(r) "Because (followers of anuyoga) do not understand that the phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the Source, just-that-ness, they see space and wisdom (respectively as) cause and effect. Because they affirm the cause and deny the effect, (they have) obstacles until (they develop) confidence in (dzogchen) that transcends both affirmation and negation."
"Followers of anuyoga do not understand that all phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the state of Pure Perfect Presence, the Source, just-that-ness. They see a duality of cause and effect, in which the two aspects -- the emptiness of space and the luminosity of wisdom -- are, respectively, earlier cause and later effect. They affirm the production of the effect from the cause, but deny the dependence of the cause upon the effect. They do not understand that all phenomena are the essence of self-originated wisdom, which primordially transcends arising, ceasing, accepting, and rejecting based upon cause and effect. Thus they have the obstacle of not understanding the authentic state, the real condition, until they correctly acquire confidence in the fundamental principle of ati dzogchen that transcends both affirmation and negation."
- Ornament of the State of Samantabhadra: Commentary on the All-Creating King, Pure Perfect Presence, Great Perfection of All Phenomena
(The text is translated by Jim Valby, chapter 1-10, second edition: https://sites.google.com/site/jimvalbythings/)
.....
A discussion based on the above sharing:
RC: There is no where to go and no experience that requires correcting.
I don't follow the distinction that is being made in the sentence "they affirm the production of the effect from the cause but deny the dependence of the cause on the effect"
Soh Wei Yu (Me): If you have some notion that there is a space behind phenomena out of which phenomena is later created, that is dualism. All phenomena are one's own state, one's own essence, nature and energy.
The notion of true origination is erroneous. For example, there is no such thing as sunlight truly created by the sun as the sun is designated in dependence on sunlight, it's not that sun precedes sunlight. Sun has no sun-essence apart from shining and shining has no essence of its own apart from sun. Father is also designated in dependence on the son, the cause does not truly precede its effects. If you think the father could exist without the son, then you are affirming the producer of the effect independently of the effect. In truth, the son, the love for the son 'actualizes' the father. Both are merely designated in dependence without any independent reality. In truth, sunlight/manifestation is non-originated, non-arising. There is no that which produces and that which is produced when both are merely/dependently designated.
Stian: Nice pointing, thanks. I got a sense of it.
RC: Richard Cooper So we are saying that concepts rely on one another to create the perception of a universe/the world we experience.
That there is perception going on seems to be a bit of a sticking point for me. The emptiness of "external" phenomena seems a lot more obvious.
Soh Wei Yu (Me): Yes, the concepts of inherently existing entities/realities, cause and effect (one that could precede another), and so forth.
Perception already has loaded connotations with it, as it implies a perceiver and a perceiving. Same in fact for the term "awareness" if understood incorrectly. But these terms are not an issue as long as you understand that perception has no self-existence apart from perceiving/perceiver and perceiver/perceiving has no self-existence apart from perception, they are all merely designated in dependence but does not refer to some independent or inherently existing reality.
As for the non-referential "basis" or "ground" which you may call "perception", perhaps a better word would be "presence" or better yet "presencing". Whatever is vividly appearing is simply "presencing". "all phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the state of Pure Perfect Presence"
There is no denial of that direct experience of Presence. It's just whether it's understood properly
If we talk about pure perfect presence as the source, it's very easy to fall into an ontological notion of creator-creation dualism. And this is the reason for the clarification above regarding cause and effect.
RC: I don't think it is basis/ground I am speaking about it is the illusion of perception and perceiver. I see it/it falls sometimes when I do chi gung/tai chi. But generally it stands and any attempt to investigate seems to involve perception/perceiver ( the very thing I am trying to investigate)
Stian: What about this, RC:
Things arise dependent on conditions, and they remain dependent on their conditions. When things are cut off from their conditions, that is called cessation.
The thing to notice here is that since it is like this, arising can’t be a matter of first being given rise to and then being cut off from conditions and from then on abiding cut off from its conditions (i.e. ex-isting).
Hence we don’t get free-standing things (free from its conditions) having arisen and now abiding cut off from their conditions for arising.
We can’t cut off the sun from the means by which we know it (for example its rays), and then conceive of the sun standing apart from our means to know it (rays, warmth, etc.). If we did, that would be tantamount to the cessation of the sun, since it would have been cut off from its conditions. Hence, the sun giving rise to its rays, like cause and effect, would be tantamount to the cessation of the sun!
Soh Wei Yu (Me): "the illusion of perception and perceiver. I see it/it falls sometimes when I do chi gung/tai chi."
Bahiya Sutta worked for me, also the two stanzas of anatta may be helpful.
See:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../ajahn-amaro-on...
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../on-anatta...
RC: Stian. It isn't clear to me whether you are speaking about externally existing objects or our experience.
Stian: Soh wrote this:
> For example, there is no such thing as sunlight truly created by the sun as the sun is designated in dependence on sunlight, it's not that sun precedes sunlight.
> Father is also designated in dependence on the son, the cause does not truly precede its effects.
This whole “this does not precede that”-business applies to “externally existing objects” and “our experience”. We can boil down this “externally existing objects vs. our experience” into a consideration of each in turn being the cause and the effect.
So first we take externally existing objects and we ask if that is the cause and that our experience is the effect.
