Yuan Yin Lao Ren Writings / ChatGPT (Paid/GPT4)'s ability to translate Chinese to English has improved
Soh

 

    Soh Wei Yu

    epdtrSsoon1l Juhiitt501060lsnfttt704iu154ol0am458a9lalwi500t 
    Shared with Your friends
    ChatGPT (Paid/GPT4)'s ability to translate Chinese to English has improved
    [28/11/23, 10:37:33 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Im impressed with gpt4 at translating yuan yin text
    [28/11/23, 10:37:36 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Translate 四曰泯境存心。谓做工夫时，将一切内外诸境，悉观为空寂，只存一心，孤标立。所以古人云：
    不与万物为侣，不与诸尘作对，心若着境，心即是妄，今既无境，何妄之有？即古人夺境不夺人法
    门也。故云：上苑花已谢，车马尚骈阗。此是泯境存心息妄功夫也。
    五曰泯心泯境。谓做功夫时，先空寂外境，次灭内心，既内外心境俱寂，毕竟妄从何有？故灌溪
    云：十方无壁落，四面亦无门。即祖师人境两俱夺法门也。故有语云：云散水流去，人寂天地空！
    此泯心泯境息妄功夫也。
    六曰存境存心。谓做功夫时，心住心位，境住境位。有时心境相对，则心不趣境，境不临心，各不
    相到，自然妄念不生，于道无碍。故经云：是法住法位，世间相常住。即祖师人境俱不夺法门也。
    故有语云：一片月生海，几家人上楼！此是存境存心灭妄功夫也。
    七曰内外全体。谓做功夫时，于山河大地，日月星辰，内身外器，一切诸法，同真心体，湛然虚
    明，无一毫异，大千沙界，打成一片，更于何处得妄心来！所以肇法师云：天地与我同根，万法与
    我同体。此是内外全体灭妄功夫也。
    八曰内外全用。谓做功夫时，将一切内外身心器界诸法及一切动用施为，悉观作真心妙用，
    一切心
    念才生，便是妙用现前。既一切皆是妙用，妄心向甚处安着？故永嘉云：无明实性即佛性，幻化空
    身即法身。此是内外全用息妄功夫也。
    九曰即体即用。谓做功夫时，虽冥合真体，一味空寂，而于中内隐灵明，乃体即用也；灵明中，内
    隐空寂，用即体也。故永嘉云：惺惺寂寂是，惺惺妄想非，寂寂惺惺是，寂寂无记非。既寂寂中不
    容无记，惺惺中不用乱想，所有妄心如何得生？此是即体即用灭妄功夫也。
    十曰透出体用。谓做功夫时，不分内外，亦不辨东西南北，将四面八方只作一个大解脱门。圆陀陀
    地体用不分，无分毫渗漏，通身打成一片。其妄何处得起？古人云：通身无缝罅，上下成团圆，是
    乃透出体用灭妄功夫也。
    以上十种功夫，不须全做，但得一门成就，其妄自息，真心即现。随宿根曾与何法有缘，即便习
    之。此之功夫乃无功之功，非有心功力也。即使未悟真心者修之，亦易当下得见。此休息妄心法
    门，对学道人最关紧要，故不厌求详，录示后学，切勿以画蛇添足视之！
    以上十种功夫，俱在行、住、坐、卧处着力，须于穿衣吃饭时，屙屎放尿时，对话工作时，一切
    时、一切处，绵密觉察观照，不消打坐参究。其或习障深厚，力有未逮，仍须打坐用功者，即仍听
    之，但须于下坐后，将定中功夫，推在境上，在动中着力锻炼，庶几可以早日打成一片，而臻无功
    之大功，圆成菩提大道。
    至于密宗，悟后更须密修，以期即“身”成就。其修法之广，方便之多，远非显宗可比。但密法贵师
    承灌顶传授，不可公开露布，故从略。
    (丁)、证体启用
    关于证体之景相，古人多不详言。
    一者，以此证境，非言思能及，一落言诠，即嫌住着。二者，真
    证得者，归无所得，不欲炫耀于人。三者，恐未悟者窃为己有，以迷惑他人。四者，恐人着境以
    求，反障悟门。五者，各人经过境界，亦非完全一致。以是等等原因，故只以“云散长空，青天澈
    露”
    、
    “万里无云之晴空”
    、
    “心月孤圆，光含万象”
    、
    “非光非昧，非大非小，非青非黄”，更或以“圆团
    [28/11/23, 10:37:44 AM] Soh Wei Yu: The text you've provided is an excerpt from a classic Chinese Buddhist text, discussing various methods of spiritual practice in Buddhism. Here's a translation of the excerpt:
    **Fourth Practice: Erase the Realm, Retain the Mind.**
    This refers to practicing with a focus on observing all internal and external phenomena as void and silent, keeping only the mind, standing alone. An ancient saying goes, "Do not associate with all things, do not oppose any dust. If the mind attaches to realms, it becomes delusion. Now, with no realms, what delusion can there be?" This is the method of the ancients who removed realms but not the mind.
    **Fifth Practice: Erase both Mind and Realm.**
    This involves first emptying the external realm and then extinguishing the internal mind. With both the internal mind and external realm in silence, where can delusion arise from? As Guanxi said, "The ten directions have no walls, and the four sides have no doors." This is the method of the ancestors who removed both person and realm.
    **Sixth Practice: Retain both Realm and Mind.**
    Here, the mind stays in its place, and the realm stays in its place. When the mind and realm face each other, neither clings, each staying separate, naturally preventing the rise of delusive thoughts and not hindering the path. Thus, a scripture says, "This dharma stays in its place, and the world's appearance remains constant." This is the method of not removing either mind or realm.
    **Seventh Practice: Complete Integration of Internal and External.**
    In practice, everything such as mountains, rivers, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, one's own body, external objects, and all phenomena are seen as of the same true mind, bright and empty, with not a hair's difference. The entire universe is unified, leaving no place for delusive thoughts to arise. Therefore, Master Zhao said, "Heaven and earth share the same root with me; all things are of the same body as me."
    **Eighth Practice: Complete Function of Internal and External.**
    This involves viewing all internal and external physical and mental phenomena, and all movements and actions, as the wondrous function of the true mind. As soon as a thought arises, it manifests as this wondrous function. Since everything is this wondrous function, where can delusion find a foothold? As Yongjia said, "The true nature of ignorance is Buddha-nature, the illusory empty body is the Dharma body."
    **Ninth Practice: Identity of Substance and Function.**
    Even though one merges with the true substance in a state of uniform emptiness, within it is the hidden brightness, which is substance as function. In this brightness, emptiness is hidden, so function is also substance. Thus, Yongjia said, "Awake and silent is it; awake and deluded is not; silent and awake is it; silent and unmarked is not." Since in silence there's no room for the unmarked, and in wakefulness there's no need for chaotic thoughts, how can delusive thoughts arise?
    **Tenth Practice: Transcending Substance and Function.**
    In practice, do not differentiate between internal and external, nor distinguish directions. Consider all directions as one great liberation gate. The substance and function are inseparable, completely unified. Where then can delusion arise? The ancients said, "The entire body is without seams, above and below are perfectly round." This is the practice of transcending substance and function.
    The above ten kinds of practices need not all be done; mastering one can suffice to quiet delusion and reveal the true mind. Practice according to your affinity with these teachings. These are effortless practices, not requiring intentional effort. Even those who have not realized the true mind can see it immediately if they practice these methods. It's crucial for those learning the way, so I record it here for future students, urging not to overcomplicate it!
    These ten practices should be applied in all activities: walking, standing, sitting, lying down, dressing, eating, using the restroom, talking, working - always maintaining mindful awareness without needing to focus solely on meditation. If one's habitual tendencies are deep and strength insufficient, meditation may still be necessary. After meditation, apply the practice to situations, striving to unify and achieve the great effortless achievement, completing the path to enlightenment.
    As for Esoteric Buddhism, after enlightenment, secret practice is still necessary to achieve "body" accomplishment. The methods of practice are vast and skillful, far beyond what is found in exoteric teachings. However, the esoteric teachings require transmission and initiation from a teacher and are not to be openly disclosed.
    **About Realization and Application**
    Ancient masters often did not elaborate on the experiences of realization, for several reasons. Firstly, such states are beyond words and thought, and any description risks creating attachment. Secondly, those who truly realize it attain a state of 'no
    [28/11/23, 10:37:53 AM] Soh Wei Yu: attainment' and do not wish to show off. Thirdly, there's a fear that those who have not realized might mistakenly claim it as their own, misleading others. Fourthly, describing these states might lead people to seek these experiences, creating obstacles to enlightenment. Finally, the experiences of individuals can vary significantly. Therefore, descriptions are often metaphorical, like "clouds dispersing in the sky," "a cloudless sky," "the moon's solitary circle with light embracing all," "neither light nor dark, neither large nor small, neither blue nor yellow." Such metaphors attempt to convey the indescribable nature of enlightenment.
    This text reflects deep philosophical and spiritual insights from Buddhist teachings, emphasizing the importance of inner silence, the non-attachment to phenomena, and the realization of the true nature of the mind.
