Freedom from Elaboration and Emptiness of Self-Nature

[7:58 pm, 25/04/2022] John Tan: Imo it is different insight, different emphasis and and different praxis, but result is the same. Both will clear certain obscurations that r not easy to c.

For freedom of all elaborations is like insight of anatta extended to all phenomena where not only conceptual notion of self is deconstructed but also phenomena, events, cause and effect...etc. One comes face to face to primordial suchness (pure appearances). In order words, the full maturity of anatta therefore it is most intuitive and direct to ATR ppl and why I like Mipham in the first place.
But I when I started studying Tsongkhapa I realized empty of self-nature is different. Both conceptual and non-conceptual, imagined appearances and pure appearances share a single space-like taste of emptiness (essencelessness). Whereas for freedom from all elaborations, they r "irreconcilable".
Therefore followers of Tsongkhapa, they will have no such issue about Andre first point (and there r other issues):
"It feels odd, right? How can conceptuality or lack thereof have anything to do with the way things arise or manifest?"
Y? Because it is precisely this essencelessness that manifestion is possible. It is because of corelessness the dependent arising is possible.
Like what I wrote to u and yin ling:
In addition to having this taste, u may want to explore "empty of self-nature" from an experiential angle rather than analysis.
Be in anatta and while in the bliss of non-dual, see how radically different is the music and the vivid scenery; how thought is markedly different from sensations and smell; how a "shopping mall" can "transmute" into a "carpark"?
Ask urself how all these are even possible? So seamless and instantaneous is the "morphing", simply miraculous!
Ask urself again, how is this possible at all if there is essence? Let the insight of "essencelessness" permeates ur entire being and heal all ur clogged up energies.
Then look at thoughts and conceptualities. See how malleable thoughts and conceptual ideas are and see how they freely manifest. How are all these even possible if there is "essence"?
Next look at dependent arising. How is it possible to even originate in dependence so seamlessly? Feel the "essencelessness" and feel the "magic" and wonder. U must feel "essencelessness", not think essencelessness.
Then u will understand the intent of Nagarjuna. There will be no arguments. U will realize that only because of "essencelessness" are all these possible. U will understand it is precisely that there is no self-nature, there is causal efficacies; because it is dream-like, there is all these vivid appearances and happenings.
Anyway that is just my opinion.
[8:05 pm, 25/04/2022] John Tan: Don't go argue and over emphasize for each has their own path.
[8:07 pm, 25/04/2022] John Tan: One is like horizontal breadth to all phenomena of anatta while the other is like vertical depth of anatta.
-->>This can perhaps be summarized by saying that dependent arising and the 'aproximate ultimate' (emptiness as nisvabhava) are indeed synonymous (since they are conceptual equivalents), while the actual ultimate (emptiness as nisprapanca or 'freedom from elaborations') has no synonyms whatsoever, since it is not a conceptual object at all.
Yes. Only spontaneous presence and natural perfection. There is not even knowingness or apprehension.
 
 
 
  • Jayson MPaul
    Yes, realizing that everything has no core is exactly why it can even dependently originate at all was a key insight. This is how it is possible for the buddha to blossom under the bodhi tree and all beings liberated at once. This is how Dogen writes about rowing the boat and someone realizes total exertion is the same movement. If any essence or core was there, it would totally block this. This is non-obstruction


    Yin Ling
    Jayson MPaul yes it is a radical insight
    I feel that getting this point correct really facilitate insight.
    It’s like the mind is allowed to “sync” haha


    Jayson MPaul
    Yin Ling when it dawned on me I was ohhhh that's why these insights seemed hard to see. I was coming from a completely essence view.


    • Yin Ling
    Jayson MPaul me too. I could totally understand hence I also understand why John keep talking about it . Truly mind changing


    • André A. Pais
    "Shopping mall turning into carpark" reminded me of this thing I wrote some time back:
    May be an image of text


    André A. Pais
    And more recently:
    May be an image of text that says 'André A. Pais 31 de março às 04:56 If there was the slightest thing There couldn't be any appearance Since there is appearance There can't be the slightest thing'


    • Yin Ling
    André A. Pais very well written and relatable to my xp 🙂


    • André A. Pais
    The issue with 'essence'lessness is that it is dependent on the notion of essence - it's a negation that is intrinsically linked and dependent upon what it negates. To say that things only function because they are "devoid of essence" is to say that they only work because they are empty of our delusions, which makes it seem that things, somehow, are dependent on our delusions (their absence) to function. Which is nonsensical, of course. To say that things function because they are "not-X" makes their functioning indirectly dependent upon "X."
    So, instead of essencelessness (which is a valid temporary pointer), spaciousness is a better pointer, imo. Curiously, according to Dowman's translation, spaciousness is the definition of Dharmadhatu and the single most important principle in Longchenpa's view.
    We could perhaps say that 'spaciousness' is the lived experience of the conceptual insight "essencelessness."

