The Two Truths

[Ground]

I am applying bolded green colored words in this posting to highlight what is newly written in this posting and thus differentiate it from what is quoted in this posting.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

You do realize that what you said is wrong was a direct quote from the book don't you?

Let's clarify the matter in its context.

First you try to save your meditation in the context of Dzogchen through inappropriately restricting it exclusively to meditation on an object:

Originally Posted by jonesboy

The book says that meditation on an object is what people call meditation and he then goes on to talk about how to rest ones mind in awareness and it is that resting, without grasping or changing thoughts is what he calls meditation or true meditation or stability...

This I have shown to be wrong according to one of the two books I am referring to:

Originally Posted by Ground

That is wrong. you are confusing meditation with awareness. What you call 'rest ones mind in awareness' belongs to meditation, the province of ordinary mind:

you seem to be attached to zen-like meditation which has nothing to do with 'resting in awareness'. 'resting' here just means not to slip into ordinary mind and it is the natural effortless condition of awareess. It does not mean a specific physical posture as it is characteristic for meditation sessions. you can't 'rest in awareness' without having been directly introduced by phenomena. The intention 'Now I meditate and rest in awareness' is ludicrous as is the intention 'if I meditate nonconceptually I will rest in awareness.'

Then you completely ignore the quote I have provided and you reply to my initial rejection that precedes the quote:

Originally Posted by jonesboy

In the direct encounter between your consciousness and sense objects,
you identify consciousness as a bare state of resting naturally. As I
indicated earlier, in letting go-by resting imperturbably, resting in the
immediacy of perception, resting naturally-you gain natural freedom,
the natural state of naked dharmakaya.

But what do you want to show with this reply?

Since you ignored the quote that contradicts your interpretation of the term 'meditation' and which shows that meditation that is the province of ordinary mind also includes nonconceptual objectless meditation why do you reply with these words?

So since so far you have wrongly assigned meditation to dzogchen and now you try to save meditation in the context of dzogchen though explicitely restricing it to nonconceptual objectless meditation and since you did not acknowledge the quote I have provided I have to assume that you interprete the words you replied as supporting your inappropriate view of dzogchen:
you wrongly interprete 'resting imperturbably' as nonconceptual objectless meditation which is the province of ordinary mind and therefore in this context 'letting go-by resting imperturbably' is necessarily interpreted wrongly in the same way it is interpreted e.g. by theravada buddhism.
But here 'resting imperturbably' just means recalling awareness which is possible only after direct introduction has occurred. This then is 'resting naturally'. Nonconceptual meditation is not 'resting naturally' and 'resting naturally' is not effected by nonconceptual meditation. Therefore there is no 'letting go' as it is seen in the causal approaches and as you might understand it intending nonconceptual objectless meditation.

An therefore nothing is 'gained' as it may be seen with ordinary mind's causal view in the context of affirming nonconceptual meditation as an appropriate practice: letting go of everything causes nonconceptual meditation and nonconceptual meditation causes freedom.

How is it actually?

After having become familiar with the nonauthentic conceptual view of dzogchen direct introduction to the ground of being, awareness beyond time and place, may happen by chance. However the indivdual may occasionally slip back into ordinary mind. Then being able to notice 'This isn't it.' because of having already experienced direct introduction the individual recalls awareness and the phenomena of ordinary mind dissolve without intentional 'letting go' and that is what reveals 'natural freedom'.
So 'natural mind' or 'awareness beyond time and place' goes hand in hand with 'natural freedom'. There is no need to intentionally let go anything, nothing at all is gained and nonconceptual objectless meditation is useless in the context of dzogchen. On the contrary any kind of meditation is damaging stabilization of awareness because it is necessarily based on an intentionality that stabilizes ordinary mind. Meditation is contrived but not natural.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

I wonder does a consciousness that has freed itself from all conditioning have a need or desire to practice something like meditation? Or does a desire to meditate require an ego to be present? One meditates to change in some way right? A difference is seen between meditating and not meditating. What if no difference is seen because no ego is there to see it? There would only be now and a passive unconditioned surrender to whatever that is. I say passive surrender because without any conditioning or ego, it is not will or effort or choice. There is no "person" present only awareness that moves according to it's unconditioned nature. A "person" is not there to surrender so the term "passive surrender" is more about the passive nature of unconditioned being. Conscious awareness is there and moving and acting, but it is a natural thing that does not have a source in thought or anything conditioned.

