Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised.
~
I love these lines. But what is "the ultimate nature of phenomena"? Is
there an essence is Buddhism? If emptiness is not a thing, but the way
things are, what are they made of?
6 people like this. (
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 7:56am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
"Appearance is mind and emptiness is mind. " In this line of the same text, what does it mean to say emptiness is mind?
(
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 8:04am)
Kyle Dixon
I'm
not sure what term is translated as "Ultimate nature of phenomena" in
that quote (it is a common one I've seen attributed to a few individuals
such as Jigme Lingpa), but in general the ultimate nature of phenomena
is that they are non-arisen i.e. empty.
The
essence of things is usually emptiness, however that is like saying
"things are empty in essence", "the essential nature of X is that it is
empty", it does not mean emptiness is an 'essence' in the sense of
something substantiated.
Conditioned
'things' are the result of confusion, when seen for what they are they
are known to be unreal. So they are not made of anything per se, since
ultimately they cannot be found when sought. A 'thing' as such is a
nominal designation, a mere inference, useful as a convention, but
ultimately the object that the convention infers is unfindable.
7 liked this (
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 8:08am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena,
which is the basis of everything, be realised.
May the unconfused genuine self-nature be known by self-nature itself.
~
These
2 lines too seem to point to an essence, a clear light, or primordial
mind. A kind of vedantic pure consciousness. It's this thing that has
been itching a lot lately. I come from an Advaita background, where
awareness is the ultimate essence of all appearances. But I feel pulled
to the buddhist view of emptiness of all things, even consciousness. But
I can't see how can pure consciousness itself be dependently
originated...
(
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 8:16am)
Kyle Dixon
Not
a Vedantic type consciousness, because Vedanta posits an uncaused.
existent, transpersonal, ontological consciousness that subsumes
everything.
Those lines do point to an essence or primordial mind, however just as your original quote states, it is
nothing truly established as existent or non-existent. The mind is
luminous and cognizant, but it is also empty and non-arisen... when we
are ignorant of its emptiness we reify the luminous cognizance into a
personal reference point which is relating to conditioned objects
(objects that can exist or not-exist).
'Consciousness'
[skt. vijñāna, tib. rnam shes] in the context of the buddhadharma
usually refers specifically to that species dualistic cognition, i.e. a
subject relating to objects. Therefore consciousness is considered to be
an afflictive cognition since it is influenced by ignorance [skt.
avidyā, tib. ma rig pa].
The
opposite of consciousness is 'wisdom' [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes]. When
one recognizes their nature as being empty and free from extremes, then
that 'consciousness' is no longer a deluded cognition that is cognizing
conditioned objects, it instead directly and experientially knows the
emptiness of those objects. That is why the quote says "may the
unconfused genuine self-nature be known by self-nature itself".
This
is not pointing to a truly established cognition though, especially
since that wisdom entails a collapse of the ignorance that mistakes
itself as an abiding reference point in relation to objects. The wisdom
knows its own nature, as empty; which is the "unconfused genuine
self-nature". For instance in the same way consciousness knows a chair,
wisdom knows the non-arising of that chair. But this is still just a
conventional description, it is not pointing to something real or
something established. This does not mean that everything is subsumed
into awareness, it simply means that there is a genuine knowledge of
one's nature.
5 liked this (
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10:04am)
Kyle Dixon
It
is important to understand the concept of 'conventional truth' in
Buddhism, because you may ask why these texts are stating that there is a
'self-nature' and a 'basis' and so on, why would they be doing this if
these things are in fact unestablished
and ultimately unreal? It is because the ultimate truth of things is
their non-arising or emptiness, and what are those 'things' that are
ultimately empty? They are conventions which are mistaken to be real
things. So these alleged conventional objects are precisely what are
realized to be unreal, and this means that we can relate to conventions
freely because they are never pointing to anything actually 'real' or
established. All conventions are simply useful nominal designations,
tools for communication. The problem arises when we mistake these
conventions to be something more than just a convention.
Conventions
are reliable as long as they are not subjected to keen investigation.
