Related: William Kong's Breakthrough to Anatta


William Kong posted in AtR group:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/permalink/5609769555731095/?__cft__[0]=AZWB74vLDMoigKb81ZD7BT9Ng77ejUunrPsPi4wKPnJ2FYSxLqio18tEmHe-NmBN5zIwGth_hkw9z_8ToLdIiiD13S4ncQYx73a25oll6UD0UCTWvQUtbjxudm42qcqDIDgKghUhHaMrAvVY1hVc_Z9iGqk1IsN6Ij6NArtIRbvX9Lsqq0Q59k4G1WcN8wMZ8vs&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Hi, I'm just introducing myself to the group.  

I'd been a long time visitor to the AtR site, although many years have passed since I'd regularly visited.  Only recently did AtR "resonate" with me, this time in a very different way - I was only a casual visitor before.  I am slowly going over material, since it seems to speak to me in a new voice now, and familiarizing myself with the AtR terms, and definitions.

When Soh wrote that Thusness said certain practitioners get stuck at certain stages for a decade, I can totally relate.  I had felt "stuck" for some while - there were important insights, but after several years, the underlying experience was the same and it seemed I was cycling through the same experiences and insights.  I cannot begin to tell you how frustrating that was.

My background has been a mix of Advaita/Buddhism/non-traditional, but mostly Advaita.  A little over a decade ago (a Buddhist teacher had mentioned a koan "What is self?  Shine the light of awareness back on itself").  After about 12-18 months of meditation and revisiting this koan, there was a radical shift, realizing that "I" was not-mind, not-body.  There was this Awareness/is-ness/Still Presence from which thoughts and sensatons of body-mind, which I was previously identified with, emerged.  I had no spiritual education outside of a book and a few CDs of dharma talks by a well known Buddhist teacher (back then the wikipedia page for "non-duality" consisted of maybe 2 sentences and what was online at the time was sparse, confusing and misleading) ... while the first few months were filled with bliss (and a tremendous letting go of energy), I was left disoriented with how to contextualize and interpret my experience.  At the time, I had no words for whatever i was experiencing.

But most noticeably, for the first time in my life, I could simply be without any thoughts.  There was just ... Stillness, Awareness without thoughts, just utter peace.  (I described this as no-mind, but I do not know if it is the same term as how AtR would define it)  The process of "selfing" would often subside spontaneoulsy and the Stillness deepend.  Of course, this was always temporary.

Over time, I realized there was not longer an "I" that was in the world, but the appearance of the world was "in" Awareness.  Nothing was ever experienced, could be experienced other than Awareness.  When this happened, there was like a small "pop" and what I felt as physical, corporeal body was just sensations and a concept of "body" arising within Awareness.  Ever since then, the experience of the body has been empty, hollow (but not in any negative, dissociated sense), spacious.  The body as an identified contraction lifted, old aches and pains disappeared.  There was no particular location where I was (But identification with sticky thoughts/stories remained as a problem)

I would articulate this phase as the Universe aware of Itself, experiencing Itself.  I have read that others describe their experience as "I am the trees, I am the sky" ... but I found that misleading, as it implies as if the "I" became a larger physical self and somehow one was identified physically and mentally with trees or sky, as if I was inside a tree or that my body had enlarged its boundaries to somehow incorporate trees and clouds... no..
I would describe it more as...the entire phenomenal radiant Universe, the trees, sky, birds, cars, every sensation, every thought, these all shone with a brilliant immediacy as appearances in awarenesss, with no boundaries separating them, arising no-where and everywhere.  Everything was "you", for there was nothing not illuminated by awareness, and "I" was not other than the open field of awareness.  This was your Original Face as it had always been, appearing to no-one.

What AtR refers to as luminosity, I would've refered to as the brilliant radiance of Awareness.  From the first shift, everything looked different.  Objects seemed to shine with a brilliance I had never experienced before.  The first meal I ate post-shift was the most delicious meal I had ever experienced.  And especially, at first, every natural thing, trees, ocean, sky danced with a rhythm and vibrancy I had never experienced, not even as a child. Every moment was fresh, every moment new (and this has carried me steady even when I fell into occasional nihilistic views)

There was just consciousness and the appearances within consciousness, and I was that.  The most simplest expression was simply abiding Awareness of Awareness, until there was just Awareness.  There was seeing, but no seer, hearing but no hearer, feeling but no feeler, just seeing, hearing, feeling (thought it was no-self within the context of a background awareness).  But the realization and articulation of insights seemed important - it seemed to lock the experience in.

 *
 
Sometime last year, I realized that the self, the "me" never was.  Prior, there was always some expectation of a "me" gaining insights, losing a "self", but it was very clear the "I" that arose was simply another thought.

But last year, there were several insights.  I realized that the self never was.  Prior, it felt like there was some "I" that was progressing and gaining insight, then there was just the seeing that the "I" never was, itwas simply another thought...there was never anything other than consciousness.  I could sense a shift, but intellectually, in terms of a path, I couldn't find anything.

Intellectually, I knew that there is no gap between the backgroudnd awareness and its objects - it was just Awareness, but this gap never fully dissolved.  I felt some dissonance and confined by the current crop of Advaitic/Neo-advaitic teachers on the circuit, unsatisfied with some of their arguments.  I felt stifled by the Advaitic obsession that Awareness was the unchanging, permanent, Reality, all other forms being unreal.  

 *

From my early stages, I had read several books by western Buddhists: Hagen, Kornfield, Ingram, Wilber (he says he is a practicing Zen buddhist, but he seems to writes from an Advaitic perspective where consciousness is the absolute reality).  
David Loy's Non-duality seemed to confirm my conviction that Advaita and Bhuddism led to the same insights but with different terms (and in reverse, many Advaitins claim Buddha was really talking about the same thing).

So over time, I gravitated towards Advaita/Neo-Advaita, Goode, Wheeler, Ramana/Nisargardatta, Spira, Tollifson, but I never liked any of the more nihilistic non-dualists (Parsons, etc) .... the experiential component of Direct Path was very compelling.  

I went through a period of textual deconstruction, realizing that our normal way of linguistically constructing the world was reinforcing objects as inherently real and self-existing.  (But this was always within the assumption that Awareness/Consciouness was the "I" of experience...at the time, I had not encountered convincing arguments, or perhaps was not ready, to deconstruct awareness itself)

I felt a desire to revisit emptiness teachings again, and after reading AtR, this time around, I realized I had interpreted everything within the context of a background awareness, what Loy called substance-view.

From reading the first 2 stages, and a brief read of Soh's No-Mind/One-Mind, those descriptions are very familiar with me.  Although I was familiar with many of AtR concepts, the nuances and how Thusness differntiates different aspects of each stage are very new.

It was not easy, but I began the process of questioning the existence of an all-pervasive, permanent, background awareness.

In the same way that there is never a form that arises without a background, never does a background arise without a form.  Even awareness is not the ultimate, it is empty itself, and arises co-depently with form.  In a way, it is simple, but this dropping was both subtle and radical.

Soh's description of Advaita's view of non-duality is very apt: that it subsumes all forms as modulations of awareness whereas Buddhism gives primacy to emptiness and the dependent origination of forms.

*

In the wave vs Ocean metaphor, the Advaitic interpretation is not that "you" are simultaneously wave and part of the Ocean (like an arm belonging to a body), but the identity of the wave is identical to the Ocean and the wave is a modulation of the Ocean.
In the Buddhist view, there is no ocean nature from which the waves spring forth, nor is there ocean nature found inherent or embedded within the waves, but the myriad waves of forms all arise co-dependently, empty of inherent existence.  There is form, there is no subject/agent/doer experiencing form, prior or after to form, just the luminous display of form.

