Very Interesting Cartoon "Zen Master Says" 禅师说。。。。
-
Followings are interesting and enlightening cartoon video clips "Zen Master says" ( 禅师说.........). There are many episodes. Followings are some of them :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXBqIsOf164&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWPoVy05jkQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eMOvWIKxHo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiwYUKBuL8Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4sWtqCsoww&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZxHMQ62aVE&feature=related
Happy viewing !
-
nice...i'm looking for a best way to explain what's 禅 Ch'an. We all live in the Ocean of Ch'an. Everything is Ch'an.
Talk 禅, say 禅, just don't become a �头禅. hehe.. ;)
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
nice...i'm looking for a best way to explain what's 禅 Ch'an. We all live in the Ocean of Ch'an. Everything is Ch'an.
Talk 禅, say 禅, just don't become a �头禅. hehe.. ;)
/\
From 圣开导师开示录，第一集:
圣开认为‘禅’应译为‘净虑’，唯有将心ä¸æ‰€é�™é�™æ€�虑之妄念想净除一空，自性显
现"ï¼Œæ‰€è°“è‡ªæ€§æ˜¯ä¼ æ³•çš„æ—¶å€™ï¼Œè¯�到的这个，这就是è¯�è�©æ��，è¯�了è�©æ��，"自性显现，
方谓之为禅。’‘定’是将显现之自性，æŒ�之ä¸�动。"ä¿®æŒ�至妄念ä¸�生"，就是å‰�一
个念头过去，å�Žä¸€ä¸ªå¿µå¤´ä¸�让它生起æ�¥ï¼Œä¸é—´å»¶å±•å¼€æ�¥ï¼Œæ— é‡�æ— è¾¹ï¼Œæ¯”å®‡å®™è¿˜å¤§ï¼Œ
尽法界，é��虚空；既然尽法界，é��虚空，好åƒ�ç©ºæ°”ä¸€æ ·ï¼Œç…§è¿™æ ·ä¿®ï¼Œè¦�到寂光净土，
易如�掌。 -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
From 圣开导师开示录，第一集:
圣开认为‘禅’应译为‘净虑’，唯有将心ä¸æ‰€é�™é�™æ€�虑之妄念想净除一空，自性显
现"ï¼Œæ‰€è°“è‡ªæ€§æ˜¯ä¼ æ³•çš„æ—¶å€™ï¼Œè¯�到的这个，这就是è¯�è�©æ��，è¯�了è�©æ��，"自性显现，
方谓之为禅。’‘定’是将显现之自性，æŒ�之ä¸�动。"ä¿®æŒ�至妄念ä¸�生"，就是å‰�一
个念头过去，å�Žä¸€ä¸ªå¿µå¤´ä¸�让它生起æ�¥ï¼Œä¸é—´å»¶å±•å¼€æ�¥ï¼Œæ— é‡�æ— è¾¹ï¼Œæ¯”å®‡å®™è¿˜å¤§ï¼Œ
尽法界，é��虚空；既然尽法界，é��虚空，好åƒ�ç©ºæ°”ä¸€æ ·ï¼Œç…§è¿™æ ·ä¿®ï¼Œè¦�到寂光净土，
易如�掌。
You meant the gap between the 2 thoughts? -
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
You meant the gap between the 2 thoughts?Yes but not only that. If in that gap between two thoughts you are not aware, then you will simply fall asleep or enter an unconscious state.
However if in that gap between two thoughts, you remain aware and turn the light around, you will realise Pure Awareness, your buddha-nature.
As Dzogchen teacher Tenzin Wangyal (1997, 29) points out:
The gap between two thoughts is essence. But if in that gap there is a lack of presence, it becomes ignorance and we experience only a lack of awareness, almost an unconsciousness. If there is presence in the gap, then we experience the dharmakaya [the ultimate].
And 19th Century Dzogchen Master Shambkar Tsogdruk Rangdrol writes:
Although these two states are similar,
Insofar as neither is intentional meditation,
Nonmeditation samadhi that is like a continuous stream
Is just remaining in a vivid clarity
That is like a bright, cloudless sky -
Limitless, pervasive, transparent.The other is merely a dull state of mind
That is nothing in particular:
A constricted, fragmentary, biased state
Lacking lucid clarity,
A vague and hazy stupefaction. -
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
Followings are interesting and enlightening cartoon video clips "Zen Master says" ( 禅师说.........). There are many episodes. Followings are some of them :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXBqIsOf164&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eMOvWIKxHo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiwYUKBuL8Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4sWtqCsoww&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZxHMQ62aVE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWPoVy05jkQ&feature=related
Happy viewing !
