Posts
Soh Wei Yu
rptndosSoe2fa4 eem052p t688at 0ma2Sf98eM2 c:06r18bcui106P659 · Shared with Your friends
Yin Ling
rptndosSoe2fa4 eem052p t688at 0ma2Sf98eM2 c:06r18bcui106P659 ·
Ask.
Why did the Buddha teach dependent origination if Presence is enough?
29 comments
Christian Palocz
Is presence enough…? In any case, dependent origination was taught by the Buddha so we don’t make of presence a thing in itself, a reification of presence.
Reply
1d
Soh Wei Yu
Christian Palocz Yes. If Presence is understood as apart from conditions and D.O., it has become essence view, an extreme.
February 2007 convo with Thusness:
(9:13 PM) Thusness: Pristine Awareness cannot be view apart from the conditions that has never been separated.
(9:13 PM) AEN: icic
(9:13 PM) Thusness: all has never been created, arising is not created. It is DO (dependently originated).
(9:14 PM) Thusness: there is no such thing as no arising and ceasing.
(9:14 PM) Thusness: arising and ceasing is the reality.
(9:14 PM) AEN: oic
(9:14 PM) Thusness: can u understand this part?
(9:15 PM) AEN: hmm but due to emptiness there is no arising and ceasing isnt it?
(9:15 PM) AEN: or all things are unborn
(9:15 PM) Thusness: yes
(9:16 PM) Thusness: when we say all things are not separated and unborn, can we say that pristine awareness exists apart from its conditions?
(9:16 PM) Thusness: that includes so called external conditions that causes the arising of consciousness.
(9:17 PM) Thusness: ISness or a moment of manifestation is always so.
(9:17 PM) AEN: oic
(9:17 PM) Thusness: when we separate what that cannot be separated and said, this is reality, we missed the point.
(9:18 PM) Thusness: because our pristine awareness is never separated from the conditions for it to arise.
(9:18 PM) AEN: icic..
(9:18 PM) Thusness: this is the first step not to mistake reality as either realism or materialism.
(9:19 PM) Thusness: when buddha tok about reality, it never deviates from the middle path of DO.
(9:20 PM) Thusness: he never deviates. 😛
(9:20 PM) Thusness: because after non-dual or the experience of no-self, nothing can be separated and must be taken as a whole.
....
(11:32 PM) Thusness: all things xing kong (nature is empty)
(11:32 PM) Thusness: whether atoms or particles
(11:32 PM) Thusness: xing is kong
(11:33 PM) Thusness: and kong (emptiness) has specific meaning
(11:33 PM) Thusness: according to DO, requires no who, where and when. Cannot be found and located.
(11:33 PM) Thusness: arises as conditions is.
(11:33 PM) AEN: icic..
(11:33 PM) Thusness: all is so and all is unborn, uncreated
(11:34 PM) Thusness: only dependent origination
(11:34 PM) Thusness: that is their xing4
(11:34 PM) Thusness: consciousness also the same
....
2009:
(12:02 AM) AEN: btw the other day i ask u padmasambhava said
Since (intrinsic awareness) is self-originated and spontaneously self-perfected without any antecedent causes or conditions,
then isnt it contradictory to D.O.?
(12:04 AM) Thusness: padmasambhava is not referring to no causes and conditions
(12:05 AM) AEN: oic then what he meant
(12:05 AM) Thusness: he is referring to luminosity is not created
nothing is created
(12:05 AM) Thusness: they dependently originates
there is no creation of anything
(12:06 AM) Thusness: that is what Buddhists have to understand
(12:07 AM) AEN: oic..
(12:07 AM) Thusness: non buddhists reify a source that is non-created
only the source is not created...
(12:08 AM) Thusness: in buddhism, there is no origination
(12:08 AM) AEN: icic..
so non buddhist see source and everything originates from source while buddhism doesnt see a source and origination?
(12:09 AM) Thusness: yes
(12:09 AM) AEN: oic
(12:10 AM) Thusness: i have already told u awareness has no monopoly
(12:10 AM) AEN: icic..
Reply
1d
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Christian Palocz Session Start: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
(10:35 PM) Thusness: u must understand action
what is entity?
(10:35 PM) Thusness: an unchanging essence
(10:36 PM) Thusness: buddhism does not deny the luminous clarity
(10:36 PM) Thusness: u have to be very clear at this point
(10:36 PM) AEN: oic..
