Shared with my atr blog admin group, john tan commented “I really like mahamudra!” “ This mahamudra poem by Naropa is so beautiful.  I have read it so many times, yet everytime I read it, my heart dances in joy.”

https://www.naturalawareness.net/mahamudra

CONDENSED VERSES OF MAHAMUDRA

NAROPA

IN SANSKRIT: Mahāmudrāsaṃjñāsaṃhitā

IN TIBETAN: Phyag rgya chen po’i tshig bsdus pa

I pay homage to the continuity of great bliss!

The Mahamudra view of appearances, awareness, and unity are taught:

1. The Meaning of the Mahamudra of Appearances

As for the expression of mahamudra,

All phenomena are your own mind.

Seeing outer things as real is confusion;

Like a dream, they are empty of essence.

2. The Mahamudra of Awareness

The mind, moreover, is merely the movement of thoughts and memories;

It has no nature; it is the dynamism of wind energy.

Empty of essence, it is like space;

All phenomena are like space, abiding as great equality.

Naropa (1016–1100)

The mahapandita Naropa was a great scholar from Kashmir. He mastered Buddhist studies at Nalanda University, but then left to seek a master who could teach him how to tame his mind. Naropa underwent twelve years of intense hardships under Tilopa’s guidance, and finally attained complete mahamudra realization.

3. The Mahamudra of Unity

As for expressing mahamudra,

Its essence cannot be taught.

Therefore, the suchness of mind

Is the very continuity of mahamudra.

There are also three types of Mahamudra meditation:

1. Mahamudra’s Natural Way of Abiding

The nature of mahamudra is uncontrived and unchanging.

Whoever sees and realizes this

Experiences all that appears as mahamudra,

For the great dharmakaya is all-pervasive.

2. The Way of Realizing Mahamudra

Rest loosely in the uncontrived nature;

The dharmakaya cannot be fathomed.

When you rest without searching, this is meditation;

To search while meditating is confusion.

3. The Mahamudra of Indivisibility

Because it is free of meditating and not meditating,

How could there be separation or non-separation from that state?

A yogi realizes everything to be like space and magical displays.

The conduct of Mahamudra again has three aspects:

1. The Mahamudra of Self-Liberation

All virtuous and negative karma will be liberated

By knowing their suchness.

Afflictions are great wisdom

And, like a fire that benefits a forest,

Are a yogi’s boon.

2. The Mahamudra of One Taste

How could there truly be going or remaining?

What kind of meditation

Results from traveling to solitary places?

Whoever does not realize suchness,

Aside from having temporary experiences, will not be liberated.

3. The Mahamudra of Inseparability

If you realize suchness, what can bind you?

Except for remaining undistracted in that state,

There is nothing to meditate on:

There is neither a resting nor a nonresting in equipoise.

This practice cannot be created or improved by an antidote.

Once again, the fruition of Mahamudra has three sections:

1. The Mahamudra of All That Appears and Exists

In this, nothing whatsoever is accomplished—

Appearances self-liberated are the basic space of phenomena.

Thoughts self-liberated are great wisdom,

The nondual equality of dharmakaya.

2. The Mahamudra beyond Samsara

Like the continuous flow of a mighty river,

Whatever you do is meaningful.

This is the great bliss of Buddhahood,

Where samsara has no place.

3. The Ultimate Mahamudra

All phenomena are empty of their own essence.

The mind that grasps the notion of “empty”

Is self-purified.

Free from concepts, without mental fabrication—

This is the path of all the buddhas.

Final Advice and Dedication

For those most fortunate beings,

My heart advice is here collected into words.

Through this, may all beings without exception

Reside in mahamudra!

This instruction was given orally from the great master Naropa to Marpa Chökyi Lodro at Pushpahari.

Śubham astu sarvajagatām!

These thirteen verses summarize all aspects of Mahamudra without exception. The purpose and divisions of this teaching should be understood from a detailed oral explanation, in accordance with its essential meaning.

