The Three Kayas

[Rain95]

Expanding on what I said a little bit:

This phrase: kick out the interpreter points to the core of enlightenment. Yes we need to "kick out the interpreter" but language is such the "meaning" or "understanding" of what is being referred to here is very vague.

"Sin" in the original Greek meant "to miss the mark or bulls-eye. It was a term that originated in archery. So it basically meant to not be perfect, or impeccable, or to be perfectly aligned.

So the word "sin" which is now used in Christianity in a very different way than it was used and applied originally, actually fits quite well with Buddhism if applied in it's original meaning.

One could say how does one kick out the interpreter without sin even. Or removing that term Christianity now commonly uses, how to kick out the interpreter with correct understanding, impeccably, perfectly. To find that "mark" and be centered there as experience.

It's a very subtle thing to find that place, that bulls-eye. Take the words judgement and discernment. They appear to be basically saying the same thing but they are actually vastly different. But then they can be used interchangeable as well. The applied meaning, however, is not interchangeable at all. One can hit the bulls-eye or have the arrow land in the grass far away. Very different outcomes but one can use the same words to describe both results.

To put away interpretation and the interpreter takes a very focused awareness. An awareness that catches the most subtle and barely perceptible movements within. It is only through awareness of a mental movement that one can transcend it. One must know or be aware one has identified with it to be free of this identification. To live without "sin" means to be here now with impeccable clarity and seeing. To be completely free of interpretation and the interpreter without any trace of it in any form.

This is why I asked if the one who says, kick out the interpreter, is the interpreter. Because we are all here now. In this same place. This current moment. And are we without sin here? Are we impeccable, perfectly aligned with truth here and now? Because if we are, there is nothing to kick out. There is nothing to do, just something to be. To be aware and awake. To say something needs to be kicked out means one has missed the mark. One is not perfectly aligned. One is holding onto an idea, a interpretation.

[jonesboy]

Everyone is familiar with the Four Noble Truths right?

The Noble Eightfold Path is one of the principal teachings of Śrāvakayāna. It is used to develop insight into the true nature of phenomena (or reality) and to eradicate greed, hatred, and delusion. The Noble Eightfold Path is the fourth of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths; the first element of the Noble Eightfold Path is, in turn, an understanding of the Four Noble Truths.

An important part of the Four Noble Truths teachings is Right View.

The Sammaditthi Sutta, the Discourse on Right View, is the ninth sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, the Collection of Middle Length Discourses. Its expositor is the Venerable Sariputta Thera, the Buddha's chief disciple and the foremost of the Master's bhikkhu disciples in the exercise of the faculty of wisdom. The Buddha declared that next to himself, it was the Venerable Sariputta who excelled in turning the incomparable Wheel of the Dhamma, in expounding in depth and in detail the Four Noble Truths realized with the attainment of enlightenment

So what is Right View? It has two aspects.

The first, conceptual right view, which is the intellectual grasp of:

Right view, as explained in the commentary to the Sammaditthi Sutta, has a variety of aspects, but it might best be considered as twofold: conceptual right view, which is the intellectual grasp of the principles enunciated in the Buddha's teaching, and experiential right view, which is the wisdom that arises by direct penetration of the teaching. Conceptual right view, also called the right view in conformity with the truths (saccanulomika-sammaditthi), is a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma arrived at by study of the Buddha's teachings and deep examination of their meaning. Such understanding, though conceptual rather than experiential, is not dry and sterile. When rooted in faith in the Triple Gem and driven by a keen aspiration to realize the truth embedded in the formulated principles of the Dhamma, it serves as a critical phase in the development of wisdom (pañña), for it provides the germ out of which experiential right view gradually evolves.

So one of the basic tenants of Buddhism is to study the teachings and have correct understanding of them.

Next we have the second aspect of Right View, Experiential.

Experiential right view is the penetration of the truth of the teaching in one's own immediate experience. Thus it is also called right view that penetrates the truths (saccapativedha-sammaditthi). This type of right view is aroused by the practice of insight meditation guided by a correct conceptual understanding of the Dhamma. To arrive at direct penetration, one must begin with a correct conceptual grasp of the teaching and transform that grasp from intellectual comprehension to direct perception by cultivating the threefold training in morality, concentration and wisdom. If conceptual right view can be compared to a hand, a hand that grasps the truth by way of concepts, then experiential right view can be compared to an eye — the eye of wisdom that sees directly into the true nature of existence ordinarily hidden from us by our greed, aversion and delusion.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/.../wheel377.html

Love to see the arguments against the Buddhist teachings on the need to study and right understanding.

How like the teachings says, study and insight go hand in hand.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Expanding on what I said a little bit:

This phrase: kick out the interpreter points to the core of enlightenment. Yes we need to "kick out the interpreter" but language is such the "meaning" or "understanding" of what is being referred to here is very vague.