(10:37 PM) Thusness: in fact u have to be equally clear in the luminous aspect as the advaita but free from that tendency of seeing things inherently
not affected by the subject/object framework completely
(10:39 PM) Thusness: having the non-dual experience but without thoroughly giving up an ultimate self will not result in the arising of anatta insight
(10:39 PM) Thusness: and is difficult to appreciate DO
(10:39 PM) AEN: icic..
(10:39 PM) Thusness: they will think that only the relative is DO
absolute is free from DO
(10:39 PM) Thusness: this is a wrong understanding
it is to understand that presence is also DO
(10:40 PM) Thusness: and in DO, there is no point of origin
beginningless and endless
(10:40 PM) AEN: oic..
(10:41 PM) Thusness: there is no ultimate source, only dependent originated nature
(10:41 PM) Thusness: not just this but 'this is, that is'
(10:41 PM) AEN: icic..
(10:42 PM) Thusness: the purpose is to fully and correctly understand what awareness is
and not to deny awareness
therefore having direct experience of awareness is most important
(10:43 PM) Thusness: a face to face without intermediary
this luminous clarity
this must be experienced
(10:43 PM) AEN: oic..
(10:44 PM) Thusness: therefore if we do not see the empty nature of awareness, we are not understanding awareness correctly
(10:45 PM) Thusness: awareness is luminous yet empty
(10:45 PM) AEN: icic..
(10:46 PM) Thusness: we will not be able to psycho ourselves into centerless.
(10:47 PM) AEN: what do u mean
(10:47 PM) Thusness: if u have an ultimate subject, u will not be able to be centerless
Reply
1d
Yin Ling
Soh Wei Yu excellent
Reply
1d
Christian Palocz
Soh Wei Yu hence, its not enough
Reply
1d
André A. Pais
The point, however, is not that one keeps rehearsing in one's head the reasonings leading to an understanding of DO. If the aim is some kind of insightful lucidity free of conceptual elaborations, the 'presence' that is realized is not "a non-entity," or "empty of intrinsic nature." Those are just super useful conceptual elaborations, used prior to meditative equipoise or after, in post meditation discourse.
Reply
1d
André A. Pais
It's always important to distinguish path and fruition, equipoise and post meditation, approximate ultimate and actual ultimate, etc.
Reply
1d
Soh Wei Yu
André A. Pais What you said is not wrong, equipoise is without seer, seeing, seen, free from elaborations. But it is not seen here as contradicting D.O.:
[1/8/23, 12:14:20 PM] John Tan: Yes I agree. Coz many understand from essential view and thought they understood freedom from all elaborations. If it contradicts DO, then the view is essential view like what Tsongkhapa said.
Means there is no contradiction between spontaneous presence and dependent arising.
Also when one deconstruct, there r 2 authentications; one relates to de-construction of conceptual mind and the other is recognizing and directly tasting the empty radiance.
[1/8/23, 12:15:44 PM] John Tan: Whether, we deconstruct self, internality-externality, physicality, cause-effect, we must have this direct taste of radiance and relates to the actual taste.
.....
[27/8/23, 9:29:26 AM] John Tan: 👍
Not only that u cannot realize emptiness without the clarity, u cannot realize dependent origination without clarity, they r both talking about radiance and light.
Another important point is we do not realize that we r analysing and understanding from the perspective from essential view. We "negate" from the standpoint of an essential view; we understand dependent arising from an inherent view without realizing it. We do not understand from the perspective of light and radiance.
They understand "illusion" from an essential view and thought that because of illusoriness, it is inconsequential.
.....
[8/9/23, 2:26:14 PM] John Tan: I suggest u look into DO, emptiness and understand the non-contradiction between free from all elaborations and DO-emptiness of the conventional.
It is not easy to understand functioning in the non-essential way of manifestations.
Even if one is clear of how the mind confuses itself with essential view in terms reification of entities-characteristics, it does not mean one can understand how empty radiance functions in the non-essential way.
This requires not only stable insights but also very stable authentication of energy and radiance patterns -- that the natural expressions of empty radiance exhibits certain patterns.
[8/9/23, 2:35:06 PM] John Tan: For example, u think it is so easy to come out the 12 afflictive chain of DO?
[8/9/23, 2:36:49 PM] John Tan: This requires very stable insight and radiance experience and observe how a mind in confusion sets the wheel of samsara in action.
