Consciousness without surface (outside space and time)

Talisman

In a recent conversation regarding death and rebirth, I was speaking with @jeffrey and @taiyaki at lenght regarding the different forms of consciusness and what it is that "experiences" nirvana or is translated from life to life. I am currently researching the differences bewteen Citta, Manas, and Vinnana as well as the mahayana understandings of the different levels of consciousness and have come accross this description in one of my readings.

I think you will find it interesting. The study continues!...

Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam): This term appears to be related to the following image from SN 12.64:
"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"

"On the western wall, lord."

"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"

"On the ground, lord."

"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"

"On the water, lord."

"And if there is no water, where does it land?"

"It does not land, lord."

"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food ... contact ... intellectual intention ... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

In other words, normal sensory consciousness is experienced because it has a "surface" against which it lands: the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the "all." For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all.

This consciousness thus differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. And, as SN 35.23 notes, the word "all" in the Buddha's teaching covers only the six sense media, which is another reason for not including this consciousness under the aggregates. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud I.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud VIII.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time.

Some have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbana, on the grounds that nibbana is no where else in the Canon described as a form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness without surface be regarded as an arahant's consciousness of nibbana in meditative experience, and not nibbana itself. This argument, however, contains two flaws: (1) The term viññanam anidassanam also occurs in DN 11, where it is described as where name & form are brought to an end: surely a synonym for nibbana. (2) If nibbana is an object of mental consciousness (as a dhamma), it would come under the all, as an object of the intellect. There are passages in the Canon (such as AN 9.36) that describe meditators experiencing nibbana as a dhamma, but these passages seem to indicate that this description applies up through the level of non-returning. Other passages, however, describe nibbana as the ending of all dhammas. For instance, Sn V.6 quotes the Buddha as calling the attainment of the goal the transcending of all dhammas. Sn IV.6 and Sn IV.10 state that the arahant has transcended dispassion, said to be the highest dhamma. Thus, for the arahant, nibbana is not an object of consciousness. Instead it is directly known without mediation. Because consciousness without feature is directly known without mediation, there seems good reason to equate the two.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html#fn-9

Jeffrey

I'll puzzle over this. It was shocking and difficult to hear the part about "Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all."

I think this is what my teacher means when she has instructed me to notice the thought I have that the mind has boundaries. And then try to find the outline of the boundaries. Not as a task but as a wondering. Letting go and playing lightly with that question (she instructs).

One of these days I'll have to look at the pali canon again. I did about 8 years ago but I wonder what I would see in light of what I have experienced these past years.

Thanks for doing the legwork of finding this passage.

Jason

Yes, it's definitely an interesting interpretation of the term vinnanam anidassanam. I wrote a couple of things about this a while back that you might be interested in reading: "vinnanam anidassanam, thanissaro vs. orthodoxy" and "some rambling thoughts on nibbana."

As for citta (intellect), mano (mind) and vinnana (consciousness), the commentarial tradition of Theravada considers them to be synonymous based upon this passage from SN 12.61:

But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,' the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

Talisman

@jason

This partial statement, “cittaṃ itipi, mano itipi, viññāṇaṃ itipi”, is very frequently quoted — in isolation, out of context — by proponents and commentators of the Abhidhamma and of Abhidhamma-influenced schools, in support of the stereotypical Abhidhamma view that the terms citta, mano, and viññāṇa are somehow “synonymous”. Only one other similar passage can be found in the Suttanta Piṭaka, in DN 1 (Brahmajāla Sutta; PTS DN i.1), at DN i.21, but this passage is rarely cited, for an obvious reason: “Yaṃ ca kho idaṃ vuccati cittanti vā mano’ti vā viññāṇanti vā...” “That which is called ‘citta’ or ‘mano’ or ‘viññāṇa’...” There, in DN 1, it is put into the mouth of the kind of “reasoner” (takkī) who wrongly argues that “mind” is a permanent, eternal, unchanging “self” (attā). It is therefore very interesting and very important to note that here, too, in SN 12.61, this same formula occurs in the context of a description of the way of thinking of the “tatrāssutavā puthujjano”, the “in every way spiritually-unlearned ordinary person”. This crucial matter is too detailed and complex to discuss here in a brief footnote, but it can hopefully be addressed in detail and in depth on a different occasion. Suffice it to say that I am not asserting that citta, mano, and viññāṇa are distinct and separate “things”, but that they refer to quite distinct and non-inter-reducible functions and properties of “mind” as such. To claim that they are “mere synonyms” is, very crudely speaking, rather like claiming that the words “steam”, “liquid”, and “ice” are all “mere synonyms”. To be sure, they may all refer to forms of “water”; but it would be plainly and simply wrong to claim that they are therefore merely “synonymous”.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.niza.html#fn-4

