Buddha, following enlightenment, didn't permanently lose his body, his senses—sight, touch, etc.—his feelings, or his consciousness.
In an absolute sense, however, the Sutras state that
the five skandhas are empty. This means there is actually nothing to be lost, since the term "skandha" is just a temporary label.
I'm not trying to question the depth or validity of Bernadette Roberts' experience, but simply "seeing one's nature" isn't the end of the road; it’s the actual beginning.

My old teacher once said this after a solid Zen retreat where two practitioners had their experiences of seeing their true nature confirmed: "Whatever they choose to do with it is
up to them. I know people for whom it results in a Zen embarrassment rather than Zen enlightenment."
Similarly, we can only hope that Bernadette Roberts knows how to handle her experience.
As one Chan master put it: "Now that you have it, you'd better take good care of it."
Or even better, as another said: "With Great Enlightenment, I gained absolutely nothing—and that's exactly why it's called Great Unsurpassed Enlightenment!"

Seeker Aaaaaaah said:True, but all this talk about other people's enlightenment experiences is just blind men describing the light...

Spot on. But what else are the blind left to do besides talk, until the day they finally see? When people are sick, they do everything in their power to find a cure. They swap stories about their ailments and the experiences of those who recovered, all just to find a remedy for themselves and those they love. Sometimes, they actually succeed.
I don't know what your issue is or where this anger is coming from, but there isn't a better way to do things on this forum.👋

Seeker Aaaaaaah said:I don't get it. I really don't. Where does this urge come from—writing with such absolute certainty about things you clearly know nothing about?
t

It’s not quite true that nothing is known. Over the last 2,500 years, a massive amount has been said, and people are still talking.

Interesting discussion.
Buddha definitely didn't experience Nothingness if hiddenpuma75 means the negation of all things in a nihilistic sense. The experience of non-self doesn't exclude the world in a conventional sense; rather, it fundamentally shifts how the world is perceived. When discussing emptiness, we aren't talking about the nothingness of all things, but rather the emptiness of inherent properties—meaning nothing exists as a self-contained entity (Atman).
In Zen or Chan, this experience is called the vision of nature, and it represents only the very beginning of true practice.
When discussing the stages of practice in Zen and Buddhism, there are several different "divisions." The Avatamsaka Sutra speaks of ten stages, and someone here mentioned the "Ten Oxherding Pictures."
It should be noted that in both cases, only the second or third stage (if I recall correctly) refers specifically to the vision of nature or non-self.
Similarly, initial practice is divided into four general stages:
1. The scattered mind of a beginner, susceptible to surroundings.
2. The concentrated mind of a practitioner, actively engaging with the environment.
3. One Mind, or the Great Mind (the Great Self, where the boundaries between the small ego and the Great Cosmic Mind dissolve).
4. No-mind, or the experience of non-existence.

While the potential of an ordinary sentient being and that of Buddha is exactly the same, there is a massive difference between the vision of nature experienced by "ordinary" practitioners and Buddha's total enlightenment (Samyak sambodhi).

The Bandit's Bride said:Water flows toward liberation, while the mind only serves to constrain. 🙂

A certain Zen master once asked: "Who is it that actually holds you captive?"

darkotter83 said:But I still feel like, in the middle of real life, when things are actually happening, I just can't seem to read the signs.

Meditation practice might help.😉

ambereagle642 said:Everything you mentioned makes sense. It's just that I don't quite grasp how the mechanics of karma and reincarnation work if there isn't an individual entity present to experience them.

When discussing reincarnation itself, we have to acknowledge a fundamental distinction between personalistic Hinduism and Buddhism. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna describes an indestructible, indivisible essence that moves from one life to the next.
In Buddhism, however, we look at a universal law of cause and effect where the ripening of specific actions extends far beyond the span of a single lifetime.
The phenomenon of rebirth is explained in early Buddhism through the chain of dependent origination, where the accumulation of all conscious actions following death "enters" or takes on a new body based on the quality of prior actions (karma). According to Buddhist cosmology, there are six distinct realms, all subject to the law of karma. One of these is the human form. Essentially, certain karma triggers an elemental impulse—which we might call consciousness—that finds a corresponding form (human, divine, animal, etc.) with its attendant attributes (skandhas) at the moment of conception. Karma isn't strictly deterministic; we can't view consciousness or personality as something fixed or independent in itself.
Certain Buddhist traditions suggest rebirth happens immediately after death, whereas in some schools, such as those found in the US-based studies of Himalayan traditions, this transition can last up to 49 days involving various intermediate states (bardos), such as the bardo of dying, the bardo of meditation, or the bardo of rebirth. This entire process is detailed in the Tibetan Book of the Dead.
Within the Yogic practitioners school, the teaching on karma is "updated" by the Doctrine of Storehouse Consciousness, which gathers actions into a reservoir of consciousness via karmic seeds (vasanas). These seeds arise from conscious actions driven by ignorance, aversion, hatred, or greed. If an action is not conscious, or if it isn't propelled by one of those three drivers, then no karma is generated. Such a person is liberated, meaning they aren't subject to the cycle of karmic return through rebirth or suffering (Samsara); that is when we speak of cessation (nirodha) and Nirvana.

