Showing posts with label Yogacara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Yogacara. Show all posts
Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism


John Tan commented "This article is very well written and yogacara never really explicitly said that mind is ultimate.  This idea privileging mind as ultimate over the relative phenomena was a later development."
 
 
Kyle Dixon sent me:














Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism

Submitted 21 hours ago by nyanasagaramahayana

It is not existent nor nonexistent, not the same nor different;

Not produced nor destroyed, it will not diminish

Nor increase; it cannot be purified

Yet becomes perfectly pure—these are the characteristics of the ultimate.

Ornament of the Scriptures of the Great Vehicle, Maitreya, recited to Asaṅga

Mipham Comments:

According to the Mādhyamikas, it is not that all the phenomena that appear through the power of dependent arising are not existent on the relative, conventional level, nor that they are existent on the ultimate level; nor even that they are both existent and nonexistent. On the ultimate level, nonexistence is the true nature of phenomena that exist conventionally. So, apart from simply being distinguished by name, these two do not, in fact, exist as two distinct entities: they are like fire and its heat, or molasses and its sweetness. Could there, then, be a third possibility—that thatness is something that is neither existent on the relative level nor nonexistent on the ultimate level? No. There is no valid means of cognition that provides a proof for a third alternative that is neither a phenomenon nor an empty true nature. Such a third possibility could never be the intrinsic or true nature of conventional phenomena. The Mādhyamikas thus assert freedom from the four extremes (existence, nonexistence, both, and neither), freedom from all conceptual elaboration, the inseparability of the two truths—the inseparability of phenomena and their true nature—which has to be realized personally. This true nature free from conceptual elaboration is always the same in being devoid of production, destruction, diminution, and expansion. It has not as much as an atom’s worth of the characteristics of dualistic phenomena such as purity and impurity.

Now, the Cittamātra approach speaks of all phenomena being nothing other than simply the appearances of the mind, and it asserts that only the clear and aware consciousness of the dependent reality, the basis of perception, exists substantially. If the Cittamātrins’ final standpoint is the assertion that this consciousness is only a substantially existent entity inasmuch as it is the cause for all conventional phenomena appearing, and that apart from this assertion they are not claiming that it exists substantially as a truly existing entity in ultimate truth, then they are not at all in contradiction with the Mādhyamika tradition. On the other hand, if they were to assert that it is truly existent in ultimate truth, they would be contradicting the Mādhyamika approach. It seems, therefore, that it is just this particular point that needs to be examined as a source of contention (or otherwise) for the Mādhyamikas.

In the cycle of teachings of Maitreya and the writings of the great charioteer Asaṅga, whose thinking is one and the same, it is taught that individuals on the level of earnest aspiration first understand that all phenomena are simply the mind. Subsequently they have the experience that there is no object to be apprehended in the mind. Then, at the stage of the supreme mundane level on the path of joining, they realize that because there is no object, neither is there a subject, and immediately after that, they attain the first level with the direct realization of the truth of ultimate reality devoid of the duality of subject and object. As for things being only the mind, the source of the dualistic perception of things appearing as environment, sense objects, and a body is the consciousness of the ground of all, which is accepted as existing substantially on the conventional level but is taught as being like a magical illusion and so on since it appears in a variety of ways while not existing dualistically. For this reason, because this tradition realizes, perfectly correctly, that the nondual consciousness is devoid of any truly existing entities and of characteristics, the ultimate intentions of the charioteers of Madhyamaka and Cittamātra should be considered as being in agreement.

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.

Because of the mind, the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise; if there were no mind, there would be no saṃsāra and no nirvāṇa. How? It is by the power of the mind that defilements create karma, subsequently producing the process of defilement that is saṃsāra. And it is with the mind that one gives rise to the wisdom of the realization of no-self and to compassion, practices the Mahāyāna path, and thereby achieves buddhahood, whose nature is the five kinds of gnosis, the transformation of the eight consciousnesses, and the ground of all. It is with the mind, too, that the listeners and solitary realizers realize the no-self of the individual and attain nirvāṇa, beyond the suffering of grasping at existence. So the roots of defilement and purity depend on the mind. Anyone who is a Buddhist has to accept this.

