Wrote to someone who insists that luminosity is the reality of all appearances:

In Buddhism, as taught in Prajnaparamita and MMK, all the way to Dzogchen, there is no reality.

As Krodha (https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/) explained:

Gnas lugs med pa (there is no reality).

——

The ultimate is only the lack of reality of the conventional, that is the inseparability of the two truths.

Mind is empty so it’s “reality” is negated. Same with the external world. The mind and the external world are only valid conventionally, which according to Candrakīrti, means the mind and the world are nominal imputations which capture the consistency of a deluded cognition.

Hence the Tibetan saying gnas lugs med pa “there is no reality.”

——

John tan also wrote before:

"Realness" as in the taste of incredible vividness, clear, lurid appearances.  However it is the taste of crystal, vividness but realising it is nothing "real" that is most interesting.  Empty of essence, luminous by nature is magic of wonderous manifestions and spontaneous perfection.

Nevertheless, if "realness" leads to total openness in authenticating sensations, colors, taste, smell...etc...then by all means...🤣

One is seeing through reification of constructs, the other is the experiential taste of empty and non-arising of what appears.

Tasting  the "realness" of what appears and what appears is nothing real r two different insights.  I wrote these b4.

…

It is not only realising mere appearances r just one's radiance clarity but empty clarity is like that...like a 🌈.  Beautiful and clearly appears, but nothing "there" at all.  These 2 aspects r very important.  

1.  Very "vivid", pellucid

2.  Nothing real

Tasting either one will not trigger the "aha" realization.

——

Someone asked: if not solipsism, then you seem to be advocating nihilism - nothing exists. is that correct?

Krodha replied:

Typically in buddhadharma, a view of nihilism (ucceda) is one that negates conventional entities. I am not negating conventional entities.

In terms of things existing, I defer to Buddhapalita who said "we are not making claims of nonexistence, but rather, we are refuting claims for existing existents."

Generally, the "nonexistence" we are avoiding in terms of the classical tetralemma is an entity that previously existed, has ceased to exist, and now is nonexistent. That type of nonexistence is refuted, because it necessitates an entity that existed previously. In emptiness however, we are challenging the validity of the entity in question from the very beginning, and therefore come to realize that the entity in question is ultimately free from the four extremes of (i) existence, (ii) nonexistence, (iii) both, and (iv) neither. Traditionally these four positions were respectively directed at eternalists, nihilists, Jains and sophists of various kinds, but in general we can simply see them as four possibilities in terms of ontological status.

If the entity cannot be found, then there is no entity to conform to one of these "extremes." Now, in Mahayana, the implications or consequences of this are sort of taken to their limit, especially in terms of understanding the negation of existence. If the existence of something is refuted, then such a thing cannot truly be said to exist. Some of these sutras are quite comfortable stating that phenomena ultimately do not exist for this reason, but only because the phenomena in question cannot be verified or found when sought after.

Which is all to say that this issue is not so cut and dry, and I am not out to simply make coarse assertions without taking this subtle aspects of the teaching into question.

But in some senses, yes, what can be said to exist? We can certainly say that phenomena have a conventional status, and we would say they "exist" conventionally, or "don't exist" conventionally. For instance, the moon "exists" certainly. But two moons "do not exist." This is addressing existence and nonexistence on the level of convention. Then, when emptiness comes into play, we have to understand that we are challenging the ontological status of the entities that convention infers. Is the moon truly (ultimately) an established entity? This is what emptiness is investigating, and as a rule of thumb, the conclusion that we come to is no, an entity like the moon is not an entity that can be found when sought, for it cannot withstand "keen" scrutiny. That being the case, the true existence of the moon is then brought into question, or rather, outright negated in the view of emptiness. Sure, the moon appears, yes, the basis of designation, the bundle of sensory appearances, is certainly there, but does that bundle contain or create an entity? Is there a core entity, a svabhava, made-by or found inside that bundle of appearances? These teachings say no, and in the end we are left with an appearance of something that isn't actually there. What would one call an appearance of something that isn't actually there? An illusion. But this is all just intellectual, and this matter is not intended to be an intellectual exercise, or at least not solely. The point is to actually realize this experientially, and that is where the liberating, "soteriological" value is derived from.

u/jozzb

——

There is no reality, also no brahman and this is not nihilism in buddhism. 