Do not put your confidence in mixed-up versions. This was written according to the authentic ancient manuscripts, so do not think it has been distorted.

https://www.facebook.com/cyberlogy/posts/pfbid02Rzz1u9N8Twu3HDR1XJmUzthESGoRXr9P44GtTMqwvRf4pq9DmvQACFAxPrGZyVCKl?__cft__[0]=AZUJ2oe0d2AY_-cbjdvR8Pyuoi8sXQTpUMgW1Z9tY1g5OYsAEmZdGdoPrdmfHlJF_yg8fnROpFgHyiMnQJpbq-qLFng60yx4mVdBhlcC5PH9VnuhA2eJTul2MR5omTu-Ng_Zd6yhm8yGbf6gJ9M5Kd3nIWVDqUguH5HAzMETWjF5nMq72NIITcpmcw6nquVsUBQ&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

 

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

Birk McClain
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

 

Some random compilation of John Tan comments I thought of sharing. [18/6/23, 1:07:21 AM] John Tan: 👍 No seer, no seeing, nothing seen means freedom from all elaborations into the natural state -- spontaneously presents and naturally perfected. A state free from conceptual elaborations can be non-mentation like what Tsongkhapa said, there is no wisdom and insight involved. Insight of non-inherentness will result in direct taste non-existence clear appearances. .... 

 
“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.” - John Tan 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.” - John Tan months ago

 

 ........

