Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
And its not conceptual clinging that is the root problem. Its clinging onto a center. A reference point of this or that.
Your post is as well balanced as usual. We can agree to differ.
Imho the buddha's realization goes beyond the hindus moksha. But thats just an opinion based on following hindu thought for a couple years.
I don't think you can choose the correct realisation from off the shelf. It doesn't seem to work like that. Just thoughts from me too, no essence, nothing essential.
I said in another thread, however much you think you've got the correct understanding, sometimes you've got to be free to be stupid, wrong, mistaken. Otherwise you've become a professional apologist for yourself.
And its not conceptual clinging that is the root problem. Its clinging onto a center. A reference point of this or that.
Your post is as well balanced as usual. We can agree to differ.
Imho the buddha's realization goes beyond the hindus moksha. But thats just an opinion based on following hindu thought for a couple years.
I don't think you can choose the correct realisation from off the shelf. It doesn't seem to work like that. Just thoughts from me too, no essence, nothing essential.
I said in another thread, however much you think you've got the correct understanding, sometimes you've got to be free to be stupid, wrong, mistaken. Otherwise you've become a professional apologist for yourself.
Oh dear, I thought after I wrote the last paragraph of the above post, it's meant in general but it looks as if it's about taiyaki, but actually you're the last person I'd say was a professional apologist for anything. Your posts are very level headed.
Thusness and my advise: "if (you) can, join a soto zen that realizes the essence of maha experience of suchness in a single moment of manifestation."
Recently noticed many great practitioners from this tradition who have this direct realization.
is that presence linked with dependent origination & anatta?
what does the mind focus on? Or is it each instant as the whole?
where can i find more information on maha realization?
i am thankful as always.
Here is more on "maha":
5/24/2012 8:05 PM: John: But experientially same but just the degree of right understanding 5/24/2012 8:07 PM: John: Not exactly one mind 5/24/2012 8:07 PM: John: Do u feel everything as Self now? 5/24/2012 8:08 PM: John: As in that experience of I M powerfully present at this moment 5/24/2012 8:09 PM: me: yes presence, but as change 5/24/2012 8:11 PM: John: As if like Awareness clear and open like space, without meditation yet powerfully present and non-dual 5/24/2012 8:12 PM: John: Where the 4 Aspects of I M r fully experienced in this moment 5/24/2012 8:14 PM: me: Yeah 5/24/2012 8:14 PM: me: I think the four aspects is only fully experienced after nondual and anatta, especially effortlessness and no need to abide 5/24/2012 8:15 PM: John: This experience will become more and more powerful later yet effortless and uncontrieved 5/24/2012 8:17 PM: John: How so? If it is not correct insights and practice, how is it possible for such complete and total experience of effortless and uncontrieve Presence be possible? 5/24/2012 8:18 PM: me: I do not see it is possible without the proper insights and practice 5/24/2012 8:20 PM: me: In anatta every activity is it, is buddha nature, so no contrivance at all 5/24/2012 8:21 PM: me: No need to meditate to get anywhere 5/24/2012 8:21 PM: me: But meditation is still important to cultivate certain aspects like tranquility 5/24/2012 8:22 PM: John: Indeed and this is being authenticated by the immediate moment of experience. How could there be doubt abt it. The last trace of Presence must be released with seeing through the emptiness nature of whatever arises. 5/24/2012 8:22 PM: me: I see.. 5/24/2012 8:25 PM: John: After maturing and integrating ur insights into practice, there must be no effort and action.... The entire whole is doing the work and arises as this vivid moment of shimmering appearance, this has always been what we always called Presence. 5/24/2012 8:26 PM: me: Ic.. 5/24/2012 8:28 PM: me: Nowadays there is not much effort but still I do anapanasati mostly for inner tranquility and calming body and mind 5/24/2012 8:30 PM: me: Eckhart tolle said the simple anapanasati is better than the countless self help or whatever courses people tend to join and its free... I agree 5/24/2012 8:31 PM: John: Yes and u should in all moment of 6 entries and exits experience all coming together for this moment to arise....this will dissolve all senses of holdings and will lead u effortless and maha experience of suchness effortlessly 5/24/2012 8:31 PM: me: I see.. 5/24/2012 8:32 PM: me: The "everything coming together" feels like everything is universe manifesting, a causal and selfless process right 5/24/2012 8:33 PM: John: Yeah, interpenetration, open, boundless, effortless and uncontrived.. I do not know how to describe 5/24/2012 8:34 PM: John: Not something interacting with another thing but simply seamless intepetration
5/24/2012 8:37 PM: John: There cannot be any sense of holding and maintain anything, there the presence must b completely forgotten and given up via the 2 fold emptying 5/24/2012 8:38 PM: me: I see 5/24/2012 8:39 PM: John: In the four aspects of I M, I hv told u that it serves as a guide to lead u to this experience but it will be difficult as there is the wrong understand of presence 5/24/2012 8:39 PM: me: Presence is not a thing, it is constantly disappearing and manifesting as diversity, so any holding is illusional 5/24/2012 8:39 PM: me: Oic.. 5/24/2012 8:40 PM: John: In the 4 aspects, the Presence is not given up 5/24/2012 8:42 PM: John: That Presence must be completely given up for uncontrievance, effortlessness to arise. Unfortunately it is highly unlikely without emptying all inherent and dualistic view 5/24/2012 8:44 PM: John: Re-read those articles I wrote 5/24/2012 8:47 PM: me: I see..
5/26/2012 11:16 PM: John: The next phase after realizing the purpose of two fold emptiness, u must relax into non action and experience the maha experience of suchness 5/26/2012 11:21 PM: John: Where the mind, body, self are totally transcended into this oceanic pure seamless interpenetration. U do not need to concentrate or do anything...simply sit, relax, do nothing and allow natural integration of ur empty view into whatever arises.
...
And this conversation with me just a while back:
6/3/2012 9:27 PM: John: I do not see practice apart from realizing the essence and nature of awareness 6/3/2012 9:30 PM: John: The only difference is seeing Awareness as an ultimate essence or realizing awareness as this Seamless activity that fills the entire Universe. 6/3/2012 9:32 PM: John: When we say there is no scent of a flower, the scent is the flower....that is becoz the mind, body, universe are all together deconstructed into this single flow, this scent and only this... Nothing else. 6/3/2012 9:33 PM: John: That is the Mind that is no mind. 6/3/2012 9:38 PM: John: There is no an Ultimate Mind that transcends anything in the Buddhist enlightenment. The mind Is this very manifestation of total exertion...wholly thus. 6/3/2012 9:42 PM: John: Therefore there is always no mind, always only this vibration of moving train, this cooling air of the aircon, this breath.. 6/3/2012 9:47 PM: John: The question is after the 7 phases of insights can this be realized and experience and becomes the ongoing activity of practice in enlightenment and enlightenment in practice -- practice-enlightenment.
So sometimes I'll say things that make you mad, and it's not because I want you to think I'm clever. I don't have much need for that these days; it never did me any good when people did think that, and it never did me any harm when they thought I was an idiot either, nor did it always correlate with the worth of what I was saying. I expect it's been the same for you.
Yes - I am sorry @Prairiewind. That was unncecessary - thankyou for your charity.
I felt at the time that a lot of your post was talking at cross purposes.
I skimmed back quickly now and I see your points again. And I know why you are saying those things, and do not disagree. I have said the same before (laughs).
