Sent to Aaron Dorje
Aaron DorjeYou clearly have very strong bodhicitta which is already a huge reason for me to take what you say seriouslyGenuine bodhicitta is rare in this modern world where so many are just out for enlightenment for self (how IRONIC and misguided, since the results are likely to be 'weak' to be generous!)I know from experience that strong bodhicitta is rocket fuel for enlightenment and by default, someone who has it is also far more likely to have realisationsYes sure but then again, I find that it is beautiful to see what is expressed in so many different ways coming down to the same message. It is all the same species of insight (the anatta realization) expressed in many ways by different people. That's beautiful.11Aaron DorjeBut people will surely listen to your own detailed explanations. Don't neglect that too !I will be having a read of all those comments and links as soon as I have a good burst of energy and curiosity1Aaron DorjeAnatta - the divine sword that cuts through all and every kind of BS, minor and majorWhenever people argue about various fine points of the the various Buddhisms, I very often pick up the anatta sword."Well okay, how does anatta apply here?"That usually sorts things out1
- Aaron DorjeThe bodhicitta behind your tagging is appreciatedI did start to read the previous stuff last night, but it requires alot of energy to go through those long dialogues.I sometimes feel you probably have enough realisation yourself to just say youre own understanding rather than having to take the traditional approach of only quoting your 'wise teacher'.It doesn't matter how wise he is if people don't read it because it's too long.Perhaps an ideal MIDDLE way is for you to explain it in your own words and provide a link to these dialogues with him as extra backup in case the reader wants more
From AtR guide:
In Soh’s I AM phase, John Tan told him not to mistaken anatta with [mere] non-doership:
“Not to talk too much about me, just focus on your experience. Also what you said about the no observer can be quite misleading. It does not mean there is 'no one doing anything' and 'everything is arising spontaneously'. You should understand anatta from below quotations taken from 'The Sun My Heart' by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:
"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'." ~ Thich Nhat Hanh, The Sun My Heart
"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...." ~ Thich Nhat Hanh, The Sun My Heart
"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one." ~ Thich Nhat Hanh, The Sun My Heart
Comments by John Tan in 2009 on these paragraphs from “The Sun My Heart” (see excerpts in Sun of Awareness and River of Perceptions http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../sun-of-awareness... ),
"...as a verb, as action, there can be no concept, only experience. Non-dual anatta (no-self) is the experience of subject/Object as verb, as action. There is no mind, only mental activities... ...Source as the passing phenomena... and how non-dual appearance is understood from Dependent Origination perspective."
Even when non-dual is realized in the case of Stage 4, Awareness can still be misunderstood in terms of the second type of non-dual, rather than the third (which is anatta and empty-clarity):
The Three Levels of "Understanding" of Non-dual Awareness
“Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
What I said here, is not really correct. Thought is, but no thinker. Sound is, but no hearer. Awareness cannot be separated from thoughts and manifestation.
John Tan replied:
Yes but what said can still have the following scenario:
1. There is an Awareness reflecting thoughts and manifestation. ("I AM").
Mirror bright is experienced but distorted. Dualistic and Inherent seeing.
2. Thoughts and manifestation are required for the mirror to see itself.
Non-Dualistic but Inherent seeing. Beginning of non-dual insight.
3. Thoughts and manifestation have always been the mirror (The mirror here is seen as a whole).
Non-Dualistic and non-inherent insight.
In 3 not even a quantum line can be drawn from whatever arises; whatever that appears to come and goes is the Awareness itself. There is no Awareness other than that. We should use the teachings of Anatta (no-self), DO (dependent origination) and Emptiness to see the 'forms' of awareness.” - John Tan, 2009
The second case is similar to the cyber sangha 17 year old kid quoted in Phase 4, that said “They [the reflections] are the mirror, yet the mirror isn't the reflections.” In Phase 5, the reflections are the mirror and there is no mirror besides the reflections/on-going manifesting/reflecting (whatever arises is Presencing with no Presence besides those colors, sounds, sensations, scents, tastes, thoughts), nothing unchanging or independent and self-standing, no need for a metaphysical essence at all. The sense of being an ultimate and changeless metaphysical essence, source and substratum is replaced by pure manifestation and one then begins to penetrate into Dependent Origination as the mechanism of pure manifestation (see Stage 6).
The Wind is Blowing, Blowing is the Wind
I wrote in 2013:
V: "...there is somewhere a One Thinker (of thought)"
Me: "A thinker is thinking a thought" is simply a construct of a faulty framework and view of inherent and dualistic self. Just like language is structured in a way that it often requires subject-action-object predicates, making us to say things like "the wind is blowing", "I am thinking a thought"... but is there really a truly existing and independent thing called "the wind" that "is blowing" or is "wind" and "blowing" simply two words referring to a single activity? Likewise is there truly an "I" that is "thinking, a thought" or is "I", "thinking", and "thought" three different labels imputed on a single activity? Seer, seeing and seen are just a conventional view... they only appear as separate, independent existences due to ignorance but such a view does not tally with reality.