"Sin" in the original Greek meant "to miss the mark or bulls-eye. It was a term that originated in archery. So it basically meant to not be perfect, or impeccable, or to be perfectly aligned.

So the word "sin" which is now used in Christianity in a very different way than it was used and applied originally, actually fits quite well with Buddhism if applied in it's original meaning.

One could say how does one kick out the interpreter without sin even. Or removing that term Christianity now commonly uses, how to kick out the interpreter with correct understanding, impeccably, perfectly. To find that "mark" and be centered there as experience.

It's a very subtle thing to find that place, that bulls-eye. Take the words judgement and discernment. They appear to be basically saying the same thing but they are actually vastly different. But then they can be used interchangeable as well. The applied meaning, however, is not interchangeable at all. One can hit the bulls-eye or have the arrow land in the grass far away. Very different outcomes but one can use the same words to describe both results.

To put away interpretation and the interpreter takes a very focused awareness. An awareness that catches the most subtle and barely perceptible movements within. It is only through awareness of a mental movement that one can transcend it. One must know or be aware one has identified with it to be free of this identification. To live without "sin" means to be here now with impeccable clarity and seeing. To be completely free of interpretation and the interpreter without any trace of it in any form.

This is why I asked if the one who says, kick out the interpreter, is the interpreter. Because we are all here now. In this same place. This current moment. And are we without sin here? Are we impeccable, perfectly aligned with truth here and now? Because if we are, there is nothing to kick out. There is nothing to do, just something to be. To be aware and awake. To say something needs to be kicked out means one has missed the mark. One is not perfectly aligned. One is holding onto an idea, a interpretation.

' One is holding onto an idea, a interpretation. '


Does your post above come from your ideas and interpretations ?

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by sky123

' One is holding onto an idea, a interpretation.

Who we think we are is a good example of that.

Originally Posted by sky123

Does your post above come from your ideas and interpretations ?

I would guess posts come from our brains. The brain is the only place thoughts can come from. This also includes all the many different parts of the brain, stored memory etc and the billions of calculations that go on each second. It's no small task to come up with a post. An average size post of say 2 paragraphs takes the average person how long to write? Maybe 4 minutes? That's if they are just typing out whatever pops into their heads. But lets say each second 2 billion calculations go on.... so 4 minutes would be 60 * 4 = 240 * 2 billion = 480 billion calculations to write a 4 minute post.

I myself usually take a long time to post. It can even take me 24 hours to come up with a response. Sometimes I have to go to sleep and let my brain do it's problem solving activities to come up with a response that makes some kind of sense to me. I would guess that post took me around 30 minutes to write..maybe an hour. So my brain did like 7200 billion calculations to write that.

I think I know what you are asking. Is every post an interpretation? I would say most are, especially the ones that appear repetitive. Like if you can guess who wrote the post just by looking at the content of it, that's a pretty sure sign that post was habitual, from the ego, the delusional self that has developed over time. the self based on habit and conditioning and is wholly thought based. One tends to repeat the same "slogan"s year after year. It's pretty easy to guess who wrote most posts as we all repeat the same patterns or "content" over and over.

So the question would be am I holding onto interpretations when I post? I guess I would have to look back at what I posted to make a judgement on that. The best way to post or respond, is to induce a state of enlightenment, then to respond out of the seeing or understanding. Really this is required to come up with good responses. That's part of the reason I have to wait 24 hours sometimes to respond. I know my current state is all tangled up in thought so I can't come up with anything true to say. So I have to wait until my thoughts quiet down and out of a relatively free state I can come up with a response.

That post you quoted required me to enter into silence into order to understand or see what I was describing. It came out of an experience or state of being. Is it an interpretation? Yes totally, maybe? I dunno. I would have to contemplate that question for a day or so to formulate an answer. Those moments have passed. I have zero attachment to whatever I said or experienced or posted. This now moment is brand new.

I am feeling maybe there is a flow of knowledge here that may have something to do with your question. At least that is what I am sensing now. Experience to knowledge to thought to post. That's my flow in this moment. Now the normal flow of interpretation is thought to conditioning/memory to post.... so yea flows are different depending on the state of the one communicating or posting or whatever it seems. So it would come down to how one is understanding the flow that results in a post, to what is actually occurring there, to determine if one was "interpreting" or not. One would need a very precise definition of that word and all the possible mental processes occurring to determine what was taking place.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

the need to study

One can contemplate or study books, one can contemplate or study personal experience, and one can contemplate or study themselves. But then one can contemplate themselves, their experience, and what is written in books all at the same time.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by sky123

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'

Rightly or wrongly – I identify the ‘non-self’ (Shunya) with zero-ness and ultimately the empty-ness of it with the “Blue Sky God – Tengri”.
Realizing Tengri to me is like the Vajrayana Maha-Ati Cosmic Blue Pancake falling on your head.
The Cosmic Pancake that falls everywhere on the face of the Earth:
http://balkhandshambhala.blogspot.co...ncake-sky.html

And Shunyata with Tathata - which I see as the infant-like .... open-ness and vulnerability, which is prior to us identifying/labelling ourselves as ‘Buddhists’, 'Christian', ‘Indigenous’, ‘Black, White, Red or Yellow’ - whatever ....
Which in turn is prior to us placing so much importance and pride to our label – it becomes a ‘straightjacket-of-self-importance’ and now as "Napoleons" we are in a dire need of a mental hospital.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

One can contemplate or study books, one can contemplate or study personal experience, and one can contemplate or study themselves. But then one can contemplate themselves, their experience, and what is written in books all at the same time.