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. If there were no reflexively aware gnosis, or mind of clear light, it would be impossible for there to be a mind that realizes the truth of the ultimate reality on the path of learning; and at the time of the path of no more learning, the nirvāṇa without residue, the Buddha would have no omniscient gnosis. And in that case there would be no difference between the Buddha’s nirvāṇa and the nirvāṇa of the lower vehicles, which is like the extinction of a lamp, so how could one talk about the Buddha’s bodies (kāyas), different kinds of gnosis, and inexhaustible activities?

To sum up, thatness, which is the actual condition of all phenomena, is the completely unbiased union of appearance and emptiness, to be realized personally. If one realizes that it never changes in any situation, whether in the ground, path, or result, one will be saved from the abyss of unwholesome, extremist views.

4 commentssharesavehidereport
Labels: , , , , 0 comments | | edit post
1-3 第一義諦(8)(繁)
Labels: , , , 0 comments | | edit post
Chittamatra vs Madhyamika

Very good summary by Jared K Jones

-----------

To pull this out of a subthread from a different forum. My main teacher has an extensive background in the Zen tradition of Dogen (about 50 years), as well as 30 years in the Gelugpa and Tibetan Tantric traditions. So, what's the difference between Chittamatra and Madhyamika?

Within the Mahayana traditions of Asia, they are dominated by the writings of two main schools of thought - both originating in the Suttas and Sutras, but fully fleshed out in the 1st and 2nd century - Chittamatra and Madhyamika.

Chittamatra was enumerated by Vasubandhu, Asanga, Dignaga, and others and the Madhyamika was enumerated by Nagarjuna, Bhavaviveka, Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, and others. Wikipedia has a pretty good record of the dates and major works of these yogi-scholars if you'd like to read their works.

Chittamatra said that the best method for getting at Emptiness (Sunyata) was to realize the conventional nature of mind: the non-duality of ”everything that appears in perception” with “the six senses.” In other words, the notion and direct perception that a sound, for example, only occurs when a valid basis (vibration in the air) meets a functioning organ (ear), and that gives rise to a consciousness (sound-consciousness).

The object, sense organ, and mind form one inseparable system. If you take away any component in the system, then nothing happens - no minds, no organs, and no objects. Hence, when a tree falls in the forest, no sound occurs if no ear organ and no sound-consciousness are present. Also, the mind is the aspect of reality providing identity, characteristics, and relationships to objects. So, mind plays a central creative role in your experience.

Like that, the early writers and commentators of Chittamatra said that it is okay to see mind (Awareness) as self-existent for a while because you are deconstructing everything else that appears. You are seeing the emptiness of all appearances.

At some point, seeing that all appearances are empty, you will also see that "that to which appearances appear" is also empty. The emptiness of awareness is your tathagatagarbha, your true nature, your Buddha nature, and the “face before you were born.” This is not mystical, nor paradoxical. It’s simply applying emptiness to the creative center of all experience: mind, cognition, awareness, knowing, or consciousness.

Ven. Dignaga uses various types of introspective-epistemological analysis to help get at emptiness. For example, he famously introduced the idea of Universals Vs. Specifics to the Buddhist discourse:

1. A word is a "Universal" because it applies to a universal category of things: "cow."

2. A specific instance of "cow" looks nothing like any other cow. When you look closely, each perception is utterly unique.

3. Not only that, what appears to your senses is constantly changing from moment to moment, so it can't even be called "self-similar" from one moment to the next (much less similar to other cows).

4. Further, you can't explain or make known the color of an orange to a blind man. Perceptions are actually utterly ineffable. What you perceive cannot be put into words.

5. Therefore, all language is inferential. The word and object have no fixed relationship. Words are learned and have an ambiguous relationship with objects of experience.

6. The word does not resemble nor infuse the perception with any new properties when applied to the perception. For example, the "chair" of a company does not resemble a chair nor is he or she infused with "chairness" when validly called a chair.

7. Words do not make know either specific instances nor universal categories. When you say "chair" you do not become aware of all chairs in the universe, nor do you become aware of all of the properties of any specific object.

8. Based upon all of this, how could the current object of perception be a chair or a cow in and of itself? Look at it - it's just the useful or utilitarian play of mind: we call an utterly unique, ineffable, unbounded, and constantly changing set of phenomena “a table” for a practical purpose - holding up our coffee mug.

