Entry into the inconceivable

When we relook at the "logical" based on duality, it becomes "fictional".

And by being "fictional", It too becomes wondrous and magical, inconceivable!

Attachment to one aspect of "inconceivability" similarly prevents the clear recognition of the many faces of the inconceivable.

The Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra says,

The fabricated realm and the definitive ultimate

Are defined by the lack of sameness or difference.

Whoever imagines them to be the same or different

Is possessed of mistaken imagination.

Reply
1w
Edited

Arthur Deller

John Tan fantastic yogacara sutra

- Reply
- 1w

Arthur Deller or how is "prasangika" freedom from all elaborations undestood.

Freedom from the imagined by recognising emptiness of the imagined or elimination of the imagined, the good old gelug and non-gelug issue.

But do not want to open a can of worms, just something to ponder.

- Reply
- 1w
- Edited

Arthur Deller

- Reply
- 1w

John Tan As a person currently engaged in Tsongkhapa's approach to emptiness, I appreciate this comment and its insight!

- Reply
- 1w

Anurag Jain

John Tan they are same as in they are both empty

(Fabricated and ultimate realms)

- Reply
- 1w
- Edited

Anurag Jain and they are distinct in that they are of utterly different textures.

- Reply
- 1w

Anurag Jain

André A. Pais of course, coffee does not taste like tea to me or to the unenlightened.

- Reply
- 1w

Anurag Jain

André A. Pais talking about the matter of difference in textures.

- Reply
- 1w

I wonder what/who he has in mind with this comment? Gelugpas?

In terms of the reasonings, I've always appreciated this comment from Karl Brunholzl, which I think would be endorsed by teachers from any of the Tibetan schools:

"When we first look at the jungle of Madhyamaka refutations of all kinds of belief systems, they might seem quite alien and complicated. However, all these views simply mirror the fixations and complications that we foster in our own minds. Thus, what makes things complicated is not Madhyamaka itself but our inflexible and discursive mind. Actually, Madhyamaka is not at all about doing something complex, new, or particular but about undoing in a very basic and profound sense. When we start to realize this, we might discover some genuine interest and even delight in unraveling the convoluted web of our ingrained patterns. It is these patterns that prevent us from fundamentally relaxing our minds, finding relief from mental afflictions, and being more kind toward ourselves and others, with whom we share the same basic problems."

Some context:

May be an image of text that says 'then returns the question something finding not though the cites Tsong between finding statement: find thats sound ultimat analy- pillar, because analogy. Sound finding appearances of However, should challenge But consciousness. obviously, such search futile from suitable onsciousness assigned etak, finding finding does exist. analysis Tsong pa himself asserts. difficult does that impinge and believe ultimate indifferent found existence based because final mode founded trust the being the Those sense despair over never conventional phenomena associated buddha, limit wo these merely powers dant, killed. disciples lamp night, Buddha; here into illed people (satkäyadrsti, and off aggregates;fo person The'

- Reply
- 1w

The conversation below won’t change any minds but it may say least give some authoritative voice to what feels to me like the underrepresented Gelug view on social media:

- Reply
- 1w

https://youtu.be/PL-9r6TO1uo

YOUTUBE.COM

Thupten Jinpa: Tsongkhapa on Emptiness and the Experience of Emptiness

- Reply
- 1w

It’s short. Eleven minutes. Jinpa is engaged in conversation with a proponent of the non-Gelug view of emptiness.

- Reply
- 1w

https://youtu.be/z64IE6r2zxk

Tks. These conversations with Karma Phuntsho are very interesting.

John Tan, what do you think of the following video, taken from the same interview, where Jinpa kind of distances Tsongkhapa from the Zen (and Dzogchen) tradition? Because you've previously made the connection between Tsongkhapa and Dōgen.

YOUTUBE.COM

Thupten Jinpa: On the Buddha-Nature of Insentient Things

- Reply
- 3d

André A. Pais I think Jinpa may not be familiar with zen language and is taking it too literally rather than metaphorically to express first person non-dual experience. This is similar to Mipham 2 models of 2 truths, one from authentic/non-authentic experience standpoint and the other from ontological 2 truth standpoint.

Jinpa is talking from the ontological 2 truth model where zen or other direct path traditions r talking from the former authentic experience model.

For the authentic experience 2-truth model, since both self and others are de-constructed in the ultimate, the taste of purity, presence and aliveness permeates everything in experience, both sentient and insentient included. It doesn't mean the insentient is conscious as in panpsychism. That is my opinion.

