The Doctrine of No Mind by Bodhidharma (无心论）


Also see: 

Way of Bodhi
Wishing Prayer for the Attainment of the Ultimate Mahamudra
Madhyamaka, Cittamātra, and the true intent of Maitreya and Asaṅga self.Buddhism


Bodhidharma was the first Ch'an/Zen patriarch to ever step foot in China. He had given a wonderful discourse on anatta.

English translation above, original Chinese text below


https://terebess.hu/zen/bodhidharma-eng.html#app

 On No-Mind
In one fascicle
By Bodhidharma
(T85n2831 translated by Urs App, in The Eastern Buddhist, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Spring 1995), pp. 82-107)
1
The ultimate principle is without words; one needs to borrow words to make this principle apparent. The great Dao is without equivalent; [yet] to touch the uncultivated it reveals shapes. Let us now for expedience sake posit two persons holding a discussion on the subject of no-mind.
2
The student asks the Reverend, "[Do you] have a mind or not?"
"[I] have no mind."
3
"Since you say that you have no mind: who then has the ability to see, hear, feel, and know? Who knows that there is no mind?"
"Just no-mind is seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing. And it is no-mind that has the ability to be aware of the absence of mind."
4
"If one accepts that there is no mind, it must follow that there is no seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing. Say: how can there be any seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing [without mind]?"
"Though I have no mind, I can ver well [1269b] see and hear and feel and know."
5
"Just the fact that you see, hear, feel, and know proves that you have mind! How can you deny this?"
"This very seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing is no-mind! Where could there be another no-mind apart from seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing? Now I am afraid that you do not understand; so let me explain this to you step by step in order to let you realize the truth. Take seeing: [I] see throughout the day - but since it is seeing without seeing, it is without mind. Or take hearing: [I] hear all day long - but as it is hearing without hearing, it is without mind. Or feeling: [I] feel all day long - but as it is feeling without feeling, it is without mind. Or knowing: [I] know all day long - but as it is knowing without knowing, it too is without mind. Engaged in actions day in and day out, [I] do without doing - which is nothing other than no-mind. Therefore it is said: Seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing are all no-mind."
6
"But how could one [even] gain the ability to know that it is no-mind [that sees, hears, feels, and knows]?"
"Just try to find out in every detail: What appearance does mind have? And if it can be apprehended: is [what is apprehended] mind or not? Is [mind] inside or outside, or somewhere in between? As long as one looks for mind in these three locations, one's search will end in failure. Indeed, searching it anywhere will end in failure. That's exactly why it is known as no-mind."
7
"Reverend, since you have said that all is no-mind, neither evil nor meritorious deeds ought to exist. So why are people transmigrating in the six spheres of existence, ceaselessly embroiled in life-and-death?"
"In their confusion, people for no reason conceive an [an entity called] 'mind' within no-mind. Deludedly clinging to [mind's] existence, they perform action upon action, which in turn makes them transmigrate in the six realms and live-and-die without respite. It is as if someone would in the dark mistake a contraption for a ghost or [a rope] for a snake and be gripped by terror. That's just what people's deluded clinging [to a mind] is like. In the midst of no-mind they deludedly cling to a 'mind' and perform action upon action - yet this results in nothing but transmigration through the six realms. If such people come across a great teacher who instructs them in seated meditation, they will awaken to no-mind, and all karmic hindrances will be thoroughly wiped out and [the chain of] life-and-death cut through. Just as all darkness disappears with a single ray of sunlight that penetrates it, awakening to no-mind wipes out all evil karma."
8
"I am dull, and my mind is still not quite made up. But observing the one who is everywhere making use of the six sense organs, responding to questions, speaking, and performing all kinds of action - and [the existence of] delusion and wisdom, or life-and-death and nirvana, [I wonder if all of this] really is nothing but no-mind?"
"Indeed it is! Just because people deludedly cling to having mind, they have all their illusions and life-and-death as well as supreme wisdom (bodhi) and total release (nirvana). If they awaken to no-mind, then there are neither illusions nor life-and-death and nirvana. Thus the Tathagata said to those who [think that they] have mind that there is life-and-death. Bodhi is so named as a counterpiece to illusion, and nirvana as a counterpiece to [1269c] life-and-death; all of these [concepts are but contermeasures. If no-mind obtains, both illusion and bodhi are nowhere to be found; and the same is true for life-and-death and nirvana."
9
"[You state that] bodhi and nirvana are nowhere to be found - but one can say that all the buddhas of the past have attained bodhi, can one not?"
"Only in terms of the phraseology of conventional truth, but not from the point of view of genuine truth. Hence the Vimalakirti sutra's statement: 'Bodhi can neither be attained by a body nor by a mind.' Again, the Diamond sutra says: 'There is not the slightest object to be attained; the buddhas and the Tathagata simply attained through the unattainable.' Which goes to show that with mind everything arises, while with no-mind there is nothing at all."
10
"You have already said, Reverend, that everything everywhere is no-mind; so trees and rocks are also no-mind. But [no-mind] is not the same as trees and rocks, is it?"
"Our mindless mind is not identical with trees or rocks. Why? It may be compare to a celestial drum which, though just lying there without mind, by itself emits various wondrous teachings, thus guiding the people. Again, it is like the wish-fulfilling gem that, though also without mind, is by nature able to produce a variety of different apparitions. Our no-mind is just like that: though without mind, it is very well able to thoroughly perceive the true form of everything. Equipped with true wisdom (prajna), its threefold body enjoys utter freedom, and its activity is without constraint. Therefore the Ratnakuta sutra says: 'Without any mental intention, it is manifestly active' How would thus [no-mind] be identical to trees and rocks? Indeed, no-mind is nothing other than true mind. And true mind is nothing other than no-mind."
11
"At present, I am involved in [dualistic] mind; so how should I practice?"
"Just be totally aware in all affairs! No-mind is nothing other than practice; there is no other practice. Thus you'll realize that no-mind is everything, and that extinction (nirvana) is nothing other than no-mind."
12
At this, the disciple all at once greatly awakened and realized for the first time that there is no thing apart from mind, and no mind apart from things. All of his actions became utterly free. Having broken through the net of all doubt, he was freed of all obstruction.
13
As he rose and bowed with folded hands, he engraved no-mind in producing the following verse:
Mind is marvelously tranquil;
It has no color or form.
Looking at it, one does not see it;
Listening to it, it has no sound.
Seeming obscure, it is not so;
Appearing bright, it is not bright.
Try to discard it, and it does not vanish;
Attempt to grasp it, and it does not arise.
At large, it covers the entire universe;
Yet in the minute it does not obstruct a hair.
Embroiled in passions, it is not soiled;
In the serenity of nirvana it is not pure.
As suchness it is by nature without discrimination;
Yet able to distinguish between sentient and not sentient.
When it gathers in, nothing is left out;
When dispersing, it is common to all people.
[1270c] Wondrous beyond the grasp of knowledge;
Genuine awakening that cuts off the path of practice.
Though extinguished, one does not witness its demise;
Though present, its becoming is unseen.
The great Dao is tranquil and marked by no form,
Its myriad appearances silent and marked by no name.
Hence its activities are totally free -
All of this is the essence of no-mind.
14
The Reverend then told him: "Among all forms of wisdom, I regard the wisdom of no-mind as the highest. Thus the Vimalakirti sutra says: "Neither having a conscious mind nor mental impressions and processes, he sees through the ignorant and submits those of different creed." Again, the Sutra of the Great Dharma Drum states, "If you know that there is no mind that can be attained, no objects whatsoever are grasped; neither are sincs and meritorious activities, nor life-and-death and nirvana. Indeed, nothing at all can be grasped - not-grasping included!"
15
Then [the disciple again] produces a verse:
In the past, when I was deluded, I held that there is a mind;
But now that I am awakened, there's no mind, that's all!
Though there is no mind, it perceives and is active;
Its perception and activity ever calm, it is pure suchness.
16
And he added:
No mind, no perception, and no activity at all -
No perception, no activity: that's wuwei.
This is the genuine Dharma-realm of the Tathagata,
Different from that of bodhisattvas and pratyeka buddhas.
17
What is called no-mind is nothing other than a mind free from deluded thought.
18
[The questioner] continued asking: "What is 'taishang,' the supreme?
"Tai signifies 'great,' and shang 'lofty.' It is called 'supreme' because it is the highest wondrous principle. Tai also signifies the primordial stage. Though there are longlived ones of Yankang in the heavens of the three realms, their luck runs out, which is why they end up again transmigrating in the six spheres of existence. That 'ultimate' (tai) is not yet sufficient. And the bodhisattvas of the ten stages, though having escaped life-and-death, have not yet plumbed the depths of this wondrous principle. Their ultimate is also not yet [the one I am talking about]. Cultivation of mind in the ten stages gets rid of being in order to enter nonbeing; this is again not yet the ultimate since it does not get rid of both being and nonbeing and sticks to a middle path. But even if one has thoroughly discarded that middle path and the three locations [of inside, outside, and in between], and any place is that of wondrous awakening - and even if a bodhisattva gets rid of these three locations - one remains unable to free oneself of the wondrous. This again is not yet the ultimate.
Now if one discards the wondrous, then even the very essence of the Buddha Way has no place to abide; since no though is left, no discriminative thinking takes place. Both the deluded mind and wisdom have forever expired, and perceptions and reflections are at an end - calm and without ado. This is called tai; it means the ultimate of the principle. And shang means 'without peer.' Hence it is called taishang, the ultimate. This is simply another designation for Buddha, the Tathagata."
[End of] Treatise on No-Mind in one fascicle.