Because objects aren't self-established, the subject also isn't self-established. The knower doesn't exist without the known. Awareness is always "awareness of" and never just "awareness." Therefore, consciousness is also interdependently arisen and empty of inherent existence. However, if you stop the process of non-dual inquiry too soon, you will arrive at an "Awareness-All-There-Isness" or a "Mind-Only" position. So, this is a big danger within the Chittamatra approach.

You see this error in the writings of many Zen adepts. The “Big Self,” the “Real Self,” ”You are the drop experiencing itself as the Ocean,” and “the Oneness” are nothing other than falling into the trap that Awareness gives rise to the universe, and therefore, Mind is all that exists. You are just making “I/mine” more subtle, without removing ignorance from the root. However, there is less chance of becoming a Nihilist with this approach.

Madhyamika comes in two main flavors - Svatantrika and Prasangika. Their pedagogies for getting at Emptiness/Sunyata involve logically deconstructing the various components or arrangements of phenomenon: parts-whole, one-many, cause-effect, and so on. The Svatantrika mainly uses syllogisms (If A = B then C) and posits that phenomena have "characteristic marks" or defining features prior to mental designation - i.e. dependent designation or prajñaptir upādāya.

Prasangika uses mainly reductio ad absurdum (logical consequences) to show that holding essentialist viewpoints always leads to logical impossibilities. For example, if you think the tree is permanent, then it must be unchanging. If it’s unchanging, then it can’t interact with light and appear to your eye consciousness. Therefore, if trees were permanent, they would be invisible.

Prasangikas also refute that phenomena have any defining features, properties, or characteristics whatsoever - they are utterly empty of self, at all levels. The most famous of the reductio-consequentialist masters is Ven. Nagarjuna. His most well-known quote is found at the beginning of the Mulamadyamikakarika - the Four Diamond Slivers (Nagarjuna's Tetralemma):

"Not from self,
Not from other,
Not from both,
Not without a cause (neither),
Does anything, anywhere, whatever arise."

He then goes on to extensively refute each of the four ways something might inherently arise by using the absurd logical consequences for each mode of inherent cause-and-effect: self, other, both, and neither. To take a practical example of how the Prasangika approach works, look at the below:

1. The chair is not something which pervades.
2. The chair is not among.
3. The chair is not the collection.
4. The chair is not outside the chair.

>If the chair pervades all the parts of the object, then we should have as many chairs as there are parts. If we cut it in half, we should have two chairs. This contradicts ordinary perception, so the thesis fails.

>If the chair is among the parts of the chair, we should be able to eliminate all the other parts and still have a chair. This contradicts ordinary perception, so the thesis fails.

>If the chair was all these parts collected together, then there could only be one chair in the world. Not only that, if it lost even a single atom, the chair should go out of existence. This contradicts ordinary perception, so the thesis fails.

>If the chair were outside the chair, then chairs should pop into and out of existence all over the place without reason and without relying upon parts. This contradicts ordinary perception, so the thesis fails. Like that, consequences are presented as refutations.

Prasangika posits full emptiness, in which all phenomena are empty of self at all possible levels: no inherent characteristics, no inherent absences, no inherent awareness, etc. To find a corollary in the Suttas, look up the Suñña Sutta. This is not unique to the Mahayana nor a fabrication of the minds of later Mahayana thinkers:


Like that, Madhyamika does not rely on recognizing the conventional nature of mind to give practitioners access to emptiness, and it does not have the danger of "Mind-Only" essentialism. On the other hand, it has a heavier danger of ontological, functional, and teleological Nihilism: you may wrongly decide that nothing exists; if you think things exist, you might wrongly think they exist but do not have any function; if they exist and function, you might wrongly feel they have no meaning or purpose.

You see this with many bad Tibetan Buddhists who turn emptiness into post-modernism or moral relativism, and then makes statements like, “Buddhism means you hold no views whatsoever, and you get to ‘skillfully’ do whatever you want. Nothing matters.” I see this a lot within bad Dzogchen, especially on the internet. This destroys the path and is vigorously refuted by all the great masters. This is a big danger with the Madhyamika approach, but there is less chance of becoming a Mind-Only essentialist.

