Showing posts with label Emptiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emptiness. Show all posts
We are not trying to merge knower and known!

 To someone transitioning from I AM to nondual (only begun talking with him yesterday), I pointed out anatta to him a few moments ago, I have a feeling he will breakthrough to anatta soon:


Mr. C:
“The transience itself rolls and knows”…that is awesome. It pulled me into a more clear state when I first read it and again just now. This was the right thing to resend:)

Soh:

yes and its always already so! like when we say.. fire is burning... its totally an illusion if you imagine fire is something 'behind' burning, or fire is the 'agent' or 'watcher' of burning. thats ridiculous isnt it?
and yet we imagine 'awareness' was something behind 'transience'
its the same

fire is just the burning, fire is not 'doing' the burning

lightning flash -- lightning is the flasher? no. lightning is just another word for flash. lightning is flashing is just another way of saying 'flashing is happening'.

thunder roars -- thunder is the agent of roaring? no. thunder is just roar. wind blows? wind is just blowing. seeing sees scenery? seeing is just colors, no seer. hearing hears sounds? actually, hearing is only ever sound, never been a hearer. always already so.

thats why realisation is so important, you must see through the delusion that it never was like that
 
its not that you merge fire and burning, its not that you are trying to merge lightning with the flash, its not that you are trying to merge wind with the blowing. it is not that we are trying to merge knower and known. its to realise both are never valid in themselves in the first place, both poles are non-arisen.
as i sent someone a few moments ago:

"like how krodha/kyle dixon described:

"'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness.""
 
 
 
 
------------
 
 
 

    Comments


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    This isn’t dependent arising AFAIK.


    Soh Wei Yu
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland It's related to this part:
    Malcolm Smith
    Malcolm Smith [Participant 1] "The argument from chap 2 depends on natural functions (movement, burning of fire, seeing of the eye, etc.) being predicated on the moment of time which it takes place, and when the non obtaining of time is established it leads to the non happening of the function. This is not justified."
    Why?
    Nāgārjuna shows two things in chapter two, one, he says that if there is a moving mover, this separates the agent from the action, and either the mover is not necessary or the moving is not necessary. It is redundant.
    In common language we oftren saying things like "There is a burning fire." But since that is what a fire is (burning) there is no separate agent which is doing the burning, fire is burning.
    On the other hand, when an action is not performed, no agent of that action can be said to exist. This is why he says "apart from something which has moved and has not moved, there is no moving mover." There is no mover with moving, etc.
    This can be applied to all present tense gerundial agentive constructions, such as I am walking to town, the fire is burning, etc.
    8
    Choosing
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    Choosing
    Choosing

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 13h

    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Like I said, this isn't dependent arising. The nature Nagarjuna is pointing out is not just applicable "to all present tense gerundial agentive constructions"--it's applicable to all causal relations, conceptions of arising, conceptualizations and thought-forms. When the domain of applicability is different like this (from "all present tense gerundial agentive constructions" to "all causal relations, conceptions of arising, conceptualizations and thought-forms"), the understanding must be different, too. Hence why I say, what's being demonstrated here is not dependent arising.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Yes anatta is not the same as the realization of D.O. and non-arising.


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Although the fuel is not what is doing the burning of the fire, fire and fuel are dependent arisings, just like a supposed agent of the action of burning.


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Does that make sense to you?


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Like Malcolm is saying in that comment, the understanding demonstrated here is something dependent on that the constructs under investigation are "agentive constructions". That is a limited understanding, and not a proper understanding of dependent arising.


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Because: "Although the fuel is not what is doing the burning of the fire [i.e. that is not an "agentive construction"], fire and fuel are dependent arisings, just like a supposed agent of the action of burning [which is an agentive construction. Hence the understanding at display here does not comprehend fuel and fire as dependent arising, since these are not agentive constructions, but are instead a different form of conceptualization.]"


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    > fire is just the burning, fire is not 'doing' the burning
    > lightning flash -- lightning is the flasher? no. lightning is just another word for flash. lightning is flashing is just another way of saying 'flashing is happening'.
    > thunder roars -- thunder is the agent of roaring? no. thunder is just roar. wind blows? wind is just blowing. seeing sees scenery? seeing is just colors, no seer. hearing hears sounds? actually, hearing is only ever sound, never been a hearer. always already so.
    The terms of conceptualization must be retained, not removed, if one is to see the dependent arising. Otherwise it's called over-negating. I would never eliminate the agent of roaring or blowing, nor its object, not its action. This would violate the terms of the everyday, and eliminate the possibility of ever grasping emptiness.


