Fearless Samadhi
Also see: Excerpts from the Jewel Mirror Samadhi 
The Path of Anatta
 

Someone asked me to explain the paragraph, "...Lastly what that is ‘unborn, pristine and luminous’ cannot be “dependent and inseparable from the transient” appears sound only logically but not experientially. It will first seem illogical and unnatural to accept such an idea, but when the tendency to dualify and solidify experience subsides, then scenery, taste, scent, sound, breathe, the sensation of our feet touching the ground…all arising will help lighten this psychological pain. Therefore fearlessly, unreservedly and completely open to whatever arises."

I wrote:

There can be the false misconception that awareness is inherently existing and distinct from transient experience. This is dualistic and tends to solidify the subject/object structure, the sense that I am I and experience is apart from myself.
In sleep paralysis, for example, there can be a situation where there is deep fear due to the sense of an intruder or some fearful 'other'. But in my experience, if there is recognition of the nondual and empty nature of mind/experience, there is liberation in that very instant.
In my previous four times I had sleep paralysis (and I haven't had any recently), each time the structure of subject/object is dissolved in transparent bliss and boundless clarity. The sense of myself being here facing a fearful 'other' or intruder completely dissolves naturally into boundless bliss and presence even as it arises. I no longer get locked in that fearful situation.
There is complete fearless dissolving into whatever appears, seen, heard, smelled, etc. And you will love to dissolve, to die, in a sense, without resistance, without choosing to be in another situation. This very situation, condition, appearance, whatever it is, is your nature, empty-clarity.
And this is why in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead", there is an emphasis on the recognition of whatever deities - wrathful and peaceful, as simply a display of your own state, your own nature, essence and energy. They are not apart from yourself, so do not fear them, but recognise them as your very Presence.



Soh Wei Yu From the Tibetan Book of the Dead, translated with commentary by Francesca Fremantle and Chogyam Trungpa

"O child, whatever you see, however terrifying it is, recognize it as your own projection; recognize it as the luminosity, the natural radiance of your own mind. If you recognize in this way, you will become a buddha at that very moment, there is no doubt. What is called perfect instantaneous enlightenment will arise on the spot. Remember!

...At that moment do not be afraid of the yellow light, luminous and clear, sharp and bright, but recognize it as wisdom. Let your mind rest in it, relaxed, in a state of nonaction, and be drawn to it with longing. If you recognize it as the natural radiance of your own mind, even though you do not feel devotion and do not say the inspiration-prayer, all the forms and lights and rays will merge inseparably with you, and you will attain enlightenment...
~ Padmasambhava"

 "May the element of space not rise up as an
enemy,
may I see the Realm of the blue buddha.
May the element of water not rise up as enemy,
may I see the realm of the white buddha.
May the element of earth not rise up as an
enemy,
may I see the realm of the yellow buddha.
May the element of fire not rise up as an
enemy,
may I see the realm of the red buddha.
May the element of air not rise up as an enemy.
may I see the realm of the green buddha.
May the rainbow of the elements not rise up as
enemies,
may I see the realms of all the buddhas.
May the sounds, lights and rays not rise up as
enemies,
may I see the infinite realms of the Peaceful
and Wrathful Ones.
May I know all the sounds as my own sound,
may I know all the lights as my own light,
may I know all the rays as my own ray.
May I spontaneously know the bardo as myself,
may I attain the realms of the three kāyas.

...When the journey of my life has reached its
end,
and since no relatives go with me from this
world
I wander in the bardo state alone,
may the peaceful and wrathful buddhas send
out the power of their compassion
and clear away the dense darkness of
ignorance
.
When parted from beloved friends, wandering
alone,
my own projections’ empty forms appear,
may the buddhas send out the power of their
compassion
so that the bardo’s terrors do not come
.
When the five luminous lights of wisdom shine,
fearlessly may I recognize myself;
when the forms of the peaceful and wrathful
ones appear,
fearless and confident may I recognize the
bardo
.
When I suffer through the power of evil karma,
may the peaceful and wrathful buddhas clear
away suffering;
when the sound of dharmatā roars like a
thousand thunders,
may it be transformed into the sound of
mahāyāna teaching
.
When I follow my karma, without a refuge,
may the peaceful and wrathful buddhas be my
refuge;
when I suffer the karma of unconscious
tendencies,
may the samādhi of bliss and luminosity arise
. "

Homage to Padmasambhava 🙏

p.s. I am far from what is stated in the book, but I see the importance of this. Constant recognition in all states is considered perfect Buddhahood.

