- ...................................
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
JT: “What Albert said about representation and presentation is very apt. There is a big difference in talking about:
1. freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities -- representation and
2. freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities from without self-nature perspective -- presentation.”
2
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Soh, in another thread you mention one-mind and no-mind. Lets go over that again, just for fun. There is the Only-Mind step (that you call one mind). Then, as all is Mind and Mind is also Mind you have No-Mind. Its the seeing that there isn't "something" binding the totality, or that Dharmakaya is the ever present, unborn, no-space that allows seeming manifestatioin, its not some "substance". What is next? Anatta? In quick words, is that the absence of self, the absence of doership?
48 Comments
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
1
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Differentiating I AM, One Mind, No Mind and Anatta
1
Albert Hong
It’s
all there is you’re ruthlessly objective and want to know. Learn the
terms not how you know it but how the author is expressing it. Meaning
they are saying something very specific.
1
Geovani Geo
Author
Albert Hong,
there is something "new" in dealing with these issues anew. We all know
the basics, but in a ping-pong dialogue, without copying and pasting,
the dynamism may bring in "something" different, not seen before. If you
prefer to exchange prints - go for it buddy.
Albert Hong
Geovani Geo when you read something there is constant relationship to what you read. It isn’t a dead thing.
2
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Even
to express it as “allowing manifestation” implies a container of
manifestation. There is no container. Manifestation is dharmakaya, thats
all. That is anatta, then there are two aspects of it expressed in the
two stanzas.
2
- Reply
- 12w
- Edited
Albert Hong
Soh Wei Yu the problem is this deep tendency to reify.
It isn't particularly clear that one can make a distinction say between movement and stillness.
People say manifestation arises from space. Or movement arises from stillness.
It isn't clear that there is a holding onto stillness and dualizing it from motion.
If there are two things then that is dualism pure and simple.
And
yet if we merge that stillness and movement into a single formless
substance then we fall into Monism and inherent view again.
There is a deep tendency for the mind to desire wholeness or oneness. It is very alluring and beautiful to the mind.
4
Reply
Albert Hong
in
seeing, no seer. in hearing, no hear. if we just contemplate that then
you'd instantly get that there is no extra witness, or space, or
container, or self.
2
Reply
Mr./Ms. CW
Albert Hong I contemplated just that for years and did not instantly get it. Just sayin'...
1
Reply
- 11w
- Edited
Geovani Geo
Author
Yea..
this is the kind of subtlety that is interesting do converse about.
There is a point here that is very difficult to express. Its about that
wich is naturally not ever absent. But expressed in this way it seems to
be something. But it is not! Take 3D-space as an analogy. Is there a
thing called space? No. It is originally there, right? The same line of
pointing can be extended to the Dharmakaya.
Reply
Albert Hong
Geovani Geo
from what I understand. space is just the luminosity extending
infinitely everywhere all the time. literally the motion of luminosity
creates space. but it also creates all the elements and all appearance
as well. Yet there is no space as a referent. Nor is there luminosity as
a referent. Nothing can be pinned down as a thing. But we can
understand things as endless relations in a conventional/nominal way.
But
people who practice have this experience of a space and then there is
arising of stuff from that space. And that experience has within it a
series of assumptions.
Reply
Jenny Jennings Foerst
Albert Hong
People cannot profitably skip the totalizing-Space phase, but it is
only a phase, if one keeps practicing. Luminosity more likely to be
recognized if Space phase comes first. I know you know, just mentioning
for others.
1
Reply
Jenny Jennings Foerst
Space
is, yes, a set of assumptions, a construct. So is time, yet time also
seems to keep going, so the "beyond" of that construct is especially
tricky in that "beyond-ness" is what is in question. So immediacy, but
time travel is possible, too.
Reply
Albert Hong
I've
heard teachings on the distinction between a presentation verses a
representation. And it's a useful way to understand appearance.
