Kwabena Akuamoa:

Very enjoyable conversation. Thank you for sharing.

All there is the foreground, the manifestation/appearances. "The pulse and throb of life" as UG Krishnamurti would passionately put it. There is no substance underlying appearance.

A substance never emerged from the appearances. A self never emerged from the aggregates. A house-reality/substance never arose from the collection of bricks, wood, glass, shapes etc. Weather never emerged from wind, cloud, sunlight, raindrop. Interesting. The substance is imagined on the parts, but it never arose.

There is no ultimate point. No centre. No ground. No reality. No beginning. No middle. No end. No growth. No decay. No shapes. Just empty appearance, which is full, real, everything, true, yet empty, nowhere yet vibrant, shiny, bright, alive, explosive.

In my current experience, Buddha Nature is also an appearance, a label, a perspective, nothing substantial, nothing ultimate.

...

Haven’t been on FB for a few years. Returned so I can follow different Dharma Groups and participate in discussions etc. Thought I’d revisit this convo, now that my understanding has matured a little. Your point above is perfect. “Awareness is the appearances itself”. Ignorance is to think the appearances have inherent nature. Wisdom is to see that the appearances do not have inherent nature, but are just mere appearances (still real).
Mere appearance without a source or centralising point anywhere.

I think I’ve been having glimpses since 2015, when I encountered UG Krishnamurti/Emptiness teachings and I stopped trying to get in touch with a source. Gradually over time it became clearer to me that all ultimates were just conventions and so I began focusing on understanding appearances. At this point I still had a lot of doubt in my mind - “what about the Awareness that is spoken by all the realises beings? How do I make sense of this? I cannot find it” etc...

Your website (among other resources like D.Ingram’s material) was extremely useful in making me see that the appearances themselves, the very movement of life is the awareness... that I didn’t have to fixate on the idea of Awareness. I gained confidence in my practice and that confidence made this view emerge more and more with less effort.

The intensity of the experience intensified after I went on my first meditation retreat in June 2018. It was a 1 week self-led retreat, and I spent my time contemplating emptiness primarily with the help of the text “How Things Exist” by Lama Zopa Rinpoche & “Emptiness/Joyful Freedom” by GG and Thomas Sanders.
Lama Zopa described in the text, with very simple language: how the self and all other objects are empty I.e nonexistent from their own side, and yet existing via mere imputation. I applied the analyses on my aggregates and recognised the complete absence of an inherent self, I.e something other than the psycho-physical aggregates, which possessed them and performed actions through them. I would take many breaks during my meditation sittings, and during my breaks I’d just experience the flow of life.. the colours, tastes, sensations etc.. the thoughts, and think “what is this really)... and I’d see that there was just the selfless appearance appearing. There was just forms/appearances/LIFE, yet there was nothing behind the forms, no substance...
I kept on reapplying the analyses daily and this lead to good progress. My experiences dissipated once I returned from retreat but I had more confidence.
I went on another retreat in Nov 2018... Lam Rim retreat, where I focused more on other aspects of the teachings - Bidhicitta, Shamata, Rebirth, Death Karma etc. This really helped support eeverything I was doing, and now the understanding seems more stable.
But i wouldn’t say the view is stable as yet... sometimes it feels more intellectual, than direct experience. The direct experience emerges through some contemplation during the day... though this is getting a lot easier now - I just think: all these appearances creating a sense of self, where is the self amongst all these appearances? And I’m just left with the appearances... no background. No container. No linker etc.. just the vibrancy of life.. just the manifestation.
I am experiencing this currently. Almost as if everything is magically appearing from absolutely nowhere. Even the thoughts. There is no collector. It’s as if life is just living itself freely. I cannot find any centre in the movement, but all appearances speak for themselves. Moment by moment. There is a sense of being released from “stuckness”.. disentangled...the flow of life/appearances is unrestricted, and there is nothing really there doing anything to make it so
But the intensity of this view will change. Usually when I sleep and wake up I have to re apply the analyses to see things as such once more. That is my current situation: constant effort applying the analysis, but I think there is progress 😊
My current intent is simply to let things happen, be patient, offer benefit where I can and develop limitless compassion - reflecting on how all these experiences mean nothing if it doesn’t relieve other precious sentient being from existential distress... how it all ultimately belongs to the enlightenment of all beings.. how unless all other beings are totally free from the slightest trace of suffering, I have achieved nothing... etc.
Also see:

Kenneth Folk on Anatta
Three levels of understanding Non-Dual
No Awareness Does Not Mean Non-Existence of Awareness 


Redditors who clearly realized anatta:

https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha (Kyle Dixon/asunthatneversets)
https://www.reddit.com/user/danielmingram
https://www.reddit.com/user/HakuninMatata
https://www.reddit.com/user/RealDharma

The last redditor wrote something quite good here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/94swuh/theres_no_such_thing_as_awareness/