 [19/6/23, 4:59:42 PM] John Tan: But inexpressibility doesn't mean there is no valid means of presentation but whatever expressed always imply characterization. This is nothing new as it is also clearly expressed in Tao De Jing. [19/6/23, 5:09:56 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Tao te ching points to a similar insight as anatta and freedom from extremes? [19/6/23, 5:11:28 PM] John Tan: Not anatta but freedom from all conventional elaborations. [19/6/23, 5:11:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic.. [19/6/23, 5:12:39 PM] John Tan: U must discern the difference between nyingma and gelug understanding of emptiness. [19/6/23, 5:13:25 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Actually upanishads also i think. But then i think still based on atman “e organs, i.e., free from the dualistic mind (namshe). So the Upanishadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the âtmà, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankaràcàrya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by Śāntarakṣita as a wrong view. The Vedàntic Sutras and Sàstra-s are full of statements like: This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence. This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual. This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc. It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual cognition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition). “ - https://www.byomakusuma.org/VedantaVisAVisShentong.html [19/6/23, 5:13:35 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Anurag also said advaita also stress its inexpressible [19/6/23, 5:13:45 PM] John Tan: Yes [19/6/23, 5:13:53 PM] John Tan: Even christian [19/6/23, 5:14:00 PM] John Tan: 🤣 [19/6/23, 5:14:05 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic [19/6/23, 5:15:00 PM] Soh Wei Yu: But i think longchenpa should be clear about the anatman and emptiness of inherent existence [19/6/23, 5:15:29 PM] John Tan: Definitely [19/6/23, 5:15:46 PM] John Tan: Din u read the illusory book? [19/6/23, 5:16:21 PM] John Tan: And don't anyhow comment stuff u r not sure 🤦 [19/6/23, 5:16:40 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah This is also nice Longchenpa: https://www.shambhala.com/sno.../the-practice-of-dzogchen-2/ Exactly what I am searching" IDENTIFICATION (OF THE BASIS) THROUGH (UNDERSTANDING THE) VIEW The External Apprehended Objects Are Non-Existent Emptiness (i) The appearances are unreal reflections like the eight examples of illusion. Every aspect of the five objects, such as form, included in the phenomena of the world and beings, are mere appearances with no true existence. All the appearances which have appeared to both the pure perceptions of the Buddhas and the impure perceptions of deluded beings are the percepts of wisdom and the mind. While the appearances are appearing to both perceptions, they are appearing with no inherent existence (Rang-bZhin), like a reflection in a mirror and rainbow rays in the sky. To the pure perception of wisdom the (appearances) transcend the extremes of existing and non-existing as there are no stains of apprehender and apprehended. As there is no creating, ceasing, and changing, all are free from the characteristics of compounded phenomena, the appearances of uncompounded emptiness-form, and are totally free from conceptualizations. To the perception of the deluded mind, (the appearances) merely appear as the object of apprehension of self (bDag-'Dzin), which have fallen into the extreme (concepts) of existing or non-existing, are detached from the characteristics of uncompounded (nature), and have strengthened the habituations of adventitious and circumstantial self-perceptions. So, here, one will understand that the objects, the delusory appearances of the mind, are unreal. Various external appearances, such as white and red, are merely the percepts of rigid habits, like a dream created by the drunkenness of ignorant sleep. There is not the slightest existence (in them) as the object in the (true) meaning. Also, those appearances are not mind from the very point of their arising, because their substantial characteristics, such as color, size, and distinctions, negate the character of the mind. At the same time, they are not other than the mind, because, in addition to their being merely the delusory perceptions (of the mind), no other object has ever been established as such. The appearances to the mind are just types of experience of rigid habits continuing from beginningless time. It is like dreaming last night about a magic show one has seen yesterday. Therefore, one should think that whatever appears are appearances of non existence, and are without foundation, abiding place, natural existence, and recognizable (entity). They are merely a clear appearance of the empty nature like a dream, magical display, mirage, echo, shadowy view (Mig-Yor), water-moon (reflection), miracle, and the city of smell-eaters (a spirit world). Whatever appears, self or others, enemies or friends, countries or towns, places or houses, food or drink or wealth, and whatever one does, eating or sleeping, walking or sitting, one should train in seeing them as unreal. One should devote oneself to this training in all its aspects: the preliminary, actual, and concluding practices. (ii) The objects, if analyzed, are emptiness. If the appearances are examined from gross to subtle down to atoms, they are partless and non-existent. So form is emptiness. (Likewise,) by examining color and recognition of sound, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the form and essence of smell, it (will be found to be) emptiness. By examining the aspects of taste, they (will be found to be) emptiness. Especially, by examining the sources (sense-objects), the emptiness of touch will be reached. Although they are different in appearance, they are the same in their nature in being emptiness, so the emptiness of various objects are not separate categories. Their nature, like pure space, transcends being either separate or the same. So the nature of objective appearances is emptiness in its essence. The Apprehender Has No Foundation