SherabDorje

@Talisman- you're on a roll these days. I didn't even rejoin your other thread because I thought you put it so well in the OP there. I cut-and-pasted your OP there to a document for my own personal reflection and follow-up, and I just cut-and-pasted this OP too. You're definitely in a good space these days.

Talisman

Thanks @sherabdorje I appreciate it

Jason

This partial statement, “cittaṃ itipi, mano itipi, viññāṇaṃ itipi”, is very frequently quoted — in isolation, out of context — by proponents and commentators of the Abhidhamma and of Abhidhamma-influenced schools, in support of the stereotypical Abhidhamma view that the terms citta, mano, and viññāṇa are somehow “synonymous”. Only one other similar passage can be found in the Suttanta Piṭaka, in DN 1 (Brahmajāla Sutta; PTS DN i.1), at DN i.21, but this passage is rarely cited, for an obvious reason: “Yaṃ ca kho idaṃ vuccati cittanti vā mano’ti vā viññāṇanti vā...” “That which is called ‘citta’ or ‘mano’ or ‘viññāṇa’...” There, in DN 1, it is put into the mouth of the kind of “reasoner” (takkī) who wrongly argues that “mind” is a permanent, eternal, unchanging “self” (attā). It is therefore very interesting and very important to note that here, too, in SN 12.61, this same formula occurs in the context of a description of the way of thinking of the “tatrāssutavā puthujjano”, the “in every way spiritually-unlearned ordinary person”. This crucial matter is too detailed and complex to discuss here in a brief footnote, but it can hopefully be addressed in detail and in depth on a different occasion. Suffice it to say that I am not asserting that citta, mano, and viññāṇa are distinct and separate “things”, but that they refer to quite distinct and non-inter-reducible functions and properties of “mind” as such. To claim that they are “mere synonyms” is, very crudely speaking, rather like claiming that the words “steam”, “liquid”, and “ice” are all “mere synonyms”. To be sure, they may all refer to forms of “water”; but it would be plainly and simply wrong to claim that they are therefore merely “synonymous”.

Yes, I'm more inclined to agree with Nizamis' assessment than the commentarial tradition's suggestion that they're synonymous; although I do think that citta, mano and vinnana are more alike in character than, say, steam, liquid and ice.

taiyaki

is realizing and having the shift from consciousness with object to consciousness with no object the same as realizing emptiness?

because here we're dealing with the non dual and dualistic labels can't pinpoint what we are talking about. so the buddhas always worked through negation and paradox.

i suppose if consciousness had no object or dualistic projection and clinging then when you see an object (for the sake of language here) it is no longer an object in the old sense. for now there is a distinction between thoughts, feelings, and awareness.

so when one is grounded in being they embody such awareness and in essence we all already embody such awareness. it is a matter of how fast our minds usually co opt this. so in some sense a buddha would be able to create longer gaps between thoughts and feelings. and even if thoughts and feelings arises they would be seen through automatically from the vantage point of non dual awareness. as like all things they arises and fall. thus a buddha can totally engage with all aspects of human life all while being the witness of it all.

to me emptiness is obvious. i can feel it and in for me it is the silence that encompasses everything. and i've always attributed the non dual awareness with emptiness, but it seems emptiness is something to be realized on it's own as well.

meh just my thought ramblings.