    [28/11/23, 10:38:01 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Translate: 团，光灿灿”等约略描绘之。余今似亦不例外，况余并无所证，亦无所得，更无能为言，只得拾几句
    现成公案，以飨读者。至于详细情形，只有留待读者自己努力用功证取体会了。
    当我人修法修至能所双忘，心法双泯时，不管修什么宗，都是卒地折、爆地断，有如爆炸物，忽然
    爆破，内而身心，外而世界，乃至虚空，一时脱落、粉碎，化为乌有，连乌有也乌有。所谓大地平
    沉，虚空粉碎，当斯时也，虽一无所有，但虚明凝寂、一灵不昧，了了常知非如木石。虽了了而无
    能知与所知，以此了了全体是一片虚明灵知，不能再有能知与所知，再有知，便是头上加头，即非
    是了。我人证此真境后，回过头来，方才识知这个“灵知”不在别处，整日在六根门头上放光，与我
    人无丝毫离异、无些许间隔，一切言行动作，无不是“它”的灵妙神用。从前为它千辛万苦，百般追
    求探索，原来只在目前不识，反而污糟它、屈辱它，在六道内轮回受苦，宁不冤苦！古德谓“声前一
    句，千圣不传，面前一丝，亘古无间！”又, 谓“踏破铁鞋无觅处，得来全不费工夫。”即指此也。
    但这只是素法身，尚须辛勤打磨，绵密除习，始能大放光明。功夫纯熟，即便熟睡，顶上亦如一轮
    中秋明月朗照。待光明精纯，宽阔天眼自然豁开，十方世界一时齐彰，我入入我有如因陀罗网，
    交参，妙用无尽。
    或谓此种景相是禅宗或密宗行人所证，至于净土宗念佛人不应如此，因彼等以生西方净土为目的，
    应于定中见阿弥陀佛和西方圣境，不可一无所见。假使一无所见，如何得生净土？
    答曰：君不见前录之印光大师念佛三昧么？印光大师是极力主张仗佛慈力，接引生西的。他为何在
    念佛三昧中也说，无见之见是真见，真见无所见呢？盖真如佛性无形无相，一尘不染，一丝不挂，
    说似一物即不中。故真佛，实在无言可说、无形可见。但此无形之佛性，不是顽空，故能随缘现相
    起用，但相以随缘现起故，只是假名，非是实体。故见有相之佛不是真佛。古德云：报化非真佛，
    亦非说法者。《法华经》谓为化城，非是宝所。欲上品上生西方净土，须透有相之小歇场，证到无
    相之真佛妙体，方能如愿以偿。反是，执有形之佛与有相之净土，只能下品下生，此乃无可移易之
    真理。故印光大师说到念佛最高之境界--念佛三昧时，亦不得不说无所见之见乃真见了。以证到如此
    高深境界，心土打成一片，心即土，土即心。发愿生西即是生自心之净土，生无所生，还怕不上品
    上生吗？
    见性之后，若死守空境，或耽着静居，而不知于境上起用，犹如贫子发了财后，不知其用，终如贫
    穷一样。而且不于事境上锻炼，不得理事双融之大定，更毋臻事事无碍之境而圆成佛道之大功。故
    必以所悟之理于事境上磨练，去其棱角，方臻圆妙。但初悟之人，往往不知起用之方，更不明其过
    程，甚或因力一时不够，遇事而有波动时，又疑所悟为非而动摇根本。惶惑不知所措，甚为可
    惜！兹将先师骧陆公所著《证体启用之过程》择其要者，节录于后，以助读者于悟后启发般若之
    用，而成绝顶无为之功，亦幸甚矣！
    实相妙体本有无住妙用，学人须将所证得之清净自在光景，移用于人事颠倒之时，而化有归空，化
    颠倒为清净，化烦恼为自在，非但灭却自己之苦，且可以灭他人之苦，此即名度生。
    功夫越深，习气发动亦越多越快，学人不必害怕，此第八识性田中自然翻出之种子，发动虽快，但
    去亦甚快，发动可能平日为大，但发一次，小一次，短一次，少一次，不复再增长了。
    功夫越深，胆子越大。如忽然遇惊，亦只一惊，不复再惊，而且力愈用愈强。
    功夫越深，忽而忘记性大，又忽而记忆力甚强，且日见敏捷；感觉力亦强，往往不假思索即与物相
    应，此通之先兆也。
    [28/11/23, 10:38:10 AM] Soh Wei Yu: The provided text is a continuation of the previous excerpt, elaborating further on Buddhist spiritual practices. Here's the translation:
    "This is a rough depiction. I, too, am no exception. Moreover, I have nothing to prove, nothing to gain, and am unable to speak of it. I can only pick a few existing public cases to share with readers. The detailed experiences can only be realized and understood through the readers' own diligent practice.
    When a practitioner reaches a state where both subject and object are forgotten, and both mind and law are obliterated, regardless of the sect, it's like an explosion, where suddenly, internally the body and mind, and externally the world and even the void, collapse and shatter, turning into nothingness. This is the moment when the earth sinks level, and the void crumbles. Although there's nothing left, there is still the clear, silent, and ever-bright spirit, always conscious but not like wood or stone. Although aware, there is no knower or known, because this awareness itself is a vast clear, spiritual consciousness. Adding any more to this is like putting a head on top of another head, and thus it's not the true state. After realizing this true state, one understands that this 'spiritual consciousness' is not elsewhere but shining at the six sense gates all day, inseparable from oneself. All actions are the wondrous function of 'it.' We've been ignorantly dirtying and demeaning it, suffering in the cycle of samsara - how unjust! The ancients said, 'One word before sound, a thousand saints do not transmit; one thread before the face, throughout the ages, there is no gap!' Also, 'Searching for it, one finds nothing; it comes without effort.' This refers to the same.
    But this is just the primordial Buddha-body, still requiring diligent polishing and removing of habitual tendencies to shine brightly. When the practice is mature, even in deep sleep, the crown of the head is like a bright full moon. When the light is pure and broad, the heavenly eye naturally opens, and the ten directions are all clearly seen. As Indra's net, the interplay and wondrous function are endless.
    Some say these states are experienced by Zen or Esoteric practitioners, not those in the Pure Land sect who recite Buddha's name aiming to be reborn in the Western Pure Land and should see Amitabha Buddha and the Western sacred realm in meditation. If they see nothing, how can they be reborn in the Pure Land? Didn't you see Master Yinguang's Samadhi of Buddha-recitation? Master Yinguang strongly advocated relying on Buddha's compassionate power for rebirth in the West. Why did he also say in his Buddha-recitation Samadhi that the view of nothingness is the true view, and the true view sees nothing? Truly, Buddha-nature is signless and without characteristics, untainted and unattached. To speak of it as something is not accurate. Therefore, the true Buddha is beyond words and form. But this signless Buddha-nature is not dumb void; it manifests and functions according to conditions. Since manifestations arise conditionally, they are nominal, not substantial. Hence, seeing a Buddha with form is not seeing the true Buddha. The ancients said: 'Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya are not the true Buddha, nor the speaker of the Dharma.' The Lotus Sutra refers to them as 'transformation cities,' not the real treasure. To be reborn in the highest realm of the Western Pure Land, one must transcend the realm of form and realize the signless, wondrous body of the true Buddha. Holding onto the form of Buddha and the realm of form, one can only be reborn in the lower realms. This is an unalterable truth. Hence, Master Yinguang, when speaking of the highest state of Buddha-recitation -- Samadhi -- had to say that the view of nothingness is the true view. Realizing such a profound state, the mind and realm become one; the mind is the realm, and the realm is the mind. Aspiring to be reborn in the West is to be reborn in the pure land of one's own mind. Isn't this the highest form of birth?
    After realizing the nature, if one clings to the emptiness or indulges in tranquility without knowing how to function in circumstances, it's like a poor person who becomes wealthy but doesn't know how to use the wealth, remaining as poor as ever. Moreover, without practicing in worldly situations, one cannot attain the great Samadhi of integrating principle and affairs, nor reach the state of unobstructedness in all things to complete the great achievement of the Buddha-path. Therefore, one must apply the realized principle in worldly situations, rounding off the edges to attain perfection. However, those who have just realized often don't know how to apply it or understand the process. They may even
    [28/11/23, 10:41:19 AM] Soh Wei Yu: doubt their realization when shaken by circumstances and become anxious and lost, which is truly regrettable! Here, I select the essential parts of my former teacher Xiang Lu's 'Process of Manifesting and Utilizing Realization' to help readers develop wisdom after enlightenment and achieve the ultimate effortless practice.
    The wondrous substance of ultimate reality has its own unfixed function. Practitioners must apply the realized state of pure and free reality to the confused and inverted situations of daily life, transforming existence into emptiness, inversion into purity, and afflictions into freedom. Not only can one eliminate one's own suffering but also that of others. This is called 'liberating sentient beings.'
    The deeper the practice, the more habitual tendencies arise and quickly. Practitioners need not fear; these are seeds naturally emerging from the eighth consciousness. Although they arise quickly, they also dissipate quickly. With each emergence, they decrease in size and frequency, never to grow again.
    The deeper the practice, the greater the courage. If startled suddenly, one is startled only once, never again, and one's strength grows with use.
    The deeper the practice, the greater the fluctuations in memory—sometimes forgetting, sometimes remembering strongly and becoming increasingly sharp. Sensory perception also strengthens, often responding to things without thought, a sign of penetrating insight."