and No Root (i) The consciousnesses are self-clarity without foundation. (There are eight consciousnesses.) The five sense-consciousnesses; arise as the five objects such as form, the mind-consciousness cognizes the general impression (of the appearing objects) and designates them as the objects, the defiled mind-consciousness is the sense of negating, accepting, hating and disliking (etc.), the mind-consciousness arises after the six consciousnesses (five senses and universal ground consciousness), ...and the consciousness of universal ground is self-clarity (Rang-gSal) and no thought and is unrelated to the objects: these are the eight or six consciousnesses. At the (very) time of (functioning of any of) those consciousnesses themselves, whatever consciousness it is, it is clear, vivid, and self-clarity with no foundations. Although they appear clear, there is no substantial entity. They are appearing without existence, like clear space and a breeze with no dust. Their clarity is present naturally like the sky without clouds. Their movements are like wind, not in distinguishable substances. From the (very) time of appearing, (the consciousnesses) as the apprehenders are self-clarity and unrecognizable. Watch them when they are arising and when they are abiding. Relax naturally and watch the manner of appearing of the apprehender. Thereby one will realize the apprehenders as having the nature of merely an appearance of clarity with no existence, emptiness with no bias, and self-clarity with no foundation. (ii) (The subject), if analyzed, is emptiness without root. By analyzing (whether) the self-clear, baseless mind (exists) in the external appearances, inner physical body, or intermediate movements, or if the entity of the self-dwelling mind itself (can be) recognized in (its) design, color, birth, cessation, and abiding, one will realize that its nature is non-existence, baseless and free from the extremes of either existence or non-existence. In this training the devotion to the Lama is the only important thing. [19/6/23, 5:18:24 PM] Soh Wei Yu: So i think for longchenpa, nyingma, their freedom from elaborations include the emptiness of inherent existence [19/6/23, 5:18:39 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Maybe they differ from gelug in expression and emphasis? [19/6/23, 7:15:53 PM] John Tan: To me, this separation of "existence" from "what appears" is unique and very skillful. "Non-existence" appearance is essentially the same insight as anatta. It involves the 2 authentications: 1. Seeing through the reification of conventional construct and 2. Recognition of appearances as one's empty clarity. What makes appearances appear "real, solid and external" are our mistaken perception of the inherent framework of subject-action-object. But that is only part of the confusion. The other is not realizing what appears is just radiance, that is y it is illusory and insubstantial. However if we deconstruct entities and characteristics, then mind and phenomena, consciousness and conditions are all deconstructed, u can't treat mind as real due to point 1. Otherwise one skewed towards yogacara (but then yogacara doesn't actually treat mind as real either). It is sort of straw-man stereotyping a group of practitioners attaching to mind as real. ..... [1/8/23, 12:06:48 PM] John Tan: It is difficult for a mind holding essential view to understand conceptually seamlessness, free of divisions, boundaries and non-difference. The best it can do within the limitation of it's inherent framework is to describe the taste is like everything emerges from space or emptiness. So as a skillful mean, there is nothing wrong taking things dissolve into an all encompassing dharmadhatu much like how vajrayana visualize everything as deities. But like how ocean is realized as a construct as well as wave, ocean is not any special than wave. Then when background consciousness is gone and only empty appearances left, even "wave" is gone. Many got stuck at One-Mind, there r also many that got stuck in non-conceptualities also in de-construction and do know know the actual taste of empty radiance. [1/8/23, 12:08:49 PM] John Tan: Everything is of "nature" of space in contrast to everything dissolves into space and space becomes a special substratum. ..... [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. ..... ..... [8/9/23, 2:44:04 PM] John Tan: Yes. Only when we deeply experience and authenticate, then our faith in the teaching can grow. Not through blind believe and we will practice diligently ...... [8/9/23, 3:07:42 PM] John Tan: Yes and even micro and macro cosmic orbit breathing of taoism. But one doesn't need to know all or suddenly change path. De-construction of mental constructions and conceptualities for example is a very effective way until one releases itself in openness of radiance clarity. Every de-construction of reification is energy-related, it is a full path itself also just that we do not carry it all the way. ..... [8/9/23, 3:16:00 PM] John Tan: For example, as we let go reifications into presence, it is not something just "mental", it is equally "physical"; it is not just "mind", it is equally "body", "breath" and "energies". When we alternately experience total exertion and freedom from elaborations, the seamlessness and intimacies without self and inherentness of empty parts allow deeper insights of the non-essential (empty) radiance. Then it allows us to glimpse the non-contradiction between the ultimate and relative. [8/9/23, 3:16:33 PM] John Tan: This is very good yin ling, don't lose track and continue ur meditation. [8/9/23, 3:35:44 PM] John Tan: Then we slowly have a deep understanding of the "conventional" and "conceptual" not only from mental perspective like arm-chair philosophers, but we "SEE and TASTE" dimensions of energies, radiances, "physicalities" in these so called "conventional concepts". So when we say they r only "conceptually" designated, the depth of understanding is different. [8/9/23, 3:42:53 PM] John Tan: "Self" for example, is not just a conceptual construct, it is also at the same time immense energies "stuck" in conflicts manifested everywhere in our body.😬🤣