菩提达摩大师无心论

夫至理无言，要假言而显理。大道无相，为接粗而见形。今且假立二人，共谈无心之论矣。

弟子问和尚曰：“有心无心？”

答曰：“无心。”

问曰：“既云无心，谁能见闻觉知，谁知无心？”

答曰：“还是无心既见闻觉知，还是无心能知无心。”

问曰：“既若无心，即合无有见闻觉知，云何得有见闻觉知？”

答曰：“我虽无心，能见能闻能觉能知。”

问曰：“既能见闻觉知，即是有心，那得称无？”

答曰：“只是见闻觉知，即是无心。何处更离见闻觉知别有无心。我今恐汝不解，一一为汝解说。令汝得悟真理，假如见终日见由为无见，见亦无心；闻终日闻由为无闻，闻亦无心；觉终日觉由为无觉，觉亦无心；知终日知由为无知，知亦无心；终日造作，作亦无作，作亦无心。故云见闻觉知总是无心。”

问曰：“若为能得知是无心？”

答曰：“汝但仔细推求看，心作何相貌？其心复可得，是心不是心。为复在内、为复在外、为复在中间？如是三处推求，觅心了不可得，乃至于一切处求觅亦不可得。当知即是无心。”

问曰：“和尚既云，一切处总是无心，即合无有罪福，何故众生轮回六趣生死不断？”

答曰：“众生迷妄，于无心中而妄生心，造种种业，妄执为有，足可致使轮回六趣，生死不断。譬有人，于暗中见杌为鬼，见绳为蛇，便生恐怖。众生妄执，亦复如是。于无心中，妄执有心，造种种业，而实无不轮回六趣。如是众生，若遇大善知识，教令坐禅，觉悟无心，一切业障，尽皆销灭，生死即断。譬如暗中，日光一照，而暗皆尽。若悟无心，一切罪灭亦复如是。”

问曰：“弟子愚昧，心犹未了，审一切处，六根所用者应？”

答曰：“语种种施为烦恼菩提，生死涅槃，定无心否？”

答曰：“定是无心，只为众生妄执有心，即有一切烦恼生死、菩提涅槃。若觉无心，即无一切烦恼生死涅槃。是故，如来为有心者说有生死，菩提对烦恼得名，涅槃者对生死得名，此皆对治之法。若无心可得，即烦恼菩提亦不可得，乃至生死涅槃亦不可得。”

问曰：“菩提涅槃既不可得，过去诸佛皆得菩提，此谓可乎？”

答曰：“但以世谛文字之言得，于真谛实无可得。故《维摩经》云：‘菩提者，不可以身得，不可以心得。’又《金刚经》云：‘无有少法可得’。诸佛如来，但以不可得而得。当知有心即一切有，无心一切无。”

问曰：“和尚既云，于一切处尽皆无心，木石亦无心，岂不同于木石乎？”

答曰：“而我无心，心不同木石。何以故？譬如天鼓，虽复无心，自然出种种妙法教化众生。又如如意珠，虽复无心，自然能作种种变现。而我无心，亦复如是。虽复无心，善能觉了诸法实相，具真般若，三身自在，应用无妨。故《宝积经》云：‘以无心意而现行’，岂同木石乎？夫无心者，即真心也；真心者，即无心也。”

问曰：“今于心中，作若为修行？”

答曰：“但于一切事上觉了，无心即是修行，更不别有修行。故知无心即一切，寂灭即无心也。”

弟子于是忽然大悟，始知心外无物，物外无心，举止动用，皆得自在，断诸疑网，更无挂碍。即起作礼，而铭无心，乃为颂曰：

“心神向寂，无色无形。睹之不见，听之无声。似暗非暗，如明不明。舍之不灭，取之无生。大即廓周法界，小即毛竭不停。烦恼混之不浊，涅槃澄之不清。真如本无分别，能辩有情无情。收之一切不立，散之普遍含灵。妙神非知所测，正觅绝于修行。灭则不见其坏，生则不见其成。大道寂号无相，万像窈号无名。如斯运用自在，总是无心之精。”

和尚又告曰：“诸般若中，以无心般若而为最上，故《维摩经》云：‘以无心意无受行，而悉拙伏外道。’又《法鼓经》：‘若知无心可得，法即不可得，罪福亦不可得，生死涅槃亦不可得，乃至一切尽不可得，不可得亦不可得。’”

乃为颂曰：“昔日迷时为有心，尔时悟罢了无心。虽复无心能照用，照用常寂即如如。”

重曰：“无心无照亦无用，无照无用即无为。此是如来真法界，不同菩萨为辟支。言无心者，即无妄相心也。”