Appearance or Form is exactly itself. Exactly a presentation of itself.
It isn't a representation like say a still life painting of an orange.
There is the actual orange (referent) and the symbol/representation of
the orange. This the traditional finger pointing to the moon analogy.
But this is also incorrect because there is only ever presentation.
So
even the painting of the orange, which isn't the actual orange is
itself a presentation of itself. And the orange is as well.
When we focus on lets say the presence. then it isn't clear that presence isn't a thing but the very presentation of form.
And form is nothing but constant activity. So form is forming. Presence is presencing. They aren't distinct.
But
when we reify presence. Then it seems presence is something and
everything else is soemthing else. Then we have to naturally unify
everything with this presence.
But that is incorrect because everything is already exactly itself as forming/presencing.
6
Reply
Albert Hong
So there is no need to emphasize presence as a thing. or even as something special. because it is exactly the forms.
Reply
Albert Hong
If
you reify a background. Lets say an absence of a background. Then you
make that a reference point in relationship to everything else.
So
it feels and is experienced as an emanationist theory of sorts.
Something arises from nothing. Even if it seems non dualistic. You are
making a distinction in experience between the two. something and
nothing. arising and non arising.
1
Reply
Reply
Reply
Geovani Geo
Author
"Yet there is no space as a referent. Nor is there luminosity as a referent."
This
is what I meant when used space as an analogy. Space is not something.
To say its there makes no sense jsut as to say it is not. Both make it a
thing.
Reply
Albert Hong
In
how people use language when speaking about spiritual or meditative
experience, it is common. How people use language is also how they shape
their perception, which shapes their responses/actions. It
1
Reply
Albert Hong
It
is a whole package. So reification of space, of nothingness, of a
container, of something formless as distinct from something else.
It is very common for meditators.
Reply
Albert Hong
More common then that is the Monist variant of taking formless presence as the single source of everything.
Pretty much all the conversation on here. Is nothing but the endless distinctions between IAM, ONE MIND and NO MIND.
And how Anatta is a distinct realization.
1
Reply
Mr. RDT
Albert Hong very true Al. You can often see where the people are at by how they express themsleves.
Reply
Albert Hong
Mr. RDT yeah. language is how we shape everything. Nama-Rupa. Name and form are the same.
Reply
Mr. RDT
Albert Hong
true. If people dont want to release their clinging they will often
make argument along the lines of "this is (my) experience" or "I know
this from experience". I mean of course you do. Our view shapes our
world.
Reply
- 12w
- Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
JT: “What Albert said about representation and presentation is very apt. There is a big difference in talking about:
1. freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities -- representation and
2. freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities from without self-nature perspective -- presentation.”
2
- Reply
- 12w
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Reminded of what i wrote in 2012
Buddha-Dharma: A Dream in a Dream
(Above: Ted Biringer's book)
Like always, Ted Biringer have interesting and well written postings.
Just like to add a short comment:
Dogen
here relates nyo (“like”), to ze (“this”), evoking the familiar Zen
association nyoze (“like this,” “thusness”). He goes on to draw the
implication that “like this” signifies not mere resemblance but the
nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. He thus rejects any dualistic
notion of metaphor or simile (hiyi), whereby an image points to,
represents, or approximates something other than itself. Rather, for
Dogen, the symbol itself is the very presence of total dynamism, i.e.,
it presents.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, note 8, p.251
I could think of one example: people liken “Buddha-nature” to be “like the moon”.
In
actuality, the very appearance of the moon is buddha-nature, it is not
that there is some hidden thing called buddha-nature which merely
resembles the moon. The moon is buddha-nature, the buddha-nature is the
moon, the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. Or as Dogen says,
the moon-face buddha and sun-face buddha, the whole body is the whole
moon. There is nothing hidden or latent about it, there is no hidden
noumenon in which phenomenon or symbols can “point to” or “hint at”. The
symbol, e.g. the moon, is itself the very presence of total dynamism.