After Buddha achieved ' Enlightenment ' he continued to meditate so it wasn't ego that came into play with him
I think it depends on the reason why we meditate, if we expect something from it for ourselves then it is ego but to recieve something that helps other sentient beings has to be good.
Ego used in the correct way is beneficial, if we do something that has no personal gain but helps others then it's very useful.

' Wear your ego like a loose fitted garment '

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

I wonder does a consciousness that has freed itself from all conditioning have a need or desire to practice something like meditation? Or does a desire to meditate require an ego to be present? One meditates to change in some way right? A difference is seen between meditating and not meditating. What if no difference is seen because no ego is there to see it? There would only be now and a passive unconditioned surrender to whatever that is. I say passive surrender because without any conditioning or ego, it is not will or effort or choice. There is no "person" present only awareness that moves according to it's unconditioned nature. A "person" is not there to surrender so the term "passive surrender" is more about the passive nature of unconditioned being. Conscious awareness is there and moving and acting, but it is a natural thing that does not have a source in thought or anything conditioned.

The difference that is seen between meditation and natural meditative stability which is awareness of course does not exist inherently but exists in the context of dzogchen view:

Originally Posted by Longchen Rabjam, A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission, Padma Publishing 2001

There is a similarity between the way a great meditator achieves a nonconceptual state of ordinary mind and the way a yogin recognizes awareness in all its nakedness to be nonconceptual. But while there is a similarity in that both are nonconceptual states, there is a difference in that the nonconceptual state of ordinary mind is lost if physical posture and other factors are let go, for awareness has not been elicited in all its nakedness. Nonconceptual awareness has nothing to do with such factors, and therein lies a vast difference.


Forging the path with ordinary mind entails using antidots to refine away concepts, so that these incidental concepts seem to vanish without a trace, whereas in experiencing awareness one is unfettered by concepts. These two situations are similar in that ordinary recollection and thinking vanish into a state in which there is no fixation. But those who follow the former approach do not cut through the very root of the problem, and so conceptual reification and fixation can arise at random and one might think to oneself, "Being unborn, these arise continously." In the latter approach, one cuts through that root, so there is nowhere and no way for them to arise. Rather, the continous inner glow that is the dynamic energy of responsiveness becomes fully evident, manifesting reflexively like images in a mirror. There is a vast diffence here, since one perceives what arises outwardly from responsiveness to be like rays shining from the sun.


Furthermore, both the state of ordinary mind resting naturally and innate abiding of awareness resting naturally have a vivid quality. These states are similar insofar as they are lucid yet nonconceptual, but the aspect of ordinary mind remains anchored in dualistic perception, so that any quality of abiding entails an element of fixation. There is a vast difference here, in that in the latter case there is no interruption of awareness, which is unobstructed.


In addition, sense objects manifest within the limpidity of awareness, so that there is a continuous aspect of clarity, and thought processes arise as the ordinary mind's response to external sense objects. These two situations are similar, for in both there is conscious perception of sense objects. but awareness does not focus on external objects, for even though they manifest to it, it is unencumbered by them, so the root of ordinary mind has been cut through. The focus of ordinary mind shifts outward in response to sense objects, so the root has not been cut through and ordinary thinking takes place. Therein lies the difference.

Originally Posted by Longchen Rabjam, A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission, Padma Publishing 2001

In brief, meditation with ordinary mind, which involves some frame of reference, is anchored in dualistic perception, while awareness - naturally settled meditative stability - is the ongoing and naturally settled state that is the true nature of phenomena.

[Bindu*]

I read some books about Dogzen many years ago. Being not a Buddhist but I really liked the Dogzen feel. This thread is somewhat confusing

Googled Lama surya Das who is well trained in a Dogzen lineage and have participated in Three year retreat' of "meditation" in the Dogzen tradition.