又问：“何名为太上？”

答曰：“太者大也，上者高也。穷高之妙理，故云太上也。又太者，通泰位也。三界之天虽有延康之寿，福尽是故终轮回六趣，未足为太。十住菩萨虽出离生死，而妙理未极，亦未为太。十住修心，妄有入无，又无其无有双遣，不忘中道，亦未为太。又忘中道，三处都尽，位皆妙觉。菩萨虽遣三处，不能无其所妙，亦未为太。又忘其妙，则佛道至极，则无所存。无存思则无思虑，兼妄心智永息，觉照俱尽，寂然无为，此名为太也。太是理极之义，上是无等色，故云太上，即之佛如来之别名也。”

《菩提达摩大师无心论》卷终


無心論一卷
Wúxīn lùn
No. 2831 http://www.125a.net/book/T85/T85n2831/T85n2831_001.xhtml
釋菩提達摩製
夫至理無言。要假言而顯理。大道無相為接麁而見形。今且假立二人共談無心之論矣　弟子問和尚曰。有心無心　答曰。無心　問曰。既云無心。誰能見聞覺知。誰知無心　答曰。還是無心既見聞覺知。還是無心能知無心　問曰。既若無心。即合無有見聞覺知。云何得有見聞覺知　答曰。我雖無心能見能聞能覺能知　問曰。既能見聞覺知。即是有心。那得稱無　答曰。只是見聞覺知。即是無心。何處更離見聞覺知別有無心。我今恐汝不解。一一為汝解說。令汝得悟真理。假如見終日見由為無見。見亦無心。聞終日聞由為無聞。聞亦無心。覺終日覺由為無覺。覺亦無心。知終日知由為無知。知亦無心終日造作。作亦無作。作亦無心。故云見聞覺知總是無心　問曰。若為能得知是無心　答曰。汝但子細推求看。心作何相貌。其心復可得。是心不是心。為復在內為復在外為復在中間。如是三處推求覓心了不可得。乃至於一切處求覓亦不可得。當知即是無心　問曰。和尚既云一切處總是無心。即合無有罪福。何故眾生輪迴六聚生死不斷。
答曰。眾生迷妄。於無心中而妄生心。造種種業。妄執為有。足可致使輪迴六趣生死不斷。譬有人於暗中見杌為鬼見繩為蛇便生恐怖。眾生妄執亦復如是。於無心中妄執有心造種種業。而實無不輪迴六趣。如是眾生若遇大善知識教令坐禪覺悟無心。一切業障盡皆銷滅生死即斷。譬如暗中日光一照而暗皆盡。若悟無心。一切罪滅亦復如是　問曰。弟子愚昧心猶未了審。一切處六根所用者應　答曰。語種種施為煩惱菩提生死涅槃定無心否　答曰。定是無心。只為眾生妄執有心即有一切煩惱生死菩提涅槃。若覺無心即無一切煩惱生死涅槃。是故如來為有心者說有生死。菩提對煩惱得名。涅槃者對生死得名。此皆對治之法。若無心可得。即煩惱菩提亦不可得。乃至生死涅槃亦不可得　問曰。菩提涅槃既不可得。過去諸佛皆得菩提。此謂可乎　答曰。但以世諦文字之言得。於真諦實無可得。故維摩經云。菩提者不可以身得不可以心得。又金剛經云。無有少法可得。諸佛如來但以不可得而得。當知有心即一切有無心一切無　問曰。和尚既云於一切處盡皆無心。木石亦無心。豈不同於木石乎　答曰。而我無心心不同木石。何以故。譬如天鼓。雖復無心自然出種種妙法教化眾生。又如如意珠。雖復無心自然能作種種變現。而我無心亦復如是。雖復無心善能覺了諸法實相具真般若三身自在應用無妨。故寶積經云。以無心意而現行。豈同木石乎。夫無心者即真心也。真心者即無心也　問曰。今於心中作若為修行　答曰。但於一切事上覺了。無心即是修行。更不別有修行。故知無心即一切。寂滅即無心也　弟子於是忽然大悟。始知心外無物物外無心。舉止動用皆得自在。斷諸疑網更無罣礙。即起作禮。而銘無心乃為頌曰。
　心神向寂　　無色無形　　覩之不見
　 聽之無聲　　似暗非暗　　如明不明
　 捨之不滅　　取之無生
　大即廓周法界　　小即毛竭不停
　 煩惱混之不濁　　涅槃澄之不清
　 真如本無分別　　能辯有情無情
　 收之一切不立　　散之普遍含靈
　 妙神非知所測　正覓絕於修行
　 滅則不見其懷　　生則不見其成
　 大道寂號無相　　萬像窈號無名
　 如斯運用自在　　總是無心之精
和尚又告曰。諸般若中以無心般若而為最上故維摩經云。以無心意無受行。而悉摧伏外道。又法鼓經。若知無心可得。法即不可得。罪福亦不可得。生死涅槃亦不可得。乃至一切盡不可得。不可得亦不可得。乃為頌曰。
　昔日迷時為有心　　爾時悟罷了無心
　 雖復無心能照用　　照用常寂即如如
重曰。
　無心無照亦無用　　無照無用即無為
　 此是如來真法界　　不同菩薩為辟支
言無心者即無妄相心也。
又問。何名為太上　答曰。太者大也。上者高也。窮高之妙理故云太上也。又太者通泰之位也。三界之天雖有延康之壽福盡。是故終輪迴六趣。未足為太。十住菩薩雖出離生死。而妙理未極。亦未為太。十住修心妄有入無。又無其無有雙遣不妄中道。亦未為太。又忘中道三處都盡。位皆妙覺。菩薩雖遣三處。不能無其所妙。亦未為太。又忘其妙則佛道至極。則無所存。無存思則無思慮。兼妄心智永息。覺照俱盡。寂然無為。此名為太也。太是理極之義。上是無等色。故云太上。即之佛如來之別名也。
無心論一卷


Labels: , 9 comments | | edit post
True Self in Dzogchen?
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=29819

Krodha (Kyle Dixon) wrote:


http://melong.com/merging-true-self-dying/

The Melong resurrected this talk given by Elio in 2011, revised now in 2018 and republished.

A nice article in itself, but why Elio insists on the tirthika overtones, such as needlessly including “true self” in the title of this article which otherwise does not mention anything of that sort, is something I don’t get. Seems to be a continual theme in his contributions, which are otherwise quite nice.

This article was originally published 2 years prior to Elio’s Marvelous Primordial State which featured the controversial addition of a Ramana Maharshi quote as the epigraph. Elio later stated that this was perhaps a mistake, or at the very least something he should have reconsidered.

Why do I care? Because with Rinpoche passing, individuals like Elio are going to end up being spokespeople for Norbu Rinpoche’s organization and legacy.

ChNN was always very careful with his translation choices and what he decided to publish in written form. There was a clear and thorough attention to detail on his part.

Despite arguments that could be made in relation to the principle of bdag nyid chen po, the implementation of “true self” in such a cavalier manner — in the title of an article where it isn’t even necessary no less — is a bit reckless in my opinion.