    This text continues to delve deeply into Buddhist philosophy and practice, emphasizing the importance of applying spiritual insights to everyday life and the transformative power of diligent practice.
    [28/11/23, 10:46:51 AM] John Tan: Wow...
    [28/11/23, 10:47:26 AM] John Tan: Very good translation.👍
    [28/11/23, 10:48:20 AM] Soh Wei Yu: someone should translate the whole book 😂
    [28/11/23, 10:49:46 AM] Yin Ling: I will make myself read the Chinese hahaha
    [28/11/23, 10:50:02 AM] Yin Ling: Don’t send me translation soh, my Chinese needs to be saved 😂
    [28/11/23, 10:50:10 AM] John Tan: Lol
    [28/11/23, 10:51:25 AM] John Tan: I probably read both and see how gpt4 translates, whether they imagined and fill in the blanks using zen-mastee models...
    [28/11/23, 10:52:56 AM] John Tan: Soh must have realized his mistakes of saying yuan yin lao ren as substantial non-dual...🤣
    [28/11/23, 10:55:18 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ya.. often my dreams tell me something useful... like that time i had dream of someone who just joined group had strong karmic conditions to breakthrough and is about to realise something, i knew i had to guide him then a few days later he broke through to nondual anatta
    likewise when i dream yuan yin lao ren and felt he is very enlightened and strong practitioner and very inspiring, i take it seriously 😂 maybe he really appear in my dream and try to inspire me to practice harder
    [28/11/23, 10:58:16 AM] Yin Ling: 托梦to talk to you 🤣🤣
    [28/11/23, 11:00:13 AM] John Tan: Haha...auspicious...but lazy in contemplation
    [28/11/23, 11:01:39 AM] Soh Wei Yu: lol
    [28/11/23, 11:01:49 AM] John Tan: How u tell gpt4 to translate?
    [28/11/23, 11:01:59 AM] Soh Wei Yu: i just say "translate:
    [28/11/23, 11:02:04 AM] Soh Wei Yu: then paste the chinese text
    [28/11/23, 11:03:43 AM] John Tan: Did u type tdlr?
    [28/11/23, 11:03:59 AM] Soh Wei Yu: no
    [28/11/23, 11:04:13 AM] Soh Wei Yu: tldr is 'too long didn't read', its for summarising texts
    [28/11/23, 11:04:20 AM] Soh Wei Yu: in this case i want the full translation mah
    [28/11/23, 11:09:08 AM] John Tan: Yeah
    ‎[28/11/23, 11:48:10 AM] Soh Wei Yu: ‎image omitted
    [28/11/23, 11:48:27 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Ask ChatGPT translate like this with chinese followed by english in parageapgs so you can compare
    [28/11/23, 11:48:35 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Paragraphs
    [28/11/23, 11:51:14 AM] John Tan: Means translate para by para?
    [28/11/23, 11:52:02 AM] Soh Wei Yu: yeah, maybe you prompt "translate and respond with one paragraph in chinese followed by the translated paragraph in english for my comparison"
    [28/11/23, 11:52:18 AM] Soh Wei Yu: i told it line by line then it started with one line by one line then evolved into that, but i think one line is too short
    [28/11/23, 11:57:40 AM] John Tan: Actually after authenticating appearances r radiances, I see the next most important step is to arise insight of DO and emptiness. It is a sort of special insight that sees the "middle path" and we use this insight to re-orientate our conventional world view and understand 8 extremes do not apply.
    Soh Wei Yu
    [25/11/23, 3:49:23 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Its like a mirror is a mirror because it reflects and reflection is reflection because of mirror.. or sun is sun because of shining and shining is shining because of sun. There is no sun apart from shining or shining apart from sun.. both have no essence of its own therefore they dependently originate and is dependently designated. Rather than sun can only shine if it has its own essence. Sun can shine not because it is thing in itself but precisely because it has no essence, is dependent designation and d.o.
    [25/11/23, 3:54:34 PM] Yin Ling: Yeah
    [25/11/23, 4:02:35 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Was re reading some by yuan yin lao ren just now. I think yuan yin lao ren might have non substantialist view even tho he talks about mirror and reflection
    “鏡子能現影子，心鏡能照萬相，影不能離鏡。影子能離開鏡子嗎？離開鏡子，影子就沒有了。影子離不開鏡子，相離不開心；離開了心，相就無處顯現了；沒有影子，就不成鏡子，同樣，離開相也無從顯現真心。真心無相可見，必由事相來顯。因此真心能夠成就萬物，反過來萬物顯現真心，心、相就是這麼微妙。因此之故，心就是相，相就是心，影子就是鏡子，鏡子就是影子，所以無情就是有情，這是第三點。”
    [25/11/23, 4:04:09 PM] John Tan: And we do not see emptiness, we only see appearances. Therefore Tsongkhapa in his 3 principles aspect of the path:
    appearance eliminates the extreme of existence
    And emptiness eliminates the extreme of nonexistence.
    [25/11/23, 4:04:41 PM] John Tan: Depends
    [25/11/23, 4:05:05 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I think malcolm also said before, emptiness cannot be seen.. we see presence/appearance. Might have recalled wrongly
    [25/11/23, 4:06:45 PM] John Tan: No sun apart from shining and no shining apart from sun. Is like the relation example. So u must relate correctly and don't refute wrongly.
    [25/11/23, 4:07:54 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
    [25/11/23, 4:11:36 PM] John Tan: There is another unique part of Tsongkhapa. He question is it even right and possible to say freedom from all conceptualities, that is, can there be no parts and no concepts at all from sentient being to buddhahood since Buddha also engage in conventional terms.
    [25/11/23, 4:12:38 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm also said thats a controversial qn and views vary lol
    [25/11/23, 4:13:02 PM] John Tan: Lol his view recently changes if u noticed...
    [25/11/23, 4:13:17 PM] John Tan: More and more gelug 😂
    [25/11/23, 4:13:21 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ya in early days he is firmly of the view that budddhas have no thoughts
    [25/11/23, 4:15:03 PM] John Tan: ‎This message was deleted.
    [25/11/23, 4:15:48 PM] John Tan: So in Tsongkhapa view, in that case, emptiness and dependent origination is enough, y speak of freedom from all elaborations.
    ....
    [25/11/23, 4:52:24 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..
    “逢古鏡，照鏡也，鏡子是亮光的，比喻有光明。老婆逢古鏡，天破曉了，光明顯現了，用功的人用到這晨光，見到自己的本性了，所以說「失曉老婆逢古鏡」。「分明覿面別無真」，鏡子中影子顯現出來了。分明，清清楚楚，覿面，面對面。你和鏡子裏的影子面對面相見，鏡子裏現的影子就是你，你就是鏡子，除這影子之外，還另有真的嗎？除了這影子之外就再沒有了，所以說「分明覿面別無真」。如靈雲開門見一片盛開的桃花，豁然大悟，噢——！不是我的性顯現這個相，是誰顯現呢？離開我的性哪里能見到這桃花呢？反過來，離開桃花這影子，又哪里能顯現我的性鏡呢？所以，他回光一瞥，識得這分明覿面別無真的，見到本性了！又如洞山祖師”
    [25/11/23, 4:54:06 PM] John Tan: Yuan yin lao ren?
    [25/11/23, 4:54:14 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah
    [25/11/23, 4:54:58 PM] John Tan: So u must look into several writings and 对照。
    [25/11/23, 4:55:46 PM] John Tan: Like u kept telling me initial mipham sounded very much like substantialist non-dual
    [25/11/23, 4:56:48 PM] John Tan: U cannot take a snapshot and conclude.
    [25/11/23, 4:57:10 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah actually i thought yuan yin lao ren is substantialist nondual until i had a dream about him earlier this year that was inspiring lol then i re look at his writings
    [25/11/23, 4:57:35 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Full text:
    恒河大手印
    （第六講）
    元音老人 著
    第六講
    [long text snipped]
    [25/11/23, 5:03:07 PM] John Tan: That is anatta and authentication of appearances as one's radiance.
    Next step is what?
    .....
    [25/11/23, 11:10:08 PM] Soh Wei Yu: "以一切影像皆是鏡光所成，鏡即是影，影即是鏡；離鏡無影，離影無鏡，既不可背鏡住影，亦無須離影求鏡。既深知影鏡皆無所住，當能心無愛憎之情，境無取捨之住。
    故學者不必怕妄，但深契一乘玄旨，於境無取無捨，無喜無瞋，則妄自除矣。" - 元音老人
    [25/11/23, 11:12:07 PM] Soh Wei Yu: "古人云：“但尽凡情，别无圣解”，你时时执在灵知性上，就是有所住着。须不着一切相，随缘起用才是。灵知觉性亦不可着。在觉知上用功更是大错。" "不是将此灵觉扫光，而是不住此灵觉。以不住故，即无能觉与所觉，故归无所得也。有个觉知的光景，早不是了，还说什么空空然？"- 元音老人
    [25/11/23, 11:13:27 PM] Soh Wei Yu: ”妄心不要灭掉，因为妄心就是真心，波浪就是水，把波浪去掉，水就没有了，所以妄心起来亦不压灭它。只要转，不跟它跑即是。” - 元音老人
    [25/11/23, 11:14:05 PM] John Tan: Insubstantial non-dual.👍