Everything seen and heard are luminous and vivid, but are only med par gsal snang a “nonexistent clear appearance” or a “clearly apparent nonexistent,” with no seer, no seeing and nothing seen

Completely equivalent to the eight examples of illusions

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Eight_similes_of_illusion

Eight similes of illusion

Jump to navigationJump to search

The eight similes of illusion (Tib. སྒྱུ་མའི་དཔེ་བརྒྱད་, gyumé pé gyé, Wyl. sgyu ma'i dpe brgyad) are (in the order in which they appear in Longchenpa's Finding Comfort and Ease in the Illusoriness of Things):

Dream: like a dream, objects perceived with the five senses are not there, but they appear through delusion

Magical illusion: like a magic illusion, things are made to appear due to the temporary coming together of causes and conditions

Hallucination or trompe-l'oeil: like a hallucination, things appear, yet there is nothing there

Mirage: like a mirage, things appear, but they are not real

Echo: like an echo, things can be perceived, but there is nothing there, either inside or outside

City of gandharvas: like a city of gandharvas, there is neither a dwelling nor anyone to dwell

Reflection: like a reflection, things appear, but have no reality of their own

Apparition: like an apparition, there are different types of appearances, but they are not really there

——

In buddhism, everything is illusory, including and up to nirvana (cessation of delusion and suffering).

As the prajnaparamita sutras state:

“"Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than Nirvāṇa, that too will be only an illusion.”

— https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/the-concept-of-sunyata-in-mahayana.html

——

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!

——

No

Emptiness is not some inherently existing reality.

Like i shared this before:

“

All Things Have One Nature, That Is, No Nature

Friends

John Tan and I like this excerpt.

John Tan:

“I really like this article from Jay Garfield expressing "emptiness of emptiness" as:

1. The everydayness of everyday.

2. Penetrating to the depth of being, we find ourselves back to the surface of things.

3. There is nothing after all beneath these deceptive surfaces.

Also concisely and precisely expressed the key insight of anatta in ATR.”

“That is what I always thought is the key insight of Tsongkhapa also. Like the phases of insights in ATR through contemplating no-self (a negation), one directly and non-dually tastes the vivid appearances.”

The excerpt:

“Now, since all things are empty, all things lack any ultimate nature, and this is a characterization of what things are like from the ultimate perspective. Thus, ultimately, things are empty. But emptiness is, by definition, the lack of any essence or ultimate nature. Nature, or essence, is just what empty things are empty of. Hence, ultimately, things must lack emptiness. To be ultimately empty is, ultimately, to lack emptiness. In other words, emptiness is the nature of all things; by virtue of this they have no nature, not even emptiness. As Nagarjuna puts it in his autocommentary to the Vigrahavyavartanı, quoting lines from the Astasahasrika-prajnaparamita-sutra: ‘‘All things have one nature, that is, no nature.’’

Nagarjuna’s enterprise is one of fundamental ontology, and the conclusion he comes to is that fundamental ontology is impossible. But that is a fundamentally ontological conclusion—and that is the paradox. There is no way that things are ultimately, not even that way. The Indo-Tibetan tradition, following the Vimalakırtinirdesa-sutra, hence repeatedly advises one to learn to ‘‘tolerate the groundlessness of things.’’ The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and, in the end, that it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things, and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath these deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we take there to be ontological depths lurking just beneath.”

Jay Garfield & Graham Priest, in "Nagarjuna and the limits of thought"

(Source of text: https://app.box.com/s/ne0b0wwismozwkftpe1h3tx4ew7mi9gn)”

 John Tan:

To me, this separation of "existence" from "what appears" is unique and very skillful.  "Non-existence" appearance is essentially the same insight as anatta.  It involves the 2 authentications:

1.  Seeing through the reification of conventional construct and

2. Recognition of appearances as one's empty clarity.

What makes appearances appear "real, solid and external" are our mistaken perception of the inherent framework of subject-action-object.  But that is only part of the confusion.  The other is not realizing what appears is just radiance, that is y it is illusory and insubstantial.

However if we deconstruct entities and characteristics, then mind and phenomena, consciousness and conditions are all deconstructed, u can't treat mind as real due to point 1.  Otherwise one skewed towards yogacara (but then yogacara doesn't actually treat mind as real either).  It is sort of strawman stereotyping a group of practitioners attaching to mind as real.