River is flowing doesn't mean there is an independent thing called "river" that is "flowing", it actually means river IS the flowing and apart from the flowing there is no river... just conventional labels applied to a single activity. Wind is blowing means wind IS the blowing and apart from blowing there is no other wind... seeing the scenery means seeing IS the seen/scenery and apart from that seen/scenery there is no other seeing (nor a separate seer), there is no other consciousness apart from the specific manifest experience - seen/heard/sensed/smelled/touched/cognized. Mere conventions applied to a single activity, appearing to co-locate with each other in an independent and separate manner due to a distorted view that causes us to misperceive reality in a fundamental way, just like mis-perceiving a rope as a snake. Once we see that there isn't anything that 'nouns' point to than pure action/activity, then the verb alone is sufficient - 'blowing', 'flowing', 'thinking', 'seeing' - which is none other than the seen, thought, etc. There is no 'you', 'seer', 'thinker' apart from seeing which is sight, hearing which is sound, etc.
When we directly contemplate, investigate and challenge our view of 'seer-seeing-seen' and see that in the seen is merely the seen - that seeing is simply the seen and seen is just the seeing without any seer apart, that there is no other consciousness apart from the 'mere seen/mere cognized', a permanent quantum shift of perception takes place. When this is directly realized in one's experience and not merely understood inferentially, any delusion of agency (doer, controller, feeler), subject-object/perceiver-perceived gaps, divisions are seen through, the gapless/undivided self-clarity of experience without an agent, center or boundaries simply shines vividly in its raw, direct, unfiltered purity, and just that is free and liberating in itself. Later comes this seeing - the mind, the body, the breathing, the environment, in seamless exertion!
V: "Yes... only verbs... This is a great pointer!!!! Wow!!! Thank you Soh! I will sit with that pointer! It is so powerful! It is blowing my "mind" ! How could there ever be a story only with verbs? Yes! Yes! That's it! A verb can't "build" a self. Thank you so much!!!!!"
Labels: Anatta |
Just Manifestation or Just Mind
Also see: Flowers Fall: A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan
Session Start: Thursday, September 11, 2008
(7:40 PM) AEN: Satellite understands anatta rite? http://now-for-you.com/viewtopic.php?t=4315&start=120
(7:40 PM) AEN:
Although duality is a mind state, not all mind states are dualistic.
In the absence of the sense of separation, the phenomen-ing of thought still arises. Just as there is feeling without a feeler, seeing without a see-er, thinking without a thinker arises. For it to be dualistic it requires a secondary layer of thought or belief that says it is 'my' thought.
A clear 'seeing' that subject and object are always, always one (or indeed none), renders all this struggle unnecessary. All there can ever be is Oneness appearing as this ever-fresh self-shining display. The separation is the imposition - though admittedly a very compelling one.
Session Start: Friday, September 12, 2008
(1:16 PM) Thusness: Satellite yes. If this state is truly stabilized, DO must be understood intuitively.
(11:31 PM) AEN: btw this is Anatta as action rite:
It sounds completely paradoxical, but realization only has meaning for the person.
I say paradoxical because the myth is that realization means seeing that the person is nonexistent.
But this is only true from a certain perspective (so to speak.)
Right now, the person can be seen to be insubstantial, not separate and impermanent.
Its 'existence' is like that of a river. It cannot be found, yet it is not truly absent.
It is verb-like. The happening of person-ing is apparent.
It's within this stream that the 'realization event' arises.
The realization is that I am the Source and essence of this person-ing that is streaming in to view.
This is not to lose the person-ing, but to see it in its ultimate context.
(11:54 PM) Thusness: the text above is by satellite?
(11:54 PM) AEN: person-ing?
(11:54 PM) AEN: ya
(11:55 PM) Thusness: Seldom do we see practitioner having such clarity and experience
(11:25 PM) AEN: Phroggy wrote:
(11:25 PM) AEN: Initiated a file transfer
(11:25 PM) AEN: Okay, so, like, I just figured out where all the discussion about Consciousness with Satellite was going after watching a video of Kevin Edwards. In fact, I think something has been brewing here for a while and it may not be done yet.
Basically, what I was trying to say in the discussion here is that mind automatically structures everything dualistically. That is, subject----verb----object, and yet in every case, the subject and object are assumed, leaving only the verb. If you hang in with me, I'll explain, and it looks pretty cool from here.
We say Consciousness expresses in form, but is there really a Consciousness apart from that expression, or is Consciousness just a conceptual subject supplied by the mind so that it seems to come from somewhere? What if Consciousness is it's content, such that the expression is all there is to this Consciousness thingy? Also, is there really a form? Do we know that, or do we also assume the existence of the object? I'm saying there is no subject and there is no object, just the expression itself. Consciousness IS that expression.
(11:25 PM) AEN: Initiated a file transfer
(11:25 PM) AEN:
Lets take thought. We say The thinker thought a thought. Is there a thinker or a conceptual thing we call a thought, or is there just thinking arising. Is there really any more to it than that? The subject and object are assumed and have no reality at all. Lets take Awareness. We say Awareness is aware of a tree. The subject and object are assumed and there is just awareness itself. There is no Awareness anywhere. It's existence is literally inherent to it's being aware. There is no object to Awareness either, and so we might say that the tree is awareness happening, but in the absence of an object we call a tree.
(11:25 PM) AEN:
Listening to Kevin tonight, it came together for me when he said something like 'You say, "I see a plant". Now, throw away the point of reference, the I that sees.' In this, there is just the seeing of the plant without anybody seeing, and in fact the plant isn't even there, so there's just the seeing. No subject (me) and no object seen, just the perception iteself, inseparable from any other subject, and identical with all objects, because all subjects and all objects are literally the perceiving itself. In this way, everything is one thing, in the absence of thingness and in the absence of a separate perceiver. There is just experience happening. No experiencer and nothing experienced. If mind insists on retaining it's made up subject and object, then we can say the experiencer IS the experiencing itself, and the experiencing IS the experienced, and they all become one.