 

 

-----------

 

 

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
7h

André A. Pais
It's always important to distinguish path and fruition, equipoise and post meditation, approximate ultimate and actual ultimate, etc.

Reply
6h

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
18m
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
17m

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
17m

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.

 https://www.facebook.com/cyberlogy/posts/pfbid0unv2FJfQbenDbEN9gz46NvyYbXKGHrBneF3LEwhvSHziQgVentDrH5Yg7mHXTT87l?__cft__[0]=AZUH8TG5905_jyMwOwJLTX4Kl0qnEX9YaiPBxbvFavZd6JnTyfM6wyrYsanQdeIfHHOq2F43Fa4oHyXr6g7LWu__7aHhFSWAX5bCHnKNS3eBkv7TXM7mSTQI9JirK4gRFu5dKn_y3Izjm8Q8Yn5ptSNfKibaBctqXTtD8Cygz-0qYU4YKzXBKrSRS-qp9Avc7oA&__cft__[1]=AZUH8TG5905_jyMwOwJLTX4Kl0qnEX9YaiPBxbvFavZd6JnTyfM6wyrYsanQdeIfHHOq2F43Fa4oHyXr6g7LWu__7aHhFSWAX5bCHnKNS3eBkv7TXM7mSTQI9JirK4gRFu5dKn_y3Izjm8Q8Yn5ptSNfKibaBctqXTtD8Cygz-0qYU4YKzXBKrSRS-qp9Avc7oA&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R]-R

Soh Wei Yu


A blog post I made in 2014, I wanted particularly to share this comment by John Tan:

Zero-ness

Piotr quoted something nice by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche:

"Nonduality does not mean that you dissolve into the world or that the world becomes you. It is not a question of oneness, but of zero-ness. No synchronization of the sense perceptions is necessary. Everything is reduced into zero, and the whole thing becomes one-pointedness—or zero-pointedness. That is moksha, or “freedom.” You do not have any hassles and no synchronization is necessary. Things just unfold by themselves."

Thusness also wrote:

The tendency to unify is the cause of reification. Consciousness always subsume into Oneness because the idea is so beautiful to the mind and fits so well to the inherent intellect. The very act of unification into oneness prevents the seeing of liberation at spot. Instant liberation at spot is realized by recognizing the very nature of appearances/phenomena and self is non-arising and empty, it is not resting in/as Awareness or space. The former is liberation via wisdom, the later is just Awareness teaching.
2 comments

William Albert

Something I'm curious about... WHY is emptiness of inherent existence so liberating? Can anyone try to describe why? It's okay if it's not describable, but I've often wondered 🙂

    Reply
    12m

Soh Wei Yu

William Albert The short answer is: It's like the difference between grasping something tightly with your fist and letting go.
As long as there is the trace of non-recognizing the nature of mind and appearance, there will be fixations rather than release.
Even if experience is nondual and boundless, as long as there is this subsuming into oneness or landing as awareness or space, it is not liberation, it is still fixating on something ultimate.

As John Tan said before in 2009,

"Hi AEN,

Yes not to be fixated but also not to objectify the “spaciousness” otherwise “spaciousness” is no less fixated. The ‘space’ appears appealing only to a mind that abstracts but to a fully participating and involving mind, such “spaciousness” has immediately sets itself apart, distancing itself from inseparable. Emptiness is never a behind background but a fully partaking foreground manifesting as the arising and passing phenomena absence of a center. Therefore understand ‘spaciousness’ not like sky but like passing clouds and flowing water, manifesting whenever condition is. If ‘Emptiness’ has made us more fixated and immobilized this innate freedom of our non-dual luminosity, then it is ‘stubborn emptiness’.

Nevertheless, no matter what said, it is always inadequate. If we want to fully realize the inexpressible, be willing to give up all centers and point of references that manifests in the form of ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. Just give up the entire sense of self then instantly all things are spontaneously perfected.
Just a sharing, nothing intense.
Happy New Year! 🙂"