There's No Such Thing As Awareness


Five days ago I posted an anecdote thread on /r/Buddhism here labelled "Do Nothing or Do Something?". Something else was missing though. I know it's only been five days but I've had a much deeper insight in between that and now.
This all started from the Buddha's own words in the Sabba Sutta:
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? 
Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, 
nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body 
& tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. 
This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who 
would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will 
describe another,' if questioned on what 
exactly might be the grounds for his 
statement, would be unable to explain, 
and furthermore, would be put to grief. 
Why? Because it lies beyond range."
When I first read this sutta in the past, it never gave any insight. With this new insight, I suddenly understand what the Buddha meant - it has an extremely deep meaning! To me at least, he was describing the true nature of Mind, of reality.
I'll start with the backstory.
My past was in Theravada, Thai Forest, the Pali Canon, as well as other schools of Buddhism like Mahayana (Pure land, Ch'an/Zen, Tiantai, and so on) as well as the Vajrayana (Nyingmapa's Dzogchen, Kagyu's Mahamudra, Gelug's Prasangika, and so on). All of that and personal inquiry/exploration with meditation, along with the help of an eminent monastic teacher, built up to this.
I've done nearly my whole Buddhism life thinking there was awareness. Ajahn Chah taught the Mind as Awareness, the Mahayana taught the purified Eighth Consciousness as Awareness, the Vajrayana taught the Awareness (rigpa) as the base beyond that of the eight consciousnesses.
My understanding moved in this sequence:
  1. Awareness looks at objects. There is a clear witness and a clear object being witnessed. So if we witness the breath, we call it breath meditation; If we witness a kasina, it is kasina meditation.
  2. Awareness with varying occupation with objects. This means that awareness can be focused like a laser to produce intensified jhana states (Samatha, called 'Hard Jhana' by some). If it was less focused and more lightly balanced, it is called 'Soft Jhana'. However, also, this means awareness can be completely expansive to encompass all the four bases of mindfulness arising and passing away (also called Vipassana).
  3. Awareness is not a Subject. Before, I had the insight of there being a subject and an object - so there was a subject-object duality. No matter how I meditated, there was always a sense of there being a meditator when I emerged. In this phase, I suddenly understood that any feeling, sensation or perception that arose as a 'sense of self' are actually Objects. There are never any Subjects. For example, an eyeball can only see things outside, it cannot see itself. Likewise, Awareness cannot see itself, it can only see other Objects - therefore any sense of self is necessarily an object.
So reaching the 3rd phase was liberating and freeing. I thought I had reached a good understanding of emptiness. But then I was so wrong.
This fourth insight phase hit me five days after my previous post, and I would call this insight "No Such Thing As Awareness".
This was a development from the third phase. I had already said that an eyeball is not able to see itself, and that it can only see things outside of itself. The Awareness likewise, can only see things outside of itself and not Awareness itself. This is where everything was wrong.
By assuming that there was something outside of Awareness, I made it a Awareness-Object duality. It was a duality of Perception and Non-Perception. Even though Awareness is not a Subject, by assuming that Awareness can only see something outside of itself already means that there are two things: Awareness and outside-Awareness-objects.
My insight is this: Awareness IS the object.
Referring back to the Blessed One's words in the Sabba Sutta, he had said -
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.
This was a perfect description of everything in reality, everything in experience, everything that can ever be right now in the moment, in experience, in time and space. This is what everyone experiences.
Buddha then continues:
Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
Did the Buddha ever talk about Awareness as part of the All? No way! Because it lies out of range, it is Nibbana. It is completely impossible to have something outside of the Six Senses.
This corresponded exactly to my own understanding here, because I realized that when I saw a bird flying out there in the sky, this bird was not something apart from my mind. It WAS my mind, it WAS awareness.
How far was the bird to my mind? Zero distance! If it had to travel distance or take time, then I would not have experienced this bird right here and now. It HAD to be part of my mind!
Now the paradox is that the Sixth Sense, the mental faculty, is going to become noisy and construct an 'experiencer', a Subject. It is going to also generate a false sense of an Awareness.
If you really, really, really analyse this right now in your experience. You will suddenly realise this clear as day: Awareness is a complete inference.
If you try to look for your Awareness, you will find nothing. You may find a sensation, a feeling, or a perception. But Awareness cannot exist, it only exists as a complete inference, a conjecture, a made-up projection.
This brings to me a famous Zen story between the First and Second Patriarch:
“Bring your mind here and I will pacify it for you,” replied Bodhidharma.
“I have searched for my mind, and I cannot take hold of it,” said the Second Patriarch.
“Now your mind is pacified,” said Bodhidharma.
Why? Because there is no Mind to grasp onto. There is no stain-able Awareness. It is a mere projection, inference, conjecture. Again, the Sixth Zen Patriarch illustrated this wonderfully in his poem:
Originally, Bodhi has no tree
And a mirror has no stand
If originally there is nothing (true nature is pure)
So where can dust rest on?
However, when the master of the Sixth Zen Patriarch saw this, he shook his head and said that he was not enlightened, asking Hui-Neng to see him in his room in private where he gave further pointing-out instructions and transmission.
The reason why is this... the Mind should not be thought of as Space either. Empty-space is also a perception, it is within the realm of appearances.
Instead, the Mind is whatever appears as the Six Senses.
Suzuki Roshi very wonderfully put it this way:
You may say, “The bird is singing there—over there.” But we think, you know—bird—when we hear the bird, bird is “me,” you know, already. I—actually I am not listening to [laughs] bird. Bird is here, you know, in my mind already, and I am singing with the bird. “Peep-peep-peep.” [Laughs.]
When we see other beings, it is not "other beings". It is our own mind. "Other beings" is "me". "I" am "other beings". There is no difference whatsoever, because "this being" appears with "other beings" as Awareness itself.
There is a certain freedom, of liberation, that happens when you suddenly realize that Awareness has always been a mind-trick, or at least, "the way we understand Awareness". There is no looker, there is just the looked. The looked itself is Awareness already. There is no looker, no separate thing that makes it lookable, any other processing deviates from what is true right here in experience.
The Mahayana and Vajrayana like to say - "A Bodhisattva is not attached to samsara or nibbana." Samsara is when the Six Senses are full, Nibbana is when it is outside the range of the Six Senses. Perhaps, just perhaps, in my very limited understanding, this is referring to not clinging onto an 'empty awareness space' and a 'filled awareness with objects'.
Hope you liked my little essay. I do not claim to know anything, neither do I want to argue for my essay. I do not reinforce whatever I've written here, neither do I disagree with it. I hope peace will be with you.