[8/9/23, 2:42:06 PM] John Tan: Do u think it is so easy to point out consciousness and phenomena are like the 8 similes of illusions? Or despite vivid appearances, there is nothing that is "there" at all, no "thingness" can be found at all and because of this empty nature, whole of samsara as well of the immense diversities of radiance can manifest? How skillful is it in that pointing? Yet we just simply read pass such profound pointing. .....
.....
John tan also wrote in 2022, “Should not be immobilized by ultimate otherwise ultimate becomes a stage or a state. Whether Dzogchen or Yogacara, they both have their views of the conventional. So no worry of formulating a valid view of the conventional clearly as whatever views formulated will not survive ultimate analysis and that is how one refine our insights as thoroughly understanding the emptiness of the conventional, one liberates further one's mind. Even Dzogchen of basis is also a view so it too is empty when subject to ultimate analysis.”
Reply
1d
Edited
Soh Wei Yu
Ultimate and Relative
"If asked what I am most drawn to (in Tsongkhapa's teachings), I am most drawn to Prasangika's "mere imputation". The quintessence of "mere imputation" is IMO the essence of Buddhism. It is the whole of 2 truths; the whole of 2 folds. How the masters present and how it is being taught is entirely another matter. It is because in non-conceptuality, the whole of the structure of "mere imputation" is totally exerted into an instantaneous appearance that we r unable to see the truth of it. In conceptuality, it is expanded and realized to be in that structure. A structure that awakens us the living truth of emptiness and dependent arising that is difficult to see in dimensionless appearance."
"In ultimate (empty dimensionless appearance), there is no trace of causes and conditions, just a single sphere of suchness. In relative, there is dependent arising. Therefore distinct in relative when expressed conventionally but seamlessly non-dual in ultimate."
"When suchness is expressed relatively, it is dependent arising. Dependent designation in addition to causal dependency is to bring out a deeper aspect when one sees thoroughly that if phenomena is profoundly without essence then it is always only dependent designations."
- Thusness, 2015
Labels: Dependent Designation, Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Madhyamaka |
Reply
1d
Soh Wei Yu
Those who hold the view that ultimate is non-dependent and separate from the relative are the more extreme forms of Shentong that veer into Advaita Vedanta. No different from Advaita Vedanta view
Reply
1d
Soh Wei Yu
“Ultimately, the basis is free from all elaborations, no mind, no consciousness, no conditions therefore no DO, no emptiness...no line of demarcation can be drawn.
For a practitioner that has anatta insight, there is no issue on freedom from all elaborations of the ultimate, It is how the conventional is understood that is difficult.” - john tan months ago
—-
“Yes, I think should add together as they represent the 2 different view of emptiness.
Freedom from all elaborations and freedom from self-nature.
Yeah I included the two. One is freedom from all elaboration, one is spacious dream-like nature, lack of self-nature as emptiness.” - jt 2022
——
“It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with the world also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.
Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;
Is the "scenery" out there?
Feel the "hardness" of the floor;
Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?
If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, are is "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".
It is not even in the "mind" for u can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?
If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?
So, to me, buddhism is not about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but also points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.
It is not simply about freeing from elaborations and we r left with with "the world" also. Nor is it simply about experiencing presence and non-dual, they aren't the main concern.
Look at the scenery, so lurid and vivid;
Is the "scenery" out there?
Feel the "hardness" of the floor;
Is this undeniable "hardness" out there?
If "hardness of the floor" aren't out there, is it "inside" the brain? There is no "hardness" in the brain u can locate in the parts that make up the experience of "hardness".
Then we say "no", it is in the "mind". So now what that is believed to be "external" in the past is being "internalized" in a "mind".
But WAIT,
How can "hardness" which is no where to be found be in "mind"?
Furthermore, we can't even find "mind" then how can "in" the mind be valid?
If "hardness" isn't external nor internal, then where is it?
So, to me, buddhism is not only about helping one taste presence or into an effortless state of non-dual or into a state free of conceptualities but more importantly points out this fundamental cognitive flaw that confuses the mind. This is more crucial. If the cognitive fault isn't uprooted and seen through, then all experiences regardless of how mystical and profound will be distorted.” - jt months ago
Reply
23h
Christian Palocz
Soh Wei Yu what is important in any answer is the word “enough”. this ‘enough’ as I read it marks presence as a reified state, and I was marking that any “it” or “enough” must be passed through DO.