That is how 'convention' is defined per buddhism, a correct convention
[tathyasaṃvṛti] is, according to Śāntarakṣita; "something can be tacitly
accepted as long as it is not critically investigated, that is
characterized by arising and decay, and that has causal effectivity." So
the validity of a convention is measured by its efficacy, if it appears
to function correctly, then it can be accepted as a correct convention
prior to its investigation. In the wake of investigating any convention
it will fail, since conventions cannot withstand proper scrutiny.
So
there is no problem stating that there is a 'self-nature', because when
that convention is subjected to scrutiny that self-nature would be
ultimately unfindable. Yet the term "self-nature" is a conventional
designation that is pointing to the capacity of 'wisdom' mentioned
above, which is completely free from the extremes of existence,
non-existence, both and neither.
For instance, Longchenpa discusses that nature here:
"Mind
itself [i.e., the nature of mind: tib. sems nyid] - naturally occurring
timeless awareness [i.e., self-originated primordial wisdom: tib. rang
byung ye shes] - has no substance or characteristics. Since it is empty
yet lucid and free of elaboration, it cannot be conceived of as 'this'
or 'that'. Although it can be illustrated by a metaphor - 'It is like
space' - if one reflects on space as the metaphor, it proves to have no
color, no shape, or anything about it that is identifiable. Therefore,
if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the
underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself, pure by nature -
is not something that has ever existed in the slightest."
8 liked this (
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10:14am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
In
buddhism how is reality seen? I mean, in the approach I come from
(Krishnamenon's direct path - Rupert Spira, Greg Goode, etc.), visually
speaking, for example, objects are known to be just colors. "Color" is
just another name for seeing (meaning, the presence of color). Then seeing is just a form of awareness.
Object >> Color >> Seeing >> Awareness;
Object >> Sound >> Hearing >> Awareness;
Etc.
So
this approach has its basis in what they call Direct Experience. All
that is experienced is colors, sounds, etc - no physical objects are
given. Then not even colors or sounds, just the knowing of them, etc. So
in the end reality becomes just pure experiencing, without a solid
substance or reality, except for awareness, which is not physical nor
possessing any characteristic whatsoever.
In
this view, one could say that the objects are empty because they depend
on the colors/sensations/etc., which depend on seeing/sensing/etc.,
which depend on awareness.
How
does buddhism arrive at the view of emptiness? A car is empty because
it is made of several parts, lacking inherent existence - there is no
"car-ness" is the object conventionally named as car. There are only
wheels, metal, plastic, rubber, etc. And in each of these, there are
other components, etc., all the way down to molecules and atoms and
particles and...(?)...
But
this is the conventional view (atoms, etc.). None of this (atoms,
particles, etc.) is given in direct experience. In direct experience,
there is only colors, sounds, etc. Does buddhism believe in atoms and
particles that are not given in direct experience?
For
instance, the emptiness of an object rests in its being dependent on
causes, right? But a cause is not verified in experience. An apple is
supposedly dependent on many factors, but many of those are not present
in experience - the sun, the rain, the soil, the farmer, etc. Where do
all those abide as we experience the apple?
(
Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 8:45am)
Kyle Dixon
Alleged
objects being broken down into constituent factors such as color, shape
etc., in the context of Buddhism is an example of exploring how things
originate dependently, i.e., dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].
However when these appearances
are treated as ultimately being awareness in traditions like Śrī
Atmananda's, this sets up a unilateral dependency where awareness is
treated as an irreducible principle. This is due to the nature of those
paths, but the Buddhist system does not uphold a view of that nature.
For
example if X is dependent upon awareness, awareness would also be
dependent upon X. Because both are dependent, neither can stand alone,
they are both conditional principles and for that reason they are not
something which has an independent, autonomous nature.
Not
only that, but Buddhism states that because things only originate in
dependence upon what defines them, they do not originate at all. For to
legitimately originate and have existence, a 'thing' or capacity would
have to manifest without cause and be unconditioned. However since such a
thing cannot be found, there ultimately is no origination.
But
every separate principle is essentially the implication of every other
principle. When we search for an object as a 'thing' in itself apart
from color, size, dimension, sensory cognition, location, texture,
awareness, etc., we cannot find that object. Said object also cannot be
found within those appearances. But this also goes for each of those
appearances themselves, including awareness.
This
view also leads to a lack of solid substance or reality, or any type of
substance or reality apart from the nominal designation 'reality'.