=================


Kyle Dixon I wasn’t sure what to make of this remark though, where he is stating there is always necessarily a mirror.
Manage

Reply8h

Soh Wei Yu Kyle Dixon my impression from reading his posts is that his insight is not very stable. Hovering between Thusness Stage 4 and 5

Recently he wrote about space and content. Seems to be falling back to the fault he originally refuted
 
 
 
============
 
Update 2021:
 
I have seen his most recent posts, seems his insights into Anatta and Dependent Origination has stabilized. Worth reading. See RealDharma's response on refuting Brahman:

E.g. 
 
53 points · 1 year ago · edited 1 year ago

My favorite analogy is a radio and a radio wave.

Consciousness is the radiowave, invisibly vibrating across the universe.

Our bodies are the radio, picking up the consciousness signal.

We are neither the radio nor the radio wave - we are the music.

edit: some have pointed out my error in that this drifts too far away from the Buddhist notion of anatta, or no-self. My apologies, I am forever a beginner.

4 points · 1 year ago · edited 1 year ago

Unfortunately (also to OP: /u/followTheDharma), this is reifying the notion of a universal self (aka Brahman), which is more akin to the lines of Hinduism, in particular, Advaita Vedanta. This is not compatible with the Buddhist teachings. In fact, if you believe in that view, you are going against the Buddha's teaching of anatta (without atta/self).

Why? Because tathagatagarba does not mean a common substance that animates all life. In fact, the Buddha actively denounces that view here:

The Buddha replied, “Mahamati, the tathagata-garba of which I speak is not the same as the self mentioned by followers of other paths. Mahamati, when I speak about the tathagata-garbha, sometimes I call it ‘emptiness,’ ‘formlessness,’ or ‘intentionlessness,’ or ‘realm of reality,’ ‘dharma nature,’ or ‘dharma body,’ or ‘nirvana,’ ‘what is devoid of self-existence,’ or ‘what neither arises nor ceases,’ or ‘original quiescence,’ or ‘intrinsic nirvana,’ or similar expressions.

“It is to put an end to the fear foolish beings have about the expression ‘no self’ that the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones proclaim the teaching of the tathagata-garbha as a projectionless realm devoid of fabrications. Mahamati, bodhisattvas of the present and the future should not become attached to any view of a self.

“Take for example a potter who applies such things as manual labor, water, a stick, a wheel, and a string to a lump of clay to make different kinds of vessels. The Tathagata is also like this, applying wisdom and a variety of skillful means to what has no self and is free from projection. Sometimes I speak about the tathagatagarbha and sometimes no self. Thus, the tathagata-garbha of which I speak is not the same as the self spoken of by followers of other paths. This is what is meant by the teaching of the tathagata-garbha. The tathagata-garbha is taught to attract those members of other paths who are attached to a self so that they will give up their projection of an unreal self and will enter the threefold gate of liberation and aspire to attain unexcelled, complete enlightenment forthwith. This is why the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones speak in this manner about the tathagata-garbha. To speak otherwise would be to agree with the followers of other paths. Therefore, Mahamati, in order to avoid the views of followers of other paths, you should rely on the selfless tathagata-garbha.”

Therefore, you should understand that just like there is nothing to grasp at in space, tathagata-garbha is pointing to this lack of any form of inherent self (or for this matter, "Self").

It is like saying "nothing". Does 'nothing' mean anything at all? No, because there is no-thing you can point your finger to in 'nothing'. In the same way, you are taking the meaning of tathagata-garbha, or emptiness, to be a self, when it is pointing to no-self.

Tathagata-garbha is in fact, pointing directly to the heart of Buddhism, which is the interdependent origination of things, which basically is expressed by this:

"If this exists, that exists.

if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist."

well I certainly appreciate the lesson, stranger. I'll edit the comment.

Unfortunately there is no "beginner" flair for this subreddit or I would be using that. I am always relying on what I so far understand.

I have not been educated on Buddhisms dis-belief in consciousness. Consciousness is real, and it seems to me the only thing which cannot be an illusion. Not the 'reality' consciousness perceives, but the actual awareness cannot be an illusion. The content of consciousness is always changing, but the awareness is ever-present. As I understand Buddhism's no-self, this consciousness is not a sufficient condition for some permanent trait, as it is always reliant on external phenomena as part of the interdependent origination you brought up. But I was not aware Buddhism rejected consciousness as an existing characteristic.

How I interpret that section you've quoted (you got a source by the way?) is that Buddha-nature is the capacity to be completely in the moment without attachment. I suppose this capacity does not require a consciousness, but the Buddha seemed preeminently focused on the suffering of living beings (a consequence of consciousness).

How I see the tathagata-garba is the capacity to remain aware and present as reality constantly shifts where there is no distinct self which things happen to or because, rather things are seen as indiscriminate.

4 points · 1 year ago · edited 1 year ago

you got a source by the way?

The Lankavatara Sutra.

I have not been educated on Buddhisms dis-belief in consciousness.

There is no denial of consciousness (vijñāna) in Buddhism. In fact, its actual translation in some texts is 'dualistic consciousness'. It is not a denial of consciousness, because without consciousness, how can you see, hear, taste, smell, touch and think?