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    It is *BECAUSE* these are dependently designated that they are empty. If there would be thunder without an agent, there would be fruit of action without any action done. This is how Nagarjuna explains it.


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    From elsewhere (link below):
    ***
    So, in these texts I see Nagarjuna & Chandrakirti doing something over and over again. Andrè mentioned it:
    > Also mutual dependency - the desirous one requires desire, and vice-versa.
    So on one hand we have things figuring in the texts, like mover and movement, agent and action, seeing and eye, etc. Chandrakirti gives a list:
    > Hypostatizing thought springs from the manifold of named things (prapanca), ie., from the beginninglessly recurring cycle of birth and death, which consists of knowledge and objects of knowledge, words and their meanings, agents and action, means and act, pot and cloth, diadem and chariots, objects and feelings, female and male, gain and loss, happiness and misery, beauty and ugliness, blame and praise.
    There are more than these, and these are not necessarily strict dualities of two; there are also for example trinities, like eye form seeing, mover moved movement, etc.
    On one hand we have these things. They are mentioned in the texts. And I see something happening in the texts: So on one hand we have these things, but then on the other hand it is being "dredged up", explored, exposed, _that these things appear almost as if under the guise of certain mental models or relations_.
    These *relations* are sort of "hidden" and yet they are also in plain sight in the texts. These relations almost aren't really emphasized or made much of, except the whole text is about them.
    The texts explore how, not only are these things (like form, eye, appropriator, agent, etc.) defined by their (let’s call it:) "common characteristics/qualities" (like color, capabilities, and other concepts), _but they are also defined by very important models/modes/relations_. In fact, outside of these relations, _we can't define those things._
    So, for example, not only is a seed something brown, small, round-ish, hard, breakable, etc.,—these are its "common characteristics”…
    … a seed is also dependent on "sprout”—and first of all, a sprout is not precisely the same nor precisely different from a "seed".
    So, the definition of a seed does not only come from ascribing common characteristics like size and hardness and color, but the definition also unavoidably contains some kind of model or relation to something else.
    These models or relations are almost "meta-cognitions”. For example, we have seed and sprout. And when it comes to common characteristics, seed and sprout seem to be independent.
    _But seed and sprout also have a meta-definition as cause and effect._
    Now "cause and effect" is a kind of "abstract relation"—a meta-model almost. We take the cause-and-effect relation and apply it to many things, not just seeds and sprout. This relationship is sort of abstracted or, better yet, "general". I.e., we use this relation not just for seed and sprout, but for all kinds of things.
    And it is *these* relations or meta-models or meta-cognitions, upon which our definitions depend (!), that are as if being dredged up from our mind and investigated in the texts.
    First there is mention of things like seed and sprout. And these have common characteristics, like size, solidity, color, etc.
    But then it is revealed that a definition of something is *in no way* complete or sufficient _without these meta-models_. If we did not cast these things in the relations of these meta-models, then we simply _do not_ get a sufficient definition at all. We *must* account for these meta-models—they are completely required—, but they are at first subconscious.
    Nagarjuna blows through one meta-model or “relational schema” after another, and points out that what characterizes all of these meta-models or relations, is that at least *some* aspect of them always has *reciprocity* or mutuality (or, even, "duality"—but understood in a different way than usual, more as "complementarity”).
    A little side note is that our definitions of things also "interface" or "reflect" with the meta-model that it is placed in.
    For example, an eye can be defined by its characteristics, but at some point we *have* to say that at least *something* that irreducibly, unavoidably makes an eye an eye is that it sees (form). So we have some kind of meta-model or relation *in* the definition of an eye: It acts upon or appropriates an acted-upon or appropriated. And if we took away this *type of relationship* (and it is these various “relationship types” that are being investigated in the texts), we can't define an eye (or form, or self, or...). Some meta-model is actually part of what an eye is; it supplies some necessary section of its definition.
    Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti *extremely strongly* insist on this fact: That we *muuuust* have these relations to define and make sense of things. But after that has been established (that we *must* have/infer/model these relations to define and make sense of things)—and they do this over, and over, and over again; they don't just establish it once, say, at the beginning of the text; instead they insist on it every single time they do any specific reasoning—after it has been established that we must have these relations, they show that *since we need these relations* and *since the relations have an aspect of reciprocity*, therefore things, as defined—and there are no things outside of what they are (ie. outside of definition)—first of all do not have svabhava—does not self-exist—and then therefore are not things to which arising or ceasing, existing or not, nor indeed any other character, is ascribable.
    There are "loose definitions", but the imputation of (independent) existence makes no sense. And the crux is that that sort of reclassifies everything: To be something independently existing is such a *massively* different thing or condition than what it turns out that those things really are—which is peaceful—which we see when we understand the reciprocal aspect of dependent co-arising.


