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.
The Tathagata proves to be also immaterial. According to the translator of The Middle Length Sayings (PTS), the Tathagata is said to be trackless (e.g., Mi.i.139; Dhp. 179); "having cut off and rooted out the five khandha so that it is impossible that he should be known or "reckoned" by these; and on being, even when actually present, incomprehensible (or, not to be got at, anupalabbhamâna)."
In addition, the Tathagata is said to be deep, unfathomable as the great ocean (M.i.487). He is the body of Dhamma, the body of Brahma, Dhamma-become and Brahma-become (D.iii.84).
I find it hard to acccept any reading of Buddhism that is dismissive of the immaterial. Negating the jiva or self, for example, is too close to Prince Payasi's materialist theory. I think the canonical evidence is more convincing that the Buddha espoused spirituality.
The Tathagata proves to be also immaterial. According to the translator of The Middle Length Sayings (PTS), the Tathagata is said to be trackless (e.g., Mi.i.139; Dhp. 179); "having cut off and rooted out the five khandha so that it is impossible that he should be known or "reckoned" by these; and on being, even when actually present, incomprehensible (or, not to be got at, anupalabbhamâna)."
In addition, the Tathagata is said to be deep, unfathomable as the great ocean (M.i.487). He is the body of Dhamma, the body of Brahma, Dhamma-become and Brahma-become (D.iii.84).
I find it hard to acccept any reading of Buddhism that is dismissive of the immaterial. Negating the jiva or self, for example, is too close to Prince Payasi's materialist theory. I think the canonical evidence is more convincing that the Buddha espoused spirituality.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
I agree. I think it makes much more sense to follow the idea that that particular theory of a soul was refuted, in order to let the jiva not fall prey to being disproved by empirial experiments. Postulating the jiva as to be seen by the eye after death destroys every belief in it the moment someone sees another being dying and no jiva escaping the body.
The Tathagata proves to be also immaterial. According to the translator of The Middle Length Sayings (PTS), the Tathagata is said to be trackless (e.g., Mi.i.139; Dhp. 179); "having cut off and rooted out the five khandha so that it is impossible that he should be known or "reckoned" by these; and on being, even when actually present, incomprehensible (or, not to be got at, anupalabbhamâna)."
In addition, the Tathagata is said to be deep, unfathomable as the great ocean (M.i.487). He is the body of Dhamma, the body of Brahma, Dhamma-become and Brahma-become (D.iii.84).
I find it hard to acccept any reading of Buddhism that is dismissive of the immaterial. Negating the jiva or self, for example, is too close to Prince Payasi's materialist theory. I think the canonical evidence is more convincing that the Buddha espoused spirituality.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
It is interesting to read the term "Brahma-become" on that ocassion. Is its meaning different from the enumeration in Udana I ( Bodhivaggo), where we find several characteristics of those who can be called Brahmana? Or can we take the occassions of Brahmana in Udana as expounding what`s already implied in "having cut off and rooted out the five khandha"?
fofoo, you are correct. It does make more sense to assume that a particular theory of the soul or self was being refuted by the Buddha. In general, I think it is safe to say that regarding any khandha as the self is 'eternalism' which is a view the Buddha rejected. E.g.:
"'Whatever is this self for me that speaks, that experiences and knows, that experiences now here, the fruition of deeds that are lovely and that are depraved, it is this self ofr me that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, that will stand firm like unto the eternal.' This, monks is called going to wrong views, the wilds of wrong views, the wriggling of wrong views, the scuffling of wrong views, the fetter of wrong views" (M.i.8).
On the same track, it would be extreme to assert there is no self or the self is a mere proxy for the five khandhas. This is the essence of annihilationism no matter how you slice it.
