- Reply
- 1h
- Reply
- 1h
- Reply
- 48m
- Edited
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 42m
- Reply
- 19m
- Edited
- Reply
- 1d
Is there a standard understanding of how these stages [Mahamudra four yogas] map over to Thusness's 7 stages? (Or am I stepping on a land mine by asking this? ;-))- I think Soh has gone there in the past. Perhaps search the 4 yogas in the blog (or here).
- Reply
- 1d
- Reply
- 1d
- Reply
- 1d
- Reply
- 1d
- Reply
- 19h
- Reply
- 9m
- Reply
- 9m
I think Soh has said that one-pointedness is I Am.I'd say one-pointedness is merely samadhi, while simplicity is anatta, and one taste is non-dual (but with the view of anatta). Non-meditation can only be shunyata and spontaneous perfection.The yogas are mainly meditative, while AtR is mainly view and inquiry, I'd risk to say.1Comparative to the jhanas?1Michael HernandezJhanas are stages of samatha. Not insight.1Matt Harvey: There are two explanations on the yoga of one pointedness depending on which teacher teaches it. Some Mahamudra teachers teach the yoga of one pointedness as simply a samadhi state, no realization involved.However, in Clarifying the Natural State (a must read if you are into Mahamudra) by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, it states, "You have seen the essence of One-Pointedness if you have reached a naturally knowing and confident certainty in your mind's aware emptiness. You have not seen the essence if you do not possess this confident certitude, even if you can remain in the states of bliss, clarity and nonthought." - https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../mahamudra...Dakpo Tashi Namgyal is saying here that One Pointedness is not simply a samadhi state of bliss, clarity and non-thought, that it confers a kind of realization and certainty about the mind's aware emptiness.I AM realization is also about the certainty of what Mind is. I say, it is similar. But this is just the beginning as it goes in AtR or Mahamudra path.Matt HarveyAlthough I don't really like to compare paths nowadays (unless it is really of practical use to people? ), since you are curious I'll just paste a conversation here, not sure if helps though.[12:39 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Now there is the 顿悟 [sudden realization, i.e. Zen] path. But mahamudra is not by the way of 顿悟。[12:40 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: So what is the way they use?[12:40 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: What is the technique they use?[12:41 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: They have many pointing out instructions and methods of investigating what mind is, what perception and thought is, and its nature[12:41 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Many?[12:41 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: I dun think so[12:41 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Lol[12:41 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: And also whether mind and perception is separable, whether mind and peeception is originating etx[12:41 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Etc[12:42 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: So what does that mean?[12:42 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: How do they investigate?[12:42 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Directly looking at mind’s nature[12:42 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: And how do u do that?[12:44 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: I have only another 15 mins for u...lol[12:44 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: In clarifying the natural state the investigation into Mind reveals Mind itself, to me it is no different from I AM[12:44 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Then they expand into perception and thought[12:44 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: And resolve the notion of duality, arising etc[12:44 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Thrangu Rinpoche:In the Vajrayana there is the direct path to examining mind. In everyday life we are habituated to thinking, "I have a mind and I perceive these things." Ordinarily, we do not directly look at the mind and therefore do not see the mind. This is very strange because we see things and we know that we are seeing visual phenomena. But who is seeing? We can look directly at the mind and find that there is no one seeing; there is no seer, and yet we are seeing phenomena. The same is true for the mental consciousness. We think various thoughts, but where is that thinking taking place? Who or what is thinking? However, when we look directly at the mind, we discover that there is nobody there; there is no thinker and yet thinking is going on. This approach of directly looking in a state of meditation isn't one of reasoning, but of directly looking at the mind to see what is there.Source: Shentong and Rangtong[link removed because it violates Facebook rules etc]...If we look for a perceiver, we won’t find one. We do think, but if we look into the thinker, trying to find that which thinks, we do not find it. Yet, at the same time, we do see and we do think. The reality is that seeing occurs without a seer and thinking without a thinker. This is just how it is; this is the nature of the mind. The Heart Sutra sums this up by saying that “form is emptiness,” because whatever we look at is, by nature, devoid of true existence. At the same time, emptiness is also form, because the form only occurs as emptiness. Emptiness is no other than form and form is no other than emptiness. This may appear to apply only to other things, but when applied to the mind, the perceiver, one can also see that the perceiver is emptiness and emptiness is also the perceiver. Mind is no other than emptiness; emptiness is no other than mind. This is not just a concept; it is our basic state.The reality of our mind may seem very deep and difficult to understand, but it may also be something very simple and easy because this mind is not somewhere else. It is not somebody else’s mind. It is your own mind. It is right here; therefore, it is something that you can know. When you look into it, you can see that not only is mind empty, it also knows; it is cognizant. All the Buddhist scriptures, their commentaries and the songs of realization by the great siddhas express this as the “indivisible unity of emptiness and cognizance,” or “undivided empty perceiving,” or “unity of empty cognizance.” No matter how it is described, this is how our basic nature really is. It is not our making. It is not the result of practice. It is simply the way it has always been.Source: Crystal Clear ( [link removed because it violates Facebook rules etc] )...[12:44 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: That is not the way[12:46 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: [referring to pasted excerpt above] This is anatta.[12:46 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: So how do they recognize the mind?[12:46 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: It is not the same as I M.[12:47 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: It is by what?[12:47 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Contemplating on certain questions?[12:48 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: How do they resolve that mind is appearance and appearance is mind?[12:48 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: By direct authentication like anatta?[12:50 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: This is like going into I AM[12:50 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Then looking into thoughts, and then contemplating the relation between thought and Mind[12:50 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Why r u cutting and pasting me yet nothing nothing[12:50 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Until the duality is seen through and same taste is recognised[12:50 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: How do they do that?