    Soh Wei Yu
    Posted posted a full chatgpt translation of a Yuan Yin Lao Ren's text here: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../inscription-of...
    Inscription of the Enlightened Mind
    Inscription of the Enlightened Mind
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    Inscription of the Enlightened Mind
    Inscription of the Enlightened Mind

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    Soh Wei Yu
    [25/11/23, 6:02:34 PM] Yin Ling: Wow I read 25% didn’t realise it is so long, but very well written. I drive home then read lol
    [25/11/23, 6:02:36 PM] Yin Ling: Thanks
    [25/11/23, 6:02:38 PM] Yin Ling: 🙏🏻
    [25/11/23, 6:02:58 PM] Soh Wei Yu: That is just one article out of like 12 😂
    [25/11/23, 6:03:00 PM] Soh Wei Yu: On mahamudra
    [25/11/23, 6:03:06 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I went through all
    [25/11/23, 6:03:10 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Link:
    [25/11/23, 6:04:04 PM] Soh Wei Yu: https://book.bfnn.org/article/0383.htm
    [25/11/23, 6:04:05 PM] Soh Wei Yu: sorry
    [25/11/23, 6:04:06 PM] Soh Wei Yu: 17 articles
    [25/11/23, 6:04:07 PM] Soh Wei Yu: lol
    [25/11/23, 6:05:20 PM] Soh Wei Yu: he foretold when he will die, sat in meditation posture when he passed away at 95 years old and had countless sharira relics https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../yuan-yin-lao-ren.html
    [25/11/23, 6:05:41 PM] Soh Wei Yu: *96 years old
    [25/11/23, 6:11:15 PM] Soh Wei Yu: i also bought some of his books for my mom before https://www.taobao.com/list/item/wap/611526050673.htm
    [25/11/23, 6:11:27 PM] Soh Wei Yu: <-- new edition of his collected works here i think
    [25/11/23, 6:12:14 PM] Soh Wei Yu: but many of his writings are also available here: https://www.bfnn.org/yuanyin/article.htm
    [25/11/23, 6:34:52 PM] Yin Ling: Cool thank you. Gonna take me one hour to read that excerpt coz it is 繁体字🤣
    [25/11/23, 7:04:41 PM] Soh Wei Yu: I rely on my phone read to me like always lol
    [25/11/23, 7:49:43 PM] Yin Ling: I read very slow and need to 咬文嚼字 to understand lol so cannot audio
    目次：恒河大手印
    BOOK.BFNN.ORG
    目次：恒河大手印
    目次：恒河大手印