I think there is another possible wrong view as well, which has developed in contemporary Buddhism over many years. Negating the self, it is the belief that when the khandhas are manifest this is samsara; and when they become unmanifest this is nirvana. This is akin to the nirguna Brahman of Vedanta insofar as it is believed that the khandhas when unmanifest are in nirvana. This seems to be the direction from where Walpola Rahula is formulating his idea of nirvana. He writes in What the Buddha Taught:
"An Arahant after his death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are finished. Here it should be clearly and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is compared to a flame or fire gone out is not Nirvana, but the 'being' composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvana" (p., 41–42).
Let me add emphasis and post the critical phrase with elisions for the sake of clarity. "...what is compared to a flame or fire gone out is...but the 'being' composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvana."
This seems much different, in essence, that this passage:
“Whatever is there of material shape, feeling, perception, the habitual tendencies, consciousness—he beholds these things as impermanent, suffering, as a disease, an imposthume, a dart, a misfortune, an affliction, as other, as decay, empty, not-self. He turns his mind from these things; and when he has turned his mind from these things he focuses his mind on the deathless element thinking: ‘This is the real, this the excellent, that is to say the tranquilizing of all the activities, the casting out of all clinging, the destruction of craving, dispassion, stopping, nibbana (nirvana)’” (Mahâmâlunkya Sutta [M.i.435-36]).
Note that the mind is turned away from the five khandhas being, instead, turned to the deathless element which is synonymous with nirvana. Now here come the exciting part. Based on a passage from the Samyutta-Nikaya, I translate from the Pali the following passage into English: "Unagitated, the very self (paccattam) surely attains complete nibbana" (S.iii.53–54)."
This seems to prove that Walpola Rahula's direction is wrong. I think one could make a very good argument that he is advancing a Buddhist version of nirguna Brahman. At any rate, this all goes to underscore what happens when one takes the course of eternalism or annihilationism, both of which greatly depend on the five khandhas. I should mention in passing that I don't think Walpola Rahula is a materialist like Prince Payasi. I think he believes that the khandhas do pass into an unconditioned or unmanifest state; which is immaterial.
fofoo, just a brief note: The term brahman, and brahma appear quite often in the canon in a good light. Check out the PTS Pali-English Dictionary, page 492 under Brahma. Also there is an excellent book by Tarapada Bhattacharyya entitled, The Cult of Brahma. He makes the case that Buddhism had its roots in the Brahma cults.
Note that the mind is turned away from the five khandhas being, instead, turned to the deathless element which is synonymous with nirvana. Now here come the exciting part. Based on a passage from the Samyutta-Nikaya, I translate from the Pali the following passage into English: "Unagitated, the very self (paccattam) surely attains complete nibbana" (S.iii.53–54)."
This seems to prove that Walpola Rahula's direction is wrong. I think one could make a very good argument that he is advancing a Buddhist version of nirguna Brahman. At any rate, this all goes to underscore what happens when one takes the course of eternalism or annihilationism, both of which greatly depend on the five khandhas. I should mention in passing that I don't think Walpola Rahula is a materialist like Prince Payasi. I think he believes that the khandhas do pass into an unconditioned or unmanifest state; which is immaterial.
Love ya'all,
Bobby
Whilst not an expert on Vedic Religions,I agree that "the fire gone out" hints to vedic thought. We know that the soul in indian thoughts underwent an "evolution", it was seen in the water element (moon), wind element (atman, breathe) and in the fire element (the sun). It never was found in the earth Element to the best of my knowledge.
According to Frauwallner the fire-soul was the latest stage of that evolution, the soul is the fire element in one`s body, to be heared when one presses his hands against his ears. What one heard then was considered the fire to loath within one`s body, already invisible, non-material living principle. The fire gone out as state of a being, compared to bliss and so on, cleary hints to the idea that moksha, nirvana, whatever,you name it, is related to a dreamless sleep.
I am not so sure that your personal translation of this passage from SN 22.53, "Unagitated, the very self surely attains complete nibbana." is all that more accurate than Thanissaro's, "Not agitated, he is totally unbound right within."