[12:51 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Is this the way?[12:52 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Until direct authentication dawn, there is no way to directly know. So what do they resolve it?[12:53 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: By various questioning and contemplation like what is the relationship between mind and perception.. and other methods of contemplation like the origin or perception to establish the non originated nature[12:54 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Faintz...[12:54 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: It is by understanding the nature[12:54 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: They try to find mind, they can find it, it is empty.[12:55 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: They try to find appearance, they realize they have the same nature.[12:55 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: That is how they investigate[12:56 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: They use the nature and realize they have the same nature..m[12:56 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Get it?[12:56 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: But that is not the direct taste[12:57 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: That is y they kept investigating the nature of whatever appears.[12:57 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: However it is very important and it also tell us more about clarity but understanding emptiness.[12:58 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. i thought the first contemplating on mind leads to something like i am..“You have seen the essence of One-Pointedness if you have reached a naturally knowing and confident certainty in your mind's aware emptiness. You have not seen the essence if you do not possess this confident certitude, even if you can remain in the states of bliss, clarity and non- thought.”[12:58 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: If they can have I M even better[12:58 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Means luminosity[12:58 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Not direct taste as in? Not I Am?[12:59 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Then they look into the nature and use the nature to resolve.[12:59 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: That is y the articles u send me kept talking about the nature and it is resolved.[12:59 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: But that is not an authentication[1:00 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: However if post anatta and non-dual, it helps one to penetrate further.[1:01 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..[1:02 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Like how it helps me to understand the nature of clarity. But having an intellectual understanding of emptiness. How to relook at phenomena and mind and meditate on them.[1:02 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: U will breakthrough further.[1:02 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: When u look at a sensation, hear a sound, taste or vision[1:04 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: When u know emptiness, u have deeper understanding. When u go through mmk and understand more and more about chariot..U see and directly authenticate more and more of mind and phenomena.[1:04 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: By authentication you mean like anatta taste and realisation?[1:05 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: It will loosen the coventional grip on us and deepen our understanding.[1:05 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Yes[1:05 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Emptiness has another dimension if u practice diligently.[1:05 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: So u mean those mahamudra techniques is more about investigating the emptiness of everything but not necessarily anatta taste[1:06 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: It is not just walking in park and appreciate space like openness in non-dual mode.[1:07 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: This depends on the training. Like those articles u showed me, there is anatta and there is I M.[1:07 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: But the I M may not b as strong as those in advaita. I m not sure.[1:08 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..[1:08 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Now having non-dual experience or a state of no- mind do not mean finality.[1:09 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: We must also free our from many more intellectual obscurations.[1:10 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: And other obscurations of cause.[1:10 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Like having non-dual or no-mind may not free on from the notion of self.[1:11 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Freeing one from the notion of self, may not free one from the notion of cause.[1:11 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Freeing one from the notion of cause, may not free one from the notion of existence.[1:12 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Freeing one from duality, may not free one from non-duality.[1:13 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: The color u see is neither inside, nor outside. It is inside, it is also outside. It is private, it is also public.So it is neither too.[1:14 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: So freedom from insight is not different from a blank state.[1:15 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: You mean is different[1:15 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Yes[1:15 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..[1:17 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: So in addition to walking in a park, being anatta, borderless and open, non-dual and total exerted, u must also spend time to free up further intellectual obscurations to blind us.[1:18 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: That blind us I mean.[1:18 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. through mmk?[1:19 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: The chariot analogy is enough...but the diamond splitter, neither one nor many...all these ways of ultimate analysis that see through essence can help also.[1:20 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: But simple looking and understanding the chariot analogy helps me a lot...it depends on individual.[1:21 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Then authenticate it with ur actual experience in anatta.[1:21 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: That is y I say those article u pasted asking me is that subsuming is good.[1:22 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: But if u fail to c, u will miss the importance of it.[1:23 AM, 5/16/2020] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..[1:23 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: To me it is not to help resolve that appearances r just one's empty clarity but helps to refine my insight on the nature...[1:25 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: Our conventional knowledge has cage used into seeing a separate, divided physical and mental world.[1:25 AM, 5/16/2020] John Tan: The knowledge blinds and bind is to an assumed reality that is not easy to break.Òskar K. Linareswanted to send you this conversation but it got removed.
