Eric wrote:
This begs the question 'What is discriminating supreme
knowledge?'. How does one look straight at appearance-emptiness,
sound-emptiness, and awareness-emptiness in order to be directly
released?
Thank you for sharing, and I hope to hear a reply from you.
My reply:
First realise anatta. No thinker or seer besides self luminous
thought, sight and sound. Subject action object is seen through like rainer rains the rain is seen through.
In that moment of immediate and nondual perception of manifestation
Look
at its nature, where has that appearance come from? Does it come from
somewhere? Does it come from itself? Does it arise causelessly? And if
not, what is the mechanism that allows for the appearing of appearances?
If what arises, arises via dependencies, does it have any existence of
its own? Does it arise, abide or subside?
By investing in such a manner the nature of vivid mind/appearances becomes clear
Staring into at the reflection of my face on the screen
It is obvious the reflection on the screen is dependent on my eyes, the lights, and the movement of my hands
It is obvious that the reflection does not amount to a truly existing face being created or arising inside the iphone
It is obvious that none of these elements exist separately or independently
Even though each of these do not meet, they are intimately connected in a seamless movement or activity
None of these domains have an independent existence in and of its own
Each
appearance, being nondual and luminously clear, the vivid
reality/display of pure presence/luminous mind, is at once in seamless
connection as a seamless activity with all (conditions) that is
And yet although I said the reflection is dependent on eye and so on
I do not mean that the conditions such as The Eye has an independent existence
We
are used to thinking of causes and effects as pre existing things that
can effect or cause something else to come into existence
In truth the principle of conditionality is not compatible with such flawed and common understandings of causation
For
example, have we considered the fact that an eye is not an eye? Or that
The Eye is empty of eye or eye-ness of eye? And likewise consciousness
is empty of consciousness?
For an eye (or, visual consciousness) is dependently designated on the function of seeing
On the vividness of red colour of the rose
And the vividness of the red colour of the rose makes eyes what it is
For what we call eye is simply a convenient label for an organ that makes sight possible
And what is an eye if not for its function of seeing?
So
whatever we defined such as an eye cannot be understood apart from the
other conventions that make the convention “eye” meaningful
It
is not an entity which exists in and of itself apart from the conditions, parts
and functionalities and other conventions that defines it
Whatever
we refer to, such as an eye, a rose, and so forth cannot be found or
pinned down as an entity besides its parts, functionality, dependencies,
appearances, designating consciousness
There is not a (truly existing) originating cause or condition of an effect
For the cause defines the effect and the effect defines the cause
Cause is not before and effect is not after
The cause is cause because the effect is effect
The
Son makes the Father a Father, it’s not that Father came first before
Son, in the act of co-dependent origination, no originator nor
origination can be found
nothing has truly originated, arisen,
been created, nor is there a creator in an appearance and no true cause
or condition can be found to exist in and of its own
Whatever appearance we encounter, meet, is a seamlessly (dependently originating) originating non-originated appearance
Just like reflections, mirages, dreams, nothing truly existing can be found in the reflections
Like
a reflection, nothing truly arising (coming into existence) could be
found despite the moon vividly showing on the surface of the lake
Neither
the reflection of the moon nor the moon in the sky could be found to
exist in and of itself apart from all the conditions, functions, and
dependent designations that define it
None of them infers an entity that is created or arising anywhere Nor a “that which originates”
Vivid appearances ceaselessly manifest without amounting to something arising, abiding or ceasing
Like painting on the surface of the lake with your fingers, vividly appearing yet not leaving traces
Like
the endless stream of images dependently originating with the fingers
scrolling on the screen of this iPhone through Facebook, not ever
amounting to something truly arising, coming into being, abiding
somewhere and going somewhere. No cat has came from the top and left
from the bottom of the screen on your iPhone nor exist inside your iPhone. It does not come into existence of its own accord and cannot
be separated from your act of seeing it.
What does not arise from
other, from itself, nor causelessly, does not truly arise or come into
being. They are like reflections, mirages and dreams. Vividly present
yet absent, and the whole field of experience is equal to empty space,
not in the sense that nothing is seen but nothing is tangible, nothing
seen or heard actually amounts to “something”.
Wisdom arise by
getting acquainted with right view through learning and meditative
contemplation, and it will be counter productive to fall into seeking a
state of non conceptuality. Yet when the wisdom of the nature of
appearance arises.. there is no longer a need to conceptualise emptiness
and instead one simply rests in the flow of empty clarity in vivid
appearance. Dependently originating appearance arises as unborn wisdom
Posts