Nice videos..
-
Wad's the role of concetration in meditation?
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
Wad's the role of concetration in meditation?
If you're talking about purely shamatha methods... then concentration is necessary to stabilize the mind in the object of contemplation (say: a candle flame, or a visualisation, etc). Solely shamatha methods are sometimes practiced to stabilize the mind first before moving on to vipashyana (insight) meditation. However I personally do not practice these kinds of methods nowadays.
However if you are talking about insight meditation, then that kind of fixed-concentration is not necessary, however you need to abide in/as awareness. Abiding as awareness, as your buddha-nature, you do not focus on anything in exclusion to others... because Buddha-Nature is all pervasive and all encompassing, like a mirror it reflects everything as they are without choosing or rejecting.
That's why Master Shen Kai says, ’‘定’是将显现之自性，æŒ�之ä¸�动。
-
According to Diamond Sutra, 禅isæ— ä½�ç”Ÿå¿ƒï¼Œæ— ä½�å�ˆç”Ÿwhatå¿ƒå‘¢ï¼Œç”Ÿé‚£æ— ä½�心， é‚£what exactly is æ— ä½�心, plse watch the interesting and enlightening cartoon video clips hehe.. ;)
-
Originally posted by Amitayus48:
According to Diamond Sutra, 禅isæ— ä½�ç”Ÿå¿ƒï¼Œæ— ä½�å�ˆç”Ÿwhatå¿ƒå‘¢ï¼Œç”Ÿé‚£æ— ä½�心， é‚£what exactly is æ— ä½�心, plse watch the interesting and enlightening cartoon video clips hehe.. ;)
This can be a zen koan. What is æ— ä½�心? -
Anyone knows why tibetian monks do analytical meditation?
-
Is analytical meditation a form of insight meditation or samadhi meditation or both?
-
Originally posted by Amitayus48:
According to Diamond Sutra, 禅isæ— ä½�ç”Ÿå¿ƒï¼Œæ— ä½�å�ˆç”Ÿwhatå¿ƒå‘¢ï¼Œç”Ÿé‚£æ— ä½�心， é‚£what exactly is æ— ä½�心, plse watch the interesting and enlightening cartoon video clips hehe.. ;)
you mean æ— æ‰€ä½�而生其心? I feel that this may be the peak of realisation. -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Yes but not only that. If in that gap between two thoughts you are not aware, then you will simply fall asleep or enter an unconscious state.
However if in that gap between two thoughts, you remain aware and turn the light around, you will realise Pure Awareness, your buddha-nature.
As Dzogchen teacher Tenzin Wangyal (1997, 29) points out:
The gap between two thoughts is essence. But if in that gap there is a lack of presence, it becomes ignorance and we experience only a lack of awareness, almost an unconsciousness. If there is presence in the gap, then we experience the dharmakaya [the ultimate].
And 19th Century Dzogchen Master Shambkar Tsogdruk Rangdrol writes:
Although these two states are similar,
Insofar as neither is intentional meditation,
Nonmeditation samadhi that is like a continuous stream
Is just remaining in a vivid clarity
That is like a bright, cloudless sky -
Limitless, pervasive, transparent.The other is merely a dull state of mind
That is nothing in particular:
A constricted, fragmentary, biased state
Lacking lucid clarity,
A vague and hazy stupefaction.just for discussion sake, in between the gap of two thoughts, if it is really the gap, there can't be no awareness since awareness is always present, at that point, one will not be distinguishing whether it is a gap or not, awareness or not... anyone can comment?
the dull state of mind as stated by Tsogdruk is actually still not yet thought-free, there is a subtle undercurrent of thought...please let me know if my conjectures are wrong.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
Anyone knows why tibetian monks do analytical meditation?
it is useful for many reasons because we can't just stop thoughts altogether so we utilise it for developing mind in a positive way. For eg, we analyse the nature of reality through Madhyamaka logic, or we contemplate love and compassion in a conceptual way with reasoning.. or we meditate on the flaws of desire by seeing that the body is actually composed of alot of disgusting material...
All these analysis will transform mind gradually into a state that is calm, loving and free from the mental afflictions like desire, anger, ignorance, pride etc.
Through all these analysis, one can tame or calm down the mind and make it conducive for realisation. In certain cases, it triggers off realisation. As in the case of HH Dalai Lama.