I hope this helps - Ven. Mahasiddha Tilopa’s necklace pictured below.
 
 
Labels: , , , , 4 comments | | edit post
Vijñaptimātra: Mind Only a Guide to Freedom from Duality

  1. Bj2Fo0vCcx.jpg

    Vijñaptimātra: Mind Only a Guide to Freedom from Duality
    By
    Mausham Ratna Shakya


    The article is based on the Twenty and Thirty Stanzas composed by the famous scholar, master Vashubandu. It was composed around 4th century A.D. the Stanzas are so profound that each and every stanzas can be studied in very deep level and it clarifies various misinterpretations regarding various concepts. Almost all the scholars have similar agreement that this composition is a base of Yogācārā School.
    Three are many scholars like A. K. Chatterjee, C.D. Sharma, T.R.V. Murti, S.N. Dasgupta etc. who have described the compositions as a system of Absolute Idealism, Spiritual Monism or as Metaphysical Idealism similar to Vedānta School[1].
    Other group of scholars like Stefen Anaker, Thomas A. Kochomuttom, and William Waldren etc. described as according to Buddhist line as Doctrine of Experience, Realistic Pluralism, System of Mind and Metal factors, approach to Phenomenology etc[2].
    Yes there are also some passages which can be apparently interpret according to the previous one as Idealism and so on but if one goes throughout, it’s easy to establish the Buddhist doctrine which defers any kind of extreme views.
    Understanding the vastness of the composition and respecting them I would like to present it as a guide to freedom from duality, which I think is a very need of every individual who is interested in Buddhist studies. Also I am trying to simplify the presentation so that one can easily understand the most controversial and confused doctrine in the Buddhist Schools.

    Duality/Non-Duality

    Duality, is a difference between self /other, mind/body, male/female, good/evil, active/passive etc. it is a main cause of suffering and bondage and Non-duality is a understanding, realizing the duality are illusory experience a freedom and happiness[3]. All schools of Buddhism teach No-Self (Pali anatta, Sanskrit anātman). Non-Self in Buddhism is the Non-Duality of Subject and Object, which is very explicitly stated by the Buddha in verses such as “In seeing, there is just seeing. No seer and nothing seen. In hearing, there is just hearing. No hearer and nothing heard.[4]” (Bahiya Sutta, Udana 1.10). Non-Duality in Buddhism does not constitute merging with a supreme Brahman, but realizing that the duality of a self/subject/agent/watcher/doer in relation to the object/world is an illusion.

    Description of Duality and Non-Duality in Vijñaptimātra

    Vijñaptimātra is a doctrine of mind only, also synonymously chittamātra, cognition only, representation of mind only which describes the nature of mind and phenomena, according to relative existential dualistic approach and it reality as non-dualistic approach. To be clear more I would like to go little bit deeper into mind and phenomena. Normally regarding mind we feel and realize the six consciousnesses related to six sense organs and feeling of ‘I’ as a mind. And phenomena as the physical world and metaphysical world beyond this Physical world, which is partially true and Vashubandhu also agrees upon that but he also clarifies more profoundly which eliminates the duality of mind and phenomena.

    Analysis of Mind

    Vashubandhu presents the theory of eight consciousnesses to better and easily understand the theory of chitta and chaitasika and its which are mainly dealt under Abhidharma doctrine. According to Thirty Stanzas Trimshatikā eight consciousnesses are detailed in three categories they are;[5]
    1. Six consciousness
    2. Mano, “I” consciousness
    3. Alaya, store house consciousness
    Modern psychological systems also deal consciousness as (1) conscious mind, (2) Subconscious mind and (3) Unconscious mind. The old psychological systems emphasis the outer factors as major stimuli but after 1960 the development of cognitive science gave boost to the consciousness as the main factor. Recent outputs of cognitive science on consciousness are interestingly similar to the theory of Vasubandhu in Trimshatikā.
    As Buddhist system doesn’t believe in any self as permanent existence but in mind, which is always changing and not findable. All the schools of Buddhism describes mind as a process. Similarly, Vasubandhu presents the transformation of mind in various levels and its function. He used the term consciousness for mind and its transformation into the three different modes of consciousness. They are (1) Six consciousness also known as Pravritti consciousness i.e. active consciousness associated with Six sense organs. (2) Mano, “I” consciousness also known as Klista manana consiouness or Defiled consciousness i.e. thought of “I” consciousness and (3) Ālaya consciousness also known as store consciousness[6].
    According to Vasubandhu until the state of enlightenment the function of consciousness functions as imaginary experiences, which are the projection of the mind only. For clear view the three consciousnesses are analyzed below;