Before, I did not realize how central DO was to understanding emptiness, anatta.  In Advaita, transactional reality is almost negated, with emptiness and DO and forms, conventional reality regains a kind of poignancy.  It is hard to describe, the fundamental experience is the same, the emphasis and flavour is very different.

Thank you Soh, Thusness, and all contributors to AtR.  For a long time, I felt stuck without a path forward.  I'll probably have many questions moving forward

 

 

 

[7:54 AM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Not bad.  He should relook these insights and experiences and ask the following:

1.  If everything is me, then the sense of "me" must also disappear at that moment of experience.  Otherwise one must mature the experience into no-mind and then anatta as an insight.

2.  If later it is realized that there is no me/self/Self as an insight and experience (anatta), then one must refine the view and question how does the sense of me/self/Self arise in the first place?

3.  Then bring this insight from the refinement of view into all phenomena and all actions.  

4.  Therefore not only there is no seer in the seen just the seen, there is no seeing and nothing seen.  No self, no others and no aggregates.  

5.  If this is understood only as negations, then one is not free from extremes and all elaborations.

6.  Therefore conventionally, there is self, others, seer, seeing and seen. There are causes and effects.  There is arising, abiding and ceasing and the only valid mode of arising is dependent arising.

7.  Point 1, 2, 3 praxis is on samatha and vipassana. Direct experience and insights. To mature this insight of anatta, the path of analysis is needed.  

8.  Point 4-6 thorough reasoning and analysis is added to relinquish cognitive obscuration.  

9.  If he is interested, he should look into mmk (Nagarjuna's text Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), it will expose the many hidden nuances and subtleties of our cognitive obscurations.  Patience is needed to get used to the line of reasoning of Nagarjuna.  But no need to get involved in those polemics of the Tibetan schools.
[8:08 AM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: 10. Lastly one should understand the praxis of the 2 stanzas and mmk are different.  The 2 stanzas are using samatha and vipassana to directly see through mental constructs to realize one's nature (direct path) whereas mmk is via path of analysis and reasoning.  So when reading mmk, one must adhere strictly to the conventional 3 fold structure of seer-seeing-seen.  See through the structures and deconstruct step by step.  The ultimate purpose and result are the same except mmk exposes all the very subtle and hidden cognitives obscurations that we are unable even post anatta insight.  So if one is interested in bringing anatta insight to maturity and perfection, mmk is needed.

William Kong
Thusness,
Much gratitude and joy for guidance.
All night and day, many new insights, still processing.
Need to focus more on each of your points, before replying...
But this morning, points 1, 2 like koan, absorbed wordlessly.
Something not right. Feel inside, like a knot.
Ahh I see!
Must rephrase....
"I am not everything, everything is not me,
but no sense of “me”.
How did sense of "me" arise?
Sense of self never arose in the first place!"
Only movie no screen!
(Advaitin would say only screen!) Very different!!!
So obvious, only movie, no actors!
No superimposition,
No screen to superimpose on!
No projections, no projectors!
No mirror!
No movers outside of moving!
No speakers outside of speaking!
No thinkers outside of thinking!
Only change no independent objects seen nor experienced.
Very deep flow, effortless.
No inside, no outside.
No behind, no in front.
Mind naturally drawn to DO and Bahiya.
Much letting go, feel deep release of energy.
Like drowning man coming to shore.
Westerhoff on my desktop now.
Must deepen insights.
Gassho, from very core of my being.

2
• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 2d
• 
  
William Kong
(Sense of self always empty, dependently origanting, cannot be said to have arisen, for what does not exist cannot be said to come into being, cannot be said to pass away, that is why it can conventionally be said to have arisen and passed away; only when misperceived experienced as separate, autonomous entity.)
• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 2d
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
William Kong
Would you say you have become doubtless about anatta or is it still more like fleeting glimpses?
• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 15h
• 
  
William Kong
Soh Wei Yu utterly doubtless.
The 2 stanzas of Praxis 1, 2 together provoked something in me...esp, “then how did sense of me arise in first place”. I wrestled with it all day Thursday, then at night it broke through as both experience and insight.
But in back of mind, I always think, “we shall see”, bc life always puts to test any kind of realization.
I have had this deep knot for over 10 years and it was for first time seen through. There was never really a knot just misperceived lol
Then next 48 hrs went through some strong adversity. The same. In fact only deepened insight. Much letting go of previously held energy.
Will write more later in detail when I have chance.

1
• 
  
• •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 5h
• 
  
Soh Wei Yu
Admin
William Kong
Congrats
. Looking forward to your post
• 
  
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 11m
  
  
  
  ...........
  
  

Soh quoted from book:

Tsongkhapa notes that yod min (lit. “existing-not”) means nonexistent (med pa) while med min (lit. “not-not-existing”) effectively means existent, and accordingly he interprets the first alternative to mean “not existent ultimately” and the second to mean “not nonexistent conventionally.” 491 Otherwise, Tsongkhapa claims, this view would be none other than that of the “Chinese Hashang.” To empty the mind of all concepts of existence, nonexistence, etc., does not constitute discriminating wisdom (prajñā, shes rab), which should be acutely aware of what exists and what does not exist. This kind of emptiness is simply a state of unawareness. In the LRC Tsongkhapa expresses the opinion that most traditions in Tibet had deviated to this extreme. What needs to be negated, he asserts, is not all conceptuality whatsoever, but the false apprehension of true existence (bden ’dzin). By refuting the object of that mistaken concept and focusing upon its emptiness of true existence, one realizes the nature of reality. Having properly identified the apprehension of true existence, it is readily apparent that there are many concepts (rtog pa) that do not involve apprehension of the true existence of self or phenomena. This refutes the position that all concepts are to be refuted. 492 Tsongkhapa and Go ram pa evidently understand the relationship between conceptuality and the apprehension of true
 existence differently. Go ram pa understands conceptuality ipso facto as involving apprehension of true existence, whereas Tsongkhapa does not accept that conceptuality is always associated with the apprehension of true existence. 493 Go ram pa agrees that the object of the apprehension of true existence must be refuted. But to maintain that the mere absolute negation that is the nonfinding of that object through rational analysis is the definitive ultimate (don dam mtshan nyid pa), 494 and to maintain that clinging to or apprehension of that emptiness is not an object of refutation, 495 is “alien to the Mādhyamika textual tradition” (dbu ma’i gzhung lugs las ’das). Go ram pa quotes several Indian sources that support his contention that a definitive view is beyond verbal-conceptual formulation. The definitive ultimate is realized non-dualistically by sublime beings’ meditation (* āryasamāpatti, ’phags pa’i mnyam bzhag). He also quotes Candrakīrti to the effect that deceptive reality (saṃvṛti, kun rdzob) is the object of false seeing. 496 Therefore, unlike the emptiness seen directly (pratyakṣena, mngon sum du) by sublime beings, the emptiness of absolute negation that is ascertained by inferential reasoning (anumāna, rjes dpag) is just deceptively true. 497 One might object that in some contexts the ultimate reality is said to be the mere absolute negation of emptiness, and that both realities
are posited only by a worldly mind (’ jig rten pa’i blo) 498— which seems to imply that it is incorrect to define the ultimate as the object of sublime equipoise. In reply, Go ram pa explains that truthlessness is realized in relation to a mind that apprehends true existence, and the designation of “ultimate reality” there refers to a conceptually formulated ultimate. The reason that designation is made is because its referent, the conceptually formulated ultimate, is the object of a mind that understands (rtogs) the nature of reality instead of (lit., “in relation to”— la ltos par) apprehending true existence. It is necessary to call the conceptual ultimate “ultimate” because it must be realized prior to realizing the nonconceptual ultimate (aparyāyaparamārtha, rnam grangs ma yin pa’i don dam). To claim that a conceptual object, which is apprehended as the absence of true existence by negating true existence, is the definitive ultimate (don dam mtshan nyid pa), is to confuse the concept (sāmānyalakṣaṇa, spyi mtshan) of the ultimate (a pointing finger) with the ultimate per se (the moon). 499 The implication is that if the conceptual ultimate is designated and accepted with reference to a worldly mind (’ jig rten pa’i blo), then there is no reason why the nonconceptual, definitive ultimate should not be defined in relation to a nonconceptual mind, which is sublime gnosis. Thus, Go ram pa does not deny that
reasoning and concepts are necessary in realizing the nature of the ultimate. He grants a propaedeutic function to the conceptual formulation of emptiness but does not accept that the Gelug formulation of emptiness as absolute negation qualifies as a definitive ultimate. This follows logically from his assumption that conventional reality is pervaded by conceptuality and that conceptuality is pervaded by ignorance. 500 Thus, any concept— even a concept of the mere absence of inherent existence— is not a definitive ultimate. 6.3.1.2.2. Go ram pa on Meditative Practice Go ram pa’s critique of Tsongkhapa’s approach to meditation is based on the implication that clinging to (zhen pa) or apprehending (’ dzin pa) emptiness is not something to be abandoned. According to Go ram pa, Tsongkhapa reasons that if the apprehension of emptiness is only something to be abandoned, then there is no point in ascertaining it in the first place, as the antidote for apprehending true existence (bden par ’dzin pa). Go ram pa counters with several quotations from sūtras and śāstras, such as the famous statement of Nāgārjuna, The victors have taught emptiness To definitely eliminate all views.
Those who have a view of emptiness Are said to be incurable. 501
 