As one of the six qualities attributed the Dhamma, doesn't the term paccattam (personal; individual) mean that the Dhamma as an experience is directly known through intuitive insight and is thus a matter of personal knowledge *?
Elohim, "paccattam" can't really be translated with the pronoun "he". On this compound alone, Perez-Remon gives three pages explaining why it should be rendered "the very self". In which ever way Thanissaro wishes to rationalize his translation, something or someone goes to parinibbana (complete nibbana). In sum, I don't feel the pronoun 'he' makes the attainer of nibbana naught.
I think this brings us back to whether or not we are to regard nirvana as the five khandhas becoming unmanifest. I happen to believe this particular theory has all the signs of being a veiled form of annihilationism.
Just a note: Thanissaro's translation of paccattam'eva isn't just "he,"; rather it is "right within," with the "he" being understood in the Pali and given in the English. We have critiqued this translation earlier in the thread. At best it renders a striking appearance of our Buddhist bogeyman the "self" in notable and repetitious (this expression does not appear only once or twice in the suttas, it appears repeatedly, and sometimes in explicit contrast to a teaching on what is not to be known as the self) direct connection with parinibbana as a paradoxical redundancy (how else does one go to parinibbana but rightly, and where else but within?). At worst it is an obfuscation of what should be the clear meaning of paccattam as "in, or back toward (pati), the self (atta)". To elaborate, pati generally expresses conjoinment or unification. Examples include paticca samuppada, usually rendered as co-dependent origination, and in the negative; apatisamvedana, which means unconnected to feeling, totally apart (the etymological resemblance between pati and parti, apati and apart is not unnoticed) from feeling (appearing in the wrong view "My self is unconnected to feeling", which is refuted by asking "If the self is totally unconnected to feeling, whence comes the erroneous view "Feeling is my self?" ).
Of course, all of these considerations for how to correctly interpret the the term paccattam'eva parinibbayati accords quite beautifully with the sense of the term samma samadhi as a unification or concentrification of the self.
The first is, can you elaborate as to why you feel that scholars and monastics such as the Venerable Thanissaro (Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within.) and the Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi (Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbana.) are incorrect in their translations?
The second is, do you truly believe that the very core of Theravada tradition is somehow corrupt, and that the majority of their translators are completely inept at their profession? I ask this because you seem to have implied as much—especially in regards to the Abhidamma Pitaka.
Note that the mind is turned away from the five khandhas being, instead, turned to the deathless element which is synonymous with nirvana. Now here come the exciting part. Based on a passage from the Samyutta-Nikaya, I translate from the Pali the following passage into English: "Unagitated, the very self (paccattam) surely attains complete nibbana" (S.iii.53–54)."
This seems to prove that Walpola Rahula's direction is wrong. I think one could make a very good argument that he is advancing a Buddhist version of nirguna Brahman. At any rate, this all goes to underscore what happens when one takes the course of eternalism or annihilationism, both of which greatly depend on the five khandhas. I should mention in passing that I don't think Walpola Rahula is a materialist like Prince Payasi. I think he believes that the khandhas do pass into an unconditioned or unmanifest state; which is immaterial.
Love ya'all,
Bobby
Obviously,the notion seems to hint to a counciousness that is not foundet on the 5 khandhas. This sometimes seems to be confused with the idea of "cessation of conciousness" (Alas, the vedic idea that relief from the cycle of rebirth is a brother of deep sleep without dreams).If one were to read SN 22.53 (PTS S iii 53) carefully, one would realize that at least in this sutta, there is no talk of cessation of conciousness, but conciousness is released from the aggregates, not beng estblished on them.
What I am troubled with currently is the question if mind is synonymous with conciousness in the nikayas.
Elohim, Vacchagotta gave an excellent reason for Perez-Remon rendering of paccattam as "the very self". I subscribe to it. In Sanskrit it is used a number of times in the Lankavatara Sutra as "pratyatma" in pratyatmaryajna, pratyatmagatigocra, etc. Edgerton in the BHSD defines pratyatma- as follows: (by) one's own (separate, individual) self; to be personally realized; by personal realization; pure with (in) the true nature of (realization by)? the inner self, etc.
