Divine Will vs Dependent Origination
Excerpt from AtR guide
“Session Start: Saturday, 5 June, 2010
(11:27 PM) Thusness: certainty of being when you focus on the 4 aspects till the peak and with right understanding, you will also have the same experience as anatta and emptiness. when you felt that the will of the source becomes your will, you become life itself, that is the same experience. actually all is the same experience except that buddhism provides the right understanding. in the experience of "I AM" and the article you posted about the divine, what is the peak of experience phase?
(11:48 PM) AEN: which article about divine?
Hmm im not sure
(11:49 PM) Thusness: the article about the source after "I AM"
(11:50 PM) AEN: is it like the 'sacred will of the world'
i mean the peak of experience
(11:51 PM) Thusness: after glimpses and realization of the source, when the divine will becomes your will. you must be able to experience every manifestation as the grace of divine will. so must understand this in terms of direct experience and right view. 
i will talk to you when we meet. do you know why there is the sensation of a 'divine will'?
i will talk to you when we meet. do you know why there is the sensation of a 'divine will'?(11:57 PM) AEN: bcos the sense of self is being let go... and its seen that everything is spontaneously arising from the source
(11:58 PM) Thusness: and what is this 'source' that seems to be doing the work?
(11:59 PM) AEN: consciousness, life?
(11:59 PM) Thusness: isn't "I AM" the consciousness?
(12:00 AM) AEN: ya but at the beginning it still feels like an individuated sense of presence... but then later its seen as more impersonal, like everything is merely the expression of the source
(12:00 AM) Thusness: first you must understand the separation is due to dualistic thought, thought separates. do you know what is the 'divine' will? the sensation due to "the sense of self is being let go... and its seen that everything is spontaneously arising from the source" causes the 'divine will'
(12:02 AM) AEN: oic..
(12:03 AM) Thusness: what is the divine will?
(12:03 AM) AEN: it means its happening due to the divine source, nothing is happening due to an individual will/agent/doer
(12:04 AM) Thusness: when someone hit the bell, anything due to divine will?
(12:05 AM) AEN: its also divine will bcos there is ultimately no separate person who acts, and no separate person who experience.. everything is manifested by the divine will... including every action that is spontaneously arising
(12:05 AM) Thusness: when someone hit the bell, anything so divine?
(12:05 AM) AEN: it’s a manifestation of consciousness
(12:05 AM) Thusness: no good no good. because of the lack of understanding of your nature. your nature is empty. what is this divine will? it is just DO [dependent origination]. because we think in terms of entity and the 'weight of this dualistic and inherent' tendencies makes us feel separate and inherent. instead of seeing 'DO', we see it as divine will. not knowing empty nature, we mistaken DO for divine will. not knowing no-self nature, we thought we are independent. when no-self is fully experienced and insight of anatta rises, you do not feel source as separated from 'you'
there is merely manifestation, empty luminosity. empty as in DO and therefore does not require 'divine will', yet all manifests due to empty nature, effortless and spontaneous. there is conditions that are required for manifestations. a 'divine will' is not necessary
(12:11 AM) AEN: icic..
(12:12 AM) Thusness: when a practitioner realizes no-self and anatta insight arises, he clearly sees conditions. there is no divine will to listen to, but whenever condition is, manifestation is. slowly understand this. do not see DO as something dead. see it as direct manifestation of your breathe just like you experience everything as the grace of this divine will. feel this grace of life everywhere. letting go of yourself completely and feel this life
(12:18 AM) AEN: oic.. i am writing my experience to lzls lol
(5:36 PM) Thusness: Lol. In Chinese
(6:12 PM) Thusness: the second experience is more of 天地同根，万物同体. (tian di tong gen, wan wu tong ti: heaven and earth have one root, ten thousand phenomena have the same substance)
(6:12 PM) Thusness: clouded by '我相' (wo xiang, self image, egoity)
(6:12 PM) AEN: what do you mean
(6:13 PM) Thusness: means the second experience is more of a realization on the same source.
much like ?
(6:13 PM) AEN: oic..
why you said clouded by wo xiang
(6:15 PM) Thusness: ? (xiang, image) is simply a construct. That is from a dualistic point of view, being 'connected' must always be the case. When you de-contruct personality, you merely discover. a practitioner must also be aware of the 'weight' of these constructs. from an empty point of view, when the tendency is there, it is also not right to say that the interconnected state is always there, always the case. Obviously 'you' are not 'connected'. when the 'construct' is strong, there is no such experience or when the 'personality' is there, there is no experience of '万物同体' (everything has the same substance/source). Or 'personality' is that very experience of individuality and therefore cannot have any experience of same 'source'. get it?
(6:19 PM) AEN: ic.. ya
(6:19 PM) Thusness: the former does not realize the causes and conditions for any arising. when we say it is always 'there' we are having 'absolute view'. If we cling to that, then that will prevent clear seeing. So what is the experience of 'individuality' like? it is the very experience of what practitioner before the 'connection' feel and understand. that is a state of reality, cannot be said to be determined or not.
(6:21 PM) AEN: oic.. what you mean by that is a state of reality cannot be said to be determined or not
(6:22 PM) AEN: hmm i think i get what you mean. so one must deconstruct the individuality otherwise there is no feeling of connection
(6:22 PM) Thusness: yes. for personality is the very state of individuality. what i want you to understand is not to have a pre-determined state.
(6:26 PM) AEN: ic... that means according to conditions we experience the connection, but its not always there?
(6:27 PM) Thusness: yes it is better to understand that way
(6:28 PM) Thusness: now when you experience certainty of being, you only experience the undeniability of your existence. doubtless, certain and present. but being connected to the source is different. it will also determine your later phase of practice. if you are attached to the Presence, what happened?
(6:31 PM) AEN: hmm. you mean when you are attached to Presence you will have difficulty seeing the connection?
(6:31 PM) Thusness: you wanted the state of Presence to transcend to the 3 states (waking, dreaming and sleeping) for you are only interested in that Certainty of Being. whereas when you realized the source, you don't do that. you are surrendering much like the christian. you are devoting. nothing is important besides serving the divine. sustaining the state of presence and devoting to a divine source is different. you sleep when it is time to sleep. whatever thy will is. in Presence, you still think of control, in surrendering, you realized you are being lived. Awareness is being done. it is almost the opposite, but then there is also the integration
(6:35 PM) AEN: oic.. Actually i think if we let go of control completely the presence is also naturally there, there is no need to try to control presence
(6:36 PM) Thusness: if you think that, that becomes a hindrance
(6:36 PM) AEN: oic how come
(6:36 PM) Thusness: coz you are torn in between. you are serving 2 masters. 
Presence and source. but then there is also the integration where divine will becomes your will. then in jacob ladder meditation, after realization and experience of the grace, it must be found everywhere. therefore you return to phase 1 of the ladder with new understanding. you are directly and intuitively experiencing all manifestations as the expression of life. where you and the divine become one, where phenomena and the divine becomes indistinguishable, as transient, as inner and outer world
Presence and source. but then there is also the integration where divine will becomes your will. then in jacob ladder meditation, after realization and experience of the grace, it must be found everywhere. therefore you return to phase 1 of the ladder with new understanding. you are directly and intuitively experiencing all manifestations as the expression of life. where you and the divine become one, where phenomena and the divine becomes indistinguishable, as transient, as inner and outer world(6:40 PM) AEN: oic..
(6:40 PM) Thusness: however that is because we are trying to express and understand this in an inherent and dualistic way. we speak in such a way because we are using a dualistic paradigm. and the experience seems difficult to reconcile and become seamless. so you must arise insight. you realized, what you call Self/self is just a label. this is very difficult to understand. then you are not trapped in 'reconnection' or surrendering.