Pettit, John W.. Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection (Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism) (pp. 139-140). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.

[11:15 AM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: You agree more with tsongkhapa than gorampa on this point right
[11:35 AM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Yes so you must be clear.  What does freedom from extremes entail?  Tsongkhapa or the rest of the schools?  Actually even in Gelug system, there is notional and non-notional ultimate.  Non-notional ultimate is freedom from all elaborations and notional ultimate is DO and emptiness.  Both are equally important.  This is explored in Tsongkhapa ocean of reasoning.  Therefore even Mipham 2 models of 2 truth is nothing new to Tsongkhapa.  

Now even though all other schools emphasized on freedom from all elaboration, they then still qualify it does not mean this and that...🤣.  It does not deny mere appearances...an so on and so forth...so it doesn't really differ much.  

If you read mmk directly, there are two aspects that come out very clearly:
1.  No essential nature
2.  Freedom from conceptualities

You can go either way or integrate them.
[11:40 AM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[11:41 AM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Tsongkhapa emphasized and placed a lot on the importance of discerning wisdom of the conventional and the non-essential nature of phenomena while other schools emphasized the ultimate intention of mmk is freedom from all views.
[11:43 AM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: What book is this?
[11:45 AM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Pettit, John W.. Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection (Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism) (pp. 139-140). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition. Lol
[11:46 AM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[12:03 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: No wonder sounded so familiar
[12:03 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: 🤣🤣🤣
[12:03 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Lol
[12:05 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: After that you have to have mmk as well as prasannapada free from Tibetan scholars interpretations
[12:05 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Then your collections can be considered fairly complete to have an [un]bias study
[12:12 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. which translation of mmk should i read first?
[12:18 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: you should separate.  Translation you should use Jay L. Garfield.  Comment you should read  Mark Siderits.  I m still unable to find full version of prasannapada.
[12:19 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Subscribe to Scribd, they have both.
[12:20 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Means have a raw version of translated text from Jay Garfield.  Easier to read.
[12:23 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[12:23 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Which is the best Translation for Nagarjuna's Mulmadhyamkarika

"I am currently reading about sunyata and MMK from SEP and IEP but they seem all over the place. I have one translation/commentary by Jay l Garfield. Is it any good? are there any better translations?

5
4

BEST COMMENTS
Add a Comment

krodha
·
2y
Ornament Of Reason: The Great Commentary To Nagarjuna's Root Of The Middle Way

(Garfield himself said that this translation renders his own translation obsolete.)

6
Reply
[12:23 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Page 3-83 of Garfield is the translation.
[12:23 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Krodha says garfield say his own translation is obsolete lol
[12:24 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Kyle
[12:24 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Translation or commentary?
[12:24 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: [deleted]
·
2y
Garfield's translation is very good. Mark Sidderits's translation is also excellent and more recent. Why not use both? You can find free pdfs of Garfield's.

I would strongly recommend Jan Westerhoff's 'Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction'. Where was that book when I first tackled Nagarjuna? A gleam in his mother's eye, apparently! ;-)

Good luck!

5
Reply

xugan97
·
2y
Ocean of Reasoning contains a marginally updated translation by Garfield, and one that is more in line with Tsongkhapa's commentary in that book. Of course, you would prefer the older book by Garfield if you don't care about the commentary. Sun of Wisdom or The Middle Way if you want good explanations rather than the complete text.

2
Reply

ChanCakes
·
2y
I haven’t read any translations but Jan Westeroff’s Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka is a good work that’s goes presents Naharjuna’s arguments and their contexts. I definitely recommend reading it.
[12:24 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Kyle said translation but idk
[12:25 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: I think the translation is easy to read.  But you can use others to 参考.
[12:25 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[12:28 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Jan westeroff is also quite insightful.
[12:28 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..
[12:29 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: But I have my own explanations🤣🤣🤣
[12:29 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Coz many are presented not from experiential perspective
[12:30 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: You mentioned a kagyu book on mmk that is experiential?
[12:30 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Yes
[12:30 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: That mahamudra book is quite good.
[12:33 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: The karmapa’s middle way?

https://www.amazon.com/Karmapas-Middle-Way-Feast-Fortunate/dp/1559394889

[12:34 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: If emphasis is on primordial purity, then reading is skewed towards freedom from all elaborations which is very crucial.  Infact mmk do suggest that.

If emphasis is on no essential nature, then reading can be both and conventionalities are as relevant as ultimate, non-cocneptual and conceptual can be blended using the wisdom and insight of essencelessness.
[12:35 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Yes (on: The karmapa’s middle way?)
[12:36 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: This I think is intent of Tsongkhapa.  Which I say is the dual purpose of the chariot analogy.
[12:37 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. so mmk is more on primordial purity? Tsongkhapa emphasis seems unique then
[12:38 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: No mmk actually emphasizes both and indeed Tsongkhapa is very insightful.
[12:39 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah there is a chapter in mmk that talks about how emptiness allows the conventional. Chapter on four noble truths
[12:41 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: That is y I told you to have a raw translation text of Ur own also.  But it will take a while to get used to the different reasonings in mmk.  So still a lot of research needs to be done. Start will chapter 1,2,7 first.  They contain all the reasoning logics.  Rest are just applying the same reasoning methods.