Soh Wei Yu Haven’t had the sleep paralysis intruder sort of experience for some time.

Well I just had it in sleep, was waking out of a lucid dream and then the sense of intruder came and a very loud scream was heard. Sounds like a nightmare. But throughout it I was fearlessly dissolving into the experience and sensation of it and the whole field of experience arises as clarity and bliss. No fear. Then I woke up.


1
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1w · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu A sense of compassion also arose then, “if that intruder presence is really a ghost or spirit (and not merely my projection), may it be free and liberated”


2
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1w · Edited
Soh Wei Yu

Soh Wei Yu I should make a disclaimer that I am not fearless yet. If hugging saint Amma really did this knowingly and without hesitation, knowing she could contract leprosy from this act, then she is more fearless than me.

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/...



============

Thusness, 2007:

(5:29 PM) Thusness:    what are the 3 characteristics (of self-liberation)?
(5:29 PM) AEN:    impermanence, suffering, no self ?
(5:29 PM) Thusness:    nope
(5:29 PM) Thusness:    i just told u the other day
(5:30 PM) Thusness:    completely non-dual and transparent.
(5:30 PM) Thusness:    Completely fearless
(5:30 PM) Thusness:    completely non-attached
(5:30 PM) Thusness:    so if a person after the experience of no-self, and is able to attain this 3 characteristics
(5:31 PM) Thusness:    then his hui geng (wisdom root) is truly deep
(5:31 PM) Thusness:    da geng qi (superior capacity)
(5:32 PM) Thusness:    means the enlightenment of non-dual of our nature leads directly to self liberation
(5:32 PM) Thusness:    that is because the 'sense of self' is completely eliminated from 7th
(5:32 PM) Thusness:    and karmic propensities become self liberated 
Even after initial realization of anatta, we have to continue practicing and meditating until these three aspects are perfected.