Deconstructing
things down to molecules and atoms is one way to approach emptiness
however I personally do not like that approach because molecules and
atoms are not things we can directly cognize without an instrument. It
is better to work with one's direct cognition.
The
most effective way to view 'cause' is as ignorance [avidyā]. When
things arise due to causes they arise due to misconception. Like taking a
mirage to be a real oasis, the oasis arises as a result of a cause,
that cause is ignorance regarding its true nature as being devoid of any
substance or reality. When we finally recognize that the oasis is a
mirage, the misconception of an oasis is immediately liberated. And it
is directly known that there never was an actual oasis from the very
beginning. All things are like that. They appear due to the cause of
ignorance and abide as long as the conditions of ignorance remain, when
ignorance is dispelled, said object is known to be non-arisen.
For example, Nāgārjuna states:
"When the perfect vidyā sees
That things come from ignorance as condition,
Nothing will then be objectified,
Either in terms of arising or destruction...
...Since the Buddhas have stated
That the world is conditioned by ignorance,
Why is it not reasonable [to assert]
That this world is [a result of] conceptualization?
Since it comes to an end
When ignorance ceases;
Why does it not become clear then
That it was conjured by ignorance?"
6 liked this (
Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 9:26am)
Kinkok Sin
I
think it is akin to what is called a field of force in science. You
can't see the field, but you can see the impact of the field. So the
ultimate could be a field of force of consciousness. You cannot see
that field but you can experience the impact
of that field in the form of awareness. Starting with basic or raw
awareness, consciousness can evolved (initiated by an initial
misknowledge of duality) into what we now experience as ordinary
consciousness. This is how I see it. I could be wrong, so take it with
whatever dosage of salt you consider necessary for yourself.
(
Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 10:28am)
Viorica Doina Neacsu
1 liked this (
Friday, September 12, 2014 at 12:32am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
Thanks Kyle, for your insights in this and other posts.
The
thing is that in the direct path approach right from the beginning
"things" are seen as not existing. Even subtler objects like color or
shapes are seen as nothing more than pure awareness or experience. Experience, right from the beginning is known to be undivided, seamless, whole.
In
such a context, I find it hard to explore emptiness, because in a way
there are no things to be empty or not empty. One could say that things
are empty because they depend on experience or on being known, but in
doing so, one creates a division (experience vs objects in experience /
knowing vs. objects known) that is not given in direct experience.
Another
way would be to see that objects are empty because they are no where to
be found when not being experienced - so they don't inherently exist.
But if they are not being experienced, they are neither existent nor
non-existent, so talking about their emptiness is moot.
In the context of this type of non-dual perception, where only undivided experience is seen, how is the emptiness understood?
(
Friday, September 12, 2014 at 8:28pm)
Kyle Dixon
As
you seem to know already, the direct path approach is simply a
different path and view. In terms of the direct path, which is a
teaching of Advaita Vedanta, things are seen to lack existence because
they are in fact an undifferentiated pure consciousness
[purusha], which is transpersonal, truly existent and unconditioned.
Which means that consciousness is as you said: an "undivided, seamless,
whole."
In
such a context it would indeed be hard to explore emptiness, because
that context contradicts emptiness by nature. According to Advaita,
there may be no so-called 'relative' things to be empty or not-empty,
but there is a truly existent purusha instead, which by Advaita's
standards; is definitely not-empty.
In
terms of Vedanta, 'things' are not empty but are unreal because they
belong to prakṛti, and prakṛti is māyā. Only cit is real, which is the
purusha or pure consciousness i.e. brahman. So things do not even depend
upon experience or 'being known', because ultimately there is only a
single undifferentiated, existent pure consciousness.
In
the buddhadharma, things are empty not only because they depend upon
being experienced or known, but for other reasons too. The apparent
division is not a problem, because as I attempted to explain above with
'convention', these alleged divisions are simply conventional in nature,
and are ultimately empty. This however does not mean there is a single
undivided whole, for that would simply be another thing to be empty. The
ultimate truth in the buddhadharma is simply the fact that the 'things'
which are inferred by convention are ultimately unfindable. The
realization is epistemic and not ontological like Adviata. The
buddhadharma is not saying we cannot find these things because they are
actually this undivided pure consciousness, it is saying we cannot find
these things at all. They appear, yet are unreal and so they have never
arisen in the first place.
