Skip to main content

REFLECTIONS ON SOLIPSISM

By

André A. Pais wrote:


REFLECTIONS ON SOLIPSISM

Solipsism is based on the idea that "only I exist" or "only this experience exists" or "only this exists." Some of these expressions are subtler than others, but all amount more or less to the same. It is true that nothing in experience directly affirms anything other than experience itself. What is overlooked is that nothing in experience actually denies anything "outside" experience either. Experience is totally mute, totally silent - it says nothing whatsoever about anything (be it internal or external to it). Even concepts are utterly silent, since, in a final sense, they don't point to anything either - they are mere sounds, vibrations, images, etc. In this sense, experience - and even conceptual processes - is totally incapable of refuting or establishing solipsism.

Solipsism is also based on a half-baked intuition of non-duality. The very concepts of "this" or "I" or "mine" depend on their opposites. So, by saying that "only this exists" I'm already establishing its opposite - some "that" that is nonexistent. "Existent-this" vs. "nonexistent-that" is a dualistic stance, making solipsism inherently self-refuting. Experience is devoid of "other" or "thatness," but it too is devoid of "me/mine" or "thisness." There is nothing exclusivistic in experience - there is no exclusion of anything. It's rather the opposite, experience is intrinsically open-ended, expansive and accommodating - even of concepts positing closed, constricted and excluding attitudes.

Also, solipsism seems to be based on notions of limited space and mutual exclusion of experiences. There is a sense of "there is only here" and so a "there" is excluded. Again this is dualistic, as without the notion of "there" there can't be a "here" either. So, in the non-conceptual spaciousness of experience there can be no sense of "here." So solipsism still embraces ideas of spatial extension, distance and separation, which it then paradoxically uses to refute notions of "other separate places," etc. So, we have dualistic principles being used in the defense of some non-dual solipsistic reality.

There is also the sense that experiences are mutually exclusive - if "this" experience is "here," "other" experiences cannot be simultaneously "here." Yet, we can cultivate an openness to the possibility that "everything is already here," that "everything is intrinsically included" right within this very experience. In the same way that we can develop our conventional senses (or other "senses") and experience things previously unnoticed - but that were already present -, we can also conceive of developing perception (or some kind of empirical sensitivity) in a way that allows the accommodation of an infinity of experiences, in opposition to the previously "singular solipsistic experience." That's what omniscience seems to entail - a non-conflicting appreciation of the totality of experiences, a full embrace of the entirety of the space-time display. In cutting through the solidity and seemingly exclusivistic nature of space and time - what is "here" is not "there," what is "now" cannot be "then" -, the "whole field" can become naturally manifest.

The sections of our experiential field that seem more obscure and concealing (like the sense of past and future experiences, and the notions of beyond the horizon and behind/bellow/above "me"), which are all instances of some type of impenetrable not-knowing, can be seen as representatives, clues or empirical "handles" that can serve as portals or doorways into the infinite dimensions of experience that remain unrevealed and unaccommodated. "Other times" and "other places," even in infinitely cosmic scales, can be seen as mere subtler dimensions - and yet unappreciated - of what is already here, of "this very experience."

Another angle of exploration is to consider if "this sole experience" is either one or many. A "many" can only be composed of a plurality of "ones" or units. Yet, no unit or singularity can ever be found - it's a logical and empirical impossibility. So, notions of singularity and plurality fall apart, and thus solipsism falls apart, since it is based on the idea of being the "singularly existing thing." Also, if "this experience" was the only existing thing, where would the seemingly diversity of experience come from? It either comes from something else (refuting solipsism) or it is generated "internally," in which case "this sole experience" is itself already a pluralistic experience.