0 comments | | edit post
Thrangu Rinpoche on Nature of Mind

Thrangu Rinpoche:
In the Vajrayana there is the direct path to examining mind. In everyday life we are habituated to thinking, "I have a mind and I perceive these things." Ordinarily, we do not directly look at the mind and therefore do not see the mind. This is very strange because we see things and we know that we are seeing visual phenomena. But who is seeing? We can look directly at the mind and find that there is no one seeing; there is no seer, and yet we are seeing phenomena. The same is true for the mental consciousness. We think various thoughts, but where is that thinking taking place? Who or what is thinking? However, when we look directly at the mind, we discover that there is nobody there; there is no thinker and yet thinking is going on. This approach of directly looking in a state of meditation isn't one of reasoning, but of directly looking at the mind to see what is there.
Source: Shentong and Rangtong
See: All Thrangu Rinpoche 58 Books at $35 (only 60 cents per book!)
...
If we look for a perceiver, we won’t find one. We do think, but if we look into the thinker, trying to find that which thinks, we do not find it. Yet, at the same time, we do see and we do think. The reality is that seeing occurs without a seer and thinking without a thinker. This is just how it is; this is the nature of the mind. The Heart Sutra sums this up by saying that “form is emptiness,” because whatever we look at is, by nature, devoid of true existence. At the same time, emptiness is also form, because the form only occurs as emptiness. Emptiness is no other than form and form is no other than emptiness. This may appear to apply only to other things, but when applied to the mind, the perceiver, one can also see that the perceiver is emptiness and emptiness is also the perceiver. Mind is no other than emptiness; emptiness is no other than mind. This is not just a concept; it is our basic state.
The reality of our mind may seem very deep and difficult to understand, but it may also be something very simple and easy because this mind is not somewhere else. It is not somebody else’s mind. It is your own mind. It is right here; therefore, it is something that you can know. When you look into it, you can see that not only is mind empty, it also knows; it is cognizant. All the Buddhist scriptures, their commentaries and the songs of realization by the great siddhas express this as the “indivisible unity of emptiness and cognizance,” or “undivided empty perceiving,” or “unity of empty cognizance.” No matter how it is described, this is how our basic nature really is. It is not our making. It is not the result of practice. It is simply the way it has always been.
Source: Crystal Clear (See: All Thrangu Rinpoche 58 Books at $35 (only 60 cents per book!)
...
Although one recognizes the cognitive lucidity or the lucidity of awareness within emptiness, there are different ways that this might be recognized. For example, someone might find that when they look at the nature of a thought, initially the thought arises, and then as the thought dissolves, what it leaves in its wake or what it leaves behind it is an experience or recognition of the unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. Because this person has recognized this cognitive lucidity and emptiness, there is some degree of recognition, but because this can only occur for them or has only occurred for them after the thought has subsided or vanished, then they are still not really seeing the nature of thought itself. For someone else, they might experience that from the moment of the thought's arising, and for the entire presence of that thought, it remains a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. This is a correct identification, because whenever there is a thought present in the mind or when there is no thought present in the mind, and whether or not that thought is being viewed in this way or not, the nature of the mind and the nature of every thought is always a unity of cognitive lucidity and emptiness. It is not the case that thoughts only become that as they vanish.
The word naked is used a great deal at this point in the text. And the word naked here has a very specific and important meaning because it is used to distinguish between understanding and experience, that is to say, understanding and recognition. it is very easy to confuse one's understanding for an experience or a recognition. One might understand something about the mind and therefore think that one had recognized it directly. Here, the use of the term "naked" means "direct;" that is to say, something that is experienced nakedly or directly in the sense that the experience is free from the overlay of concepts.
Whereas normally we have the attitude that thought is something we must get rid of, in this case it is made clear that it is important not to get rid of thought, but to recognize its nature, and indeed, not only the nature of thought but the nature of stillness must be recognized. In particular, with regard to thought, as long as we do not recognize its nature, of course thought poses a threat to meditation and becomes an impediment. But once the nature of thought has been correctly recognized, thought itself becomes the meditative state and therefore it is often said that "the root of meditation is recognizing the nature of thought."
There lived in the eighteenth century a great Gelugpa teacher named Changkya Rolpe Dorje, who from his early youth displayed the signs of being an extraordinary person. He became particularly learned and also very realized, and at one point he composed a song called 'Recognizing Mother.' 'Mother' in his song is the word he uses to refer to dharmata or the nature of one's mind. This song was so extraordinary that a commentary was written about it by Khenchen Mipam Rinpoche. In this song, Changkya Rolpe Dorje makes a very clear distinction between recognizing and not recognizing the nature of one's mind. In one part of the song he says, "Nowadays we scholars of the Gelugpa tradition, in discarding these appearances of the mind as the basis for the realization of emptiness and of the basis for the negation of true existence, and in searching for something beyond this to refute, something beyond this to negate in order to realize emptiness, have left our old mother behind; in other words, we have missed the point of emptiness."
Changkya Rolpe Dorje gives another image for this mistake that we tend to make. he says that we are like a small child who is sitting in his mother's lap but forgetting where he is, looks for his mother everywhere; looks above, below, left and right and is unable to see his mother and becomes quite agitated. Along comes the child's older brother, and the image the older brother represents is both the understanding of interdependence and the recognition of the nature of thought. The older brother reminds the child by saying, "Your mother is right here, you are in her lap." In the same way, the nature of our mind or emptiness is with us all the time, we tend to look for it indirectly; we look for it somewhere outside ourselves, somewhere far away. And yet we do not need to look far away if we simply view the nature of thought as it is."...
Source: Pointing out the Dharmakaya ( www.rinpoche.com/teachings/pointingout.pdf )
...
Next is pointing out the mind within appearances, which is the twenty-fourth topic, and this is a presentation of what is an authentic experience of the relationship between mind and appearances.
When you are meditating and looking at the mind within appearances, then you may have the experience that, while the perceived objects and the perceiving mind do not seem in any way to disappear or cease to exist and are, in a sense, still present, when you actively look at them, you do not find anything in either that exists separate from the other. And in that way, when looking at the mind that experiences appearances, you find that there is nothing in that mind to fix upon as a truly existent subject or apprehender, yet the mind still appears to experience. And when you look at the perceived objects, while they do not disappear and while you are looking at them, they remain vivid appearances that are without anything in them anywhere that you can fix upon as existing separate from the experience of the nonduality of appearances and mind. This nonduality of appearance and mind is held to be the authentic experience or recognition of the mind within appearances.
Source: Pointing out the Dharmakaya ( www.rinpoche.com/teachings/pointingout.pdf )
Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
What is the Awakened State like Experientially?
A friend (without much spiritual background) asked me recently what's the difference between my experience and his experience. What does awakening entail, experientially? In order words, what is the feeling of it like? (Note that I am recalling from that conversation, this isn't the exact words)

I answered: Here there is a complete absence of any sense of sense of self, body, sense faculties, objects, boundaries, and an absence of any sense of locality. Whereas those are present in experience for you.