As
for the idea that "objects are empty because they are no where to be
found when not being experienced - so they don't inherently exist", by
the standards of the buddhadharma this would actually fail to overcome
inherent existence because Advaita would state that these alleged
objects are actually the single undivided purusha which does inherently
exist.
Talking
about the emptiness of said objects would be moot in the context of
Advaita, because those objects are simply māyā and the only thing that
exists is purusha, so objects are not being experienced either way (as
there is only pure consciousness). In the context of the buddhadharma,
said objects are ultimately unfindable whether they are allegedly being
experienced or not, so the duality of 'experienced objects' versus
'unexperienced objects' is also inapplicable (yet because said division
between experienced and unexperienced objects is merely conventional, in
terms of the buddhadharma; one would be free to say there are
experienced and unexperienced objects due to the fact that this is
ultimately untrue, for ultimately everything is empty and lacks inherent
existence).
As
for your last question: "In the context of this type of non-dual
perception, where only undivided experience is seen, how is the
emptiness understood?"
In
that context emptiness is not understood (and is not meant to be),
because that single undivided experience is held to be inherently
existent.
5 liked this (
Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 6:59am)
Viorica Doina Neacsu
“Therefore it is said that whoever makes a philosophical view out of emptiness is indeed lost.” Nagarjuna
3 liked this (
Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 7:24am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
Kyle,
>>>>>
The ultimate truth in the buddhadharma is simply the fact that the
'things' which are inferred by convention are ultimately unfindable. The
realization is epistemic and not ontological like
Adviata.<<<<<<
I
can see how things are unfindable through the conventional route of
"molecules, atoms & particles". There is just empty space in the
end. But through direct experience, where there is merely colors or
perception or experience, how are things unfindable? Experience seems
pretty obvious and irreducible. But I'm open and willing to see through
the apparent inherency of it (deep sleep seems to be a good example of
experience's emptiness...).
Or
one could say that experience is empty because it depends on causes,
like there being any perception or activity of any kind to appear as
experience. Experience of nothingness is no experience at all, so
experience depends on somethingness to appear.
And could you explain the ontological and the epistemic stuff? Philosophy is not my forte!
~
>>>>>The
buddhadharma is not saying we cannot find these things because they are
actually this undivided pure consciousness, it is saying we cannot find
these things at all. They appear, yet are unreal and so they have never
arisen in the first place.<<<<<<
Ok,
this is serious stuff, imo. A car is not found as a car, but there is
some experience, rather then nothing. Something appears, like you said -
be it colors, knowing, perception, experiencing, etc... They appear,
but are unreal - in the sense that they are not what they claim to be,
right? A car is not a "car", it's a bunch of other stuff (its several
pieces and components) or at least something else (a perception or
experience). But the appearance is made of something right? The image of
the Eiffel tower in my head is not made of metal, because it is not the
Eiffel tower, but just an image. But as an image, it is made of "mental
stuff" or consciousness (conventionally or neurologically speaking).
What are things made of then? Or does Buddhism refuse to assume such
explicit ontological positions? How come you're saying they've never
arisen at all? What is it that exists as "this" right now?
I'm not disagreeing with you. On the contrary, I'm truly hungry for that depth of understanding.
~
>>>>>
In that context emptiness is not understood (and is not meant to be),
because that single undivided experience is held to be inherently
existent.<<<<<<
This
was probably asked above already, but how then can the emptiness
insight be brought into this perspective? How can one pierce through the
aparent inherency of experience or pure awareness? How can awareness,
devoid of characteristics, be caused by something else?
Wei Yu seems to have come from the Awareness teachings, but later moved through to the emptiness view. How can this be done?
Thank you!
(
Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 9:56am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
"If you would free yourself of the sufferings
of samsara, you must learn the direct way to become a
Buddha. This way is no other than the realization of your own Mind.
Now what is this Mind? It is the true nature of all sentient beings, that
which existed before our parents were born and hence before our
own birth, and which presently exists, unchangeable and eternal."
This
was taken from the Three Pillars of Zen. What was Bassui talking about
here? Was he pointing to the realization of I Am or One Mind? Was he
falling victim to the view of inherency?