From Lama surya das:

"Dzogchen itself is always explained according to the Three Vital Points of View (outlook), Meditation (practice), and Action (conduct"



http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/

In Dzogchen there is a great deal of emphasis on naturalness and spontaneity, authenticity, openness, joy, and lightness. These qualities imply a levity, a sense of the cosmic absurdity of things, which suffuses the Dzogchen teaching and practice with a delightful buoyancy. That is why they are termed in Tibetan as the Luminous Innate Great Perfection, or Swift and Comfy Dzogchen teachings and pith-instructions.

Dzogchen itself is always explained according to the Three Vital Points of View (outlook), Meditation (practice), and Action (conduct). The View is seeing things as they are, in all their radiant purity and perfection. The Meditation is called non-meditation, for its emphasizes being more than doing–“resting in the View,” in technical terms. Having glimpsed even once how things are, perfect and of one wholly complete nature, then we can let them be as they are, free from pushing and pulling, or attachment-desire and aversion-aggression. The simple and subtle Dzogchen Meditation of getting used to that View is called non-meditation– in other words, not so much do-ing as Be-ing. Sometimes in meditation we get involved in many do-ings; here, the meditation is more about be-ing. And then from that naturally evolves the Action–not pre-meditated, compulsive karmic action, but pro-active, spontaneous Buddha activity, appropriate to needs and circumstances. One’s conduct in life becomes not mere habitual, conditioned, karmic activity, which is more often mere reactivity, but pro-active, spontaneous, helpful, unimpeded Buddha activity.

That is why my own late guru Nyoshul Khenpo Rinpoche always stressed these three pithy instructions for meditation practice:

‘Not doing;

not constructing or fabricating;

and not-distracted.’

In the Dzogchen practice path we practice this non-dual approach, introducing and realizing our own original, inherent, immanent Buddha nature-our intrinsic Buddha-ness. This is not just your own personal Buddha nature, but transpersonal spiritual nature. Not your own thoughts and meditation, but Dzogchen meditation, which is natural meditation, since it relies more on being and on resting in the View than on doing and becoming something other than what you are. Dzogchen is not conceptual contemplation or fabricated, mental meditation; nor is it concentrating one-pointedly so that later we can gain insights and eventually realize enlightenment. Dzogchen is about realizing the inherent freedom and perfection of being in itself, as it is right now, which can be experienced as the inherent completeness of our true nature, our Buddha nature. Awakening to that is the direct path of Dzogchen. That is why Dzogchen masters say that we are all Buddhas by nature; we just have to recognize that fact.

Dzogchen can’t really be taught or learned from books; it can’t be taught, but it can be caught; it can be transmitted and realized. This is where transmission, through connection with an authentic master, comes in. In order to realize enlightenment through the path of Dzogchen, it is traditionally taught and emphasized that one needs an authentic and qualified lineage-holding master to introduce one to the Dzogchen View, Meditation, and Action. All Dzogchen masters stress this essential point, which distinguishes the Mahamudra and Dzogchen tradition from some of the other, non-Vajrayana Buddhist vehicles, in which the teacher and transmission is far less stressed. Some of us emphasize the role of the teacher a little less today, so as to simplify the entry process for Western students, demystify some of the terms and stages, and provide more direct access to the profound depths of our practice tradition. But for those of us with the karmic affinity, inclination, and opportunity to benefit by that unique relationship, the spiritual teacher plays a vital role in our path of awakening.

In the Dzogchen tradition specifically, one needs to be empowered to practice the three main Dzogchen practices of Ru-shen (Subtle Discernment); Trekchod (“Cutting Through, or Seeing Through); and Togal (Leap Over, or Being There). Trekchod is mainly what I teach at my Dzogchen Center and its intensive meditation retreats, along with the supportive practices of chanting, sitting, self-inquiry, and Mahayana attitude-transformation (lo-jong), and lovingkindness and compassion meditations (such as Chenrayzig and Tara practices).