In SN25.3, however, Buddha says:

Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

The error is not in seeing the results of the function of what you call awareness, but taking awareness to be a singular real thing. For example, it is undeniable that there are sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touch and thoughts. We are not denying that. In fact, Buddha says that for every sense-object, there is a corresponding consciousness.

So actually, there are six different sense-consciousnesses:

  • The eye-consciousness in dependence with sight and the eye-faculty

  • The ear-consciousness, sounds, ear-faculty...

  • ... The thinking-consciousness, thoughts, thinking-faculty

The error comes when we start to group all these six together within one singular boundary - we reify the sense of a global consciousness that extends throughout these six. In the Mahayana teachings, this is explained as the seventh consciousness grasping at what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched or thought of as Objects, and at the seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/touching/thinking faculties as the Subject.

Here is an analogy:

When we say the word 'Shapes' what comes to mind? We can say rectangles, squares, stars, circles, lines, polygons, parallelograms, and more. However, if we simply said the word "shape", this word by itself would not mean anything without the rectangles, squares, stars [...].

This is what we call in language, an abstract noun. In the dictionary, it says this as the definition: "a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object".

In the same way, we have a tendency to abstract-ize things and form very concrete ideas of them existing. Does it mean that rectangles, squares [...] are not shapes? It does not mean that. However, the word "shape" by itself is very meaningless - we conventionally call it a shape for the sake of convenience. In fact, we just assume that it exists just for the sake of convenience.

In the same way, when sights, sounds, tastes, smells, sensations, and thoughts arise, we group them all together as "sense objects" or "experience". These are just names, just conceptual designations, that are abstract ideas pointing to what is directly there in experience. The problem when taken to extreme is that it is solidified as "Objects".

In the converse way, when the seeing-consciousness [...] are grouped in an abstract way, we take it as a singular consciousness. Even more erroneously, we can even go as far as to extend this abstraction to every being on the planet. Again, this is just a name, an abstract idea, pointing to the six consciousnesses. When taken to the extreme, it is solidified as a "Subject".

In fact, this subject-object duality is the root of a lot of problems. We love abstract-ifying things and then solidifying that abstracted idea into something that seems very real. For example, we can take a bunch of common bodily sensations and think that we are "right here". If you examine carefully, these sensations have already disappeared, and are replaced with another bunch of rapidly arising-and-passing-away sensations in random locations.

To end this reply, I would also like to quote this sutta (Ud 1.10) which points directly to the heart of no self:

'In the seen will be merely what is seen;

in the heard will be merely what is heard;

in the sensed will be merely what is sensed;

in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.'

In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen...

in the cognized is merely what is cognized,

then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.'

When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,'

then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.'

When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,'

then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.

Just this is the end of suffering."

 
Also see: Two Types of Nondual Contemplation after I AM
Exertion that is neither self-imposed nor imposed by others



Geovani Geo All is mind. There can no be doubts about that. And if searched no mind can be found. No mind can be pointed to, which is different from stating that there is no original mind nature, which is no determinable nature at all.

All being mind and all being indeterminate one can not positively point to some ground, some non-moving "thing" or parameter. So, talking of unmoving-ground or stating positively the lack of ground equally does not apply.

"It is like empty space; it cannot be held nor dropped." - Bodhidharma-
Manage

Reply3dEdited

Soh Wei Yu All is mind must also go along with the realization that there is no mind.

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




Reply32m

Soh Wei Yu 2014:

John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 8:26pm UTC+08
When we see things as separate then u need a mirror and its reflections. When the whole of conditions r realized to b not separated then there is no need for this to interact with that.

Soh Wei YuSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 9:58pm UTC+08
Engrossed with the perculiar smells... taste.. touch.. colours of everything... this is vital and yet to realize its essence that is D.O is even more so

Soh Wei YuSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:18pm UTC+08
Now I know what you meant non local... looking at a picture on my phone of a grassland with children I feel like im in that world. Looking out the window I can zoom into another room and feel its environment and consciousness is just that. Condition is, manifestationawareness is

John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:24pm UTC+08
The purpose of anatta is to hv full blown experience of the heart -- boundlessly, completely, non-dually and non-locally. Re-read what I wrote to jax.
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:26pm UTC+08
In every situations, in all conditions, in all events. It is to eliminate unnecessarily contrievity so that our essence can b expressed without obscuration.
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:26pm UTC+08
Unnecessary

John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:28pm UTC+08
Jax wants to point to the heart but is unable to express in a non-dual way...for in duality, the essence cannot be realized. All dualistic interpretation r mind made.
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:29pm UTC+08
U know the smile of Mahākāśyapa?
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:30pm UTC+08
Can u touch the heart of that smile even 2500 yrs later?
Soh Wei YuSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:30pm UTC+08
Yes
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:35pm UTC+08
One must lose all mind and body by feeling with entire mind and body this essence which is 心 (Mind). Yet 心 (Mind) too is 不可得 (ungraspable/unobtainable).. The purpose is not to deny 心 (Mind) but rather not to place any limitations or duality so that 心 (Mind) can fully manifest.
John TanSaturday, October 18, 2014 at 10:36pm UTC+08
Therefore without understanding 缘 (conditions),is to limit 心 (Mind). without understanding 缘 (conditions),is to place limitation in its manifestations.

John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 12:37am UTC+08
U must fully experience 心 (Mind) by realizing 无心 (No-Mind) and fully embrace the wisdom of 不可得 (ungraspable/unobtainable).