.....
In a different facebook group, Rinzai Zen discussion, someone asked this question on the same day as above conversation, so I replied with a somewhat similar reply:
"Is anyone familiar with Ku San Sunim? I wonder if the line "the One Thing that doesn't change" from the following talk at IMS 11/16/’80 could be mistranslated? From my understanding Buddha rejected Atman - the unchangeble, permanent Self. Could Ku San Sunim be possibly referring to something else?"From One Bright Thing, the brightness has many marvelous functions.All creations are good, but the One Thing that doesn’t change is most beautiful.The old mountains stand by the river.The boats from the ocean return to the shore. ""
Soh replied:
Ms. A.W.M.,Many Zen and Ch'an masters do point to a similar realization as Hinduism's Atman, however as some of them clarified, such as Phillip Kapleau Roshi, it is simply an initial realization and the realization is to be refined later on. Hinduism's Atman is the direct authentication of the aspect of the luminous clarity and Presence of our Buddha-nature, but its empty nature ('no mind' as taught by Bodhidharma) is realised later on. Prior to that refinement of insight, Buddha-nature can be somewhat reified into Atman-Brahman.For example, Phillip Kapleau Roshi mentioned in his book "Straight to the Heart of Zen: Eleven Classic Koans & Their Inner Meanings", the two distinct phases of realization in Zen practice that corresponds to what I personally term "I AM realization" and "anatta~total exertion":"...A shallow kensho is not fully satisfying. One has seen into constant change, it is true, and into the formless Self as well - that which makes change possible. One has caught a glimpse of both change and changelessness. But it's only a glimpse, and it is not enough, because in reality, the two worlds of change and changelessness are not really two at all. After a time this initial seeing makes us want to go further, deeper. Instinctively we know that it's only well-chewed food that nourishes and satisfies. This we might take as meaning long training through which we more fully integrate our understanding into our daily lives. Our enlightenment is fully digested. Now change is Changelessness. This is what keeps away hunger and uncertainty, anxiety, fear, and above all unsatisfactoriness, the constant feeling of being on edge, alienated, separated - 'a stranger and afraid', as the poet A. E. Housman wrote, 'in a world I never made.' At last we know real peace.The verse says: 'This one instant, as it is, is an infinite number of kalpas.' What is a kalpa? The sutras describe a kalpa as the length of time it would take a heavenly being, a deva, sweeping its gossamer wings across the top of the mile-high mountain once each year to wear that mountain down to the ground. This one instant is a kalpa. All time is in this instant, and an infinite number of kalpas are, at the time, this one instant. All time means past, present, and future.......if our mind is entirely free from both time and timelessness, it we are living fully and wholly every moment, every moment is everything; all of time is in each full, vitally alive moment. If one has truly seen into time and timelessness - if one has really become time itself - then there is no notion of time or timelessness to hinder or bind..."
"We think it's all about like, again, because of our modern mind, we almost think everything can be solved through some sort of technology. Right, oh, I just need to do it different, there must be some secret trick to inquiry, that's our technological mind-set. Sometimes that's a mindset that is very useful to us. But, we don't want to let that dominate our spirituality. Because as I witnessed, the intensity of the living inquiry that's more important than all the techniques.