(
Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 10:11am)
Kyle Dixon
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb you wrote:
"I
can see how things are unfindable through the conventional route of
'molecules, atoms & particles'. There is just empty space in the
end. But through direct experience, where there is merely colors or
perception or experience,
how are things unfindable? Experience seems pretty obvious and
irreducible. But I'm open and willing to see through the apparent
inherency of it (deep sleep seems to be a good example of experience's
emptiness...)."
You'll
probably have to step away from approaching 'experience' or 'direct
experience' as a reductive unity or a thing-in-itself. Doing so will
probably mean you'd have to let go of the idea of a single consciousness
or awareness that is cognizing phenomena as well. In Buddhism there is
no single central consciousness that everything is appearing to, but
instead many different consciousnesses (six to eight depending on the
system). There is an eye consciousness which perceives shape, color and
so on, and a olfactory consciousness which cognizes various aromas etc.
For
example: the point of the "eye-consciousness" [cakṣurvijñāna] (and the
other seven consciousnesses) is to propose a conventional model (for the
purposes of upāya) in order to allow the aspirant a means to pierce the
seeming inherency of consciousness in general. The eight-consciousness
model (for example) is not a statement (or proposition) of ontological
truth, when these models are presented they are not meant to say there
is truly eight consciousnesses, those consciousnesses are conventional
designations which are implemented as a skillful means. And that
exclusively conventional nature is characteristically implied due to the
fact that the buddhadharma contends that inherency (in general) is a
figment of deluded cognition which is completely unreal. Therefore the
label "eye consciousness" is a term which is implemented so that the
visual faculty and all of its implied constitutional characteristics can
be compartmentalized into a single grouping for the purposes of
analysis or expeditious delineation (eye-consciousness accounting for
(i) sensory organ [eye], (ii) sensory cognition [seeing] and (iii)
sensory objects [sights]).
So
in terms of 'direct experience' as such; the eight-consciousnesses
[aṣṭavijñāna] is one example of a conventional model that is meant to be
a tangible and empirical guideline for said experience. In applying a
provisional model of this nature, and taking into consideration that
nothing ultimately has inherent existence, we undoubtably already run
into an issue as to how we are now choosing to define 'direct
experience'. Is that experience singular? Are there eight different
direct experiences corresponding to the eight different consciousnesses?
If so, is there a hierarchy as to which experience is more valid or
superior in comparison to the others? And so on. In this way we find
that even the idea of 'experience' or 'direct experience' as such is
really a "broad conceptual generalization" as Greg Goode once put it.
How can we define such a notion, and what would the criteria be for that
definition?
It's
perfectly okay to use 'experience' as a conventional designation, but
once we believe that said conventional experience transcends being a
mere inference then problems begin to arise.
Conventionally
we can say that appearances manifest ceaselessly, however the
buddhadharma is not concerned with the fact that appearances manifest,
but rather with how said appearances are related to, or are known. This
is what it means for emptiness to be an epistemology rather than an
ontology. Buddhism isn't trying to establish an ontological X, because
ultimately, how is an ontological existent any different than an
identity? If 'things' have an ontological status, then they exist, if
they exist then they have an essence, to have an essence is to have
something that X truly 'is', and that would be no different than having
an identity, or a self. So buddhism objects to the idea that there is a
global reductive X (be it consciousness or experience) because said X
would be no different than an identity. Buddhism as a soteriological
methodology is interested in freeing sentient beings from the mistaken
notion of a fixed essential identity, and stating that there is an
ultimate ontological X that we truly are (instead of being the so-called
individual self we take ourselves to be) is simply trading one identity
for another.
Therefore
buddhism is epistemic because to realize emptiness is to know (or
cognize) phenomena correctly. Presently, as afflicted sentient beings we
relate to phenomena through invalid cognitions which perceive truly
existent objects, persons, places, time, space etc. We mistakenly
believe that there are things which have arisen, abide in time and can
cease (or are born, live and die), and this causes suffering because we
then grasp at phenomena. We cherish and cling to things or people, we
suffer when those things are lost or destroyed, or when those we love
leave or pass away. However this is all due to misunderstanding
phenomena. When we know phenomena correctly, then we recognize that they
have been in a state of perfection since beginningless time (or this is
at least how Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna define this principle). Upon
realizing that phenomena are non-arisen [empty] we directly know that
they have never arisen, have never abided, and have never ceased at any
point. Not only that but principles such as time, space, distance,
coming, going, here, there, subject, object, presence, absence,
dimension, life, death, consciousness, body, mind, senses, perception,
etc., are all liberated. For someone who has a complete and unobstructed
wisdom-knowledge of emptiness, such notions can be related to
conventionally, but they know that those concepts do not refer to
anything real.