[9:35 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Timeless Deviation to the Nature of Knowables The meditation of inseparable phenomena and emptiness is called “emptiness endowed with the supreme aspect.” Not knowing how emptiness and interdependence abide in nonduality, you decide that emptiness is a nothingness that has never existed and that is not influenced at all by qualities or defects. Then you underestimate the cause and effect of virtue and vice, or else lapse exclusively into the nature of all things being originally pure, primordially free, and so forth. Bearing such emptiness, the relative level of interdependence is not mastered. In this respect, this is what is known as mahamudra: one’s basic nature is unoriginated and, since it is neither existent nor nonexistent, eternal nor nil, true nor false, nor any other such aspects, it has no existence whatsoever. Nonetheless, its unceasing radiance arises as the relative level of all kinds of interdependence, so it is known as emptiness having the core of interdependence and interdependence having the nature of emptiness. Therefore, emptiness does not stray to the nature of knowables. In the Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way it is said: Anything that doesn’t arise dependently Is a phenomenon that has no existence. Therefore anything that is not empty Is a phenomenon that has no existence. And as said in the Commentary on Bodhichitta: It is taught that the relative plane is emptiness, And emptiness alone is the relative plane.” – The Royal Seal of Mahamudra, Volume 2
[10:07 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: 👍
[10:10 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Emptiness is ultimate nature whereas the radiance of clarity is relative as illusionariness of appearance arising dependently.
[10:12 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Mahamudra seems to be in line with Tsongkhapa thought.
[10:12 PM, 6/3/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[10:13 PM, 6/3/2021] John Tan: Actually Mipham also.  However they seem to suggest the ultimate purpose of mmk is to cease conceptualities.




[10:01 PM, 6/4/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Nāgārjuna states:

"When the perfect vidyā sees
That things come from ignorance as condition,
Nothing will then be objectified,
Either in terms of arising or destruction...

...Since the Buddhas have stated
That the world is conditioned by ignorance,
Why is it not reasonable [to assert]
That this world is [a result of] conceptualization?

Since it comes to an end
When ignorance ceases;
Why does it not become clear then
That it was conjured by ignorance?"
[10:02 PM, 6/4/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Nagarjuna seems to see the end goal as the exhaustion of all phenomena through the dissolution of ignorance and its conceptualization
[10:09 PM, 6/4/2021] John Tan: I have told u there r 2 purposes already.  Cessation of conceptualization in what sense?  If cessation of conceptualization is enlightenment, then any one that sleep or fainted is enlightened.
[10:14 PM, 6/4/2021] Soh Wei Yu: its analytical cessation through wisdom
[10:27 PM, 6/4/2021] John Tan: What does this wisdom involved?  Seeing through is one thing, realizing is another?  What is realized? The nature of mind/phenomena?  Uncompounded and unconditioned?  Non essential nature?  What does understanding the unconditioned and uncompounded or essencelessness tell us?  How is this linked to conceptualities?
[10:29 PM, 6/4/2021] John Tan: Then when u come face to face of ur nature u know and will understand.
[10:32 PM, 6/4/2021] John Tan: Also go slow, it is not a one day thing. Be patient and allow mmk to slowly integrate with ur insights.  No need to rush. Analyse and at the same time be effortlessly in non-dual anatta, one say everything studied in mmk will become clear.
[10:54 PM, 6/4/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[11:03 PM, 6/4/2021] John Tan: It is like me studying mmk.  The thinking mind may assume that it already knew most of the stuff post anatta so don't let ego get in our way.
Only when u come face to face with all the cryptic verses u began to understand that mind is still block and hinder by lots of constructs similar to self/Self in a deep way.  If we r sincere then we go further to penetrate and release the deep tendencies.  After some time there is really nothing much to read, most of the line of reasoning are known, just how much effort u put in to make it as an experiential insight.  

If u were to approach mmk like me in the earlier years, 10-15 years can past and still nothing gain. Y? Because without having a focused mind, sincerity and reverence heart, merely reading and picking here and there a bit, how will genuine insight dawn?
[11:13 PM, 6/4/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..

[12:16 PM, 6/6/2021] John Tan: Do u understand my 10 points?
[1:30 PM, 6/6/2021] Soh Wei Yu: think so.. emptiness does not negate conventional
[1:30 PM, 6/6/2021] Soh Wei Yu: was just reading through some of kyle old posts which i like http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2021/06/the-ultimate-nature-of-phenomena.html
[1:30 PM, 6/6/2021] Soh Wei Yu: one of his posts:


Kyle Dixon

It is important to understand the concept of 'conventional truth' in Buddhism, because you may ask why these texts are stating that there is a 'self-nature' and a 'basis' and so on, why would they be doing this if these things are in fact unestablished and ultimately unreal? It is because the ultimate truth of things is their non-arising or emptiness, and what are those 'things' that are ultimately empty? They are conventions which are mistaken to be real things. So these alleged conventional objects are precisely what are realized to be unreal, and this means that we can relate to conventions freely because they are never pointing to anything actually 'real' or established. All conventions are simply useful nominal designations, tools for communication. The problem arises when we mistake these conventions to be something more than just a convention.

Conventions are reliable as long as they are not subjected to keen investigation. That is how 'convention' is defined per buddhism, a correct convention [tathyasaṃvṛti] is, according to Śāntarakṣita; "something can be tacitly accepted as long as it is not critically investigated, that is characterized by arising and decay, and that has causal effectivity." So the validity of a convention is measured by its efficacy, if it appears to function correctly, then it can be accepted as a correct convention prior to its investigation. In the wake of investigating any convention it will fail, since conventions cannot withstand proper scrutiny.

So there is no problem stating that there is a 'self-nature', because when that convention is subjected to scrutiny that self-nature would be ultimately unfindable. Yet the term "self-nature" is a conventional designation that is pointing to the capacity of 'wisdom' mentioned above, which is completely free from the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither.

For instance, Longchenpa discusses that nature here:

"Mind itself [i.e., the nature of mind: tib. sems nyid] - naturally occurring timeless awareness [i.e., self-originated primordial wisdom: tib. rang byung ye shes] - has no substance or characteristics. Since it is empty yet lucid and free of elaboration, it cannot be conceived of as 'this' or 'that'. Although it can be illustrated by a metaphor - 'It is like space' - if one reflects on space as the metaphor, it proves to have no color, no shape, or anything about it that is identifiable. Therefore, if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself, pure by nature - is not something that has ever existed in the slightest."

8 liked this (Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10:14am)
[1:32 PM, 6/6/2021] Soh Wei Yu: William kong realised anatta
[1:36 PM, 6/6/2021] Soh Wei Yu: therefore what is negated is not conventions per se nor their causal efficacy but the four extremes
[1:44 PM, 6/6/2021] Soh Wei Yu: also point 1 and 2... just like the Self, the Awareness seems so absolute and unchanging only due to a wrong view that misperceives luminous appearance into an inherently existing substratum, likewise the world seems so real and inherently existing due to an unexamined view of inherency that reifies and solidifies appearances
[1:59 PM, 6/6/2021] John Tan: What Kyle said is good.  However that is not what Tsongkhapa key insight.  U have to understand Tsongkhapa elevated the status of conventional that is dependent arising and emptiness of the conventional to equal the uncategorized    ultimate.  That is the categorized and uncategorised ultimate are of equal status.  Means Pt 5 and 6.
[2:11 PM, 6/6/2021] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[2:23 PM, 6/6/2021] John Tan: For the 3 other schools, the conventional that is based on conventions and conceptualities r to be discarded after seeing through much like post anatta insight into direct non-conceptuality and non-duality.

But y is conventional so important?  As I have said many times Tsongkhapa did not dis-regard freedom from all elaborations and in his  early days he did accept the ultimate purpose of mmk is freedom from all elaborations.  Further he did mention about the categorized and the uncategorised ultimate, so the question is y did an accomplished master placed so much emphasis of the conventional?
[4:20 PM, 6/6/2021] John Tan: Many enters mmk without having direct taste of what emptiness of svabhava entails.  Like what Westerhoff said:

"... give us very little insight into how the removal of such superimpositions could be possible and what it would entail. The reason is obvious: according to the traditional Buddhist view, those who have realized (as opposed to merely understood) the absence of svabhāva and thereby emptiness are few and far between."
Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Pg 51 by Westerhoff

So those having post anatta insight have the advantage to orientate themselves better and not get swayed by too much philosophical concepts and ideas abt mmk and missed the essential points. 