Reply
18h
Christian Palocz
André A. Pais this distinction is only relevant if you are using it, and not as a characteristic of existence, and not even a characteristic of the path, which as you might know in some techniques (or schools) makes no difference.
Reply
18h
Edited
Christian Palocz
André A. Pais the point here is the word “enough”, at least for me. When you make an “it” or some special state of “realization” is not bad to DO it. So if you think presence is it, or “pure awareness” or anything for that matter its not bad to pass it… See more
Reply
18h
Soh Wei Yu
Christian Palocz
Yes and that is also the point that yin ling was making. As she said, “Hence I was asking, why dependent origination needed? If so easy.” As I paraphrase the Buddha, Dharma is subtle, profound, only comprehended by the wise.
Reply
17h
André A. Pais
Within the right karmic context, presence is enough, of course. Anything can be enough, depending on spiritual maturity.
Reply
12h
Edited
André A. Pais
Christian Palocz I wasn't replying to the OP, indeed. Otherwise I would've done it in the main thread.
Reply
12h
Lewis Stevens
Did the Buddha teach Presence. I thought he taught Emptiness which is not exactly the same...
Reply
18h
Soh Wei Yu
Lewis Stevens he taught luminous mind but its nature is empty of self or the extremes of existence and non existence
Luminous
Pabhassara Suttas (AN 1:50–53)
NAVIGATIONSuttas/AN/1:50
“Luminous, monks, is the mind.1 And it is defiled by incoming defilements.”
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements.”
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn’t discern that as it has come to be, which is why I tell you that—for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person—there is no development of the mind.”
“Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it has come to be, which is why I tell you that—for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones—there is development of the mind.”
Reply
18h
Soh Wei Yu
Lewis Stevens presence is important but not to be reified
https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../anatta-and-pure...
Nov
18
Anatta and Pure Presence
Someone told me about having been through insights of no self and then progressing to a realisation of the ground of being.
I replied:
Hi ____
Thanks for the sharing.
This is the I AM realization. Had that realisation after contemplating Before birth, who am I? For two years. It’s an important realization. Many people had insights into certain aspects of no self, impersonality, and “dry non dual experience” without doubtless realization of Presence. Therefore I AM realisation is a progression for them.
Similarly in Zen, asking who am I is to directly experience presence. How about asking a koan of what is the cup? What is the chirping bird, the thunder clap? What is its purpose?
When I talked about anatta, it is a direct insight of Presence and recognizing what we called background presence, is in the forms and colours, sounds and sensations, clean and pure. Authentication is be authenticated by all things. Also there is no presence other than that. What we call background is really just an image of foreground Presence, even when Presence is assuming its subtle formless all pervasiveness.
However due to ignorance, we have a very inherent and dual view, if we do see through the nature of presence, the mind continues to be influenced by dualistic and inherent tendencies. Many teach to overcome it through mere non conceptuality but this is highly misleading.
Thusness also wrote:
The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights
Labels: Anatta, Luminosity |
Anatta and Pure Presence
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Anatta and Pure Presence
Anatta and Pure Presence
Reply
Remove Preview
18h
I don’t understand the question
Reply
1h
Soh Wei Yu
Birk McClain If Presence is understood apart from dependent origination, it becomes an Atman view. Consciousness is mistaken to have inherent existence.
Something I wrote before:
• The six types of consciousness are also provisional, but it is important in order to deconstruct the idea that consciousness is a singular and unchanging/inherently existing consciousness like brahman, some unchanging substance independent of conditions and various manifestations. The point is to point out the emptiness of inherent existence of consciousness, and also to point out dependent origination. The raft of the teachings of aggregates, six consciousness are not meant to be clung to or reified. See the sutta where Buddha scolded Bhikkhu Sati for holding substantialist view of consciousness: https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi
Buddha: “* Misguided man, have I not stated in many discourses consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?”
….
Buddha: ““Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness.”
——-
Also, the Dalai Lama also have quoted and commented on this sutta in his recent book:
•
• “Because it is easy to consider consciousness with its thoughts, feelings, moods, and opinions to be the person, it is worthwhile to examine this notion more closely. The Buddha clearly states that consciousness is not the self. In the Greater Sutta on the Destruction of Craving, he calls Bhikṣu Sāti and questions him about his wrong view that the consciousness is the self. The following dialogue ensues (MN 38.5):
• (The Buddha): Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another?
• (Sāti): Exactly so, Venerable Sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.