But I did feel that you were a bit on autopilot, responding to points you felt important to make and then talking from that, rather than understanding the other. But perhaps that is just my perception and I am wrong on that. If so, sorry. If somewhere in the middle, let's have a discussion next time.
Also I have been meaning to ask you what avatar is it that you have. I like that painting, it is very cute.
Also do you live in EU if you don't mind me asking. I saw your comment on the Alps so is it Italy? If you want to answer privately just do so via PM, or otherwise don't answer back - no-one needs to share personal details on the internet
And just to clear up the other post, which you said was a copout, my point was that one can realise understanding in a smile, one can teach the entire path from start to finish in one smile, and you don't even have to see the smile in person to understand how this can be so. But it's your choice. If I were to identify such a relative point, I might say that learned Buddhism ten years ago, very depressed, when a monk smiled at me in a pureland centre. Everything I've since learned, I now see, guilelessness, openness, comradeship and endless beloved mystery, was encapsulated in that smile.
Everything I've studied and every meditation session has mattered only in as much as these things have gradually bridged the gap between my world and the world the smile came from, because I now see it was all there in that moment, and if I'd only let go then, let go of all my pretense to understanding, to tradition and self, I'd have those ten years back. So think on, because the path can be as easy or as difficult as you make it.
So please ask yourself for a moment whether you can conceive of that kind of smile, that Eureka! moment which never ends, when you realise a dimension beyond and inclusive of phenomenal knowledge. You've seen that smile before, you've even smiled it yourself, maybe many times a day, when you greet an old friend perhaps, when you offer a coin to a beggar, when you complement a musician, but you never realised it was possible to dwell there, and that in doing so life can only deepen.
To the initial topic, words can mean the same thing in practice, and sometimes they do not. Religions can have seeming and actual similarities but it does not mean they are the same in guidance and realisation/actualisation. Some are, some aren't and you would have to be an expert in both to say either way.
As to the smile, there is probably a smiley religion in the world also - people think of all sorts of things in this world.
The Buddha's teachings are very good actually, and very complete, in my own view and experience.
Hindu Moksha is being freed or released from the notion of egoity, it is like breaking the vase so that the space inside and the space outside are no longer differentiated, there is only all-pervasive Presence like air. There is just the oceanic Brahman which is pure-consciousness-existence-bliss, which is the true Self, no longer veiled by the limitations of egoity.
Nirvana taught by Buddha is the elimination of craving, aggression and delusion. He rejects any notion of a Self, or an Atman that is Brahman, he rejects notion of an eternal substance as being salvation. He teaches 'in the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, ... no you in terms of that'. He teaches that the insight of anicca, dukkha and anatta leads to the deconstruction of proliferation, leads to dispassion and relinquishment of craving, attachments, and the arising of wisdom ends delusion.
Emptiness is just half of it. There is no thing or non-thing called "Emptiness", there is only Emptiness/Form. The view of 'Emptiness" as "The" Absolute (akin to the "causeless cause" ) is off the mark. Emptiness is not other than Form, Form is not other than Emptiness. Form/Emptiness is single and experiential. Emptiness/Form is a descriptor of "Suchness". "Suchness" is both the holy and the non-holy... While not negating the holiness of holiness and non-holiness of non-holiness. It is the very "suchness" of those relative qualities as well.
Some are, some aren't and you would have to be an expert in both to say either way.
You would have to see where the religious impulse comes from, and what it is, in order for many things, not just in terms of religion, to become clear. After one sees the big picture, one inclines to study and master the details of how things work out, and becomes less interested in universal principles, which are only interesting when you aren't living by them.
Emptiness is just half of it. There is no thing or non-thing called "Emptiness", there is only Emptiness/Form. The view of 'Emptiness" as "The" Absolute (akin to the "causeless cause" ) is off the mark. Emptiness is not other than Form, Form is not other than Emptiness. Form/Emptiness is single and experiential. Emptiness/Form is a descriptor of "Suchness". "Suchness" is both the holy and the non-holy... While not negating the holiness of holiness and non-holiness of non-holiness. It is the very "suchness" of those relative qualities as well.
"At this juncture, it is necessary to have clarity on what Emptiness is not to prevent misunderstandings:
• Emptiness is not a substance • Emptiness is not a substratum or background • Emptiness is not light • Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness • Emptiness is not the Absolute • Emptiness does not exist on its own • Objects do not consist of emptiness • Objects do not arise from emptiness • Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I" • Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind • Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind
Source: Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching And I would like to add,
Emptiness is not a path of practice Emptiness is not a form of fruition"
The problem with people mistaking Emptiness for some Absolute is because they had the experience, realization, of the I AM or the Witness. It is the formless beingness or what you call the subjective pole taken as true self. I'm sure you are familiar of it.
Because this experience is "formless", when they hear Buddhist terms like "emptiness", they automatically began to equate the formless being with buddhist emptiness.
Little do they know, the formless beingness or consciousness has nothing to do with Buddhist emptiness teachings.
Dr. Greg Goode expressed well:
"For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."
Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free."
Dr. Greg Goode who followed the Advaita teachings of Sri Atmananda only later explored Buddhist emptiness teachings only after going through the I AM which later led to the nondual Brahman or One Mind realization. What Dr. Greg Goode failed to describe however is the direct realization of the emptiness of awareness. So I think some of the understandings remain at a theoretical level.
When the twofold emptiness (emptiness of self of subject, emptiness of dharmas in object) is experientially realized, there is absolutely no absolutization of some "emptiness" or ultimate reality. In fact the whole purpose of (buddhist) "emptiness" is to deconstruct any notion or ideation of an Absolute, an ontological essence, a substantial reality, an inherent existence, whether in subject or in objects.
And this I have written recently:
"Just like to add a short comment:
Dogen here relates nyo (“like”), to ze (“this”), evoking the familiar Zen association nyoze (“like this,” “thusness”). He goes on to draw the implication that “like this” signifies not mere resemblance but the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. He thus rejects any dualistic notion of metaphor or simile (hiyi), whereby an image points to, represents, or approximates something other than itself. Rather, for Dogen, the symbol itself is the very presence of total dynamism, i.e., it presents.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, note 8, p.251
I could think of one example: people liken “Buddha-nature” to be “like the moon”. In actuality, the very appearance of the moon is buddha-nature, it is not that there is some hidden thing called buddha-nature which merely resembles the moon. The moon is buddha-nature, the buddha-nature is the moon, the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. Or as Dogen says, the moon-face buddha and sun-face buddha, the whole body is the whole moon. There is nothing hidden or latent about it, there is no hidden noumenon in which phenomenon or symbols can “point to” or “hint at”. The symbol, e.g. the moon, is itself the very presence of total dynamism.
In fact everything is like this.
Scent of a flower is not scent of “a flower”, the scent does not represent or approximate something other than itself but is a complete reality (well not exactly a 'reality' but rather a whole and complete manifestation/appearance which is empty and unreal) in itself: the scent IS the flower, wheel of a car is not wheel of “a car”, the car IS the wheel. The word “car” is a mere imputation, not a true reality that can be established. “Self” and aggregates are likewise.
Seen in such manner, all constructs are deconstructed and what's left is just the shimmering "dream-like" (coreless, empty, illusory), luminous appearances which is all there is, but not to be confused with a dreamy state."
