- Remove Preview
Liu Zhi GuanSoh Wei Yu I do agree that,as in all Buddhist path,liberation comes from insight and not shamata but vipassana(with different approaches in different systems). I should have put it into context that the open awareness was taught in relation to cittanupassana(one of the four foundations of mindful), but eventually only Dharmanupassana that will leave to insight.Liu Zhi GuanPossibly for Theravada tradition, Joseph Goldstein might be one of the fews who teaches it,but again I havent attended or check out his teaching before.Bhikkhu Bodhi once reminisce his encounter with renowned meditation teacher Joseph Goldstein. When Bhikkhu Bodhi asked Joseph Goldstein what style of meditation does he practice,he merely replied that he practised non-clinging.Angelo GrrSoh Wei Yu indeed there is no essence, no background no source, nor does one have grasp an essence-less view, both will lead to delusion. The terms and phrases can be helpful but due to the nature of language they are only relational, contextual and conditions-based and should be understood that way. Similar to terms like “I” and “me” and “my” they are practical terms bot don’t refer to a self structure, bc there isn’t one, anywhereSoh Wei YuMust give rise to insight. Before that, letting go is dissociative and efforting. But still impt as a skillful means of practice.
- Remove Preview
"self/Self is irrelevant when anatta is realized." - Yin Ling
In reference to fundamental orientation or “way of being” for the self/Self and for that which remains when no-self is realized (Anatta), there is no fundamental orientation or way of being. This includes being formless, avoidant, or “not there.” Thus the aggregates are just what they are and in their naturalness are not of concern, they are simply empty of self, fixation, clinging, and tendency to solidify or become.
Beyond all dichotomies and not resistant to any formulation… as Dogen describes “No trace continues endlessly.”
Or the heart sutra:
“Freed from delusive hinderance.”
This excerpt from the Samanupassana Sutta elaborates:
"The five faculties, monks, continue as they were. And with regard to them the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones abandons ignorance and gives rise to clear knowing. Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) — 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' — do not occur to him."
Yin Ling yes I think it’s an important distinction that the aggregates/DO are not seen to be fundamentally flawed or need to be removed in their naturalness. They are signposts, “look here.” They give us a compass to know where to look to see where the residues of identity, self, clinging, aversion, etc might remain. I think JT says somewhere that “general DO” doesn’t need to be constructed rather the DO in consciousness or how it refers to any remaining self tendency (can’t remember the exact terms he used). I might say natural DO is simply the expression of the unconditioned or unborn that gives rise to appearances, but how it becomes reflected and distorted in consciousness can be examined ongoing to see where any habituated misinterpretation (ignorance) remains.
I completely agree and I feel that this is a crucial Yet often neglected point esp in the lower tenet school when aggregates are thought to be “suffering” and “impermanent” and should not be “grasped”
But the method to “not grasped” is not taught.
By hook or by crook just don’t grasp
Also agree taking DO as a new view helps seeing the remaining self and discard the old view faster ? I thjnk.
Soh Wei Yu
Agree.. There is the general unafflicted dependent origination. It is termed lhun grub in Dzogchen.
[2:25 PM, 9/12/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm said dependent origination is natural perfection.. just that from like ultimate (forgot the term he used) its like all causes and conditions are empty and there is no distinction of cause and effect.. but its not contradictory. Like the madhyamika refutation of the 4 (diamond slivers) and the six something.. Lhun grub means not made by anyone, everything happens naturally. Dependent origination is not made by anyone and happens naturally
[2:25 PM, 9/12/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm said kyle is the first person to get his view completely
[2:26 PM, 9/12/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Also he invited me to join his santa fe dzogchen teaching next year, kyle will be joining
[2:27 PM, 9/12/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Kyle asked many qns about rigpa and dzogchen practice.. his main practice now is something like dorje drollo a teaching transmitted by malcolm
[2:29 PM, 9/12/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Btw kyle said his anatta insight happened in two phases
[2:30 PM, 9/12/2019] Soh Wei Yu: The first one which was very intense and he cried and felt death, no seer no hearer etc and he said something like his thought dunno what sinked below.. and he saw time is an illusion etc and you said thats the most intense anatta you have seen
[2:30 PM, 9/12/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Then years later he had another insight which is zero dimensional no distance etc
[2:30 PM, 9/12/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Then i mentioned is it related to your two stanzas of anatta he said yes
[3:03 PM, 9/12/2019] John Tan:
[3:04 PM, 9/12/2019] John Tan: Yes I think you should attend Malcolm dzogchen teaching next year. (Soh’s comments: both John and I did attend Malcolm’s Dzogchen teachings online in 2020 which was great, if you’re interested check out www.zangthal.com)
[9:10 AM, 9/24/2019] John Tan: But like what Malcolm said, DO is natural perfection.