    • Joel Taylor
    Wow, this really turns Krishnamurti's phrase: "The observer is the observed" inside out. I don't know how to describe the experience of that. Maybe "There's no observer and no observed, only observing." but that feels too much.


    • John Tan
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I agree with what u said but the following point needs to be clearer:
    ----->
    "It is *BECAUSE* these are dependently designated that they are empty. If there would be thunder without an agent, there would be fruit of action without any action done. This is how Nagarjuna explains it."
    <-----
    Nagarjuna IS NOT communicating "anatta nor non-inherent understanding" to his opponents. If he is doing that, he would be communicating with his opponents using different language like using japanese language to talk to Indians. Instead, Nagarjuna is using consequential syllogistic reasoning.
    What does this mean? It means he is using inherent pattern of reasoning to demonstrate to his opponents that their inherent logic is untenable and leads to absurd consequences like "cause and effect" can never meet so how do they work (according to opponent's logic and premise)?
    In other words, he is saying to his opponents, if ACCORDING to their inherent pattern of reasoning, "effect happens when cause is not there, then thunder can happen without an agent and fruit of action can be without bearer" -- which is unacceptable to his opponents because their model is based on "agency-action" construction.
    This SHOULDN'T be taken to mean that Nagarjuna is promoting or refuting action without agency. He is simply allowing the opponent to see the consequences of their own logic. From chapter 1-23 of mmk, Nagarjuna is not presenting any view except on chapter 24 onwards.
    Do take not that the above demonstrated consequences is perfectly fine for anyone with anatta insights. If Nagarjuna wants to talk to ppl that base their understandings on anatta and non-inherent existence, then autonomous syllogistic reasoning will be more appropriate.

  • Reply
  • 5h
  • Edited
 

Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post
My Favourite Sutra, Non-Arising and Dependent Origination of Sound