And to this, Thusness later wrote to me:
"6/3/2012 9:27 PM: John: I do not see practice apart from realizing the essence and nature of awareness 6/3/2012 9:30 PM: John: The only difference is seeing Awareness as an ultimate essence or realizing awareness as this Seamless activity that fills the entire Universe. 6/3/2012 9:32 PM: John: When we say there is no scent of a flower, the scent is the flower....that is becoz the mind, body, universe are all together deconstructed into this single flow, this scent and only this... Nothing else. 6/3/2012 9:33 PM: John: That is the Mind that is no mind. 6/3/2012 9:38 PM: John: There is no an Ultimate Mind that transcends anything in the Buddhist enlightenment. The mind Is this very manifestation of total exertion...wholly thus. 6/3/2012 9:42 PM: John: Therefore there is always no mind, always only this vibration of moving train, this cooling air of the aircon, this breath... 6/3/2012 9:47 PM: John: The question is after the 7 phases of insights can this be realized and experience and becomes the ongoing activity of practice in enlightenment and enlightenment in practice -- practice-enlightenment."
Lastly, no matter how many glimpses of nondual or no mind, without going through the twofold emptying, there can hardly be effortlessness and seamlessness. This is because we have not overcome the framework, the view, of inherency.
That is why we have to have direct realization of right view - after that "no mind" and "maha" becomes effortless and seamless instead of intermittent peak experiences.
Also, even if one has experienced nonduality of subject and object, and sees everything as "expressions of awareness", one can still fall back to the one mind brahman view and experience. This is because overcoming the bond or view of subject-object duality is not the same as overcoming the view of inherency. One can still have the substance view that everything is of the same substance of ultimate mind. This substance view is what is deconstructed through emptiness - both of subject (including one mind) and objects. Instead of subsuming all phenomena to be a single substance - say all liquids are "made" of h2o, one further investigates and breaks the substance view by seeing the h2o too is just a convention or imputation on a conglomerate without any core (it is just a label imputed on two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom co-dependently arising). In the same way the difference between one mind and twofold emptiness is that in emptiness, instead of subsuming, the subject to be subsumed in, I.e. "Mind" is seen as empty and coreless, mind is no mind, but the expressions are ceaseless just like river is empty of a river-entity that can be pinned down, apart from flowing.
Overcoming subject-object split/duality leads to the gaplessly intimate experience of everything as if there is no you and everything is yourself. This is blissful, but not the same as the twofold emptiness, and only by overcoming the view of inherency can lead to the experience of liberation.
So in effect, a true experiential realization of the twofold emptiness Will lead to deconstructing and transcending everything into the total exertion of the universe as this very manifestation or appearance - utterly clear, vivid, lucid yet no-thing "here" or "there" - nothing to cling to, and this moment of suchness upon its inception automatically self-liberates - thereby suchness is emancipated.
All views are also naturally transcended, I.e. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." - Kaccayanagotta Sutta
Anything short of this means one has understood emptiness wrongly, or the understanding remains at the intellectual level instead of being experientially realized, and thereby the practitioner is unable to actualize it in all activities.
Poor Zen, influenced and sold like gardens on the market.
Here is a story from some nameable people:
The morning after Philip Kapleau and Professor Phillips arrived at Ryutakuji Monastery they were given a tour of the place by Abbot Soen Nakagawa. Both Americans had been heavily influenced by tales of ancient Chinese masters who'd destroyed sacred texts, and even images of the Buddha, in order to free themselves from attachment to anything. They were thus surprised and disturbed to find themselves being led into a ceremonial hall, where the Roshi invited them to pay respects to a statue of the temple's founder, Hakuin Zenji, by bowing and offering incense.
On seeing Nakagawa bow before the image, Phillips couldn't contain himself, and burst out: "The old Chinese masters burned or spit on Buddha statues! Why do you bow down before them?"
"If you want to spit, you spit," replied the Roshi. "I prefer to bow."
From: One Bird One Stone: 108 American Zen Stories by Sean Murphy
Hey everyone. I was just curious as to what the differences are between the Hindu concept of Moksha and the Buddhist concept of Nirvana? Is there a major difference or is just a name?
Generally speaking, both are pretty much about liberation. Moksha has various spins depending on the school. In Buddhism, this passage sums up nirvana: "Radha, liberation (vimutti) surely is the meaning of Nibbana" (S.iii.189).
So in effect, a true experiential realization of the twofold emptiness Will lead to deconstructing and transcending everything into the total exertion of the universe as this very manifestation or appearance - utterly clear, vivid, lucid yet no-thing "here" or "there" - nothing to cling to, and this moment of suchness upon its inception automatically self-liberates - thereby suchness is emancipated.
All views are also naturally transcended, I.e. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." - Kaccayanagotta Sutta
Anything short of this means one has understood emptiness wrongly, or the understanding remains at the intellectual level instead of being experientially realized, and thereby the practitioner is unable to actualize it in all activities.
Does that mean emptiness is a state which is neither existent nor non existent?
I don't think emptiness is descriptive of existence or non-existence, because what are you then specifically talking about? You're talking about "things" or "beings" that either exist or don't. Emptiness is the emptiness of thing-ness, of being-ness, of "self". As such it's beyond the questions of existence and non-existence, and a Buddha's perspective is likewise beyond these questions which are based on delusional "self"-view. Emptiness would in no means be considered a "state", because everything that we experience is what emptiness means.
Why did the Buddha not answer the question of whether he'd exist or not after death? Well... will an orange exist or not after you eat it? Can you really say it's gone... or is it simply transformed? Can you say it was really an orange to begin with? If not, then where did it come from, what is its original face? In this way we see, through dependent origination, that nothing comes from nothing and so nothing is "self", and this is what "emptiness" means. Questions of existence and non-existence are based on thinking there's this inherent thing-ness or being-ness to objects, which is in fact not the case!
Cloud: Emptiness is privation (a state of lack; the absence of). It is nothing ontological, not by a long shot. In the Heart Sutra we learn that the five skandhas, for example, are the privation of self-nature (svabhâva-shunya). This chimes with:
"Form is like a lump of foam, feeling like a water bubble; perception is like a mirage; habitual tendencies are like a plantain trunk, and consciousness like magician's creation, so explained the Kinsman of the Sun" (S.iii.142).
According to Candrakiriti, "Svabhâva is the own-being, the very nature of a thing." Not surprisingly, conditioned existence has no self-nature. Besides the unconditioned svabhâva, everything else shows a clear lack of svabhâva (ultimately things are only name & form). There is no real creation insofar as the created thing is nothing in itself.
"All things are like a magical display; they arise from discrimination. In them there is nothing; they are all empty" (The Sword of Wisdom Sutra).
In liberation/nirvana we are in direct communion with nirvana's svabhâva/sabhâva which is unconditioned, hence, not empty.
Music: No, it is not the same. Existential angst is an awareness of one's own finitude and the anxiety and fear it produces. There is seemingly no escape. Some western Buddhists accept angst, indeed, embrace it and, at the same time, pooh-pooh the idea of transcendence in Buddhism.
Emptiness is realized only when the non-empty, Buddha-nature is fully realized, this nature being transcendent; beyond our finitude and angst. With awakening, one is able to discern (prajna) the conditioned-illusory from the unconditioned-absolute which is free of angst. In the final analysis, the conditioned-illusory is only a configuration/projection of the unconditioned-absolute.
@Songhill, I think that's some splendidly flawed logic, saying one does not realize emptiness without realizing the non-empty. This is like saying you can't recognize the impermanence of an orange unless you find permanence in something! This is to send someone on a wild goose chase. Rather what masters instruct their students to do is meditate and see the nature of what is actually there (and this nature is emptiness).