Try to consider this by reading the analogies that Soh mentioned of the sun/rays and father/son and reading my comment again.
Then we take our experience and we ask if that is the cause and that externally existing objects is the effect. Same procedure.
If you do this, what do you make of it?
Yacine: You guys mighy enjoy chapter IV A)e) page 38 of APM by Gendlin:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites...
John Tan: A very interesting book, Yacine.
SGH: Written by a very interesting person!
John Tan: Yes. I bought the book. Well written and very insightful.
(The text is translated by Jim Valby, chapter 1-10, second edition: https://sites.google.com/site/jimvalbythings/)
.....
A discussion based on the above sharing:
RC: There is no where to go and no experience that requires correcting.
I don't follow the distinction that is being made in the sentence "they affirm the production of the effect from the cause but deny the dependence of the cause on the effect"
Soh Wei Yu (Me): If you have some notion that there is a space behind phenomena out of which phenomena is later created, that is dualism. All phenomena are one's own state, one's own essence, nature and energy.
The notion of true origination is erroneous. For example, there is no such thing as sunlight truly created by the sun as the sun is designated in dependence on sunlight, it's not that sun precedes sunlight. Sun has no sun-essence apart from shining and shining has no essence of its own apart from sun. Father is also designated in dependence on the son, the cause does not truly precede its effects. If you think the father could exist without the son, then you are affirming the producer of the effect independently of the effect. In truth, the son, the love for the son 'actualizes' the father. Both are merely designated in dependence without any independent reality. In truth, sunlight/manifestation is non-originated, non-arising. There is no that which produces and that which is produced when both are merely/dependently designated.
Stian: Nice pointing, thanks. I got a sense of it.
RC: Richard Cooper So we are saying that concepts rely on one another to create the perception of a universe/the world we experience.
That there is perception going on seems to be a bit of a sticking point for me. The emptiness of "external" phenomena seems a lot more obvious.
Soh Wei Yu (Me): Yes, the concepts of inherently existing entities/realities, cause and effect (one that could precede another), and so forth.
Perception already has loaded connotations with it, as it implies a perceiver and a perceiving. Same in fact for the term "awareness" if understood incorrectly. But these terms are not an issue as long as you understand that perception has no self-existence apart from perceiving/perceiver and perceiver/perceiving has no self-existence apart from perception, they are all merely designated in dependence but does not refer to some independent or inherently existing reality.
As for the non-referential "basis" or "ground" which you may call "perception", perhaps a better word would be "presence" or better yet "presencing". Whatever is vividly appearing is simply "presencing". "all phenomena of the universe, however they appear, are the state of Pure Perfect Presence"
There is no denial of that direct experience of Presence. It's just whether it's understood properly
If we talk about pure perfect presence as the source, it's very easy to fall into an ontological notion of creator-creation dualism. And this is the reason for the clarification above regarding cause and effect.
RC: I don't think it is basis/ground I am speaking about it is the illusion of perception and perceiver. I see it/it falls sometimes when I do chi gung/tai chi. But generally it stands and any attempt to investigate seems to involve perception/perceiver ( the very thing I am trying to investigate)
Stian: What about this, RC:
Things arise dependent on conditions, and they remain dependent on their conditions. When things are cut off from their conditions, that is called cessation.
The thing to notice here is that since it is like this, arising can’t be a matter of first being given rise to and then being cut off from conditions and from then on abiding cut off from its conditions (i.e. ex-isting).
Hence we don’t get free-standing things (free from its conditions) having arisen and now abiding cut off from their conditions for arising.
We can’t cut off the sun from the means by which we know it (for example its rays), and then conceive of the sun standing apart from our means to know it (rays, warmth, etc.). If we did, that would be tantamount to the cessation of the sun, since it would have been cut off from its conditions. Hence, the sun giving rise to its rays, like cause and effect, would be tantamount to the cessation of the sun!
Soh Wei Yu (Me): "the illusion of perception and perceiver. I see it/it falls sometimes when I do chi gung/tai chi."
Bahiya Sutta worked for me, also the two stanzas of anatta may be helpful.
See:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../ajahn-amaro-on...
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../on-anatta...
RC: Stian. It isn't clear to me whether you are speaking about externally existing objects or our experience.
Stian: Soh wrote this:
> For example, there is no such thing as sunlight truly created by the sun as the sun is designated in dependence on sunlight, it's not that sun precedes sunlight.
> Father is also designated in dependence on the son, the cause does not truly precede its effects.
This whole “this does not precede that”-business applies to “externally existing objects” and “our experience”. We can boil down this “externally existing objects vs. our experience” into a consideration of each in turn being the cause and the effect.
So first we take externally existing objects and we ask if that is the cause and that our experience is the effect.
Try to consider this by reading the analogies that Soh mentioned of the sun/rays and father/son and reading my comment again.
Then we take our experience and we ask if that is the cause and that externally existing objects is the effect. Same procedure.
If you do this, what do you make of it?
Yacine: You guys mighy enjoy chapter IV A)e) page 38 of APM by Gendlin:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites...
John Tan: A very interesting book, Yacine.
SGH: Written by a very interesting person!
John Tan: Yes. I bought the book. Well written and very insightful.