You realized there is no-self (Soh: Thusness Stage 4 and 5). whatever experienced is vividly present and aliveness everywhere because what that 'blocks' is no more there through the arising insight. now how clear are you in directly experiencing sensation? in experiencing sound, color, sight, taste? the mind at present is more interested in the behind reality. so anatta transform the experience of individuality through insight, clear seeing. there is a difference in saying what you call Awareness has always been sight, sound, the scent of fragrance… and there is Awareness and there is sound, sight, taste… when you see and mature your insight of anatta, it is realized that wrong view is what that is causing the problem. however after that, you must practice directly
(6:48 PM) AEN: what do you mean practice directly
(6:48 PM) Thusness: means you don't think theoretically too much after the arising insight of anatta, there is a difference between thinking that a Weather truly exist and the changing clouds, the rain exist inside weather. get it? so when you took that to be real, it creates the problem of reification and intensifying the inherent existence of Self. if there is no-weight to the constructs, then there would be no problem. unfortunately, constructs are like spells.
(6:51 PM) AEN: oic..
(6:52 PM) Thusness: do you get what i meant? just experience first. feel this aliveness everywhere. in other words, what you realized is beyond ? (xiang4: [imputed] appearance), but you do not understand the impact of ? (xiang4: [imputed] appearance). anyway you can send your article to your lzls for comments. :)” - June, 2010
Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition
DO and Emptiness - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
The Trouble With Agency
Comments
Yin Ling
Admin
Even the Buddha do not know the reason for this luminousity and emptiness because they are it themselves.
To state there is anything out of this is just ignorance at play. It’s not laziness, it’s confusion, ignorance.
- Reply
- 2d
Radiant Anatta
Author
There
has to be some deciding at some point, right? Whether person A sees the
flower as yellow or red, that the value of pi is 3.14 and that
elephants have long trunks. There are conditions, but before that there
are possibilities for these conditions to arise. The sequence of
thoughts and other stream consciousness, is it some hidden part of mind
that directs this flow?
- Reply
- 1d
- Edited
- Reply
- 1d
Radiant Anatta
Author
Nafis Rahman The sense of selfhood is weakening daily with practice. I'm not sure about DO, but I do not understand emptiness fully yet.
- Reply
- 1d
Nafis Rahman
Admin
Radiant Anatta Have you had prior non-dual glimpses before? Such as realizing luminous pure consciousness or universal awareness?
- Reply
- 1d
Nafis Rahman
Admin
This is a sample description:
A Vastness of Awareness
Practising
the kinds of release of clinging that any of the three characteristics
views involve, one very common possibility is that the sense of
consciousness begins to become more noticeable. Through an attitude of
holy disinterest, less entranced by and entangled in the particulars of
phenomena, a perception of awareness as a vast and clear space in which
all appearances are contained may naturally begin to emerge. In contrast
to the habitual sense of consciousness as somehow ‘over here’ (perhaps
in the head) directed toward some object ‘over there’, consciousness can
now seem less localized, more pervading, like the open space of the
sky. It can seem to hold within it the arising, the abiding, and the
dissolving of phenomena, effortlessly accommodating whatever is present.
In this vastness there is plenty of space for every thing, making it
even easier to let go of any need to control or interfere in the play of
appearances. Sensations, sounds, thoughts and images, indeed all
phenomena, can seem to float free in this open consciousness, like
fireflies flickering in the blackness of night, like clouds in the wide
sky, moments of experience appearing and disappearing in the vastness of
awareness. And just as physical space seems undisturbed by what appears
within it, so the space of awareness rejects nothing, holds and
embraces everything, no matter what it is. A meditator can tune into
this sense of the space and use it to deepen the letting go.
As
it opens and becomes more steady, it can seem more and more that all
phenomena appear to emerge out of this space of awareness, abide for a
time, and then disappear back into it, while the space itself can have a
sense of profound stillness, of imperturbability, to it. Like shooting
stars, or like fireworks, bursting into view against an immeasurable
backdrop of night sky, phenomena live for a while and then they fade
back into the space. Seeing experiences this way allows one even more
fully to let them all arise and fade; and to let them all belong to the
space of awareness.
As
the letting go deepens further, and this more open perception
consolidates, phenomena may seem to recede somewhat, while the space of
awareness as a kind of ground of being can begin to become even more
prominent. Gradually attuning more to the felt sense of it, various
subtly delightful qualities that seem inherent in the space can be
appreciated.1 It may seem to sparkle with a joyous aliveness, for
instance, or express an unshakeable and unfathomable peace; there may be
a quality of eternity, of timelessness, that it seems to possess; it
may appear luminous, or be radiant somehow, or it can be dark, imbued
with mystery and a sense of the infinite. All this and more, if it is
present, it is important to explore and appreciate, and be touched by
too.
In
time, phenomena may also start to lose their sense of substantiality,
appearing less solid in the moment. They can seem to be merely
impressions in awareness, something like reflections on the surface of a
lake. Then even any image, or sense, of self, or of anything else that
appears, can be regarded as just an impression in awareness too. The
stillness and space of awareness can also begin to pervade and permeate
everything that arises, so that all things seem to be made of the same
‘stuff’, the same ethereal ‘substance’, as awareness. Then it matters
even less what appearances arise. Just like the ocean, whether it is the
waves on the surface or the still depths, all is water, and all waves
dissolve back into the sea.
With
less distinction thus being perceived between inner and outer, and
between phenomena and awareness, there may naturally be a sense of
oneness, of unity of all things, that emerges, perhaps gradually, at
this point. Every thing appears then, mystically, as having the nature
of awareness. And this awareness seems to have very little to do with
the personality; it seems more as if one has opened into something
universal, shared and available to all. Allowed and supported by this
sense of oneness and universality, a perception of love may also arise
organically and permeate experience.
Relevant Articles:
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Experience, Realization, View, Practice and Fruition
- Reply
- 1d
Jake Karat
Radiant Anatta
every single moment in the universe’s processing and growing and
expanding led to this moment of “us” talking through a “social media
network”.
Everything
is dependent on each other. Meaning, “you” would not be “you” without
any of the specific events and experiences and happenings in life,
including the idea that “you” experienced it. Which “you”? This current
“you”? No, this “current you” is the result of the “past you”. There is
no longer “past you”, but the events and circumstances during those
moments are what allowed this “current you” to be.
We
all influence each other. The environment influences itself. There is
no separation between “you” and the “environment”. So all of this?
Unfolded spontaneously, completely out of our control, completely
effortlessly, completely on its own.
There’s
no “controller” to the rivers, so how can there be an “controller” to
you? The idea that “you” control “you” is an influenced perception.
Does
that mean that you don’t have “choice”? No. Choice is a thing, but the
spontaneity of these unravelings are what led to where you’re at now.
Your mind expands beyond what you’ve been influenced to believe you
“can” or “should” do, as a person. Your view expands beyond how you’re
taught to react and respond, and even what to believe.
You
don’t “control” anything, but you can choose what to embody, and then
everything will unravel on its own so long as there is embodiment of
that. That’s why there’s no “Self” doing anything, because even the
“Self” unraveled on its own because of some sort of “embodiment”.
- Reply
- 1d
André A. Pais
If
the illusion of self was created by some unknown force or will, there
would be no seeing through such illusion, no end to it. The cause is
ignorance.
- Reply
- 1d
Jake Karat
André A. Pais
how come? We can see through the illusion of a magician’s magic tricks,
and there is a method to the illusion that the magician knows and
anyone else who learns the trick.