We don’t really talk much in terms of vows and samaya in Dzogchen, because the principle is to stabilize your realization of the View; if you’re in the View, you’re in accordance with your own true nature, which is Buddha nature. In Dzogchen the commitment is to the subtle, profound, mystical principles of enlightened vision such as”one-taste” (tse-chik) and “beyond-action” (ja-drel). Ja-drel or “free from action and inaction” is similar to wu-wei in Taoism and Zen, which means nonaction or beyond striving-that is, beyond action and also beyond inaction. Thus we have the famous “Dzogchen notion of Buddhahood without meditation” the title of one of Dudjom Lingpa’s books. Another way of putting it is, Buddha nature does not depend on our cultivation of it. Buddha nature is innate, inherent, immanent in us. It’s our true original nature. It doesn’t depend on our construction projects, on building a bridge across the ocean of samsara to get to “the other shore”. Buddha nature is human nature, as Zen master Suzuki Roshi put it in his classic Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind. When you become truly you, then Buddha becomes Buddha, and zen becomes true zen. Until then, it is all fabrication. Dzogchen thought reminds us that we may feel far from It, but It is never far from us.

Another way of talking about Dzogchen samaya–about commitment to reality as it truly is beyond our projections–is in terms of the Four Rivets of the View and the Two Principles of Dzogchen. The Four Rivets of the View are: medpa (not-a- thing), chikphu (oneness, coherence), chelwa (all-pervasiveness), and lhundrup (spontaneous presence or perfect manifestation). These are qualities of the View, and studying and experiencing them allows us to recognize when we’re deviating from it.

The Two Principles of Dzogchen–which, incidentally, are not written about much in English–are kadak, or Primordial Purity, and lhundrup, or Spontaneous Perfection/Perfect Manifestation-Appearance. Kadak means primordial purity, or primordial perfection–pure and immaculate from the beginningless beginning; this introduces the radiant perfection of things as they are, as well as the immaculate wholeness and spiritual splendor of our innate true nature. Lhundrup means that this blessed reality is spontaneously present and perfectly manifesting every moment unimpededly, throughout inconceivable Buddhiverses of time and space. In other words, the teaching is that our true nature is primordially empty, open and void (sunyata), groundless, and not-a-thing, while it’s also primordially manifesting its perfect and boundless, spontaneous splendor as everyone and everything, and as any and every form and occurrence. In this splendid, overarching View, everything is It.

This ultimate teaching about absolute truth or reality builds upon the Mahayana notions of the inseparability of form and emptiness, samsara and nirvana. From the Mahayana scriptures, The Heart Sutra of Transcendental Wisdom says: “Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness shapes up as form.” This unified vision theory helps us awaken to the stunning mystical fact that the sublime and the mundane, the sacred and the profane, are inseparable–not necessarily one, but not two either. Accordingly, in the ultimate teaching about absolute reality, its purity, completeness, and perfection are emphasized. This is the conceptual, Buddhological support for practical cultivation of the pure perception or sacramental vision that everything is Buddha-ness, everyone is Buddha by nature, and everything is essentially radiant luminosity. What an amazing and marvelous way to experience the world, to the extent that we can learn to do so authentically!

This luminous View of the Natural Great Perfection transcends the dualism of perfect and imperfect. It implies that everything is primordially complete as is, and uninhibitedly, inexhaustibly, spontaneously manifesting. We don’t have to inhibit, alter, or adulterate anything in our experience; we can simply appreciate it as it as, and make more wise and informed decisions about how skillfully to work with things according to conditions and circumstances. We don’t have to try to become perfect or stop thinking and feeling–not to mention try to make others change according to our own notions of how they could or should be! The nature of the mind is primordially perfect as it is, and all its myriad manifestations are as well–thoughts, feelings, perceptions, memories, or whatever arises in the body-mind complex.