    1) Pravritti Vijñāna ( Six Sense Consciousness )

    Six consciousnesses are associated with six sense organs they are 1) Eye 2) Ear 3) Nose 4) Tongue 5) Body and 6) Mind. The six consciousnesses are thus called 1) Eye consciousness 2) Ear consciousness 3) Nose consciousness 4) Tongue consciousness 5) Body consciousness and 6) Mind consciousness. The six consciousnesses is a process of knowing process of objects related to the six organs and it is always changing and becomes a different experience in every moments[7].

    2) Klista Manana Vijñāna (Defiled “I” consciousness)

    This consciousness depends on Ālaya Vijñāna (Store-consciousness), which is associated with four defilements. They are 1) belief in self (Ātma-dristi) 2) ignorance about self (Ātma-moha) 3) Pride in self (Ātma-māna) and 4) Love of self (Ātma-sneha). It is also associated with Touch (sparsa), Attentiveness (manskara), Knowledge (Vit), Conceptions (sanjñā) and Volition (cetanā) with dualistic notion of self and others[8].

    3) Ālaya Vijñāna (store-consciousness)

    Ālaya Vijñāna (store-consciousness) is the individual consciousness which carries within it he seeds of all past experience. It has within itself the representation of consciousness of unknown objects and places; it is like a torrent of water. Just as torrent of water carries whatever comes in its way similarly, Ālaya Vijñāna carries seeds of past experience as well as seeds of new experiences, this function ceases and become inactive in the attainment of Arhatva. It is invariably associated with the experiential categories such as touch, attentiveness, knowledge, conception, volition and feeling, because it’s like a torrent of water it is also described as undefined, subliminal, etc.
    Ālaya Vijñāna continues from birth to birth. The extermination or exhaustion of Ālaya Vijñāna means the end of the present life but it can result either in Nirvāna or another birth in samsāra[9].

    Analysis of Phenomena

    Dharma Nairātmaya is the scheme of non-substantiality of objects and objectivity. Modern scholars of different schools tries to establish the existence of phenomena as the real existing thing, similarly some philosophical schools like Vaishesika argues and tried to establish the existential nature of objects and objectivity with references to the theory of atom. They just accepted that objects and its experience are due to aggregates of atoms[10]. According to Vashubandhu if the causes of experience are due to atom then the reality could be conceived either as a single entity or as many discrete atoms, or aggregates of atom. Here Vashubandhu finds the very concept of atom is contradictory[11]. An atom by definition is an indivisible unit and therefore cannot have parts or extensions. If however the world is composed of such indivisible, part less and extension less units or if the earth were a single unit, there would be no progressive movement and just one step would cover the entire earth. There would be no simultaneous grasping and non-grasping, because if anything is grasped at all, it would amount to grasping the entire world; there would be no discrete states of many beings, because all of them would be occupying the only single unit of space available; there would be no subtle and invisible beings, because all beings being equal size there would be no point in distinguishing between visible and invisible beings[12].
    Vashubandhu emphasis that the world is composed of atoms is only a conceptual image of the world. Such a conceptual image does not guarantee that the world in reality is composed of atoms because this position involves self-contradiction due to the smallest particle must have six parts. This does not, however, in any case mean that the word is non-existent. It means only that ordinary human conception is inadequate to reach the world as it is. which is known only to the enlightened ones.
    Also there are other group trying to establish the existence of the phenomena through theory of time and space, here Vashubandu says time and space are also active in dream state but no one can claim dream exists.
    Vashubandhu’s view of phenomena can be described according to his theoretical explanation of the doctrine of three natures. They are: 1. Parikalpita 2. Paratantra 3. Parinishpanna. The explanation is more based on experience rather than intellectual, every one can stand himself or herself as a model to verify the nature of phenomena as above three categories. The three natures are presented in very detail in A Treatise on three natures Trisvabhāva-Nirdesh, also in Thirty Stanzas, Trimshatikā. The Parikalpita nature is also described in Twenty Stanzas, Vimshatikā.