Furthermore, manifestation does not 'come from' Buddha-nature, nor does
Buddha-nature 'contains' manifestation, Buddha-nature is empty of a self
but conventionally imputed on the "myriad forms". Likewise for Truth,
Awareness, etc.
In fact everything is like this.
Scent
of a flower is not scent of “a flower”, the scent does not represent or
approximate something other than itself but is a complete reality (well
not exactly a 'reality' but rather a whole and complete
manifestation/appearance which is empty and unreal) in itself: the scent
IS the flower, wheel of a car is not wheel of “a car”, the car IS the
wheel. Wheel cannot be said to "come from a car" or "be contained by a
car". The word “car” is a mere imputation, not a true reality that can
be established. “Self” and aggregates are likewise.
Seen
in such manner, all constructs are deconstructed and what's left is
just the shimmering "dream-like" (coreless, empty, illusory), luminous
appearances which is all there is, but not to be confused with a dreamy
state.
Anyway this is Ted's new post:
Friday, June 01, 2012
Buddha-Dharma: A Dream in a Dream
On the True Nature of the Self...
The
final belief is to believe in a fiction, which you know to be a
fiction, there being nothing else. The exquisite truth is to know that
it is a fiction and that you believe in it willingly.
Wallace Stevens
The
appearance of buddhas and ancestors in the world, being prior to the
emergence of any incipient sign, has nothing to do with old, narrow
opinions. This accounts for the virtues of buddha-ancestors, as of going
beyond the Buddha. Unconcerned with time, the life-span [of
buddha-ancestors] is neither prolonged nor momentary, as it is far from
the comprehension of ordinary minds.
The
ever turning wheel of the Dharma is also a principle prior to the
emergence of any incipient sign; as such, it is an eternal paragon with
immeasurably great merit. [Buddha-ancestors] expound this as a dream in a
dream. Because they see verification within verification, it is known
as expounding a dream in a dream.
The
place where a dream is expounded in a dream is indeed the land and
assembly of buddha-ancestors. The buddha-land and buddha-assembly, the
ancestral way and ancestral seat, are all verification founded upon
verification, hence all are the expounding of a dream in a dream. Upon
encountering their utterances and discourses, do not think that these
are not of the buddha-assembly; they are the Buddha’s turning the wheel
of the Dharma. Because this wheel of the Dharma turns in all directions,
the great oceans and Mt. Sumeru, the lands and buddhas are all
realized. Such is expounding a dream in a dream, which is prior to all
dreams.
The
entire world, crystal-clear everywhere, is a dream; and a dream is all
grasses [things] clear and bright. To doubt the dream state is itself to
dream; all perplexity is a dream as well. At this very moment, [all
are] grasses of the “dream state,” grasses “in” [a dream],
grasses“expounding” [a dream], and so on. Even as we study this, the
very roots and stalks, leaves and branches, flowers and fruits, lights
and hues [of our perception] are all a great dream. Never mistake this,
however, for a dreamy state.
Dogen, Shobogenzo, Muchu-setsumu (Expounding a dream in a dream), Trans. Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, p.279-280
It’s a wonderful, wonderful opera. Only it hurts.
Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth (with Bill Moyers)
Dogen
here relates nyo (“like”), to ze (“this”), evoking the familiar Zen
association nyoze (“like this,” “thusness”). He goes on to draw the
implication that “like this” signifies not mere resemblance but the
nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. He thus rejects any dualistic
notion of metaphor or simile (hiyi), whereby an image points to,
represents, or approximates something other than itself. Rather, for
Dogen, the symbol itself is the very presence of total dynamism, i.e.,
it presents.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, note 8, p.251
If
the new empirical results are taken seriously, then people throughout
our culture have to rethink some of their most cherished beliefs about
what science and philosophy are and consider their values from a new
perspective...