This understanding has tremendous implications for our meditation practice and helps develop, deepen, and eventually stabilize our View, our Meditation, and our Action. When we realize the immaculate, primordial perfection of things, we do not fall into perfectionism nor become oblivious to what needs to be done or what is broken and in need of repair, either internally or externally. Realizing the View of natural perfection, wholeness, and completeness naturally results in the uninhibited outflow of spontaneous, selfless, proactive Buddha activity. Compassionate responsiveness naturally springs from recognizing the View of things as they are; in fact, there is less of oneself to get in the way of unconditional loving responsiveness, according to needs and circumstances. The inner sun of wisdom–the View–naturally radiates its boundless rays of warm lovingkindness and service to all, everywhere, without bias.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

I am applying bolded green colored words in this posting to highlight what is newly written in this posting and thus differentiate it from what is quoted in this posting.




Let's clarify the matter in its context.

First you try to save your meditation in the context of Dzogchen through inappropriately restricting it exclusively to meditation on an object:


This I have shown to be wrong according to one of the two books I am referring to:




Then you completely ignore the quote I have provided and you reply to my initial rejection that precedes the quote:



But what do you want to show with this reply?

Since you ignored the quote that contradicts your interpretation of the term 'meditation' and which shows that meditation that is the province of ordinary mind also includes nonconceptual objectless meditation why do you reply with these words?

So since so far you have wrongly assigned meditation to dzogchen and now you try to save meditation in the context of dzogchen though explicitely restricing it to nonconceptual objectless meditation and since you did not acknowledge the quote I have provided I have to assume that you interprete the words you replied as supporting your inappropriate view of dzogchen:
you wrongly interprete 'resting imperturbably' as nonconceptual objectless meditation which is the province of ordinary mind and therefore in this context 'letting go-by resting imperturbably' is necessarily interpreted wrongly in the same way it is interpreted e.g. by theravada buddhism.
But here 'resting imperturbably' just means recalling awareness which is possible only after direct introduction has occurred. This then is 'resting naturally'. Nonconceptual meditation is not 'resting naturally' and 'resting naturally' is not effected by nonconceptual meditation. Therefore there is no 'letting go' as it is seen in the causal approaches and as you might understand it intending nonconceptual objectless meditation.

An therefore nothing is 'gained' as it may be seen with ordinary mind's causal view in the context of affirming nonconceptual meditation as an appropriate practice: letting go of everything causes nonconceptual meditation and nonconceptual meditation causes freedom.

How is it actually?

After having become familiar with the nonauthentic conceptual view of dzogchen direct introduction to the ground of being, awareness beyond time and place, may happen by chance. However the indivdual may occasionally slip back into ordinary mind. Then being able to notice 'This isn't it.' because of having already experienced direct introduction the individual recalls awareness and the phenomena of ordinary mind dissolve without intentional 'letting go' and that is what reveals 'natural freedom'.
So 'natural mind' or 'awareness beyond time and place' goes hand in hand with 'natural freedom'. There is no need to intentionally let go anything, nothing at all is gained and nonconceptual objectless meditation is useless in the context of dzogchen. On the contrary any kind of meditation is damaging stabilization of awareness because it is necessarily based on an intentionality that stabilizes ordinary mind. Meditation is contrived but not natural.

Ground,

You just don't seem to get it.

The book clearly is arguing against meditation that focuses on an object, saying that is dualist and then goes on to teach how to rest in awareness.

Originally Posted by Longchen Rabjam, A Treasure Trove of Scriptural Transmission, Padma Publishing 2001


In brief, meditation with ordinary mind, which involves some frame of reference, is anchored in dualistic perception, while awareness - naturally settled meditative stability - is the ongoing and naturally settled state that is the true nature of phenomena.

Yes this is a very advanced book and not for beginners.

What I have been saying and what you still don't acknowledge is that Dzogchen does teach meditation on objects as well but once you get to a certain stage, one has to move beyond that... That is what this book is about.

What is pretty funny is that you didn't really quote me, you said I am misinterpreting your quotes and then go on to use the same argument against another that proves what I am saying :)

It is truly hilarious for a person to read this one book and think it applies to everyone, to every situation and that a beginner is going to be able to accomplish this stuff. To also think that there is no other type of teachings on meditation in Dzogchen when you can goto ANY DZOGCHEN WEBSITE AND SEE THEY TEACH DIFFERENT FORMS OF MEDITATION!!