  • Reply
  • Remove Preview
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
Dzogchen: Ten Key Terms Black Friday Special at Wisdom Publications
Soh

Acarya Malcolm Smith posted: “My Dzogchen: Ten Key Terms Black Friday Special at Wisdom Publications. 60% off select courses using code ACADEMY60.” - https://wisdomexperience.org/dzogchen-terms/

But do note that the course can be quite technical and confusing especially for beginners. If you are seriously interested in Dzogchen or are a Dzogchen practitioner, it will be important for clarifying key Dzogchen terms and prevent misunderstanding of the terms. If you're totally new to Dzogchen or interested to find out what Dzogchen is about as a beginner, I suggest picking up a book first -- what Acarya Malcolm usually recommend for beginners -- like https://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Way-Light-Dzogchen-Philosophy/dp/1559391359/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2229BAIW5ZOHI&keywords=crystal+and+the+way+of+light&qid=1699432335&sprefix=crystal+and+the+way+o%2Caps%2C652&sr=8-1 and https://www.amazon.com/Dzogchen-Self-Perfected-Chogyal-Namkhai-Norbu/dp/1559390573/ref=pd_sbs_sccl_2_1/132-9373146-5877532?pd_rd_w=GSS7G&content-id=amzn1.sym.368860b3-210c-423c-90a6-0753fc75e40d&pf_rd_p=368860b3-210c-423c-90a6-0753fc75e40d&pf_rd_r=JJSG1EFY7AXSZF7KPA6T&pd_rd_wg=4c6Og&pd_rd_r=42e63146-35a0-4264-b544-c633a0661879&pd_rd_i=1559390573&psc=1 before going into that course. You can of course, purchase the course with the discount first and come to it after reading those books.
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
New Dharma Talks by Zen Master Hong Wen Liang (Chinese)
Soh

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLunA4Fx_X22IJ0EbaBA6vB4dLMfs6QCoA

Labels: 0 comments | | edit post
The Great Ocean Samadhi
Soh

Also see: The Unbounded Field of Awareness


Quotes from The Great Ocean Samadhi chapter from Zen Master Dogen's Shobogenzo:


The Buddha once said in verse:
Merely of various elements is this body of Mine composed.
The time of its arising is merely an arising of elements;
The time of its vanishing is merely a vanishing of elements.
As these elements arise, I do not speak of the arising of an ‘I’,
And as these elements vanish, I do not speak of the vanishing of an ‘I’.
Previous instants and succeeding instants are not a series of instants that depend on each other;
Previous elements and succeeding elements are not a series of elements that stand against each other.
To give all of this a name, I call it ‘the meditative state that bears the seal of the Ocean’.

....

The Master’s saying, “One that contains all that exists,” expresses what the Ocean is. The point he is making is not that there is some single thing that contains all that exists, but rather that It is all contained things. And he is not saying that the Great Ocean is what contains all existing things, but rather that what is expressing ‘all contained things’ is simply the Great Ocean. Though we do not know what It is, It is everything that exists for the moment. Even coming face-to-face with a Buddha or an Ancestor is a mistaken perception of ‘everything that exists for the moment’. At the moment of ‘being contained’, although it may involve a mountain, it is not just our ‘standing atop a soaring mountain peak’, and although it may involve water, it is not just our ‘plunging down to the floor of the Ocean’s abyss’.18 Our acts of acceptance will be like this, as will our acts of letting go. What we call the Ocean of our Buddha Nature and what we call the Ocean of Vairochana* are simply synonymous with ‘all that exists’.


…


Wrote to someone months ago,


“"Awareness when reified becomes a whole containing everything as its parts, like the ocean and its waves. But when you deconstruct the wave and ocean, the whole and parts, it is just the radiance and clarity of pellucidity of sound, taste, colors of the imputed notion of wave and ocean. Awareness is a name just like weather is a name denoting rain, wind, sunshine, etc., and not a container or singular substance pervading them or transforming or modulating as them. Likewise, awareness is not an eternal singular substance pervading or containing or even modulating as everything. What is seen, heard, sensed are clear and vivid, pellucid and crystal, and 'awareness' is just a name denoting just that, not a diverse manifestation pervaded by a single ontological awareness that is non-dual with everything. Eventually, awareness is seen through as having its own reality and forgotten into the pellucidity of appearance, not just a state but an insight. As Scott Kiloby once said, 'If you see that awareness is none other than everything, and that none of those things are separate "things" at all, why even use the word awareness anymore? All you are left with is the world, your life, the diversity of experience itself.' Another teacher, Dr. Greg Goode, told me, 'It looks like your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a different way, more... empty. You had a background in a view that saw awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?'


I had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's treatise about the 'prior entity,' and I had been meditating on 'emptiness is form' intensely for a year. These two threads came together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the 'ten-thousand things' in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic, playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back. No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy everywhere..."”



Also,




Ted Biringer commenting on Zen Master Dogen: “...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind.”