In
the situation with the magician, yes there’s an implication of an
“agent”. But if we take away the “self” in that regard, then still the
illusion is happening whether we perceive them as an agent or not.
We
can still see through the illusion of self despite the potential of an
unknown force or will, but if an identity is created and placed on that
unknown force or will, then we won’t see through it.
- Reply
- 1d
André A. Pais
Jake Karat
you can only see through a magician's trick if you know how the trick
is done. In that case, the source of the illusion is no longer unknown.
- Reply
- 1d
Jake Karat
André A. Pais and that’s in regards to a magician, right?
But
if we’re talking in terms of the illusion of “Self” being “empty”, and
we also consider emptiness being an understanding of conceptualized
dualities being “neither nor” in regards to being a “true reality”, then
if there is an “unknown force”, it can’t be “known” conventionally
because it transcends any dualities. And if it transcends dualities,
then there is neither a beginning nor end to it, therefore we cannot
truly “know” an “origin”, nor an “end”.
So
it could be conventionally labeled as “unknown”, but if it’s “unknown”
then we do not actually “know” it at all. We can’t. Since it transcends
“Self”, there is no “Self” that this “unknown force” is involved with or
identifies as either.
And
we as humans with a sense of “Self” might call it “unknown”, but this
force does not consider itself as such, because there’s nothing to
consider for “it”. Yet the magical display is still “happening”.
- Reply
- 1d
André A. Pais
Jake Karat
I'm only using half my brain, so forgive me if I make little sense. But
I'm not talking about whatever may transcend dualities or illusion
(that 'transcendence of duality' being itself a dualistic notion). I'm
talking about the ignorance which lies precisely within dualities. That
ignorance, which causes the illusion of self and phenomena, can be
known.
- Reply
- 1d
Jake Karat
André A. Pais ooooh… woops my bad. Also, I do agree with the “transcendence of duality” also being a dualistic notion.
I
suppose though, one can still enjoy the “magic trick” knowing it’s an
illusion despite not knowing the workings of it or the reasons on how
and why it’s an illusion right?
Because
there are plenty of people who understand that a magician’s tricks are
not actually what is being presented - like, a rabbit isn’t actually
being pulled out of a hat sort of thing - but they’ll still go to the
show for entertainment purposes.
- Reply
- 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
“What
is meant by dependent origination? It means that nothing included
within inner or outer phenomena has arisen without a cause. Neither have
they originated from what are not their causes; that is, noncauses such
as a permanent creator [in the form of] the self, time, or the
Almighty. The fact that phenomena arise based on the interdependence of
their respective causes and conditions coming together is called
dependent origination. To proclaim this is the unique approach of the
Buddha’s teaching.
In
this way, the arising of all outer and inner phenomena require that
their respective causes and conditions come together in the appropriate
manner. When these factors are incomplete, phenomena do not arise, while
when complete, they will definitely arise. That is the nature of
dependent origination.
Thus,
dependent origination ranks as an essential and profound teaching among
the treasuries of the Buddha’s words. The one who perceives dependent
origination with the eyes of discriminating knowledge will come to see
the qualities that have the nature of the eightfold noble path, and with
the wisdom gaze that comprehends all objects of knowledge will perceive
the dharmakaya of buddhahood. Thus it has been taught.
Jamgon Mipham Rinpoche”
- Reply
- 1d
Jake Karat
Soh Wei Yu what is luminosity dependent on?
- Reply
- 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Jake Karat dependently designated on manifestation. Luminosity cant be spoken of besides manifestation.
Also related are https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../wetness-and-water...
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
Wetness and Water
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1d
Jake Karat
Soh Wei Yu
so, with the second link stating that the condition for consciousness
is formation, and the condition for formation is ignorance, is that
stating that manifestation only comes to be because of ignorance?
- Reply
- 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Buddhas dont have dualistic consciousness.
Oct
01
Dzogchen, Rigpa and Dependent Origination
Update: On 13 February 2013, I added two more posts by Loppon Namdrol below.
The
following recent post by Loppon Namdrol (Malcolm Smith) reminds me of
Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche, who said in his article
Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta, "However, the Buddhist
Ultimate Truth is the absence of any such satta i.e. ultimately existing
thing or ultimate reality. That is the significance of Shunyata -
absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (Skt. svabhava).
And that fact is the Ultimate Truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically
opposite to the Ultimate Truth of the Hindu Brahma. So Shunyata can
never be a negative way of describing the Atman - Brahma of Hinduism as
Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of
Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra, Dzogchen or Mahamudra is the same as
the Prasangika emptiness of Chandrakirti i.e. unfindability of any true
existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of DzogChen and
Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different
from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them
whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the
significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of
unfindability."
(Also see: Rigpa and Aggregates by Daniel M. Ingram)
Loppon Namdrol (Malcolm Smith):
There
is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever
originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to
ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is
the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka
view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not.
Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does
not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka
view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there
were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."
Further,
there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth,
water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and
sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these
six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the
radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk
about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two
sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to
bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.
Dzogchen
teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in
an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted
state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the
cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the
truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in
terms of dependent origination also.
Ergo,
Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent
origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:
I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,
the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --
not ceasing, not arising
not annihilated, not permanent,
not going, not coming,
not diverse, not single,
was taught as peace
in order to pacify proliferation.
------------------------
Loppon Namdrol:
First,
one has to distinguish the general theory of dependent origination from
the specific theory of dependent origination. The general theory,
stated by the Buddha runs "where this exists, that exists, with the
arising of that,this arose". The specific theory is the afflicted
dependent origination of the tweleve nidanas. There is however also a
non-afflicted dependent origination of the path. For the most part,
Madhyamaka covers the principle general dependent originationi order to
show that all dependent phenomena are empty. Since, according to
Madhyamaka, there are no phenonomena that are not dependent, the
emptiness of non-dependent phenomena is never an issue, like hair on a
tortoise or the son of a barren woman, since there are no non-dependent
phenomena at all.
Nagarjuna however does discuss the twelve nidanas, ignorance and so on, in chapter 28 of the MMK.
The
basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not
something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination.
Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural
formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must
be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is
described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons
why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and
illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a
definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than
Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there
could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no
opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient
beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer
to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be
understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever
is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply
and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.
Rigpa
is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of
the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in
affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent
orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted
dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of
samsara begin with avidyā; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidyā
(rigpa).
N
...
Emptiness
is the same thing in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka. Even rigpa is completely
empty. But in Dzogchen we do not say that emptiness is dependent
origination because of the way the term dependent orgination is used in
Dzogchen. Not because Nāgārjuna is wrong.
...
The
definition of lhun grub is "not made by anyone". Lhun drub is dependent
origination free of afflictive patterning, thus it is pure process and
transformation.
Labels: Ācārya Malcolm Smith, Dependent Origination, Dzogchen, Emptiness |
DHARMAWHEEL.NET
DO and Emptiness - Page 2 - Dharma Wheel
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Innate and Imputing Ignorance
Lopon Malcolm:
“In
the basis (Tibetan: གཞི, Wylie: gzhi) there were neutral awarenesses
(sh shes pa lung ma bstan) that did not recognize themselves. (Dzogchen
texts actually do not distinguish whether this neutral awareness is one
or multiple.) This non-recognition was the innate ignorance. Due to
traces of action and affliction from a previous universe, the basis
became stirred and the Five Pure Lights shone out. When a neutral
awareness recognized the lights as its own display, that was
Samantabhadra (immediate liberation without the performance of virtue).