    • Reply
    • 1w
    • Edited

    Yin Ling
    André A. Pais yes the experience feels “spacious” and also “light” like some core has been dug out from the whole experience lol.
    To me essencelessness also describe the emptienss xp- when my xp turns light and shimmery. Probably those are more affirming words


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Not against the term spaciousness or anything
    But malcolm and kyle seem to prefer other translations than dowman as dowman took too much linguistic and poetic liberties in his translations


    • Soh Wei Yu
    John Tan:
    I would say this is not an issue peculiar to "essencelessness". For any "X" there is always a corresponding "-X" being implied when expressed in language. This is due to the "poverty" or our thinking mechanism and language, not the "moon" that essencelessness" is pointing. Similarly we see the same issue issue surfacing in "freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities" as they are equally dependent on "elaborations and conceptualities" for it's valid functioning despite that the actual message is to convey a freedom that involve no conceptual construct. Same applies to "no-self", it is dependent on the notion of "self". So as long as the essence of message is transmitted, then the raft must also be dropped.


    • André A. Pais
    I just think it's important to keep in mind that the nature of things is *not* emptiness. Emptiness just means that things lack any nature whatsoever. By lacking any nature, there is nothing that can be said about reality and this invites freedom from reference points, and a profound relaxation that makes the nature of mind more "visible." Emptiness as lack-of-nature is more easily mistaken as "the nature of being empty," thus my point of highlighting referencelessness.

      • Reply
      • 1w
      • Edited






    • Soh Wei Yu
    John tan asked
    1. "When space is added to space, does it amount to nothing?"


    Yin Ling
    Erm..
    If there’s space, surely there’s a knowing ..
    If not how to call it space
    So can’t be nothing.
    Don’t understand context tho


    • André A. Pais
    One can't add space to space, since space is not graspable or movable.


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    An oldie but a goodie:
    Formless, non-particular, non-phenomenal, shapeless, unspecified, measureless function-activity.
    My breathing of the air is what makes "it"->"air". Air being breathed is what makes "it"->"breathing". Air entering the breathing body: What separates the air, the body and breathing? Where is the separating, dividing, demarcating line?
    A double bind.
    Consciousness and nama-rupa.
    A tangle within and a tangle without.
    What comes first, the thing or the name?
    What is it before it has a name, before it has a shape?
    Oh, so empty, so nothing, but yet, it is expressive.
    When the mind mixes with the vast expanse of nothing(-in-particular), a reality is invoked. By becoming entangled in the pregnant vacuum—by measuring, relating, weaving and spinning—samsaric relativity arises.
    The mind enters into the empty expanse and immediately there is specificity: By becoming involved, entangling itself in relativity—an intricate web of relation—a "what is "this" in the context of this very observation of "it"?"—and there ensues limitation—a closing and clamping down on, a narrowing of view.
    By disentangling, ungrasping, unclinging; Unmeasured and measureless, unspecified: The ground-of-reality.
    *
    Why is this so... releasing?
    Why is this such utter relief?
    It's so un-grand, so pedestrian:
    The dependence of this on that.
    The dependent nature of phenomena.
    Why so?
    If two "empty spaces" crash into each other, what damage is caused? What tumultuous unease transpires there? None. Where is the conflict, then?
    What divides? What is the nature of separation?
    Like water poured into water: What difference does it make? Completely compatible.
    At ease in the midst of it all.

    • Reply
    • 1w
    • Edited

    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    As I draw in air, breathing, the boundary of the air vanish and I can no longer sharply distinguish the air from my body and its muscles contracting and expanding.
    So, then, I'm curious: What makes this very experience the experience of "air" when air is no longer defined by boundaries of its own which distinguish it from everything else?
    And the answer is found in the mutual dependency of consciousness and name-and-form: Through inter-action, function and activity. When experienced through a mesh/web/net of inter-relations/relativity, then this very experience is the experience of "air" and nothing else; When "this very experience" is experienced in relation to a breathing body it is "air".
    Air, like this, depends on—for its very definition—how it functions in relation to a set of other phenomena; In this case, the breathing body.


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Breath is not itself breath. Air is not itself air. Body is not itself body. Self-nature—svabhava—and its lack.

      • Reply
      • 1w
      • Edited
 
Labels: , , , , 0 comments | | edit post
Faith

 

    Yin Ling

    rpnetu0l29f45mh311a4tt72 
    Faith in the Buddha dharma is a differnt kind of faith.
    It is not a faith believing in creation or a higher power, though the word faith is used similarly.
    It is when the perception of a person changed radically, beyond imagination to something they couldn’t have imagine before,
    When they directly perceive emptiness
    When the whole experience is translucent, and cannot be any other way..
    Yet they are not quite sure how can it be explained, it is just empty and translucent with vividness and aliveness.
    That the first person who mentioned and taught this is the Buddha..
    You can tell them any heavenly promise and their confidence cannot be swayed.
    IF they see 5 fingers you cannot convinced them they have 2.
    If they touch emptiness and bliss directly at all moments.. which is extremely radical beyond all experiences one could ever xp in life..
    You cannot tell them the Buddha is talking nonsense. You are just wasting time.
    That is faith in the Buddha dharma.
    It is the heart which is transformed.
    Beyond words, beyond language,
    Beyond religion.
    Which gives a practitioner strong confidence of the other teachings.
    They will rarely criticise, almost never.
    This is why insight is important.
    Keep one from transgression unnecessarily!