However getting used to how Nagarjuna structured his lines of reasonings and agrumentations can be a real pain initially if we do not have background y it is done that way.  Nagarjuna was refuting the various views of his opponents and the major Buddhist systems of his time and frankly the tenets held by some of the major systems r still deeply ingrained in most modern ppl today including u and me.  So going through mmk helps us uncover all these traits and put them into perspective with thorough investigations.  This is the part where many ATR ppl will find difficulties when jumping into mmk as their approach was more of koan based -- direct and intuitive.  The mmk on the other hand is opposite, very academic presented by the scholars even in the case of Westerhoff that is also y I din intro u his book.  But he prompted many very important points like on page 126, Westerhoff said:

"The Mādhyamika therefore has to explain how we can account for an object changing and persisting through time without having to assume that there is some unchanging aspect of the object which underlies all change. Nāgārjuna claims that this can indeed be done. Understanding how this can be the case becomes particularly important in the context of the Buddhist conception of the self when the temporal continuity of persons has to be explained without reference to the concept of a persisting subjective core (ātman)."
Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Pg 126 by Westerhoff

This is I think what Tsongkhapa clearly sees where many din where he creatively talk about how the mere-I takes rebirth.

Also in page 99, Westerhoff remarked:

"It also has to be noted that Nāgārjuna asserts, somewhat puzzlingly, that the absence of svabhāva, that is, emptiness, is not compatible with causation either"

This part is also important how should dependent arising be understood on top of the idea of "no essential nature".

So if u really want to understand what I meant by point 5-6 in my reply to William, u must understand these few questions. 

Otherwise u can learn from mmk to see how dependent relations in terms of nominal and existential dependencies, agency-action, object-properties and cause-conditions-effect relationships help to
render svabhava as untenable.These reasonings will help the mind to release itself from grasping after svabhava in time to come.  If the verses of mmk can go along with some vipassana exercises, that will be excellent.  The combination will liberate the mind from all ghost images created by languages and conceptual superimpositions in a thorough and powerful way.  Unfortunately this can't be found in books so u have to devise urself along the way...lol. 😂

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

ManiThePainter

Posts: 130

Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:04 pm

Location: Vancouver, BC

Contact:

Contact ManiThePainter

Post by ManiThePainter » Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:06 am

According to John Tan, this is one of the rare books where Madhyamaka is explained from the perspective of experiential insight.

https://www.amazon.com/Karmapas-Middle-Way-Feast-Fortunate/dp/1559394889

• • 
    
  
  
• 
  
John Tan
André A. Pais read the downloaded sample version Feast for the Fortunate and I like it very much, bought the kindle version. Very lucid presentation and unbiased in his commentaries even when involving other schools of thought eg...Gelug. Indeed very fortunate to have commentaries with experiential insights from 9th Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje of Kagyu tradition on madhyamakavatara.

Just re-read this article from the dharma connection group, which I liked: http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-ultimate-nature-of-phenomena_15.html

The Ultimate Nature of Phenomena

Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised.
~
I love these lines. But what is "the ultimate nature of phenomena"? Is there an essence is Buddhism? If emptiness is not a thing, but the way things are, what are they made of?

6 people like this. (Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 7:56am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

"Appearance is mind and emptiness is mind. " In this line of the same text, what does it mean to say emptiness is mind?

(Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 8:04am)
Kyle Dixon

I'm not sure what term is translated as "Ultimate nature of phenomena" in that quote (it is a common one I've seen attributed to a few individuals such as Jigme Lingpa), but in general the ultimate nature of phenomena is that they are non-arisen i.e. empty.

The essence of things is usually emptiness, however that is like saying "things are empty in essence", "the essential nature of X is that it is empty", it does not mean emptiness is an 'essence' in the sense of something substantiated.

Conditioned 'things' are the result of confusion, when seen for what they are they are known to be unreal. So they are not made of anything per se, since ultimately they cannot be found when sought. A 'thing' as such is a nominal designation, a mere inference, useful as a convention, but ultimately the object that the convention infers is unfindable.

7 liked this (Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 8:08am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena,
which is the basis of everything, be realised.

May the unconfused genuine self-nature be known by self-nature itself.

~

These 2 lines too seem to point to an essence, a clear light, or primordial mind. A kind of vedantic pure consciousness. It's this thing that has been itching a lot lately. I come from an Advaita background, where awareness is the ultimate essence of all appearances. But I feel pulled to the buddhist view of emptiness of all things, even consciousness. But I can't see how can pure consciousness itself be dependently originated...

(Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 8:16am)
Kyle Dixon

Not a Vedantic type consciousness, because Vedanta posits an uncaused. existent, transpersonal, ontological consciousness that subsumes everything.

Those lines do point to an essence or primordial mind, however just as your original quote states, it is nothing truly established as existent or non-existent. The mind is luminous and cognizant, but it is also empty and non-arisen... when we are ignorant of its emptiness we reify the luminous cognizance into a personal reference point which is relating to conditioned objects (objects that can exist or not-exist).

'Consciousness' [skt. vijñāna, tib. rnam shes] in the context of the buddhadharma usually refers specifically to that species dualistic cognition, i.e. a subject relating to objects. Therefore consciousness is considered to be an afflictive cognition since it is influenced by ignorance [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa].

The opposite of consciousness is 'wisdom' [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes]. When one recognizes their nature as being empty and free from extremes, then that 'consciousness' is no longer a deluded cognition that is cognizing conditioned objects, it instead directly and experientially knows the emptiness of those objects. That is why the quote says "may the unconfused genuine self-nature be known by self-nature itself".

This is not pointing to a truly established cognition though, especially since that wisdom entails a collapse of the ignorance that mistakes itself as an abiding reference point in relation to objects. The wisdom knows its own nature, as empty; which is the "unconfused genuine self-nature". For instance in the same way consciousness knows a chair, wisdom knows the non-arising of that chair. But this is still just a conventional description, it is not pointing to something real or something established. This does not mean that everything is subsumed into awareness, it simply means that there is a genuine knowledge of one's nature.

5 liked this (Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10:04am)
Kyle Dixon

It is important to understand the concept of 'conventional truth' in Buddhism, because you may ask why these texts are stating that there is a 'self-nature' and a 'basis' and so on, why would they be doing this if these things are in fact unestablished and ultimately unreal? It is because the ultimate truth of things is their non-arising or emptiness, and what are those 'things' that are ultimately empty? They are conventions which are mistaken to be real things. So these alleged conventional objects are precisely what are realized to be unreal, and this means that we can relate to conventions freely because they are never pointing to anything actually 'real' or established. All conventions are simply useful nominal designations, tools for communication. The problem arises when we mistake these conventions to be something more than just a convention.

Conventions are reliable as long as they are not subjected to keen investigation. That is how 'convention' is defined per buddhism, a correct convention [tathyasaṃvṛti] is, according to Śāntarakṣita; "something can be tacitly accepted as long as it is not critically investigated, that is characterized by arising and decay, and that has causal effectivity." So the validity of a convention is measured by its efficacy, if it appears to function correctly, then it can be accepted as a correct convention prior to its investigation. In the wake of investigating any convention it will fail, since conventions cannot withstand proper scrutiny.

So there is no problem stating that there is a 'self-nature', because when that convention is subjected to scrutiny that self-nature would be ultimately unfindable. Yet the term "self-nature" is a conventional designation that is pointing to the capacity of 'wisdom' mentioned above, which is completely free from the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither.

For instance, Longchenpa discusses that nature here:

"Mind itself [i.e., the nature of mind: tib. sems nyid] - naturally occurring timeless awareness [i.e., self-originated primordial wisdom: tib. rang byung ye shes] - has no substance or characteristics. Since it is empty yet lucid and free of elaboration, it cannot be conceived of as 'this' or 'that'. Although it can be illustrated by a metaphor - 'It is like space' - if one reflects on space as the metaphor, it proves to have no color, no shape, or anything about it that is identifiable. Therefore, if the metaphor being used does not refer to some 'thing', then the underlying meaning that it illustrates - mind itself, pure by nature - is not something that has ever existed in the slightest."