[9:10 AM, 9/24/2019] John Tan: One just have to realize this.
[24/9/19, 9:11:40 AM] John Tan: Then the mind will rest upon nothing, not even the One Mind. Whatever appears, though a mere reflection, is entire and spontaneously perfect.
[24/9/19, 9:12:21 AM] John Tan: One does not need to sink back to anything else.
[24/9/19, 9:14:05 AM] John Tan: I think geo is clear about this from what he wrote to me. ...however still have have deconstructed "physicality". That is the idea of "physicality" has not been sufficiently deconstructed to become just mere empty sensations dancing in zero dimension.
[24/9/19, 9:15:02 AM] John Tan: If the "physicality" is there, one will b disturbed by the "idea" of interaction and locality.
On the other hand, there are the 12 afflictive links of dependent origination. Afflictive D.O. arises through ignorance.
“From the Uprooting Delusion tantra [Per Malcolm]:
"Because of a lack of mindful attention, self and other are grasped as a duality, and both outer and inner dependent origination occur. The whole universe arises through awareness looking externally. All sentient being arise through awareness looking internally. Through looking there, fearful appearances arise, through looking here, ‘self’ arises. Many mistakes arise from the single mistake about the appearances of here and there. Because of being mistaken about a self, there is a mistake about other, attachment to self, aversion to other. From the seed of attachment and aversion, the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes."” – Kyle Dixon
Also as John Tan said, both general D.O. and afflictive D.O. are enlightened views.
“There are two [aspects of dependent origination], general (non-afflictive) and specific (afflictive) D.O. [dependent origination]. Both are enlightened views. Means the mind suddenly stops seeing self and he must drop self/Essence view.” - John Tan, 2015
"There never was a self. One must re-orientate oneself that it is functionality and action that give rise to [the sense of a] self/entity rather than [a real] agent giving rise to action. Therefore from anatta, we see Dependent Origination, cause and conditions, action, karma... unlike [the misunderstanding of] no-self therefore no dependent origination and causality. The former is non-substantialist view, the later is using substantialist self view to understand anatta (no-self)." - John Tan, 2015
"Seeing afflictive Dependent Origination is enlightened view because one sees Dependent Origination. There is no [insight into] afflictive Dependent Origination for sentient beings, there is [the conceiving of a] Self/self... they do not see Dependent Origination." - John Tan, 2014
“John Tan: Because there is mind, if there is no mind, what happened?
Soh: Just activities, thoughts, scenery, sounds.
John Tan: What is the sense of self in anatta?
Soh: The activity of grasping.
John Tan: Very good and well said.
The anatta insight not only sees through background but directly perceives dependent origination, both afflictive and non-afflictive. Self is that afflictive dependent origination that arises from ignorance. It is that formation. The general dependent origination becomes the effortless spontaneous presence when ignorance is not in action. Both are directly experienced in real-time. So with anatta insight, no-self is authenticated. Afflictive D.O. chain is authenticated, general D.O. is authenticated, the purpose of vipassana is authenticated from moment to moment in real-time. What doubt is there?” - John Tan, 2019
Thanks the link you paste is super good.
Yeah Pali canon is complete hahaa the buddhas teaching is complete.