As for my understanding of your second question, I am not in agreement with anattavada. I am not alone in this. A number of prominent scholars don't buy the anattavada theory one of whom is the legendary Hajime Nakamura and A.P. Buddhadatta, one of the greatest of all Sinhalese Pali scholars who subscribes to George Grimm's views.
Like most people who started out in Buddhism (and that was a long time ago!) I believed the anattavada doctrine. The Buddha would call this "preserving the truth" (saccânurakkhana.m). But then I tested it out. It didn't work for me. About this the Buddha said:
Moreover, Bharadvaja, even although something be thoroughly believed in, it may be empty, void, false: on the other hand, something not thoroughly believed in may be fact, truth, not otherwise" (M.ii.170).
Finally, the truth hit me. I understood where the Buddha was coming from with respect to the self or attâ. I quickly devoured the Pali canon (nikayas). I read Mrs. Rhys Davids, I.B. Horner, Pande and others. I read the anattvada literature as well.
I don't have anything personal against Theravada translators. Why should I? Truth, and its attainment is much more important. I know you agree.
One of the interesting questions is the extent to which jivan and attan may or may not be considered synonymous in the discourses of the Buddha. This becomes a key question when the familiar "imponderables" come into play, where the familiar "is the soul (jivan) one thing and the body another?" is so often cited as evidentiary to the Buddha's teaching on the self (attan).
I have to admit I cannot answer you myself, but I can offer you the viewpoint of Frauwallner, maybe it is of some use for you: (transated on the fly, don`t expect miracles)
"Was it possible to avoid completely of speaking of an I, a soul in [the buddha`s] doctrine of salvation? Was one not outright forced to speak of a subject that attains salvation? The Buddha understood it with great skill go around that problem. What helped him was a basic view on which the buddhist doctrine of salvation is based. As soon as in philosohpical circles a view of a psychic organism were shaped, the question [...] arose if the senses and the psychic organs belonged to the realm of the matter or the soul. The answer that was given in different teachings was different. In the Dialogue between Manu and Brahspati (Manubraspatisamvadah) we got familiar with a teaching where the pychic organism springs from the soul and returns to it after salvation from the round of rebirths.
The second possibility was held above all by the Samkyah System and its predecessors in the epic period, where all psychic organs with their functions were attributed as resulting from and returning to the matter. This results from the striving which has its origin in the fire-teaching of the upanishads that was continued in the "epos" and especially in samkyha, in order to free the soul from al wordly burdens, and most of all, to put the soul out of the process of becoming and the causal happening. Hence, as we will seen soon, in Samkyha, all activities are transfered to the realm of matter and the soul is a passive obsever. And the same conviction lays within the Buddhist doctrine of salvation. This is the most important agreement of Samkyha with the oldest Buddhism. (E.Frauwallner, Geschichte der indischen Philosophie I, Page 142)
Note that oldest Buddhism is presumably nikayas only, Frauwallner is all to aware that later Buddhist sects departet from that view and he explicitly mentions it in that chapter. Additonally, I want to repeat that we found one sutta that supports Frauwallner`s assessment. (Aïguttara Nikàya, Book of the threes, Aadhipatteyyasuttaü -Authorities)
continuing my monologue on ontological state of self in early buddhism=Samkhya position
from wikipedia:Samkhya : This was a dualistic philosophy. But there are differences between the Samkhya and other forms of dualism. In Western philosophy the main focus of discussions about dualism concern dualism between the mind and the body. In Samkhya, however, it is between the self (purusha) and matter, and the latter incorporates much of what Western thought would normally refer to as "mind". This means that the Self as the Samkhya understands it is more transcendent than "mind". It is sometimes defined as 'that which observes' and the mind is the instrument through which this observation occurs.