Reply
1m


-----



Soh Wei Yu
William Albert
16/3/13 1:02:48 AM: John Tan: Ignorance is like an endless loop
16/3/13 1:04:21 AM: John Tan: U penetrated object with direct non-conceptual experience, it hides in subject
16/3/13 1:05:09 AM: John Tan: U destroy object, it hides in here/now, there/here, in/out
16/3/13 1:06:25 AM: John Tan: Becoz the fundamental ignorance is there
16/3/13 1:06:36 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I see..
16/3/13 1:07:04 AM: John Tan: With that view, there is no true overcoming
16/3/13 1:07:42 AM: John Tan: Objects will still appear to b external
16/3/13 1:07:58 AM: John Tan: Even after non-dual
16/3/13 1:08:37 AM: John Tan: A practitioner din really overcome it
16/3/13 1:09:45 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
16/3/13 1:11:13 AM: John Tan: U will hv to feel it with ur entire body-mind with that view to understand
16/3/13 1:12:34 AM: John Tan: And compare with the deconstruction of "emptiness"
16/3/13 1:14:05 AM: John Tan: If we hold substantial view, we will always feel something has changed to something
16/3/13 1:14:28 AM: John Tan: And we want to understand it that way
16/3/13 1:15:04 AM: John Tan: Therefore we r unable to overcome the source, appearances and apparent objects
16/3/13 1:15:48 AM: John Tan: How is something so solid and external is "mind"
16/3/13 1:19:24 AM: John Tan: Also when u realized there is no hearer behind sound and initially penetrated anatta, it does not mean u hv overcome appearances and apparent objects too
16/3/13 1:19:32 AM: John Tan: What is lacking?
16/3/13 1:19:55 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Insight that penetrates empty nature of objects ?
16/3/13 1:21:52 AM: John Tan: Yes only when one begin to "realize" emptiness and look into the experience of anatta and understand this "emptying"
16/3/13 1:23:27 AM: John Tan: Until it replaces that "inherent/dualistic" and apply it endlessly
16/3/13 1:23:57 AM: John Tan: When u look into Self/self it is empty
16/3/13 1:24:12 AM: John Tan: When u look into aggregates, it is empty
16/3/13 1:24:29 AM: John Tan: When u look at here/now, it is empty
16/3/13 1:25:15 AM: John Tan: When u look into in/out, it is empty then u begin to overcome appearances and apparent objects
16/3/13 1:25:51 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
16/3/13 1:27:17 AM: John Tan: R u denying Awareness?
16/3/13 1:27:30 AM: Soh Wei Yu: No
16/3/13 1:27:44 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Deconstruction is not denial
16/3/13 1:27:57 AM: Soh Wei Yu: But seeing inherent dualistic view
16/3/13 1:28:11 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Through
16/3/13 1:31:03 AM: John Tan: That is liberating it
16/3/13 1:31:21 AM: Soh Wei Yu: I see..
16/3/13 1:32:36 AM: John Tan: Life, death, here, now, this, that, subject, object...etc
16/3/13 1:32:57 AM: John Tan: Is there a substance?
16/3/13 1:33:33 AM: John Tan: Or the same substance being transformed into another
16/3/13 1:33:53 AM: John Tan: Is the current thought the same as previous thought
16/3/13 1:34:08 AM: Soh Wei Yu: Nope
16/3/13 1:34:10 AM: John Tan: The entire view has changed
16/3/13 1:34:20 AM: John Tan: It does not apply
16/3/13 1:35:03 AM: John Tan: All along we hv understood our immediate experience wrongly and treat that as ultimate
16/3/13 1:36:06 AM: John Tan: Then non-dual experience will turn liberating
16/3/13 1:36:46 AM: John Tan: Next look into total exertion
....

Reply
1m

John Tan:

Not only that you cannot realize emptiness without the clarity, you cannot realize dependent origination without clarity, they are both talking about radiance and light.

Another important point is we do not realize that we are 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.

John Tan and I thinks this writing by Kyle Dixon is very good.

Often we hear people questioning what is the meaning of viewless view. Kyle explains well:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/162teze/what_is_the_phrase_the_right_view_is_no_view/jxzdfud/

–]krodha [score hidden] 25 minutes ago 

On the “absence of views”:

An “absence of view” does not imply a refusal to engage in concepts, or choosing to remain indifferent and neutral, not taking a position so that one has “no views.”

The actual meaning of abandoning “all views” [sarvadṛṣṭi] is defined in the Ārya-mahāyānopadeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra, which states:

Abandoning all views is entering into the middle way, seeing all dharmas as equal.