Emptiness is realized through seeing emptiness, or seeing neither self nor permanence in any phenomena or aggregate whatsoever, leaving nothing to grasp as self (it's not grasping a hidden non-empty self, but ceasing to grasp what's not-self which is everything). This is why Emptiness is equated with Dependent Origination, because all things are seen as dependently originated phenomena and so are interdependent/selfless and transient. There's no "you" apart from the aggregates, and yet "you" are a dependently originated phenomena, a bucket of water in the ocean that has no true separate identity (and the ocean is forever shifting, not constituting a self either).
The first awakening to Nirvana is the initial cessation of craving that comes with seeing there's nothing to grasp as self, with seeing that the view of "self" has been an error, which is a major find for a mind that has been steeped in delusion. Nirvana is cessation of craving which is also cessation of suffering, or positively "peace". This is why "liberation" is equated with "Nirvana", they are one and the same. Nirvana is not some separate "thing", it's not self... though one could say the functioning of a Buddha is "true self" or better yet "true nature", but this does not mean "self" in the way we normally mean it.
Do you not think the mind can do anything, if it only sees its delusion? All it has to see is that each thing it takes to be part of itself, part of you (this means all the aggregates) are dependently originated. It sees this through meditation. Seeing this, the "view" of self is abandoned. Continuing on, craving and clinging are abandoned through the Path. It's all a very simple process that has everything it needs... it needs no self thrown in to make sense, and in fact self quite goes against Dependent Origination. What did the Buddha say again? He who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma? I think this is apt.
I think that's some splendidly flawed logic, saying one does not realize emptiness without realizing the non-empty. This is like saying you can't recognize the impermanence of an orange unless you find permanence in something! This is to send someone on a wild goose chase. Rather what masters instruct their students to do is meditate and see the nature of what is actually there (and this nature is emptiness).
Buddhism doesn't rest on logic, it rests on truth or satya. The Buddha, in his discourses, only teaches us the truth that came with his awakening, an awakening that saw the transcendent which is unconditioned. Naturally, as a result of his awakening, the Buddha saw the world as empty, that is, empty of the unconditioned. This further means that phenomena are empty because they are devoid of the self-nature of the unconditioned which is nirvana. In fact, sensa that we perceive with our sensory consciousness amount to a privation (shunyata) of the transcendent. Emptiness is identical with temporal, non-transcendent sensa.
The danger of not initially realizing the transcendent through either sotapatti (the state of entering the current) or bodhicittotpada (manifestation of the mind that is bodhi) is that emptiness becomes nihilism. This can happen when one understands emptiness to be global emptiness, that is, a bringing to nothingness of all.
It can be argued that the proponets of Madhyamaka can easily fall into the error nihilism by assuming global emptiness (later this will turn into grave error of non-findingness). This position fails to understand that correct emptiness is only possible from the standpoint of the non-empty absolute which is positive unconditionality. A Buddha can say of the world that it is empty (suññam lokam). But he does not say the transcendent is empty, like with the world, since the transcendent is not subject to cause and condition whereas things constituting the world are.
One more thing. The Buddha in his discourses can say that the five grasping aggregates (the five skandha) are not his self or nonself (anâtman) only because he has realized the true self which transcends them. On the other hand, to say, patently, there is no self is the creed of annihilationism. In fact, the middle way would be self which lies between the error of affirming the aggregates are the self (which in Pali is sakkaya) and the error that there is categorically no self (which in Pali is natthatta).
@Songhill, I don't believe you understand what nihilism means in Buddhism, if you believe that "no self" is itself nihilism. This leads you to group together anything that isn't "pro-self" as being nihilism. It's no wonder you are so disparaging of what you call pop Buddhism and even mainstream Buddhism, you think it's all materialism! This is not the case. The true Middle Way is of course Dependent Origination.
The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away. This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming.
I don't believe you understand what nihilism means in Buddhism, if you believe that "no self" is itself nihilism. This leads you to group together anything that isn't "pro-self" as being nihilism. It's no wonder you are so disparaging of what you call pop Buddhism and even mainstream Buddhism, you think it's all materialism! This is not the case, while a pro-self view is eternalism. The true Middle Way is of course Dependent Origination.
The materialist, nihilist position is "no self" which in Pali is natthatta, never anattâ. Anattâ only says that each aggregate is "not the self" or the same, na meso attâ (that [aggregate] is not my self). Eternalism (shâshvata) is the belief that an aggregate like rupa "is the self" and "the world" which are "eternal, permanent" (Udana-atthakatha, 344). (This is where modern Buddhists reveal their disregard of the canon.)
Exactly, those who disregard the seriousness of the self by treating it as unreal are heading towards nihilism if not already there.
“But if nihilism is anything, it is first of all a problem of the self. And it becomes such a problem only when the self becomes a problem, when the ground of the existence called "self" becomes a problem for itself. When the problem of nihilism is posed apart from the self, or as a problem of society in general, it loses the special genuineness that distinguishes it from other problems” (Nishitani Keiji, Graham Parkes, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, 1).
The materialist, nihilist position is "no self" which in Pali is natthatta, never anattâ. Anattâ only says that each aggregate is "not the self" or the same, na meso attâ (that [aggregate] is not my self). Eternalism (shâshvata) is the belief that an aggregate like rupa "is the self" and "the world" which are "eternal, permanent" (Udana-atthakatha, 344). (This is where modern Buddhists reveal their disregard of the canon.)
:eek2:
This is why you'll never see me on these threads, I have absolutely no idea what any of this means
Think what you like about "pop Buddhism", I'm just glad it's in English
@Songhill, We'll have to agree to disagree. Nihilism in Buddhism does not seem to match your view of it, so I believe I was correct (that you misunderstand). The Buddha was often mistaken for a nihilist because people could only see "no self" as no continuity (no life-after-death, no rebirth) and "self" as continuity (transmigration), but not Dependent Origination which is continuity without self. This is what the Buddha was pointing us toward, and it is indeed a subtle distinction. He was trying to show Hindus the truth without them falling into nihilism. Selfless karma, selfless rebirth, selfless suffering... all linked together in a causal chain, until that chain is broken by true awakening. One who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dharma. It's extremely easy to step off the road to the left (nihilism) or to the right (eternalism). Neither nihilism nor eternalism (transmigration of self) are the Buddha's teaching.
You just see any view other than pro-self as materialism. It's sad. By your reckoning, Theravada would be nihilistic. Somehow I don't think we're going to see eye to eye!
Cloud: Dependent origination is without self or the unconditioned. As far has human experience goes, dependent origination is non-ultimate experience. Dependent origination is the world of samsara—not nirvana. As long as non-ariyan beings attach to dependent arisings they remain trapped in samsara. The message of dependent origination is that finite things have no real independent existence. They are not real and immutable nor are they exactly non-existent (they are mâyâ).
As for, "He who beholds dependent arising beholds the dhamma; he who beholds the dhamma beholds the dependent arising" (M.i.191), this is with regard to the five skandhas which are affected by clinging so are dependently arisen.
"The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origination of suffering. [This is so kewl - this is the 2nd ariyan truth.] The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering (i.e., nirvana)" (M.i.191). [Totally kewl, this is the 3rd ariyan truth.] (Emphasis and brackets added.)
The deeper side of dependent origination in Mahayana is expressed by the Avatamsaka Sutra which says: “The twelve links of conditioned origination are all dependent on the One Mind (trans. Nakamura).”
By the way Cloud, not all Theravadins are nihilists adherring to no self (natthatta). Personally, I don't see a no self doctrine in the Pali canon. Instead I see a "don't attach to conditioned existence—you will be in big trouble if you do."