This is a very superficial overview of a vital Buddhist teaching, but I hope it provides some clarity on the question.

👋

In his inaugural sermon (Dharmachakra Pravartana Sutra), the Buddha identifies ignorance, greed, and aversion as the three primary roots of suffering. He also outlines specific manifestations of this suffering: birth, aging, death, being separated from what one loves, encountering what one dislikes, craving sensual pleasures, the drive to become, and the desire for non-existence.
Hm... maybe that’s a bit vague, but I'm pressed for time. Later.👋

ambereagle642 said:Do you think the SELF is actually aware of a distinct existence, or is it just a self-reflective mirage—an imagined existence built on a certain kind of blindness, or rather, an imagined sense of separation?

In Buddhism, specifically within the Yogacara school, all phenomena are reflections of the mind, including the self. It’s much like what you suggested: a constant, self-renewing sensation of the ego—this perceived awareness of oneself as a continuous entity separate from its surroundings. More precisely, the mind divides and separates things into subject and object. This creates that antagonistic relationship between "Me" and "The Other," which ultimately leads to
suffering. In a way, we identify our perception of the world as the "real world," even though it's just a landscape where the illusion of the ego resides.

ambereagle642 said:Show me this "Individual" who supposedly reincarnates.

In Buddhism, there are three marks of existence:
1. Impermanence
2. Suffering
3. Non-self
The concept of non-self rules out any permanent entity (an Individual) that moves through, transcends, or reincarnates unchanged.
Essentially, according to Buddhism, you won't find an independent entity that exists on its own.

As for the limitations of concepts, the matter is straightforward. Teachings are treated merely as a means to an end, not the destination itself. There are the usual analogies—the finger pointing at the moon, or discarding the raft once you’ve reached the far shore. Until then...

The concept of the five aggregates shows up right from the start in the first Buddhist discourse, the Dharmachakra Pravartana Sutra, and runs through the entire Pali Canon of early Buddhism. Meanwhile, the idea of Storehouse consciousness didn't emerge until the Yogacara school surfaced around the 4th century.

I’ve already laid this out in another thread—sorry for the redundancy—but I think darkotter83's topic is the right place for this.

''Different spiritual paths offer various interpretations. Most Far Eastern traditions rely on the concept of Karma, essentially cause and effect. In Buddhism, it is believed that seeds of all good and bad deeds exist, which mature under specific conditions (this ripening process is known as 'karma vipaka') to result in certain actions. Practically speaking, just because a seed exists doesn't mean the karma will necessarily manifest if the right conditions aren't met. For instance, pathological killers wouldn't emerge if the circumstances for such actions didn't align. Furthermore, this payback doesn't always happen within a single lifetime; these seeds are stored over countless lifetimes and can ripen at any moment.''
There is also a parallel concept regarding the 'skandhas,' or the aggregates that constitute a living being. There are five, and the group of 'samskaras,' or impulses, plays a decisive role. These are the drivers that define the entire mental and spiritual makeup of a sentient being. These impulses essentially 'push' a person toward specific behaviors or the repetition of patterns and impulses acquired
through countless past experiences over many lives. All those previous experiences color (via the group of Veda or sensations) the world surrounding the being, shaping their perception of themselves and their environment.
This is about as concise as I can make it, and it is supported by the Buddhist concept of cause and effect, or the law of Karma.''

Austin Hayes66 said:"

So, self-improvement is really just ego-work—it's how you become even more self-centered. 🙂
The Buddha had all seven centers open, which meant he was finally free from the ego.
:

😉 🙂 👍
DOGEN: "To study dharma is to study oneself."

Kyle Nelson2 said:Sexual drive is just one of many layers of love... assuming we can even talk about a connection between the two.

Calling sexual drive a "lower level" of love feels incredibly puritanical to me. Sex isn't an issue in itself; at its core, it's pure.

I wouldn't know.