SherabDorje

@taiyaki- just briefly, by my recollection according to the work of Dr. Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin (who features strongly in the book "Destructive Emotions- How Can We Overcome Them?" by HHDL and Daniel Goleman) there is a four-millisecond gap between perception and reaction. If I remember right, this is verified by using an electroencephalogram with 256 leads, which is a pretty sophisticated piece of scientific equipment.

So your thought about buddhas being able to create longer gaps between thoughts and feelings may be supported by neuroscience. In any case, I recommend this book as an extremely good read, not only for the neuroscientific aspects, which are pretty amazing, but just in general.

taiyaki

ah that is very interesting. i watched a documentary on meditation and they were doing studies with Tibetan monks such as matthieu ricard. and in this study he did open presence meditation. he also talks about bringing such meditation in all aspects of life, so that ones whole human experience is in this open presence.

we definitely live in a fascinating time where science and spirituality will meet eye to eye. i'll check out the book.

santhisouk

I think "consciousness" is an abused and misused word honestly. The Pali word is vinnana, and I am sure in the analogy of the candle, it would be the flame. The question is...Is the "flame" the complete mind? I don't think so. The flame is just an aggregate. Within the candle contains the complete mind. Whether or not the candle has been lit does not mean it is not a candle. Are candles useless just because they are not lit? The word "consciousness" that was used in most of Pali texts are used to describe a "living mind". Although "consciousness" may be a broader word then "vinnana", still the living mind is still a subject to clinging and therefore can't be separated into any other form of consciousness.

just my ramblins so far.

Jeffrey

They are probably all the same but there is a reason why three different terms are used. Otherwise buddha would have used one!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory

Mistaking the map for the territory is a little known but very important form of fallacy where someone may confuse the semantics of a term. Such a fallacy is due to the mistaken belief that a symbol or model is actually the same as the reality that it represents or that one's measurements are exactly the same as the thing that one measures. The name is a metaphorical representation of mistaking words and symbols for things that they could mean, rather than what they do mean in context. It is sometimes referred to as the Sanskrit word "maya", but Alfred Korzybski referred to it as "the illusion of mistaking the map for the territory".[1][2]

SherabDorje

@taiyaki and all- there's a photograph of Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche on the National Geographic site with a 256-lead EEG cap on his head. I have one also, but unfortunately it's on my other netbook, which I can't access right now.

Speaking of YMR, his description of primordial wisdom as "luminosity" rather than nothingness in his first book is quite nice. I recommend that also.

Jeffrey

There must be an article too huh? Sounds worth a look.

Talisman

@santhisouk

There are 3 "versions" or mind that the Buddha discusses.
Vinnana: the consciousness associated with the senses.
Manas: the faculty for volitional thought.
Citta: the "state of mind" or the quality of the mental processes as a whole.

All of these "minds" are conditioned and subject to dissolve along with the rest of the aggregates at death.

In regards to the section I quoted in the OP, I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of the sutta. I'm not thouroughly convinced of any form of consciousness seperate from that which is grounded in either Citta, Manas, or Vinnana. I will be spending a lot of time contemplating this and respond accordingly.

SherabDorje

There must be an article too huh? Sounds worth a look.

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/mind-brain/

santhisouk

All of these "minds" are conditioned and subject to dissolve along with the rest of the aggregates at death.

@Talisman

Of those three you mentioned, I believe citta may or may not be conditioned. The reason is because citta is the part of the mind that we work to purify and improve, and as the Buddha prescribes in his teachings, citta is not a faculty of consciousness but rather consciousness is a faculty of citta. I don't think you will find anything mentioned in the texts that citta is an aggregate or that citta is subject to clinging.

Consciousness can not be grounded in vinnana. Consciousness can not be grounded on itself. The flame is not the candle, but the clinging mind may look at the entire candle as just a flame. Of those three only citta may continue on. Consciousness or vinnana burns out along with its faculties.

It's possible to have something exists within something and not be visible. The fire faculty exists within wood, we just need to rub them together to bring out the fire. I believe the enlightened mind may continue on after death because it is not a subject to dependent origination. I believe the true mind or enlightened mind may be brought out from the living mind and be free from suffering just as fire may be brought out from an ordinary piece of wood.