This isn't rocket surgery...

P.S. Can you show me any Dzogchen writing that talks about "Direct Introduction by Chance"?

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Do you ever self reflect and see yourself as the whole?

Meaning all this your seeing. Your arguing over who is right and who is wrong and you cant see that relates to the ego ideal, where your wanting to hold quite noticeably and through so many subtle aspects of your own unconscious, to "this" ideal image of the Buddhist philosophy and other things that others express as their own understanding. In reflection do you think this could pertain to your own pride and accomplishments and what are you are aiming for deeper in yourself in these kind of interactions and your not going there to notice, but rather staying on the surface and trying to match the issue in your own super ego/ideal relationship that hasn't let go yet... Perhaps if you were to look deeper at the image your holding this up against in yourself you might actually see what your trying to maintain and prove. The mind when attached will constantly keep relating on the surface aspects of your own mind containing itself in this way.

Or perhaps you could realize that Buddhism isn't new.

That there are very much accepted views on Buddhism and the people here don't like them.

Now let's take a look at some of the discussions I have had with this group that follows the Buddhist section of this website.

We have argued about Zen. Zen being mayahana based, zen, teaching dharma, zen using transmission, zen using deities, zen using mantras or chanting..

Pages and pages of people calling me crazy when a quick google search on a zen monistary or Wikipedia will show that they do all these things.. But you guys all said I was wrong because you wanted to believe someone else as well as it was saying zen was something that you didn't want it to be.

We have argued about energy, and chakras being taught in Buddhism and again I was wrong, even when I can show practice after Buddhist practice that uses them.

When you guys have found something you disagree with you have started now to slander Tibetan Buddhism. Saying that many of the traditions are not even Buddhist.. for example that Dzogchen isn't tantric, or even Buddhist because it disagreed with your view of Buddhism.

Can you actually read this and self reflect on this in yourself and look? When we actually look within instead of outside of ourselves there is "you" in there and sometimes "you" in there is not aware of what it is reaching for, wanting to see in others to make be a certain way.

I make a post about the Two Truths, which forms one of the most popular views of Emptiness and you want to make it about me? This is a Buddhist section, and it would be nice to talk and learn about Buddhism.

How often does a person come in to this section asking for Buddhist help and you guys don't offer a single Buddhist method? Just about every time... Just go back and review the comments every time someone asks for help.. Sometimes it even seems like people are discouraging Buddhism in there posts when people are asking for a Buddhist view for help.

I don't care what you take from it, I am not trying to prove to you anything, more see that this ongoing fiasco of proving, making things fit up against this idea you have, it could and can relate to something deeper in yourself that is going down to visit itself in this way unaware of itself holding on to something and naturally because you are visiting others in this way, your using them to build on this space in yourself rather than let go in yourself to notice more.

My goodness, you are so wrong...

Do you realize how much slack I get for coming here and trying to help you guys? Everyone I know thinks you guys are a waste of time, that I should move on..

I come here and post not out of ego,,, big ego to have a group of 5 people always attacking me.

In reflection I am very aware of myself in this seeing, so my awareness is noticing, not my need and issues.. I am not the one who "needs" this as much as you show in your own need ongoing here in Buddhist threads.

The ego ideal feels proud when it accomplishes but what one is trying to accomplish needs to consider itself in there in that feeling and need related. If your going deeper and realized it would be noticed in your ongoing relating. And to me your relating is not changing in this way I am noticing and aware in myself as how it can be. Ideal turns to deeper insight and ideas of itself. The realized accomplishments are that it feels accomplished and proud without need to make the external match anything. It moves itself in this way. That space of itself becomes open and aware/clarity of BEING.

How was that for you ego?

Also did you notice that all you are saying is you are lost in thoughts? They may seem deeper thoughts but they are still thoughts?

I always notice when someone starts a thread and relates a particular topic not realizing themselves in it either through process or before the post, they will continue to show themselves ongoing in the nature of themselves in all that. I am often surprised people cant see themselves in the way they do this.

Or it could be a simple post in a Buddhist section on a major teaching in Buddhism..