…

“In Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen” becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating rice.” - Ted Biringer, https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2017/11/zazen-polishing-tile-to-make-mirror.html

Labels: , , , , 0 comments | | edit post
No Agent but There Is Choosing
Soh

Someone said in a busy atr group chat that i hardly participate in, “There’s so much dysfunctional comfort that can come from believing it’s all an illusion, that you don’t exist, and that there is no agency. All great stuff for investigating our emotional knots.”




I popped in and commented,


“It is true that there is no self and agent, but it does mean no volition and choice. Many people totally misunderstood


https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/06/choosing.html

John Tan:

The logic that since there is no agency, hence no choice to be made is no different from "no sufferer, therefore no suffering".

This is not anatta insight.

What is seen through in anatta is the mistaken view that the conventional structure of "subject action object" represents reality when it is not. Action does not require an agent to initiate it. It is language that creates the confusion that nouns are required to set verbs into motion.

Therefore the action of choosing continues albeit no chooser.

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;

Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;

The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."


Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:


"When we say it's raining, we mean that raining is taking place. You don't need someone up above to perform the raining. It's not that there is the rain, and there is the one who causes the rain to fall. In fact, when you say the rain is falling, it's very funny, because if it weren't falling, it wouldn't be rain. In our way of speaking, we're used to having a subject and a verb. That's why we need the word "it" when we say, "it rains." "It" is the subject, the one who makes the rain possible. But, looking deeply, we don't need a "rainer," we just need the rain. Raining and the rain are the same. The formations of birds and the birds are the same -- there's no "self," no boss involved.


There's a mental formation called vitarka, "initial thought." When we use the verb "to think" in English, we need a subject of the verb: I think, you think, he thinks. But, really, you don't need a subject for a thought to be produced. Thinking without a thinker -- it's absolutely possible. To think is to think about something. To perceive is to perceive something. The perceiver and the perceived object that is perceived are one.

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," his point was that if I think, there must be an "I" for thinking to be possible. When he made the declaration "I think," he believed that he could demonstrate that the "I" exists. We have the strong habit or believing in a self. But, observing very deeply, we can see that a thought does not need a thinker to be possible. There is no thinker behind the thinking -- there is just the thinking; that's enough.


Now, if Mr. Descartes were here, we might ask him, "Monsieur Descartes, you say, 'You think, therefore you are.' But what are you? You are your thinking. Thinking -- that's enough. Thinking manifests without the need of a self behind it."

Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. What is our anger without our 'self'? This is the object of our meditation. All the fifty-one mental formations take place and manifest without a self behind them arranging for this to appear, and then for that to appear. Our mind consciousness is in the habit of basing itself on the idea of self, on manas. But we can meditate to be more aware of our store consciousness, where we keep the seeds of all those mental formations that are not currently manifesting in our mind.

When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of 'I am,' disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness."


......




"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."


"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."


"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."


——



Alan watts expressed well too what thich nhat hanh said above. I just shared this quote today: “From "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" by Alan Watts:


As soon as one sees that separate things are fictitious, it becomes obvious that nonexistent things cannot “perform” actions. The difficulty is that most languages are arranged so that actions (verbs) have to be set in motion by things (nouns), and we forget that rules of grammar are not necessarily rules, or patterns, of nature. This, which is nothing more than a convention of grammar, is also responsible for (or, better, “goeswith”) absurd puzzles as to how spirit governs matter, or mind moves body. How can a noun, which is by definition not action, lead to action?


Scientists would be less embarrassed if they used a language, on the model of Amerindian Nootka, consisting of verbs and adverbs, and leaving off nouns and adjectives. If we can speak of a house as housing, a mat as matting, or of a couch as seating, why can't we think of people as “peopling,” of brains as “braining,” or of an ant as an “anting?” Thus in the Nootka language a church is “housing religiously,” a shop is “housing tradingly,” and a home is “housing homely.” Yet we are habituated to ask, “Who or what is housing? Who peoples? What is it that ants?” Yet isn't it obvious that when we say, “The lightning flashed,” the flashing is the same as the lightning, and that it would be enough to say, “There was lightning”? Everything labeled with a noun is demonstrably a process or action, but language is full of spooks, like the “it” in “It is raining,” which are the supposed causes, of action.


Does it really explain running to say that “A man is running”? On the contrary, the only explanation would be a description of the field or situation in which “a manning goeswith running” as distinct from one in which “a manning goeswith sitting.” (I am not recommending this primitive and clumsy form of verb language for general and normal use. We should have to contrive something much more elegant.) Furthermore, running is not something other than myself, which I (the organism) do. For the organism is sometimes a running process, sometimes a standing process, sometimes a sleeping process, and so on, and in each instance the “cause” of the behavior is the situation as a whole, the organism/environment. Indeed, it would be best to drop the idea of causality and use instead the idea of relativity.


For it is still inexact to say that an organism “responds” or “reacts” to a given situation by running or standing, or whatever. This is still the language of Newtonian billiards. It is easier to think of situations as moving patterns, like organisms themselves. Thus, to go back to the cat (or catting), a situation with pointed ears and whiskers at one end does not have a tail at the other as a response or reaction to the whiskers, or the claws, or the fur. As the Chinese say, the various features of a situation “arise mutually” or imply one another as back implies front, and as chickens imply eggs—and vice versa. They exist in relation to each other like the poles of the magnet, only more complexly patterned.


Moreover, as the egg/chicken relation suggests, not all the features of a total situation have to appear at the same time. The existence of a man implies parents, even though they may be long since dead, and the birth of an organism implies its death. Wouldn't it be as farfetched to call birth the cause of death as to call the cat's head the cause of the tail? Lifting the neck of a bottle implies lifting the bottom as well, for the “two parts” come up at the same time. If I pick up an accordion by one end, the other will follow a little later, but the principle is the same. Total situations are, therefore, patterns in time as much as patterns in space.


And, right now is the moment to say that I am not trying to smuggle in the “total situation” as a new disguise for the old “things” which were supposed to explain behavior or action. The total situation or field is always open-ended, for


Little fields have big fields

Upon their backs to bite 'em,

And big fields have bigger fields

And so ad infinitum. 


We can never, never describe all the features of the total situation, not only because every situation is infinitely complex, but also because the total situation is the universe. Fortunately, we do not have to describe any situation exhaustively, because some of its features appear to be much more important than others for understanding the behavior of the various organisms within it. We never get more than a sketch of the situation, yet this is enough to show that actions (or processes) must be understood, or explained, in terms of situations just as words must be understood in the context of sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books, libraries, and … life itself.


To sum up: just as no thing or organism exists on its own, it does not act on its own. Furthermore, every organism is a process: thus the organism is not other than its actions. To put it clumsily: it is what it does. More precisely, the organism, including its behavior, is a process which is to be understood only in relation to the larger and longer process of its environment. For what we mean by “understanding” or “comprehension” is seeing how parts fit into a whole, and then realizing that they don't compose the whole, as one assembles a jigsaw puzzle, but that the whole is a pattern, a complex wiggliness, which has no separate parts. Parts are fictions of language, of the calculus of looking at the world through a net which seems to chop it up into bits. Parts exist only for purposes of figuring and describing, and as we figure the world out we become confused if we do not remember this all the time.”