Also see: Non-Arising due to Dependent Origination

Soh Wei Yu

 
Shared with Your friends
As I said before this is like one of my favourite sutra.
Sound is empty and merely designated like chariot, D.O. and empty, has no coming nor going nor a producer, cannot be found in the parts or conditions nor apart from them.
The Bhagavān replied, “Sister, birth does not come from anywhere. Aging does not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, sickness does not come from anywhere. Death does not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, form does not come from anywhere. Sensation, notions, formative factors and consciousness do not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, the earth element does not come from anywhere. The water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element and the element of consciousness do not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, the eye does not come from anywhere. The ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind do not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere.
“Sister, it is as follows: as an analogy, a fire arises based on a stick to rub with, a stick to rub on, and and also a person’s effort to generate it. That fire, moreover, once it has burnt the grass and wood, will have no more causes and will die. Sister, where do you think the fire comes from and where does it go?”
She answered, “O Bhagavān, that fire comes into being owing to the power of a collection of causes. It ceases and dies when it lacks the collection of causes.”
The Bhagavān said, “Sister, likewise, all phenomena [F.311.b] come into being owing to the power of a collection. They cease and die when they lack the collection. Whatever the phenomena, they do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere. Sister, it is as follows: although the eye consciousness arises based upon the eye and form, the eye consciousness does not have a producer, nor anything that makes it cease. Nowhere is it brought together at all. The aggregates do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere. When one has accumulated karma through the conditions of the consciousnesses, the fruits manifest as the results of three types1 in the three realms. That fruit is empty too. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena have stopped due to their very natures.
“Likewise, although the mental consciousness arises based upon the ear and sound, the nose and smell, the tongue and taste, the body and touch, and the mind and phenomena, the mental consciousness2 does not have a producer nor has it anything that makes it cease. Nowhere is it brought together at all.3 The aggregates do not come from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere either. When one has accumulated karma through the condition of mental consciousness, the fruits manifest as the results of three types in the three realms. That fruit is empty too. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena are inherently stopped.
- Mahallikā­paripṛcchā (Toh 171, Degé Kangyur, vol. 59, folios 310.b–314.a.)
“Sister, it is as follows: as an analogy, the sound of a drum arises based on wood, hide and a stick, and also on a person’s effort to make it arise. The past sound of that drum was empty, the future sound will be empty and the sound that arises at present is empty. The sound does not dwell in the wood, neither does it dwell in the hide, nor does it dwell in the stick, nor does it dwell in the person’s hand. However, because of these conditions, it is termed sound. That which is termed sound is also empty. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena are inherently stopped.
“Sister, likewise, all phenomena depend solely on conditions, i.e., ones such as ignorance, craving, karma and consciousness. When these latter phenomena are present, the terms death and birth are designated. [F.312.a] That which is designated death and birth is also empty. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena are inherently stopped.
“Sister, in this way, whoever understands the nature of a drum’s sound well also understands emptiness well. Whoever understands emptiness well, understands nirvāṇa well. Whoever understands nirvāṇa well has no attachment to any entity, and despite designating conventional things with all sorts of terms—‘this is mine,’ or ‘that is me,’ or ‘sentient being,’ or ‘life force,’ or ‘living being,’ or ‘man,’ or ‘person,’ or ‘born of Manu,’ or ‘son of Manu,’ or ‘agent,’ or ‘inciter of action,’ or ‘appropriator,’ or ‘discarder’—he teaches Dharma without attachment to these. He teaches Dharma well. He teaches the final reality. He teaches the final reality well.
- Mahallikā­paripṛcchā (Toh 171, Degé Kangyur, vol. 59, folios 310.b–314.a.)
“Mañjuśrī, whenever not much rain falls from the atmosphere and the sky above, all the sentient beings in Jambūdvīpa think, ‘Here there is not a cloud.’ But when, Mañjuśrī, a lot of rain falls on the great earth from the atmosphere and the sky above, they say: ‘Oh, a great cloud [F.282.b] is pouring down water, satisfying the great earth.’
“However, Mañjuśrī, when this happens there is neither a cloud, nor anything that can be designated as a cloud. Mañjuśrī, a large mass of water is generated by the wind, and then it falls from the atmosphere above. Mañjuśrī, the mass of water disappears in the atmosphere itself, due to the ripening of sentient beings’ previous karma. [42]
“Mañjuśrī, that cumulus of water above in the atmosphere, stirred by the wind and releasing water, is designated a cloud due to the maturation of sentient beings’ previous karma. However, Mañjuśrī, no cloud can be found there, nor anything that could be designated a cloud. Mañjuśrī, the cloud is non-arisen and non-ceasing; it does not enter the way of mind, and it is free from coming and going.
“In the same way, Mañjuśrī, for bodhisattva great beings who have accumulated previous roots of what is wholesome; for other sentient beings who wish for the awareness of a hearer or a pratyekabuddha; and for those sentient beings who have accumulated roots of what is wholesome and possess the causes to be shown the path to nirvāṇa, the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha with unobstructed brilliance comes to be counted as arisen in the world.
“Whatever he says is thus (tathā), undistorted, thus and not otherwise. Therefore, he was given the name Tathāgata among gods and men. [44] Mañjuśrī, this word appears among gods and men: Tathāgata. However, Mañjuśrī, there is no Tathāgata to be found. The Tathāgata, Mañjuśrī, is not a sign, and he is free from signs. [F.283.a] He is not placed in any of the primary or intermediate directions. He is unreal, non-arisen, and non-ceasing.
“On the other hand, Mañjuśrī, the appearance of the Tathāgata satisfies and entertains this world, including the gods, through the Dharma. And then, due to the ripening of previous karma of beginner bodhisattvas and immature, ordinary people who are guided by means of nirvāṇa, it appears that the Tathāgata is no more to be seen. They think, ‘The Tathāgata has passed into complete nirvāṇa.’ However, Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata neither arises nor ceases. The Tathāgata, Mañjuśrī, is non-arisen and non-ceasing. Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha is primordially in complete nirvāṇa.
“Mañjuśrī, when some water is taken as a point of reference for an unreal cloud that has not arisen nor ceased, and is non-existent, the designation ‘cloud’ is established in the world. In the very same way, Mañjuśrī, when the teaching of the Dharma is taken as a point of reference for an unreal tathāgata who has not arisen nor ceased, and who is non-existent and primordially unborn, the designation ‘the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha’ becomes established in the world. [46]
- The Ornament of the Light of Awareness that Enters the Domain of All Buddhas (Toh 100, Degé Kangyur, vol. 47, folios 276.a–305.a.)
Labels: Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Mahayana, Non-Arising |
 
Comments

  • Yin Ling
    Oh this is so good!