While I should take Elio’s advice from this article, that ”...most of the time the opinions we hold on to with great attachment are useless.” I’m still marginally concerned and am airing my grievances.
 
 
 
Lopon Malcolm replied:
 
 
A couple of observations:

The term "true self" is nowhere used in any Indian or Tibetan Buddhist text, not even in gzhan stong texts.

Even in the Uttaratantra, where we find the Tibetan term, dam pa'i bdag in the discussion of ātmapāramitā, the Sanskrit text simply gives the term as ātma. The "dam pa" was added by Ngog Lotsawa to distinguish this "self," free from the proliferation of the self [i.e. existence] imputed by the hindus and nonself [i.e. nonexistence] imputed by śrāvakas, as a quality of the dharmakāya, — in other words, it is another way of saying the dharmakāya is free from extremes. This usage in the Uttaratantra comes from contrasting the impurity, nonidentity, suffering, and impermanence of compounded phenomena, with the purity, identity, bliss, and permanence of dharmakāya. But if someone should think this contextual usage of "self" with respect to dharmakāya means dharmakāya is an existent self, they have not understood anything of Mahāyāna at all, let alone Dzogchen, or even Buddhadharma for that matter.

With respect to the term bdag nyid chen po, it is a somewhat rare Dzogchen technical term, also found in the Guhyagarbha literature. Even so, its usage is very restricted. In his commentary on the Kun byed rgyal po, Khenpo Zhenphen Ozer glosses it as rang byung ye shes.
 
 
 

Kevin: What about "merging with" for attaining enlightenment?

Kevin... 
 
 
Malcolm: There is nothing with which to merge.

According to the teachings of Man ngag sde (but not sems sde or klong sde), at the time of death, the elements dissolve: earth into water, water into fire, fire into air, air into space, space into consciousness, consciousness into luminosity, and finally, luminosity dissolves into pristine consciousness. This happens to all beings at the time of death. The question is: will one recognize the sounds, lights and rays of one's own pristine consciousness in the bardo of dharmatā or not? If one does, liberation. If one does not, well, at worst one will be required to take rebirth in a nirmanakāya buddhafield, or at the very worst, one will be reborn a human being with a definite chance to meet and practice Dzogchen again.
Labels: , 0 comments | | edit post
Does dependent arising require some “thing” to depend on?
Greg Goode:

Steve,  Madhyamika interprets the "thingness" gestalt as a type conception, a way of reacting or conceptualizing words or concepts or sensations, as if there were existence involved.  Maybe some words seem to invite this kind of reifying conceptualization more than others - we usually feel that more physical-sounding, more concrete words entail a more independent kind of existence.  But Madhyamika would refute this kind of existence across the board.

Does "dependent arising" require there is (A) something dependent that arises, and (B) something that A is dependent on?   Even though Madhyamika itself refutes this?

Not according to Madhyamika itself.  When A is said to be dependent, the meaning is that is is not INdependent.  It is not self-sufficient, it has no essence or true nature.

What does "dependent" mean?  Dependence is usually broken down into three types.  Phenomenon A relies on pieces and parts, on conditions, and on conceptual designation.

But none of these things (pieces + parts, conditions, conceptual designation) is an inherent, self-standing thing.  Each of these things itself dependent.

This kind of dependency is not linear, tracing back to an original first cause or universal stopping point.  It's more like a web of dependencies.  It's not arborial, it's rhizomatic.


----

Years ago:


Greg Goode Different types of dependency: several people have given examples, and here's another one.

A table..

1. A table depends on legs, a top, screws and braces (parts)
2. A table depends on being constructed, and trees, and sun and air, and builders (causes and conditions).
3. A table depends on being conceptualized and designated as a table.

This is the subtle one. Let's say you see a leg and a top. Do you see a backrest? No, so you won't call this a chair. The designation goes like this - you see some forms, and make them out as legs and a top. You give those forms the name, label, designation of "table."

This is subtle because the table is not exactly equal to the parts. The table cannot equal the parts, because then, if the parts change, the parts would be different, and so, following the equation, the table would have to change. Another reason the equality cannot hold is that there are many parts and only one table. The table cannot equal the *collection* of parts, because if the parts change, or if a leg gets broken off, or swapped out, then the collection changes. So the table would have to be a different table.

But we really don't want to say that the table would be different just because the parts are different. We want to somehow say that the table can remain relatively stable as the same table, even if the parts change, or get painted, etc.

And at the same time, we cannot find a truly existent, unchanging table behind or within the parts. If we did find such a truly existent table, then we wouldn't need to designate the parts as a table. But we do. It makes no sense that the table would really be a table if no one had ever in history designated anything as a table.

So we allow ourselves to end up saying, in a loose, conventional way, that the table depends on the parts, but is not the parts. It's a table in name only. this kind of naming is the designation-aspect of the dependency.

And this loose, conventional approach to tables and selves and life and all things is the experience of emptiness. It's a free, flexible, sweetly joyful, open-hearted way of life....
June 8 at 8:58am · Edited · Unlike · 8
·  https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-ash4/c25.0.81.81/s64x64/252231_1002029915278_1941483569_s.jpg
John Tan And also functionality. A Chariot continues to function even with some of its parts missing. Dependencies based on parts, causes and conditions, relations, functions and imputations.
 
Labels: , , 1 comments | | edit post
A Common Wrong Explanation of Hinayana vs Mahayana
Also see: Problem with Many Zen Teachings
My opinion on Shurangama Sutra


My last comment on this particular teacher after attending his second day of talks at the Zen center:

Today the teacher talked about no self and emptiness of all aggregates. However, this is the 'view' aspect (which can be intellectual), and although he did have some direct experiential insight into no-self (Thusness Stage 4 mirror bright, not Stage 5 of no-mirror), he affirms the self-luminous Mind to exist substantially (unchanging, eternal) as opposed to thoughts which are changing, arising and passing away. This is like I said, no different from the non-Buddhist views of Advaita. Sure, it's a good realisation to have but I would not equate this to Buddhadharma.

He also discusses how Buddhism differs from those of other religions through its unique teachings of no-self, but he doesn't realise that his own realisation is no different from Advaita Vedanta.

He then differentiates Hinayana vs Mahayana teachings in this way:

In Hinayana, the practitioner, through dissociating from phenomena as non-self, impermanent and suffering, finally realises Mind-Essence -- which is the unborn, non-arising, without sense of self -- basically he is referring to the I AMness realization. He equates the Arhat's nirvana with the formless absorption into the formless Mind-Essence.

In Mahayana, the practitioner realises Buddha-Nature, as defined in Mahaparinirvana Sutra. That Mahayana nirvana (which a Bodhisattva/Buddha realises) itself has the capacity for infinite functions, just like a clear lake is without moon in it but can reflect the moon clearly (like I said, Thusness Stage 4's Mirror Bright), just like electricity is unseen but can light up the lightbulb, our Mind is formless but can produce limitless functions, in ears it can hear and in eyes it can see. As such, birth and death is nirvana, suffering is bodhi, thoughts are not to be get rid of, green bamboos are dharmakaya and chrysanthemum is prajna, both the waves of the ocean and a waveless ocean are both made of water (and thus neither is to be preferred). This is no different from the One Mind phase of realization. Non-dual is experienced but the reification of Mind and view of inherency is still strong -- still reifying Brahman.