The “equality of dharmas” is directly related to the absence of characteristics [alakṣaṇa] that is revealed in the realization of emptiness [śūnyatā]. 

The Āryākṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā describes the interrelation of these aspects of awakened insight:

The descriptions from the element of self [atmadhātu] up to the element of all phenomena [sarvadharmadhātu] are the nature of one taste in the ultimate dharmadhātu, emptiness. Since individual characteristics do not exist, all phenomena said to be "equivalent" since they are undifferentiated.

Therefore to actualize the “abandonment of views” one must realize emptiness, and through realizing emptiness, the absence of characteristics is directly known due to the absence of a would be inherent nature or “svabhāva” to possesses said characteristics. At that time, because entities are realized to be non-arisen, the basis of imputation which was previously mistaken to be an object endowed with specific characteristics is recognized to be a heterogeneous array of appearances that do not actually constitute or create the entity they were previously misconstrued to characterize. In the absence of an entity, existence and non-existence, having no substantial referent, are undone and as a result all views (and characteristics) are exhausted.

In his Mūlamadhyamakakārika, Nāgārjuna clarifies that the pacification of views is contingent upon insight into emptiness whereby existent entities that are capable of existing and/or lacking existence are recognized to be unfounded. He likewise chastises those of “little intelligence” who assert otherwise:

Some of small intelligence, see existents in terms of “is” or “is not”; they do not perceive the pacification of views, or peace.

“Peace” here again is intended to illustrate an absence of characteristics, the Ārya-tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

"Nirvana is peace" denotes actualizing the absence of characteristics.

Candrakīrti concurs in his Madhyamakāvatāra:

The absence of all characteristics is peace.

We can understand “peace” and “pacification” in general to be the import of such statements. The pacification of characteristics and therefore the pacification of views, resulting from an awakened and experiential knowledge of the nature of phenomena, emptiness free from extremes, the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra states:

What is called "knowledge of all things" is the result of knowing one thing: the true nature of phenomena, which has the attribute of peace.

The only means to obtain “peace” is via the awakened insight that ascertains the absence of a core entity which possesses characteristics, the untenability of selfhood and the associated implications of a self. The Samādhirāja Sūtra states:

If the selflessness of phenomena is analyzed, and if this analysis is cultivated, it causes the effect of attaining nirvana. Through no other cause does one come to peace.

One may ask, how is such an insight possible? It is possible because all phenomena are innately empty and devoid of a svabhāva that possesses characteristics, however ignorance and affliction obscure that fact. The purpose of applying the dharma is to discover that hidden nature of phenomena that is always already the case, but is concealed by our delusion. The Ārya-kāśyapa-parivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra is clear that emptiness and an absence of characteristics are innate attributes which only need be recognized:

Kāśyapa, moreover, the true discernment into dharmas of the middle way is not making dharmas empty with emptiness, dharmas themselves are empty; it is not making dharmas without characteristics with the absence of characteristics; dharmas themselves lack characteristics.

It is only our affliction which causes us to perceive entities that are endowed with characteristics, when in actuality no such entities have ever originated in the first place. The realization of emptiness is simultaneously the antidote to those afflictions, and the means by which the absence of characteristics is ascertained. 

The Play of Noble Mañjūśrī Sūtra states:

Afflictions are temporary, they cannot simultaneous with the realization of emptiness; they cannot simultaneous with the knowledge of the absence of characteristics and the absence of aspiration; they cannot simultaneous with natural luminosity.

Nāgārjuna states in his Lokātītastava:

You [the tathāgata] taught that those who do not realize that characteristics do not exist are not liberated.

And in closing it is important to bear in mind that because the referent to lack characteristics is exhausted, even the absence of characteristics is ultimately absent as a characteristic.