Any takers for this position, the soul is not one thing and the body another, since the soul or self as such is never objectivated, i.e never becomes a phenomena, hence cannot be called thing,phenomena or dhamma? If it`s worthwhile to track that view, one should examine more closely if the buddha used always jivan when questions about the soul being different from the body, and if a specific relation to purusha can be found, i.e. if the terms are allowed to be understood synonmous.
Maharishi Kapila is a Vedic sage traditionally considered to be the original proponent of the Samkhya system of philosophy but there are no known writings by him that deal with the Samkhya system as it is understood today. He is desribed as an incarnation of Vishnu within the Puranas, famous for teaching a process of liberation known as bhakti yoga.
Very little historical data is known for sure regarding Maharishi Kapila's life. He is said to have lived in the Indian subcontinent, some say around 500 BC, other accounts give much earlier dates. Tradition has it that Shakyamuni Buddha studied the Samkhya system before his "awakening," putting Kapila's birth at least before that time. He is also mentioned by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita as the greatest of all perfected beings which could possibly move the date back further still:
PS:It`s astouding, I confess I never was aware of that link until I read Frauwallner recently. Is Maharishi mentioned in the canons, or is above "just" "hindu"-view?
Maharishi Kapila is a Vedic sage traditionally considered to be the original proponent of the Samkhya system of philosophy but there are no known writings by him that deal with the Samkhya system as it is understood today. He is desribed as an incarnation of Vishnu within the Puranas, famous for teaching a process of liberation known as bhakti yoga.
Very little historical data is known for sure regarding Maharishi Kapila's life. He is said to have lived in the Indian subcontinent, some say around 500 BC, other accounts give much earlier dates. Tradition has it that Shakyamuni Buddha studied the Samkhya system before his "awakening," putting Kapila's birth at least before that time. He is also mentioned by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita as the greatest of all perfected beings which could possibly move the date back further still:
PS:It`s astouding, I confess I never was aware of that link until I read Frauwallner recently. Is Maharishi mentioned in the canons, or is above "just" "hindu"-view?
PS: following quotes from Kapila havestriking similarities with Buddhas`s doctrine:
* My appearance in this world is especially to explain the philosophy of Sankhya, which is highly esteemed for self-realization by those desiring freedom from the entanglement of unnecessary material desires. This path of self-realization, which is difficult to understand, has now been lost in the course of time. Please know that I have assumed this body of Kapila to introduce and explain this philosophy to human society again." (3.24.36-37)
* "When one is completely cleansed of the impurities of lust and greed produced from the false identification of the body as "I" and bodily possessions as "mine," one's mind becomes purified. In that pure state he transcends the stage of so-called material happiness and distress."(3.25.16)
Richard Garbe* (1857–1927) seems to think that the “Buddhist doctrine is a more radical and probably represents a further elaboration of the original Sâmkhya notion.” According to Richard Garbe the similarities between Sâmkhaya and Buddhism are as follows: 1) notions are organized numerically 2) life is suffering 3) reaction against the Vedic sacrifices 4) rejection of self-torture 5) emphasis on becoming and change 6) similarity of kaivalya and nirvana 7) Salvation is only won through the discrimination (viveka/prajna) of spirit and matter.
*A professor at the University of Tübingen, had earned his reputation through his scholarship on Indian philosophy, particularly his work on reconstructing the Bhagavad Gita in its original form. Unlike most Western scholars during that period who never went to India, Garbe studied his subject in situ.
One of the words that I have found as I read around Samkhya is ahamkara, ego-sense. This is the word that Hugh McGregor Ross uses in logia 42 and 58 of his delightfully idiosyncratic translation of the Gospel of Thomas entitled Jesus Untouched By The Church. I imagine that he would want to use it in the celebrated verse (Mark 8:34) where followers of Jesus are instructed to "deny themselves".
Ross also quotes a wonderful from Jalal al Din Rumi:
Awhile, as wont may be,
self did I claim;
true Self I did not see,
but heard its name.
