The Three Kayas

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

if you want to follow the Dharma to the beat of your own drum then you are as much a Buddhists as one who take vows....

Then why do you say you are not a Buddhist?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

Youtube to prove your correct.... tee hee.... No thanks I have Monks and Nuns to learn from if I choose.

Rituals do not make you a Buddhists, Buddhism is more than that but if some CHOOSE to participate in these Rituals then that is what they feel that they need to do at that time. Nobody is FORCED to do anything that they don't want to do and if you want to follow the Dharma to the beat of your own drum then you are as much a Buddhists as one who take vows....

I think it's usually (just about always) compulsory to take vows before undertaking instruction at any ashram, but taking vows doesn't always mean you are becoming a Buddhist, however, to become a Buddhist you also have to take the vows. There are reasons for that, mostly because sila is the foundation of meditation practice.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by sky123

'
You will not find any Buddhist teaching that advises to live non-verbally or to stop acting like a human.... Ridiculous idea.

Wondered what that meant.

Is it this Rain95?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_VizlDWcTA
(3:13 onwards)

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sentient

Wondered what that meant.

Is it this Rain95?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_VizlDWcTA
(3:13 onwards)

No I don't think it is like that.

Everything I say relates to my experience and then to the words or "short hand" I am currently using to communicate what I am doing with myself basically. To me it is always about right now, this current moment, so when I said "live non-verbally" I meant only now, not as a way of life or anything like that. Maybe I will be talking to somebody a few seconds from now so then I would not be non-verbal anymore. But then when I am done talking I can go right back to it.

To me, I have found some terms, like "non-verbal," help me to recognize what is present so then if what is present is seen, one then is free of it, not identified with it. So if I am experiencing some resistance or judgement in the now, the source of that is always being focused on words or thought. But when we are doing it, we don't recognize what we are actually doing. We know it is happening as we are feeling the conflict or negative judgement, but this other point of view or awareness, where we can let go of it, stop doing it, not identify with this verbage anymore and therefore have no more conflict or resistance, that awareness or way of seeing things is not present. So I have found in my experience that bringing in that term or question, "am I non-verbal?" helps me to immediately recognize what I am doing, focusing on thoughts, and then I am free or "outside" of it. So the term works for me at the present but yea nobody would know what I am talking about I see now.

I guess saying stop acting like a human makes no sense to others as well. This term is also based on my experience and my understanding and the terms I like to use to explain it to myself so yea, this also would probably not be understood by anyone else unless they had similar experiences and understanding. Really none of us are human. We are merged with a human body for this incarnation, then we are out of it and not human anymore.

While in an incarnation we can learn what is the "human stuff" and stop identifying with it. Really my opinion is the more you are present as yourself as you really are, the human stuff gets harder and harder to identify with. You don't have to try to not identify with it, it happens automatically and in fact you might end up missing some human things that get harder and harder to relate to like romantic or physical attraction. A lot of "human" or animal stuff is enjoyable on some level and that's probably why we keep incarnating thousands of times. But yea I think when one stops identifying with the body and it's conditioning, and when one sees through a lot of delusional experience, one loses the ability to "enjoy" or take part in certain things and so maybe it's like saying goodbye to old friends you've outgrown.

The good side would be maybe you don't have to incarnate anymore or at least be closer to being free of this physical world.

[sentient]

Ok Rain95,

So when you kick out the interpreter, what happens then?
Are you now exploring the ‘issness’ of things without the (dual) filter?
The redness of red and so on?
Yet staying in this equanimity, as Gem suggests, so as not to be swayed by the isnesses or suchnesses (inner or outer) one encounters?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sentient

Ok Rain95,

So when you kick out the interpreter, what happens then?
Are you now exploring the ‘issness’ of things without the (dual) filter?
The redness of red and so on?
Yet staying in this equanimity, as Gem suggests, so as not to be swayed by the isnesses or suchnesses (inner or outer) one encounters?

I'm not sure if 'swayed' conveys the meaning I try to convey. The way I frame equanimity is in opposition to reactivity. IOW, the absence of reactivity is equanimity. It's not so popular because this narrative doesn't imply desirable experiences, bliss, energy, or other special spiritual experience, nor the absence thereof. It contains no promise as a reward for your work. The meditation industry, that desire for people to experience things which they do not currently experience, is desire based. Oh I want bliss, I want energy, etc. But what is the current state of such a mind? That question brings attention to 'the way it is' after it has been distracted by 'the way I want it to be'. I'm not the first person to point out that this nature of desire is also the nature of 'distraction'.


When we say 'distraction' it usually means that the mind has wandered off some object of meditation - that something 'else' draws the attention, but there is a difference between a wandering mind and a wild mind. A wandering mind isn't disrupted by agitation in the way an adverse mind or a craven mind is. The wandering mind is peaceful. The reactive mind is agitated. In meditation such as breath awareness, the attention is on the air then it wanders off for a wile until you notice it wandering, upon which attention returns as intended to to feeling of the air. That wandering doesn't disturb the depth of meditation. It is simply known, mind has wandered away, mind remembers to observe breath. What we usually find, however, is, people start to become distraught: 'I suck at this', 'the is hopeless', 'I might as well give up'... and feelings of frustration and impatience begin to disturb the meditator. That disturbance is the reactivity which disrupts the meditation - and hence it is that which is 'distraction'.


