Showing posts with label Emptiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emptiness. Show all posts

 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 strawman stereotyping a group of practitioners attaching to mind as real.



—-


Therefore there r 2 parts:

1.  Understand and clearly see how the conceptual conventions confused the mind.


2.  Directly experiencing appearances as one's radiance


But some masters can see 1 yet the path they teach can't match with 2.


While other masters try to teach 2 but their view cannot doesn't match.


This is most problematic.



—-


Yes what x said is good.


What originates dependently does not originate, abide and cease. Neither internal nor external nor is there a here and now. This must be directly linked to what appears and not as a mental enterprise. 


So in anatta, 

there is no hearer, only sound.

there is no thinker, only thoughts.

Sound is neither internal in our head nor external in the world.

Thought is also not inside our head nor is it outside our head.

The spell from our faulty premise creates that impression,

Freedom of that is liberation.


If she stabilises this experience of essencelessness post anatta, the radiance will turn very soothing, very light and transparent; like space, free and liberating. Appearances turn illusory and magical, joy will keep surfacing in every authentication. Her clogged energy will surely be released.😁



——


Actually after authenticating appearances r radiances, I see the next most important step is to arise insight of DO and emptiness.  It is a sort of special insight that sees the "middle path" and we use this insight to re-orientate our conventional world view and understand  8 extremes do not apply.



——


I shared this with someone recently 


“Even when all is mind is taught, it was not asserted by the Buddha that such a mind is a universal mind or a truly existing mind. Mind is empty of mind, this too was clearly taught by the Buddha. 

 

Therefore as Mipham wrote and criticised self-styled followers who misinterpreted the Yogacara founder Asangha:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/iyepfk/madhyamaka_cittamātra_and_the_true_intent_of/ (highly recommend to read the whole text in full)


...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...


...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this...

 

Some quotes by Acarya Malcolm Smith from Dharmawheel on Conventional vs Ultimate Truth


Malcolm: 


"“Conventional” simply means “functional,” it does not mean arbitrary or subjective. For example, perceiving water as amṛta, pus, boiling metal, etc., is invalid in the human realm.


One can build many kinds of cars, but if they don’t function as cars, they are not cars, conventionally speaking."


"No, conventions are not subjective, they are conventions because one or more people have agreed to call a functional thing a given name. For example, a truck is called a lorry in England, but they both refer to a heavy vehicle that carries loads."


"Conventional truths are derived from observing functional appearances. Falsehoods are derived from observing nonfunctional appearances. Example, lake vs. mirage."


"No, it is not more correct to say consciousness arises or ceases than a labelled self, a since consciousness is also a conventional label, like the label "self." Prior to analysis there is both a self, akuppa, and a consciousness. After analysis one will find neither self nor consciousness, beyond the designations "akuppa" and "consciousness." For example, take a car as a metaphor for "self". A car cannot be found in any part, all of its parts, or separate from its parts. Likewise, as self cannot be found in any aggregates, all of the aggregates, or apart from the aggregates. Likewise, consciousness cannot be found in the sense organ nor the sense object, both, or separate from them. The mind is also made of parts, and cannot be found in one of them, all of them, or separate from them.


Functionally speaking, we can say there is a self, because when I say "akuppa go there!" You will respond to this directive by saying yes or no. This means that "self" is functional. It is efficient. Whatever is functional corresponds with relative truth. If I said to you, "Malcolm go there!" you would respond, "I am not Malcolm." So calling you "malcolm" is not functional and therefore cannot be considered to be relatively true. Consciousness is a relative truth, as long as it performs its functions, then we can say "there is a consciousness." But when we analyze consciousness, we cannot find it outside of the conventions we use for an appearance we label "mind.""


"Two truths are specified, seeing correctly and seeing falsely. That’s enough. No need to have the Buddha declare that aggregates and so on are ultimate, otherwise it would have been game over for Madhyamaka at the beginning."


"Which Sutra view did you have in mind, the one where in PP Sūtra it is stated that all phenomena are nonarising, pure from the beginning, and the state of dharmatā? The dependent origination of phenomena? Emptiness? In what way does Dzogchen refute these views? We do not reject conventional truth in Dzogchen. Longchenpa was utterly clear on this point.


ChNN understood what is stated in the Dzogchen tantras: we do not make a distinction between sharp and dull. If someone is sincerely interested in the teachings, they do not have to convert to Buddhism, but it is not because Buddhism contains any wrong views. It does not. There is no contradiction between Dzogchen and the four truths of nobles. There are serious contradictions however with Samkhya, etc."


"This is not correct. There is such as thing as mundane correct view. A correct view in this case is one that is functional. For example, believing in normative causes and effects. We have to distinguish wrong views about entities from wrong views about essences. Christians have wrong views about both essences and entities, since they believe salvation comes from believing in the divinity of a man executed by Romans somewhere between 30-33 CE.