I, being self-confined,
Self did not merit,
till, leaving self behind,
did Self inherit
Insofar as this discussion has both merit and use, it reminds me of a remark I heard made by Canon John Fenton of Oxford: "What difference will it make when I say my prayers?" In the case of self vs. Self, nothing much changes in the actual practice undertaken but the outcome may be somewhat other than expected.
And finally, remember his words while you read it:
If anyone cannot understand this discourse, let them not trouble their hearts about it. For, as long as people do not equal this truth, they will not understand this speech. For this is an unveiled truth that has come immediately from the heart of God. That we may so live as to experience it eternally, so help us God. Amen.
Yes I am a fan of the mystics, Simon. When it comes to the last bit of truth, I let them have the last word for me. Eckhard fascinates me because he is in deconstructing, or reducing and yet never touches nihilism. He would never have said "God does not exist" or "There is no self", he deconstrcuts to a certain point and stops. His thoughts become alive when I read him.
Yes I am a fan of the mystics, Simon. When it comes to the last bit of truth, I let them have the last word for me. Eckhard fascinates me because he is in deconstructing, or reducing and yet never touches nihilism. He would never have said "God does not exist" or "There is no self", he deconstrcuts to a certain point and stops. His thoughts become alive when I read him.
He knew that you may need to remove muck and straw from around an egg but, if you break the shell, nothing will ever hatch from it
Of course he might have not been able to say all what he thought, thanks to Avignon, but I highly doubt that he would have turned out as nihilist even if he was allowed to be one. I think you hit exactly the point with your remark.
Richard Garbe* (1857–1927) seems to think that the “Buddhist doctrine is a more radical and probably represents a further elaboration of the original Sâmkhya notion.” According to Richard Garbe the similarities between Sâmkhaya and Buddhism are as follows: 1) notions are organized numerically 2) life is suffering 3) reaction against the Vedic sacrifices 4) rejection of self-torture 5) emphasis on becoming and change 6) similarity of kaivalya and nirvana 7) Salvation is only won through the discrimination (viveka/prajna) of spirit and matter.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Thanks for your effort and the information, Bobby.
2) is there a difference on the notion? I mean dukkha isn`t literally suffering, isn`t it more being incomplete / unsufficient / unsatisfactory? What`s the term used in Samkhaya and is it equivalent to dukkha, or differs it on the notion?
3) I read that much material of the Upanishads can be understood in that way too
4) Again, same for the Upanishads also I believe. The "state" of indian society at that time seems to have pretty much in rebellion against vedic sacrifices and stiff rituals
5) But as we saw, Samkhya as well as the Upanishads didn`t totally break with the unconditioned, not become, not born/objectivated, even if it was transformed over and over. The dispute does not seem so much about that at all, but mere on the term "self" or "soul", not on the idea of an not become, unconditioned as such.
fofoo, I was just going over my notes. I cam across this interesting passage from Jain scripture. Given that there are similarities between Jainism and Buddhism, it might be interesting, at this point, to inject this Jain idea into the discussion.
One who has identified his own self with the body in which it is encased, is extremely afraid of death, seeing therein his own destruction and separation from friends (Samadhi Shataka).
If we give the above a moment of reflection, isn't this the problem we Buddhist face with the five holding (upadana) khandhas, viz., that we identify with them as if they were the self when in fact they are not? Although we will not admit it, we conceive of them (the khandhas) to be mine (eta.m mama); or I am this (eso aham asmi), 'this' being the khandhas. Aren't we dealing with the subtle conceit of I am the khandhas which is a very real over-involvement with the khandhas?
Our real problem is holding (sa-upadana) on to the five khandhas in the belief that they are for me. For example, form (rupa) is for me as is feeling (vedana). In fact my entire life experience from birth, as this individual, has consisted in holding (upadana) on to the khandhas which are for me. Unlike the Buddha who considers the five khandhas as "not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (netam mama, neso'hamasmi, na me so atta) ordinary people hold on to them as being their self.
