Essential reading for those practicing self-enquiry, a booklet of discourses by the semi-legendary 20th century Ch'an Master Hsu Yun.
Joyfully delight in the uninterrupted vision of the objects of the six senses!
Whatever you enjoy, bodhi will blaze more and more.
When one has obtained the power of the supreme presence and become familiar with it,
Meditating means leaving the six sense consciousness free and relaxed!
...
It is thought that creates the duality of mind and object;
It is wisdom that perceives them as non-dual.
Meditation means understanding there is nothing to enter into or exit from.
Not grasping what appears is the state of self-liberation!
~ Dzogchen book The Supreme Source
[10:05 PM, 4/12/2021] Soh Wei Yu: malcolm (Acarya Malcolm Smith):
MMK refutes any kind of production other than dependent origination. It is through dependent origination that emptiness is correctly discerned. Without the view of dependent origination, emptiness cannot be correctly perceived, let alone realized. The MMK rejects production from self, other, both, and causeless production, but not dependent origination. The MMK also praises the teaching of dependent origination as the pacifier of proliferation in the mangalam. The last chapter of MMK is on dependent origination. The MMK nowhere rejects dependent origination, it is in fact a defense of the proper way to understand it. The only way to the ultimate truth (emptiness) is through the relative truth (dependent origination), so if one’s understanding of relative truth is flawed, as is the case with all traditions outside of Buddhadharma, and even many within it, there is no possibility that ultimate truth can be understood and realized.
...
Buddhism does not define “individual minds” as such, but rather discrete, momentary continuums which arise from their own causes and conditions. In short, jivas, pudgalas, atmans, etc., do not function as defined by their proponents, so they are negated.
...
Things appear to be discrete, so we label them “discrete.” If things appear to be nondiscrete, we are not able to label them as discrete. For example, from a distance a mountain does not appear to be composed of discrete parts, so we label that appearance “mountain.” When we get closer, we see there are many parts, and what was formally labeled a mountain gets redefined into slopes, peaks, ravines, and so on. When we meet someone, we label that person a self, a person, a living being, but these labels attached to appearances will not bear analysis. It’s the same with mental continuum’s, even the notion of mental continuum will not bear ultimate analysis, but since the cause and result of karma, etc., appear to be discrete, mind streams are, conventionally speaking, discrete, because there is an observable function.. If we wish to aggregate minds, we refer to all consciousnesses as the dhatu of consciousness, just as we refer to aggregated elements as the space dhatu, etc.
...
The argument that a knower is a self has already been advanced and dismantled in Buddhist texts. If a knower can have many cognitions, it already has many parts and cannot be a unitary or an integral entity. We are therefore not operating here at a position prior to recognizing discrete entities, the very fact that our minds (citta) are variegated (citra) proves the mind is not an integral entity, proves it is made of parts, and since those cognitions happen sequentially, this proves the mind is also impermanent, momentary, and dependent. So, it is impossible for a conventional knower to be a self.
[10:10 PM, 4/12/2021] John Tan: The DO part is really good.
[10:11 PM, 4/12/2021] John Tan: When did malcom say that? Recently or in the past?
[10:11 PM, 4/12/2021] Soh Wei Yu: oic..
[10:11 PM, 4/12/2021] Soh Wei Yu: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=36315&p=577078#p577078
[10:11 PM, 4/12/2021] Soh Wei Yu: from above
[10:12 PM, 4/12/2021] Soh Wei Yu: the others from here https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=36283&p=577115#p577115
[10:30 PM, 4/12/2021] John Tan: Many misunderstand that oh ultimately it is empty and DO is conventional therefore conceptual so ultimately empty non-existence.
We must understand what is meant by empty ultimately but conventionally valid. Nominal constructs are of two types, those that are valid and those that r invalid like "rabbit horns". Even mere appearances free from all elaborations and conceptualities, they inadvertently manifest therefore the term "appearances". They do not manifest randomly or haphazardly, they are valid mode of arising and that is dependent arising. When it is "valid" means it is the acceptable way of explanation and not "rabbit horn" which is non-existence. This part I mentioned in my reply to Andre.
[10:36 PM, 4/12/2021] John Tan: Do you get what I meant?
What it means is there is still a "right" or "acceptable" or "valid" way to express it conventionally. Take freedom from all elaborations for example, it doesn't mean "blankness" or "anything goes". There is right understanding of "freedom from all elaborations" that is why Mipham has to qualify that it is not "blankness", it does not reject "mere appearance", it must be understood from the perspective of "coalescence"...and so on and so forth. Similarly, there is right understanding of "arising" conventionally and that is DO.