For example when I'm driving the car, there is no sense at all of being a driver located in the driver seat. The whole infinite field (including trees, roads and traffic lights) is simply experiencing itself and reacting seamlessly and spontaneously with no sense of distance (no sense of a me here encountering and reacting to things 'out there'). Presencing (vivid experience) "stands out" as the "concrete textures and details" of everything when not a trace of self remains. Everything shimmers with a vivid intensity of pure aliveness and presence.


He asked: If you don't experience locality, why do you like to travel to different places? Doesn't non locality mean you can teleport anywhere since you are not located or fixed anywhere? Since you are nowhere and already everywhere, why do you need to travel? Why did you visit a music festival (Tomorrowland) in your recent trip to Europe?

I answered: I still enjoy experiencing new stuff sometimes. Non locality is not teleportation, it means there is no locality or reference point to which a fixed subject (experiencer/self) or an object exists. Appearance 'knows' from itself without a knower behind. It does not mean that because there is no self besides everything that appears, I am everywhere in the world all at once, like including Antarctica. Specific appearances only appear in the presence of specific conditions. Ever-fresh phenomenal appearances manifest due to certain conditions including travel, etc. The experience of a music festival requires conditions like international DJs playing music, the communal setting of massive numbers of people coming together, so on and so forth.
(And even those appearances cannot be pinned down as "it is here" or "it is there" as they are simply and merely appearing due to conditions, like reflections of a moon on water. There is no intrinsic existence of a phenomenal appearance to be found.

But as Thusness said, "When you are luminous and transparent, don't think of dependent origination or emptiness, that is post-equipoise. When hearing sound, like the sound of flowing water and chirping bird, it is as if you are there. It should be non-conceptual, no sense of body or me, transparent, as if the sensations stand out. You must always have some quality time into this state of anatta. Means you cannot keep losing yourself in verbal thoughts, you got to have quality hours dedicated to relaxation and experience fully without self, without reservation.")

Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
Forms are Empty, Emptiness is Form
By James Corrigan

https://medium.com/@StillJustJames/forms-are-empty-emptiness-is-form-13bf7e5eac6a