If the root cause of my suffering is holding on to the five khandhas, how then might I lay them down (pahâtabba) so as to be free of this burden? How can I self-identify with nirvana instead of these khandhas?
Over all, self-identification with what is impermanent is the problem—not the self. The ordinary person is under the spell that they are this impermanent individual entity (i.e., the khandhas) being unable to realize the perils of such an identification. But what is this entity except a finite thing. And as with all such things, it is subject to decay and death.
We might suggest that suttas might look a bit different if the were written today, while not changing what`s transmitted at all. I think the question everyone has asked himself sooner or later along the path is: How to judge without bias? How to perceive without any preconcept? What I want to point to is the fact that the Buddha teached in a time where different variants of eternalism were dominant. The materlialists always were looked on as evil in India, they actually were called deniers and liers because they denied spiritual concepts like soul, reincarnation and kamma. Can we go so far that we might be easily misled by asuming no self and then unconcsiously mistake the kandhas for ultimate reality, because the dominant view in our time is materialism?
I am aware that we are examining the topic on a wide scope, I try keep the topic in mind all the time and only post if I think it contributes to a better understanding of anatta.
We might suggest that suttas might look a bit different if the were written today, while not changing what`s transmitted at all. I think the question everyone has asked himself sooner or later along the path is: How to judge without bias? How to perceive without any preconcept? What I want to point to is the fact that the Buddha teached in a time where different variants of eternalism were dominant. The materlialists always were looked on as evil in India, they actually were called deniers and liers because they denied spiritual concepts like soul, reincarnation and kamma. Can we go so far that we might be easily misled by asuming no self and then unconcsiously mistake the kandhas for ultimate reality, because the dominant view in our time is materialism?
I am aware that we are examining the topic on a wide scope, I try keep the topic in mind all the time and only post if I think it contributes to a better understanding of anatta.
Regards
I think that this is a vital point, Fofoo.
Masao Abe addresses this question a number of times and it is raised here over and again. I have written, elsewhere, that, since my own noviciate days, I have taken to heart the mission that H.H. Paul VI gave to the Society: to bring the 'good news' to a materialist and atheist generation. My view of the scope of 'good news' may have enlarged in the decades since then but the principle remains. As William Carlos Williams says:
It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there.
William Carlos Williams, "Asphodel, That Greeny Flower"
I'm not sure whether the question of whether a chariot constructs itself really changes anything here. I think an important aspect of the chariot analogy is that a 'chariot' does not exist without a consciousness which conceives of it. From that conception, a craftsman brings together the parts to form the aggregation which fits corresponds to said conception. And furthermore, both the craftsman & the conception are without permanent, self-abiding substantiality as well. And thus, neither can be said to be the essence of the chariot.
Additionally, volition, or 'cetana'(sp?) is considered part of the aggregates, so there is no self there either. Anyway, I guess I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that the will is the Atta? Are you saying that the crafstman is the Atta? If so, I'm not sure that equation holds up.
I agree that emphazising that a conciuosness is neededfor conceiving a chariot is important. On the other hand, what`soften missed when taking about the chariot analogy is that it is not merely the parts that construct it. More precisely, it is the parts and their exact order in space and time. The mere sum of the parts are no chariot, take the parts, distribute them around the world, parts still there, chariot adios
Thus, there is an efficient cause, that causes the chariot parts to be assembeled or dissembled. It is volition or kamma. Someone wants to build a chariot, someone wants to deconstruct it afterwards.
Besides that, the chariot analogy when taken in strict literal sence does not hold up with science (not that I would be an advocate of scientism who seeks to press every belief into the newest scientific theories). We can deconstruct the chariot parts also. there is also no wheel then. And so on. We arrive at the elemntary particles then, which really causes me trouble because all that micro-cosmic stuff renderes my brain paralzyed.
fofoo: Here is something from the Dhammapada which is along the lines of 'volition' also. It is about as good a translation as you can get.