Also, in the absence of a sense of there being some singular observer, experience is understood as "self-luminous" and "self-knowing"; why then can't the diversity of experience be already a case for so-called multiple perceivers or observers? Solipsism is based on the idea that "only I perceive" - but if all objects (material, mental or emotional) are already "self-knowing" and "naturally luminous," how can there be a sense of "only I perceive"? Experience is not intrinsically one for it arises as diversity; and it is not intrinsically many, since it's embraced by utter intimacy and non-separation. Solipsism, being based on solid notions of singularity and plurality, is incapable of appreciating the transparency and spaciousness of experience; and it is incapable of appreciating the fine balance of appearance-emptiness, a luminous display that is beyond materialistic, solidified and dualistic tendencies - that is, in fact, beyond all notions whatsoever, be they dual, non-dual, both or neither. Solipsism seems to be a classical example of an attempt to interpret an utterly transcendent and unlimited reality by making use of somewhat mystical and yet still conventional and limited notions and perspectives.

VERSES TO ESTABLISH THE PROFOUND VIEW

By

 

~ VERSES TO ESTABLISH THE PROFOUND VIEW ~
.
INTRODUCTORY VERSES
.
If those whose lord is Death himself,
Ruler of the three worlds, without a master,
Sleep like true vanquishers,
What could be more improper?
~ Aryadeva
Without sleep the night is long,
Without rest the journey is long,
Without knowledge of the best dharma,
For those children, existence is long.
~ Gendun Chopel
Meditate again and again
until you have turned your mind away
from the activities of this life,
which are like adorning yourself
while being led to the execution ground.
~ Tsongkhapa
To liberate myself alone
will bring no benefit,
For sentient beings of the three realms
are all my fathers and mothers.
How disgusting to leave my parents
in the thick of suffering,
While wishing and seeking
for just my happiness alone!
So may the suffering
of all the three realms ripen on me,
May my merits be taken
by sentient beings,
And through the blessings
of the merit of this,
May all beings attain buddhahood!
~ Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen
.
MAIN BODY OF THE TEXT
.
I prostrate to the perfect Buddha,
The supreme teacher, who taught
That dependent origination
Is without ceasing and without arising,
Without extinction and without permanence,
Without coming and without going,
Not different and not one.
It is the peace in which discursiveness
is completely still.
~ Nagarjuna
When there is an “I”, there is a perception of other,
And from the ideas of self and other
come attachment and aversion.
As a result of getting wrapped up in these,
All possible faults come into being.
~ Dharmakirti
All beings consist of causes and effects,
In which there is no ‘sentient being’ at all.
From phenomena
which are exclusively empty,
There arise only empty phenomena.
All things are devoid of any ‘I’ or ‘mine’.
Like a recitation, a candle,
a mirror, a seal,
A magnifying glass, a seed,
sourness, or a sound,
So also with the continuation
of the aggregates—
The wise should know
they are not transferred.
If the self were the aggregates,
It would have arising and ceasing
(as properties).
If it were different from the aggregates,
It would not have
the characteristics of the aggregates.
Neither the aggregates,
nor different from the aggregates,
The aggregates are not in him,
nor is he in the aggregates.
The Tathagata does not possess
the aggregates.
What is the Tathagata?
~ Nagarjuna
The entities that our and other schools affirm,
Since they exist inherently in neither singular nor plural,
In ultimate reality are without intrinsic being;
They are like reflections.
~ Shantarakshita
Not from itself, not from another,
not from both, nor without cause:
Never in any way is there any
existing thing that has arisen.
Like an illusion, like a dream,
like the city of the gandharvas,
so origination, duration, and cessation
are declared to be.
Since origination, duration,
and cessation are not established,
there is nothing that is conditioned.
And in the absence
of the establishment of the conditioned,
What unconditioned thing will be established?
Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the Middle Way.
Something that is not dependently arisen
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exist.
~ Nagarjuna
The practice of all the bodhisattvas
is never to entertain concepts,
Which revolve around dualistic notions
of perceiver and perceived,
In the knowledge that all these
appearances are but the mind itself,
Whilst mind’s own nature is forever
beyond the limitations of ideas.
~ Gyalse Thogme Zangpo
Through the perception of mind-only
One achieves the nonperception of objects;
Through the nonperception of objects
There is also the nonperception of mind.
~ Vasubandhu
When scrutinized with insight,
Neither the imaginary, nor the dependent,
Nor the perfect [nature] exists.