(11:28 PM) AEN: wat u tink
(11:28 PM) AEN: oh and Satellite just replied:
(11:28 PM) AEN:
With a touch less of the slightly metaphysical tone, this could be the work of a Mahayana Buddhist.
Yes. Only experience (verb) or experiencing (without the usual dualistic split that is associated with these words.)
In this sense, there is nothing - only happenings, only experiencing.
(11:28 PM) AEN: Yet in order for apparent communication and interaction, experience is conceptually divided into parts.
Right now, all there is is seamless experience. The phone rings - now it might be clumsy to say that the ring is an expression of experience - but it could be said that experience is arising as the sound of the phone. So now we have experience... arising as a something.
We are not saying that experience is apart from the thing experienced... only that language/conceptual thought can make it look that way.
(11:30 PM) Thusness: Yes good
(11:31 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:31 PM) Thusness: Anatta
(11:32 PM) Thusness: Next step is to go non-conceptual
(11:32 PM) AEN: oic..
(11:33 PM) AEN: u mean phroggy shld practice non-conceptuality?
(12:23 AM) AEN: u mean after realising anatta then shld practice non conceptuality
(1:24 AM) Thusness: What is the url?
(1:24 AM) AEN: which url
(1:24 AM) AEN: oh
(1:25 AM) AEN: http://now-for-you.com/viewtopic.php?t=4543
(1:35 AM) Thusness: There r different depth to this experience.
(1:35 AM) AEN: oic..
(1:37 AM) Thusness: One can still turn conceptual and cannot experience the vividness of this anatta experience
(1:37 AM) AEN: icic..
(1:38 AM) Thusness: The Tendency to grasp this understanding conceptually will normally last for another few yrs or longer.
(1:39 AM) AEN: oic..
(1:39 AM) AEN: btw phroggy realised anatta?
(1:40 AM) Thusness: The 'reminding' will step in until stage 5 goes non-conceptual and arise as sound, scenery, taste...
(1:40 AM) Thusness: Yes
(1:40 AM) AEN: icic..
(1:41 AM) AEN: reminding as in
(1:41 AM) AEN: conceptually thinking it?
(1:41 AM) Thusness: But there must be direct experience.
(1:41 AM) AEN: oic
(1:41 AM) Thusness: Reminding oneself of this new found truth.
(1:41 AM) AEN: icic..
(1:42 AM) AEN: but when he realised its not just a conceptual understand right? like he realised it?
(1:43 AM) Thusness: Soon
(1:43 AM) AEN: oic..
(1:43 AM) Thusness: But not yet
(1:43 AM) AEN: icic..
(1:43 AM) Thusness: Not like satellite
(1:44 AM) AEN: oic why
(1:44 AM) AEN: oh
(1:44 AM) Thusness: But stage 6 is a lil different.
(1:44 AM) AEN: icic..
(1:47 AM) Thusness: this in buddhism is the right view
(1:47 AM) Thusness: The next step is to see the DO (Dependent Origination) nature.
(1:59 AM) Thusness: You see most ppl will know how different the experience is between 'I AMness' and anatta
(1:59 AM) Thusness: After the experience
(2:00 AM) Thusness: It is obvious otherwise he would not have made that comment
(2:01 AM) Thusness: Future understanding is the dependently originate nature.
(2:01 AM) Thusness: That is emptiness
(2:02 AM) Thusness: Then leading to effortless non-conceptuality
(2:02 AM) Thusness: Then self liberation
Session Start: Friday, October 17, 2008
(11:44 PM) Thusness: proggy after discussion with satellite came to understand consciousness as phenomena-ing...as action, as verb
(11:44 PM) Thusness: language brought about the delusion that there is a subject and object division.
(11:45 PM) Thusness: actually it is not just language, attachment.
(11:46 PM) Thusness: proggy must later move from 5 aggregates to 18 dhatus, eliminating the mental formation.
(11:47 PM) Thusness: then she will find delight in DO.
(10:01 PM) Thusness: actually Proggy wrote very well the post.
(10:01 PM) Thusness: is there a subject
(10:01 PM) Thusness: it is just that one experience.
(10:01 PM) Thusness: however there are few more important points to take note after initial insight.
(10:03 PM) Thusness: she seems to stop writing liao
(10:06 PM) Thusness: Actually if u understood what Satellite and Phroggy meant, u will realise that John Myrdhin, isn't there yet.
(10:07 PM) Thusness: If there is just one Happening where subject and object are merely assumed, how can there be manifestation of the mind.
(10:07 PM) Thusness: There is just manifestation or just experience or just mind. (Also see: Flowers Fall: A Commentary on Zen Master Dogen's Genjokoan http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../hakuun... )
(10:08 PM) Thusness: No more confusion with 'forms' and 'formlessness'
(10:09 PM) Thusness: It was only when a practitioner is still assuming that there is a subject and object that such distinction exist.
(10:10 PM) Thusness: otherwise it is just one expression, one body, one reality.
(10:10 PM) Thusness: one happening...nothing else...
(10:11 PM) Thusness: yet after this experience due to the 'tendency to divide', there will definitely be a period of desync. If a practitioner cannot pass the test, his experience will not be stabilized and liberation will not be experienced.