This is why you'll never see me on these threads, I have absolutely no idea what any of this means
Think what you like about "pop Buddhism", I'm just glad it's in English.
Yeah, it's pretty heady stuff. But, actually, it is quite simple. The problem is, our culture is overly complex with a hodge-podge of goofy ideas and theories that are, in essence, fictions. Pop Buddhism, unfortunately, tries to marry Buddhism to this hodge-podge. This naturally assumes that western culture is some great triumph and Asians need to respect us and our treatment of Buddhism. This is almost laughable.
After you intuit you pure Mind (the hard part) for the first time (it is a powerful experience), you'll not only understand what the Buddha is really saying, but you'll see that Buddhism is simple.
@Songhill, There is a difference between adhering to a "no self" doctrine and not adhering to a "self" doctrine. Theravada has no doctrine of self whatsoever because it is a failure to understand Dependent Origination to posit self to begin with. Your sources are scriptures regarding Buddha-Nature, and taking that to be "self", but the Buddha (to my knowledge) did not teach this... and I really don't think all Mahayana practitioners view Buddha-Nature to be a self either. I'm afraid your view is similar to those non-Buddhists who see Buddhism as nihilism, failing to see the interconnected reality of which there are no independent entities.
Just because you've gone into a pro-self view doesn't mean that Buddhism without self is automatically nihilism. If anything Self/Transmigration is Eternalism, Dependent Origination (Emptiness) is in the middle (in fact the Middle Way IMO), and No Continuity (No Life After Death) is Nihilism on the left. You seem to think there are only two gears in a three-gear system.
Also of importance, the purpose of meditation is firstly to absolve us of self-view, to realize emptiness in all things. If we have a meditation experience that we think is of a self or of Nirvana and think we're enlightened, this is a trap. We'll not only fall for the trap but we'll cling to it. Clinging like so and ceasing to follow the Path, we'll never progress. Genuine enlightened teachers can be absolutely necessary if we're unable to distinguish missteps from actual insight.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Having laboriously read the thread, @Songhill, I have to say, I think a lot of your interpretation is mistaken.... Am I reading you right? are you basically saying that no-self is akin to nihilism? You're losing me here....
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
After you intuit you pure Mind (the hard part) for the first time (it is a powerful experience), you'll not only understand what the Buddha is really saying, but you'll see that Buddhism is simple.
I think that's the way we should try to keep it, because actually, it's the best way of all.
Having laboriously read the thread, @Songhill, I have to say, I think a lot of your interpretation is mistaken.... Am I reading you right? are you basically saying that no-self is akin to nihilism? You're losing me here....
Some Buddhists are not paying attention to the Pali terms. Natthatta is "no self." It means categorically there is no self whatsoever. This is materialism and what such a doctrine implies, e.g., annihilationism.
Anattâ is not the same, far from it. It is used with the five aggregates in this example:
"Bhikkhus, form is nonself [anatta]. What is nonself should be see as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ Feeling is nonself... Perception is nonself...Volitional formations are nonself...Consciousness is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’" (S.iii.22–23).
It is simply saying the aggregate of form, for example, is not my self. It is like saying a bicycle is not frederica or a car engine is not frederica. Here is another example:
“But monks, an instructed disciple of the pure ones...regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as:’ This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’” (Majjhima-Nikaya, i.136).
In a nutshell, the five aggregates are evil; they are suffering. An authentic Buddhist should know that these evil, suffering aggregates are not their real self.
Also, some Buddhists don't understand pratityasamutpada. If I make a pot out of clay, the pot is a dependent origination of the clay. Conditioned things are compositions. Accordingly, they are empty; nothing in themselves; just name and shape (namarupa).
From the Lankavatara Sutra we learn that there is nothing really here except pure Mind which is not empty because it is not conditioned. To awaken is to see that your body and the world it inhabits are nothing but configurations of Mind. What the real federica is, is absolute Mind (not the aggregates); call this Mind, Buddha-nature, Âtman, and so on. When you fully attain it, words don't matter anymore.
@Songhill, Mind is what is, but there are no independent entities to experience an eternity of heavenly bliss. Take such selves out of the picture and it'd work. Buddha-nature is not a plurality. Positing actual selves/atmans within Mind that are permanent and independent, that transmigrate and that experience eternal heavenly bliss after pari-nirvana, is no different than Brahmanism. For that matter it's eternalism! Why call it Buddhism? It is certainly not the abandonment of self-view. Even one who held such a view would abandon it upon stream-entry; would know better. There are no independent entities in reality or in Buddhism.
To develop Right View or Perfect View, we must first be aware of two views which are considered imperfect or wrong.
The first view is eternalism. This doctrine or belief is concerned with eternal life or with eternal things. Before the Buddha's time, it was taught that there is an abiding entity which could exist forever, and that man can live the eternal life by preserving the eternal soul in order to be in union with Supreme Being. In Buddhism, this teaching is called sassata ditthi ----the view of eternalists. Such views still exist even in the modern world owing to man's craving for eternity.
Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false.
Cloud: I never mentioned anything about "heavenly bliss" but let's not forget the important matter of nirvana which is the hight bliss and quite free off conditionality.
"When Nagarjuna says in his Madhyamika Shastra that: "That is called Nirvana which is not wanting, is not acquired, is not intermittent, is not non-intermittent, is not subject to destruction, and is not created;" he evidently speaks of Nirvana as a synonym of Dharmakaya, that is, in its first sense as above described. Chandra Kirti, therefore, rightly comments that Nirvana is sarva-kalpanâ-ksaya-rupam, i.e., that which transcends all the forms of determination. Nirvana is an absolute, it is above the relativity of existence (bhâva) and non-existence (abhâva). Nirvana is sometimes spoken of as possessing four attributes; (1) eternal (nitya), (2) blissful (sukha) (3) self-acting (âtman), and (4) pure (shushi). Judging from these qualities thus ascribed to Nirvana as its essential features, Nirvana is here again identified with the highest reality of Buddhism, that is, with the Dharmakaya. It is eternal because it is immaterial; it is blissful because it is above all sufferings; it is self-acting because it knows no compulsion; it is pure because it is not defiled by passion and error" (Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Outline of Mahayana Buddhism, p. 347–348).
@Songhill, Actually you did, just not in this thread. When we discussed your views on Nirvana before you were quite clear you believe it to be a heaven state after death, a permanent/eternal state of experiential bliss. This would be a self, to say nothing of the fact that "experience" itself is of conditioned phenomena because it requires some kind of consciousness or awareness, something that does not exist independently to begin with. Nirvana as experienced by consciousness is one thing, not to be confused with Pari-Nirvana.
“This world is blinded, few only can see here. Like birds escaped from the nets few go to heaven (appo saggâya gacchati)” (Dhammapada 174)
The commentary to the Dhammapada says few escape the net of Mara while an occasional person reaches heaven, that is, nirvana.
By the way, Pali commentaries tell us that the Buddha expounded the Abhidhamma, not first in the human world to his human disciples, but to the assembly of gods in the Tavatimsa heaven.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes, there are many such tales... I wouldn't take them literally though, if I were you.
Heaven in this life; not a literal heaven realm after death. The Hindus already believed this was the case with their union with Brahman. The Buddha was teaching something else entirely, though using the same words ("karma" and "rebirth" and "Nirvana" for instance).
Yes, there are many such tales... I wouldn't take them literally though, if I were you.