—-

Therefore there r 2 parts:

1.  Understand and clearly see how the conceptual conventions confused the mind.

2.  Directly experiencing appearances as one's radiance

But some masters can see 1 yet the path they teach can't match with 2.

While other masters try to teach 2 but their view cannot doesn't match.

This is most problematic.

—-

Yes what x said is good.

What originates dependently does not originate, abide and cease. Neither internal nor external nor is there a here and now. This must be directly linked to what appears and not as a mental enterprise. 

So in anatta, 

there is no hearer, only sound.

there is no thinker, only thoughts.

Sound is neither internal in our head nor external in the world.

Thought is also not inside our head nor is it outside our head.

The spell from our faulty premise creates that impression,

Freedom of that is liberation.

If she stabilises this experience of essencelessness post anatta, the radiance will turn very soothing, very light and transparent; like space, free and liberating. Appearances turn illusory and magical, joy will keep surfacing in every authentication. Her clogged energy will surely be released.😁

——

Actually after authenticating appearances r radiances, I see the next most important step is to arise insight of DO and emptiness.  It is a sort of special insight that sees the "middle path" and we use this insight to re-orientate our conventional world view and understand  8 extremes do not apply.

——

I shared this with someone recently 

“Even when all is mind is taught, it was not asserted by the Buddha that such a mind is a universal mind or a truly existing mind. Mind is empty of mind, this too was clearly taught by the Buddha. 

Therefore as Mipham wrote and criticised self-styled followers who misinterpreted the Yogacara founder Asangha:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/iyepfk/madhyamaka_cittamātra_and_the_true_intent_of/ (highly recommend to read the whole text in full)

...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...

...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this...

Bodhidharma, the first Zen patriarch of China:

'To find a Buddha all you have to do is see your nature (見性). Your nature is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the person who's free: free of plans, free of cares. If you don't see your nature and run around all day looking somewhere else, you'll never find a buddha. The truth is there's nothing to find.'

(The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, p 13; T48, no. 2009, p. 373c17-20)

'To attain enlightenment (成佛) you have to see your nature (見性). Unless you see your nature, all this talk about cause and effect is nonsense (外道法). Buddhas don't practice nonsense. A Buddha free of karma free of cause and effect. To say he attains anything at all is to slander a Buddha. What could he possibly attain? Even focusing on a mind, a power, an understanding, or a view is impossible for a Buddha. A Buddha isn't one sided. The nature of his mind is basically empty, neither pure nor impure. He's free of practice and realization (無修無證).'

(p 17; p. 374a15-20)

'People who don't see their nature (見性) and imagine they can practice thoughtlessness (無作想) all the time are liars and fools. They fall into endless space. They're like drunks. They can't tell good from evil. If you intend to cultivate such a practice (無作法), you have to see your nature (見性) before you can put an end to rational thought (息緣慮). To attain enlightenment without seeing your nature is impossible.'

(p 19; p. 374a24-27)

'Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware (覺性), miraculously aware (靈覺). Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature (見本性) is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not Zen.'

(p 29; p. 375a5-9)

'Once mortals see their nature (見本性), all attachments end. Awareness (神識) isn't hidden. But you can only find it right now. It's only now. If you really want to find the Way, don't hold on to anything. Once you put an end to karma and nurture your awareness (神), any attachments that remain will come to an end. Understanding comes naturally. You don't have to make any effort. But fanatics (外道) don't understand what the Buddha meant. And the harder they try, the farther they get from the Sage's meaning. All day long they invoke Buddhas and read sutras. But they remain blind to their own divine nature (神性), and they don't escape the Wheel.

A buddha is an idle person. He doesn't run around after fortune and fame. What good are such things in the end? People who don't see their nature (見性) and think reading sutras, invoking Buddhas', studying long and hard, practicing morning and night, never lying down (長坐不臥), or acquiring knowledge is the Dharma, blaspheme the Dharma. Buddhas of the past and future only talk about seeing your nature (見性). All practices are impermanent. Unless they see their nature (見性) people who claim to have attained unexcelled, complete enlightenment are liars.'

(p 35-37; p. 375b22-c3)

'Basically, seeing, hearing, and knowing (見聞覺知) are completely empty (本自圓寂). Your anger, Joy, or pain is like that of puppet. You can search but you won't find a thing. According to the sutras, evil deeds result in hardships and good deeds result in blessings. Angry people go to hell and happy people go to heaven. But once you know that the nature of anger and joy is empty and you let them go, you free yourself from karma.'