    • André A. Pais
    I'm reminded of Stian's "knock-sound" experiment. Knocking on the table, sound appears: but where is it?
    Is it in the fingers? In the wood? In the air? In the eardrum or the mind? Is it in the space accommodating all this? In the temporal series expressing this activity?
    Sound is nowhere to be found, and yet it is vividly present. It lies not in any of the individual conditions, but if a single one of them is removed, sound does not manifest. It arises from nothing in specific, and yet it exists inseparable from all. Ultimately, the whole universe is embodied in this knock-sound movement, but in the whole universe never is it found.
    It's like the fresh-looking water in a mirage. It is so obviously there - a tired wanderer will spend his last sliver of energy dragging his hurt feet over burning sand to taste that deliciously-looking water. And yet, there is not one atom's worth of water in the mirage.
    The absolute absence of water is perfectly aligned with and inseparable from the appearance of fresh and vibrant water. The emptiness of water is none other than the form of water.
    Sound is like the water in a mirage. It is as gloriously present as it is unfathomably absent. It is the entire field of causes and conditions, stretching all space and time, and yet magically abiding and resting nowhere.
    All causes and conditions are like this. All effects. All reality - space, time, self, other, mind, matter, world. All is gloriously present, vibrant and poignant; all is mysteriously absent, unfindable and ungraspable.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    If im not wrong, i think i made a small donation to 84000 because of this sutra some years back







    • Soh Wei Yu

     
    Shared with Your friends

    Yin Ling

     
    Dependent arising and non-arising.
    .. Is a most important concept in Buddhism to understand. The nature of all “things” or mind can be understood only when we understand non-arising.
    Most when explain dependent origination, or dependent arising, explain the contributions of causes and conditions, parts, towards the EXISTENCE of a whole, towards the existence of an inherent event. They still see the whole car 🚗 , they still see the whole person, with an essence, with a core. That is still not good enough.
    This is just the very start and basic teaching of understanding causes and conditions, but not yet the true intent of the Blessed one.
    This way of seeing essence / existence also reflects the deep grasping of our mind on Inherency, our minds always to want to pin something down, have something to wrap around, to solidify. Can you feel that tendency? The propensity of wanting to see the existence of a whole is so hypnotising… so much so that we are not able to be freed of the root that propels our cyclic existence - the grasping mind onto Inherency- that is the root.
    Also, Understanding dependent arising this way, we will not be able to transcend birth and death. We won’t be able to explain rebirth clearly. There will be contradictions in our thought process.
    However, if one understands when a thing is dependent on causes and conditions, on parts, on the consciousness that apprehends and conceptualises it, when that “thing” is shred to pieces like that, there is no one true thing there
    with an ESSENCE, there is no true arising.
    There is only a coreless appearance.
    Like a hologram.
    No essence. Nothing to grasp.
    This is what is meant by “non-arising”.
    It is the true meaning of dependent origination.
    It is emptiness.
    There is Not an inherent thing, not an inherent process, not an inherent mind, not an inherent world, nothing inherent, only dependent arising.
    When we see clearly like that, our mind has nothing to wrap around, our mind cannot pin something down..
    When asked, where is the car? The mind is stunted by this question because if it looks, it cannot pin “CAR” in its part, in the ppl who make the car, or even in the consciousness that apprehend it. Where is the car?
    Understanding dependent arising or dependent origination this way,
    from there we can see non-arising,
    Hence non-abiding
    And non-cessation.
    What is there to arise, abide or cease?
    Then one can understand the heart sutra’s intent of “all dharmas are empty, there is no birth, no death, no stain, no stainlessness, no increase, no decrease”. （是诸法空相，不生不灭，不垢不净，不增不减）
    You will also understand why the 6th patriarch Hui Neng in his reply poem says :
    ”There is nothing truly there,
    Where can dust alight?”
    (本来无一物，何处惹尘埃）
    You will be able to understand Nargajuna 8 negations dedicatory verses to the Buddha in his monumental “Fundamental wisdom of the middle way”:
    I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
    The best of teachers,
    who taught that
    Whatever is dependently arisen is
    Unceasing, unborn,
    Unannihilated, not permanent,
    Not coming, not going,
    Without distinction, without identity,
    And free from conceptual construction.
    Then you can understand Tsongkhapa’s 3 principle of the path , his saying about one’s analysis is only complete after one sees both dependent origination and emptiness as complementary and not separate.
    Then there is no separate 2 truths.
    And we understand nature of reality. Just that.
    And you will eventually with repetitive seeing sees nirvana, unleash the mind from many lifetimes of grasping to true existence , and stop suffering so much 🙏🏻
    May all sincere practitioners be able to see clearly with wisdom and liberate. 🙏🏻
    Labels: , , 0 comments | | edit post