As for Tsongkhapa and Dogen, both masters respect the conventional and their attitudes towards conduct and karma are uncompromising. Also Tsongkhapa deep interest in Avatamsaka Sutra and Dogen's total exertion make me even want to connect both of them more.

- Reply
- 3d
- Edited

Agree very much. Your reading of the authentic/inauthentic experience model in this context is very interesting. Yes, Jinpa's reference to pan-psychism felt particularly off. The idea is not to give minds to objects, but, by deconstructing the notion that sentient beings themselves have minds, rest in non-dual luminosity free of objectification and subjectification.

- Reply
- 2d
- Edited

And in this sense of Buddha-nature as luminous emptiness everything - animate or inanimate - not only "has" Buddha-nature, but, above all, is Buddha-nature

- Reply
- 2d

André A. Pais yes Mipham 2 models of 2 truth is interesting and "result" is often not mentioned in ontological model and better left in the silence of Vimalakirti, ineffable.

- Reply
- 2d
- Edited

Yes, because the ontological model is independent of subjective or phenomenological experience - it's about the ground; while the phenomenological model is about the fruit (or lack thereof). This clearly mirrors the general distinction in focus of Madhyamaka (ontological) and Yogacara (phenomenological).

- Reply
- 2d

This is very good:

May be an image of text that says 'For the authentic experience 2-truth model, since both self and others are de-constructed in the ultimate, the taste of purity, presence and aliveness permeates everything in experience, both sentient and insentient included. It doesn't mean the insentient is conscious as in panpsychism. That is my opinion.'

- Reply
- 2d

I'd say this view is somewhat the opposite of pan-psychism (which nonetheless is a very interesting view). Instead of everything being sentient, nothing actually is sentient (only conventionally, of course).

- Reply
- 2d

André A. Pais as well as deconstruct the notion that the insentient has no mind. The negation does not lead to an "affirmation" of the otherwise. Then natural luminousity is free in all directions, miraculously appears everywhere uninhibited.

- Reply
- 2d
- Edited

I'm not sure I'm following, especially your first 2 lines here.

- Reply
- 2d

André A. Pais responding to -->

by deconstructing the notion that sentient beings themselves have minds, rest in non-dual luminosity free of objectification and subjectification.

From negation perspective, it must be thorough.

What happens when we attempt to negate the notion "the insentient has no mind"? How does the "mind" feel and response?

- Reply
- 2d
- Edited

Still not following...

- Reply
- 2d

André A. Pais While you and John play 4-D chess, I want to head back to checkers for a minute. Regarding the original 11 minute clip I posted, in which Jinpa talks briefly about Gelug/non-Gelug presentations of emptiness: any reactions?

Also, regarding Jinpa's panpsychism comment: it may be true that folks trained and educated in the Zen tradition don't make that type of conflation, but I've met plenty of American-style Zen folks--those of the spiritual casserole ilk--who do seem to hold exactly that type of view.

- Reply
- 2d

John Tan found this on my notes, pertinent (though redundant) to the topic at hand.

Zachary Rodecap, I'll try to reply tomorrow.

Reality is naturally untainted by the three spheres of subject, object and action. As Maitreya said:

"Any thought of ‘subject’, ‘object’ and ‘action’

Is held to be a cognitive obscuration."

There is no knower, known or knowing; no seer, seen or seeing; no perceiver, perceived or perception.

There is no knowing, seeing or perception, and yet appearances spontaneously radiate with a light of their own. This vivid clarity is the mind's nature arising as dependent origination. So, don't look inside seeking the nature of awareness - it is the moon itself, rising from behind the clouds.

It's like this that Dōgen is able to drop body and mind, and become actualized by the myriad things. Free from knower, known and knowing itself, there is no trace of awakening - for there is no sentient being to become awakened, nor insentient rock to remain asleep. And yet, this no-trace unfolds endlessly, for it is characteristic of the natural state that its radiance spontaneously manifests.

- Reply
- 2d
- Edited

De Gallymon

Why is the 'inconceivable' world so eulogized? Once it is found, the seeker now has two worlds to move between. Each with it own value and utility. This endless praising of the other side of the fence leads us to cut off our nose to spite our face. When the mind is useful, think. When the mind is un-needed, be. A recent duelist is prone to think we have to choose.