Unless of course you actually met a deva or the Buddha in his true body. I hope someday you get to meet a deva frederica—it might be exciting.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
For him/her, certainly. I don't pay to much attention to stuff like that. My life is already quite full enough of extraneous stuff without having to consider how I'd handle meeting a deva.
Comments
I said in another thread, however much you think you've got the correct understanding, sometimes you've got to be free to be stupid, wrong, mistaken. Otherwise you've become a professional apologist for yourself.
Thank you for the reminder. =]
5/24/2012 8:05 PM: John: But experientially same but just the degree of right understanding
5/24/2012 8:07 PM: John: Not exactly one mind
5/24/2012 8:07 PM: John: Do u feel everything as Self now?
5/24/2012 8:08 PM: John: As in that experience of I M powerfully present at this moment
5/24/2012 8:09 PM: me: yes presence, but as change
5/24/2012 8:11 PM: John: As if like Awareness clear and open like space, without meditation yet powerfully present and non-dual
5/24/2012 8:12 PM: John: Where the 4 Aspects of I M r fully experienced in this moment
5/24/2012 8:14 PM: me: Yeah
5/24/2012 8:14 PM: me: I think the four aspects is only fully experienced after nondual and anatta, especially effortlessness and no need to abide
5/24/2012 8:15 PM: John: This experience will become more and more powerful later yet effortless and uncontrieved
5/24/2012 8:17 PM: John: How so? If it is not correct insights and practice, how is it possible for such complete and total experience of effortless and uncontrieve Presence be possible?
5/24/2012 8:18 PM: me: I do not see it is possible without the proper insights and practice
5/24/2012 8:20 PM: me: In anatta every activity is it, is buddha nature, so no contrivance at all
5/24/2012 8:21 PM: me: No need to meditate to get anywhere
5/24/2012 8:21 PM: me: But meditation is still important to cultivate certain aspects like tranquility
5/24/2012 8:22 PM: John: Indeed and this is being authenticated by the immediate moment of experience. How could there be doubt abt it. The last trace of Presence must be released with seeing through the emptiness nature of whatever arises.
5/24/2012 8:22 PM: me: I see..
5/24/2012 8:25 PM: John: After maturing and integrating ur insights into practice, there must be no effort and action.... The entire whole is doing the work and arises as this vivid moment of shimmering appearance, this has always been what we always called Presence.
5/24/2012 8:26 PM: me: Ic..
5/24/2012 8:28 PM: me: Nowadays there is not much effort but still I do anapanasati mostly for inner tranquility and calming body and mind
5/24/2012 8:30 PM: me: Eckhart tolle said the simple anapanasati is better than the countless self help or whatever courses people tend to join and its free... I agree
5/24/2012 8:31 PM: John: Yes and u should in all moment of 6 entries and exits experience all coming together for this moment to arise....this will dissolve all senses of holdings and will lead u effortless and maha experience of suchness effortlessly
5/24/2012 8:31 PM: me: I see..
5/24/2012 8:32 PM: me: The "everything coming together" feels like everything is universe manifesting, a causal and selfless process right
5/24/2012 8:33 PM: John: Yeah, interpenetration, open, boundless, effortless and uncontrived.. I do not know how to describe
5/24/2012 8:34 PM: John: Not something interacting with another thing but simply seamless intepetration
5/24/2012 8:37 PM: John: There cannot be any sense of holding and maintain anything, there the presence must b completely forgotten and given up via the 2 fold emptying
5/24/2012 8:38 PM: me: I see
5/24/2012 8:39 PM: John: In the four aspects of I M, I hv told u that it serves as a guide to lead u to this experience but it will be difficult as there is the wrong understand of presence
5/24/2012 8:39 PM: me: Presence is not a thing, it is constantly disappearing and manifesting as diversity, so any holding is illusional
5/24/2012 8:39 PM: me: Oic..
5/24/2012 8:40 PM: John: In the 4 aspects, the Presence is not given up
5/24/2012 8:42 PM: John: That Presence must be completely given up for uncontrievance, effortlessness to arise. Unfortunately it is highly unlikely without emptying all inherent and dualistic view
5/24/2012 8:44 PM: John: Re-read those articles I wrote
5/24/2012 8:47 PM: me: I see..
5/26/2012 11:16 PM: John: The next phase after realizing the purpose of two fold emptiness, u must relax into non action and experience the maha experience of suchness
5/26/2012 11:21 PM: John: Where the mind, body, self are totally transcended into this oceanic pure seamless interpenetration. U do not need to concentrate or do anything...simply sit, relax, do nothing and allow natural integration of ur empty view into whatever arises.
...
And this conversation with me just a while back:
6/3/2012 9:27 PM: John: I do not see practice apart from realizing the essence and nature of awareness
6/3/2012 9:30 PM: John: The only difference is seeing Awareness as an ultimate essence or realizing awareness as this Seamless activity that fills the entire Universe.
6/3/2012 9:32 PM: John: When we say there is no scent of a flower, the scent is the flower....that is becoz the mind, body, universe are all together deconstructed into this single flow, this scent and only this... Nothing else.
6/3/2012 9:33 PM: John: That is the Mind that is no mind.
6/3/2012 9:38 PM: John: There is no an Ultimate Mind that transcends anything in the Buddhist enlightenment. The mind Is this very manifestation of total exertion...wholly thus.
6/3/2012 9:42 PM: John: Therefore there is always no mind, always only this vibration of moving train, this cooling air of the aircon, this breath..
6/3/2012 9:47 PM: John: The question is after the 7 phases of insights can this be realized and experience and becomes the ongoing activity of practice in enlightenment and enlightenment in practice -- practice-enlightenment.
Yes - I am sorry @Prairiewind. That was unncecessary - thankyou for your charity.
I felt at the time that a lot of your post was talking at cross purposes.
I skimmed back quickly now and I see your points again. And I know why you are saying those things, and do not disagree. I have said the same before (laughs).
But I did feel that you were a bit on autopilot, responding to points you felt important to make and then talking from that, rather than understanding the other. But perhaps that is just my perception and I am wrong on that. If so, sorry. If somewhere in the middle, let's have a discussion next time.
Also I have been meaning to ask you what avatar is it that you have. I like that painting, it is very cute.
Also do you live in EU if you don't mind me asking. I saw your comment on the Alps so is it Italy? If you want to answer privately just do so via PM, or otherwise don't answer back - no-one needs to share personal details on the internet
BW,
Abu
To the initial topic, words can mean the same thing in practice, and sometimes they do not. Religions can have seeming and actual similarities but it does not mean they are the same in guidance and realisation/actualisation. Some are, some aren't and you would have to be an expert in both to say either way.
As to the smile, there is probably a smiley religion in the world also - people think of all sorts of things in this world.
The Buddha's teachings are very good actually, and very complete, in my own view and experience.
Best wishes,
Abu
I'll just add this from another thread....
Emptiness is just half of it. There is no thing or non-thing called "Emptiness", there is only Emptiness/Form. The view of 'Emptiness" as "The" Absolute (akin to the "causeless cause" ) is off the mark.
Emptiness is not other than Form, Form is not other than Emptiness. Form/Emptiness is single and experiential.
Emptiness/Form is a descriptor of "Suchness". "Suchness" is both the holy and the non-holy... While not negating the holiness of holiness and non-holiness of non-holiness. It is the very "suchness" of those relative qualities as well.
Before you understand it, it's like gold; after you understand it, it's like dung.