It is also useful as a preliminary for developing the qualities of renunciation. For instance, to really go deep into the practice, one has to have some sense of sacrificing our usual worldly habits or activities, to have more time, so if we just try to go into samadhi meditation str8 away, we may find our initial strong motivation slagging after a while, we lose steam and don't know why we are doing this. So initial analysis develops in us the strong understanding of impermanence, the faults of samsara, the precious human birth and the infallability of karma. Then when we practise, the renunciation will drive us to greater heights.
Buddhism is quite systematic and it leads one from one realisation to another and gradually leads to liberation, varying of course by peoples' needs and characteristics. But in general, the system is very clear-cut and worked out, provided one is willing to follow it, it is a sure way to insight. Analysis is very important in Buddhism for most people.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
Is analytical meditation a form of insight meditation or samadhi meditation or both?
It is not entirely samadhi or insight but it contains elements of both.To contemplate any topic, one needs concentration (which is from samadhi), and if one is analysing based on Madhyamika on the nature of reality, at a certain point, it can become insight too.
-
Borrihuci told me on msn arhat think but think without attachment. Wad do arhats think abt?
Buddhism gt 2 types of attachment. Dharma and self.
Arhats dont have self attachment but still gt dharma attachment.
Arhat have dharma attachment, they think abt phenomena and analyse them?
They wont think abt themselves right? Or have such thoughts I am an arhat , I am walking and I am eating?
Borrihuci told me pusa think depending on which stage.
He told me buddha does not think.
Buddha have entered the formless of No thought and he cannot be fathom by normal ppl
-
Pls tell me wad's dharma and self attachment in detail?
-
Originally posted by wisdomeye:
just for discussion sake, in between the gap of two thoughts, if it is really the gap, there can't be no awareness since awareness is always present, at that point, one will not be distinguishing whether it is a gap or not, awareness or not... anyone can comment?
the dull state of mind as stated by Tsogdruk is actually still not yet thought-free, there is a subtle undercurrent of thought...please let me know if my conjectures are wrong.
Yes, the person is trapped in a mental state of dullness. This state is free from conceptualization, so it appears to be thought-free, but that dull state is nevertheless still a mental state - it is a non-conceptual, dull mental state. Not a non-conceptual awake state.
-
Wad's dharma attachment? wad's self attachment?
-
What does an arhat think abt? Why do some Pusa think too?
-
I will reply your questions in two posts.
Your question: Wad's dharma attachment? wad's self attachment?
I wrote in my 'Actual Freedom and Buddhism' document:
Theravadins and its commentaries tend to emphasize the realization of Anatta/Emptiness of Self [Thusness’s Stage 5] rather than the Emptiness of Dharmas [Thusness’s Stage 6], that is why in Mahayana it is said that Arahants only realize Anatta/Emptiness of Self but not the Emptiness of Dharmas, but this is a contestable point (and I’ve seen some Theravadin masters/teachers who are exceptionally clear even on Emptiness) and not the consensual understanding of all Mahayana/Vajrayana masters (but is the generally accepted understanding and there are reasons to believe this as all of the Theravadin Abhidhamma commentators who are supposedly ‘arhats’ only talk about the realization of the Emptiness of Self but not the Emptiness of Dharmas, but then again, whether those commentators are truly Arhats in Buddha’s own definition is another contestable point that cannot be resolved due to the Buddha’s passing – furthermore there are Mahayana and Vajrayana masters who follow the teachings of Mahayana sutras like Lankavatara Sutra that unambiguously states that the Hinayana Arhat has realized the twofold emptinesses and that the realization of Arhats correspond with the 6th Bodhisattva Bhumi, but I shall digress as it is getting too theoretical), but this also explains why the latter development about 400 to 600 years after the historical Buddha’s passing, of large scrolls [consisting hundreds of pages] of Mahayana sutras that emphasizes so much on the Emptiness of Dharma/Phenomena [especially the early Mahayana scriptures; the Prajnaparamita scriptures which includes the famous Heart Sutra but many other larger ones as well] as they see something missing in the Hinayana schools’ understanding of Emptiness) – but anyway I want to clarify at this point that Thusness’s Stage 6 ‘Mahayana’ Emptiness is not contradictory to Thusness’s Stage 5 or AF experience, but as 'complementary' and a 'further insight' into the nature of experience/sensations. None of these implies a substance or essence as with the stages prior to Stage 5. For example, Stage 5 when realized overcomes the view of an ontological essence to Consciousness of Stage 4, but Stage 6 includes the previous insight and experience of Stage 5 (there is only sensations without a Subject) but further penetrates into the nature of Dependently Origination and the unlocatability/unfindability/ungraspability of phenomena/sensations.