"Like
a dream, an illusion, [or] seeing two moons: Thus have You seen the
world, as a creation not created as real. Like a son who is born,
established, and dies in a dream, the world, You have said, is not
really born, does not endure, and is not destroyed."
- Acintyastavaḥ
3 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 8:09am)
Kyle Dixon
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb you wrote:
"Ok,
this is serious stuff, imo. A car is not found as a car, but there is
some experience, rather then nothing. Something appears, like you said -
be it colors, knowing, perception, experiencing, etc... They appear,
but
are unreal - in the sense that they are not what they claim to be,
right? A car is not a 'car', it's a bunch of other stuff (its several
pieces and components) or at least something else (a perception or
experience)."
Reducing
something like a car to other pieces or components can be one form of
emptiness analysis, however ultimately this can still potentially lend
to the idea of an essence or a substance (so one would have to be
mindful not to make that error). If we are saying that a car is truly
made of other things, then we are not overcoming the perception of there
actually being a true 'something' that the car is made of. The actual
point is to effectively realize that there is no car to be found
anywhere, within or apart from the aggregates which apparently
constitute a car. Even in principle these notions carry certain
implications which lend to the unreality of car; for if said aggregates
no longer serve to construct a car, then what is maintaining a
relationship between said aggregates in general? If there is no essence
that those aggregates are serving to constitute, then there is nothing
ultimately tethering one aggregate to another. If nothing is holding
them together then we begin to lose structure and continuity, for what
is maintaining the perception of said aggregates having a valid
extension in time, or in space? Or how are we defining space or time
themselves? Do they not themselves depend on the perception of an
appearance which is manifesting as a single 'thing' in consecutive
instances? So these are examples of questions and implications that
arise due to investigating a given appearance. The car cannot be reduced
to its aggregates because that would then give credence to the
inherency of the aggregates themselves. The aggregates are also
fallible, and never arise, abide or cease, they do not create anything,
and possess no validity in and of themselves.
Overall
though, in the example of a car the point is to attempt and find the
'car' in itself, or perhaps to find the 'self' in itself if we are
relating to our own experience. We mistake these things to have a true
inherent essence, and become deluded into believing that they actually
exist (or that they can lack existence). The idea is to fail in finding
that 'core' or 'essence' which makes a thing that 'thing', because when
we fail to find that essence, we have the potential to realize that
there never has been a thing in the first place, the 'thing' was only
ever a misconception. And this goes for 'experience' too, for example if
you experience something troubling in a dream, and are under the
influence of that dream, then you have no discernment to say "this isn't
real, this is just a dream" and so the apparent events that unfold in
the dream can seem to effect you. You may be upset, or scared, or even
very happy. But when you wake up that experience is immediately known to
have been unreal, and so the emotions related to said dream events are
immediately liberated. Realizing emptiness is like that, except one
wakes up to this so-called waking experience and realizes it to be
equally unreal. The point isn't whether appearances manifest, but how
they are known. If you are lucid in a dream you simply know that
everything that appears is an unreal display, nothing being created or
destroyed, nothing coming or going, nothing actually 'there'... yet
illusory appearance manifests. Likewise if you realize the non-arising
of appearances then you simply know that everything that appears is an
unreal display, nothing being created or destroyed, nothing coming or
going, nothing actually 'there'... yet illusory appearance manifests.
3 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 8:51am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
>>>>>If
you are lucid in a dream you simply know that everything that appears
is an unreal display, nothing being created or destroyed, nothing coming
or going, nothing actually 'there'<<<<<<
There is nothing actually there as it appears to be. But something
was experienced in the dream - colors, thoughts, emotions. What are
those made of? I realize that if you say "they are ultimately made of
X", then that will be an essence that escapes the seal of impermanence
or emptiness.