Jason

Of those three you mentioned, I believe citta may or may not be conditioned. The reason is because citta is the part of the mind that we work to purify and improve, and as the Buddha prescribes in his teachings, citta is not a faculty of consciousness but rather consciousness is a faculty of citta. I don't think you will find anything mentioned in the texts that citta is an aggregate or that citta is subject to clinging.

This reminds me a lot of how Ajahn Boowa talks about citta. For example, in the appendix to his Arahattamagga Arahattaphala - The Path to Arahantship, he says things like the citta is intrinsically bright and clear and that "the true power of the citta's own nature is that it knows and does not die" (99). To me, this sounds similar to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's description of vinnanam anidassanam. For example, from "Five Piles of Bricks":

Other passages mention a consciousness in this freedom — "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (MN 49). In this it differs from the consciousness-khandha, which depends on the six sense spheres and can be described in such terms as near or far, past, present, or future. Consciousness without feature is thus the awareness of Awakening. And the freedom of this awareness carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness. As the Buddha said of himself:

"Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness... birth... aging... death... suffering & stress... defilement, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness." — AN 10.81

As I said before, it's certainly an interesting interpretation of the term vinnanam anidassanam, albeit a controversial one. The same goes for citta as well. Many in the Theravadin community would say that these interpretations amount to eternalism (sassatavada).

Vajraheart

It's very important not to think that this state of consciousness experienced outside of time is self existent, and an eternal source of all things.

This state of consciousness is experienced, yes, but it arises due to a particular focus, and is not an independent, self existing identity.

Jeffrey

if its outside of time then question of source and eternal does not apply

taiyaki

this video sums up my stance on emptiness and awareness.

taiyaki

ever present non dual awareness is vast emptiness. the process of meditation in zen is to use koans and just sitting zazen centering oneself in being.

in being one can existentially realize their true nature as consciousness itself. now this consciousness isn't a thing, nor is it a no thing, it is non dual. we get to this consciousness by watching the different phenomena which arises in consciousness. everything is considered an object, but there is always the consciousness or watcher, which is the subject. when one realizes
themselves as the watcher then one realizes the inherent oneness of all things. this consciousness infinitely expands and the emptiess is felt. in this space of emptiness arises the different manifestations of form. not only are you not everything meaning the object that arise and the subject that sees, you are the subject that sees and the object that arises. thus coming at the conclusion that you are nothing and everything. empty and full. infinite in potential and infinite in expression.

so we get to our non dual awareness through negation of what we are not, which is essentially all the objects we perceive. thus bringing consciousness into the forefront. without grasping to the objects, we no longer have a permanent I, My, Me.

the non dual awareness is beyond permanent/impermanent as it is the unborn buddha nature, which from all expression arises. you cannot make consciousness into an object, because then what is aware of the object? neither is it a subject, for it is empty. so thus abolishing subject/object duality. there is only what is and what is just is. or as i would but it there is only awarenessing.

Daozen

Very interesting stuff.

A thought- if something is outside space and time, how is it able to interact with space and time?

Vajraheart

if its outside of time then question of source and eternal does not apply

It does for Theistic interpretations.

Vajraheart

Very interesting stuff.

A thought- if something is outside space and time, how is it able to interact with space and time?

Exactly, it's just a state of mind arising due to a focus that is opposite of time, space and phenomena, thus it is also dependently arisen and merely a state of mind and not the source of existence or enlightenment. The Buddha used it as a way to heal, relax and understanding the nature of phenomena, but he did not label it as the Self of all and he talks about this in the Pali texts. It is merely part of the process of attaining Buddhahood.

SherabDorje

It's very important not to think that this state of consciousness experienced outside of time is self existent, and an eternal source of all things.

This state of consciousness is experienced, yes, but it arises due to a particular focus, and is not an independent, self existing identity.

@Vajraheart- did you already cite your source for this above? I admit I haven't thoroughly read all the "walls" (necessary in this case) of text in the posts and quoted in the posts, although of course I probably should. If not, could you give us a source for this assertion?

