Impermanent or Permanent?
Soh

 

  • John Tan
    Yin Ling Ic. U mean since all is ultimately illusory, we should not be too attached to permanent or impermanent view but rather see the right conditions and prescribe the right skillful means for even permanent and self-view can help if applied skillfully and no-self/impermanent view can be harmful if prescribed unskillfully. Then one can rest in equanimity and that is true actualisation of selflessness (emptiness) and dependent arising.
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 58m
    • Edited
  • Yin Ling
    I think u said it better haha.
    I wrote this bec I was seeing how we can’t really detect subtle impermanence with our senses, things seem quite permanent to us..
    But then things are illusory to me at that time when I cannot detect subtle impermanence, eg the seemingly permanent house feels illusory, so I wonder, if I can ungrasp from the whole situation, does impermanence or permanence still needs to come into my contemplation ?
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 45m
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Yin Ling yes I agree like Buddha also taught Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra to help ppl that fear view of no-self and also prevent ppl from turning towards nihilistic view.
    We should also not be attached to raft. Like de-construction of mental constructs can help until a certain phases but too have to be dropped and practice just turn natural and spontaneous.
    3
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 34m
    • Edited
  • Soh Wei Yu
    Illusory to me also means non arising and non abiding and non ceasing... which is not the same as them merely flickering in and out of existence [this is still a subtle view of subtly existing dharmas] in fast pace.
    On the conventional level though, all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, whatever is subject to origination is subject to cessation, birth and death co-originates.
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 27m
    • Edited
  • Soh Wei Yu
    "“They practice the transcendent perfection of wisdom whenever they do
    not engage with the notions that physical forms are permanent or that they
    are impermanent. Similarly, they practice the transcendent perfection of
    wisdom whenever they do not engage with the notions that feelings,
    perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness are permanent or
    that they are impermanent. [F.199.b] They practice the transcendent
    perfection of wisdom whenever they do not engage with the notions that
    physical forms are imbued with happiness or that they are imbued with
    suffering. Similarly, they practice the transcendent perfection of wisdom
    whenever they do not engage with the notions that feelings, perceptions,
    formative predispositions, and consciousness are imbued with happiness or
    that they are imbued with suffering. They practice the transcendent
    perfection of wisdom whenever they do not engage with the notions that
    physical forms are a self or that they are not a self. Similarly, they practice the
    transcendent perfection of wisdom whenever they do not engage with the
    notions that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and
    consciousness are a self or that they are not a self.
    “They practice the transcendent perfection of wisdom whenever they do
    not engage with the notions that physical forms are empty or that they are
    not empty. Similarly, they practice the transcendent perfection of wisdom
    whenever they do not engage with the notions that feelings, perceptions,
    formative predispositions, and consciousness are empty or that they are not
    empty. They practice the transcendent perfection of wisdom whenever they
    do not engage with the notions that physical forms are with signs or that
    they are signless. Similarly, they practice the transcendent perfection of
    wisdom whenever they do not engage with the notions that feelings,
    perceptions, formative predispositions, and consciousness are with signs or
    that they are signless. They practice the transcendent perfection of wisdom
    whenever they do not engage with the notions that physical forms have
    aspirations or that they are without aspirations. Similarly, they practice the
    transcendent perfection of wisdom whenever they do not engage with the
    notions that feelings, perceptions, formative predispositions, and
    consciousness have aspirations or that they are without aspirations."
    - Prajnaparamita Sutra in 10,000 lines https://read.84000.co/translation/UT22084-031-002.html
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 15m
    • Edited
  • John Tan
    Soh Wei Yu yes so from insight of illusoriness, we understand permanent as absence of cause of origination and cessation and not as "unchanging".
    It is also important because mind is often taught as clear and knowing and this very often lead to self-view. When anatta insight dawns, it is also recognised that appearances are mind, there is no mind other than the ongoing appearances and therefore mind is empty and conventional. This is counter intuitive to our existing paradigm and must be pointed out otherwise we r not recognizing the nature of mind. Like echo and rainbow, the nature of mind is spacious and free, without essence.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 11m
    • Edited
  • Yin Ling
    Ya but then I know what I’m saying on the above post is a little bit dangerous 😂 because it sounds very nihilistic
    But it has been sthg on my mind for awhile.
    As in when practice is natural and spontaneous, one release the raft of the dharma seals, and abide in minds nature. One don’t think impermanence , existence, permanence, etc
    Very tricky to elucidate actually .. very easy to mislead. Shouldn’t have posted tbh 😂😆
    2
  • Yin Ling
    Soh Wei Yu ya.. I agree with u, at one point it is ok whether it flickers or not flickers , it is still illusory.
    It is transcended.
    Hence I think impermanence being emphasised so much by the Buddha has a provisional purpose of bringing us to no-self(two levels)
    When at that stage, somehow I feel the raft will be released
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 9m
  • Soh Wei Yu
    Yin Ling Yup.. to be more precise the 'flickering dharmas having momentary existence undergoing arising, abiding and subsiding' may be present even post anatta.. but gone after twofold emptiness. Or like you said no-self(two levels). But I agree with your statement about it being a raft.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 6m
    • Edited
  • Yin Ling
    John Tan”permanence” of mind’s nature so to speak?
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5m
  • Yin Ling
    Soh Wei Yu ya sometimes ppl even talk about permanence like what John is saying up there 😂tricky.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 4m
  • John Tan
    Yin Ling permanence means absence of cause of orignation and cessation, not "unchanging and real" in Mahayana Buddhism.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 2m
Labels: , , , , , | edit post
2 Responses
  1. Anonymous Says:
    Aug 25, 2023, 4:31:00 PM

    There is no need to overanalyze and complicate things ....just understand dat the koshas/ sheaths are impermanent and not-us :-)


  2. Soh Says:
    Aug 25, 2023, 4:34:00 PM

    See https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html

    Excerpt:


    Although there is non-duality in Advaita Vedanta, and no-self in Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta rest in an “Ultimate Background” (making it dualistic) (Comments by Soh in 2022: In rare variants of Advaita Vedanta like Greg Goode's or Atmananda's Direct Path, even [subtle subject/object] Witness is eventually collapsed and the notion of Consciousness too is dissolved later in the end -- see https://www.amazon.com/After-Awareness-Path-Greg-Goode/dp/1626258090), whereas Buddhism eliminates the background completely and rest in the emptiness nature of phenomena; arising and ceasing is where pristine awareness is. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change.

    Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience. (See The Spell of Karmic Propensities)

    There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own.

    The mind likes to categorize and is quick to identify. When we think that awareness is permanent, we fail to 'see' the impermanence aspect of it. When we see it as formless, we missed the vividness of the fabric and texture of awareness as forms. When we are attached to ocean, we seek a waveless ocean, not knowing that both ocean and wave are one and the same. Manifestations are not dust on the mirror, the dust is the mirror. All along there is no dust, it becomes dust when we identify with a particular speck and the rest becomes dust.

    Unmanifested is the manifestation,
    The no-thing of everything,
    Completely still yet ever flowing,
    This is the spontaneous arising nature of the source.
    Simply Self-So.
    Use self-so to overcome conceptualization.
    Dwell completely into the incredible realness of the phenomenal world.


Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)