(p 45; p. 376b2-6)

'Someone who seeks the Way doesn't look beyond himself. He knows that the mind is the Way. But when he finds the mind, he finds nothing. And when he finds the Way, he finds nothing. If you think you can use the mind to find the Way, you're deluded. When you're deluded, buddhahood exists. When you're aware, it doesn't exist. This is because awareness is buddhahood.'

(Wake-up Sermon, in The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, p 59; T48, no. 2009, p. 371c10-13)

'To see form but not be corrupted by form or to hear sound but not be corrupted by sound is liberation. Eyes that aren't attached to form are the Gates of Zen. Ears that aren't attached to sound are also the Gates of Zen. In short, those who perceive the existence and nature of phenomena and remain unattached are liberated. Those who perceive the external appearance of phenomena are at their mercy. Not to be subject to affliction is what's meant by liberation. There's no other liberation. When you know how to look at form, form doesn't give rise to mind and mind doesn't give rise to form. Form and mind are both pure.'

(Wake-up Sermon, in The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, p 61; T48, no. 2009, p. 371c17-23)

Some quotes by Acarya Malcolm Smith from Dharmawheel on Conventional vs Ultimate Truth

Malcolm: 

"“Conventional” simply means “functional,” it does not mean arbitrary or subjective. For example, perceiving water as amṛta, pus, boiling metal, etc., is invalid in the human realm.

One can build many kinds of cars, but if they don’t function as cars, they are not cars, conventionally speaking."

"No, conventions are not subjective, they are conventions because one or more people have agreed to call a functional thing a given name. For example, a truck is called a lorry in England, but they both refer to a heavy vehicle that carries loads."

"Conventional truths are derived from observing functional appearances. Falsehoods are derived from observing nonfunctional appearances. Example, lake vs. mirage."

"No, it is not more correct to say consciousness arises or ceases than a labelled self, a since consciousness is also a conventional label, like the label "self." Prior to analysis there is both a self, akuppa, and a consciousness. After analysis one will find neither self nor consciousness, beyond the designations "akuppa" and "consciousness." For example, take a car as a metaphor for "self". A car cannot be found in any part, all of its parts, or separate from its parts. Likewise, as self cannot be found in any aggregates, all of the aggregates, or apart from the aggregates. Likewise, consciousness cannot be found in the sense organ nor the sense object, both, or separate from them. The mind is also made of parts, and cannot be found in one of them, all of them, or separate from them.

Functionally speaking, we can say there is a self, because when I say "akuppa go there!" You will respond to this directive by saying yes or no. This means that "self" is functional. It is efficient. Whatever is functional corresponds with relative truth. If I said to you, "Malcolm go there!" you would respond, "I am not Malcolm." So calling you "malcolm" is not functional and therefore cannot be considered to be relatively true. Consciousness is a relative truth, as long as it performs its functions, then we can say "there is a consciousness." But when we analyze consciousness, we cannot find it outside of the conventions we use for an appearance we label "mind.""

"Two truths are specified, seeing correctly and seeing falsely. That’s enough. No need to have the Buddha declare that aggregates and so on are ultimate, otherwise it would have been game over for Madhyamaka at the beginning."

"Which Sutra view did you have in mind, the one where in PP Sūtra it is stated that all phenomena are nonarising, pure from the beginning, and the state of dharmatā? The dependent origination of phenomena? Emptiness? In what way does Dzogchen refute these views? We do not reject conventional truth in Dzogchen. Longchenpa was utterly clear on this point.

ChNN understood what is stated in the Dzogchen tantras: we do not make a distinction between sharp and dull. If someone is sincerely interested in the teachings, they do not have to convert to Buddhism, but it is not because Buddhism contains any wrong views. It does not. There is no contradiction between Dzogchen and the four truths of nobles. There are serious contradictions however with Samkhya, etc."

"This is not correct. There is such as thing as mundane correct view. A correct view in this case is one that is functional. For example, believing in normative causes and effects. We have to distinguish wrong views about entities from wrong views about essences. Christians have wrong views about both essences and entities, since they believe salvation comes from believing in the divinity of a man executed by Romans somewhere between 30-33 CE.

Buddhists only hold wrong views about essences, i.e. that knowledge obscuration of the innate habit of I-making."

John Tan shared:

"Very good description of selflessness"