    4 Comments


    Victor Wt Choo
    I tot u driving .... why u so free typing ? 🤣


    Yin Ling
    Victor Wt Choo waiting for my turn at counter lol


    • William Lim
    Erh... when u directly perceive emptiness, of course dun need faith mah.
    The time u need faith is when things are not in your perception - yet.


    Yin Ling
    William Lim that’s true too

  • Reply
  • 9h
Labels: , , , 0 comments | | edit post
ESTABLISHING THE INNER PERCEIVER AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL SELF TO BE DEVOID OF A SELF-NATURE

 John Tan commented on this excerpt "The one u posted in fb is good"

AoSenmA ti:50320p7l5M



ra2 9i 181  

 
 

ESTABLISHING THE INNER PERCEIVER AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL SELF TO BE DEVOID OF A SELF-NATURE

The Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo root text says:

The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or a self-entity.

It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates

Nor as identical with these five aggregates.

If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.

This is not the case, so were the second to be true,

That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.

Therefore, based on the five aggregates,

The self is a mere imputation by the power of ego-clinging.

Although the outer observed objects possess no true existence, doesn’t the inner observer, the mind, truly exist? No, it doesn’t.

The mind has no existence apart from imputing such an existence upon the perpetuating aggregates and holding the belief in an ego, with the thought “I am!” Since the two kinds of self-entity are not separate from that, neither can their existence be established when examined by correct discriminating knowledge.

When there is a belief in an “I” or a “self” it follows that its existence cannot be ultimately established, because it neither differs from nor is identical with the five aggregates.

If, as in the first case, you could prove that there is a separately existing self, there would have to be a sixth aggregate of a substance different from the other five.

Since such a knowable object is impossible, it would be like the name of the son of a barren woman. If the self were identical [with the five aggregates], then it would have to be of identical substance and, since the five aggregates have substantial existence while the belief in an “I” has imputed existence, their substances would be contradictory, like the concrete and inconcrete.

Again, to describe this in an easily understandable way: since the self cannot be observed as being some entity that is separate from the gathering of the five aggregates and also cannot be seen as being identical with them, the existence of the self cannot be established. In the first instance, [it is impossible for] the self to have any existence separate from the aggregates, because an additional sixth aggregate would then have to exist, because ego-clinging applies to nothing other than the aggregates.

Moreover, as no concrete thing exists separate from the characteristics of the aggregates and, as an inconcrete thing cannot perform a function, the self cannot be established as existing separate from them.

Though the self does not exist separately in that way, can’t its existence be established, as in the second case, as identical with the aggregates? No, it cannot, because their characteristics are incompatible. In other words, all the aggregates are conditioned and therefore proven to be impermanent.

This is contrary to the self, which is held to be permanent, as in the case of assuming that one knows now what one saw earlier. Furthermore, the aggregates are composed of categories with many divisions, such as forms, sensations, and so forth, while the self is believed to be singular, as in thinking “I am!” And finally, the aggregates verifiably depend on arising and perishing, while the self is obviously experienced to be independent, as in the thought “I am!”

The Prajnamula describes this:

If the self were the aggregates,

Then it would arise and perish.

But, if the self is different from the aggregates,

It would have none of the aggregates’ characteristics.

You may now wonder, “Though the self does not exist, its continuity is permanent and can be proven to exist.” That is also not the case.

The Two Truths says:

The so-called continuity or instant

Is false, just like a chain, an army, and so forth.

While in reality possessing not even the slightest existence, the self, the individual, and so forth, are merely imputations made by the power of ego-clinging and are simply based upon the gathering of the five perpetuating aggregates.

Entering the Middle Way teaches:

The self does therefore not exist as something other than the aggregates,

Because it is not held as anything besides the aggregates.279

And again, in the same text:

When uttering such words as “the aggregates are the self,”

It refers to the gathering of the aggregates and not to their identity.

The word “chariot,” for instance, is merely a label given to the gathering of parts, such as the wheels and the main beam of the chariot, while you find no basis for the characteristics of the chariot that is not the parts but the owner of the parts. In the same way, you cannot prove the basis for the so-called self besides the mere belief that the ego is the gathering of the aggregates.

This is described in a sutra:

Just as the name “chariot” is given to the gathering of all the parts,

Similarly, the name “sentient being” is superficially used for the aggregates.

  • Padmasambhava - The Light of Wisdom VOLUME I - Rangjung Yeshe Publications


Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post