(11:00 PM) Thusness: By the way it is because we are unable to see with complete clarity that appearance is awareness that 'practice' is necessary.
(11:02 PM) Thusness: Otherwise 'practice' is just every moment of experience
Labels: Anatta |
The arising and ceasing is called the Transience,
Is self luminous and self perfected from beginning.
However due to the karmic propensity that divides,
The mind separates the ‘brilliance’ from the ever arising and ceasing.
This karmic illusion constructs ‘the brilliance’,
Into an object that is permanent and unchanging.
The ‘unchanging’ which appears unimaginably real,
Only exists in subtle thinking and recalling.
In essence the luminosity is itself empty,
Is already unborn, unconditioned and ever pervading.
Therefore fear not the arising and ceasing.
There is no this that is more this than that.
Although thought arises and ceases vividly,
Every arising and ceasing remains as entire as it can be.
The emptiness nature that is ever manifesting presently
Has not in anyway denied its own luminosity.
Although non-dual is seen with clarity,
The urge to remain can still blind subtly.
Like a passerby that passes, is gone completely.
And bear witness of this pure presence, its non-locality.
And hence... "Awareness" is not anymore "special" or "ultimate" than the transient mind.
Labels: All is Mind, Anatta, Non Dual |
Session Start: Saturday, May 09, 2009
(6:37 PM) AEN: hi u there?
(6:37 PM) Thusness: yes
going to watch star trek later.
(6:37 PM) AEN: oic
Sunyata Mu said:
Basically from my birth to about somewhere in my thirties there was a belief that I was the thoughts.
This belief that I was the thoughts led to a situation which was basically 'out of control'. I believed I was the thoughts, so basically I was trapped on a roller coaster ride with them. There was no place to sit back from them... I was a slave to them and a victim of them.
(6:38 PM) AEN: So, when the realisation occured that I was the witnessing of the thoughts (...what I would call 'awakening' ) then there was some space from them.
I'd discovered a deeper part of me which I could abide in and just watch the thoughts pass by. There was then a freedom from the thoughts. They could be grabbed or let go. The slavery to them had been broken. To get to this point it was very useful to see the thoughts as 'not me' and to see them for what they actually are... dead symbols.
This awakening then opened up the next step of the 'journey'. It went from 'the witness' (which is seen as a separate self which is witnessing).... to 'the witnessing', which is non-personal. 'The witnessing' is like the 'one witnessing' in a dream. All of the dream
characters have the same witnessing flowing through them. They seem separate, but it's the same witnessing (awareness) flowing through them all.
So, now that the deepest part of 'me' had been realised I could now begin to reclaim the world of thought.
(6:38 PM) AEN:
An analogy would be.... I am the sun. But I didn't realise that I was the sun. I thought that I was the suns' rays and was oblivious to the fact that there was a sun which was emanating those rays. I then realised that my deepest self (the bit that the rays depend on to exist) was the
sun. So I 'awakened' to the fact that the sun was there, and that it was my deepest self. And now that I realise that I am the sun I can safely take back ownership of the rays. Sure I am the rays.... but now there is also the realisation that I am the sun.
So, now, there is a realisation that at one end there is pure non-personal witnessing. At the other end there is the world of thoughts. And now there is a freedom to move between the two. Before, there was just a stuckness in the thoughts.... that was the only possibility.
Now there is a free movement between the two. ( And yes, they are not actually 2, they are like the sun and its rays.... which are actually one.)
(6:39 PM) Thusness: yes
(6:40 PM) Thusness: but the deeper realization is that witness and the thought is flat.
(6:40 PM) Thusness: both are dust; don't differentiate. This is the profound truth of emptiness.
(6:40 PM) AEN: wat u mean witness and thought is flat
(6:41 PM) AEN: btw what he said is nonduality rite
(6:41 PM) Thusness: there is no hierarchy.
(6:41 PM) AEN: oic
(6:41 PM) Thusness: Yes.
(6:41 PM) Thusness: When we first experienced eternal witness, there is this awakening to the real you.
(6:42 PM) Thusness: But we are still unable to separate from the subtle idea of 'you' from pristineness
(6:42 PM) AEN: icic..
(6:42 PM) Thusness: then non-dual comes. That's the observer and the observed.
This is the beginning of non-duality
(6:43 PM) Thusness: one must penetrate very deeply into non-dual.
(6:43 PM) AEN: oic..
so what he described here is still witness or like non dual?
(6:44 PM) Thusness: Then comes the realization that absolute and relative are really inseparable
(6:44 PM) AEN: icic..
(6:44 PM) Thusness: then till one day we are so clear about the layer of tendencies that affect our thinking mechanism.
(6:45 PM) AEN: oic..
(6:45 PM) Thusness: When we re-examine the experiences, insights of non-duality without the subtle influences due to the neutralization with the arising of prajna wisdom (dependent origination)
(6:46 PM) Thusness: we begin to understand how the dualistic and inherent view distort our understanding with much deeper clarity
experience then move from non-dual to anatta and emptiness
(6:47 PM) Thusness: eventually the background, the transience are simply same level. The absolute that is so dear to us becomes flat. Emptiness flattens all.
(6:47 PM) AEN: icic..
(6:48 PM) Thusness: That is why i said it is the last mark, last trace that must be further purified by emptiness.
(6:48 PM) AEN: oic..
(6:48 PM) Thusness: email me this conversation...