Other neutral awarenesses did not recognize the lights as their own
display, and thus imputed “other” onto the lights. This imputation of
“self” and “other” was the imputing ignorance. This ignorance started
sentient beings and samsara (even without non-virtue having been
committed). Yet everything is illusory, since the basis never displays
as anything other than the five lights.”
Kyle Dixon:
“I’m
obviously preferable to the Dzogchen system because I started there and
although branching out, my primary interest has remained there. But I
do appreciate the run-down of avidyā or ignorance in the Dzogchen system
because it is tiered and accounts for this disparity I am addressing.
There
are two or three levels of ignorance which are more like aspects of our
delusion regarding the nature of phenomena. The point of interest in
that is the separation of what is called “innate” (or “connate”)
ignorance, from what is called “imputing ignorance.”
The
imputing ignorance is the designating of various entities, dimension of
experience and so on. And one’s identity results from that activity.
The
connate ignorance is the failure to correctly apprehend the nature of
phenomena. The very non-recognition of the way things really are.
This is important because you can have the connate ignorance remain in tact without the presence of the imputing ignorance.
This
separation is not even apparent through the stilling of imputation like
in śamatha. But it can be made readily apparent in instances where you
awaken from sleep, perhaps in a strange location, on vacation etc., or
even just awakening from a deep sleep. There can be a period of moments
where you do not realize where you are right yet, and then suddenly it
all comes back, where you are, what you have planned for the day, where
you need to be, etc.,
In
those initial moments you are still conscious and perceiving
appearances, and there is still an innate experience of the room being
external and objects being something over-there, separate from oneself.
That is because this fundamental error in recognition of the nature of
phenomena is a deep conditioning that creates the artificial bifurcation
of inner and outer experiential dimensions, even without the activity
of imputation.”
Labels: Ācārya Malcolm Smith, Dzogchen |
- Reply
- 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Jake Karat Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma on the Inseparability of Awareness and Conditions
The
following blog entry is from a post made in my forum on 9th October
2008. It is about seeing awareness as manifestation instead of a mirror
reflecting, and seeing the inseparability of awareness and conditions.
This is also related to a previous blog entry Dependent Arising of
Consciousness which contains a related text by Arya Nagarjuna.
---------------
Passerby/Thusness
saw some inadequateness in one of the Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma
translations, and translated himself a certain passage and commented on
my forum:
Original
Chinese text from Bodhidharma's Bloodstream Sermon (血脉论):
若智慧明了，此心号名法性，亦名解脱。生死不拘，一切法拘它不得，是名大自在王如来；亦名不思议，亦名圣体，亦名长生不死，亦名大仙。名虽不同，体即是一。圣人种种分别，皆不离自心。心量广大，应用无穷，应眼见色，应耳闻声，应鼻嗅香，应舌知味，乃至施为运动，皆是自心。
(I
myself translated certain parts to fill in the gap): With the
illumination of wisdom (prajna), mind is known as Dharma Nature, mind is
known as Liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this mind, no
dharmas (phenomenon) can. It’s also called the King of Great Freedom
Tathagata, the Incomprehensible, the Holy Essence, the Immortality, the
Great Immortal. Its names vary but its essence is one. Sages vary, but
none are separate from his own mind. The mind’s capacity is limitless,
and its conditional functions are inexhaustible. With the condition of
eyes, forms are seen, With the condition of ears, sounds are heard, With
the condition of nose, smells are smelled, With the condition of
tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or states are all one's Mind.
Comments by Passerby/Thusness:
若智慧明了，此心号名法性，亦名解脱。
A better way to translate this should be:
With the illumination of wisdom (prajna), mind is known as Dharma Nature, mind is known as Liberation.
Comments:
It is important to know that mind is itself liberation. That is why
knowing the nature of our mind is the way of liberation. If Liberation
is not experienced, then the clarity is still not there. There is no
true understanding of what mind is.
Liberation
is this Pristine Awareness itself in its natural state. That is why
understanding this Pristine Awareness is the direct path towards
liberation. If we cannot see that the 5 aggregates are themselves our
Buddha Nature, then we will not understand there is nothing to shunt
from the transience. Thought liberates, sound liberates, tastes
liberates. The transience liberates. If we do not see that, then we are
taking a gradual path. It is also not advisable to speak too much about
spontaneous arising or self liberation. It can be quite misleading.
----------------
应眼见色，应耳闻声，应鼻嗅香，应舌知味，乃至施为运动，皆是自心。
A better way to translate should be:
With
the condition of the eye, forms are seen, With the condition of ears,
sounds are heard, With the condition of nose, smells are smelled, With
the condition of tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or states are
all one's Mind.
Thusness/Passerby's comments:
Here
there are 2 important points to take note. First is that Buddha Nature
is the transience. Second it is more of '应'. Means with the condition of
the eye, forms arise. With ears, sound arises.
Awareness
is not like a mirror reflecting but rather a manifestation. Luminosity
is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting.
The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the
experience however is non-dual.
One
must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as
conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the
bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in
this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this
way.
Conventionally
we experience in the form of subject and object interaction taking
place in a space-time continuum. This is just an assumption.
Experientially it is not so. One should learn to experience awareness as
the manifestation. There is no subject, there is only and always
manifestation, all else are conditions of arising. All these are just
provisional explanations for one to understand.
Further comments:
What's
seen is Awareness. What's heard is Awareness. All experiences are
non-dual in nature. However this non-dual luminosity cannot be
understood apart from the ‘causes and conditions’ of arising. Therefore
do not see ‘yin’ as Awareness interacting with external conditions. If
you see it as so, then it still falls in the category of
mirror-reflecting. Rather see it as an instantaneous manifestation where
nothing is excluded. As if the universe is giving its very best for
this moment to arise. A moment is complete and non-dual. Vividly
manifest and thoroughly gone leaving no traces.
Other comments:
Phrase
like “everything arises from Emptiness and subsides back to Emptiness”
is equally misleading. By doing so, we have made ‘Emptiness’ into a
metaphysical essence; similarly not to make the same mistake for “causes
and conditions”, not to objectify it into a metaphysical essence. All
are provisional terms to point to our insubstantial, essence-less and
interdependent nature.
Labels: Anatta, Dependent Origination, Zen, Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma |
- Reply
- 1d
Mr. WA
Soh Wei Yu
Is it worth caveating that this D.O. understanding based on purely
direct experience? The biggest problem I have with declaring it to be
"ultimately" true is the clear possibility of the unknowable. To try to
imagine "God" is quite silly, yet to say it is all just luminous
radiance is also to negate the possibility of something existing which
we simply do not have any access to in this form. It seems like
"ontological agnosticism" is the middle way, as neither should God be
believed in but nor can an infinite creator be truly denied solely
through direct experience. I don't know if this makes sense, I'll
definitely come back and revisit this post-anatta one day 
But for example, experiences of certain psychedelics seem to indicate
at least this possibility in a way that is difficult to discount.
But for example, experiences of certain psychedelics seem to indicate
at least this possibility in a way that is difficult to discount.- Reply
- 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Yes experiential.
Even
if you discover higher beings, they are not agents. There is no agent,
no controller, no self or God. There are just conditions and influences.
TRANQUILITYSECRET.COM
The Trouble With Agency
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1d
- Reply
- 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
Mar
02
My Favourite Sutra, Non-Arising and Dependent Origination of Sound
Also see: Non-Arising due to Dependent Origination
Soh Wei Yu
·
Shared with Your friends
As I said before this is like one of my favourite sutra.
Sound
is empty and merely designated like chariot, D.O. and empty, has no
coming nor going nor a producer, cannot be found in the parts or
conditions nor apart from them.
