Pratyeka-buddha

[AlwaysDayAfterYesterday]

Originally Posted by Gem

Kamma is volition.

Following your discussion, Karmma is more of an impersonal law of nature that is engaged by volition. Intent is by design, while intention is a desire. Intent would be an active choice reflecting a person's heart and desire, but designed for future results, which is where Kamma comes in as the agent of regulation. Kamma acts on its own, apart from a ruling agent. You might say that the universe governs its children without the need for the parent to constantly decide results for actions. Kamma is the mechanism for law to operate. As you read in the Dhammapada and other scriptures, the law is overcome with love, which is the one law requiring no other laws. By this, intent and volition pacify Kamma. Love is a shift of intent toward pathos and compassion for others, which is realization of Buddha nature.

In the Koans, MU is an absolute relative nature. Before realization of the Buddha nature, a 'dog' does not realize it's state of being and the opportunity to overcome. After realization, the shift occurs and compassion for others engages. A 'dog' now has Buddha nature. Yes and No to the question of, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" Most Sanskrit words have this relative to absolute definition.

In English, saying that a person is constitutionally aware is saying they are (con) with making stand (Stitute). Prostitution is making stand as well, flipping the meaning of the word Stitute into relative. There are people who are both with and against the same concept relative to their mindset and intent. MU. The object of Kamma is to move translation toward the correct symmetry over time. In Hebrew, this is Aleph, or the strength to stand on your own. TRUTH in Hebrew is Aleph Mem Tav, which then explains the essence of the words from the letters. It's a whole other story to tell. Same meaning.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by AlwaysDayAfterYesterday

Following your discussion, Karmma is more of an impersonal law of nature that is engaged by volition. Intent is by design, while intention is a desire. Intent would be an active choice reflecting a person's heart and desire, but designed for future results, which is where Kamma comes in as the agent of regulation. Kamma acts on its own, apart from a ruling agent. You might say that the universe governs its children without the need for the parent to constantly decide results for actions. Kamma is the mechanism for law to operate. As you read in the Dhammapada and other scriptures, the law is overcome with love, which is the one law requiring no other laws. By this, intent and volition pacify Kamma. Love is a shift of intent toward pathos and compassion for others, which is realization of Buddha nature.

In Buddhist thought, kamma universal law - it's just the way nature works. But nature, the universe, is a psychic event according to Buddhist philosophy, and not materially apart from 'the mind' or 'consciousness'. The main issue is that of self, specifically the false sense of self we might consider to have volition, where the volitions are what sustains this self-delusion. In short, the enlightened one has no volitions (check this link), but is consciously connected with 'the true self' . Gotama spoke of this, which finds no identity in the senses - so I quote:

"Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end." (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...11.0.than.html)

In the Koans, MU is an absolute relative nature. Before realization of the Buddha nature, a 'dog' does not realize it's state of being and the opportunity to overcome. After realization, the shift occurs and compassion for others engages. A 'dog' now has Buddha nature. Yes and No to the question of, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" Most Sanskrit words have this relative to absolute definition.

In English, saying that a person is constitutionally aware is saying they are (con) with making stand (Stitute). Prostitution is making stand as well, flipping the meaning of the word Stitute into relative. There are people who are both with and against the same concept relative to their mindset and intent. MU. The object of Kamma is to move translation toward the correct symmetry over time. In Hebrew, this is Aleph, or the strength to stand on your own. TRUTH in Hebrew is Aleph Mem Tav, which then explains the essence of the words from the letters. It's a whole other story to tell. Same meaning.

[AlwaysDayAfterYesterday]

Originally Posted by Gem

In Buddhist thought, kamma universal law - it's just the way nature works. But nature, the universe, is a psychic event according to Buddhist philosophy, and not materially apart from 'the mind' or 'consciousness'. The main issue is that of self, specifically the false sense of self we might consider to have volition, where the volitions are what sustains this self-delusion. In short, the enlightened one has no volitions (check this link), but is consciously connected with 'the true self' . Gotama spoke of this, which finds no identity in the senses - so I quote:

"Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end." (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...11.0.than.html)

Desire is filling the bucket one drop at a time. Entering the ocean is no longer needing the bucket. Try figuring this as seeing the ocean as another drop in a larger bucket. Do not mistake the end of one journey for the lack of further quest. The answer is always in the question. Within the word, you see ion as a suffix. Remove the suffix and know there is more to the answer.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by AlwaysDayAfterYesterday

Desire is filling the bucket one drop at a time. Entering the ocean is no longer needing the bucket. Try figuring this as seeing the ocean as another drop in a larger bucket. Do not mistake the end of one journey for the lack of further quest. The answer is always in the question. Within the word, you see ion as a suffix. Remove the suffix and know there is more to the answer.

It's funny because you tell me there is 'more to the answer', but recite an oft repeated ocean metaphor (note the prefix) teehee.