So how could insight conceive of an entity?
~ The Sutra of the Arrival in Lanka
Consider all dharmas as dreamlike:
As this indicates,
the whole environment
and the beings within it,
which we perceive as objects,
are dreamlike.
They appear as they do
because our own minds are deluded
and not as a result
of even the slightest factor
aside from mind.
We must therefore put a stop
to our projections.
We might then wonder
whether the mind itself is real,
so the root text says:
Examine the nature
of unborn awareness:
Mind itself is empty of the three stages
of arising, remaining and ceasing.
It has no colour, no shape, and so on.
It does not abide outside
or within the body.
It has no fixed character at all
and cannot therefore
be apprehended in any way.
Rest in an experience beyond thought.
If any thought of an antidote
—such as considering that body
and mind are empty—
should arise, then as the root text says:
Let even the antidote
be freed in its own place:
We look into the essence
of the antidote itself,
and when we realize
that it has no true nature,
we rest with that experience.
As for how to rest, the root text says:
Rest in the ālaya,
the essence of the path:
Avoiding all the projection
and absorption associated
with the other seven types of consciousness,
we must settle with lucid clarity
in an experience that is beyond thought.
We must not mentally fixate in any way
on what has no fixed character at all.
~ Gyalse Thogme Zangpo
Physical phenomena
are assemblages of subtle particles.
When one analyzes these particles
by splitting them into their own sections,
not even the smallest part is left.
Not even the tiniest appearance remains.
The nonphysical refers to mind.
The mind of the past
has ceased and dissolved.
The mind of the future
has not arisen or come into being.
The mind of the present
is extremely difficult to identify:
it has no color or shape; it is like space.
Therefore it is not established.
Furthermore, it is beyond
being one or many things,
it has never arisen,
and it is luminous by nature.
We use these and other forms
of the sword of reasoning
to investigate and analyze phenomena.
Through this, we realize
that they do not inherently exist.
Since both physical
and nonphysical phenomena
are not established as any entity
and do not exist,
the prajñā of discriminating investigation
also does not exist.
Once all specifically
and generally characterized phenomena
have been established as nonexistent,
the prajñā no longer appears;
it is luminous,
not existing in any manner whatsoever.
~ Atisha
Without referring to an imputed entity,
One cannot apprehend the lack of this entity
Therefore, the lack of a delusive entity
Is clearly delusive [too].
Thus, when one’s son dies in a dream,
The conception “He does not exist”
Removes the thought that he does exist,
But it is also delusive.
Once neither entities nor nonentities
Remain before the mind,
There is no other mental flux.
Therefore, it is utter nonreferential peace.
~ Shantideva
The world would be unproduced,
unceased, and unchangeable,
it would be devoid of its manifold appearances,
if there were intrinsic nature.
If there is no entitihood,
What changes?
If there were entity,
How could it be correct
that something changes?
If there is no essence,
What could become other?
If there is essence,
What could become other?
~ Nagarjuna
Any thought such as miserliness and so on
Is held to be an afflictive obscuration.
Any thought of ‘subject’, ‘object’ and ‘action’
Is held to be a cognitive obscuration.
~ Maitreya
To say “existence” is the clinging to permanence.
To say “nonexistence” is the view of extinction.
Therefore, the learned should not dwell
In either existence or non-existence.
...
If you grasp at existence,
there is no liberation;
If you grasp at non-existence,
there are no higher rebirths;
If you grasp at both,
you are just ignorant,
So do the best you can,
to remain in non-duality!
The nature of appearances
is like a magical illusion,
And the way they arise
is through interdependence:
That’s the way things are,
which cannot be expressed in words,
So do the best you can, to dwell
in a state which is inexpressible!
~ Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen
In this, there is not a thing to be removed,
Nor the slightest thing to be added.
It is looking perfectly into reality itself,
And when reality is seen, complete liberation.
~ Nagarjuna / Maitreya
The true nature of things
is naturally free of conceptual projections.
It does not exist, since even
the victorious ones do not see it.
Yet neither is it non-existent,
as it is the ground of all samsara and nirvana.
There is no contradiction here,
for it lies beyond the realm of expression.
~ From the Longchen Nyingthig
All compounded phenomena,
as arising and ceasing things,
Are not bound and not released.
For this reason a sentient being
Is not bound, not released.
The nature of things is to be, like nirvāṇa,
without origination or cessation.
In terms of its imaginary aspect,
this very other-dependent nature is samsara.
In terms of its perfect aspect,