If
conceptual metaphors are real, then all literalist and objective views
of meaning and knowledge are false. We can no longer pretend to build an
account of concepts and knowledge on objective, literal foundations.
This constitutes a profound challenge to many of the traditional ways of
thinking about what it means to be human, about how the mind works, and
about our nature as social and cultural creatures.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, p.273
Allegory
and metaphor both start off saying one thing as if it were another. But
where allegorical method divides this double talk into two constituents
– latent and manifest – and requires translation of manifest into
latent, the metaphorical method keeps the two voices together, here the
dream as it tells itself, ambiguously evocative and concretely precise
at each and every instant. Metaphors are not subject to interpretive
translation without breaking up their peculiar unity... Since symbols
and metaphors cannot be translated, another method for understanding
dreams is needed, a method in which masks, disguises, and doubleness
inherently belong, a method that is itself metaphorical.
…if
the dream is psychic nature per se, unconditioned, spontaneous,
primary, and this psychic nature can show a dramatic structure, then the
nature of the mind is poetic. To go to the root human ontology, its
truth, essence, and nature, one must move in the fictional mode and use
poetic tools.
James Hillman, Healing Fiction, pp35-36 [italics Hillman’s]
Peace,
Ted
Labels: Anatta, Emptiness, Ted Biringer, Zen, Zen Master Dogen |
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Buddha-Dharma: A Dream in a Dream
1
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 12w
Geovani Geo
Author
Albert Hong
writes, "So it feels and is experienced as an emanationist theory of
sorts. Something arises from nothing. Even if it seems non dualistic.
You are making a distinction in experience between the two. something
and nothing. arising and non arising."
This is interesting. Could you elaborate on the emanationist thing?
Please dont press the answer button. Lets stay on this main thread or soon my PC looses you.
Reply
Albert Hong
Basically it is a theory and experience of people that there is an underlying reality of sorts. A Godhead or an Absolute.
Be it a void. Be it a subtle light realm. Be it presence. There are endless flavors of pretty much the same thing.
You have a circle. and from that circle arises a dot. From that dot arises endless dots.
0 to 1 to 2 to 10,000 things.
Taoism has its own version. The Christians have their own version.
Reply
Albert Hong
And
though it is a theory. Views shape experiences. Experience is never
apart from views. Even non conceptual experience has its basis in
conceptual habit that forces a way of seeing.
So
we can always assume regardless of what is experience. Directly or not.
It is bounded by the habitual momentum of latent conceptual
impressions.
And continually what we see. What I experience as well in my practice. IS this tendency to make a container. Or make a source.
We can call it whatever we desire. Mind. Emptiness, Buddha. God. Reality. Self. Etc. It has endless symbolic representations.
And we tend to overemphasize it. Because well its special. It seems spiritual. It seems like well better than everything else.
And in doing so we dualize that thing we cling to verses everyhting else.
And
we get sophisticated and then say everything else is coming from there.
or made of it. And we're okay with that. It seems to make sense.
But that whole thing is dualism. Lol
1
Reply
Albert Hong
I'm not even saying there isn't value in it. There is tremendous practical value and refining of mind and view.
But
in the end if you have two things. Even if they are the same thing. And
even if they are formless, absence. No matter how you dress it up.
It is a cause of suffering because it is dualism.
Reply
Geovani Geo
Author
Yea.
Suddenly there is just this conceptless presence. No need to question
what "presence" is or is not. Any framing is jsut more mind movement,
including any and all affirming and negating.There is no duality, no
separation, no pondering. When measurement, questioning, drive to become
something else, drive to seek for a ground or groundlessness arises it
is immediately perceived as shadow.
Reply
- 12w
- Edited
Mr. RDT
No need to question what it is. Better to question whether if at all it really is.
Reply
Mr. RDT
Also suddenly or always already so?