So when we clearly see how essence = true existence = independence of causes and conditions are untenable for anything to arise, we see dependent arising.
.....
Update: some more quotes for further reading:
“Pursuant to the middle view, Tson-kha-pa cites Nagarjuna's Yuk-tisastika and Candrakirti's Yuktisastika-vrtti.
Nagarjuna:
What arises in dependence is not born;
That is proclaimed by the supreme knower of reality (= Buddha).
Candrakirti:
(The realist opponent says): If (as you say) whatever thing arises in dependence is not even born, then why does (the Madhyamika) say it is not born? But if you (Madhyamika) have a reason for saying (this thing) is not born, then you should not say it "arises in dependence." Therefore, because of mutual inconsistency, (what you have said) is not valid.)
(The Madhyamika replies with compassionate interjection:)
Alas! Because you are without ears or heart you have thrown a challenge that is severe on us! When we say that anything arising in dependence, in the manner of a reflected image, does not arise by reason of self-existence - at that time where is the possibility of disputing (us)!” - excerpt from Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real: Buddhist Meditation and the Middle View
Kyle Dixon, 2019:
“...the heart of the buddhadharma and Dzogchen in general is the jñāna that results from recognizing the non-arising of phenomena.
If that jñāna is revealed in your mindstream then you will know the meaning of dependent origination.
All practices of Dzogchen and the buddhadharma aim to awaken you so that this is experientially known.
…
You have to differentiate interdependence i.e., dependent existence [parabhāva] and dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].
They are not the same.
…
Nāgārjuna discusses the difference in many of his works.
Parabhāva is as you mentioned above, “interdependence,” things depending on things in a coarse sense. Nāgārjuna states that parabhāva is actually a guise for svabhāva, which is the main object of refutation in his view. Thus mistaking parabhāva for pratītyasamutpāda is a major error.
He also states that s/he who sees dependent existence [parabhāva], inherent existence [svabhāva], existence [bhāva] or non-existence [abhāva], do not see the truth of the buddha’s teaching.
The main point is that we cannot mistake dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda] for mere interdependence.”
“The
Correct View of Dependent Origination
John Tan just said: This comment by Malcolm is really good.
Session Start: Wednesday, August 09, 2006
(11:32 PM) AEN: namdrol:
While it is true that many non-Buddhist paths a renunciate and so on, the unique feature of the Buddha's path is understanding that phenomena are dependently originated. Dependent origination is critical in developing a correct view.
Is the mere knowledge that phenomena dependently originated sufficient? No.
It is possible to hold a view of dependent origination which is nevertheless realist or substantialist in nature-- a perfect example of this would the way Thich Nhat Hahn's "interbeing" is generally understood. Here, it is never questioned that the mutually depedendent phenomena exist in dependence because they all exist together. In general, this is also the naive understanding of dependent origination.
(11:32 PM) AEN: Even so, this view of dependent orgination already marks the beginning of turning from a wrong or incorrect view, to a right or correct view.
How do we move from a substantialist interpretation of dependent origination to a non-substantialist understanding?
We need to first be open to having our existential assumptions undermined. Any clinging to existence and non-existence must be eradicated before we can properly appreciate the meaning of DO. Some people think this simply means clinging to inherent or ultimate existence. But this is not so. Whatever arises in dependence also must be devoid of mere existence as well.
To understand this fully we must understand the perfection of wisdom sutras in their entirety and the thinking of Nagarjuna and his followers.
(11:32 PM) AEN:
When we have truly understood that phenomena are devoid existence and non-existence because they are dependently originated; we can understand that phenomena do not arise, since existence and dependence are mutually exclusive. Any existence that can be pointed to is merely putative and nominal, and does not bear any reasoned investigation.
Since phenomena are dependently originated, and the consequence of dependent origination is that there are no existing existents, we can understand that existents are non-arising by nature. As Buddhapalita states "We do not claim non-existence, we merely remove claims for existing existents."
Whatever does not arise by nature is free from existence and non-existence, and that is the meaning of "freedom from proliferation." In this way, dependent origination = emptiness, and this is the correct view that Buddhas elucidate. There is no other correct view than this.
N”
Hello! Welcome to the Awakening to Reality blog. For all new to Awakening to Reality blog, I highly recommend reading the 'Must Read&#...
Posts