it is nirvāṇa
...
There is no distinction whatsoever
between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.
There is no distinction whatsoever
between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra.
What is the limit of nirvāṇa,
that is the limit of saṃsāra.
There is not even the finest gap
to be found between the two.
What is the nature of the thus-gone one,
that is the nature of the world.
The thus-gone one is devoid of nature;
the world is devoid of nature.
Those who develop mental fabrications
with regard to the Buddha,
Who has gone beyond all fabrications,
As a consequence of those cognitive fabrications,
Fail to see the Tathagata.
By taking any standpoint whatsoever,
You will be snatched by
the cunning snakes of the afflictions.
Those whose minds have no standpoint
Will not be caught.
The victorious ones have said
That emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.
For whomever emptiness is a view,
That one has achieved nothing.
In order to relinquish all imagination,
You taught the nectar of emptiness.
However, those who cling to it
Are also blamed by you.
~ Nagarjuna
Therefore, there is no such thing
That ultimately can be proved to be.
And thus the Tathagatas all have taught
That all phenomena are unproduced.
Since with the ultimate this is attuned,
It is referred to as the ultimate.
And yet the actual ultimate is free
From constructs and elaborations.
Production and the rest have no reality,
Thus nonproduction and the rest
are equally impossible.
In and of themselves, both are disproved,
And therefore names cannot express them.
Where there are no objects,
There can be no arguments refuting them.
Even “nonproduction,” entertained conceptually,
Is relative and is not ultimate.
~ Shantarakshita
Since the negation of arising and so on
Concords with actuality, we accept it.
Since there is nothing to be negated,
It is clear that, actually, there is no negation.
How should the negation of an imputation’s
Own nature not be an imputation?
Hence, seemingly, this is
The meaning of actuality, but not actuality [itself].
In actuality, neither exists.
This is the lack of discursiveness:
Mañjuśrī asked about actuality,
And the son of the Victors [Vimalakirti] remained silent.
~ Jnanagarbha
The ultimate is freedom from discursiveness.
Being empty of all discursiveness
Is to be understood
As the nonnominal ultimate.
Its character is neither existent, nor nonexistent,
Nor [both] existent and nonexistent, nor neither.
Centrists should know true reality
That is free from these four possibilities
The purpose of emptiness
is its characteristic of all discursiveness
being at utter peace.
~ Bhavaviveka
Since this lack of arising
is concordant with realizing the ultimate,
it is called “the ultimate.”
Since there is no object of negation,
such as arising, that is established,
[its] lack [cannot really] be
related to this non-existent object.
Therefore, to apprehend
the lack of arising and such
is nothing but a reference point...
Ultimately, true reality
cannot be expressed
as the lack of arising and such.
Therefore, Noble Mañjuśrī
asked about true reality
and Noble Vimalakirti said nothing.
~ Kamalashila
Engagement with the idea
that form is empty,
or that it is not empty,
is still engagement with marks.
It is not engagement with transcendent insight.
When there is no engagement
with anything at all,
it is the engagement with transcendent insight.
~ The Mother of the Victorious Ones [Sutra]:
Kāśyapa, I say that
the one who observes emptiness,
and thus conceives of emptiness,
has failed, failed entirely,
with respect to these teachings.
Having a belief in personal existence
that is as solid as the King of Mountains
is a minor problem compared
to the arrogant view of emptiness.
Why is that? Because emptiness
is a deliverance from all views.
Hence, I say that if the view
is exclusively emptiness,
then there is no cure.
~ The Noble Jewel Mound [Sutra]
Perfectly discerned
by self-cognizing primordial wisdom alone,
this is an ineffable experience
beyond thought and word,
a state of equality like the very center of space.
This is what the ultimate nature is like,
and therefore it is said that
if the Bodhisattvas understand and proclaim
that “the aggregates are empty,”
they are still caught up in characteristics.
They have no faith in the unborn nature.
~ Mipham Rinpoche
The pacification of all objectification
And the pacification of illusion:
No Dharma was taught by the Buddha
At any time, in any place, to any person.
~ Nagarjuna
.
DEDICATORY VERSES
.
I salute Gautama, who,
based on compassion,
taught the true Dharma
for the abandonment of all views.
~ Nagarjuna
Through whatever merit
has here been gained,
may all beings generate sublime bodhicitta,
both relative and absolute,
and through this,
come to equal Lord Avalokiteśvara,
transcending the extremes
of existence and quiescence.
~ Gyaltse Thogme Zangpo
May the Dharma, suffering’s only cure,
And the source of all real happiness,
Always be valued and respected,
And remain long into the future!
~ Shantideva