Yes... I like 'Pick & Mix '

[sky]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Who we think we are is a good example of that.



I would guess posts come from our brains. The brain is the only place thoughts can come from. This also includes all the many different parts of the brain, stored memory etc and the billions of calculations that go on each second. It's no small task to come up with a post. An average size post of say 2 paragraphs takes the average person how long to write? Maybe 4 minutes? That's if they are just typing out whatever pops into their heads. But lets say each second 2 billion calculations go on.... so 4 minutes would be 60 * 4 = 240 * 2 billion = 480 billion calculations to write a 4 minute post.

I myself usually take a long time to post. It can even take me 24 hours to come up with a response. Sometimes I have to go to sleep and let my brain do it's problem solving activities to come up with a response that makes some kind of sense to me. I would guess that post took me around 30 minutes to write..maybe an hour. So my brain did like 7200 billion calculations to write that.

I think I know what you are asking. Is every post an interpretation? I would say most are, especially the ones that appear repetitive. Like if you can guess who wrote the post just by looking at the content of it, that's a pretty sure sign that post was habitual, from the ego, the delusional self that has developed over time. the self based on habit and conditioning and is wholly thought based. One tends to repeat the same "slogan"s year after year. It's pretty easy to guess who wrote most posts as we all repeat the same patterns or "content" over and over.

So the question would be am I holding onto interpretations when I post? I guess I would have to look back at what I posted to make a judgement on that. The best way to post or respond, is to induce a state of enlightenment, then to respond out of the seeing or understanding. Really this is required to come up with good responses. That's part of the reason I have to wait 24 hours sometimes to respond. I know my current state is all tangled up in thought so I can't come up with anything true to say. So I have to wait until my thoughts quiet down and out of a relatively free state I can come up with a response.

That post you quoted required me to enter into silence into order to understand or see what I was describing. It came out of an experience or state of being. Is it an interpretation? Yes totally, maybe? I dunno. I would have to contemplate that question for a day or so to formulate an answer. Those moments have passed. I have zero attachment to whatever I said or experienced or posted. This now moment is brand new.

I am feeling maybe there is a flow of knowledge here that may have something to do with your question. At least that is what I am sensing now. Experience to knowledge to thought to post. That's my flow in this moment. Now the normal flow of interpretation is thought to conditioning/memory to post.... so yea flows are different depending on the state of the one communicating or posting or whatever it seems. So it would come down to how one is understanding the flow that results in a post, to what is actually occurring there, to determine if one was "interpreting" or not. One would need a very precise definition of that word and all the possible mental processes occurring to determine what was taking place.

So you don't practice what you preach

You must give yourself a headache thinking so much, try Meditating to give your poor brain a rest

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

So you don't practice what you preach

I'm just wondering how you derived that from what Rain said.

You must give yourself a headache thinking so much, try Meditating to give your poor brain a rest

Maybe you'd get a headache and need a rest if you tried to string more than two sentences together , but for most of us, writing a few paragraphs isn't such a big deal.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Everyone is familiar with the Four Noble Truths right?

The Noble Eightfold Path is one of the principal teachings of Śrāvakayāna. It is used to develop insight into the true nature of phenomena (or reality) and to eradicate greed, hatred, and delusion. The Noble Eightfold Path is the fourth of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths; the first element of the Noble Eightfold Path is, in turn, an understanding of the Four Noble Truths.

An important part of the Four Noble Truths teachings is Right View.



So what is Right View? It has two aspects.

The first, conceptual right view, which is the intellectual grasp of:



So one of the basic tenants of Buddhism is to study the teachings and have correct understanding of them.

Next we have the second aspect of Right View, Experiential.



https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/.../wheel377.html

Love to see the arguments against the Buddhist teachings on the need to study and right understanding.

How like the teachings says, study and insight go hand in hand.

True, like I always say, practice and philosophy go together. However, it's not really a knowledge game, in that we can quote authorities as if it's an answer, which is really only trying to 'prove a point', to be right, and/or to assume to 'top dog' expert position, but the practice we call insight involves all the nuance of living as developing wisdom opens the self expression of virtue such as kindness, compassion, truthfulness and so on, which lends finer nuance to the meanings we ascribe to the philosophy.