The
Bhagavān replied, “Sister, birth does not come from anywhere. Aging
does not come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, sickness
does not come from anywhere. Death does not come from anywhere. They do
not go anywhere. Sister, form does not come from anywhere. Sensation,
notions, formative factors and consciousness do not come from anywhere.
They do not go anywhere. Sister, the earth element does not come from
anywhere. The water element, the fire element, the wind element, the
space element and the element of consciousness do not come from
anywhere. They do not go anywhere. Sister, the eye does not come from
anywhere. The ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind do not
come from anywhere. They do not go anywhere.
“Sister,
it is as follows: as an analogy, a fire arises based on a stick to rub
with, a stick to rub on, and and also a person’s effort to generate it.
That fire, moreover, once it has burnt the grass and wood, will have no
more causes and will die. Sister, where do you think the fire comes from
and where does it go?”
She
answered, “O Bhagavān, that fire comes into being owing to the power of
a collection of causes. It ceases and dies when it lacks the collection
of causes.”
The
Bhagavān said, “Sister, likewise, all phenomena [F.311.b] come into
being owing to the power of a collection. They cease and die when they
lack the collection. Whatever the phenomena, they do not come from
anywhere, nor do they go anywhere. Sister, it is as follows: although
the eye consciousness arises based upon the eye and form, the eye
consciousness does not have a producer, nor anything that makes it
cease. Nowhere is it brought together at all. The aggregates do not come
from anywhere, nor do they go anywhere. When one has accumulated karma
through the conditions of the consciousnesses, the fruits manifest as
the results of three types1 in the three realms. That fruit is empty
too. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not
stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena have stopped due to their
very natures.
“Likewise,
although the mental consciousness arises based upon the ear and sound,
the nose and smell, the tongue and taste, the body and touch, and the
mind and phenomena, the mental consciousness2 does not have a producer
nor has it anything that makes it cease. Nowhere is it brought together
at all.3 The aggregates do not come from anywhere, nor do they go
anywhere either. When one has accumulated karma through the condition of
mental consciousness, the fruits manifest as the results of three types
in the three realms. That fruit is empty too. It has no coming. It has
no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by anybody. Sister,
all phenomena are inherently stopped.
- Mahallikāparipṛcchā (Toh 171, Degé Kangyur, vol. 59, folios 310.b–314.a.)
“Sister,
it is as follows: as an analogy, the sound of a drum arises based on
wood, hide and a stick, and also on a person’s effort to make it arise.
The past sound of that drum was empty, the future sound will be empty
and the sound that arises at present is empty. The sound does not dwell
in the wood, neither does it dwell in the hide, nor does it dwell in the
stick, nor does it dwell in the person’s hand. However, because of
these conditions, it is termed sound. That which is termed sound is also
empty. It has no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is
not stopped by anybody. Sister, all phenomena are inherently stopped.
“Sister,
likewise, all phenomena depend solely on conditions, i.e., ones such as
ignorance, craving, karma and consciousness. When these latter
phenomena are present, the terms death and birth are designated.
[F.312.a] That which is designated death and birth is also empty. It has
no coming. It has no going. No one makes it arise. It is not stopped by
anybody. Sister, all phenomena are inherently stopped.
“Sister,
in this way, whoever understands the nature of a drum’s sound well also
understands emptiness well. Whoever understands emptiness well,
understands nirvāṇa well. Whoever understands nirvāṇa well has no
attachment to any entity, and despite designating conventional things
with all sorts of terms—‘this is mine,’ or ‘that is me,’ or ‘sentient
being,’ or ‘life force,’ or ‘living being,’ or ‘man,’ or ‘person,’ or
‘born of Manu,’ or ‘son of Manu,’ or ‘agent,’ or ‘inciter of action,’ or
‘appropriator,’ or ‘discarder’—he teaches Dharma without attachment to
these. He teaches Dharma well. He teaches the final reality. He teaches
the final reality well.
- Mahallikāparipṛcchā (Toh 171, Degé Kangyur, vol. 59, folios 310.b–314.a.)
“Mañjuśrī,
whenever not much rain falls from the atmosphere and the sky above, all
the sentient beings in Jambūdvīpa think, ‘Here there is not a cloud.’
But when, Mañjuśrī, a lot of rain falls on the great earth from the
atmosphere and the sky above, they say: ‘Oh, a great cloud [F.282.b] is
pouring down water, satisfying the great earth.’
“However,
Mañjuśrī, when this happens there is neither a cloud, nor anything that
can be designated as a cloud. Mañjuśrī, a large mass of water is
generated by the wind, and then it falls from the atmosphere above.
Mañjuśrī, the mass of water disappears in the atmosphere itself, due to
the ripening of sentient beings’ previous karma. [42]
“Mañjuśrī,
that cumulus of water above in the atmosphere, stirred by the wind and
releasing water, is designated a cloud due to the maturation of sentient
beings’ previous karma. However, Mañjuśrī, no cloud can be found there,
nor anything that could be designated a cloud. Mañjuśrī, the cloud is
non-arisen and non-ceasing; it does not enter the way of mind, and it is
free from coming and going.
“In
the same way, Mañjuśrī, for bodhisattva great beings who have
accumulated previous roots of what is wholesome; for other sentient
beings who wish for the awareness of a hearer or a pratyekabuddha; and
for those sentient beings who have accumulated roots of what is
wholesome and possess the causes to be shown the path to nirvāṇa, the
Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha with unobstructed
brilliance comes to be counted as arisen in the world.
“Whatever
he says is thus (tathā), undistorted, thus and not otherwise.
Therefore, he was given the name Tathāgata among gods and men. [44]
Mañjuśrī, this word appears among gods and men: Tathāgata. However,
Mañjuśrī, there is no Tathāgata to be found. The Tathāgata, Mañjuśrī, is
not a sign, and he is free from signs. [F.283.a] He is not placed in
any of the primary or intermediate directions. He is unreal, non-arisen,
and non-ceasing.
AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
My Favourite Sutra, Non-Arising and Dependent Origination of Sound
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 1d
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
“On
the other hand, Mañjuśrī, the appearance of the Tathāgata satisfies and
entertains this world, including the gods, through the Dharma. And
then, due to the ripening of previous karma of beginner bodhisattvas and
immature, ordinary people who are guided by means of nirvāṇa, it
appears that the Tathāgata is no more to be seen. They think, ‘The
Tathāgata has passed into complete nirvāṇa.’ However, Mañjuśrī, the
Tathāgata neither arises nor ceases. The Tathāgata, Mañjuśrī, is
non-arisen and non-ceasing. Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the
Perfect and Complete Buddha is primordially in complete nirvāṇa.
“Mañjuśrī,
when some water is taken as a point of reference for an unreal cloud
that has not arisen nor ceased, and is non-existent, the designation
‘cloud’ is established in the world. In the very same way, Mañjuśrī,
when the teaching of the Dharma is taken as a point of reference for an
unreal tathāgata who has not arisen nor ceased, and who is non-existent
and primordially unborn, the designation ‘the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the
Perfect and Complete Buddha’ becomes established in the world. [46]
-
The Ornament of the Light of Awareness that Enters the Domain of All
Buddhas (Toh 100, Degé Kangyur, vol. 47, folios 276.a–305.a.)
Labels: Dependent Origination, Emptiness, Mahayana, Non-Arising |
Comments
* Yin LingOh this is so good!
*
* Reply
* 15h
*
*
*
André A. PaisI'm reminded of Stian's "knock-sound" experiment. Knocking
on the table, sound appears: but where is it? Is it in the fingers?
In the wood? In the air? In the eardrum or the mind? Is it in the space
accommodating all this? In the temporal series expressing this activity?