StillJames
Boy looking at Xmas toys in shop window, public domain. Creator: Bain News Service. Courtesy of US Library of Congress.
This essay is about one of the most disconcerting, and possibly debilitating, meditative experiences that occurs while meditating, and it is almost a sure thing that you will find yourself suddenly and directly experiencing the lack of a real self in anything — if you seriously meditate long enough, both in frequency and duration.
In a non-secular setting in which the teacher has no exposure to this advanced meditative experience, you may find yourself unsupported and abandoned — neither knowing how to make sense of the experience, nor how to move forward in your life. Stopping your meditation permanently may even make it worse in such a non-secular context.
In a spiritual setting, such as that of Buddhism in a traditional context, you are not vulnerable in that way — having access to competent teachers and millennia of accumulated experience with such advanced meditative experiences.
The purpose of this essay, however, is not to teach you anything about Emptiness — the Buddhist concept of the universal absence of any intrinsic self — it is simply a pointing out of the source of our common misunderstanding about this direct meditative experience, and the misuse, and misapplication of the derived concept.
Children quickly learn that they have a mind. This is the name that we give to the source from which, and the venue in which, our thoughts occur. Later, children learn that this mind is where perceptions and feelings occur too. And they begin to call it “my self.”
When the self is seen to have no place, no identity, and no enduring qualities at all, this mind is sometimes elevated to “Mind,” in order to escape the orphanage of parentless thought, and the error of a “greater Self” occurs.
Because if the self has no true reality, how can it be a place or thing from which, and in which, thoughts, perceptions, and feelings occur? Yet even though we may understand this intellectually, we still call it mind, or Mind, because our faculty of reason needs something positive to hold onto — we simply cannot understand what we cannot grasp (hold of), so even just a name suffices. And so, we keep referring to mind (or Mind) as if it is something, tenaciously holding onto it.
Similarly, when all things are seen to lack an intrinsic reality, we say they are empty of, or lack, an intrinsic self as well.
It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?” The Buddha replied, “Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty.⁠¹
Unfortunately, we call this lack of a self: “emptiness,” because (again) the discerning faculty of reason needs something positive to hold onto, even if it is only a name.
— Because an absence named is just such a positive thing.
Look closely at this. We notice that something we thought was there, is not there, and rather than say nothing, or like the Buddha, just say it is not there, we ‘extract’ this quality of being absent from the thing (neither of which is truly possible⁠²) and make it a thing-in-itself, marking this ‘fact’ with a word that ends in “ness.” Our faculty of reason then has something positive to think about — “Emptiness.”
Yet even though there is no mind, your thoughts, perceptions, and feelings still occur. We can call their occurrence whatever we like — we can still call it mind, as many do — but we should realize we are no longer talking about a thing or a place, but rather, just activity.
An activity is understood to not have a self, as verbs are not considered to be nouns or names. Even so, we are taught early in life that all actions have an actor that is responsible for them, because we need to place our praise or blame on someone for everything that occurs.
Pay attention here, because this error carries over into our predilection to over-think the lack of an intrinsic self by applying it to activities that occur, saying that they too are empty of an intrinsic self, as we do in the case of all our phenomenal experiences. But, (and in the vernacular): Duh! Even in a physicalist understanding of reality, actions do not have an intrinsic self. Instead, they have an actor that is the cause of the activity.
But we’ve already done away with that erroneous construction, once we realized that there is nothing with an intrinsic self, Right?
Our faculty of reason is well-trained to always hold an actor responsible for activities that occur. But there is no actor, no ground, no nature, no source. That’s what the insight of “no intrinsic self” reminds us of, and that is all it means.
Yet our faculty of reason needs something positive to hold onto, and “Emptiness” (the concept) is like a super weapon obliterating everything in its path. Besides we’re kids and love our toys, so “Emptiness” becomes, not just the destroyer of all things (“thinghood” actually), but the source of all things too.
What? The absence of something is not the presence of something else. “Emptiness” is a place-holder for what we used to assume was there, but isn’t, and nothing more.
But notice that thoughts, feelings, and perceptions still occur. Amazing. It is as if words have no sway over them!
This activity (thoughts arising, feelings manifesting, and perceptions arriving) should be called something other than “Emptiness” though, because that word marks the absence of an intrinsic self, not the presence of activity. It is called “suchness” by some in order to mark this presencing (arising, manifesting, arriving, appearing, showing up, etc.) of these things, thoughts, perceptions, and feelings. But “suchness” is a noun, and specifically one created by abstracting some aspect or characteristic from something (it’s the “ness” suffix that gives that away again). It therefore still suffers from our habit of needing to point our fingers at things — even if they aren’t there!
If we are attentive, we quickly realize that there is no mind-thing, no perceiver-thing, and no other-things, yet even so, we still call these occurrences mind, although technically they should be called “minding.” I prefer to use the verb “naturing” myself, to indicate nature in an active sense, much like Spinoza’s natura naturans (but dropping the “nature” thing because there is nothing with an intrinsic self). But most people just stare blankly at me when I do that.
All too many fall into the trap of immediately forgetting what they recently knew, and see suchness as some thing(s), and reactively apply their secret weapon, Emptiness, to suchness, in order to make the things go away. But there are no things, and no need to bring out the big gun anymore. Our old habits of mentation are leading us astray.
Suchness has no positive source, nor even an absence of source. There is no ground, no place, and no time for suchness, and no need for any of that. There is no emptiness for suchness either, because it doesn’t apply — doing so is a “category error” in philosophical parlance.
This groundless, baseless, reality,
 Just left alone, is utterly awesome;
 This unmoving pure presence, 
 With no destination, is utterly awesome; 
 This immediately available awareness of the now,
 Irrepressible, is utterly awesome.³
It’s unfortunate that we had to make a noun out of this activity, calling it “Suchness,” just because our faculty of reason needs something positive to hold onto, and something to blame. Since suchness — or naturing as I like to say because that’s a verb, not a noun — is not a thing, and not even a collection of things — it can only be activity — which is more truly calledpresencing. Remember what was done here.
Where would “it” occur? Where does that which shows up appear? When we talk about the “space-like” expanse of appearances, we are not affirming the existence of Space. Go sit by a Buddhist Stupa and learn the lesson it presents in the form of the Bindu-Nada that is placed atop it.
The Bindu is the non-dimensional point from which all appearances manifest. Note its specific denial of spatial characteristics (non-dimensionality) — it isn’t anything at all. The Nada, the vibrations, or reverberations, are the appearances emanating from that non-manifest point. I call it an event horizon. You can say what you will about the appearances, but say nothing about how they show up. But how could youpossibly know?
So please note that Emptiness is not Suchness, and is not the nature of anything — because then suchness wouldn’t be empty of an intrinsic self. We can say it is the essence of Suchness, elevating the absence of what we thought was there in the appearances to the stature of the absolute source of all, but that is just overkill and so wrong. It’s useful for a while, but it has the nasty effect of retarding our progress.
Show Quoted Content
Suchness is the presencing of forms (otherwise there would be no distinguishing anything), and forms are empty of any intrinsic self. Yet we can discern the inherent essence of each form. Where we get lost is in confusing the “nature” (inherent essence) of a form, which sets it apart from other forms, with an intrinsic self. Our problem lies in the confusing multiplicity of meanings for the word “nature.” If we just thought of it as “intrinsic self-naturing” versus “essential character,” we’d be on our way to lessening our confusion.
Thus, “Emptiness” (note the capitalization) is a form also — it’s a thoughtform, called a “concept.”
So repeat after me: “Forms (suchness) are empty, Emptiness is form.” This will remind us that “Emptiness” is just an idea that took hold when we noticed we were originally wrong about everything.
The essential character of Suchness is Pure Spontaneous Presencing. And I feel the need to again remind you that suchness is not a thing, it’s the name we give to this activity — ”presenting as form.”
And the nature of this is not something else, it’s the activity. So Pure Spontaneous Presencing is not a thing. It’s simply a description of the salientcharacteristics of the activity that is our phenomenal existence — of suchness.
Thus, it defines nothing, because there is nothing to define. As Garab Dorje said:
Transcending all discrimination in its arising, Transcending all discrimination in its release.
And as Jigme Lingpa said:
While safeguarding the continuity of the wonderful intrinsic perfection of our existential presence, if the thought “the nature of pure presence is empty” springs up in the rational mind, by ascribing an objective focus of emptiness to pure presence, buddha is precluded.
Forms are empty, Emptiness is form.
ཨེ་མ་ཧོ། ཕན་ནོ་ཕན་ནོ་སྭཱཧཱ།
Footnotes:
1 Suñña Sutta
2 If something is not there, it really can’t be said to have a quality. But even worse, we are in the process of noting that the ‘thing’ really isn’t a thing at all, so how can ‘it’ even be imagined to have a quality?
3 The Heap of Jewels
4 Quote attributed to Longchenpa in the “Yeshe Lama,” Jingme Lingpa
5 “Yeshe Lama,” Jingme Lingpa