Just like on the other side of the coin I started teaching the lankavatara sutra which is a mind only school. A different belief system on emptiness...

Are you also noticing that in the Hindu section I am posting stuff about Kashmir Shaivism at the same time as I am posting here?

Must say something about me...

[Bohdiyana]

After Buddha achieved ' Enlightenment ' he continued to meditate ..

But "he" would not be the same thing after enlightenment. So what"meditation" actually was or referred to would be different. Seems to me the word "meditation" refers to different things.

It's like a Enlightened person eats a piece of mango slowly experiencing the flavor and texture on some deep level of presence and some other person gossiping with another person at some cafe unconsciously shoves mango pieces into their mouth and quickly chews and swallows them without even being conscious of the taste because they are so wrapped in their gossip. You could say both "ate" some mango but the word "ate" is not referring to the same thing.

What "meditation" is or refers to is an actual unique individual thing which is different in everyone yet people use that same word to represent it all. What Buddha "did" or "was" changed after enlightenment yet the word or description remains the same. If the "person" doing an action is different the action becomes different as well but yea this level of understanding is commonly ignored or viewed as unimportant. This is probably because what is different is the experience of the one doing the action, not the outside observer who is witnessing the action. As an outside observer, I could see Buddha sitting in "meditation" next to the town Butcher and say, "Look they are both meditating," but what they were both experiencing or "doing" could be vastly different. Same with saying, both the gossiper and the enlightened person were "eating" some mango.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

After Buddha achieved ' Enlightenment ' he continued to meditate ..

But "he" would not be the same thing after enlightenment. So what"meditation" actually was or referred to would be different. Seems to me the word "meditation" refers to different things.

It's like a Enlightened person eats a piece of mango slowly experiencing the flavor and texture on some deep level of presence and some other person gossiping with another person at some cafe unconsciously shoves mango pieces into their mouth and quickly chews and swallows them without even being conscious of the taste because they are so wrapped in their gossip. You could say both "ate" some mango but the word "ate" is not referring to the same thing.

What "meditation" is or refers to is an actual unique individual thing which is different in everyone yet people use that same word to represent it all. What Buddha "did" or "was" changed after enlightenment yet the word or description remains the same. If the "person" doing an action is different the action becomes different as well but yea this level of understanding is commonly ignored or viewed as unimportant. This is probably because what is different is the experience of the one doing the action, not the outside observer who is witnessing the action. As an outside observer, I could see Buddha sitting in "meditation" next to the town Butcher and say, "Look they are both meditating," but what they were both experiencing or "doing" could be vastly different. Same with saying, both the gossiper and the enlightened person were "eating" some mango.

Very good post, thank you.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

After Buddha achieved ' Enlightenment ' he continued to meditate ..

But "he" would not be the same thing after enlightenment. So what"meditation" actually was or referred to would be different. Seems to me the word "meditation" refers to different things.

It's like a Enlightened person eats a piece of mango slowly experiencing the flavor and texture on some deep level of presence and some other person gossiping with another person at some cafe unconsciously shoves mango pieces into their mouth and quickly chews and swallows them without even being conscious of the taste because they are so wrapped in their gossip. You could say both "ate" some mango but the word "ate" is not referring to the same thing.

What "meditation" is or refers to is an actual unique individual thing which is different in everyone yet people use that same word to represent it all. What Buddha "did" or "was" changed after enlightenment yet the word or description remains the same. If the "person" doing an action is different the action becomes different as well but yea this level of understanding is commonly ignored or viewed as unimportant. This is probably because what is different is the experience of the one doing the action, not the outside observer who is witnessing the action. As an outside observer, I could see Buddha sitting in "meditation" next to the town Butcher and say, "Look they are both meditating," but what they were both experiencing or "doing" could be vastly different. Same with saying, both the gossiper and the enlightened person were "eating" some mango.

From what I have studied, Buddha practised meditation after enlightenment ' in the concentration that comes from mindfulness of breathing '.

[Bindu*]

Also enlightened masters often practice meditation to set an inspiring example for their aspiring disciples.