As Thusness states,
“Phase 4 and 5 are the grayscale of seeing through the subject that it does not exist in actuality (anatta), there are only the aggregates. However even the aggregates are empty (Heart Sutra). It may sound obvious but more often than not, even a practitioner that has matured the anatta experience (as in phase 5) will miss the essence of it.
As I have said earlier, phase 5 do appear to be final and it is pointless to emphasize anything. Whether one proceeds further to explore this empty nature of Presence and move into the Maha world of suchness will depend on our conditions.”
Here is an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary site on the definition of twofold Emptiness which corresponds to Thusness’s Stage 5 and 6 respectively:
Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the Ä�tman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood.
A more updated and shortened definition from the same glossary states:
http://www.sutrasmantras.info/glossary.html#empty2
two emptinesses (二空). (1) The emptiness of a sentient being composed of dharmas, such as the five aggregates, and dependent on causes and conditions; (2) the emptiness of a dharma dependent on causes and conditions (see eighteen emptinesses). -
I read in buddhism gt small awakening big awakening
is big awakening Satori small awakening kensho?
A few small awakening then got one big awakening?
Both are japanese words.
-
I know some arhats are into mahayana buddhism.
The buddha introduced some arhats in diamond sutra to mahayana ideas.
That's why buddha spoke in diamond sutra to the arhats abt emptiness of dharma.
Hinayana arhats?
correct me if i am wrong.
-
Your question:
What does an arhat think abt? Why do some Pusa think too?
and
He told me buddha does not think.
My answer:
Actually, a Buddha thinks like anyone else. Someone who does not think cannot be able to function in the world.
There is no problem with thinking per se, the only problem is when you are *attached* to your thinking.
Once, a monk presented the following verse to the Sixth Patriarch, composed by the Chan Master Wo Lun.
Wo Lun has ways and means
To cut off the movements of many thoughts
When the mind does not rise in reaction to circumstances
The tree of enlightenment will steadily grow.Hearing this verse, Master Hui Neng said, "This verse indicates that the person who composed it has not yet completely realized the essence of mind." The Sixth Patriarch then showed the monk the following verse.
Hui Neng has no ways and means
To cut off the movements of many thoughts
The mind is often rising in reaction to circumstances
How then, can enlightenment grow?From this verse, you can understand that Hui-Neng discourages any form of unnatural thought suppression. Supposed you stop all thoughts from arising, you are no different from a living dead person, incapable of functioning as a human being.
Even though you may be able to temporarily suppress thoughts and defilements in a state of meditative absorption, nevertheless when you return to daily lives the thoughts will still continue to arise.
Therefore thought suppression is not the means to gain liberation.
What is the means to gain liberation? It is to be able to have thoughts but not grasp on them. Thoughts are also the manifestation of Buddha-nature in the same way that all the waves in the sea are water. Since all thoughts are the manifestation of Buddha-Nature, simply recognising thoughts as they are is enough for thoughts to self-liberate. Buddha-Nature is not something apart and separate from thoughts, for it is the nature and essence of all arising phenomena.
All thoughts are the vivid self-luminosity of Buddha-Nature, and they are empty of any inherent existence or solidity.
Excerpt from by Zen teacher David Loy:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/jc26559.htm
Nietzsche relates the denial of a thinker to a denial of the process of thinking. Why; after all, do we believe that there is an act of thinking? Because that act is what the thinker does: stringing thoughts together by creating new thoughts on the basis of the old thoughts. If there is no such thinker, then there need be no such act. That leaves only thoughts, but one at a time, although the succession may be rapid.
The significance of Nietzsche's remarks for us is that we find the same claim in the Asian nondual philosophies, particularly in Ch'an Buddhism. In The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, Hui Neng explains what prajña is:
To know our mind is to obtain liberation. To attain liberation is to experience the Samadhi of Prajna, which is ''thoughtlessness". What is "thoughtlessness"? Thoughtlessness is to see and know all Dharmas (things) with a mind free from attachment. When in use it pervades everywhere, and yet it sticks nowhere....When our mind works freely without any hindrance and is at liberty to "come" or to "go", we attain Samadhi of Prajna, or liberation. Such a state is called the function of "thoughtlessness". But to refrain from thinking of anything, so that all thoughts are suppressed, is to be Dharma-ridden, and this is an erroneous view. [20]
The term "thoughtlessness" would seem to recommend a mind free from any thoughts, but Hui Neng denies this: rather, "thoughtlessness" is the function of a mind free from any attachment. The implication is that for someone who is liberated thoughts still arise, but there is no clinging to them when they do. Why the term "thoughtlessness" can be used to characterize such a state of mind will become clear in a moment. But the question that arises first is in what way one can ever be attached to thoughts if, as the Śiks�samuccaya says, a thought has no staying power, that like lightning it breaks up in a moment and disappears. Hui Neng answers this later in the Platform Sutra when he says more about "how to think":
In the exercise of our thinking faculty, let the past be dead. If we allow our thoughts, past, present and future, to link up in a series, we put ourselves under restraint. On the other hand, if we never let our mind attach to anything, we shall gain liberation.