Buddhists only hold wrong views about essences, i.e. that knowledge obscuration of the innate habit of I-making."

 


ChatGPT: Imagine an image that captures the essence of Nagarjuna's philosophy from the Mulamadhyamikakarika, focusing on the concepts of dependent origination, emptiness, and the freedom from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This image could feature a serene, vast landscape under a twilight sky, symbolizing the transition from dualities into the unity of understanding. In the center, a single, leafless tree stands, representing emptiness and the interconnectedness of all things through its roots and branches, illustrating the principle of dependent origination. The tree is neither fully lit nor completely in shadow, embodying the middle way and the avoidance of extremes. This tranquil scene captures the profound simplicity and depth of Nagarjuna's teachings, emphasizing the peace found in understanding the nature of reality beyond dichotomies.

Here's a simpler image that embodies Nagarjuna's teachings on dependent origination, emptiness, and the middle way, capturing the essence of finding peace beyond the extremes of existence and non-existence.


Recently John Tan asked me to recall when did I realise that 'self' is a learnt and reified concept. Wanted to mention that this is an important point and even in initial anatta breakthrough it is usually unclear at first. It comes as a deepening of insight.
Soh:
At the I AM level, the personal ego is [seen to be] “learnt” and dropped.. but all self/Self is only seen through and dropped at anatta
John Tan:
I don't think this is true. Think deeper, recall.
U must understand that u can enquiry "who am I" and search for "I", u can have experience of "I M" or even experience no-mind, or even realized that "I" does not exist, but still not realized that "I" is a reified concept.
Soh:
Hmm.. “I” as reified concept probably becomes clearer as i contemplated more on emptiness. But even in the initial bahiya sutta realization, there was a recognition that the sense of a seer or a seeing or awareness behind or beside manifestation is a reified concept that is wrong
That it is imagined and abstracted out of manifestation due to false view and then anatta is immediately authenticated as luminous manifestation and realised as always already so. Seeing is only ever the seen and no other seer beside, in the seen only the seen. Like putting on glasses and vision is corrected finally
....
(later)
I just recalled i had a deeper understanding about nine months after anatta
Then i wrote:
The View
Just posted in The Tao Bums a week ago:
I have just come to a new realisation of the implications of views in daily life. I could have misunderstood what goldisheavy meant but I think it has to do with the fields of meaning. I have realised how ideas, beliefs, notions, views pervade our life and causes attachment.
I now see that every single attachment is an attachment to view, which, no matter what it is, comes to two basic clinging: the view 'there is' and the view 'there isn't'.
I started by noticing how in the past I had a sense of self, body and awareness... That these all seem so real to me and I kept coming back to that subjective sense and this is no longer the case now: I don't even have a sense of a body nowadays. Then I realized that all these clingings are related to view.
The view of There is.... Self, body, mind, awareness, world, whatever. Because of this clinging on to things as existent, they appear real to us and we cling to them. The only way to eradicate such clingings is to remove the root of clinging: the view of 'there is' and 'there isn't'.
The realization of anatta removes the view of 'there is self', 'there is awareness' as an independent and permanent essence. Basically, any views about a subjective self is removed through the insight that "seeing is just the seen", the subject is always only its objective constituents. There is no more sense of self, body, awareness, or more precisely there is no clinging to a "there is" with regards to such labels. It is seen that these are entirely ungraspable processes. In short the clinging and constant referencing to an awareness, a self dissolves, due to the notion "there is" such things are being eradicated.
The realization of dream-like reality removes the view of 'there are objects', the universe, the world of things... One realizes what heart sutra meant by no five skandhas. This is basically the same realization as anatta, except that it impacts the view "there is" and "there isn't" in terms of the objective pole, in contrast to the earlier insight that dissolves "there is" of a subjective self.
What I have overlooked all these while is the implications of views and how the thicket of views cause all clingings and suffering and what underpins those thicket of views, and how realization affects and dissolves these views.
----------
Related stuff:
A view is a fundamental belief one holds about reality. For example, "everything exists" (sarva asti)
....
The root of both these mistaken positions is "is" and "is not" -- for example "I exist now, and I will continue to exist after death" or "I exist now but when I die I will cease to exist".
~ Loppon Namdrol (Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith)
At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:
"Form is similar to a foam,
Feeling is like water bubbles,
Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,
Formations are similar with a banana tree,
Consciousness is like an illusion."
...
"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."
~ Loppon Namdrol (Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith)
Another related article from an Actualist practitioner: http://nickdowntherabbithole.blogspot.com/.../conversatio...
Labels: Anatta, Emptiness, View and Path |
John Tan:
👍
So u must understand the difference.
All reactions:
Vũ Huy Lê and Cao Khánh
1 comment
Like
Comment
Send
Cao Khánh
Top Contributor
Thank you for sharing. It’s inspiring to me that you continue to learn from John’s pointer throughout all these years and continue to do so earnestly.