tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post1040140166377793260..comments2024-03-18T10:07:38.422+08:00Comments on Awakening to Reality: Exhaustion of All PhenomenaSohhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-608795744970111662020-10-10T02:24:20.186+08:002020-10-10T02:24:20.186+08:00I should have known it was merely conventional lan...I should have known it was merely conventional language. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me at such length.Shane Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09280761309131345167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-71335711343727221932020-10-08T22:55:03.580+08:002020-10-08T22:55:03.580+08:00
More on the teaching of conventional self:
“ htt...<br />More on the teaching of conventional self:<br /><br />“ https://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/Shobogenzo/Shobogenzo%20complete.pdf<br /><br />Underlying the whole of Dōgen’s presentation is his own experience of no longer being attached to any sense of a personal self that exists independent of time and of other beings, an experience which is part and parcel of his ‘dropping off of body and mind’. From this perspective of his, anything having existence—which includes every thought and thing—is inextricably bound to time, indeed, can be said to ‘be time’, for there is no thought or thing that exists independent of time. Time and being are but two aspects of the same thing, which is the interrelationship of anicca, ‘the ever-changing flow of time’ and anatta, ‘the absence of any permanent self existing within or independent of this flow of time’. Dōgen has already voiced this perspective in Discourse 1: A Discourse on Doing One’s Utmost in Practicing the Way of the Buddhas (Bendōwa), and in Discourse 3: On the Spiritual Question as It Manifests Before Your Very Eyes (Genjō Kōan), where he discussed the Shrenikan view of an ‘eternal self ’ and the Buddhist perception of ‘no permanent self ’.<br /><br />In the present discourse, Dōgen uses as his central text a poem by Great Master Yakusan Igen, the Ninth Chinese Ancestor in the Sōtō Zen lineage. In the Chinese version, each line of this poem begins with the word uji, which functions to introduce a set of couplets describing temporary conditions that appear to be contrastive, but which, in reality, do not stand against each other. These conditions comprise what might be referred to as ‘an I at some moment of time’; this is a use of the word ‘I’ that does not refer to some ‘permanent self ’, abiding unchanged over time (as the Shrenikans maintained) but to a particular set of transient conditions at a particular time. In other words, there is no permanent, unchanging ‘Yakusan’, only a series of ever-changing conditions, one segment of which is perceived as ‘a sentient being’, which is, for convenience, conventionally referred to as ‘Yakusan’. Both Yakusan and Dōgen understand uji (in its sense of ‘that which exists at some time’) as a useful way of expressing the condition of anatta, and in this sense it is used to refer to a state of ‘being’ that is neither a ‘permanent self ’ nor something separate from ‘other’; it is the ‘I’ referred to in one description of a kenshō experience (that is, the experiencing of one’s Buddha Nature) as ‘the whole universe becoming I’. Hence, when the false notion of ‘having a permanent self ’ is abandoned, then what remains is just uji, ‘the time when some form of being persists’.<br /><br />After presenting Yakusan’s poem, Dōgen focuses on that aspect of the poem that does not deal with metaphors, images, symbols, etc., and which is the one element in the poem that readers are most likely to pay small heed to: the phrase uji itself. His opening statement encapsulates the whole of what he is talking about in this text, namely: “The phrase ‘for the time being’ implies that time in its totality is what existence is, and that existence in all its occurrences is what time is.”<br /><br />“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?<br />Māra, is this your theory?<br />This is just a pile of conditions,<br />you won’t find a sentient being here.<br />When the parts are assembled<br />we use the word ‘chariot’.<br />So too, when the aggregates are present<br />‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.<br />But it’s only suffering that comes to be,<br />lasts a while, then disappears.<br />Naught but suffering comes to be,<br />naught but suffering ceases.” - Vajira SuttaSohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-18928872731072052542020-10-08T22:54:53.450+08:002020-10-08T22:54:53.450+08:00Some conversations with John back in 2012 are quit...Some conversations with John back in 2012 are quite illuminating on this subject:<br /><br />John: To me is just is "Soh" an eternal being...that's all. No denial of Soh as a conventional self. All is just him is an inference too. There is no other is also an assumption. <br /><br />Soh: That's what I said, lol. He didn't see it. <br /><br />John: But other mindstreams is a more valid assumption. Don't you think so? And verifiable. <br /><br />Soh: Yeah. <br /><br />John: Whatever in conventional reality still remain, only that reification is seen through. Get it? The centre is seen through be it "subject" or "object", they are imputed mental constructs. Only the additional "ghostly something" is seen through. Not construing and reifying. Nothing that "subject" does not exist. This seeing through itself led to implicit non-dual experience. <br /><br />Soh: "Nothing that "subject" does not exist." - what you mean?