The Ananta­mukhapariśo­dhana­nirdeśaparivarta states:

Although the teachings conventionally refer to “the essence and nature of all phenomena,” phenomena are actually devoid of an inherent essence or a nature. The inherent nature of things is that they are empty and lack an essence. All that is empty and devoid of an essence has a single [generic] characteristic: since phenomena are devoid of [specific] characteristics, their [generic] characteristic is complete purity, and thus by definition there is nothing to label as empty or essenceless. Since by definition there is nothing to label as empty or essenceless, no phenomena can, by definition, be labeled.

Bhāviveka states in his Tarkajvālā:

When that yogin dwells in the experience of nonconceptual discerning wisdom [prajñā] and experiences nonduality, at that time, ultimately, the entire reality of objects are as follows, of the same characteristics, like space, appearing in the manner of a nonappearance since their characteristics are nonexistent, therefore, there isn’t even the slightest thing that is not empty, so where could there be emptiness?

* permalinkembedsavereportgive awardreply

Also, some other excerpts from the AtR guide: 

From Dharmawheel, Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith says Madhyamaka is not a simple minded “I have no view” proposition:

“gad rgyangs wrote:

He clearly says in the VV that he has no view to defend. Do you think he was wrong about himself?

Malcolm wrote:

He states in the VV that he has no propositions/thesis concerning svabhāva as defined by his opponents. He does not say he has no views at all. For example, he clearly states in the MMK that he prefers the Sammitya view of karma.

Your claim is similar to the mistaken assertion made by some who claim that Candrakirti never resorts to syllogisms, which in fact he clearly does in the opening lines of the MAV. What Candra disputes is not syllogistic reasoning in its entirety, but rather, syllogistic reasoning applied to emptiness.

Likewise, he clearly asserts the view in the VV that there is no svabhāva in phenomena. Madhyamaka is not a simple minded "I have no view" proposition.

...

"Madhyamaka is not a simple minded "I have no view" proposition."

...

gad rgyangs wrote:

then why does the MMK end thusly? MMK 27.30:

I salute Gautama, who, based on compassion,

taught the true Dharma for the abandonment of all views.

Malcolm wrote:

"All views" here is summarized as two in chapter fifteen: i.e. substantial existence and nonexistence.”

“The purpose of the view is to open the mind up fully without background, duality and inherency. So that experience is fully open, direct, immediate and without boundaries. Chariot and its basis are not a cause and effect relationship, they originate in dependence.” - John Tan, 2019

“The truth of the matter is that “pacification of views” is directly related to the realization of emptiness. If you have not realized emptiness, then you have no business talking about a lack of view, because you still perceive conditioned phenomena and are therefore cognitively endowed with “views.” Those views can only be pacified through directly realizing non-arising.

For some reason you mistakenly believe that “no view” means something like withholding a view, but it has nothing at all to do with that.” – Krodha/Kyle Dixon, 2021

...

"You have a mindstream, which is a continuum of consciousness, but this mindstream is an aggregated, causal proliferation of discrete instances, much different than a fixed “soul” as an abiding entity.

The fetter of selfhood is the root of samsara, and as such, the conviction that you have a real self or soul is an obscuration. We do have a conventional identity or self that we can use in everyday life, but we suffer when we mistake this identity as something truly real.

“Right view” does involve a correct understanding of selfhood, the Ratnakūṭa Sūtra states:

Right view (samyagdṛṣti) is the abandonment of the view of that the aggregates are a self (satkāyadṛṣti).

And regarding the prospect of a self or soul apart from the aggregates, Vasubandhu states:

There is neither direct perception nor inference of a soul [ātman] independent of the aggregates [skandhas]. We know then that a real soul does not exist." - Krodha/Kyle Dixon, https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/ip5yiz/the_soul_is_it_a_deal_breaker/g4i1zy0/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

------

[10:43 PM, 6/6/2020] John Tan: There are two folds to it.  Any view is ultimately empty... But freeing one from constructs and conceptualization has a different meaning to me. Like when see through self, we realized anatta. It is not the freeing, but must also involves the arising insight and wisdom.

 

I think I mentioned I am not into without view. The freeing from seeing through self is not a form of "not knowing", contrary it is deep wisdom that allows one to understand our nature directly.”