When somebody Just Has To Know. Even if that's kind of driving them half crazy for a while. And, that attitude is as important or more important than all the ways we work with that attitude, you know, the spiritual practices, the meditations and various inquiries and various different things, sort of practices. If we engage in the practices because they are practices, you know like, ok I just do these because this is what I'm told to do, and hopefully it will have some good effect. That's different than being engaged, when you're actually being deeply interested in what you're inquiring about, and what you're actually meditating upon. It's that quality of real, actual interest, something even more than interest. It is a kind of compulsion, I know I was saying earlier don't get taken in by compulsion, but there is/can be a kind of compulsion. And that's as valuable as anything else going on in you, actually."
- Adyashanti
This is related to Zen's great doubt, great faith and great perseverance. Especially the aspect of Great Doubt.
Ven Nanamoli’s translation:
"Whatever in this world with its deities ... is to be seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, or reached, sought out and encompassed by the mind, that I know, that I have directly known. Now while that is recognized by a Perfect One, he nevertheless does not use it as a basis (for conceits). Were I to say of all that, that I know it not, that would be falsely spoken by me; and were I to say of it that I know it and know it not, that would be the same; and were I to say of it that I neither know it nor know it not, that would be incorrect on my part. So, having seen what can be seen, a Perfect One conceives no conceit3 of what is seen, he conceives no conceit of what is unseen, he conceives no conceit of what could be seen, he conceives no conceit of any seer. Having heard what can be heard ... Having sensed what can be sensed ... Having cognized what can be cognized ... he conceives no conceit of any cognizer. A Perfect One thus equipoised towards things seen, heard, sensed, or cognized, remains thus equipoised; and there is no other equipoise that is beyond or superior to that equipoise, I say."
A. 4:24
Another translation, by Ven Thanissaro:
At Kāḷaka’s Park
Kāḷaka Sutta (AN 4:24)
NAVIGATIONSuttas/AN/4:24
On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāketa in Kāḷaka’s park. There he addressed the monks: “Monks!”
“Yes, lord,” the monks responded to him.
The Blessed One said: “Monks, whatever in this world with its devas, Māras & Brahmās, in this generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its rulers & commonfolk, is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in this world with its devas, Māras & Brahmās, in this generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its rulers & commonfolk, is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathāgata, but in the Tathāgata1 it has not been established.
“If I were to say, ‘I don’t know whatever in this world… is seen, heard, sensed, cognized… pondered by the intellect,’ that would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say, ‘I both know and don’t know whatever in this world… is seen, heard, sensed, cognized… pondered by the intellect,’ that would be just the same. If I were to say, ‘I neither know nor don’t know whatever in this world… is seen, heard, sensed, cognized… pondered by the intellect,’ that would be a fault in me.
“Thus, monks, the Tathāgata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn’t suppose an (object as) seen. He doesn’t suppose an unseen. He doesn’t suppose an (object) to-be-seen. He doesn’t suppose a seer.
“When hearing.…
“When sensing.…
“When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn’t suppose an (object as) cognized. He doesn’t suppose an uncognized. He doesn’t suppose an (object) to-be-cognized. He doesn’t suppose a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathāgata—being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized—is ‘Such.’2 And I tell you: There is no other ‘Such’ higher or more sublime.
“Whatever is seen or heard or sensed
and fastened onto as true by others,
One who is Such—among the self-fettered—
would not further claim to be true or even false.
“Having seen well in advance that arrow
where generations are fastened & hung
—‘I know, I see, that’s just how it is!’—
there’s nothing of the Tathāgata fastened.”
Note
1. Reading tathāgate with the Thai edition.
2. Such (tādin): An adjective applied to the mind of one who has attained the goal. It indicates that the mind “is what it is”—indescribable but not subject to change or alteration.
Another translation, by Ven Nyanananda, Magic of Mind:
KALAKARAMA SUTTA
Translated by Bhikkhu Nanananda
http://www.nibbanam.com/MagicOfMind.pdf
At one time the. Exalted One was staying at Saketa in Kalaka's monastery. There the Exalted One
addressed the monks, saying: `Monks'. `Revered Sir,' replied those monks in assent. The Exalted One
said:
"Monks, whatsoever in the world with its gods, Maras and Brahmas among the progeny
consisting of recluses and brahmins, gods and men, - whatsoever is seen, heard, sensed,(1) cognized,
attained, sought after and pondered over by the mind - all that do I know. Monks, whatsoever in the
world ......... of gods and men, - whatsoever is seen, ........ by the mind, - that have I fully understood;
all that is known to the Tathagata (2) but the Tathagata has not taken his stand upon it.(3)
If I were to say `Monks, whatsoever in the world..... of ..... gods and men -whatsoever is seen .....