Soh Wei YuSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:28pm UTC+08
just now i shout PHAT! to snap back to instant presence.. seems like a good method to use sometimes
John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:45pm UTC+08
Yes...in fact as an immediate face to face encounter of the essence is good...
John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:47pm UTC+08
Just the phat! That brings one into the immediate thoughtless encounter. Think u hv that instance of being blank out into Presence.
Soh Wei YuSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:48pm UTC+08
ic.. yeah..
John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:49pm UTC+08
What abt the sound of silence?
Soh Wei YuSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:50pm UTC+08
still so
John TanSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:52pm UTC+08
Whatever encounters, just differing conditions...nvr the same, neither is it different.
Soh Wei YuSunday, October 19, 2014 at 7:53pm UTC+08
ic.. yeah its perculiar according to conditions and yet same taste..
Manage

Reply10m

Soh Wei Yu Not only anatta, but one must realize Dependent Origination. Means from the direct taste of Heart/Mind in whatever manifestation, one also intuits the chain of dependencies involved in the total exertion of a given manifestation. The green is the pure visual-consciousness is not 'there' or 'here' or 'anywhere', is not produced by self, not produced by other, but appears due to conditions. Also it is not that everything is 'one awareness' - pure-visual-consciousness/green-display is perculiar-consciousness-instance according to a given condition, the experience of music, the sensation of hand pressing against an object, are all perculiar displays/consciousness-instances. And just like 'weather' is merely a name when certain patterns are appearing which we then call 'rain, cloud, wind, sunshine' (these too are mere labels), 'consciousness' is not one single unchanging static entity nor even one entity 'transforming into many' (as if weather is some pre-existing or self-existing 'entity' that morphs into various forms, rather than simply a label denoting the entire flow of aggregates and formations) but simply a label denoting the whole bundle or aggregate or composite or collection or heap of self-luminous aggregates/display/manifestation. Mere-name does not mean nothing at all exist but that the various appearances which is the vivid displays of luminosity do not amount to a substantially existing [existing by its own side, having its own essence, independent of conditions, or changeless] entity either in terms of subject or object, which is why the emptying of both leads to the actualization of suchness in the way described in Kalaka Sutta.

Suffering, afflictions, likewise manifest by dependencies. Some practitioners like AF think that when self is there, afflictions arise, as if the 'feeler' causes the 'feeling' but anatta and D.O. reveals that afflictions/sense-of-self/suffering manifest via dependencies and is nowhere located or stored anywhere nor is it produced by a feeler (there never was a feeler/agent/self/Self), the chain of dependencies is what is always involved in a given experience which is always empty of self/Self/agency. Likewise, 'Awareness'/'colors'/'taste'/'sounds'/'thoughts', etc never resided anywhere just like the reflection of moon on water never resided 'inside' the water but merely manifests in an illusory way due to dependencies -- when condition is, manifestation is, consciousness is - condition, manifestation and consciousness are one and inseparable, never separated and neither are they 'interacting' with each other in the case of a mirror reflecting (stage 4). It is revealed that all phenomena are neither produced by an agent, nor by another, are not existing by its own side, and in fact is unproduced, unoriginated, non-arising, due to merely appearing via conditionality.

All the terms that sounded ultimate, metaphysical and ontological now applies to Mind/Appearance but in a non-inherent, non-metaphysical, non-ontological manner. The sense of quiescence, unmoving, non-arising that once applied to an inherent Awareness now applies to Mind/Manifestation in a non-inherent manner. For as Nagarjuna said and I reiterate, if the conditioned/arising of phenomena cannot be established, how can the unconditioned be established [in contrast to so called conditionally arising/abiding/subsiding phenomena]? So as Thusness wrote many years ago, 'The next understanding u must have after anatta and emptiness is to know that all qualities similar to those that are described and sounded ontological are always manifesting presently, spontaneously and effortlessly after the purification of anatta and emptiness insights.'

All displays are 'illusory' not because it is 'mentally projected' nor due to being subsumed to be 'mere modulations of consciousness' (like one mind) but because whatever appears is nothing there or here or anywhere but appearing via dependencies in total exertion. The taste of illusoriness and indestructible non-arising of a given self-luminous Mind/Heart display which is the total exertion of D.O. must be complemented, -A and +A: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../a-and...

And as Thusness wrote in 2014,

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:42am UTC+08
Actually if u do not see DO [dependent origination], u do not see Buddhism. Anatta is just the beginning.

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:46am UTC+08
Be it Buddha himself, Nagarjuna or Tsongkhapa none never got overwhelmed and amazed with the profundity of dependent origination. It is just that we do not hv the wisdom to penetrate enough depth of it.

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:54am UTC+08
If u see dependent origination and emptiness then Advaita is world apart from Buddhism, if u actualized ur view into non-dual experience, then it is different from top to bottom. Simply looking at Awareness and no-self, besides non-dual empty clarity and substantial non-duality clarity, u will not b able to distinguish much.

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 8:56am UTC+08
So answer Mike Scarf from DO and emptiness perspective.

John TanSaturday, November 15, 2014 at 9:07am UTC+08
Just bring out the importance of DO. But what written is NOT the essence. The essence is the freedom from extremes of DO, the "nature" of mind and phenomena is realized to b dependent arising and empty. Dependent arising is exactly non-arising be it whether one sees dependencies from production, designation, relations or imputing consciousness. Conceptual or non-conceptual experiences, permanent or impermanent phenomena, conditioned or unconditioned phenomena, all dependently originates, empty and non-arising. If one sees this, how could it b Advaita....
Manage

Reply1mEdited

Soh Wei Yu Also I wrote in https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../buddha-mind...