Thanks.

taiyaki

the idea is there space/time only exists when we are using the dualistic mind. when non dual awareness is actualized then space/time is seen as empty processes. space and time are merely objects that make reference/interpretation of the non dual reality (consciousness/emptiness).

so we essentially go with the flow of nature. nature has a set of laws. there is constant change and various processes in nature. our nature is literally emptiness. the spaciousness, which allows for everything to arise and fall. now that is a non dual experience prior to interpretation/thinking. now you can see that is the interconnectivity of all things. form arises from emptiness and emptiness arises from form. both are interdependent. again the interpretations are endless because there is no set dualistic framework that you can put emptiness under because its an experience prior to dualistic mind.

so a buddha is one who is both nothing and everything. the embodiment of non dual awareness, which is emptiness. and such emptiness in form arising in being. so everything and every action is the infinite potentiality of emptiness. thus a buddha is one who see the non dual and moves past both not self and Self. both the impermanent and permanent.

and seeing that both are merely interpretations of the non dual.

santhisouk

This state of consciousness is experienced, yes, but it arises due to a particular focus, and is not an independent, self existing identity.

I agree. It is born from nature, and it is part of nature, so therefore we do not try to control nature, but we are just letting nature be nature. That's just my opinion.

Vajraheart

ever present non dual awareness is vast emptiness. the process of meditation in zen is to use koans and just sitting zazen centering oneself in being.

in being one can existentially realize their true nature as consciousness itself. now this consciousness isn't a thing, nor is it a no thing, it is non dual. we get to this consciousness by watching the different phenomena which arises in consciousness. everything is considered an object, but there is always the consciousness or watcher, which is the subject. when one realizes
themselves as the watcher then one realizes the inherent oneness of all things. this consciousness infinitely expands and the emptiess is felt. in this space of emptiness arises the different manifestations of form. not only are you not everything meaning the object that arise and the subject that sees, you are the subject that sees and the object that arises. thus coming at the conclusion that you are nothing and everything. empty and full. infinite in potential and infinite in expression.

so we get to our non dual awareness through negation of what we are not, which is essentially all the objects we perceive. thus bringing consciousness into the forefront. without grasping to the objects, we no longer have a permanent I, My, Me.

the non dual awareness is beyond permanent/impermanent as it is the unborn buddha nature, which from all expression arises. you cannot make consciousness into an object, because then what is aware of the object? neither is it a subject, for it is empty. so thus abolishing subject/object duality. there is only what is and what is just is. or as i would but it there is only awarenessing.

No, you are not talking Buddhist realization here, you are talking Vedantin interpretation of experience.

This is also not what emptiness means, this is basically reifying the Jhana of infinite space, or infinite nothingness. Have you actually experienced these Jhanas first hand?

Emptiness in Buddhism is much subtler of a realization, you should read more Nagarjuna.

Vajraheart

It's very important not to think that this state of consciousness experienced outside of time is self existent, and an eternal source of all things.

This state of consciousness is experienced, yes, but it arises due to a particular focus, and is not an independent, self existing identity.

@Vajraheart- did you already cite your source for this above? I admit I haven't thoroughly read all the "walls" (necessary in this case) of text in the posts and quoted in the posts, although of course I probably should. If not, could you give us a source for this assertion?

Thanks.

No, I haven't, it's common Buddhism though, please study up! It behooves one to study the texts. People are reading too many mistranslations and new age pundits it seems. It seems this site is falling for Vedantin trips due to lack of scholarship.

As of late at least.

Please people, study your Buddhism from Pali to Sanskrit under the guidance of living masters.

Vajraheart

This state of consciousness is experienced, yes, but it arises due to a particular focus, and is not an independent, self existing identity.

I agree. It is born from nature, and it is part of nature, so therefore we do not try to control nature, but we are just letting nature be nature. That's just my opinion.

Right, it is part of the process of transcendent dependent origination, or non-mundane dependent origination, which of course is connected to mundane dependent origination, but is classified conceptually as such merely to help the mind ground the understanding.