He is not the first Mahayana teacher I have seen making this false equation. This misunderstanding is in fact, common. Unfortunately, as they are not exposed to the teachings and teachers from other religions, they seem to be unaware that all these realisations do not go beyond Hinduism's Atman-Brahman realisation. In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is not merely static and formless, as Maya is the sport (lila) of Brahman, and the universe is finally realised to be nothing but Brahman. This is no different from this venerable's explanation of Ti (substance) and Yong (function).

There is a complete misunderstanding of Mahaparinirvana Sutra on his part, a very common issue which needs context and clarification as I discussed in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-should-we-understand-mahayana.html

Basically, this Venerable (and many other teachers) make the mistake of attributing Hinayana to I AMness level of formless realisation, and Mahayana to One Mind where the Substance can produce infinite functions and is nondual with its functions. They get stuck between Thusness Stage 1 to 4. They didn't realise that 'Hinayana'/Theravada teachers like Daniel M. Ingram can have an effortless, constant nondual experience of 'Bamboos are dharmakaya' WITH Right View and realization of anatta which makes nondual even more effortless. Other Theravadin masters/teachers/practitioners who realized non-dual anatta insights include but are not limited to Ajahn Amaro (See: The Breakthrough), (Phra) Kovit Khemananda, and so on. Hence, the notion that Theravada leads only to 'Causal/Formless/I AM' realization and do not have access to any nondual insights is unequivocally false. As Thusness also pointed out in the past, and anyone with any semblance of familiarity with the Pali Suttas (the original teachings of Buddha) will know, anyone who held any ideas about Consciousness as Self, or as a Source/Substratum of phenomena will get heavily admonished by the Buddha as holding wrong views (see: MN38 and MN1). We can thus know that Thusness Stage 5~6 is really where the true insight into Buddhadharma 'begins', and while Thusness Stage 1~4 may be enlightenment in non-Buddhist religions, they are not considered to be even entering the gate or 'stream-entry'/'first bhumi' in Buddhadharma.

The Venerable didn't realise that the 'Hinayana sutta', Bahiya Sutta, is clearly not only non-dual but in fact taught the peak of non-dual experience, with right view, and Bahiya attained arahantship instantly upon hearing Buddha speak of that teaching. Bahiya Sutta, Kalaka Sutta, and many other suttas are all about this. Without the direct realisation of right view (anatta, dependent origination, emptiness), whatever nondual realisations cannot be considered Buddhadharma, even at the Hinayana level, let alone Mahayana which further elaborates on the direct realisation of the non-arising of all phenomena that are dependently designated/dependently originated.
 
The realization of anatta allows us to see through/penetrate the false view of 'Awareness' as existing changelessly and independently (even if inseparable from) apart from transient manifestation by realising that in seeing, there's only colors, no seer -- seeing is only colors without seer, in hearing only sounds, no hearer, hearing is only sounds -- there is no unchanging 'seeing essence' or 'hearing essence' permeating and yet remaining unchanged from the transient functions/experiences. Furthermore 'Awareness' is just another label like 'weather' as I have said many times. The Shurangama Sutra is very often misinterpreted and needs clarification, which I have also done elsewhere. The realization of anatta is the realisation that 'Buddha-Nature is Impermanence' as Zen Master Dogen and Ch'an Sixth Patriarch Hui-Neng taught. This will free one from substantialist, eternalist, non-Buddhist views.

This mistaken attribution of Hinayana and Mahayana is also similar to Ken Wilber's mistaken understanding, again, of equating Hinayana to the Causal (I AM) level realization and the Nirvana of the arhat with the formless Hindu absorption in Self of Nirvikalpa Samadhi while Mahayana as his Non Dual (One Mind) level. Therefore, he sees Buddhism as no different from Vedanta and other religions. I don't mind that equation if that were true (seriously, if all religions are preaching the exact same realisations, wouldn't it be great? I would love it and prefer that to be true), but unfortunately it is not true. I love and respect all religions, but let's not confuse them up and get into the perennial philosophy.

I'm glad we have Edmond Cigale's (director of a Transpersonal Psychology Institute)'s writing on the difference between I AM/Causal realization, the different kinds of Nirvikalpa samadhi, Nirodha Samapatti, non-dual insights, anatta realization and total exertion. In this thread in DhO back in 2012 on Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi, after some of my pointers on anatta he was able to breakthrough. He is also into integral theory.

Jui (who also went through I AM to One Mind to Anatta and was sitting beside me) also commented, "Disappointing man." 😂

p.s.

Thusness wrote in 2014,

"Your Master Chen (Soh: not the same as the Venerable I'm referring to in this article) can say Theravada tastes 寂滅為樂 (cessation is bliss) but may not realize 諸法常寂 (all dharmas are always quiescent) instead of belittling Theravada."


"Bliss of presence and bliss of cessation... both are related to the emptying of self/Self. After anatta the sense of self/Self is realized to be fabrication and the entire chain of afflictive D.O. [dependent origination] can come to a rest by seeing how stressful, dis-satisfying and suffering the chain is. That is right intention in the Noble Eightfold Path. Taste this afflictive D.O. coming to rest in relation to the need to maintain the Self/self or beingness. When the mind let go this way seeing the dis-satisfactoriness... it is by way of renunciation, dispassion, dis-identification… the freedom and bliss that come from Atammayata is the bliss of cessation (寂灭为乐), it is understood to be many times more blissful than any form of pleasure and beingness. However cutting the cause of suffering at root in Mahayana is about seeing the emptiness of self and phenomena. The bliss of cessation of the Theravadins are replaced by tasting the non-arising of phenomena therefore 观法如化，三昧常寂, 见闻觉知，本自圆寂。（contemplating all dharmas as illusory, [always in] samadhi-quiescence, seen-heard-cognized-sensed, are by nature completely quiescent [nirvana])"


..............