(6:49 PM) Thusness: my keyboard keys spoilt...jump here and there
then close this window...ahaha
(6:49 PM) Thusness: when we talk about the natural state, if we have not reached this clarity of insight, we will not be able to be truly natural.
Because there is a center. Not all are centers...
(6:50 PM) Thusness: that center is the grasping, the more special.
how natural can that be?
(6:50 PM) AEN: icic..
(6:50 PM) Thusness: This last mark must be clearly seen.
(6:50 PM) AEN: btw i remember u said regarding the sun analogy:
The Buddha out of infinite compassion spoke the lucid luminosity, the unconditioned Obviousness, the pure. But the self-luminous awareness from beginningless time has never been separated and cannot be separated from its conditions. They are not two -- This is, That is. Along with the conditions, Luminosity shines without a center and arises without a place.
No where to be found. This is the Tatagatha Nature. Smile
(6:51 PM) Thusness: conditions and luminosity = appearances
(6:51 PM) Thusness: this is DO
this is not relative and absolute
don't mistaken relative as conditions
(6:52 PM) AEN: icic..
(6:52 PM) Thusness: relative is the transience.
this is the subject-object view
luminosity and conditions are DO
(6:52 PM) Thusness: in DO, there is only appearances
all are flat
that is why replaced the inherent and dualistic view with DO. That is the right view.
(6:53 PM) Thusness: To orientate and articulate with the right view
(6:53 PM) Thusness: then when experience comes, it will not be distorted
insight will arise.
(6:53 PM) AEN: oic..
(6:53 PM) Thusness: When I talk about insight, i am talking about anatta and DO.
(6:54 PM) AEN: icic..
(6:55 PM) Thusness: u will see Advaita and Vedanta sees the absolute. The non-dual experience is there but there is the hierarchy that the Absolute is high above.
(6:55 PM) Thusness: in Buddhism, even the Absolute is closely examined. Nothing substantial, as empty.
(6:55 PM) AEN: oic..
(6:56 PM) Thusness: Seeing its nature, one realized the truth of luminous yet empty. All is just like an illusion but not an illusion.
like a dream but not a dream.
(6:56 PM) Thusness: merely magical display
(6:56 PM) AEN: icic..
(6:56 PM) Thusness: This is stage six
(6:57 PM) Thusness: then is the realization that all these realizations are already so before beginning.
(6:58 PM) AEN: ok
btw john astin just posted this in his blog i posted in the forum also: To remain or abide as awareness does not mean we get into some state called “awareness” and then find a way to remain in that state. To remain as awareness is to simply recognize that all states and experiences are the continuous flow of awareness.
(7:02 PM) Thusness: yes...very good.
(7:03 PM) Thusness: this is attempting to use dualistic mode of expression to express.
and there is subtle influences even one is clear and is able to trace the differences.
(7:03 PM) Thusness: but due to the effects of the tendencies, we cannot have that clarity
(7:04 PM) AEN: oic
u mean that expression is still dualistic?
(7:05 PM) Thusness: not exactly
(7:05 PM) Thusness: what i meant is it is very difficult to have the clarity
(7:06 PM) Thusness: from john astin words, he spotted the difference but it is very difficult to have thorough clarity of DO when using dualistic framework.
“(7:53 PM) Thusness: XX Rinpoche makes a good statement but that is before understanding stage 5 and 6. That is, without the source, nothing happens. However in Buddhism, insight is to see, penetrate and investigate and become thoroughly clear that the idea of a source, an essence is unnecessary. Once you experience and arise the insight of anatta, you begin open to happening without source, without the need of an essence. This is then the beginning of Buddhism.” - John Tan, 2009
"To say that the mind is rattled and the nature is composed is the view of other ways; to say that the nature is clear and deep and the form shifts and moves is the view of other ways. The study of the mind and study of the nature on the way of the buddha are not like this. The practice of the mind and practice of the nature on the way of the buddha are not equivalent to the other ways. The clarification of the mind and the clarification of the nature on the way of the buddha, the other ways have no share in."
(Dogen: Talking of the Mind, Talking of the Nature)
Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith:
Excellent case in point.
For Dōgen, Buddha-nature or Busshō (佛性) is the nature of reality and all Being. In the Shōbōgenzō, Dōgen writes that "whole-being is the Buddha-nature" and that even inanimate objects (rocks, sand, water) are an expression of Buddha-nature. He rejected any view that saw Buddha-nature as a permanent, substantial inner self or ground. Dōgen held that Buddha-nature was "vast emptiness", "the world of becoming" and that "impermanence is in itself Buddha-nature". According to Dōgen:
Therefore, the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature.”
As John Tan said in 2007 about Dogen, “Dogen is a great Zen master that has penetrated deeply into a very deep level of anatman.”, “Read about Dogen… he is truly a great Zen master… ...[Dogen is] one of the very few Zen Masters that truly knows.”, “Whenever we read the most basic teachings of Buddha, it is most profound. Don't ever say we understand it. Especially when it comes to Dependent Origination, which is the most profound truth in Buddhism*. Never say that we understand it or have experienced it. Even after a few years of experience in non-duality, we can't understand it. The one great Zen master that came closest to it is Dogen, that sees temporality as buddha nature, that see transients as living truth of dharma and the full manifestation of buddha nature.”
"When you ride in a boat and watch the shore, you might assume that the shore is moving. But when you keep your eyes closely on the boat, you can see that the boat moves. Similarly, if you examine many things with a confused mind, you might suppose that your mind and nature are permanent. But when you practice intimately and return to where you are, it will be clear that there is nothing that has unchanging self.