<br /><br />John: Not "subject" or "object" does not exist. Or dissolving object into subject or subject into object… etc. That "extra" imputation is seen through. Conventional reality still remain as it is. By the way, focus more on practice in releasing any holdings.... do not keep engaging on all these.<br /><br />Soh: I see.. Conventional reality are just names imposed on non-inherent aggregates, right. <br /><br />John: Yes. That led to releasing of the mind from holding...no subsuming of anything. What you wrote is unclear. Do you get what I mean? Doesn't mean Soh does not exist… lol. Or I am you or you are me. Just not construing and reifying. <br /><br />Soh: I see. Nondual is collapsing objects to self, thus I am you. Anatta simply sees through reification, but conventionally I am I, you are you. <br /><br />John: Or collapsing subject into object. You are still unclear about this and mixed up. Seeing through the reification of "subject", "object", "self", "now", "here". Get it? Seeing through "self" led to implicit non-dual experience. Because experience turns direct without reification. In seeing, just scenery. Like you see through the word "weather". That weather-Ness. Be it subject/object/weather/...etc. That is mind free of seeing "things" existing inherently. Experience turns vivid direct and releasing. But I don't want you to keep participating idle talk and neglect practice… always over emphasizing unnecessarily. What happens to experience?<br /><br />Soh: you mean after anatta? Direct, luminous, but no ground of abiding (like some inherent awareness). <br /><br />John: And what do you mean by that?<br /><br />Soh: Means there are only transient six sense streams experience, in seen just seen, etc. Nothing extra.<br /><br />John: Six stream experiences is just a convenient raft. Nothing ultimate. Not only must you see that there is no Seer + seeing + seen… you must see the immense connectedness. Implicit Non-dual in experience in anatta to you means what?” - Soh, 2014<br /><br />Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-79313665744408411232020-10-08T22:49:31.271+08:002020-10-08T22:49:31.271+08:00Only conventionally so. For example, Buddhism does...Only conventionally so. For example, Buddhism does not posit a 'universal consciousness'. Radiance is just a description of the vivid knowingness alive quality that all ongoing appearances exhibit without any duality between mind and phenomena. When hearing the sound, since there is no duality between hearer and sound, conventionally it is as if you are the sound. Ultimately, there is no hearer, no hearing and no sound, yet this is not a nothingness void -- there is the vivid display of sound-emptiness, vision-emptiness, and so on, but without inherently existing subject, action and object. However, the vision you see, the sound you hear, is conventionally the display of 'your mind' because obviously I do not see or hear the same thing as you, so, only in that conventional sense can you say it is 'one's natural radiance' (it is not the natural radiance of some uber overarching universal mind).<br /><br />Since this radiance only pertains each conventional person's mindstream, it is not some overarching universal consciousness 'shared' by all beings. We do not share the same mindstream. But even the word 'mindstream' is just another name imputed upon a rosary string of momentary experiences, it is not the case that 'mindstream' refers to some truly existing/inherently existing entity or self. Much like the word 'mala' or 'rosary' is merely imputed on many beads, the word 'army' is merely named after a collection of soldiers, etc. No real entity called 'army' can be found when examined. Likewise no real 'person' or 'mindstream' can be found when examined. Only conventionally do we say 'army', 'mind', 'you', 'me', 'Peter', 'John' and so on.<br /><br />It is important to understand that conventional selves and phenomena are not the target of refutation, it is the notion of truly existent self and phenomena, and the paradigm of inherent existence, which is the target of refutation.<br /><br />“Buddha never used the term "self" to refer to an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity. He also never asserted that there was no conventional "self," the subject of transactional discourse. So, it is very clear in the sutras that the Buddha negated an ultimate self and did not negate a conventional self.” – Arcaya Malcolm Smith, 2020<br /><br />“Anatman is the negation of an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity that moves from one temporary body to another. It is not the negation of "Sam," "Fred," or "Jane" used as a conventional designation for a collection of aggregates. Since the Buddha clearly states in many Mahāyāna sūtras, "all phenomena" are not self, and since everything is included there, including buddhahood, therefore, there are no phenomena that can be called a self, and since there are nothing outside of all phenomena, a "self," other than an arbitrary designation, does not exist.”<br /><br />- Arcaya Malcolm Smith<br />Sohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16416159880942160813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3225985453951330898.post-88027916008121591272020-10-07T01:58:00.609+08:002020-10-07T01:58:00.609+08:00Thanks for posting! I have a question, for the sak...Thanks for posting! I have a question, for the sake of clarification: After a mature realization of Anatta (and Shunyata), how can there be such a thing as "one's natural radiance"? Presumably it isn't a radiance that belongs to a self, since at that point there's neither a sense of self nor of ownership, so what exactly does it refer to...?Shane Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09280761309131345167noreply@blogger.com