8 liked this (Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10:14am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

In buddhism how is reality seen? I mean, in the approach I come from (Krishnamenon's direct path - Rupert Spira, Greg Goode, etc.), visually speaking, for example, objects are known to be just colors. "Color" is just another name for seeing (meaning, the presence of color). Then seeing is just a form of awareness.

Object >> Color >> Seeing >> Awareness;
Object >> Sound >> Hearing >> Awareness;
Etc.

So this approach has its basis in what they call Direct Experience. All that is experienced is colors, sounds, etc - no physical objects are given. Then not even colors or sounds, just the knowing of them, etc. So in the end reality becomes just pure experiencing, without a solid substance or reality, except for awareness, which is not physical nor possessing any characteristic whatsoever.

In this view, one could say that the objects are empty because they depend on the colors/sensations/etc., which depend on seeing/sensing/etc., which depend on awareness.

How does buddhism arrive at the view of emptiness? A car is empty because it is made of several parts, lacking inherent existence - there is no "car-ness" is the object conventionally named as car. There are only wheels, metal, plastic, rubber, etc. And in each of these, there are other components, etc., all the way down to molecules and atoms and particles and...(?)...

But this is the conventional view (atoms, etc.). None of this (atoms, particles, etc.) is given in direct experience. In direct experience, there is only colors, sounds, etc. Does buddhism believe in atoms and particles that are not given in direct experience?

For instance, the emptiness of an object rests in its being dependent on causes, right? But a cause is not verified in experience. An apple is supposedly dependent on many factors, but many of those are not present in experience - the sun, the rain, the soil, the farmer, etc. Where do all those abide as we experience the apple?

(Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 8:45am)
Kyle Dixon

Alleged objects being broken down into constituent factors such as color, shape etc., in the context of Buddhism is an example of exploring how things originate dependently, i.e., dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].

However when these appearances are treated as ultimately being awareness in traditions like Śrī Atmananda's, this sets up a unilateral dependency where awareness is treated as an irreducible principle. This is due to the nature of those paths, but the Buddhist system does not uphold a view of that nature.

For example if X is dependent upon awareness, awareness would also be dependent upon X. Because both are dependent, neither can stand alone, they are both conditional principles and for that reason they are not something which has an independent, autonomous nature.

Not only that, but Buddhism states that because things only originate in dependence upon what defines them, they do not originate at all. For to legitimately originate and have existence, a 'thing' or capacity would have to manifest without cause and be unconditioned. However since such a thing cannot be found, there ultimately is no origination.

But every separate principle is essentially the implication of every other principle. When we search for an object as a 'thing' in itself apart from color, size, dimension, sensory cognition, location, texture, awareness, etc., we cannot find that object. Said object also cannot be found within those appearances. But this also goes for each of those appearances themselves, including awareness.

This view also leads to a lack of solid substance or reality, or any type of substance or reality apart from the nominal designation 'reality'.

Deconstructing things down to molecules and atoms is one way to approach emptiness however I personally do not like that approach because molecules and atoms are not things we can directly cognize without an instrument. It is better to work with one's direct cognition.

The most effective way to view 'cause' is as ignorance [avidyā]. When things arise due to causes they arise due to misconception. Like taking a mirage to be a real oasis, the oasis arises as a result of a cause, that cause is ignorance regarding its true nature as being devoid of any substance or reality. When we finally recognize that the oasis is a mirage, the misconception of an oasis is immediately liberated. And it is directly known that there never was an actual oasis from the very beginning. All things are like that. They appear due to the cause of ignorance and abide as long as the conditions of ignorance remain, when ignorance is dispelled, said object is known to be non-arisen.

For example, Nāgārjuna states:

"When the perfect vidyā sees
That things come from ignorance as condition,
Nothing will then be objectified,
Either in terms of arising or destruction...

...Since the Buddhas have stated
That the world is conditioned by ignorance,
Why is it not reasonable [to assert]
That this world is [a result of] conceptualization?

Since it comes to an end
When ignorance ceases;
Why does it not become clear then
That it was conjured by ignorance?"

6 liked this (Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 9:26am)
Kinkok Sin

I think it is akin to what is called a field of force in science. You can't see the field, but you can see the impact of the field. So the ultimate could be a field of force of consciousness. You cannot see that field but you can experience the impact of that field in the form of awareness. Starting with basic or raw awareness, consciousness can evolved (initiated by an initial misknowledge of duality) into what we now experience as ordinary consciousness. This is how I see it. I could be wrong, so take it with whatever dosage of salt you consider necessary for yourself.

(Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 10:28am)
Viorica Doina Neacsu

Great thread! Thank you Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb and Kyle! :)

1 liked this (Friday, September 12, 2014 at 12:32am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

Thanks Kyle, for your insights in this and other posts.

The thing is that in the direct path approach right from the beginning "things" are seen as not existing. Even subtler objects like color or shapes are seen as nothing more than pure awareness or experience. Experience, right from the beginning is known to be undivided, seamless, whole.

In such a context, I find it hard to explore emptiness, because in a way there are no things to be empty or not empty. One could say that things are empty because they depend on experience or on being known, but in doing so, one creates a division (experience vs objects in experience / knowing vs. objects known) that is not given in direct experience.

Another way would be to see that objects are empty because they are no where to be found when not being experienced - so they don't inherently exist. But if they are not being experienced, they are neither existent nor non-existent, so talking about their emptiness is moot.

In the context of this type of non-dual perception, where only undivided experience is seen, how is the emptiness understood?

(Friday, September 12, 2014 at 8:28pm)
Kyle Dixon

As you seem to know already, the direct path approach is simply a different path and view. In terms of the direct path, which is a teaching of Advaita Vedanta, things are seen to lack existence because they are in fact an undifferentiated pure consciousness [purusha], which is transpersonal, truly existent and unconditioned. Which means that consciousness is as you said: an "undivided, seamless, whole."

In such a context it would indeed be hard to explore emptiness, because that context contradicts emptiness by nature. According to Advaita, there may be no so-called 'relative' things to be empty or not-empty, but there is a truly existent purusha instead, which by Advaita's standards; is definitely not-empty.

In terms of Vedanta, 'things' are not empty but are unreal because they belong to prakṛti, and prakṛti is māyā. Only cit is real, which is the purusha or pure consciousness i.e. brahman. So things do not even depend upon experience or 'being known', because ultimately there is only a single undifferentiated, existent pure consciousness.

In the buddhadharma, things are empty not only because they depend upon being experienced or known, but for other reasons too. The apparent division is not a problem, because as I attempted to explain above with 'convention', these alleged divisions are simply conventional in nature, and are ultimately empty. This however does not mean there is a single undivided whole, for that would simply be another thing to be empty. The ultimate truth in the buddhadharma is simply the fact that the 'things' which are inferred by convention are ultimately unfindable. The realization is epistemic and not ontological like Adviata. The buddhadharma is not saying we cannot find these things because they are actually this undivided pure consciousness, it is saying we cannot find these things at all. They appear, yet are unreal and so they have never arisen in the first place.

As for the idea that "objects are empty because they are no where to be found when not being experienced - so they don't inherently exist", by the standards of the buddhadharma this would actually fail to overcome inherent existence because Advaita would state that these alleged objects are actually the single undivided purusha which does inherently exist.