Just ppl teach without having real xp. I have seen questions being asked “ how do I stop being so attached ?”
the answers are often very nihilistic. Don’t think. Replace with good thoughts. Keep to the precepts.
Ppl will think Buddhism doesn’t work.
Soh Wei Yu
"natural DO is simply the expression of the unconditioned or unborn that gives rise to appearances"
Also, I know Angelo Grr clearly does not have an essence view nor a view of dualism... but just to be careful with language for other readers here.. it is not the case that there is some unborn or unconditioned source and substratum that remains unchanged and underlying what is conditioned or dependently originating (as would be the view during the I AM/one mind phase but seen through after anatta insight). For, to establish an unborn and unconditioned something that underlies and gives birth to conditioned manifestation would be the reification of 'Self' with the capital S even if one does not use that term, and thus would not constitute the overcoming of self/Self in its entirety.
Rather, the very nature of what dependently originates is to be unborn, non-arising, non-originating and unceasing. As what Nagarjuna and Heart Sutra taught...
Also as Kyle quoted a few times before and I believe Malcolm too --
Kyle: "As the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra states:
"Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different. Besides, some people, hearing about the defects of the saṃskṛtadharmas, become attached [abhiniveśante] to the asaṃskṛtadharmas and, as a result of this attachment, develop fetters."
"Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established, the conditioned is not established; since the conditioned is never established, how can the unconditioned be established? -- Nāgārjuna
So it is not that there is indeed an unconditioned nirvāṇa which abides apart from conditioned phenomena. The 'unconditioned' is merely knowledge of the actual nature of 'conditioned' phenomena. Phenomena [dharmins] are themselves, in essence, unconditioned, their unconditioned nature is their dharmatā.
"Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also a word provisionally invented by the First Teacher. Now, if the First Teacher provisionally invented this word, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And, if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the unconditioned does not exist." -- Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra"
Also, from a conversation between Mr. J and John Tan years ago:
"Dependent Origination only applies to the reflections, but not to the mirror. The reflections are dependent upon the mirror. The mirror is not dependent upon anything."
"When mundane reflections are realized to be always free from extremes and non-arisen,
Why the special interest in mirror?
Dependent arising is taught so that the nature of phenomena can be realized to no different from nirvana. Whatever arises in dependence is empty and non-arisen.
Where then is the need for movement and preference from here to there, from reflections to mirror?
And how is even movement possible?
Confusion is the only movement. Ultimately nothing ever arose.
Gassho and good luck!"
Soh Wei Yu
"the answers are often very nihilistic. Don’t think. Replace with good thoughts. Keep to the precepts.
Ppl will think Buddhism doesn’t work."
Yeah that is very restrictive and sad. If that is the teaching of Buddhism there would not need to be Buddha or Buddhism at all.. just teach the standard moral education in class can liao
Obviously not enough to end suffering
Soh Wei Yu yeah I said this not to judge but bec I personally went through alot of confusion receiving such teachings and it didn’t work for me one bit. Now I hear it I feel so sien. It doesn’t work.. the ppl who teach never try it out first.
It wasn’t until I really got time to go deep and found out that ppl don’t understand the Buddha, the Buddha is extremely profound
Also Mahamudra teachings help me change how I look at aggregates. It was seeing nature rather than pushing away. So thank goodness I met Mahamudra along the path.
Liu Zhi Guan
Soh Wei Yu ""But the method to “not grasped” is not taught. "
Actually even in the Pali canon the method is very clearly taught... just that not many teachers understand today."
One of the Theravadin monk who taught such method is bhikku Aggacitta Bhikkhu. His method involved opening the eyes and other senses, and notice whatever comes and goes to the five senses and mind without grasping('touch and go').
In one of his vids he admitted that such method exists in Tibetan system,so I'd presume he was referring to shamata without object.
Soh Wei Yu
I don't think Yin Ling is talking about shamatha. She is talking about how anatta insight leads to degrasping via severing self/Self and I-me-mine making and appropriation of the aggregates in that way. Without the penetrative insight, there cannot be overcoming of clinging in a fundamental way. Shamatha alone does not result in nirvana.