I was wondering how this relates to Yogachara. If reality is non-dual, and if it is mind-only, then how is it not the same? I guess I don't understand how reality could be composed of multiple mind streams that are interconnected without that all just being activity in awareness.
Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla have an interesting take on this. I'll just copy and paste Jha's translation here for you to read. I'm not sure how much I agree with it, but it certainly is intriguing. Śāntarakṣita's root text will be bolded and Kamalaśīla's commentary will not be.
The error in the view of these philosophers is a slight one,—due only to the assertion of eternality (of cognition); as diversity is clearly perceived in the cognitions of colour, sound and other things.—If all these cognitions were one, then, colour, sound, taste and other things would be cognisable all at once; as in an eternal entity there can be no different states.—(330-331)
‘The error is a slight one’;—as they postulate only Cognition (Consciousness, as the only entity), which is quite reasonable.
“If that is so, then what is even the ‘slight error’ in their view?”
It is due to the assertion of ‘eternality’,
“But why should not the acceptance of ‘eternality’ be reasonable?”
Answer—Diversity is clearly perceived etc. etc.;—‘Eternality’ connotes remaining in the same state always, and ‘non-eternality’ connotes not remaining in the same state always; and as a matter of fact, the Cognition that manifests (apprehends) Colour, Sound and other things is not found to be in one and the same state always;—actually it appears at one time as manifesting Colour and at another time, as manifesting Sound and other things, in a certain order of sequence. Under the circumstances, if all these things, Sound and the rest, were manifested by a single Eternal Cognition, then all of them would appear (be Cognised) simultaneously, like the bedspread of variegated colours; as the Cognition manifesting them would (ex hypothesi) be always there.
It may be held that “the Cognition of Sound and other things are different ‘states’ of it appearing one after the other,—so that the apprehension of Sound etc. could not be simultaneous”.
The answer to this is—‘In an Eternal Entity there can be no different states’;—because the ‘states’ are not different from the Entity to which they belong; so that the Entity to which the states belong would be liable to ‘production and destruction’,—appearance and disappearance,—in the same way as the States are liable; or, conversely, the states also would be eternal, like the Entity to which they belong.—If, on the other hand, the states are different from the entity to which they belong, then there can be no idea of the states belonging to this entity; as there is no benefit conferred by the one on the other; and this alternative (of the states being different from the Cognitions) would also be contrary to the doctrine that the eternal Cognition is the only one Entity.—(330-331)
Further, if the Eternal Cognition existed, it could be known either through Perception or through Inference; that it cannot be known through Perception is shown in the following—[see verse 332 next]
Cognition or consciousness is never apprehended as anything distinct from the cognitions of colour and other things; and inasmuch as these latter undergo variations every moment, what remains there that could be lasting (permanent, eternal)?—(332)
As a matter of fact, apart from the Cognitions of Colour etc., which appear one after the other, we do not apprehend, any lasting Consciousness, eternal and one,—whereby it could be held to be known through Perception.—Then, inasmuch as it is well known that the Cognitions of Colour and otherngs are apprehended one after the other, and are destroyed every moment—it has to be explained what remains there that is non-different from those Cognitions? Thus, inasmuch as there is no apprehension of any such Cognition, which would be apprehended if it were there,—it cannot but be regarded as ‘non-existent This is what the Text means.
Nor can it be held that the said Eternal Cognition is known through Inference. Because such an Inference would be based either upon the nature of the Cognition itself, or upon that of its effects. It cannot he the former, as there is nothing which can prove that such is the nature of the said Eternal Cognition; on the contrary, there is Perception itself which precludes any such notion.
Thus the doctrine that ‘the world is the illusory modification of the Eternal Consciousness’ is not right.—(332)
Then again, under this doctrine, the notions of ‘Bondage’ and ‘Liberation’ are not possible.—This is what is shown in the following—[see verse 333 next]
There can be no distinction in cognition as ‘wrong’ and ‘right’—if the ‘soul’ consists of a single (eternal) cognition; how then can there be any ‘bondage’ and ‘liberation’?—(333)
For one who holds the view that—Cognition is in perpetual flux, different with different persons, undergoing variations in a series,—the notion of ‘Bondage and Liberation’ is quite reasonable, as being due to the coming about of a series of cognitions, wrong and right; and through the practice of yoga, gradually purer and purer Cognitions coming about, the series of impure cognitions cease and the final Aim (of Liberation) is attained; and thus the attempt at Liberation becomes fruitful.—For you, on the other hand, the ‘Soul’ is of the nature of one Eternal Cognition; how then can there be any ‘Bondage’ and ‘Liberation’ for such a Soul? Because if the one Cognition is eternally wrong, then, as there could be no other state for it, there could be no possibility of ‘Liberation’; on the other hand, if the one Cognition were eternally right, then as it would be always pure, there could be no ‘Bondage’.—As regards our doctrine, the Cognition is held to be defective (wrong) or pure (right), in accordance with the varying character of the Series (in which it appears), and hence the notion of ‘Bondage and Liberation’ is entirely reasonable. This has been thus declared—‘Cognition is defective and free from defects, beset with impurities and free from impurities; if it were never impure, then all embodied beings would be always liberated; if it were never pure, then the attempt to secure Liberation would be fruitless’.—(333)
What could the mystic set aside or accomplish by the practice of yoga? What too is there that could be rejected? As wrong cognition also is of the nature of the same (eternal cognition).—The knowledge of truth also cannot be something to be brought about; as, being of the nature of cognition, it is always there.—So that the entire practice of yoga also is entirely fruitless.—(334-335)
If it be held that ‘Bondage and Liberation are only assumed, not real’;—then it becomes necessary to explain the basis of this assumption. What this basis is under the doctrine of ‘Cognitions being non-eternal’ has been shown above. Thus the Effort—in the form of the contemplation of Truth,—that you put forth for the attaining of the ‘Ultimate Aim’ and for passing beyond the cycle of Birth and Death, can only lead to futile fatigue.—This is shown in the following—[see verses 334-335 above]
If, by the contemplation of Truth, the Mystic could set aside, or bring about, anything, then his Effort would be fruitful. As it is however, he can never set aside Wrong Cognition, because it is of the nature of the same,—i.e. of the nature of Eternal Cognition.—For the same reason it cannot be rejected; because what is eternal cannot be destructible and hence its rejection is impossible.—How can the Yogin accomplish—bring about—the Knowledge of Truth? Being of the nature of Eternal Cognition, the Knowledge of Truth would be always there.—Thus the doctrine in question cannot be right.—(334-335)
That is the section on the relationship between Yogācāra and the Advaitin view in Tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā, composed by Śāntarakṣita and his student Kamalaśīla, a work generally taken to be written from a Yogācāra point of view (though both were actually followers of Madhyamaka in their final analysis, holding Yogācāra to have instrumental value).