John tan replied just now “He is so gifted in expressing anatta and his insights, so clear.”




——



Also, excerpts from the longer AtR guide:


On the disease of non-doership, John Tan said:


“Nihilistic tendencies arise when the insight of. anatta is skewed towards the no-doership aspect. The happening by itself must be correctly understood. It appears that things are accomplished by doing nothing but in actual case it is things get done due to ripening of action and conditions.


So the lack of self-nature does not imply nothing needs be done or nothing can be done. That is one extreme. At the other end of extreme is the self-nature of perfect control of what one wills, one gets. Both are seen to be false. Action + conditions leads to effect.”

“

As to the specifics of your question I’m not sure, but here are a few major differences between classical “determinism” and Buddhist karmic causality:

Determinism proper necessarily involves inherently existent causes giving rise to inherently existent effects in a unilateral manner.


Karmic cause and effect in the context of the buddhadharma is only valid conventionally, and since every cause is an effect and every effect a cause, they are, in a coarse sense, bilateral in nature.


Karma can be “determined” in a certain sense, but since karma takes direction from intention, change can occur, certain results can be averted, suffering can be mitigated and ideally uprooted altogether.” - Kyle Dixon, 2019


“Kyle Dixon Dante Rosati we gave volition [cetana], and can direct that volition freely. Of course we are subject to our karma, but it is not as rigidly deterministic as you suggest.

1

●

Kyle Dixon Yes, we “have,” possess, volition. And are capable of directing it where we choose.

○ Like

○ · Reply

○ · 17h

●

Kyle Dixon Life is not a fully automated process in the sense that you are like a helpless leaf being blown around by the wind, is the point.


You can make choices and direct volition.

●

Kyle Dixon Eric Aksunah I don’t know the specifics.


I just recall Malcolm once said we don’t have “free will” because such a principle implies a rational agent, and we are still subject to karma. Nevertheless, we can direct our volition and intention in specific directions, such as following the path.

1

○ Like

○ · Reply

○ · 15h

“ - Kyle Dixon, 2020

“Determinism would require truly established causes giving rise to established effects in a unilateral manner, thus based on that buddhadharma is not deterministic. Causes are only conventional, and cause and effect are bilateral dependencies. Like Āryadeva says, we might think the father is the cause of the child, but the child is also the cause of the father. Re free will, we Buddhists acknowledge volition [cetana] but only conventionally. Free will is actually a monotheist principle used to reconcile sin with a creator deity. Thus free will proper is not a thing in Buddhism. Further, free will requires a rational agent which buddhadharma does not uphold. And actually we negate such thing. As such we have conventional volition but are still subject to karma.” – Kyle Dixon, 2022


Related:



[10:40 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: Very good
[10:41 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: I wonder why people can't explain like Malcolm.
[10:42 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: Lol

[11:36 PM, 10/17/2019] John Tan: Yes should put in blog together with Alan watt article about language causing confusion.



Alan Watts: Agent and Action

Investigation into Movement


Also, an enlightening conversation recently (thankfully with permission from Arcaya Malcolm to share this) in Arcaya Malcolm's facebook group:


"[Participant 1]
June 14 at 2:40 PM

I came across a passage in a book I'm reading which brings up how Nagarjuna often bases arguments on unstated and unproven premises and manipulates ambiguities in language to justify his arguments leading to criticisms of sophistry. How do later authors address this if they do at all?

One example from chap 3 of the MMK with the following 3 arguments:

"Vision cannot in anyway see itself. Now if it cannot see itself, how can it see other things?

"The example of fire is not adequate to establish vision. These have been refuted with the analysis of movement, past, future, and present" - refers to the refutation from chap 2

"When no vision occurs there is nothing to be called visions. How then can it be said: vision sees?"

The book brings up the following critcism respectively:

This is based on the assumption for objects to have certain functions it needs to apply the function to itself but this is not justified. A counter example being lamps illuminate themselves and others.

The argument from chap 2 depends on natural functions (movement, burning of fire, seeing of the eye, etc.) being predicated on the moment of time which it takes place, and when the non obtaining of time is established it leads to the non happening of the function. This is not justified.

Here Nagarjuna jumps from how seeing only occurs with a sense object to the occlusion the eye faculty can't see. The author distinguishes between "seeing independent of condition" and "seeing dependent of condition" so Nagarjuna really only negates the first one. And that negating the first is close to pointless since no one asserts seeing occurs irrespective of condition. The second is left alone.
6[...] and 5 others
17 Comments
Like
Comment
Comments

    [Participant 2] What book is this from?
    1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

    [Participant 1] Madhyamaka in China, the author was giving some background on Nagarjuna.
    1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w


Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Lamps do not illuminate themselves. Candrakirti shows this.
2

Like
· Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Nāgārjuna is addressing the realist proposition, "the six senses perceive their objects because those sense and their objects intrinsically exist ." It is not his unstated premise, that is the purvapakṣa, the premise of the opponent. The opponent, in verse 1 of this chapter asserts the essential existence of the six āyatanas. The opponent is arguing that perception occurs because the objects of perception actually exist.
6

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith [Participant 1] "The argument from chap 2 depends on natural functions (movement, burning of fire, seeing of the eye, etc.) being predicated on the moment of time which it takes place, and when the non obtaining of time is established it leads to the non happening of the function. This is not justified."

Why?

Nāgārjuna shows two things in chapter two, one, he says that if there is a moving mover, this separates the agent from the action, and either the mover is not necessary or the moving is not necessary. It is redundant.

In common language we oftren saying things like "There is a burning fire." But since that is what a fire is (burning) there is no separate agent which is doing the burning, fire is burning.

On the other hand, when an action is not performed, no agent of that action can be said to exist. This is why he says "apart from something which has moved and has not moved, there is no moving mover." There is no mover with moving, etc.

This can be applied to all present tense gerundial agentive constructions, such as I am walking to town, the fire is burning, etc.
8

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited

Hide 11 Replies

 [Participant 3] Malcolm Smith these are not agentive constructions, they are unaccusative (cf. "byed med") verbs, so of course no separate agent can be established. So what?

The example of the fire and the eye are likewise not convincing, because they just happen to describe natural functions, but this is not all that unaccusative verbs do. When you say "the cat falls down", you cannot say that "falling down" is what a cat "is", the same way you can with fire burning.

Like
· Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith [Participant 3] the point is aimed at the notion that there has to be a falling faller, a seeing seer, etc. it is fine to say there is a falling cat, but stupid to say the cat is a falling faller. The argument is aimed at that sort of naive premise.

For example, if eyes could see forms by nature, they should be able to forms in absence of an object of form, and so on.

But if the sight of forms cannot be found in the eyes, and not in the object, nor the eye consciousness, then none of them are sufficient to explain the act of seeing. Because of this, statements like the eyes are seers is just a convention, but isn’t really factual.

And it still applies in this way, apart from what has been seen and not been seen, there is no present seeing.
1

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited"

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Any people make the mistake of thinking that nag has an obligation to do more than just deconstruct the purpaksa.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

[Participant 1] Malcolm Smith thank you, definitely clears it up

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Malcolm Smith What is purpaksa?