Nothing other than the sun, the moon, and the stars

“Buddha - mind - *is* (not, ‘is like’) mountains, rivers, and the earth, the sun, moon, and stars. Mind *is* houses and streets, animals, guns, plants, thoughts, bombs, corpses, laughter, and cancers. Mind *is* all particular dharmas as they are; *particular* dharmas. All particular dharmas *are* this mind *as it is; this* mind. This tree *is* the mind *as it is*, the mind *as it is*, is all dharmas, hence *is* this tree. That this tree is mind ‘as it is,’ means mind only exists *as mind* by virtue of this tree existing *as this tree*. Because this tree *is* mind ‘as it is,’ it actually goes too far to say ‘is mind,’ and is more accurate to simply say ‘this tree.’

As Dogen puts it:

‘Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth. There are no additional waves or surf, no wind or smoke. Mind as the sun, the moon, and the stars is nothing other than the sun, the moon, and the stars.’

Shobogenzo, Soku-shin-ze-butsu”

From Zen Cosmology: Dogen’s Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview by Ted Biringer

Also,

Dogen:

Mind is skin, flesh, bones and marrow. Mind is taking up a flower and smiling. There is having mind and having no mind... Blue, yellow, red, and white are mind. Long, short, square, and round are mind. The coming and going of birth and death are mind. Year, month, day, and hour are mind. The coming and going of birth and death are mind. Water, foam, splash, and flame are mind. Spring flowers and autumn moon are mind. All things that arise and fall away are mind.

Comments:

The quote above from Zen Cosmology is useful for those who are stuck in 'One Mind'. The urge to retain an image of the luminescence of mind is dissolved by realizing that mind is none other than the self-luminosity of the ten thousand things. Therefore "Mind as mountains, rivers, and the earth is nothing other than mountains, rivers, and the earth." -- no more subsuming everything to be "contained by Mind" despite experiencing Mind as being nondual with everything (a subtle referencing back of non-dual experience to the source and substance underlying all), only ongoing actualization of myriad phenomena 'advancing into novelty'.

Before birth, I AM - mere conscious-existence-bliss. Before ten thousand things, I AM, but that too is later seen to be simply one aspect of the ten thousand things. If one holds onto one 'face of Presence' (the formless, shining void aspect of mind) you fail to see the manifold textures, forms and colors are simply different faces of Presence.

Zen is about directly touching one's heart and mind, and that begins with the I AM realization. But soon it becomes a dead image of some static background. If instead we can penetrate by insight into anatta and forego all dead or 'ghostly' images and directly taste the Heart in every manifestation and exertion, everything reveals itself to be one seamless aliveness and intelligence.






Soh Wei Yu Geovani Geo: I am unable to find these quotes in any books:

"(...) the empty expanse of the ground of all phenomena"

"As the final stage of the gradual way, the practitioner unites with the Way by seeing the emptiness of Self and all phenomena and by recognizing the empty expanse of the ground of all phenomena."

Seems to be from Wayofbodhi site. Can you provide the book reference and which quote you are referring to?
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d

Geovani Geo Soh, I cant find the source from where I copied that quote either(???)

But I found this one:

"A Tathagata’s forms are endless. And so is his awareness." The endless variety of forms is due to the mind. Its ability to distinguish things, whatever their movement or state, is the mind’s awareness. But the mind has no form and its awareness no limit. Hence it’s said, "A Tathagata’s forms are endless. And so is his awareness." A material body of the four elements" is trouble. A material body is subject to birth and death. But the real body exists without existing, because a Tathagata’s real body never changes. (Bloodstream Sermon - translated by red pine)

"(...)because a Tathagata’s real body never changes"
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply18h

Soh Wei Yu 故云如来色无尽,智慧亦复然。色无尽是自心,心识善能分别一切,乃至施为运用,皆是智慧。心无形相,智慧亦无尽。故云如来色无尽,智慧亦复然。四大色身,即是烦恼,色身即有生灭,法身常住无所住,如来法身常不变异故。

Most English translations are not precise.

Here's my translation, as precise and word-for-word as possible:

"The sutras say, Tathagata's forms are limitless, wisdom is likewise. The limitless forms are one's mind, mind-consciousness is able to distinguish everything, and even actions and functions are all wisdom. Mind is without form, wisdom is limitless, [and hence] the sutras say that that Tathagata's forms are limitless, wisdom is likewise. The form-body of the four great elements are suffering, form-body has birth and death, dharma-body [dharmakaya] eternally abides without abiding anywhere, as the Tathagata's dharmakaya never alters."

It is misleading to translate dharmakaya (the body of phenomena) as 'real body'. For in truth dharmakaya refers to the nature of phenomena, empty and having never arisen. The nature of phenomena being non-arisen, how can there be abiding, change, and cessation? In direct taste it's just lucid appearance, but nothing there, nothing undergoing birth, abiding/change nor cessation, all phenomena are complete quiescence and illusory yet simultaneously a vivid brilliant luminosity. But the word 'real' often connotes something like substantial reality, so it is misleading. I do not like translations that change words at the whims and fancies of the translator.

Even to speak of the nature of phenomena is also conventional. Dharmakaya is also unreal (the emptiness aspect), the sambhogakaya is also unreal (the luminous clarity aspect), the nirmanakaya is also unreal (the energetic manifestation aspect), and the three bodies are inseparable or three aspects of our experiential 'reality'.