Sent from my iPad
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
泰国【宋卡】龙象山寺 Wat Tham Khao Rup Chang 高僧释明山方丈年谱


http://bbs.taiguo.com/

泰国【宋卡】龙象山寺 Wat Tham Khao Rup Chang 高僧释明山方丈年谱

http://storage.live.com/items/903AB98B1833035!181?filename=%25E8%25A7%2582%25E4%25B8%2596%25E9%259F%25B3%25E8%258F%25A9%25E8%2590%25A8%25EF%25BC%2588%25E9%2599%2588%25E6%2598%259F%25EF%25BC%2589.swf
距離合艾往南一小時車程的宋卡山洞，到了那里真可谓是特别的發現和讓人興奮神秘的地方——观音菩萨龙象山寺。這座寺院是沿著橡膠園一路攀上斜坡而上的寺院，進入眼簾竟是一座憾動人心的菩提迦耶，使人非常雀躍，裡面共有三層，第一層是一個中國寺廟的大殿，可納5000人的大殿，牆上都壁畫，石柱上都是塑有龍柱，來到第二層則是泰式的大殿，一個傳統尖角的泰國佛像，佛像上的壁上則是塑有精緻及多元花紋的彩圖，勝入其境彷彿到了另一個境界，層層都給人許多驚喜。