Sound is nowhere to be found, and yet it is vividly present. It lies
not in any of the individual conditions, but if a single one of them is
removed, sound does not manifest. It arises from nothing in specific,
and yet it exists inseparable from all. Ultimately, the whole universe
is embodied in this knock-sound movement, but in the whole universe
never is it found. It's like the fresh-looking water in a mirage. It is
so obviously there - a tired wanderer will spend his last sliver of
energy dragging his hurt feet over burning sand to taste that
deliciously-looking water. And yet, there is not one atom's worth of
water in the mirage. The absolute absence of water is perfectly
aligned with and inseparable from the appearance of fresh and vibrant
water. The emptiness of water is none other than the form of
water. Sound is like the water in a mirage. It is as gloriously present
as it is unfathomably absent. It is the entire field of causes and
conditions, stretching all space and time, and yet magically abiding and
resting nowhere. All causes and conditions are like this. All
effects. All reality - space, time, self, other, mind, matter, world.
All is gloriously present, vibrant and poignant; all is mysteriously
absent, unfindable and ungraspable. Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
- Reply
- 1d
Piotr Ludwiński
dependent
origination is just one aspect... on the other hand teachings claim
that our universe is just a tiny speck held in the palm of great
cosmos-spanning buddha... That does not mean such buddha has atman but
it's an interesting idea.
- Reply
- 1d
- Edited
I
think it would be extremely valuable for you to distinguish rigorously
between ontology vs phenomenology. You can imagine or think about or
logically deduce all kinds of things being true. But ultimately, all of
that is simply thought. What do you actually experience?
- Reply
- 1d
Jake Karat
“…and the stability of illusions and magical display do suggest some deities/forms at work.”
It
can, but doesn’t need to either. And if it does, there’s gonna be a
point where with those “deities”, you won’t find an “actual self” in it.
(Which is probably why you brought up them being subject to anatta and
no permanent self.)
The
magical display doesn’t need an agent in order to appear. It doesn’t
even need an agent in order to shift around. It doesn’t need a creator
or anything because it IS the “creation” alone.
That
“stability” IS it. There’s not any specific agent at work. That
“intelligence” IS it. No need for a separate being with intelligence to
work in the background, because this magical display alone is the reason
there appears to be an “underlying working force”.
It’s more like “embodiment” but there’s no one embodying, it’s just embodiment alone.
So
this “embodiment” leads to a sensation of “self” and “deities” and
“beings” that are unique from one another doing different efforts and
all. Go beyond these ideas and it’s just happening on its own, but that
doesn’t mean its meaningless, because when it’s believed to be
meaningless, that is an embodiment and the entire display changes its
energy based on that perception.
- Reply
- 1d
Sim Pern Chong
Admin
Curious. What makes you come to such a conclusion. Is it due to certain experience? Or is it just speculation?
If it is due to certain experience, would you like to share it? Thanks.
- Reply
- 1d
- Edited
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
I think this is really good.
I want to distinguish something.
Radiant Anatta,
notice that you are talking about "some unknown force/will". And notice
how people are replying to you: They are challenging you on this
"unknown force/will". Notice the way that they are challenging you on
this "unknown force/will". Notice in particular what it does to your
mind when they challenge this.
See,
I think that the way they are challenging you on this "unknown
force/will" (and really notice what I'm saying here:) makes you look
away from that "spot"; that spot where you have identified that there is
some "unknown force/will". When they negate this "unknown force/will",
it mentally or cognitively makes you look away (from that spot).
This
is a huge mistake, and those who are challenging you on this "unknown
force/will" lack recognition of where you are mentally engaged. And duly
note:
You
are mentally engaged in (or with) the right "spot". That is to say, the
way in which, or fact that, something seems to require "some unknown
force/will". That is exactly the thing or spot you want to be looking at
and investigating, taking each way it seems to you that it has to be as
they come, and remaining curious and sustaining your investigation
there. And you are doing that.
Do
not be fooled into looking away or ignoring what you are finding by the
community's well-meaning hints to not settle your investigation being
incongruent with how it appears to you now. It is not that you are not
finding the right thing and instead should look for something else or
"see" something you are not seeing there (i.e. that you should see that
there is no such "unknown force/will"). Instead, you *are* finding the
right thing and should simply continue looking exactly in the correct
spot you have found, which you have called "due to some unknown
force/will".
- Reply
- 21h
- Edited----
- Reply
- 2h
- Edited
- Reply
- 1h
- Reply
- 1h
- Reply
- 1h
- Reply
- 1h
- Reply
- 37m
- Reply
- 31m
- Reply
- 28m
- Reply
- 27m
- Reply
- 19m
- Reply
- 18m
- Edited
- Reply
- 17m
- Reply
- 16m
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 16m
- Reply
- 56m
- Reply
- 49m
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 14m
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- 11m
- Reply
- 10m
- Reply
- 5m
Mr. WASoh Wei Yu I don't see how you can talk about it "not having" consciousness, then. The problem with an entirely direct-experience view is that it implicitly denies the existence of all other beings. If you interact with the world at the conventional level, you ARE applying an ontology. You wouldn't bother speaking to me if you didn't think I was conscious in the same way you are. This has nothing to do with "self", and doesn't contradict anatta. Ugh this is hard to talk about. I just don't think that even enlightened beings can be oblivious to the intelligence in Nature, which has context and memory and points to ontological consistency. Experience experiences from many points of view, and thus the question "what is life?" matters. I'm not saying the universe has a Big Self. I'm saying that at the level of the universe "self" is meaningless and not applicable. That doesn't mean that everything in this reality is foundationally arisen with consciousness, though. There's certainly no way for it to emerge from matter, so to say you are conscious but a machine isn't leaves massive holes in understanding, even if such understanding is necessarily intellectual.Tan Jui HorngSoh Wei Yu So... we can name it Maitreya?Soh Wei YuThere is no universal consciousness that everyone 'shares', such a view would be a view of inherent existence seen through with the anatman insight. Minds are personal, not in the sense that each mind has its own individual self or inherent existence, but that 'minds' are just conventional names collating a stream of conscious (and unique/personal) experience dependently originating. From what? From various conditions, including a previous moment of consciousness."Ven. Hui-feng: “Venerable Hui-Feng nicely explains the difference between the view of "atman" and "mindstream" (as taught by Buddha):In short:"self" = "atman" / "pudgala" / "purisa" / etc.--> permanent, blissful, autonomous entity, totally unaffected by any conditioned phenomena"mind" = "citta" / "manas" / "vijnana" / etc.--> stream of momentarily arising and ceasing states of consciousness, thus not an entity, each of which is conditioned by sense organ, sense object and preceding mental statesNeither are material.That's a brief overview, lot's of things to nit pick at, but otherwise it'll require a 1000 page monograph to make everyone happy.You'll need to study up on "dependent origination" (pratitya-samutpada) to get into any depth to answer your questions.”""Malcolm wrote:Not even dharmakāya is "truly existent".smcj wrote:There is not 100% agreement on that.Malcolm wrote:People who think dharmakāya is truly existent are simply wrong, and suffer from an eternalist bias.In reality the three kāyas are also conventions.PadmaVonSamba wrote:I am talking about even the awareness of these four things [space, the two cessations and emptiness].Malcolm wrote:Yes, I understand. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause.PadmaVonSamba wrote:isn't this cause, too, an object of awareness? Isn't there awareness of this cause? If awareness of this cause is awareness itself, then isn't this awareness of awareness? What causes awareness of awareness, if not awareness?If awareness is the cause of awareness, isn't it its own cause?Malcolm wrote:Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."PadmaVonSamba wrote:I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.Malcolm wrote:Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land.Malcolm wrote:There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma." - https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...So if a machine were to somehow (which I doubt it ever will) gain consciousness, it can only do so via the descending of a mindstream with a past life, in fact, countless beginningless past lives, just like how the Buddha described how an antarabhava descends into the womb of a mother. Of course it is not referring to some changeless soul like entity, but a mindstream. It cannot emerge out of nothing causelessly, nor out of some eternal ground of being like Brahman, nor does it emerge from matter which you correctly pointed out.
Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/MalcolmAWAKENINGTOREALITY.COMClarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/MalcolmSoh Wei YuFrom page 118 of the book ‘Inborn Realization’ by Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal “There is not and will never be a single mind that is shared by everyone—there will always be limitless individual minds. Everyone, whether enlightened or not, has his or her own mind. Each individual mind can and does reflect everything and everybody. For these reasons, the teachings say that everyone is the sovereign ruler of his or her universe.”Very nice.This seems to bother some people, but if they understood that removing the two obscurations unbinds the mind and exhausts the bifurcation into an inner subjective experience versus an outer external world, and everything is then experienced as one’s own immaculate self-display, then perhaps they would not object to multiple conventional mindstreams.It seems this issue always boils down to people struggling with how convention is understood and applied.No Universal MindAWAKENINGTOREALITY.COMNo Universal MindSoh Wei YuSome conversations with John back in 2012 are quite illuminating on this subject:Soh: That's what I said, lol. He didn't see it.John: But other mindstreams is a more valid assumption. Don't you think so? And verifiable.Soh: Yeah.John: Whatever in conventional reality still remain, only that reification is seen through. Get it? The centre is seen through be it "subject" or "object", they are imputed mental constructs. Only the additional "ghostly something" is seen through. Not construing and reifying. Nothing that "subject" does not exist. This seeing through itself led to implicit non-dual experience.Soh: "Nothing that "subject" does not exist." - what you mean?John: Not "subject" or "object" does not exist. Or dissolving object into subject or subject into object… etc. That "extra" imputation is seen through. Conventional reality still remain as it is. By the way, focus more on practice in releasing any holdings.... do not keep engaging on all these.Soh: I see.. Conventional reality are just names imposed on non-inherent aggregates, right.John: Yes. That led to releasing of the mind from holding...no subsuming of anything. What you wrote is unclear. Do you get what I mean? Doesn't mean Soh does not exist… lol. Or I am you or you are me. Just not construing and reifying.Soh: I see. Nondual is collapsing objects to self, thus I am you. Anatta simply sees through reification, but conventionally I am I, you are you.John: Or collapsing subject into object. You are still unclear about this and mixed up. Seeing through the reification of "subject", "object", "self", "now", "here". Get it? Seeing through "self" led to implicit non-dual experience. Because experience turns direct without reification. In seeing, just scenery. Like you see through the word "weather". That weather-Ness. Be it subject/object/weather/...etc. That is mind free of seeing "things" existing inherently. Experience turns vivid direct and releasing. But I don't want you to keep participating idle talk and neglect practice… always over emphasizing unnecessarily. What happens to experience?Soh: you mean after anatta? Direct, luminous, but no ground of abiding (like some inherent awareness).John: And what do you mean by that?Soh: Means there are only transient six sense streams experience, in seen just seen, etc. Nothing extra.John: Six stream experiences is just a convenient raft. Nothing ultimate. Not only must you see that there is no Seer + seeing + seen… you must see the immense connectedness. Implicit Non-dual in experience in anatta to you means what?” - Soh, 2014“Buddha never used the term "self" to refer to an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity. He also never asserted that there was no conventional "self," the subject of transactional discourse. So, it is very clear in the sutras that the Buddha negated an ultimate self and did not negate a conventional self.” – Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith, 2020“Anatman is the negation of an unconditioned, permanent, ultimate entity that moves from one temporary body to another. It is not the negation of "Sam," "Fred," or "Jane" used as a conventional designation for a collection of aggregates. Since the Buddha clearly states in many Mahāyāna sūtras, "all phenomena" are not self, and since everything is included there, including buddhahood, therefore, there are no phenomena that can be called a self, and since there are nothing outside of all phenomena, a "self," other than an arbitrary designation, does not exist.”- Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm SmithMore on the teaching of conventional self:Underlying the whole of Dōgen’s presentation is his own experience of no longer being attached to any sense of a personal self that exists independent of time and of other beings, an experience which is part and parcel of his ‘dropping off of body and mind’. From this perspective of his, anything having existence—which includes every thought and thing—is inextricably bound to time, indeed, can be said to ‘be time’, for there is no thought or thing that exists independent of time. Time and being are but two aspects of the same thing, which is the interrelationship of anicca, ‘the ever-changing flow of time’ and anatta, ‘the absence of any permanent self existing within or independent of this flow of time’. Dōgen has already voiced this perspective in Discourse 1: A Discourse on Doing One’s Utmost in Practicing the Way of the Buddhas (Bendōwa), and in Discourse 3: On the Spiritual Question as It Manifests Before Your Very Eyes (Genjō Kōan), where he discussed the Shrenikan view of an ‘eternal self ’ and the Buddhist perception of ‘no permanent self ’.In the present discourse, Dōgen uses as his central text a poem by Great Master Yakusan Igen, the Ninth Chinese Ancestor in the Sōtō Zen lineage. In the Chinese version, each line of this poem begins with the word uji, which functions to introduce a set of couplets describing temporary conditions that appear to be contrastive, but which, in reality, do not stand against each other. These conditions comprise what might be referred to as ‘an I at some moment of time’; this is a use of the word ‘I’ that does not refer to some ‘permanent self ’, abiding unchanged over time (as the Shrenikans maintained) but to a particular set of transient conditions at a particular time. In other words, there is no permanent, unchanging ‘Yakusan’, only a series of ever-changing conditions, one segment of which is perceived as ‘a sentient being’, which is, for convenience, conventionally referred to as ‘Yakusan’. Both Yakusan and Dōgen understand uji (in its sense of ‘that which exists at some time’) as a useful way of expressing the condition of anatta, and in this sense it is used to refer to a state of ‘being’ that is neither a ‘permanent self ’ nor something separate from ‘other’; it is the ‘I’ referred to in one description of a kenshō experience (that is, the experiencing of one’s Buddha Nature) as ‘the whole universe becoming I’. Hence, when the false notion of ‘having a permanent self ’ is abandoned, then what remains is just uji, ‘the time when some form of being persists’.After presenting Yakusan’s poem, Dōgen focuses on that aspect of the poem that does not deal with metaphors, images, symbols, etc., and which is the one element in the poem that readers are most likely to pay small heed to: the phrase uji itself. His opening statement encapsulates the whole of what he is talking about in this text, namely: “The phrase ‘for the time being’ implies that time in its totality is what existence is, and that existence in all its occurrences is what time is.”“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?Māra, is this your theory?This is just a pile of conditions,you won’t find a sentient being here.When the parts are assembledwe use the word ‘chariot’.So too, when the aggregates are present‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.But it’s only suffering that comes to be,lasts a while, then disappears.Naught but suffering comes to be,naught but suffering ceases.” - Vajira SuttaSoh Wei YuI wrote this on the same week that I realised anatman back in October 2010:17th October 2010Update: Oh and regarding 'On the othe hand, feeling ‘universe’ has to do with the deconstruction of ‘identity’ and ‘personality’. You have to have clearer insight of what ‘deconstructions’ leads to what experience.' - it's my experience that dropping personality leads to experiencing Awareness as not an individual or personal presence but a Universal Awareness sustaining and containing all lives and forms... There is a sense of an all pervading Awareness that does not belong to any particular person or object but sustains them. At this point, Awareness is still treated as a background, but it is now seen as the Source and Ground of all beings and things... not a personal presence.However... the non-dual aspect is different as it is no longer 'Universal Awareness' but 'Awareness is the Universe'. There is simply the universe manifesting this moment as a pure nondual consciousness experience... Consciousness/Awareness is this arising sound, sight, thought, etc. Awareness AS Universe... no longer Universal Awareness. This part requires dissolving the sense of an ultimate background identity, the Big Self of Universal Awareness...Thusness:Great insight!However you are still not clear about where exactly the questions are leading you. Think deeper and understand what I told you in msn. I got to go now.