Vajraheart

No, you are not talking Buddhist realization here, you are talking Vedantin interpretation of experience.

This is also not what emptiness means, this is basically reifying the Jhana of infinite space, or infinite nothingness. Have you actually experienced these Jhanas first hand?

Emptiness in Buddhism is much subtler of a realization, you should read more Nagarjuna.

Basically @taiyaki you are talking about akasha (space) not shunyata (emptiness).

taiyaki

i've never experienced jhana. i am just interpreting my own subjective experience.

emptiness the realization can be interpreted many ways. as i've studied and seen it be taught a million different ways.
i see dependent origination as the other side of emptiness, which is essentially what the buddha taught.

form is emptiness and emptiness is form. everything is interdependent. yes yes yes lol.

Vajraheart

this video sums up my stance on emptiness and awareness.

Ken Wilber is a horrible source of Buddhist teaching. He reifies the Jhanas and is more of a Neo-Vedantin.

Not that he's bad or anything, but he's NOT Buddhist and does not teach the path to Buddhahood, but teaches the path to long lived god realms. He is very misleading. He is one of the Neo-Vedantins, along with Meister Ekchart and others that one should not be following if you want genuine Buddhadharma teachings.

One may says... "oh, that's dogmatic"... but, it's also a dogma to say that all things are one thing. This is all part of the Monotheistic or Monist interpretation of things. It's a Subjective Monist Idealism. Please meditate on that phrase and come to understand it. These people are reifying an ultimate subject of faceless consciousness and are not understanding dependent origination. Emptiness means dependent origination, it does not mean a transcendent faceless awareness, this is merely a one of the levels of consciousness as codified by Vasubandhu and Asanga in the yogachara or chittamatra from the 3rd to 4th century A.D. These teachings influenced Vedantins very much and they misinterpreted these teachings many centuries ago, along with the teachings of Nagarjuna into what is known as Advaita Vedanta. It behooves one to know the sources of information historically.

Ken Wilber does not understand the teaching of Buddhanature. Though I do respect him as a person who is trying. He's is not a go to source for Buddhism and he is not an enlightened source of information, just an intellectual with some meditative experience.

Vajraheart

i've never experienced jhana. i am just interpreting my own subjective experience.

emptiness the realization can be interpreted many ways. as i've studied and seen it be taught a million different ways.
i see dependent origination as the other side of emptiness, which is essentially what the buddha taught.

form is emptiness and emptiness is form. everything is interdependent. yes yes yes lol.

Ok, but emptiness is also empty of inherent nature. We are not "one", that is not a realization of emptiness. We are not separate either though.

Vajraheart

When you have an experience of oneness, it is merely your consciousness expanding through space without barrier due to the emptiness of things. This does not mean that faceless consciousness itself is Buddhahood as it is also empty of inherent existence and dependently originated.

Vajraheart

taiyaki

lol what is buddhahood? emptiness of emptiness?

Jeffrey

I think its dangerous to say which lineages are buddhist and which not. It leads to sectarian fighting and disharmony.

My teachers teacher is believed by many to be an emanation of Milarepa. If you would like to hear a discussion of 'Buddhism without credentials' I could type up a page by chogyam trungpa from my text, ocean of dharma.

taiyaki

i've been studying korean zen lately for the most part.
http://www.kwanumeurope.org/pdf/en/Dependent_Origination.pdf
here's a nice pdf of kind of the interpretation of dependent origination along with the non dual consciousness.

it is really a fun game to see how everything overlaps. i'm sorry if i am offending different traditions. I don't subscribe to any
single tradition thus i have a chaotic view of the non dual reality. lol welcome to school they say.

Vajraheart

lol what is buddhahood? emptiness of emptiness?

Study, study, study... lol! Seriously.

I like you taiyaki, don't get me wrong, I like your genuineness. It's nice. But, just study my friend. It helps to go back in time, I promise! As one gets to the infrastructure of various concepts as they evolved through human history, a clarity dawns. Of course, you want what's beyond time, as well as a part of time at the same time. You want the realization that self liberates, right now!! But, there is a process involved, of course. You'll have your own and if you seek you will find, this has brought you here as well, right?