    Parikalpita nature

    The imagined nature of reality is related to the creation and projection of the forms other than the object itself like in dream[13]. These forms may refer to anything external or internal, falling within the sphere of experience. They are not the things themselves, but the forms that one mentally constructs and projects on to those things. Again, while those things in themselves are neither subjects nor objects, the subjective forms of them can be, and are, categorized into various kinds of subjects and objects, such as grasper, enjoyable and enjoyer etc. For example, a man with bad eyes and another with normal eyesight will see the same thing differently. Or, something may be seen by some people as an object of knowledge, while by others as an object of enjoyment, etc. this difference of forms under which something is seen or perceived or experienced come from mind, which differs from individual to individual[14]. More simply an experience of perceiving the same object is different to every person because every mind creates its own imaginary images according to different conditions.

    Paratantra nature

    The dependent nature of reality where one is led to find himself as the subject enjoying all else as the object of experience this state of existence being conditioned by the forces of ones own past deeds and habits. In other words the objects depend on mind for their nature and being they appear differently to different sentient beings[15]. This argument is worked out with respect to the six realms of existence. For example, a cup of milk appears to us as milk, but it would appear as nectar to the gods, as molten iron to hell beings, and pus or blood to hungry ghosts[16]. A single object appears differently to different beings in samsara according to their respective karma. In other words, an object appears in different forms according to the conditioned, subjective state of the mind. We can see this even without references to the six realms. For examples, a woman may appear as an object of sexual attraction to a man, heap of meat to a wolf and a skeleton to an Arhat[17].
    More simple examples, a man and women can be appear to different person as father/mother, brother/sister, son/daughter, friends/enemy etc.

    Parinishpanna nature

    The absolutely accomplished nature is that state of existence in which the individual is characterized neither as a subject nor as an object; in plain language it means: if one can neutralize the graspable/grasper type of discriminating activity of the mind, one has the absolutely accomplished nature. It should no more called mind, though. It is then just the thing-in-itself, the suchness (tathatā), the devoidness of graspability and grasperhood[18].
    This is a state of naturalness, state of reality, state of non-duality.
    Basically according to vijñaptimātra duality is to perceiving or accepting the existence of body, mind and phenomena even in a subtle level which creates the notion of grasper and graspable. As Vashubandhu also described the functional aspects of mind and phenomena still many falls into a wrong idea of duality even with this doctrine as mind exists. He had clearly defined the functional aspects of mind and phenomena as mere representation of mind only and it is dealt here below.

    Guide to freedom from Duality

    Above analytical approach is a theoretical approach to understand the functional aspects of mind and phenomena, vashubandhu opens his vrtti of Vimshatikā stating that “in Mahayana system it has been established that those belongings to the three worlds are mere representation of consciousness” also in 17th stanza of Trimshatikā he clarifies that the three fold transformation of consciousness is just distinguished and it does not exist as such, this is all mere representation of consciousness only.
    Regarding phenomena also, as no one can establish the real existence of any kind of objective phenomena then what about the graspable things which appear to us as objects?
    Vashubandu says it’s also representation of mind only and it does not exist and it has no differentiations of any kind. The differentiations are created by the wrong view of dualistic mind. It’s just like the objects experienced by a man with a cataract without having the real object outside. Phenomena that we experience are not different from mind as it is not than representation of mind. All the phenomenal experience is a development of seeds streaming in store consciousness with the proper cause and conditions. The cause and conditions are also not outside it’s also from mind because mind is not different from anything.
    The freedom from duality comes or can be realized when any kind of distinctions, differentiations comes to the end which does not mean that one should close the eyes towards all the situation stating that its all non-dual. One must go through all three processes as lord Buddha taught study, analyze and contemplate. It’s very difficult and almost impossible to explain non-duality through language because the medium always has the nature of duality. All the sentient beings until enlightenment make journey of various uncountable lives with dualistic state of mind and experience. This duality creates impressions of twofold grasping like grasping of graspable and grasping of grasper. Grasping of grasper includes the belief that there are graspable independent of consciousness, although it is just a projections of consciousness. This leads to the grasping of graspable and the process continues constantly that engenders fresh grasper and graspable notion of same kind.
    When one starts studying and analyzing the nature of mind and phenomena he/she builds the foundation towards freedom. The expression of freedom which is a state of non-duality is found in lots of Suttas like Theragāthā, Therigāthā, in Mahayana Buddhist traditions like Zen Haikus and in Vajrayana Pith Instructions.
    The color of blue-dark clouds, glistening, cooled with the waters of clear-flowing streams covered with ladybugs: those rocky crags refresh me.
    Vanavaccha (Thag 1.13) {v. 13}