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith purva means "prior", pakṣa" means postion
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm SmithActive Now
Malcolm Smith meaning, "the opponent's position."
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith Purvapaksa
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w"


- From his facebook group Ask the Ācārya https://www.facebook.com/groups/387338435166650/

Who this group is for: people who wish to ask Ācārya Malcolm Smith questions about Dharma etc., and to converse with like-minded people. Being admitted to this group carries a commitment not to share content outside of the group.

Who this group is not for: People with pseudonyms; people who think one can practice Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, etc. without a guru; people who think psychedelics are useful on the Buddhist path; people who think they can mix Buddhadharma with nonbuddhist paths, etc.

Also, more by Malcolm:

[10:51 PM, 10/17/2019] Soh Wei Yu: malcolm (Arcaya Malcolm Smith) wrote:


https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=30365&p=479718&hilit=AGENT#p479718

There is no typing typer, no learning learner, no digesting digester, thinking tinker, or driving driver.

...

No, a falling faller does not make any sense. As Nāgārjuna would put it, apart from snow that has fallen or has not fallen, presently there is no falling.

...


 It is best if you consult the investigation into movement in the MMK, chapter two. This is where it is shown that agents are mere conventions. If one claims there is agent with agency, one is claiming the agent and the agency are separate. But if you claim that agency is merely a characteristic of an agent, when agent does not exercise agency, it isn't an agent since an agent that is not exercising agency is in fact a non-agent. Therefore, rather than agency being dependent on an agent, an agent is predicated upon exercising agency. For example, take movement. If there is an agent there has to be a moving mover. But there is no mover when there is no moving. Apart from moving, how could there be a mover? But when there is moving, there isn't a mover which is separate from moving. Even movement itself cannot be ascertained until there has been a movement. When there is no movement, there is no agent of movement. When there is moving, there is no agent of moving that can be ascertained to be separate from the moving. And since even moving cannot be ascertained without there either having been movement or not, moving itself cannot be established. Since moving cannot be established, a moving mover cannot be established. If a moving mover cannot be established, an agent cannot be established.

...

 Hi Wayfarer:

The key to understanding everything is the term "dependent designation." We don't question the statement "I am going to town." In this there are three appearances, for convenience's sake, a person, a road, and a destination.

A person is designated on the basis of the aggregates, but there is no person in the aggregates, in one of the aggregates, or separate from the aggregates. Agreed? A road is designated in dependence on its parts, agreed? A town s designated upon its parts. Agreed?

If you agree to this, then you should have no problem with the following teaching of the Buddha in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra:

This body arises from various conditions, but lacks a self. This body is like the earth, lacking an agent. This body is like water, lacking a self. This body is like fire, lacking a living being. This body is like the wind, lacking a person. This body is like space, lacking a nature. This body is the place of the four elements, but is not real. This body that is not a self nor pertains to a self is empty.

In other words, when it comes to the conventional use of language, Buddha never rejected statements like "When I was a so and so in a past life, I did so and so, and served such and such a Buddha." Etc. But when it comes to what one can discern on analysis, if there is no person, no self, etc., that exists as more than a mere designation, the fact that agents cannot be discerned on analysis should cause no one any concern. It is merely a question of distinguishing between conventional use of language versus the insight into the nature of phenomena that results from ultimate analysis.



-------



[11:36 PM, 10/17/2019] John Tan: Yes should put in blog together with Alan watt article about language causing confusion.


-------

From other threads:

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26272&p=401986&hilit=agent#p401986

There is no "experiencer" since there is no agent. There is merely experience, and all experience is empty.

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=24265&start=540


Why should there be someone upon whom karma ripens? To paraphrase the Visuddhimagga, there is no agent of karma, nor is there a person to experience its ripening, there is merely a flow of dharmas.


...

There are no agents. There are only actions. This is covered in the refutation of moving movers in chapter two of the MMK.

...

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=26495&p=406369&hilit=agent#p406369

 The point is that there is no point to eternalism if there is no eternal agent or object.


...

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=16306&p=277352&hilit=mover+movement+agent#p277352

 Things have no natures, conventionally or otherwise. Look, we can say water is wet, but actually, there no water that possesses a wet nature. Water is wet, that is all. There is no wetness apart from water and not water apart from wetness. If you say a given thing has a separate nature, you are making the exact mistaken Nāgārajuna points out in the analysis of movement, i.e., it is senseless to say there is a "moving mover." Your arguments are exactly the same, you are basically saying there is an "existing existence."

...

This is precisely because of the above point I referenced. Nagārjuna clearly shows that characteristics/natures are untenable.

Candrakīrti points out that the possessor does not exist at all, but for the mere purpose of discourse, we allow conventionally the idea that there is a possessor of parts even though no possessor of parts exists. This mistake that we indulge in can act as an agent, for example a car, we can use it as such, but it is empty of being a car — an agent is as empty of being an agent as its actions are empty of being actions. 


...


Unread post by PadmaVonSamba » Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:25 pm
If Nagarjuna had a mirror, would he say the mirror is a different mirror each time something different is reflected in it, or is it the same mirror?

Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm Smith:

"Apart from what has been mirrored and not been mirrored, there is no [present] mirroring. A mirroring mirror is redundant, just like moving movers." - https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=35353...
 
 
 
-----
 
Update, some interesting passages:
 
 

Author: Astus

Date: Sat Jul 20, 2024 4:42 AM

Title: Re: Free Will?

Content:

Beings are the makers and heirs of their own actions. If they were not the makers, that would be determinism. If they were not the heirs, that would be indeterminism. Such denial of cause and effect is called wrong view (e.g. https://suttacentral.net/an3.119/en/sujato), and is based on the mistaken belief in a self (https://suttacentral.net/sn24.5/en/sujato).

 

Author: Astus

Date: Fri Jul 19, 2024 3:59 AM

Title: Re: Free Will?

Content:

The Buddha has rejected both determinism and indeterminism (https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/sujato), and he practically ridiculed those who denied autonomy in their actions (https://suttacentral.net/an6.38/en/sujato). Naturally, what's been done is done, but currently one chooses how to act (https://suttacentral.net/sn35.146/en/sujato), therefore bad habits can be rectified (https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato), and even the consequences of past actions can be mitigated (https://suttacentral.net/an3.100/en/sujato).

 

-----

Buddha's teaching: https://suttacentral.net/an6.38/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

  • Numbered Discourses 6.38
  • 4. Deities

One’s Own Volition

Then a certain brahmin went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha:

“Mister Gotama, this is my doctrine and view: One does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition.”

“Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition?

What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of initiative?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, do we find sentient beings who initiate activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since there is an element of initiative, and sentient beings who initiate activity are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of another.

What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of persistence … exertion … strength … endurance … energy?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since this is so, do we find sentient beings who have energy?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Since there is an element of energy, and sentient beings who have energy are found, sentient beings act of their own volition or that of another.

Brahmin, may I never see or hear of anyone holding such a doctrine or view! How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition?”

“Excellent, Mister Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may Mister Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

Labels: , , , , 0 comments | | edit post