Thusness wrote in 2013:

John Tan Haha Jackson, u never give up.

This heart is the "space" of where, the "time" of when and the "I" of who.

In hearing, it's that "sound".

In seeing, it's that "scenery".

In thinking, it is that "eureka"!

In snapping a finger, it is seizing the whole entire moment of that instantaneous "snapping".

Just marvelous such as it is on the fly.

So no "it" but thoroughly empty.

To u this "heart" is most real, to dzogchen it is illusory. Though illusory, it is fully vivid and brilliance. Since it is illusory, it nvr really truly arise. There is genuine "treasure" in the illusory.

I think Kyle has a lot points to share. Do unblock him.

Nice chat And happy journey jax!

Gone!
December 12, 2013 at 8:24am · Unlike · 10

....

Also Thusness wrote way back:

John Tan Hi Kyle, Actually I am saying instead of attempting to deconstruct endlessly, why not resolved that that pure experience itself is empty and non-arising. In hearing, there is only sound. This clear clean and pure sound, treat and see it as the X (treat and see it like an imputation/conventional designation as u explained), empty and non-arising. In seeing, just scenery, just this clear clean and lurid scenery. Where is this scenery? Inside, outside, other’s mind or our mind? Unfindable but nonetheless appears vibrantly. This arising thought, this dancing sensation, this passing scent, all share the same taste. All experiences are like that -- like mirages and rainbows, illusory and non-arising, they are free from the 4 extremes. Resolved that all experiences are non-arising then pure sensory experiences and conventional constructs will be of equal taste. Realize this to be the nature of experience and illusory appearances will taste magic and vajra (indestructible)! Groundless and naturally releasing! Just my 2 cents of blah blah blah in new year. Happy New Year Kyle. 2 minutes ago • Unlike • 1 February 6 at 1:50am · Edited · Like"
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply13hEdited

Soh Wei Yu When Bodhidharma came to China, he brought with him Lankavatara Sutra to China, and that is the only sutra he asked his followers to study.

The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on (and he equates the tathagatagarbha with ‘emptiness,’ ‘formlessness,’ or ‘intentionlessness,’ or ‘realm of reality,’ ‘dharma nature,’ or ‘dharma body,’ or ‘nirvana,’ ‘what is devoid of self-existence,’ or ‘what neither arises nor ceases,’ or ‘original quiescence,’ or ‘intrinsic nirvana,’ or similar expressions.299), and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

Mahamati Bodhisattva then asked the Buddha, “In the sutras, the Bhagavan says that the tathagata-garbha295 is intrinsically pure, endowed with thirty-two attributes296 and present in the bodies of all beings, and that, like a priceless jewel wrapped in soiled clothing,297 the ever-present, unchanging tathagata-garbha is likewise wrapped in the soiled clothing of the skandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas and stained with the stain of the erroneous projections of greed, anger, and delusion,298 and that this is what all buddhas teach. How is it that what the Bhagavan says about the tathagata-garbha is the same as what followers of other paths say about a self? Bhagavan, followers of other paths also speak of an immortal creator without attributes, omnipresent and indestructible. And they say this, Bhagavan, is the self.”

The Buddha replied, “Mahamati, the tathagata-garba of which I speak is not the same as the self mentioned by followers of other paths. Mahamati, when I speak about the tathagata-garbha, sometimes I call it ‘emptiness,’ ‘formlessness,’ or ‘intentionlessness,’ or ‘realm of reality,’ ‘dharma nature,’ or ‘dharma body,’ or ‘nirvana,’ ‘what is devoid of self-existence,’ or ‘what neither arises nor ceases,’ or ‘original quiescence,’ or ‘intrinsic nirvana,’ or similar expressions.299 “It is to put an end to the fear foolish beings have about the expression ‘no self’ that the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones proclaim the teaching of the tathagata-garbha as a projectionless realm devoid of fabrications. Mahamati, bodhisattvas of the present and the future should not become attached to any view of a self. “Take for example a potter who applies such things as manual labor, water, a stick, a wheel, and a string to a lump of clay to make different kinds of vessels. The Tathagata is also like this, applying wisdom and a variety of skillful means to what has no self and is free from projection. Sometimes I speak about the tathagatagarbha and sometimes no self. Thus, the tathagata-garbha of which I speak is not the same as the self spoken of by followers of other paths. This is what is meant by the teaching of the tathagata-garbha. The tathagata-garbha is taught to attract those members of other paths who are attached to a self so that they will give up their projection of an unreal self and will enter the threefold gate of liberation300 and aspire to attain unexcelled, complete enlightenment forthwith. This is why the tathagatas, the arhats, the fully enlightened ones speak in this manner about the tathagata-garbha. To speak otherwise would be to agree with the followers of other paths. Therefore, Mahamati, in order to avoid the views of followers of other paths, you should rely on the selfless tathagata-garbha.”

Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply3hEdited

Soh Wei Yu <-- a="" attributeless="" brahman="" clear="" nirguna="" of="" or="" qualities="" rahman="" refutation="" self="" span="" the="" vedantic="" without="">

When studying Lankavatara Sutra, refer to the Red Pine translations. Older translations like those from D T Suzuki are not accurate.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply14hEdited

Soh Wei Yu I have personally read Lankavatara Sutra and many other scriptures. In Lankavatara Sutra there is not even one verse that supports the substantialistic notion of Mind or an unchanging awareness of the Vedanta kind.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply14hEdited

Soh Wei Yu Bodhidharma is very clear in the 达摩祖师悟性论 (Patriarch Bodhidharma's Treatise of Realizing Nature aka The Wakeup Sermon - http://www.fodian.net/world/dmnsl-e.html ) that 色不自色,由心故色;心不自心,由色故心 - form is not form in and of itself, form is due to mind; mind is not mind in and of itself, mind is due to form. This is the two-way dependency as discussed by Greg Goode - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../greg-goode-on...