(my emphasis [21])One clings to a thought by allowing the thoughts to link up in a series, which means having one's next thought "caused", as it were, by the previous thoughts, rather than letting each thought arise spontaneously and nondually.
According to the autobiographical first part of the Platform Sutra, Hui Neng became deeply enlightened and realized that all things in the universe are his self-nature, upon hearing a line from the Diamond Sutra: "Let your thought arise without fixing it anywhere". [22] The passage just prior to this one-which Hui Neng must also have heard-puts this in context. Edward Conze translates it as follows:
Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva should produce an unsupported thought, a thought which is nowhere supported, which is not supported (apratisthiti) by forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or objects of mind. [23]
A thought is "Unsupported" because it does not arise in dependence upon anything else, not "caused" by another thought ("mind-objects") and of course not "produced" by a thinker, which the Bodhisattva realizes does, not exist. Such an "unsupported thought", then, is prajña, arising by itself nondually.
The ego in its purity is experienced in the interval between two states or between two thoughts. The ego is like the worm which leaves one hold only after it catches another. Its true nature is known when it is out of contact with objects or thoughts. You should realize this interval as the abiding, unchangeable Reality, your true Being... [26]
The image of the ego as a worm which leaves one hold only after catching another might well have been used by Hui Neng and Ma-tsu to describe the way in which thoughts are apparently linked up in a series. The difference is that Mahayana Buddhism encourages the arising of "an unsupported thought", whereas Ramana Maharshi understands unchangeable Reality as that which is realized only when it is out of contact with all objects and thoughts. This is consistent with the general relation between Mahayana and Advaita: Nirguṇa Brahman is so emptied of any attribute ("neti, neti,...") that it becomes impossible to differentiate from Śūnyat�. "It is difficult indeed to distinguish between pure being and pure non-being as a category". (S. Dasgupta). [27] But there is still a difference in emphasis.
Mah�y�na emphasizes realizing the emptiness of all phenomena, whereas Advaita distinguishes between empty Reality and phenomena, with the effect of devaluing the latter into mere m�y�.
The image of a worm hesitant to leave its hold was used in a personal conversation I had in 1981 with a Theravada monk from Thailand, a meditation master named Phra Khemananda. This was before I discovered the passage from Ramana Maharshi; what Khemananda said was not prompted by any remark of mine, but was taught to him by his own teacher in Thailand. He began by drawing the following diagram:
Each oval represents a thought, he said; normally, we leave one thought only when we have another one to go to (as the arrows indicate), but to think in this way constitutes ignorance. Instead, we should realize that thinking is actually like this:
Then we will understand the true nature of thoughts: that thoughts do not arise from each other but by themselves.
This understanding of thoughts-not-linking-up-in-a-series but springing up nondually is consistent with D. T. Suzuki's conception of prajña:
It is important to note here that prajna wants to see its diction "quickly" apprehended, giving us no intervening moment for reflection or analysis or interpretation. Prajna for this reason is frequently likened to a flash of lightning or to a spark from two
striking pieces of flint. "Quickness" does not refer to progress of time; it means immediacy, absence of deliberation, no allowance for an intervening proposition, no passing from premises to conclusion. [28]
This gives insight into the many Ch'an dialogues in which students are criticized for their hesitation or praised for their apparently nonsensical but immediate replies. That the reply is immediate is not itself sufficient; what is important is that each response be experienced as a nondual "presentation of the whole". Hesitation reveals lack of prajña because it indicates either some logical train of thought or the self-conscious paralysis of all thought. That many approved replies are non-sequitur reveals one aspect of the enlightened mind, that its thoughts are free from reasoning and any methodology.
Even more important, this also explains how meditation functions, since the "letting-go" of thoughts breaks up the otherwise habitual linking together in a series. Huang Po: "... Why do they [Ch'an students] not copy me by letting each thought go as though it were nothing, or as though it were a piece of rotten wood, a stone, or the cold ashes of a dead fire"? [29]