Entry into the inconceivable

By

 

    As long as one places one’s trust in reasoning
    based on duality, the final mode of being of the universe will remain elusive.
    Indeed, the understanding of emptiness begins with a sense of despair over all the reasonings, terms, and conceptions of the world.
    Attachment to the logic of the world prevents entry into the inconceivable.
    ~ Donald S. Lopez

    31 Comments


    John Tan
    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


  • John Tan
    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



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


  • Anurag Jain
    John Tan they are same as in they are both empty 🙂
    (Fabricated and ultimate realms)

    • Reply
    • 1w
    • Edited

  • André A. Pais
    Anurag Jain and they are distinct in that they are of utterly different textures. 😊


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


  • Anurag Jain
    André A. Pais talking about the matter of difference in textures. 😉







  • Zachary Rodecap
    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."


  • André A. Pais
    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'


  • Zachary Rodecap
    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:


  • Thupten Jinpa: Tsongkhapa on Emptiness and the Experience of Emptiness
    YOUTUBE.COM
    Thupten Jinpa: Tsongkhapa on Emptiness and the Experience of Emptiness
    Thupten Jinpa: Tsongkhapa on Emptiness and the Experience of Emptiness


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


  • André A. Pais
    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.
    Thupten Jinpa: On the Buddha-Nature of Insentient Things
    YOUTUBE.COM
    Thupten Jinpa: On the Buddha-Nature of Insentient Things
    Thupten Jinpa: On the Buddha-Nature of Insentient Things


  • John Tan
    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

  • André A. Pais
    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

  • André A. Pais
    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


  • John Tan
    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

  • André A. Pais
    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).


  • André A. Pais
    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.'


  • André A. Pais
    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).


  • John Tan
    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

  • André A. Pais
    I'm not sure I'm following, especially your first 2 lines here.


  • John Tan
    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

  • André A. Pais
    Still not following... 🤔


  • Zachary Rodecap
    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.


  • André A. Pais
    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.


    André A. Pais
    Because the conceivable is so boring! 🤣
    Imo:
    Once the inconceivable is "found" there is no more seeker.
    Nor worlds to move between (only as functional imagination).
    The inconceivable is not on the other side of anything - that's quite conceivable, and quite a reference point for clinging.
    One cannot truly "be" without having realized the inconceivable.


  • De Gallymon
    André A. Pais If you get hungry enough and have to figure how to get something to eat, the conceivable world won't seem so boring?
    But saying something is boring would seem to reflect an emotional bias - not a reasoned response, yes?
    I agree that there is no more seeker, once the inconceivable is "found".
    And I agree that 'The inconceivable is not on the other side of anything'.
    You and I both know that words are impeding us here in any discussion of these ideas.
    The 'inconceivable' manifests, or appears too manifest, the appearance of duality. We very much like to point at dualities and hold our nose and mummer that they all are just illusions. But, in spite of that, 'here' and 'there', 'now' and 'then' and 'this' and 'that' still fill our days.
    And when you get hungry, telling your pretend self that it is just an illusion ... well, I think we can all imagine how that will go. 🙂

  • Reply
  • 2d
  • Edited
© Awakening to Reality
Cosmic Sutra Dharma Library Theme v14.24 — unique design by Soh for Awakening to Reality.