2009 conversation with John Tan:

(1:21 AM) Thusness: since Buddha is so clear about non-dual and anatta, why said DO (Dependent Origination) is so important.
(1:22 AM) Thusness: Many higher vehicles do not know that the basic teachings is all about non-dual.
that is Buddhism is not about non-dual.
(1:23 AM) Thusness: not only about non-dual, it starts from non-dual.
(1:23 AM) Thusness: that is, the entry level is non-dual otherwise there is no true understanding of what that is being taught.
(1:24 AM) Thusness: DO (Dependent Origination) is not talking about non-dual, no division between phenomena and self.
(1:25 AM) Thusness: It is not talking about the observer and the observed and how to get into that.
(1:25 AM) Thusness: it is talking about what that is already no-self, non-dual and conditions.
that is non-dual appearance and conditions.
get it?
(1:27 AM) Thusness: means Buddha is not talking about phenomena and self, observer and observed in Dependent Origination.
(1:27 AM) Thusness: There is already anatta, no self, never was there a division. This is the entry level to understand Dependent Origination.
(1:28 AM) Thusness: It is about non-dual appearance and conditions.
(1:29 AM) Thusness: There must already be some stability in non-dual experiences and the experience of anatta before one can truly understand Dependent Origination.
(1:29 AM) Thusness: What seen is awareness, what heard is awareness...
(1:31 AM) Thusness: there is no division in experience or in awareness. Subject/Object division has always been an assumption. There is no agent, no-self. So Buddha has already spell this out clearly in anatta.
it is talking about appearances and conditions.
Get it?
(1:31 AM) AEN: icic..
ya
(1:31 AM) Thusness: So know the basic is already the deepest.
But only misunderstood.
(1:32 AM) AEN: oic..
(1:34 AM) Thusness: What dependently originates does not arise nor subsides nor is anything created nor destroyed.
merely appearances.
(1:35 AM) Thusness: Dependently originates implies effortlessness and spontaneity.
(1:35 AM) Thusness: However appearances though spontaneously arises, does not arise without a cause or condition.
(1:36 AM) Thusness: though appearances arises, it is not a product of causes or conditions.
(1:36 AM) Thusness: all appearances are always non-dual.
(1:37 AM) AEN: does nathan know DO?
(1:38 AM) Thusness: it is always tempting after the experience of effortlessness in non-duality to by-pass this phase.
(1:38 AM) Thusness: I wrote in stage 5 to jonls saying it very clearly not to be too happy and spoke of stage 6.
It is to point out the importance of this.
(1:39 AM) Thusness: many Zen masters also fail to understand the important of this.
(1:40 AM) Thusness: and some practitioners are so engrossed in the ordinariness of activities and attempt to imitate the masters -- trying to be ordinary and missed all the important insights.
(1:41 AM) Thusness: that is why all the 6 phases of insights must be thoroughly seen first before one talks about spontaneous arising.
(1:42 AM) Thusness: That is why I told u not to talk about spontaneous arising or self liberation before you have thorough insight experience of anatta and emptiness or DO.
(1:43 AM) Thusness: spontaneous arising is not a good phrase, spontaneous perfection or self-liberation are better phrases. :)
but i do not know about these practices that time when i told u.
(1:43 AM) Thusness: not into vajrayana.
(1:43 AM) AEN: oic..
why is spontaneous arising not a good phrase and spontaneous perfection of self liberation better
(1:44 AM) Thusness: it is actually okie also...ahhaha
(1:44 AM) Thusness: just remember all six phases of insight must arise before u talk about that.
(1:45 AM) Thusness: imagine this, can u talk about self-liberation to one that has not even experience 'I AMness'?
(1:46 AM) AEN: no
(1:46 AM) Thusness: if someone has experienced "I AMness" yet know nothing about non-dual, can he talk about spontaneous perfection?
(1:46 AM) AEN: no
(1:47 AM) Thusness: so how is it possible for anyone to start practicing what that is being said in the videos?
(1:47 AM) Thusness: even one has reached that sort of insight in anatta, there is still a desync of view... and maturity of insight need time to stabilize.
(1:48 AM) Thusness: even after that, one may disregard 'conditions' like in stage 5.
(1:48 AM) AEN: icic..
nathan didnt talk about conditions rite
(1:48 AM) Thusness: like arising without cause and conditions.
(1:49 AM) Thusness: or 'things' are the product of causes or conditions.
there is no creation nor destruction of anything.
(1:49 AM) Thusness: merely dependently originates.
(1:49 AM) AEN: icic..
(1:49 AM) Thusness: nothing is the product of anything.
(1:49 AM) AEN: its everything simultaneously in one moment rite, and not a causal interaction of things in time and space
(1:50 AM) Thusness: yes
(1:50 AM) Thusness: u have to experience step by step.
(1:51 AM) Thusness: there is no short cut. If u practice and understand correctly, u will not deviate and have all wrong views.

...


.......

2008:


(11:46 PM) Thusness:    Does ken (Ken Wilber) talk about anatta
(11:46 PM) AEN:    no
(11:47 PM) Thusness:    Or Advaita sort of understanding
(11:47 PM) AEN:    advaita (Ken Wilber is at Thusness Stage 4)
(11:47 PM) Thusness:    Then y u kept asking me.
(11:47 PM) Thusness:    What is anatta?
(11:48 PM) AEN:    ya but wat i mean is nondual experience is not as in stage 2 type of passing experience, but as everpresent reality?
(11:48 PM) AEN:    anatta is no agent and dependent origination?
(11:48 PM) Thusness:    Didn't I tell u understanding non-dual experience as verb. (Soh: refer to my article The Wind is Blowing, Blowing is the Wind)
(11:48 PM) AEN:    icic
(11:49 PM) Thusness:    Not an entity that is independent and unchanging?
(11:49 PM) AEN:    but ken wilber say "You are that, and there is no you – just this entire luminous display spontaneously arising moment to moment. The separate self is nowhere to be found."
(11:50 PM) AEN:    *oic
(11:50 PM) Thusness:    Non-dual experience is there is clarity of no separation (As in Thusness Stage 4)
(11:51 PM) Thusness:    Stage 2 is there is merging
(11:51 PM) Thusness:    As if I dissolved and merge..
(11:51 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:52 PM) Thusness:    There r two, dual
(11:52 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:52 PM) Thusness:    Non-dual is there never was a separation
(11:52 PM) Thusness:    No split
(11:53 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:53 PM) Thusness:    There is no separate I.
(11:53 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:53 PM) Thusness:    But this awareness is still very much constant, permanent and unchanging
(11:54 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:54 PM) Thusness:    Anatta goes further and understand exactly what is non-dual experience
(11:55 PM) Thusness:    This is a break-through in insight
(11:55 PM) AEN:    oic..
(11:55 PM) AEN:    its about discerning it as DO?
(11:55 PM) Thusness:    There is thinking, no thinker
(11:55 PM) AEN:    icic
(11:55 PM) Thusness:    Seen no seer
(11:56 PM) Thusness:    Sound no hearer
(11:56 PM) AEN:    oic
(11:56 PM) Thusness:    Understood becoming no being
(11:56 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:57 PM) Thusness:    Understand that object@
(11:57 PM) AEN:    wat u mean
(11:59 PM) Thusness:    Object/subject is the result of compartmentizing 'verb'
(11:59 PM) Thusness:    Action
(11:59 PM) AEN:    icic..
(11:59 PM) Thusness:    Thinking becomes thinker and thoughts
(11:59 PM) Thusness:    That is anatta
(12:00 AM) Thusness:    It is the direct experience that there is no thinker, just thoughts
(12:01 AM) Thusness:    In seeing, always only the seen.
(12:01 AM) AEN:    is this wat u mean by nondual yet permanent (for ken wilber):