Excerpt from Dzogchen teacher Archaya Malcolm Smith:
Yes, I understand. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause.
isn't this cause, too, an object of awareness? Isn't there awareness of this cause? If awareness of this cause is awareness itself, then isn't this awareness of awareness? What causes awareness of awareness, if not awareness?
If awareness is the cause of awareness, isn't it its own cause?
Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."
I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.
Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.
If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land.
There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.
gad rgyangs wrote:
I dunno Malcolm, the basis is more like the backdrop against which any appearances appear, including any consciousness. Also, what sense would it make to say "rigpa is one's knowledge of the basis" if that basis was one's own continuum? the basis is pure no-thing as abgrund of all phenomena. Consciousness is always a phenomenon.
I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.
The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.
[Quoting gad rgyangs: Consciousness is always a phenomenon.] So is the basis. They are both dharmas.
Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:
Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.
An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):
Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.
In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.
gad rgyangs wrote:
Then why speak of a basis at all? just speak of skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, and be done with it.
Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.
gad rgyangs wrote:
There is no question of the basis being an entity, thats not the point. Rigpa is precisely what it says in the yeshe sangthal: instant presence experienced against/within the "backdrop" (metaphor) of a "vast dimension of emptiness" (metaphor).
It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.
gad rgyangs wrote:
When all appearances cease, what are you left with?
They never cease....
gad rgyangs wrote:
In the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.
rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.
Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.
Isn't the difference between transpersonal and personal also a form of dualism?
The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.
Consciousness is Momentary
Life, personhood, pleasure and pain
— This is all that's bound together
In a single mental event
— A moment that quickly takes place.
Even the spirits who endure
For eighty-four thousand aeons
— Even these do not live the same
For any two moments of mind.
What ceases for one who is dead,
Or for one who's still standing here,
Are all just the same aggregates
— Gone, never to connect again.
The states which are vanishing now,
And those which will vanish some day,
Have characteristics no different
Than those which have vanished before.
With no production there's no birth;
With becoming present, one lives.
When grasped with the highest meaning,
The world is dead when the mind stops.
There's no hoarding what has vanished,
No piling up for the future;
Those who have been born are standing
Like a seed upon a needle.
The vanishing of all these states
That have become is not welcome,
Though dissolving phenomena stand
Uncombined from primordial time.
From the unseen, [states] come and go,
Glimpsed only as they're passing by;
Like lightning flashing in the sky
— They arise and then pass away.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .olen.html
Also, the Buddha was quite clear that phenomena, including minds, were momentary. The Buddha may not have elaborated in detail upon what a "moment" was, but in the end, the basic unit of time in Buddhism is number of moments it takes to form a thought. In reality, moments are partless. Partless moments that perish as soon as they arise have no observable duration and are immune from Madhyamaka critique.
The notion that the mind is permanent (i.e. not momentary) is just a Hindu idea, Vedantic.
Labels: Ācārya Malcolm Smith, Impermanence, Sariputta |
Ok enough copy paste explosion today.
Maybe one more.
On appearances never cease and light = appearance, I agree with Anurag:
Excerpt from here http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../differentiating-i... (great read - do read the whole thing)
Soh Wei Yu
in One Mind, phenomena occur IN awareness.
Soh Wei Yu
I am talking about phenomena being Awareness.
Soh Wei Yu
lightning is a conceptual label (also Awareness) flash is not independent of seeing itself and therefore Awareness itself.
Soh Wei Yu
In the movie analogy, the light reflected from screen which shows different appearances on the screen is awareness. Now can you tell me if that light is different from the appearance? Is it one way dependence or two way dependence? Appearances are light and light is appearances.
· 7h · Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Phenomena being Awareness is also in post nondual one mind, to no mind.
Anatta is also seeing there is no seeing independent of appearance. There is nothing ultimate about “Awareness”. It is just a convention for luminous empty appearance
Like lightning is just a convention for flash
Soh Wei Yu
can you please say where I am differing from you in your statement above?