Talking about the emptiness of said objects would be moot in the context of Advaita, because those objects are simply māyā and the only thing that exists is purusha, so objects are not being experienced either way (as there is only pure consciousness). In the context of the buddhadharma, said objects are ultimately unfindable whether they are allegedly being experienced or not, so the duality of 'experienced objects' versus 'unexperienced objects' is also inapplicable (yet because said division between experienced and unexperienced objects is merely conventional, in terms of the buddhadharma; one would be free to say there are experienced and unexperienced objects due to the fact that this is ultimately untrue, for ultimately everything is empty and lacks inherent existence).

As for your last question: "In the context of this type of non-dual perception, where only undivided experience is seen, how is the emptiness understood?"

In that context emptiness is not understood (and is not meant to be), because that single undivided experience is held to be inherently existent.

5 liked this (Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 6:59am)
Viorica Doina Neacsu

“Therefore it is said that whoever makes a philosophical view out of emptiness is indeed lost.” Nagarjuna

3 liked this (Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 7:24am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

Kyle,

>>>>> The ultimate truth in the buddhadharma is simply the fact that the 'things' which are inferred by convention are ultimately unfindable. The realization is epistemic and not ontological like Adviata.<<<<<<

I can see how things are unfindable through the conventional route of "molecules, atoms & particles". There is just empty space in the end. But through direct experience, where there is merely colors or perception or experience, how are things unfindable? Experience seems pretty obvious and irreducible. But I'm open and willing to see through the apparent inherency of it (deep sleep seems to be a good example of experience's emptiness...).

Or one could say that experience is empty because it depends on causes, like there being any perception or activity of any kind to appear as experience. Experience of nothingness is no experience at all, so experience depends on somethingness to appear.

And could you explain the ontological and the epistemic stuff? Philosophy is not my forte!

~

>>>>>The buddhadharma is not saying we cannot find these things because they are actually this undivided pure consciousness, it is saying we cannot find these things at all. They appear, yet are unreal and so they have never arisen in the first place.<<<<<<

Ok, this is serious stuff, imo. A car is not found as a car, but there is some experience, rather then nothing. Something appears, like you said - be it colors, knowing, perception, experiencing, etc... They appear, but are unreal - in the sense that they are not what they claim to be, right? A car is not a "car", it's a bunch of other stuff (its several pieces and components) or at least something else (a perception or experience). But the appearance is made of something right? The image of the Eiffel tower in my head is not made of metal, because it is not the Eiffel tower, but just an image. But as an image, it is made of "mental stuff" or consciousness (conventionally or neurologically speaking). What are things made of then? Or does Buddhism refuse to assume such explicit ontological positions? How come you're saying they've never arisen at all? What is it that exists as "this" right now?

I'm not disagreeing with you. On the contrary, I'm truly hungry for that depth of understanding.

~

>>>>> In that context emptiness is not understood (and is not meant to be), because that single undivided experience is held to be inherently existent.<<<<<<

This was probably asked above already, but how then can the emptiness insight be brought into this perspective? How can one pierce through the aparent inherency of experience or pure awareness? How can awareness, devoid of characteristics, be caused by something else?

Soh seems to have come from the Awareness teachings, but later moved through to the emptiness view. How can this be done?

Thank you!

(Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 9:56am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

"If you would free yourself of the sufferings
of samsara, you must learn the direct way to become a
Buddha. This way is no other than the realization of your own Mind.
Now what is this Mind? It is the true nature of all sentient beings, that
which existed before our parents were born and hence before our
own birth, and which presently exists, unchangeable and eternal."

This was taken from the Three Pillars of Zen. What was Bassui talking about here? Was he pointing to the realization of I Am or One Mind? Was he falling victim to the view of inherency?

(Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 10:11am)
Kyle Dixon

Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb you wrote:
"I can see how things are unfindable through the conventional route of 'molecules, atoms & particles'. There is just empty space in the end. But through direct experience, where there is merely colors or perception or experience, how are things unfindable? Experience seems pretty obvious and irreducible. But I'm open and willing to see through the apparent inherency of it (deep sleep seems to be a good example of experience's emptiness...)."

You'll probably have to step away from approaching 'experience' or 'direct experience' as a reductive unity or a thing-in-itself. Doing so will probably mean you'd have to let go of the idea of a single consciousness or awareness that is cognizing phenomena as well. In Buddhism there is no single central consciousness that everything is appearing to, but instead many different consciousnesses (six to eight depending on the system). There is an eye consciousness which perceives shape, color and so on, and a olfactory consciousness which cognizes various aromas etc.

For example: the point of the "eye-consciousness" [cakṣurvijñāna] (and the other seven consciousnesses) is to propose a conventional model (for the purposes of upāya) in order to allow the aspirant a means to pierce the seeming inherency of consciousness in general. The eight-consciousness model (for example) is not a statement (or proposition) of ontological truth, when these models are presented they are not meant to say there is truly eight consciousnesses, those consciousnesses are conventional designations which are implemented as a skillful means. And that exclusively conventional nature is characteristically implied due to the fact that the buddhadharma contends that inherency (in general) is a figment of deluded cognition which is completely unreal. Therefore the label "eye consciousness" is a term which is implemented so that the visual faculty and all of its implied constitutional characteristics can be compartmentalized into a single grouping for the purposes of analysis or expeditious delineation (eye-consciousness accounting for (i) sensory organ [eye], (ii) sensory cognition [seeing] and (iii) sensory objects [sights]).

So in terms of 'direct experience' as such; the eight-consciousnesses [aṣṭavijñāna] is one example of a conventional model that is meant to be a tangible and empirical guideline for said experience. In applying a provisional model of this nature, and taking into consideration that nothing ultimately has inherent existence, we undoubtably already run into an issue as to how we are now choosing to define 'direct experience'. Is that experience singular? Are there eight different direct experiences corresponding to the eight different consciousnesses? If so, is there a hierarchy as to which experience is more valid or superior in comparison to the others? And so on. In this way we find that even the idea of 'experience' or 'direct experience' as such is really a "broad conceptual generalization" as Greg Goode once put it. How can we define such a notion, and what would the criteria be for that definition?

It's perfectly okay to use 'experience' as a conventional designation, but once we believe that said conventional experience transcends being a mere inference then problems begin to arise.

Conventionally we can say that appearances manifest ceaselessly, however the buddhadharma is not concerned with the fact that appearances manifest, but rather with how said appearances are related to, or are known. This is what it means for emptiness to be an epistemology rather than an ontology. Buddhism isn't trying to establish an ontological X, because ultimately, how is an ontological existent any different than an identity? If 'things' have an ontological status, then they exist, if they exist then they have an essence, to have an essence is to have something that X truly 'is', and that would be no different than having an identity, or a self. So buddhism objects to the idea that there is a global reductive X (be it consciousness or experience) because said X would be no different than an identity. Buddhism as a soteriological methodology is interested in freeing sentient beings from the mistaken notion of a fixed essential identity, and stating that there is an ultimate ontological X that we truly are (instead of being the so-called individual self we take ourselves to be) is simply trading one identity for another.

Therefore buddhism is epistemic because to realize emptiness is to know (or cognize) phenomena correctly. Presently, as afflicted sentient beings we relate to phenomena through invalid cognitions which perceive truly existent objects, persons, places, time, space etc. We mistakenly believe that there are things which have arisen, abide in time and can cease (or are born, live and die), and this causes suffering because we then grasp at phenomena. We cherish and cling to things or people, we suffer when those things are lost or destroyed, or when those we love leave or pass away. However this is all due to misunderstanding phenomena. When we know phenomena correctly, then we recognize that they have been in a state of perfection since beginningless time (or this is at least how Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna define this principle). Upon realizing that phenomena are non-arisen [empty] we directly know that they have never arisen, have never abided, and have never ceased at any point. Not only that but principles such as time, space, distance, coming, going, here, there, subject, object, presence, absence, dimension, life, death, consciousness, body, mind, senses, perception, etc., are all liberated. For someone who has a complete and unobstructed wisdom-knowledge of emptiness, such notions can be related to conventionally, but they know that those concepts do not refer to anything real.