But
I'm having a hard time in seeing things as being made of nothing at
all. I was comfortable with Advaita, because things were still
transitory appearances - empty of being separate, objective or anything
at all by themselves -, but ultimately there was a substance at their
root - awareness itself, which is a void, but not non-existent.
Now here things are really shaky right now. Can't seem to even know how to inquire or investigate stuff...
(
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 9:12am)
अष्टावक्र शान्ति
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb ,you still have the conventional side of the Two Truths. Conventional attainments, releases,...
(
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 9:46am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
What do you mean, अष्टावक्र शान्ति?
(
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:12am)
अष्टावक्र शान्ति
If you put emphasis on only one aspect of the two truths(ultimate truth) you go into nihilism!
"Of
course, this Buddhist division of truths sounds dualistic. But it is
not dualistic, because the two truths are identical. That is, the
ultimate truth is that the conventional truth is the only truth there
is." - Emptiness and Joyful Freedom - Greg Good, Tomas Sander
2 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:33am)
Kyle Dixon
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb,
Different systems give different explanations as to why appearance
known in direct perception [pratyakṣa] manifests, each explanation
ultimately corresponding to the nature of their praxis and methods. None
of those systems state that
appearances are "ultimately made of X" though. They may conventionally
state they are made of any number of things; mind, traces, causes,
energy, wisdom - but to state that phenomena is truly 'made' is to say
said phenomena has an essence [svabhāva]. Phenomena do not have svabhāva
because if they did indeed have an essence they would be fixed,
undynamic and unable to appear, so they are not 'made'. Appearances are
essenceless and free from extremes, ultimately never arising, abiding or
ceasing.
These systems are soteriological in nature, and so the most important thing is a correct cognition of said appearances.
Overall
though, why do they need to be made of something? And what would stop
that description from being more fodder for the mind to grasp at? The
idea is to ultimately remove notions of essence and substantiality.
2 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:26am)
Kyle Dixon
Even
in a system like Dzogchen, which does give an explanation on how
something like color arises, the varying capacities and principles
involved are ultimately nothing more than literary devices.
(
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:41am)
Kyle Dixon
AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sūtra:
Thus,
monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing
what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive
a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.
He
does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard.
He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He
does not conceive a hearer.
He
does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed.
He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed.
He does not conceive a senser.
He
does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known.
He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He
does not conceive a knower.
1 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:56am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb
>>>>>>the
Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be
seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen.
He does not conceive a seer. <<<<<<
This means there is only seeing, not a seen nor a seer? Not anything unseen nor yet to be seen? This makes sense to me.
But
how can this seeing be understood as being empty? Seeing seems to be
going on continuously and unobstructedly. It seems to be the nature of
experience itself, thus reality's essential nature.
(
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 11:07am)
Kyle Dixon
Well,
not 'just' seeing because that would be a reductionist view. Buddhism
avoids reducing everything to one thing. Seer, seeing, seen are
technically all purified through realizing emptiness. It is called
threefold purity.
For instance there is another
Sūtra where Śākyamuni is addressing Bāhiya and he states "in the seeing
just the seen", so these are really just pointers and aren't meant to
be absolute statements.
In describing the same type of insight Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said; "Seeing no thing is the supreme sight."
So it isn't as it there is 'just seeing' or 'just seen'.
Maybe try reading chapter 3 of Nāgārjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika.
2 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 12:50pm)
Wei Yu
4 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 1:02pm)
Wei Yu
Bahiya
Sutta is not 'only seeing' but 'in the seen only the seen' with 'no you
in terms of that'. There's a difference. Seeing can still be a subtle
subjective reference point.
4 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 1:05pm)
Wei Yu
The
point of Bahiya Sutta is to realize there is absolutely no seer nor
seeing behind/within/in-between/besides seen/heard/cognized. Then anatta
is realized. But that is just the beginning.
4 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 1:10pm)
Viorica Doina Neacsu
Beautiful and very clear article, Wei Yu. :)
I
thought i will not read all your article thinking that is long and i
have no time.... but your right words, right speech, right view didn't
let me to go away.... so much clarity ....with each paragraph your words
became a soft and kind energy.... wisdom... true delight... Thank you
so much!
3 liked this (
Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 8:25pm)
See original post