Posts
- I like this v much.In the Questions of Adhyāśaya Sūtra (Adhyāśayasaṃśōdana Sūtra), the Buddha makes this point in a dialogue with a disciple (CTB 161):“For example, during a magical display, a man sees a woman created by a magician and desire arises in him. His mind becomes ensnared with desire, and he is frightened and ashamed in front of his companions.Rising from his seat, he leaves and later considers the woman to be ugly, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless.O child of a good lineage, what do you think? Is that man behaving correctly or incorrectly?”“Blessed One, he who strives to consider a nonexistent woman to be ugly, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless behaves incorrectly.”The Blessed One said, “O child of a good lineage, you should similarly view those bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who consider unproduced and unarisen phenomena to be ugly, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless.I do not say that these foolish persons are cultivating the path; they are practicing in an incorrect manner.”Here the Buddha emphasizes that if we contemplate nonexistent objects of attachment as ugly, impermanent, empty, and lacking a self-sufficient substantially existent I, we are missing the point.There’s no use contemplating the impermanence and so forth of nonexistents; if we understood that these things did not exist to start with, our attachment to them would vanish. Meditating on the attributes of coarse true duḥkha is like discussing how to dispose of wilted flowers in a hologram or how to shave the moustache off a turtle when such flowers and such a moustache do not exist.To attain liberation, realization of the ultimate mode of existence—the emptiness of inherent existence of both persons and phenomena—is essential. Saying phenomena are unproduced and unarisen indicates that they are not inherently produced and do not inherently arise, although they are produced and arise conventionally.~HHDL
0 Comments
- Reply
- 1d
- Reply
- 1d
- Reply
- 20h
HHDL :
To review the causal sequence of saṃsāra: the elaboration of grasping inherent existence gives rise to distorted conceptions—erroneous thought processes—which, in turn, provoke afflictions. Afflictions lead to the creation of actions that bring rebirth in saṃsāra and its attendant duḥkha.
To give a rough analogy, self-grasping ignorance and its elaborations are like the unscrupulous boss of a company producing faulty products; conceptualizations and distorted concepts are like the salespeople who exaggerate the qualities of the product; afflictions are like our signing the contract; and karma is all the actions we take afterward.
What ends this chain of events? The realization of the emptiness of true existence. Bringing an end to elaborations involves dismantling all grasping of an objectified basis (T. yul gyi ngos nas yod pa) of persons and phenomena, all grasping of persons and phenomena as having an inherent, independent essence.
0 Comments
From HHDL new book :
The Development of Afflictions in Daily Life
Although afflictions often arise quickly in our mind, seeming to come out of nowhere, they develop through a sequential process. To have the notion of I, one or more of our mental or physical aggregates must appear.
Based on this appearance, a valid sense of I arises. This I exists by being merely designated in dependence on the aggregates. Observing this mere I, ignorance erroneously grasps it to exist inherently. That grasping is the view of a personal identity grasping I (ahaṃkāra).
Based on that, the view of a personal identity grasping mine (mamakāra) arises when we think, “This is my body. These are my thoughts.” The object of the grasping at mine is the sense of “myness,” the I that makes things mine; it is not the body or the thoughts themselves.
Grasping the body or thoughts to be inherently existent is self-grasping of phenomena, not self-grasping of persons.
Tsongkhapa says (FEW 43):
. . . the observed object of an innate awareness thinking “mine” is that very “mine.” It should not be held that your own eyes and so forth are the observed object.
The body, intelligence, table, and so forth are examples of “mine” because in ordinary language we say, “This body is mine. This table is mine.”
But the observed object of grasping “mine” is the mine that is the owner, and not the body, intelligence, or table.
Once the I is grasped as inherently existent, attachment, anger, and other destructive emotions quickly follow, because we want to give this I pleasure and protect it from pain.
These mental factors arise very quickly, one right after the other. If our mindfulness is sharp, we can observe this process and thwart it. Otherwise, these afflictions control us.
Grasping the inherent existence of I and mine are erroneous minds. They are not present every time we use the conventions “I” and “mine.”
When we casually and calmly say “I’m walking” or “This is my book,” grasping I or mine is not present. This way of apprehending I and mine differs greatly from the self-grasping that is present when we arrogantly think “I am famous,” or greedily say “This is mine.”
3 Comments
Yasmin El-Hakim
even
if one knows very well that this I as an existing person with its body
and thoughts is a card house is merely a false identification, even then
this feeling of an I is there 
Yin Ling
Yasmin El-Hakim yes it takes patience and determination 
Yasmin El-Hakim
Yin Ling there is much patience and determination here 