You are not the one who experiences liberation; you are the clearing, the opening, the emptiness, in which any experience comes and goes, like reflections on the mirror. And you are the mirror, the mirror mind, and not any experienced reflection. But you are not apart from the reflections, standing back and watching. You are everything that is arising moment to moment. You can swallow the whole cosmos in one gulp, it is so small, and you can taste the sky without moving an inch.
(12:01 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:03 AM) Thusness:    Yes what I called desync of view and non-dual experience
(12:04 AM) Thusness:    When insight arises, there is no desync
(12:04 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:05 AM) Thusness:    Non-dual experience is clearly understood because there never was one.
(12:05 AM) Thusness:    It is always only manifestation
(12:06 AM) AEN:    there never was what?
(12:06 AM) Thusness:    DO is the operation mechanism of the Transience
(12:06 AM) Thusness:    A self
(12:06 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:10 AM) Thusness:    It is very difficult to have such clarity
(12:11 AM) Thusness:    Only Buddha has it
(12:11 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:12 AM) Thusness:    Even buddhist practitioners have so much mis-conceptions
(12:12 AM) Thusness:    They can't see how consistent and precise the teaching is
(12:13 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:14 AM) AEN:    btw this is not yet nondual experience rite, more like I AM?:
(12:14 AM) AEN:    "the world moves forward as it is..... but instead of seeing the diversity as the ulitmate the One underneath it all is rested in..... Like the ocean reality or maya is simply the surface waves of moving consciousness.... shakti which manifests the underlying Ocean of Consciousness into a limited visible form..... But what is beneath and around and within that form is simply the same consciousness which comprises the Whole of the Ocean.... But in the calm of the depths you know the vastness instead of the limited......"
(12:16 AM) Thusness:    Yes
(12:16 AM) AEN:    icic
(12:17 AM) Thusness:    Under the influence of the 'bond' without knowing it
(12:17 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:17 AM) Thusness:    Stage 1 to 6 cannot be skipped
(12:17 AM) AEN:    wat do u mean
(12:18 AM) Thusness:    Best experienced that way.
(12:18 AM) AEN:    oic
(12:18 AM) Thusness:    A practitioner cannot skip stages
(12:18 AM) AEN:    but buddhist path skips some rite
(12:18 AM) AEN:    like dharma dan never go through 'i am'
(12:18 AM) Thusness:    Yes
(12:19 AM) Thusness:    the depth of clarity will not be there
(12:19 AM) Thusness:    Like grimnexus see 4 same as 5.
(12:20 AM) Thusness:    But a person that undergone knows clearly.
(12:21 AM) AEN:    oic
(12:21 AM) AEN:    ya he tot its the same
(12:21 AM) AEN:    btw grimnexus at stage 4 rite
(12:21 AM) Thusness:    Like ken and Ajahn amaro, seems the same but even Ajahn Amaro thought it is the same.
(12:21 AM) AEN:    long time nv see him online liao, he like never came online for many months
(12:21 AM) AEN:    oic
(12:21 AM) Thusness:    Why u worry so much abt others ppl stage?
(12:22 AM) AEN:    lol
(12:23 AM) Thusness:    Rather pray hard that u will not be misled and go through countless lives of rebirth again
(12:23 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:23 AM) Thusness:    What u must have is to correctly discern
(12:24 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:25 AM) Thusness:    If u want to hv clarity of the essence of the six phases, discern and understand correctly.
(12:25 AM) Thusness:    What if I m no more around?
(12:25 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:26 AM) Thusness:    If Ajahn Amaro cannot know the diff, much less is others
(12:26 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:26 AM) AEN:    dharma dan leh
(12:26 AM) Thusness:    Rather ask urself have u correctly understood then abt others
(12:27 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:27 AM) Thusness:    How I know?
(12:27 AM) AEN:    oic
(12:27 AM) Thusness:    U kept asking abt others, I worry more abt u.
(12:27 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:28 AM) Thusness:    If u know, u will be able to know r they there.
(12:28 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:29 AM) Thusness:    Like ken and Ajahn Amaro clearly have same experience but different understanding
(12:29 AM) Thusness:    David loy treat them the same too.
(12:29 AM) Thusness:    Not realizing the differences
(12:30 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:30 AM) Thusness:    So have the right understanding
(12:31 AM) Thusness:    One is abiding, the other is non-abiding
(12:32 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:32 AM) Thusness:    One is still efforting, the other is effortless
(12:32 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:33 AM) Thusness:    One is Brahman, the other is DO
(12:34 AM) Thusness:    One is mirror, the other is pure manifestation
(12:34 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:36 AM) Thusness:    'Self' is grasped unknowingly because it is independent, changeless
(12:36 AM) Thusness:    Therefore they can't treasure the Transience
(12:37 AM) Thusness:    They can't c conditions
(12:37 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:37 AM) Thusness:    The Transience and conditions are most sacred
(12:38 AM) Thusness:    How can Self c this?
(12:38 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:39 AM) Thusness:    But one must know the emptiness nature of Transience, unfindable and ungraspable
(12:39 AM) Thusness:    And rises when condition is
(12:40 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:40 AM) Thusness:    When we say attributes, we r referring to the empty nature of awareness
(12:41 AM) AEN:    wat u mean
(12:41 AM) Thusness:    But awareness is full of colors
(12:41 AM) AEN:    u mean attributelessness?
(12:41 AM) AEN:    icic
(12:41 AM) Thusness:    Like 'redness' of a flower
(12:42 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:42 AM) Thusness:    But to advaitins, it is absence
(12:42 AM) Thusness:    Nothing to do with awareness
(12:43 AM) AEN:    u mean they see awareness as formless?
(12:43 AM) Thusness:    yes
(12:43 AM) AEN:    icic
(12:44 AM) Thusness:    Means absence of attributes as colorless, formless
(12:44 AM) Thusness:    But what buddhism is referring is its emptiness nature
(12:45 AM) Thusness:    Not that there is a real formless entity
(12:45 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:45 AM) Thusness:    Awareness is appearances appearing when condition is
(12:46 AM) AEN:    icic..
(12:46 AM) Thusness:    awareness is not free of thoughts
(12:46 AM) Thusness:    To advaitins, it is.
(12:47 AM) Thusness:    To buddhist practitioner, thought is awareness
(12:48 AM) Thusness:    One thought arises
(12:48 AM) Thusness:    Next one
(12:48 AM) Thusness:    Like what Ajahn Amaro said
(12:48 AM) Thusness:    There is no worry abt no thought, no conceptuality
(12:49 AM) Thusness:    All will be experienced in their most vivid forms
(12:49 AM) Thusness:    I got to go now.
(12:49 AM) AEN:    oic..
(12:49 AM) AEN:    ok gd nite
(12:49 AM) Thusness:    Nite  
 
 
......
 
Update:

[8:39 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: In 2017:

Astus wrote:
    Similarly, as in the Lankavatara Sutra, there is the argument that shravakas do not know that there is no grasping and no grasped, but that is again refutable once we consider that without attachment to the aggregates there is no basis any more for such a duality. Hence what is called the shravakayana in Mahayana scriptures refers practitioners who misunderstood things, and not what is actually found in the Hinayana works.

Malcolm replied:


 Hahaha, this is again a very poor argument. Becoming free from the clinging to the aggregates is possible merely through understanding they are impermanent. There is no need for a nondual understanding to attain arhatship, much less stream-entry.
[8:40 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: 2020:


 https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=34132&start=20

Acarya Malcolm:  The same three fetters are abandoned on the first bhumi, hence first stage bodhisattvas are Mahayana stream entrants.