[AlwaysDayAfterYesterday]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's funny because you tell me there is 'more to the answer', but recite an oft repeated ocean metaphor (note the prefix) teehee.

The final half of enlightenment is the part no one wants to acknowledge. It requires something from the person, which is the true purpose of the practice to find the higher nature. From practice comes performance. Finding the truth is finding the the path, which is a mixture of compassion and duty. The ocean is a source of unlimited potential that remains unused if the person fails to recognize the purpose for finding it. Cause and effect represents the results of our actions, both good and bad. Seeking enlightenment is meaningless apart from learning the point.

A good version of this comes from three Buffalo. One is the mud buffalo, swimming in its own weeds and muck. Two is the water buffalo, entering the stream to wash off the former residence. Three is the domesticated white buffalo plowing the field, pulling the cart and serving as a beast of burden for the family. It's the third buffalo who learns the point of a Bodhisattva.

The buffalo’s head sprouts horns
As he emerges from the weeds (relatives),
In a dream, he tries to speak
Of the valley of the timeless spring.
Although he has bathed in the fragrant waters,
I hit, saying, “Not Good Enough!
How will you impart strength to others?”

From a Koan capping verse on the same topic.

[sky]

Originally Posted by AlwaysDayAfterYesterday

The final half of enlightenment is the part no one wants to acknowledge. It requires something from the person, which is the true purpose of the practice to find the higher nature. From practice comes performance. Finding the truth is finding the the path, which is a mixture of compassion and duty. The ocean is a source of unlimited potential that remains unused if the person fails to recognize the purpose for finding it. Cause and effect represents the results of our actions, both good and bad. Seeking enlightenment is meaningless apart from learning the point.

A good version of this comes from three Buffalo. One is the mud buffalo, swimming in its own weeds and muck. Two is the water buffalo, entering the stream to wash off the former residence. Three is the domesticated white buffalo plowing the field, pulling the cart and serving as a beast of burden for the family. It's the third buffalo who learns the point of a Bodhisattva.

The buffalo’s head sprouts horns
As he emerges from the weeds (relatives),
In a dream, he tries to speak
Of the valley of the timeless spring.
Although he has bathed in the fragrant waters,
I hit, saying, “Not Good Enough!
How will you impart strength to others?”

From a Koan capping verse on the same topic.

I am struggling to find ' Buddhism ' in these past few post's

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

I am struggling to find ' Buddhism ' in these past few post's

It doesn't really matter, because one can explain what the teachings are about, and whatever understandings it might bring are gonna be whatever they are. I made the mistake recently of citing and quoting the suttas, which goes against my own grain because I don't use texts as 'an authoritative discourse'. I'll go back to my old ways now and just say things in my own words, as I think that's more unassuming and less influential. It's just that I got caught up in the whole 'authentic texts' thing, and started to feel like I had to back up what I say with some sort of authoritative reference - but it is better if I don't.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

It doesn't really matter, because one can explain what the teachings are about, and whatever understandings it might bring are gonna be whatever they are. I made the mistake recently of citing and quoting the suttas, which goes against my own grain because I don't use texts as 'an authoritative discourse'. I'll go back to my old ways now and just say things in my own words, as I think that's more unassuming and less influential. It's just that I got caught up in the whole 'authentic texts' thing, and started to feel like I had to back up what I say with some sort of authoritative reference - but it is better if I don't.

Yes but ADAY doesn't explain, he vanishes into the ether

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by AlwaysDayAfterYesterday

The final half of enlightenment is the part no one wants to acknowledge. It requires something from the person, which is the true purpose of the practice to find the higher nature. From practice comes performance. Finding the truth is finding the the path, which is a mixture of compassion and duty. The ocean is a source of unlimited potential that remains unused if the person fails to recognize the purpose for finding it. Cause and effect represents the results of our actions, both good and bad. Seeking enlightenment is meaningless apart from learning the point.

A good version of this comes from three Buffalo. One is the mud buffalo, swimming in its own weeds and muck. Two is the water buffalo, entering the stream to wash off the former residence. Three is the domesticated white buffalo plowing the field, pulling the cart and serving as a beast of burden for the family. It's the third buffalo who learns the point of a Bodhisattva.

The buffalo’s head sprouts horns
As he emerges from the weeds (relatives),
In a dream, he tries to speak
Of the valley of the timeless spring.
Although he has bathed in the fragrant waters,
I hit, saying, “Not Good Enough!
How will you impart strength to others?”

From a Koan capping verse on the same topic.

Are we not here as all three in one?
When I read this it makes no sense as your articulation reads to me, not of unity as one source but three separate aspects where only one learns the point. Where as all three are not separate in the whole state of being imo which can then lead to be of service in some way back to others.

[beachsinger]

I had, right or wrong, my own conception of Pratyeka-buddha while studying and practising Zen Buddhism.
I'm not interested in words words words and wordy verbal battles in the spiritual domain.
The practical Pratyeka side, though not specifically Zen, helped me enormously in the (five) first years.