• (The Buddha): What is that consciousness, Sāti?
• (Sāti): Venerable Sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the “ the result of good and bad actions.
• (The Buddha): Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many discourses consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?
• Sāti’s view is that consciousness exists in and of itself, independent of conditions. Saying the self is that which speaks shows the I as an agent of the action of speaking. Saying the self feels is the notion that the I is a passive subject that experiences. “Here and there” indicates the self as a transmigrator that remains unchanging as it passes through many rebirths. This consciousness or self goes from life to life, creating karma and experiencing its results, but not being transformed or changing in the process. It has an unchanging identity that remains the same as it experiences one event after another and goes from one life to the next. In short, Sāti views the consciousness as an ātman or Self.
• The commentary explains that Sāti was an expert in the Jātaka Tales, in which the Buddha recounts his previous lives, saying, “At that time, I was[…]”
• Excerpt From
• Realizing the Profound View
• Bhikṣu Tenzin Gyatso, Bhikṣuṇī Thubten Chodron
SuttaCentral
SUTTACENTRAL.NET
SuttaCentral
SuttaCentral
Reply
Remove Preview
5m
Soh Wei Yu
———
If one asserts Buddha nature to be an ontological ultimate and truly existing one consciousness, one without a second like Brahman, then one has fallen into atman view and fails to understand buddha nature.
As for what is the definitive meaning of Buddha-Nature, the Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith wrote:
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15368...
“The term bdag nyid, atman, just means, in this case, "nature", i.e. referring to the nature of reality free from extremes as being permanent, blissful, pure and self. The luminosity of the mind is understood to be this.
There are various ways to interpret the Uttaratantra and tathāgatagarbha doctrine, one way is definitive in meaning, the other is provisional, according to Gorampa Sonam Senge, thus the tathāgatagarbha sutras become definitive or provisional depending on how they are understood. He states:
In the context of showing the faults of a literal [interpretation] – it's equivalence with the Non-Buddhist Self is that the assertion of unique eternal all pervading cognizing awareness of the Saṃkhya, the unique eternal pristine clarity of the Pashupattis, the unique all pervading intellect of the Vaiśnavas, the impermanent condition, the measure of one’s body, in the permanent self-nature of the Jains, and the white, brilliant, shining pellet the size of an atom, existing in each individual’s heart of the Vedantins are the same.
The definitive interpretation he renders as follows:
Therefor, the Sugatagarbha is defined as the union of clarity and emptiness but not simply emptiness without clarity, because that [kind of emptiness] is not suitable to be a basis for bondage and liberation. Also it is not simple clarity without emptiness, that is the conditioned part, because the Sugatagarbha is taught as unconditioned.
Khyentse Wangpo, often cited as a gzhan stong pa, basically says that the treatises of Maitreya elucidate the luminosity of the mind, i.e. its purity, whereas Nāgarjuna's treatises illustrate the empty nature of the mind, and that these two together, luminosity and emptiness free from extremes are to be understood as noncontradictory, which we can understand from the famous Prajñāpāramita citation "There is no mind in the mind, the nature of the mind is luminosity". “
....
The cognizer perceives the cognizable; Without the cognizable there is no cognition; Therefore why do you not admit That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?
The mind is but a mere name; Apart from it's name it exists as nothing; So view consciousness as a mere name; Name too has no intrinsic nature.
Either within or likewise without, Or somewhere in between the two, The conquerors have never found the mind; So the mind has the nature of an illusion.
The distinctions of colors and shapes, Or that of object and subject, Of male, female and the neuter - The mind has no such fixed forms.
In brief the Buddhas have never seen Nor will they ever see [such a mind]; So how can they see it as intrinsic nature That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?
"Entity" is a conceptualization; Absence of conceptualization is emptiness; Where conceptualization occurs, How can there be emptiness?
The mind in terms of perceived and perceiver, This the Tathagatas have never seen; Where there is the perceived and perceiver, There is no enlightenment.
Devoid of characteristics and origination, Devoid of substantiative reality and transcending speech, Space, awakening mind and enlightenment Posses the characteristics of non-duality.
• Nagarjuna
"the Self is real" according to T. Page - Page 7 - Dharma Wheel
DHARMAWHEEL.NET
"the Self is real" according to T. Page - Page 7 - Dharma Wheel
"the Self is real" according to T. Page - Page 7 - Dharma Wheel
Reply
Remove Preview
5m