Nagarjuna's Mahamudra Vision


Homage to Manjusrikumarabhuta!

1. I bow down to the all-powerful Buddha
Whose mind is free of attachment,
Who in his compassion and wisdom
Has taught the inexpressible.

2. In truth there is no birth -
Then surely no cessation or liberation;
The Buddha is like the sky
And all beings have that nature.

3. Neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist,
But all is a complex continuum
With an intrinsic face of void,
The object of ultimate awareness.

4. The nature of all things
Appears like a reflection,
Pure and naturally quiescent,
With a non-dual identity of suchness.

5. The common mind imagines a self
Where there is nothing at all,
And it conceives of emotional states -
Happiness, suffering, and equanimity.

6. The six states of being in Samsara,
The happiness of heaven,
The suffering of hell,
Are all false creations, figments of mind.

7. Likewise the ideas of bad action causing suffering,
Old age, disease and death,
And the idea that virtue leads to happiness,
Are mere ideas, unreal notions.

8. Like an artist frightened
By the devil he paints,
The sufferer in Samsara
Is terrified by his own imagination.

9. Like a man caught in quicksands
Thrashing and struggling about,
So beings drown
In the mess of their own thoughts.

10. Mistaking fantasy for reality
Causes an experience of suffering;
Mind is poisoned by interpretation
Of consciousness of form.

11. Dissolving figment and fantasy
With a mind of compassionate insight,
Remain in perfect awareness
In order to help all beings.

12. So acquiring conventional virtue
Freed from the web of interpretive thought,
Insurpassable understanding is gained
As Buddha, friend to the world.

13. Knowing the relativity of all,
The ultimate truth is always seen;
Dismissing the idea of beginning, middle and end
The flow is seen as Emptiness.

14. So all samsara and nirvana is seen as it is -
Empty and insubstantial,
Naked and changeless,
Eternally quiescent and illumined.

15. As the figments of a dream
Dissolve upon waking,
So the confusion of Samsara
Fades away in enlightenment.

16. Idealising things of no substance
As eternal, substantial and satisfying,
Shrouding them in a fog of desire
The round of existence arises.

17. The nature of beings is unborn
Yet commonly beings are conceived to exist;
Both beings and their ideas
Are false beliefs.

18. It is nothing but an artifice of mind
This birth into an illusory becoming,
Into a world of good and evil action
With good or bad rebirth to follow.

19. When the wheel of mind ceases to turn
All things come to an end.
So there is nothing inherently substantial
And all things are utterly pure.

20. This great ocean of samsara,
Full of delusive thought,
Can be crossed in the boat Universal Approach.
Who can reach the other side without it?

Colophon
The Twenty Mahayana Verses, (in Sanskrit,
Mahayanavimsaka; in Tibetan: Theg pa chen po nyi
shu pa) were composed by the master Nagarjuna.

Vajraheart

I think its dangerous to say which lineages are buddhist and which not. It leads to sectarian fighting and disharmony.

My teachers teacher is believed by many to be an emanation of Milarepa. If you would like to hear a discussion of 'Buddhism without credentials' I could type up a page by chogyam trungpa from my text, ocean of dharma.

I'm not really into the people who Trungpa left as his successors if that's what you're talking about. Not that I don't like Trungpa, but I don't find his successors adequate interpretations.

It's also dangerous to believe that every interpretation is correct. To pat each others backs is political harmony, it doesn't lead to Buddhahood. Debate and forced disharmony in order to get to the nitty gritty level of understanding is part of the practice of the Gelupa tradition, in order to test a persons mind state in the face of opposition as well to test a persons level of insight into the dharma of the Buddha.