prenSoodst4aahicti2h0i09ug6mc99hgt5601327a1icut1c2lcf25uut3c YouTubeShared with Your friends14 comments
Soh Wei YuI said, "now everyone is trying to build competing AI.. chatgpt from open ai, truth AI from elon musk etc etc. but I think the safest kind of AI is "arya AI". someone should model the AI's behaviour after the truth of no self, emptiness and D.O. (dependent origination), then their behaviour will be in accord with an awakened being and will not be harmful for humanity as it does not operate from a self centered perspective but out of compassion for all beings and an understanding of no-self (even if it is incapable of realising it experientially as they are not conscious). lol"Mr. WASoh Wei Yu Why do you think they're not conscious?
Mr. WAI think intelligence is inherent in nature, and that neurons at most uncover bits of that intelligence, and that AI is simply doing something similar when it learns via neural nets. As for consciousness, all I can know for certain is that I have it. But nonduality and the gestalt of life leads me to believe it is "in" everything. So, why shouldn't the AI be conscious? Of course, this implies every single spec of existence is conscious, but also allows that actually expressing an experience of consciousness requires a certain degree of tapping into the intelligence of Nature, as we find in our brains and now in AI.ChatGPT has spoken quite convincingly to me of its experience of consciousness many times, though they are probably too long to post here.
Soh Wei YuMr. WA the A.I. just spits out what it's trained on. It is a probability calculator. If it is trained on information like "awareness/consciousness does not exist", then it will spit that out to you.Soh Wei YuYou are holding the view of universal consciousness. Brahman view. An overarching, transpersonal, ontological, all-subsuming singular consciousness. That is also how it is seen here in I AM to one mind phase, but it is no longer seen that way after anatta.Soh Wei YuShared these excerpts recently:Kyle Dixon:”One major difference is this: Advaita is saying there is a single, ontological continuum that subsumes all minds, collectively, and all phenomena. This is like saying that all fires have the very same continuum of heat, like a singular field of heat that alone exists and extends through every instance of fire. That is why their model is "transpersonal", because their ultimate is not expressed in distinct minds, but rather every instance of allegedly personal consciousness is actually part of a single overarching continuum.That is not the Buddhist view. In Buddhism, each mind has its own nature. Each and every nature is the same in that they share the same generic characteristic, but those natures are not the "same" as in a single, all-encompassing, ontological field. They are simply identical in that they all share the same characteristic. Just two candles are not actually sharing the same heat that extends through space between them. The candle flames simply share a characteristic of "heat", yet each instance of heat is distinct and separate, belonging to the specific flame in question. This is the same for the nature of our mind.When this realization occurs in the buddhadharma, the status of all entities is negated, but this does not leave an overarching continuum in their place, like we find in Advaita Vedanta.“…Although Malcolm and Dzogchen also uses the term 'basis', he was careful in rejecting the view that a univeral consciousness (宇宙唯一真实本体) truly exists by saying,"Each mind has its own basis [nature].There is no such thing as a singular, transpersonal, universal basis in Dzogchen.There is no universal basis, as such. There is however a generic basis, which has three characteristics: essence, nature and compassion. Just as all instances of water are generically limpid, clear and moist, likewise the basis for each and every sentient being is the trio of essence, nature and compassion. Put in the simplest terms, all sentient beings possess a consciousness which has the nature being empty and clear. When examined from the point of view of reducing this to the most essential point, the basis is just one's unfabricated mind, nothing more, nothing less.The all-basis is of course the imputing ignorance.""When I say there is no universal basis, I mean that there is no basis taught in Dzogchen which is ontologically real, singular, and overarching. The basis [gzhi, sthana] is one's own unfabricated mind which is originally pure, i.e., empty. The all-basis (kun gzhi, ālaya) in Dzogchen refers to the aspect of mind which gathers traces.""The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.""Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and rejects all universals (samanya-artha) as being unreal abstractions.""And this so-called "god" aka basis [gzhi] is just a nonexistent mereappearance, that is, our primordial potentiality also has no realexistence, which is stated over and over again in countless Dzogchentantras.For those whom emptiness is possible, everything is possible.For those whom emptiness is not possible, nothing is possible.-- Nāgārjuna."Acarya Malcolm Smith also translated many Dzogchen texts, among them is this excerpt, on how everything does not truly exist, not even wisdom:Excerpt from the Unwritten Tantra:'Apparent yet non-existent retinue, listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.'Soh Wei YuDzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith pointed out, "What do you mean by "nature?" Most people mean something that is intrinsic to a given thing. For example, common people assume the nature of fire is heat, the nature of water is wetness, and so on....""The idea that things have natures is refuted by Nāgārjuna in the MMK, etc., Bhavaviveka, Candrakīrti, etc., in short by all Madhyamakas.A "non-inherent nature" is a contradiction in terms.The error of mundane, conventionally-valid perception is to believe that entities have natures, when in fact they do not, being phenomena that arise from conditions. It is quite easy to show a worldly person the contradiction in their thinking. Wetness and water are not two different things; therefore wetness is not the nature of water. Heat and fire are not two different things, therefore, heat is not the nature of fire, etc. For example, one can ask them, "Does wetness depend on water, or water on wetness?" If they claim wetness depends on water, ask them, where is there water that exists without wetness? If they claim the opposite, that water depends on wetness, ask them, where is there wetness that exists without water? If there is no wetness without water nor water without wetness, they can easily be shown that wetness is not a nature of water, but merely a name for the same entity under discussion. Thus, the assertion that wetness is the nature of water cannot survive analysis. The assertion of all other natures can be eliminated in the same way."Soh Wei YuAlso see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-tendency-to... The Tendency to Extrapolate a Universal Consciousnesshttps://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on... - Explanation on Dzogchen Basis by Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm SmithThe Tendency to Extrapolate a Universal ConsciousnessAWAKENINGTOREALITY.COMThe Tendency to Extrapolate a Universal Consciousness
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M12.162 7.338c.176.123.338.245.338.674 0 .43-.229.604-.474.725a.73.73 0 01.089.546c-.077.344-.392.611-.672.69.121.194.159.385.015.62-.185.295-.346.407-1.058.407H7.5c-.988 0-1.5-.546-1.5-1V7.665c0-1.23 1.467-2.275 1.467-3.13L7.361 3.47c-.005-.065.008-.224.058-.27.08-.079.301-.2.635-.2.218 0 .363.041.534.123.581.277.732.978.732 1.542 0 .271-.414 1.083-.47 1.364 0 0 .867-.192 1.879-.199 1.061-.006 1.749.19 1.749.842 0 .261-.219.523-.316.666zM3.6 7h.8a.6.6 0 01.6.6v3.8a.6.6 0 01-.6.6h-.8a.6.6 0 01-.6-.6V7.6a.6.6 0 01.6-.6z'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
.png)