    A mother conquers her grief over her son's death: "As he came, so he has gone — so what is there to lament?"
    Pañcasata Patacara {vv. 127-132}


    The ancient pond
    A frog leaps in
    Splash…….
    -Matsuo Basho


    If clinging to this life, you are not a Dharma person;
    If clinging to the three realms, you do not have renunciation;
    If clinging to self-purpose, you do not have bodhicitta;
    If grasping arises, you do not have the view.
    -Jetsun Drasgpa Gyaltsen


    "This life is deceiving, don't you understand? And material things are delusion, don't you understand? And samsaric existence is peace, don't you understand?
    And all happiness is a dream, don't you understand?
    Appearances are your mind, don't you understand? And your mind is Buddha, don't you understand? And Buddha is Dharmakaya, don't you understand?
    And Dharmakaya is the true nature of reality, don't you understand? And when you realize this, whatever appears is mind. Throughout the day and night, look at your mind. When you look at your mind, you don't see anything. When you don't see anything, let go and relax."
    A song by Milarepa

    References

    • Walpola Rahula, Zen and taming the Bull, London, Gurder Fraser, 1978
    • Kochumuttom Thomas A., A Buddhist doctrine of experience, Delhi, Motilal banarasidas, 1982
    • Āchārya Shridhar Rana, Bodhipushpanjali part:1, Kathmandu, Byomokusuma Anuvāda Samiti, 2062 B.S.
    • Āchārya Sridhar Rana, Vajrayana Buddhism Vis-à-Vis Hindu Tantricism, www.byomakusuma.org
    • Dr K.N. Chatterjee, Vasubandhu’s Vijñaptimātratāsiddi,Varanasi Kishor Vidhya Niketan, 1980
    • Chogyam Trungpa, Cutting through spiritual materialism, Delhi, Shechen publication, 1995
    • Sharma TR, Vijñaptimātrasiddhi, Delhi, Eastern Book Linkers, 1993

    Footnotes


  2. Walpola Rahula, Zen and taming the Bull, London, Gurder Fraser, 1978 page 79

  4. www.acmuller.net/yogacara/.../ISCP_99_Yogacara_retro2.html

  6. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonduality#Buddhism

  8. www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

  10. Kochumuttom Thomas A., A Buddhist doctrine of experience, Delhi, Motilal banarasidas, 1982 page 134

  12. Ibid

  14. Kochumuttom Thomas A., A Buddhist doctrine of experience, Delhi, Motilal banarasidas, 1982 page 138

  16. Dr Chatterjee K.N., Vasubandhu’s Vijñaptimātratāsiddi,Varanasi Kishor Vidhya Niketan, 1980 page 51

  18. Walpola Rahula, Zen and taming the Bull, London, Gurder Fraser, 1978 page 99

  20. Sharma TR, Vijñaptimātrasiddhi, Delhi, Eastern Book Linkers, 1993 page 32

  22. Kochumuttom Thomas A., A Buddhist doctrine of experience, Delhi, Motilal banarasidas, 1982 page 180

  24. Kochumuttom Thomas A., A Buddhist doctrine of experience, Delhi, Motilal banarasidas, 1982 page 179

  26. Sharma TR, Vijñaptimātrasiddhi, Delhi, Eastern Book Linkers, 1993 page 117

  28. Sharma TR, Vijñaptimātrasiddhi, Delhi, Eastern Book Linkers, 1993 page 117

  30. Kochumuttom Thomas A., A Buddhist doctrine of experience, Delhi, Motilal banarasidas, 1982 page 153

  32. Ibid

  34. Ibid

    36. Kochumuttom Thomas A., A Buddhist doctrine of experience, Delhi, Motilal banarasidas, 1982 page 154
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post