by the mind - all that, I do not know' – it would be a falsehood in me’.(4) If I were to say: ‘I both
know and know not’ – that too would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say: ‘I neither know it nor
am ignorant of it’ – it would be a fault in me (5). Thus, monks, a Tathdgata does not conceive (6) of a visible thing as apart from sight(1a); he does not conceive of ‘an unseen’ (2a) he does not conceive of a
'thing-worth-seeing', (3a) he does not conceive about a seer. (4a)
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing; he does not conceive of 'an
unheard', he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer. He
does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from sensation; he does not conceive of an
unsensed; he does not conceive of a `thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one who
senses. He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition; he does not conceive
of an uncognized; he does not conceive of a `thing-worth-cognitiog'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata, being such-like in regard to all phenomena seen, heard, sensed,
and cognized, is `Such'. (5a) Moreover, than he who is `Such', there is none other greater or more
excellent, I declare.(6a)
`Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or clung to,
is esteemed as truth by other folk,
Midst those who are entrenched in their own views, (7a)
being 'Such' I hold none as true or false.
This barb I beheld, well in advance,(1b)
'whereon mankind are hooked, impaled.
`I know, I see 'tis. verily so' - (2b)
no such clinging for the Tathagatas
Notes:
(1) 'muta': Sensations arising from taste, touch and smell.
(2) According to the Commentary (AA) 'the plane of omniscience' sabbannutabhumi has been made known by the three phrases: 'all that do I
know', 'that have I fully understood' and 'all that is known to the Tathagata.'
(3) Comm: 'The Tathagata does not take his stand upon, or approach by way of craving or
views. The Exalted One sees a form with the eye, but in him there is no desire and lust (for it); he
is well released in mind. The Exalted One hears a sound with the ear . . . . . smells an odour with
the nose ..... tastes a flavour with the tongue .... touches a tangible with the body ...... cognizes an
idea with the mind, but in him there is no desire-and-lust; he is well released in mind (S. IV 164) -
hence was it said that the Tathagata takes no stand upon it. It should be understood that by this
phrase the plane of the Influx-free khinasavabhumi is made known.'
(4)This rendering is in accordance with the reading 'na janami found in the Chattha Sangiti edition.
Enquiries have revealed that it conforms to the Mandalay Slabs. The P.T.S. edition, as well as some
Sinhala script editions, gives ' janami omitting the negative particle, but this is unlikely, as it
contradicts the Buddha's own statement in the preceding para. The initial declaration 'all that do I
know' tamaham jdndmi') is reinforced by what follows: `that have I fully understood' (tamahain ab
bhannasim `all that is known to the Tathagata' (tam tathigaiassa viditam") A significant reservation has
also been added : `but the Tathagata has not taken his stand upon it' (tam tathagato na upatthdsi'). Hence
the reading janami would lead to a contradiction: 'If I were to say .......... all that do I know ........ it
would be a falsehood in me'. The variant reading 'na janami on the other hand, suggests itself as the
second alternative of the tetralemma, followed as it is by the third and fourth alternatives.
The relevance of these three alternatives to the context is reflected in that reservation referred to
above.
(5)The phrases: 'it would be a falsehood in me', 'that too would be a falsehood in me,' 'it would be a
fault in me', are said to indicate the 'plane of truth' (saccabhumi).
(6)'Na mannati : Mann ana marks that stage in sense perception when one egotistically imagines or
fancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right. It is
a fissure in the perceptual situation which results in a subject - object. dichotomy perpetuating the
conceit and 'mine'.
(1a) The Comm: (AA. SHB. 519) takes the words datttha datthabbam in the text to mean: `having seen, should be
known' and explains the following words dittham na mannati' as a separate phrase meaning that the Tathagata does not
entertain any cravings, conceits or views, thinking: I am seeing that which has been seen by the people'. It applies the
same mode of explanation throughout. It is perhaps more plausible to explain dattha or dittha (vl. in Burmese MSS;
see A. II 25 fn. 3)' as an ablative form of the past participle giving the sense: `as apart from from sight'; and,
`datthabbam dittham' taken together, would mean: 'a visible thing'. So also, the other three corresponding terms: sutta
muta and vinnatam The Buddha Jayanthi Tipitaka Series (No. 19, Sinhalese script) recognizes this reading but follows
the Comm. in rendering them as absolutives.The Sangiti Pitaka edition (Burmese script) as well as the P.T.S. edition,
has the absolutive form: 'sutva' 'mutvd' and vinnatva -which is probably a re-correction following the commentarial
explanation,
(2a) 'adittham na mannati': According to the Comm. this means that the Tathagata does not fancy (due to craving etc.)