Other verses in the same treatise:

若知心是假名,无有实体,即知自家之心亦是非有,亦是非无。

If one knows that Mind is [merely] a false name [conventional designation], without a substantial existence, is to know that one's own mind is neither existent, nor [is it] non-existent.

若内不起心,则外不生境,境心俱净,乃名为真见

If within there does not arise Mind, then outside there will not arise environment, environment and mind both purified [emptied], this is called true seeing.

知心是空,名为见佛。

Knowing Mind is empty, this is called seeing Buddha.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply13hEdited

Soh Wei Yu Seeing Mind as mere name/designation is similar to what Nagarjuna has taught:

Nāgārjuna's Bodhicittavivaraṇa

http://www.ayurveda-institute.org/ayurvedic.../doku.php...

39

The cognizer perceives the cognizable;
Without the cognizable there is no cognition;
Therefore why do you not admit
That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?
40
The mind is but a mere name;
Apart from its name it exists as nothing;
So view consciousness as a mere name;
Name too has no intrinsic nature.
41
Either within or likewise without,
Or somewhere in between the two,
The conquerors have never found the mind;
So the mind has the nature of an illusion.
42
The distinctions of colors and shapes,
Or that of object and subject,
Of male, female and the neuter –
The mind has no such fixed forms.
43
In brief the Buddhas have never seen
Nor will they ever see [such a mind];
So how can they see it as intrinsic nature
That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?
44
“Entity” is a conceptualization;
Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;
Where conceptualization occurs,
How can there be emptiness?
45
The mind in terms of the perceived and perceiver,
This the Tathagatas have never seen;
Where there is the perceived and perceiver,
There is no enlightenment.
46
Devoid of characteristics and origination,
Devoid of substantive reality and transcending speech,
Space, awakening mind and enlightenment
Possess the characteristics of non-duality.
47
Those abiding in the heart of enlightenment,
Such as the Buddhas, the great beings,
And all the great compassionate ones
Always understand emptiness to be like space.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview13h

Geovani Geo Soh Wei Yu, yes, there is no mind. Fwiw, I never suggested there is one.

Re Thusness post above, coincidentally, I was thinking in the same lines, just a few minutes ago. He said, "Resolved that all experiences are non-arising then pure sensory experiences and conventional constructs will be of equal taste". I would say that the "same taste" is the "realness" of whatever is constructed or sensed - it does not matter. There is no need to posit some ground, (aka Awreness) to realize this taste of "realness". Whatever is appearing (or not appearing, for the matter) denotes what i will now call "on". Anything appearing, sensed, imputed, constructed, attributed, in any whatsoever way is what is "on", and this "on"-ness is the one taste of what IS. Now an analogy: its like someone born blind, submitted to some special treatment, suddenly sees. He needs not understand whether what he sees has substance or not, where it came from, how did it appear, conventional or divine, pure or impure, no. Seeing became "on".
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply12h

Geovani Geo Obviously, differently from the blind man simile, nothing "became" on, for nothing could ever be "off". No real or un-real may lack the on-ness I am talking about. The falseness of the false is just as real as truth.
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply12h

Soh Wei Yu After anatta there is a sense of incredible vividness and aliveness (or some may say realness or some say actuality or actualness) of every sensate phenomena. But some then fall into another extreme of reification (previously subjective pole but now swSee More
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply3hEdited

Soh Wei Yu Geovani Geo

"Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion."400 A Bodhisattva is a mere dream. Even the Buddha is only a name. Even the Perfect Wisdom itself is a mere name. Dreams, echoes, reflections, images, mirage, illusion, magic, void—such are all objects of intellect.401 The Śatasāhasrikā Prajñā-pāramitā (八 千 頌 般 惹 經) also condemns all dharmas as illusory. They have neither origination nor decay, they neither increase nor decrease, they are neither suffering nor its cessation, they are neither affirmation nor negation, neither eternal nor momentary, neither Śūnyatā nor aśūnyatā.402 They are mere names and forms. They are Māyā (夢 幻). And Māyā is declared to be an inconsistent category which cannot resist dialectical scrutiny and which is ultimately found to neither existent nor non-existent.403 All phenomena arc mere names; they are only a convention, a usage, a practical compromise.404 The Laṇkāvatāra (楞 伽 經) condemns them to be like an illusion, a dream, a mirage, a hare’s horn, a barren woman’s son, a magic city, the double moon, a moving fire-brand presenting an appearance of a circle, a hair seen floating in the atmosphere by defective vision, an empty space, a sky-flower, a mere echo, a reflection, a painting, a puppet like mechanism, which can be called neither existent nor non-existent.405

Many Mahāyāna sūtras such as the Lalitavistara (神 通 遊 戲 經),406 the Samādhirāja (三 妹 王 經)407 and the Suvarṇaprabhāsa (金 光 明 經) 408... also join in such descriptions.

- http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../the-concept-of...
Manage

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview44m

Soh Wei Yu Geovani Geo Thusness Stage 6 commentary:



Here practice is clearly understood as neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to thoroughly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection. To see that there is really no mirror other than the on-going reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature.”
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply43m