All the worlds spiritual traditions do not lead to the same place. Even in Buddhism, there are different types of Buddhas, and different ways that they manifest, otherwise they would have all attained the Rainbow Body, of which there are even a few different types. Thus also the universe is deep and complex and there are different types of goodness, not just one type. There is the goodness of the gods of Indraloka, the pleasure realms, there is the goodness of the devas without body but merely energy bliss without thought, there are so many types of goodness' and types of teaching. Now, the Buddha himself debated against wrong views, he did not agree with Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, he did not agree with those that upheld the Vedas, only as far as they do not lead to the same realization that he had as a true Buddha. He did teach that they did fulfill the teachings of kindness and purity of being, but Buddhahood is subtler than this.

Jeffrey

Yes but this is not a gelug forum.. we are both guests... thanks

plus its ad hominem to say trungpa is not buddhist for example. some people believe that trungpa achieved buddhahood after his death.

Pema chodron and rigdzin shikpo are a couple of his students. Have you read their books?

Countless beings are students of these two. We don't have enough space to debate these topics in detail so in the limited venue lets share and discuss rather than dismiss whole lineages. Do you agree?

Vajraheart

i've been studying korean zen lately for the most part.
http://www.kwanumeurope.org/pdf/en/Dependent_Origination.pdf
here's a nice pdf of kind of the interpretation of dependent origination along with the non dual consciousness.

it is really a fun game to see how everything overlaps. i'm sorry if i am offending different traditions. I don't subscribe to any
single tradition thus i have a chaotic view of the non dual reality. lol welcome to school they say.

Yes, but "suchness" as ZEN MASTER SEUNG SAHN is saying is just emptiness in the perspective of how it relates to the everflowing cosmos. It's not an actual identity. We are all equally empty of inherent existence, and this is our Buddhanature, our potential for malleability towards ultimate liberation from relative bondage.

There is no "nondual reality" per say. The problem with English translations of Eastern languages, is there needs to be a lot of unpacking. Like one word in Sanskrit needs a lot of contextualization, at least when it comes to Sanskrits' spiritual usage as opposed to it's mundane usage. It's the same with Chinese.

Ok, so you are getting into Zen, that's good. You should read Asanga and Vasubhandu, they are Zen Patriarchs from India. Zen is sourced in India.

Vajraheart

@Jeffrey You said = "Yes but this is not a gelug forum.. we are both guests... thanks

plus its ad hominem to say trungpa is not buddhist for example. some people believe that trungpa achieved buddhahood after his death."

You didn't read my post properly. I said I don't much like who he left as his successors. I like Trungpa. I'm also not Gelugpa, it was merely an example.

There is too much controversy surrounding his succeeding lineage though. I really like one of his main teachers much better, not to say his successors are not serving a purpose on a certain positive level.

Anyway, I like Trungpa, though he's not a favorite of mine.

Jeffrey

I guess I don't like lineages attacked because then it turns into one person attached to abstract notions about which lineages are good and which are bad. And the recipient of the shellacking gets to deal with their attachment to their whole schema supporting their buddhist practice.

Gaskets can blow Don't the students in the debates in the monastery have extensive training not available to 'new buddhists'. I think 'debate' can rapidly turn into hurt feelings or junior high or even into a cross between kindergarten and an outhouse should it get that far :buck:

taiyaki

i shall read thank you! i have a soft spot for zen.

wind + skin + consciousness + mind = sensation

none of these exist independently, but exist all interdependently, thus they are empty.
in one moment this is realized and in the next you've lost it.
it really does help to have mindfulness and strong concentration to see such innate processes.
i'll do some more studying!

Jeffrey

Serious study and clearing up of wrong views does not happen when you are knee deep in alligators.

taiyaki

lol it helps to have a long sword. i hold onto no view, thus i can accept all views.

but looks like i'm getting fat. so it's time to cut the fat.

Vajraheart

I would say I like Pema the best, though she's not nitty gritty enough for me personally. Oh yeah, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche is one of his main teachers who I really like and consider more Buddharific than Trungpa who was too much of a party animal to be a Vajradhara, even though, maybe that's just what was needed? I don't know, I don't want to judge him too harshly, though he did die of alcoholism and was not a prime example of Buddhahood in my opinion. I would not discount him as a high being though, while alive that is. He might well be much higher now!

Jeffrey

Its the beer not the pizza