兴建大雄宝殿万佛塔碑 （佛历二千五百四十七秋立）

泰国宋卡府昔罗县巴东勿杀区考律田观音菩萨龙象山寺开山祖师兼住持，释明三老和尚俗姓陈名专正，原籍中国广东省潮州揭阳县凤美乡人，幼年随父到星洲，九岁失怙大兄，因过劳病逝，小弟亦死于非命，数口之家生活颠簸困苦，全赖师尊维持，经多年奋斗，渐入佳境，事业已有所成，奈人生无常，三十八岁失持顿悟人生多难，苦海无边，决心寻求解脱，于1967年拜中国禅宗高僧慧僧老和尚为恩师。虔诚事佛后徒泰国南部巴东勿杀深山洞中持戒苦修，披荊斬棘募化建寺

上明下三长老年谱
年
1967 44岁拜中国禅宗高僧慧僧老和尚为师。
1968 印度朝圣（僧俗四十一人）同时第一次在菩提迦耶燃指供佛。
1970 拖佛。（出攀砂）被邀请坐在一座平底小龙舟，木刻佛像按舟上，由善男信女数十人以绳索慢慢拖至十余公里外的巴东市场。
1971 拖佛。（出攀砂）
1972 第二次在印度菩提迦耶燃指供佛（四月独自一人）
1973 观音菩萨与祖师圣像圆满建成，二月十五日举行典礼，三月十三日闭关一年，修拔丹三昧法三个月，闭关期间由于观音菩萨灵感显瑞相，故发心割下双耳奉献观音菩萨。
1974 闭关一年。 拜法华经。
1976 塑造释迦牟尼佛圣像（高约四十多英尺），二年后完成。 前往曼谷筹铜厂，订造一尊地藏王菩萨，一尊韦陀菩萨，一尊明王菩萨及西方三圣。
1977 建一座四层楼高客房。
1982 第三次在印度菩提迦耶燃指供佛。 建一座三层楼高楼房，楼下作为斋堂与厨房。
1983 前往台湾受增壹戒为期五十三天。 建造牌楼式大门及修筑围墙，门前塑造两只守门大象。
1984 建造一艘停泊在河上的龙头船，船上建一尊金身四面天王圣像。
1985 在前往大洞斜坡路上两旁塑造两条雌雄七头龙，身长十尺，建一座二层楼房，泰语“隆堂”用以招待法师，建造数间（龟滴）供徒弟修持及工人住宿。
1986 农历十一月初六举行观音菩萨龙象洞开幕典礼及布施米粮衣服给临近穷苦人家。
1987 四月率领十余信徒往中国四大名山及西藏布达拉宫朝圣山。 六月装山五色灯使黑洞变成“小小桂林”。 开发另一洞称为“罗汉洞”。
1988 订造木刻观音菩萨圣像。 二度往中国普陀山。
1989 台湾订造一口重壹仟公斤的大钟及大鼓。 农历九月初一日举行第一次布施给三百户穷人家（现今每年一次）米，糖油衣服等。
1991 水路普度法会（农历十一月初一日开坛十五天）
1992 完成距离山洞二公里外路口的龙象洞大牌楼。
1993 加宽加扩大大洞前的场地，在河上驳建一座面积三千余平方尺的平台，楼下作为接待宾客的客厅，工程费九个月完成。 三月在“小小桂林”塑建一尊长约三十英尺的卧佛。 大佛两则供奉木雕装金身的四大天王圣像。 六月为大牌楼及卧佛开光典礼，恭诵“妙法莲华经”法会四十九天。 九月十七日政府来信批准申请建造正式寺庙的证书。 政府批准于龙象寺内建孤儿院，同时开始收养孤儿并给于教育。 1994 建筑孤儿院。 1998 七月万佛宝塔动土。
2001 建一座三楼高“隆堂”靠近万佛宝塔右侧。
2002 供千二僧。
2004 建河流边的“隆堂”.
2005 万佛宝塔宝珠仪式。 近大门建筑一座“隆堂”
2006 万佛宝塔开光仪式（六月六日）。
2010年11月21日 佛历二五五三年，长老圆寂于寺院中。享年八十八岁，僧蜡四十四载。

0 comments | | edit post