He is seeing something which has not been seen by the people. But the expression seems to imply just the opposite.
It brings out the idea behind the statement: "If I were to say: 'Monks, whatsoever in the world ... of ... gods and men
whatsoever is seen ... by the mind -all that I do not know,' it would be a falsehood in me."
(3a) `datthabbam' na mannati': Here the full gerundival sense of the verb is evident. The Tathagata does not consider
any of those 'sights' that people cherish, as 'worth-whileseeing' - in the highest sense. He does not see anything
substantial in them.
(4a) 'dattharam na mannati': The Tathagata does not entertain any conceit of being the 'agent' behind seeing. When
'sights' lose their object-status they do not reflect a 'seer' on the subjective side. These four modes of conceiving
represent the plane of voidness' sunnatabhumi
(5a) tadi 'Such' o r 'Such-like.'
An epithet of the emancipated one signifying his supreme detachment. This
declaration indicates the. plane of the 'Such One' (tadibhumi).
(6a) 'tesu ...... sayasamvutesu The Comm. says: 'among those who are of (divers) views and who had
grasped them having themselves recollected and cherished those view-points'. The expression rather conveys the
sense of self -opinionatedness due to philosophical in-breeding, and may be rendered by: 'among those who are
restricted samvuta to their own views'.
(7a) [Seems to be missing in the PDF...]
(1c)etanca sallam paligacca disva `Having seen this barb well in advance'- explained by the Comm as the
barb of views which the Buddha saw in advance, at the foot of the Bodhi tree.
(2c)`janami passami tatheva etam': A phrase often cited in the Pali Canon as representing the stamp of
dogmatism characteristic of speculative views. It is on a par with the dogmatic assertion: `idameva
saccam moghamannam' (`This alone is true, all else is false') which accompanies the formulation of the
ten 'Unexplained Points' (avyakatavatthuni).
Ven. Nyanananda wrote this in the Introduction:
“The commentary (A.A.) finds for it a setting in the aftermath of the conversion of the millionaire Kàlaka, who is supposed to have constructed the monastery. According to it, the discourse was a sequel to the widespread acclamation of the Buddha's marvellous qualities. Be that as it may, the discourse, as a matter of fact, does contain some marvellous aspects of the Tathàgata's transcendental wisdom. That the impact of the discourse was actually astounding is symbolically expressed by the commentarial assertion that the earth trembled at five points in this sermon, at the conclusion of which five hundred monks attained Arahantship.”
Super long discussion on Advaita vs Buddhism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/permalink/4591226277585433/
Also see: The Disease of Non-Conceptuality
For me, the idea that conceptuality is a trap is actually a trap itself that depletes the potential of spiritual practice. It entails throwing away a very valid dimension of experience - after all, thinking is part of reality as well. And since it is thinking that creates the illusion of duality, it is at the level of thought that illusions must be dismantled. At the level of "reality" there is nothing to be done.
"Observe and see" [which is the only instruction you say you follow,] is also doing something. A spiritual path without instructions is not a path. And from the moment there are instructions, all of them may be valid, depending on the practitioner.
The neo-Advaita has this characteristic of tending to be nihilistic in relation to the path and means of liberation. "There is no one, there is nothing that needs to be done." This reveals a profound misunderstanding concerning the nature of experience: Everything happens in experience, even without an agent to perform it - the spiritual path is no exception.
The simplicity of "not thinking" is a comfortable nest that prevents us from asking important and bothersome questions. There is "presence" in the act of observation, but that presence has to be investigated in order to make its nature known. Otherwise, we are substituting a belief - in the self - for another - in some immutable and eternal presence. Both ego and presence are obvious and undeniable for those who establish them.
Buddhism also dissolves all concepts, but only when they have already done their job of deconstructing all concepts. "Silencing" conceptuality too soon is to throw away the ladder (of analytical thinking) before we've used it to go beyond the wall (of conceptual ignorance).
– Andre A. Pais