Someone asked: The topic has another question hidden in it: How does the śrāvaka stream-entrant differ in his realization from the bodhisattva stream-entrant other than the former theoretically missing the foundations of bodhicitta?

Acarya Malcolm: The answer, according to Candrakīrti, is that their realization of emptiness is the same, in so far as they both realize the absence of inherent existence.
[8:49 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: The quote where lankavatara states sravakas never overcome duality:


https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=18934

Malcolm:

I checked the sutra in question in the Tibetan translation. It is not exactly the six and fifth bodhisattva bhumi. Here is another passage which clarifies things:

It is talking about equivalent stages of the eradication of afflictions in this case.

Other than the view of the abhisamaya of the śravakas abandoning fully the afflictions on the sixth or fifth stage, the latent afflictions are not abandoned and they have inconceivable deaths and transmigrations. They proclaim My births are finished, I abide in brahmacarya, my work is finished", uttering the lion's roar. Having said that, after they become throughly familiar with the absence of self in persons, their minds turn a period of nirvana.

What is here being stated is that that śravakas abandonment of active afflictions is equivalent to that of the fifth or sixth bhumi, but that they do not abandon latent afflictions and are thus subject to inconceivable deaths and transmigrations.

Another section, dealing with bhumis, states:

Beginning with the sixth stage, bodhisattva mahasattvas, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas enter into the concentration on cessation. On the seventh stage, mental moment by mental moment, the bodhisattva mahāsattvas enter into a concentration that eliminates the characteristics of all things, but the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not. The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas' concentration on cessation falls into the characteristics of an apprehended object and apprehending subject through possession of ideation. That being the case, if the characteristic of the absence of the different dharma's they obtain and the characteristic of diversity were to become non-existent, it would not be proper — on the seventh bhumi one is to concentrate on one mental moment after another. They enter into concentration without comprehending the intrinsic characteristic of the virtue and nonvirtue of all phenomena. That being the case, such a one who enters into concentration is not skilled in entering into concentration on one mind moment after another.

The point is the comparison with the concentrations, abandonments and so on of śravakas and pratyekabuddhas with bodhisattvas on the stages. It is not an assertion that śravakas and pratyekabuddhas are traversing the stages.
[8:50 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Lanka says sravakas have apprending subject and apprehended objects
[8:50 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Means that is overcome only at the seventh bhumi
[8:50 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: No wonder kagyus say arahats are equal to sixth bhumi (as stated in lanka)
[8:51 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: And many masters other than dakpo tashi alone, states that the yoga of one taste begins at seventh bhumi
[8:51 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Means below that level their understanding of emptiness and anatta does not overcome subject and object or lead to a nondual taste
[8:52 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: This is something i dont understand as i have never been through any phase of anatta where subject and object is not overcome... anatta has been nondual for me from the start
[8:53 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Also there are many like daniel ingram, ajahn amaro and some others that describe nondual within the theravada system... so i dunno haha
(Soh:
Other Theravadins that realise nondual anatta includes:
Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero
Phra Kovit Khemananda
A Theravadin monk in AtR group, although admittedly through influence of AtR
And some others)
[8:57 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Also this explains why for example, cognitive obscurations are defined as subject-action-object structure.. so they are saying mahayana leads to nondual gnosis besides eliminating afflictions
[9:12 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: my guess is that, i think arahat should have nondual taste like bahiya sutta [and kalaka sutta, etc], but maybe not necessarily realize the emptiness of the subject-action-object structure, or realize emptiness of characteristics... but by right shouldnt have apprehending subject and apprehended object
[9:13 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: but even padmasambhava seems to say sravakas are dual lol
[9:23 PM, 1/10/2021] John Tan: Stereotyping.
[9:23 PM, 1/10/2021] Soh Wei Yu: ic.. yeah i guess so
[9:25 PM, 1/10/2021] John Tan: Cognitive obscurations is more than subject-action-object imo.



................



..............

 

Update 2021:

 





    • I may have misread you. I pasted above explaining why anatta and D.O. and emptiness is crucial to "liberation", but if you are asking why is John Tan and myself correct about the definition of "arahantship", then the answer is clear: having read thousands of pages of scriptures myself, I have seen Buddha criticised the view of a metaphysical, infinite Self multiple times (see http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../anatta-not-self-or... ), and would even use harsh words to criticise/rebuke his monks who held a Self view with regards to consciousness (see sutta on Bhikkhu Sati)
    Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?
    Anatta: Not-Self or No-Self?

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1w

    • Anything lesser than Thusness Stage 5 does not even meet the criteria of scriptural 'stream entry', let alone Arahantship.

    • Reply
    • 1w

    • More pasting to come:

    • Reply
    • 1w

    • 2011:
    Soh: Btw u saw my email regarding teacher chen summary
    Thusness: i do not know
    Thusness: i don't want to comment on teacher chen
    Thusness: it is disrespectful
    Thusness: what summary
    Thusness: the diagram?
    Soh: He says hinayana realise anatta, then mahayana arise the realization of emptiness
    Thusness: no
    Soh: Then finally the realization of equality arise
    Thusness: he sees hinayana as "I am"
    Soh: That's like what u said right I mean sounds like the process he went through
    Soh: Oic..
    Thusness signed in.
    Soh: The diagram sounds like a process he went through himself
    Thusness: Yeah
    Thusness: like polishing mirror
    Soh: What u mean
    Thusness: 证悟觉体 (realizing the substance of awareness) as the final destination of theravada practice (comments by Soh: I have seen more than one Mahayana teacher made this mistaken equation of theravada as I AM and mahayana as One Mind)
    Thusness: maybe that is the practice and realization in modern time
    Thusness: but not during Buddha's time i am sure.
    Soh: I see
    Thusness: for anyone talking about that will kena (get scolded) from Buddha...lol
    Soh: Lol
    Thusness: Theravada is the realisation of anatta
    Thusness: that must be very clear
    Thusness: it is not substantialist non dual
    Soh: Oic..
    Thusness: only the clarity of anatta and clearly seeing what it means is not clear
    Thusness: into the second fold emptiness
    Thusness: that is 'seeing' the true meaning of the view
    Thusness: one can realize anatta and experience no-mind, no agent
    Thusness: but not depth in the view
    Soh: Oic.. Btw pegembara is from theravada and the phena sutta which he quotes is also from pali canon... I think the clarity of phena sutta on the secondfold emptiness is on par with the prajnaparamita sutras
    Thusness: yet there is no direct insight of anatta
    Soh: Also I'm not sure about this but apparently different arhats can have different degree of insight into emptiness. Sariputra is known as "jie kong di yi" (foremost in understanding emptiness).. But I guess its true that arhats mostly stress on anatta
    Soh: Oic
    Thusness: of course.
    Soh: I see..

    • Reply
    • 1w

    • On a proper scriptural exposition of the view, realization and experience of an arahant based on scriptures, see the article at http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../great-resource-of...

 

Labels: 0 comments | | edit post