Zen master
http://www.livinglifefully.com/zensayings.htm
"At this juncture, it is necessary to have clarity on what Emptiness is not to prevent misunderstandings:
• Emptiness is not a substance
• Emptiness is not a substratum or background
• Emptiness is not light
• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
• Emptiness is not the Absolute
• Emptiness does not exist on its own
• Objects do not consist of emptiness
• Objects do not arise from emptiness
• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind
Source: Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching
And I would like to add,
Emptiness is not a path of practice
Emptiness is not a form of fruition"
The problem with people mistaking Emptiness for some Absolute is because they had the experience, realization, of the I AM or the Witness. It is the formless beingness or what you call the subjective pole taken as true self. I'm sure you are familiar of it.
Because this experience is "formless", when they hear Buddhist terms like "emptiness", they automatically began to equate the formless being with buddhist emptiness.
Little do they know, the formless beingness or consciousness has nothing to do with Buddhist emptiness teachings.
Dr. Greg Goode expressed well:
"For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."
Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free."
Dr. Greg Goode who followed the Advaita teachings of Sri Atmananda only later explored Buddhist emptiness teachings only after going through the I AM which later led to the nondual Brahman or One Mind realization. What Dr. Greg Goode failed to describe however is the direct realization of the emptiness of awareness. So I think some of the understandings remain at a theoretical level.
When the twofold emptiness (emptiness of self of subject, emptiness of dharmas in object) is experientially realized, there is absolutely no absolutization of some "emptiness" or ultimate reality. In fact the whole purpose of (buddhist) "emptiness" is to deconstruct any notion or ideation of an Absolute, an ontological essence, a substantial reality, an inherent existence, whether in subject or in objects.
And this I have written recently:
"Just like to add a short comment:
Dogen here relates nyo (“like”), to ze (“this”), evoking the familiar Zen association nyoze (“like this,” “thusness”). He goes on to draw the implication that “like this” signifies not mere resemblance but the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. He thus rejects any dualistic notion of metaphor or simile (hiyi), whereby an image points to, represents, or approximates something other than itself. Rather, for Dogen, the symbol itself is the very presence of total dynamism, i.e., it presents.
Hee-Jin Kim, Flowers of Emptiness, note 8, p.251
I could think of one example: people liken “Buddha-nature” to be “like the moon”.
In actuality, the very appearance of the moon is buddha-nature, it is not that there is some hidden thing called buddha-nature which merely resembles the moon. The moon is buddha-nature, the buddha-nature is the moon, the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. Or as Dogen says, the moon-face buddha and sun-face buddha, the whole body is the whole moon. There is nothing hidden or latent about it, there is no hidden noumenon in which phenomenon or symbols can “point to” or “hint at”. The symbol, e.g. the moon, is itself the very presence of total dynamism.
In fact everything is like this.
Scent of a flower is not scent of “a flower”, the scent does not represent or approximate something other than itself but is a complete reality (well not exactly a 'reality' but rather a whole and complete manifestation/appearance which is empty and unreal) in itself: the scent IS the flower, wheel of a car is not wheel of “a car”, the car IS the wheel. The word “car” is a mere imputation, not a true reality that can be established. “Self” and aggregates are likewise.
Seen in such manner, all constructs are deconstructed and what's left is just the shimmering "dream-like" (coreless, empty, illusory), luminous appearances which is all there is, but not to be confused with a dreamy state."
And to this, Thusness later wrote to me:
"6/3/2012 9:27 PM: John: I do not see practice apart from realizing the essence and nature of awareness
6/3/2012 9:30 PM: John: The only difference is seeing Awareness as an ultimate essence or realizing awareness as this Seamless activity that fills the entire Universe.
6/3/2012 9:32 PM: John: When we say there is no scent of a flower, the scent is the flower....that is becoz the mind, body, universe are all together deconstructed into this single flow, this scent and only this... Nothing else.
6/3/2012 9:33 PM: John: That is the Mind that is no mind.
6/3/2012 9:38 PM: John: There is no an Ultimate Mind that transcends anything in the Buddhist enlightenment. The mind Is this very manifestation of total exertion...wholly thus.
6/3/2012 9:42 PM: John: Therefore there is always no mind, always only this vibration of moving train, this cooling air of the aircon, this breath...
6/3/2012 9:47 PM: John: The question is after the 7 phases of insights can this be realized and experience and becomes the ongoing activity of practice in enlightenment and enlightenment in practice -- practice-enlightenment."
Lastly, no matter how many glimpses of nondual or no mind, without going through the twofold emptying, there can hardly be effortlessness and seamlessness. This is because we have not overcome the framework, the view, of inherency.
That is why we have to have direct realization of right view - after that "no mind" and "maha" becomes effortless and seamless instead of intermittent peak experiences.
Also, even if one has experienced nonduality of subject and object, and sees everything as "expressions of awareness", one can still fall back to the one mind brahman view and experience. This is because overcoming the bond or view of subject-object duality is not the same as overcoming the view of inherency. One can still have the substance view that everything is of the same substance of ultimate mind. This substance view is what is deconstructed through emptiness - both of subject (including one mind) and objects. Instead of subsuming all phenomena to be a single substance - say all liquids are "made" of h2o, one further investigates and breaks the substance view by seeing the h2o too is just a convention or imputation on a conglomerate without any core (it is just a label imputed on two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom co-dependently arising). In the same way the difference between one mind and twofold emptiness is that in emptiness, instead of subsuming, the subject to be subsumed in, I.e. "Mind" is seen as empty and coreless, mind is no mind, but the expressions are ceaseless just like river is empty of a river-entity that can be pinned down, apart from flowing.
Overcoming subject-object split/duality leads to the gaplessly intimate experience of everything as if there is no you and everything is yourself. This is blissful, but not the same as the twofold emptiness, and only by overcoming the view of inherency can lead to the experience of liberation.
All views are also naturally transcended, I.e. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." - Kaccayanagotta Sutta
Anything short of this means one has understood emptiness wrongly, or the understanding remains at the intellectual level instead of being experientially realized, and thereby the practitioner is unable to actualize it in all activities.
Here is a story from some nameable people:
Why did the Buddha not answer the question of whether he'd exist or not after death? Well... will an orange exist or not after you eat it? Can you really say it's gone... or is it simply transformed? Can you say it was really an orange to begin with? If not, then where did it come from, what is its original face? In this way we see, through dependent origination, that nothing comes from nothing and so nothing is "self", and this is what "emptiness" means. Questions of existence and non-existence are based on thinking there's this inherent thing-ness or being-ness to objects, which is in fact not the case!
http://www.emptiness.co/intro
"Form is like a lump of foam, feeling like a water bubble; perception is like a mirage; habitual tendencies are like a plantain trunk, and consciousness like magician's creation, so explained the Kinsman of the Sun" (S.iii.142).
According to Candrakiriti, "Svabhâva is the own-being, the very nature of a thing." Not surprisingly, conditioned existence has no self-nature. Besides the unconditioned svabhâva, everything else shows a clear lack of svabhâva (ultimately things are only name & form). There is no real creation insofar as the created thing is nothing in itself.
"All things are like a magical display; they arise from discrimination. In them there is nothing; they are all empty" (The Sword of Wisdom Sutra).
In liberation/nirvana we are in direct communion with nirvana's svabhâva/sabhâva which is unconditioned, hence, not empty.
Emptiness is realized only when the non-empty, Buddha-nature is fully realized, this nature being transcendent; beyond our finitude and angst. With awakening, one is able to discern (prajna) the conditioned-illusory from the unconditioned-absolute which is free of angst. In the final analysis, the conditioned-illusory is only a configuration/projection of the unconditioned-absolute.