"Like a dream, an illusion, [or] seeing two moons: Thus have You seen the world, as a creation not created as real. Like a son who is born, established, and dies in a dream, the world, You have said, is not really born, does not endure, and is not destroyed."
- Acintyastavaḥ

3 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 8:09am)
Kyle Dixon

Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb you wrote:
"Ok, this is serious stuff, imo. A car is not found as a car, but there is some experience, rather then nothing. Something appears, like you said - be it colors, knowing, perception, experiencing, etc... They appear, but are unreal - in the sense that they are not what they claim to be, right? A car is not a 'car', it's a bunch of other stuff (its several pieces and components) or at least something else (a perception or experience)."

Reducing something like a car to other pieces or components can be one form of emptiness analysis, however ultimately this can still potentially lend to the idea of an essence or a substance (so one would have to be mindful not to make that error). If we are saying that a car is truly made of other things, then we are not overcoming the perception of there actually being a true 'something' that the car is made of. The actual point is to effectively realize that there is no car to be found anywhere, within or apart from the aggregates which apparently constitute a car. Even in principle these notions carry certain implications which lend to the unreality of car; for if said aggregates no longer serve to construct a car, then what is maintaining a relationship between said aggregates in general? If there is no essence that those aggregates are serving to constitute, then there is nothing ultimately tethering one aggregate to another. If nothing is holding them together then we begin to lose structure and continuity, for what is maintaining the perception of said aggregates having a valid extension in time, or in space? Or how are we defining space or time themselves? Do they not themselves depend on the perception of an appearance which is manifesting as a single 'thing' in consecutive instances? So these are examples of questions and implications that arise due to investigating a given appearance. The car cannot be reduced to its aggregates because that would then give credence to the inherency of the aggregates themselves. The aggregates are also fallible, and never arise, abide or cease, they do not create anything, and possess no validity in and of themselves.

Overall though, in the example of a car the point is to attempt and find the 'car' in itself, or perhaps to find the 'self' in itself if we are relating to our own experience. We mistake these things to have a true inherent essence, and become deluded into believing that they actually exist (or that they can lack existence). The idea is to fail in finding that 'core' or 'essence' which makes a thing that 'thing', because when we fail to find that essence, we have the potential to realize that there never has been a thing in the first place, the 'thing' was only ever a misconception. And this goes for 'experience' too, for example if you experience something troubling in a dream, and are under the influence of that dream, then you have no discernment to say "this isn't real, this is just a dream" and so the apparent events that unfold in the dream can seem to effect you. You may be upset, or scared, or even very happy. But when you wake up that experience is immediately known to have been unreal, and so the emotions related to said dream events are immediately liberated. Realizing emptiness is like that, except one wakes up to this so-called waking experience and realizes it to be equally unreal. The point isn't whether appearances manifest, but how they are known. If you are lucid in a dream you simply know that everything that appears is an unreal display, nothing being created or destroyed, nothing coming or going, nothing actually 'there'... yet illusory appearance manifests. Likewise if you realize the non-arising of appearances then you simply know that everything that appears is an unreal display, nothing being created or destroyed, nothing coming or going, nothing actually 'there'... yet illusory appearance manifests.

3 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 8:51am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

>>>>>If you are lucid in a dream you simply know that everything that appears is an unreal display, nothing being created or destroyed, nothing coming or going, nothing actually 'there'<<<<<<

There is nothing actually there as it appears to be. But something was experienced in the dream - colors, thoughts, emotions. What are those made of? I realize that if you say "they are ultimately made of X", then that will be an essence that escapes the seal of impermanence or emptiness.

But I'm having a hard time in seeing things as being made of nothing at all. I was comfortable with Advaita, because things were still transitory appearances - empty of being separate, objective or anything at all by themselves -, but ultimately there was a substance at their root - awareness itself, which is a void, but not non-existent.

Now here things are really shaky right now. Can't seem to even know how to inquire or investigate stuff...

(Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 9:12am)
अष्टावक्र शान्ति

Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb ,you still have the conventional side of the Two Truths. Conventional attainments, releases,...

(Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 9:46am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

What do you mean, अष्टावक्र शान्ति?

(Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:12am)
अष्टावक्र शान्ति

If you put emphasis on only one aspect of the two truths(ultimate truth) you go into nihilism!

"Of course, this Buddhist division of truths sounds dualistic. But it is not dualistic, because the two truths are identical. That is, the ultimate truth is that the conventional truth is the only truth there is." - Emptiness and Joyful Freedom - Greg Good, Tomas Sander

2 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:33am)
Kyle Dixon

Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb, Different systems give different explanations as to why appearance known in direct perception [pratyakṣa] manifests, each explanation ultimately corresponding to the nature of their praxis and methods. None of those systems state that appearances are "ultimately made of X" though. They may conventionally state they are made of any number of things; mind, traces, causes, energy, wisdom - but to state that phenomena is truly 'made' is to say said phenomena has an essence [svabhāva]. Phenomena do not have svabhāva because if they did indeed have an essence they would be fixed, undynamic and unable to appear, so they are not 'made'. Appearances are essenceless and free from extremes, ultimately never arising, abiding or ceasing.

These systems are soteriological in nature, and so the most important thing is a correct cognition of said appearances.

Overall though, why do they need to be made of something? And what would stop that description from being more fodder for the mind to grasp at? The idea is to ultimately remove notions of essence and substantiality.

2 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:26am)
Kyle Dixon

Even in a system like Dzogchen, which does give an explanation on how something like color arises, the varying capacities and principles involved are ultimately nothing more than literary devices.

(Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:41am)
Kyle Dixon

AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sūtra:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

1 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 10:56am)
Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb

>>>>>>the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer. <<<<<<

This means there is only seeing, not a seen nor a seer? Not anything unseen nor yet to be seen? This makes sense to me.

But how can this seeing be understood as being empty? Seeing seems to be going on continuously and unobstructedly. It seems to be the nature of experience itself, thus reality's essential nature.

(Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 11:07am)
Kyle Dixon

Well, not 'just' seeing because that would be a reductionist view. Buddhism avoids reducing everything to one thing. Seer, seeing, seen are technically all purified through realizing emptiness. It is called threefold purity.

For instance there is another Sūtra where Śākyamuni is addressing Bāhiya and he states "in the seeing just the seen", so these are really just pointers and aren't meant to be absolute statements.

In describing the same type of insight Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said; "Seeing no thing is the supreme sight."

So it isn't as it there is 'just seeing' or 'just seen'.

Maybe try reading chapter 3 of Nāgārjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika.

2 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 12:50pm)
Soh

Bdcrtgb Rcnrcrrdfvnb: Replied you yesterday, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../reply-to-br...

4 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 1:02pm)
Soh

Bahiya Sutta is not 'only seeing' but 'in the seen only the seen' with 'no you in terms of that'. There's a difference. Seeing can still be a subtle subjective reference point.

4 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 1:05pm)
Soh

The point of Bahiya Sutta is to realize there is absolutely no seer nor seeing behind/within/in-between/besides seen/heard/cognized. Then anatta is realized. But that is just the beginning.

4 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 1:10pm)
Viorica Doina Neacsu

Beautiful and very clear article, Soh. :)
I thought i will not read all your article thinking that is long and i have no time.... but your right words, right speech, right view didn't let me to go away.... so much clarity ....with each paragraph your words became a soft and kind energy.... wisdom... true delight... Thank you so much!

3 liked this (Sunday, September 14, 2014 at 8:25pm)