Therefore equanimity isn't a special experience of some kind, it neither necessitates special experiences nor precludes them. It is the 'nature of awareness'. In the 8 fold path, which deals with all that is 'right', there is 'right meditation', and right meditation is not what is observed, but the way in which it is observed. In the noble truths of Buddhism: There is suffering; there is a cuase of suffering; suffering can end; the is a way of ending suffering - the last truth pertains to a way, just like 'the Tao' means the way. The ending is a way of being without suffering, so it speaks of an absence, a cessation, rather than the attaining or presence of a special sort of experience that signifies nirvana.


Hence the meditation, rather than being the means to experiencing something wonderful, is the process of purification, which cleanses the mind/body life-form of 'blocks' through the cessation of the reactive efforts that hpld the blocks in place. That cessation of reactivity is called 'equanimity'. In theory it sounds simple, but in practice there are limitations such that a person can be still fairly easily during mild sensational experiences, but when the experience becomes quite extreme, like pain, or great pleasure, one finds themselves becoming overwhlemed by their aversions and desires, clingings, graspings and so forth.


The deliberate practice is a strongly determined and ardent endeavour to 'remain still' no matter what sort of experience arises, and this practice strengthens the stability of balance of mindful equanimity so that a person can experience greater extremes of experience without losing the plot. Such strengthening enables a person to withstand the rising of their deepest held emotional/mental contents into their full conscious awareness without the old reactivity which used to arise to distract them from these most violent of storms. As all things arise to consciousawareness only to dissolve away, the purification proceeds in this fashion.


In the bigger picture of kammic law, action and reaction are the volitions produce potential for experience. So any reactivity one has generates kamma, which is the psychic energy with drives re-birth. When one ceases to react to the lived experience which is arising from the potentials of past volitions, thos old potentials are continualling expiring, but without reactivity, no new potentials are being generated. This expiry of the old potentials whilst not generating new potentials sees the 'storehouse' of potentials burning up - just as a fire burns up the fuel it has. If you do not add new fuel to the fire, it soon expires altogether. This is another way of symbolising the purification process.


In this way, the absense of reactivity, or IOW, equanimity, is at the essense of the purification process. Experiences such as bliss and energy are merely consequences which shouldn't be given particular importance.


You see, it is 'the way' rather than 'the outcome' that matters, so 'right meditation' isn't trying to make energy happen. Right meditation is 'a way of observing' with the stillness of equanimity.


Then again, all this I say isn't true. It is only a conveyance of meaning, so I make no claim 'this is what Buddhism says' - because then I pretend to present an authority. Indeed this only advocates for free thinking, real discernment and depth of consideration.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sentient

Ok Rain95,

So when you kick out the interpreter, what happens then?
Are you now exploring the ‘issness’ of things without the (dual) filter?
The redness of red and so on?
Yet staying in this equanimity, as Gem suggests, so as not to be swayed by the isnesses or suchnesses (inner or outer) one encounters?

That beginning part, "kick out the interpreter." Isn't the one that would try to do that the interpreter?

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Rain95

That beginning part, "kick out the interpreter." Isn't the one that would try to do that the interpreter?

Well, earlier on you said:

Realization just means experiencing whatever is without the interpretation or the interpreter. One does not realize it in the sense of something other than what is here is somehow perceived.
There truly is nothing to do, just something to stop doing.

Identifying with thought. Reacting with ideas.

Isn’t that the Shunyata teaching?
Experiencing, seeing things – at the moment - without the filter or the barrier of preconceived thoughts and concepts to name them, hence also without preconceived attitudes.

So – without the interpreter, or being empty of the interpreter - things are present just as they are in the ‘nowness-moment’.

But isn’t this the discovery of ‘isness’ or ‘thusness’ or ‘suchness’ of things?
Even though the interpreter is non-existent i.e. zero, there is still some dynamic quality to that ‘emptiness’ displaying itself.

I call that empty ‘isness’ quality - ‘energy’.

If I enter into ‘not-knowing’ i.e. do not conceptualize a spruce-tree (as if I already knew it) – there is still the ‘isness’ quality about it.
If I do not conceptualize a birch-tree – (as if I already knew it) – there is still the ‘isness’ quality about it.
And the ‘isness’ the spruce emanates is different quality than the ‘isness’ of a birch.
Without a thought/concept filter, the differing ‘isnesses’ are still discernible.

If that makes sense.
Or have I misunderstood the meaning of Shunyata, Shunya principle?

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sentient

Isn’t that the Shunyata teaching?

Yes that's all right. I was just being picky about the words in that one little part.

[sky]

Sunyata has different meanings in different Traditions.

'In Theravada Buddhism, suññatā often refers to the non-self (Pāli: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman)[note 1] nature of the five aggregates of experience and the six sense spheres. Suññatā is also often used to refer to a meditative state or experience.

In Mahayana, Sunyata refers to the tenet that "all things are empty of intrinsic existence and nature,"[4][5] but may also refer to the Buddha-nature teachings and primordial or empty awareness, as in Dzogchen and Shentong'