Soh Wei Yu
Not sure i get your analogy right. Are you saying light is none other than the reflection/appearance?
Also “causes different appearance” seems to imply a source, some cause effect which you refuted, so i dont think thats your point.
There is no one light being refracted into many, otherwise that is one mind
Soh Wei Yu
Shinshu Roberts wrote the following, “Since our activity is not a progression from delusion to enlightenment made solely by the independent self, Dogen defines the first thought of practice as 'immediate present ultimate Dharma' or genjokoan: the presence and perfection of all dharmas as they are in the here-and-now.'
Hee-Jin Kim further explains the meaning of genjokoan: 'It does not suggest an evolutionary ascent from hidden-ness to manifestation, or from imperfection to perfection, or conversely, an emanational descent from one to many, or from reality to appearance. Rather, things, events, beings are already unmistakably what they truly are; what is more, they are vibrant, transparent, and bright in their as-they-are-ness.'”
Soh Wei Yu
yes. I am saying light is appearance itself.
Sorry for my use of word causes. Please ignore. Wrong choice of words.
Soh Wei Yu
Then i have no issues with that.
15/4/13 12:53:28 AM: John Tan: Anatta is a realization that there isn't a consciousness besides sound, scenery...etc
15/4/13 12:56:15 AM: John Tan: U c through reification of that agent and get in touch with the base manifestation where the label rely upon
15/4/13 12:57:02 AM: John Tan: So sound is the actual consciousness is referring to
15/4/13 12:57:36 AM: John Tan: There is no consciousness other than that
15/4/13 1:01:13 AM: John Tan: When they see through reification, then phenomena has a different meaning
15/4/13 1:02:04 AM: John Tan: Seeing everything as awareness is not one mind
15/4/13 1:02:52 AM: John Tan: Seeing everything as the same unchanging mind is the problem
15/4/13 1:04:09 AM: John Tan: When u c through reification, u realized "awareness" is just a label point to these manifestations
15/4/13 1:04:32 AM: John Tan: So there is nothing wrong saying that
15/4/13 1:05:24 AM: John Tan: Only when we treat awareness to b of true existence then we r deluded because there isn't any
15/4/13 1:11:14 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I see..
15/4/13 1:11:36 AM: John Tan: In hearing, there is only sound
15/4/13 1:11:57 AM: John Tan: Hearing implies the presence of sound
Soh Wei Yu
Good. Thanks for the discussion. It's great to have a friend in you with whom I can discuss these things. There are really few with whom I can
[6:15 PM, 1/1/2021] John Tan: I think he is quite clear on that
[6:32 PM, 1/1/2021] John Tan: What abt mind freeing itself from notions of anything for example existence, physicality, cause and effect? How is this different from the insight of agency-action?
[9:12 PM, 1/1/2021] John Tan: I m more interested in the insight, clarity and experiences that come from seeing through notions vs agency. If there is clear insights and experiential tastes that come from seeing through them, then the difference is clearly seen.
They r very different sort of de-construction like phases of insights from I M to spontaneous perfection. This is also very important for u. I do not want to keep asking u also, tired.
Soh Wei Yu
, agency is not there in me at all. The concrete experience I have at this time is that of "non abidance" There is no landing point. Only seeing, hearing, tasting. My experience of luminosity and spaciousness/transparency keeps getting refined. It deepens, stabilizes and then becomes normal till the next wave comes.
Soh Wei Yu
John Tan: That is good. Insights r to abolish any artificial divisions and constructs (man made) into natural spontaneity. So don't over focus or after any states, not even transparency otherwise will result in energy imbalances.
• • •
The eventual problem I see is that I can not find a place for Awareness anywhere.
• • ·
• · 4h
I don't disagree with you. I dont find a place for it anywhere either. This is what I was asking Soh. Where does he see Awareness in what I am saying. Which place?
• • ·
• · 4h
Yes, that is pointing to the viewless
• • ·
• · 4h
I don't like to use the words "objects don't exist on their own side and are therefore empty". That's because I like Advaita. Just about that. My love for the path and preference for it's language
• • ·
• · 4h
Now... lets check it: Is there some Awareness when all appearances are absent?
• • ·
• · 3h
let's check before that if appearances are ever absent?
• • ·
• · 3h
Yes. That is the point!! There never is/was an absence of appearances!
• · 3h
Alessandro Socio Migliori
o · 1h
But advaitins claim that when all appearances end there is still Awareness there.
• • ·
• · 3h
talk to "this" Advaitin
• • ·
• · 3h
Some, like Darryl, claim they have been there. He says he has been pure Aareness without appearances.
• • ·
• · 3h
Darryl claims many things. He also claims he is pure love
• • ·
• · 3h
he is probably talking of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The mind is still there in the most subtle form. If it is not there he would not even know that he had that experience.
• • ·
• · 3h
It all clears when the conceptualizing re the nature of what is, stops
• • ·
• · 3h
Any subtle views are still the continuation of conceptualizing mind.
• • ·
• · 3h
and no amount of Nirvikalpa Samadhi can do it. Only inquiry can penetrate it.
• • ·
• · 3h
"My experience of luminosity and spaciousness/transparency keeps getting refined. It deepens, stabilizes and then becomes normal till the next wave comes."
"Luminosity" is some kind of an appearance?
• • ·
• · 3h
it is an experience.