Emptiness is realized through seeing emptiness, or seeing neither self nor permanence in any phenomena or aggregate whatsoever, leaving nothing to grasp as self (it's not grasping a hidden non-empty self, but ceasing to grasp what's not-self which is everything). This is why Emptiness is equated with Dependent Origination, because all things are seen as dependently originated phenomena and so are interdependent/selfless and transient. There's no "you" apart from the aggregates, and yet "you" are a dependently originated phenomena, a bucket of water in the ocean that has no true separate identity (and the ocean is forever shifting, not constituting a self either).
The first awakening to Nirvana is the initial cessation of craving that comes with seeing there's nothing to grasp as self, with seeing that the view of "self" has been an error, which is a major find for a mind that has been steeped in delusion. Nirvana is cessation of craving which is also cessation of suffering, or positively "peace". This is why "liberation" is equated with "Nirvana", they are one and the same. Nirvana is not some separate "thing", it's not self... though one could say the functioning of a Buddha is "true self" or better yet "true nature", but this does not mean "self" in the way we normally mean it.
Do you not think the mind can do anything, if it only sees its delusion? All it has to see is that each thing it takes to be part of itself, part of you (this means all the aggregates) are dependently originated. It sees this through meditation. Seeing this, the "view" of self is abandoned. Continuing on, craving and clinging are abandoned through the Path. It's all a very simple process that has everything it needs... it needs no self thrown in to make sense, and in fact self quite goes against Dependent Origination. What did the Buddha say again? He who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma? I think this is apt.
The danger of not initially realizing the transcendent through either sotapatti (the state of entering the current) or bodhicittotpada (manifestation of the mind that is bodhi) is that emptiness becomes nihilism. This can happen when one understands emptiness to be global emptiness, that is, a bringing to nothingness of all.
It can be argued that the proponets of Madhyamaka can easily fall into the error nihilism by assuming global emptiness (later this will turn into grave error of non-findingness). This position fails to understand that correct emptiness is only possible from the standpoint of the non-empty absolute which is positive unconditionality. A Buddha can say of the world that it is empty (suññam lokam). But he does not say the transcendent is empty, like with the world, since the transcendent is not subject to cause and condition whereas things constituting the world are.
One more thing. The Buddha in his discourses can say that the five grasping aggregates (the five skandha) are not his self or nonself (anâtman) only because he has realized the true self which transcends them. On the other hand, to say, patently, there is no self is the creed of annihilationism. In fact, the middle way would be self which lies between the error of affirming the aggregates are the self (which in Pali is sakkaya) and the error that there is categorically no self (which in Pali is natthatta).
Read up here: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm
Exactly, those who disregard the seriousness of the self by treating it as unreal are heading towards nihilism if not already there.
“But if nihilism is anything, it is first of all a problem of the self. And it becomes such a problem only when the self becomes a problem, when the ground of the existence called "self" becomes a problem for itself. When the problem of nihilism is posed apart from the self, or as a problem of society in general, it loses the special genuineness that distinguishes it from other problems” (Nishitani Keiji, Graham Parkes, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, 1).
This is why you'll never see me on these threads, I have absolutely no idea what any of this means
Think what you like about "pop Buddhism", I'm just glad it's in English
You just see any view other than pro-self as materialism. It's sad.
As for, "He who beholds dependent arising beholds the dhamma; he who beholds the dhamma beholds the dependent arising" (M.i.191), this is with regard to the five skandhas which are affected by clinging so are dependently arisen.
"The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origination of suffering. [This is so kewl - this is the 2nd ariyan truth.] The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering (i.e., nirvana)" (M.i.191). [Totally kewl, this is the 3rd ariyan truth.] (Emphasis and brackets added.)
The deeper side of dependent origination in Mahayana is expressed by the Avatamsaka Sutra which says: “The twelve links of conditioned origination are all dependent on the One Mind (trans. Nakamura).”
By the way Cloud, not all Theravadins are nihilists adherring to no self (natthatta). Personally, I don't see a no self doctrine in the Pali canon. Instead I see a "don't attach to conditioned existence—you will be in big trouble if you do."
After you intuit you pure Mind (the hard part) for the first time (it is a powerful experience), you'll not only understand what the Buddha is really saying, but you'll see that Buddhism is simple.
Just because you've gone into a pro-self view doesn't mean that Buddhism without self is automatically nihilism. If anything Self/Transmigration is Eternalism, Dependent Origination (Emptiness) is in the middle (in fact the Middle Way IMO), and No Continuity (No Life After Death) is Nihilism on the left. You seem to think there are only two gears in a three-gear system.
Am I reading you right? are you basically saying that no-self is akin to nihilism? You're losing me here....
Anattâ is not the same, far from it. It is used with the five aggregates in this example:
"Bhikkhus, form is nonself [anatta]. What is nonself should be see as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Feeling is nonself... Perception is nonself...Volitional formations are nonself...Consciousness is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’" (S.iii.22–23).
It is simply saying the aggregate of form, for example, is not my self. It is like saying a bicycle is not frederica or a car engine is not frederica. Here is another example:
“But monks, an instructed disciple of the pure ones...regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as:’ This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’” (Majjhima-Nikaya, i.136).
In a nutshell, the five aggregates are evil; they are suffering. An authentic Buddhist should know that these evil, suffering aggregates are not their real self.
Also, some Buddhists don't understand pratityasamutpada. If I make a pot out of clay, the pot is a dependent origination of the clay. Conditioned things are compositions. Accordingly, they are empty; nothing in themselves; just name and shape (namarupa).
From the Lankavatara Sutra we learn that there is nothing really here except pure Mind which is not empty because it is not conditioned. To awaken is to see that your body and the world it inhabits are nothing but configurations of Mind. What the real federica is, is absolute Mind (not the aggregates); call this Mind, Buddha-nature, Âtman, and so on. When you fully attain it, words don't matter anymore.
"When Nagarjuna says in his Madhyamika Shastra that: "That is called Nirvana which is not wanting, is not acquired, is not intermittent, is not non-intermittent, is not subject to destruction, and is not created;" he evidently speaks of Nirvana as a synonym of Dharmakaya, that is, in its first sense as above described. Chandra Kirti, therefore, rightly comments that Nirvana is sarva-kalpanâ-ksaya-rupam, i.e., that which transcends all the forms of determination. Nirvana is an absolute, it is above the relativity of existence (bhâva) and non-existence (abhâva). Nirvana is sometimes spoken of as possessing four attributes; (1) eternal (nitya), (2) blissful (sukha) (3) self-acting (âtman), and (4) pure (shushi). Judging from these qualities thus ascribed to Nirvana as its essential features, Nirvana is here again identified with the highest reality of Buddhism, that is, with the Dharmakaya. It is eternal because it is immaterial; it is blissful because it is above all sufferings; it is self-acting because it knows no compulsion; it is pure because it is not defiled by passion and error" (Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Outline of Mahayana Buddhism, p. 347–348).
“This world is blinded, few only can see here. Like birds escaped from the nets few go to heaven (appo saggâya gacchati)” (Dhammapada 174)
The commentary to the Dhammapada says few escape the net of Mara while an occasional person reaches heaven, that is, nirvana.
By the way, Pali commentaries tell us that the Buddha expounded the Abhidhamma, not first in the human world to his human disciples, but to the assembly of gods in the Tavatimsa heaven.