Reply
Reply
Reply
- 12w
- Edited
Geovani Geo
Author
Yes, i get the "suddenlly". Its because, here, there is still the "in and out" movement. Dont you?
Reply
Mr. RDT
Geovani Geo ah this is worth exploring. Where does the movement end and stillness start? Are they one? Are they two?
Reply
Mr. RDT
Me?
I like the wave metaphor. There is no boundary between the peak and
trough. Its continuous. But peak is not the same as trough
Reply
Mr. RDT
Geovani Geo
as per Anatta there is no going in and out. Its not like one has a self
and suddenly doesnt have it. Anatta is always already so all the way
through
Reply
Geovani Geo
Author
Mr. RDT, I went for a walk and thought "I will be surprised if someone doesn't catch me with my pants down with my in-out stuff"
Of
course this is an example of wrong view, of there being something to
get in or fall out from. Its just thoughts, based in such wrong view,
claiming so.
Reply
- 12w
- Edited
Reply
Mr. RDT
Good comments Albert
Here are my 2 cents
There
is this popular tendency to disregard teachings on the view because of
attachement to misguided experience of nonconceptuality (or clarity).
Yet as you pointed the experience is conditioned by the view or Id say
contextualised.
You can view nonconceptual experience as a meditative state you go in and out.
You can view its an ego death.
You can view to such experience with drugs and think the drug is giving you this.
You can view it is by God's grace.
You can view this is enlightemnent so you try to make this special state last longer.
You can think "I am That".
You can view it as "that out of which everything arises".
All
these views are limiting. Buddhadharma is ultimately about freeing from
all views. As Buddha says Tathagata has done away with all points of
view. As Nagarjuna says he claims nothing so he does not fall in error.
As Shang Shung Nyen Gyud says there is no view to uphold.
Without
these veils of views you see/know reality as it is. Hence vidya/rigpa
literally means to see (and if you take things like Thogal into account
then this is very literal). As Buddha says in Aggi-Vachagotta Sutta
Tathagata has done away with views but he sees dependent origination.
There
are many traps of course. Some intuit lack of views part but wrongly
fall into disease of nonconceptuality. Buddha can use all views for the
benefit of all, knows all views. If one is afraid of views then one is
still conceptuaholic or viewholic (alcoholic doesnt drink but is still
enslaved).
Many - often
these go together - bullshit themsleves claiming they have no view.
While at the same time they act out materialism or idealism. Many people
are not even aware of their views but just like mindless drones.
Hence we use right views - relatively and circumstancially - to get out of this mess. Like picking thorn with a thorn.
3
Reply
- 12w
- Edited
Albert Hong
Guru
Rinpoche also said, "Though the view should be as vast as the sky, keep
your conduct as fine as barley flour." Don't confuse one with the
other. When training in the view, you can be as unbiased, as impartial,
as vast, immense, and unlimited as the sky. Your behavior, on the other
hand, should be as careful as possible in discriminating what is
beneficial or harmful, what is good or evil. One can combine the view
and conduct, but don't mix them or lose one in the other. That is very
important.
'View like
the sky' means that nothing is held onto in any way whatsoever. You are
not stuck anywhere at all. In other words, there is no discrimination as
to what to accept and what to reject; no line is drawn separating one
thing from the other. 'Conduct as fine as barley flour' means that there
is good and evil, and one needs to differentiate between the two. Give
up negative deeds; practice the Dharma. In your behavior, in your
conduct, it is necessary to accept and reject.
~ Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, As it Is Volume II
3
Reply
Reply
Geovani Geo
Author
I think at one point one simply sees the surge of any sort of thought movement trying to create or perpetuate the me-shadow.
Reply
Christoffer Sørensen
Good
points Albert Hong. When I wrote a comment here in this group the other
day it felt like a impersonal force making me do it to expose some
beliefs.
But then it could easily be the underlying belief in those forces that shapes the experience.
Anatta squashes all views and dismantles erroneous beliefs.
Reply