O house-builder, you are seen!
You will not build this house again.
For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered.
My mind has reached the Unconditioned;
I have attained the destruction of craving. -- 154
"Reached the Unconditioned" for "vi-sankhara-gatam" is actually a pretty good fit. The Pali-English Dictionary renders "visankhara" as "divestment of all material things" which its equated with nirvana (DhA.iii.129). In Sanskrit the sense in English is un (vi) conditioned (samskâra).
Craving, on the part of the mind, constructive. One could even make a case that the Buddha's creator is mind's craving or tanhâ, which is the house-maker (the house is a metaphor for the human body).
Finally, mind, by seeing its unconditioned or its pure nature ends its craving which previously had blinded and conditioned it.
Over all, self-identification with what is impermanent is the problem—not the self. The ordinary person is under the spell that they are this impermanent individual entity (i.e., the khandhas) being unable to realize the perils of such an identification. But what is this entity except a finite thing. And as with all such things, it is subject to decay and death.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
I agree. As soon as we visualize or think of the self as something particular, it will be contained in the khandas. Actually, I do not see the samkyha position in conflict with any of the 20 sakkāya-ditthis. Self there is transcendet, and if described at all, it is merely metaphorically, like "that which observes, mind being a thing (not self) already thru which observation occurs". what really at the end observes is not named, as far as i could see it, only the instruments thru which observation takes place.
Very interesting passage. I got the following proposals from here
8. visankharagatam cittam: lit., my mind has reached the Unconditioned, having Nibbana as its object, my mind has realized Nibbana.
9. tanhanam khayamajjhaga: The end of craving has been attained. I have attained Arahatta Fruition
What would be the argument against : craving->conditioning of mind. destructionof craving->unconditionend mind=nibbana, other that it is just reasoning from that passage?
fofoo, I can see where Patanjali may have received some inspiration for his "yogas citta-vrttii-nirodhah" that is "yoga is the stoppage of citta or mind modifications/vibrations."
Mind, we might speculate, victimizes itself by clinging to its very own self-generated phenomena, that is its citta-vrtti. On the other hand, when it stops these phenomenalizations or modifications, it comes to the unconditioned nature (svabhava) of itself, this being also the undying element (amatdhatu) and nibbana.
The ending of craving or thirst implies that fulfillment or completion has been accomplished which is another definition of vidya. Heretofore, mind's primordial restlessness made it a victim. It couldn't distinguish between itself as pure and itself as conditioned. Its thirst sought to find the cessation of thirst. But this could only be accomplished by mind seeing itself.
Phenomena we might guess, is thirst generating. Mind is under an asymmetrical relationship with itself when it engages with a phenomenon as a plausible ender of thirst. By its repeated failure to become adequate with itself, mind as viññana passes from one life to the next, seemingly without end.
An aside, I find it worthy of mention that Chinese Ch'an or Zen put the development of mind on the front burner, so to speak. The original school of Zen was actually called Buddha Mind School. Using the word school was probably a mistake. It seems that Chinese translators used 'tsung' to translate 'siddhanta' which meant realization. The idea of school stuck because 'tsung' could mean either school or realization—hence some confusion. Zen is not actually a school (tsung)—it is a realization (siddhanta) of the mind of the Buddha.
Especially in writing which is an act of symbol creation wihtin the being , one must be very careful in the consisitant assertion that the word is not the thing itself. the symbols are just the representation within an every larger elusive dream, the dream of the planet, society, family. Until one can truly see within everything it defines, that, which is in it's own individual state simply as witness to "other" within the interplay of all that is, one will live in the skandhas.
Labeling , plotting, defining only solidifies one's images within their own experience through expression, thereby deepening it's correlation to the conditioned mind trapping the mind/ego once again. How can one be free of this conditioned mind is the practice.
Perhaps things would be clearer if the posts as well as the references were read a bit more thoroughly. I would just hope that someone takes the time to carefully sift through all this information and seriously contemplate their profundity before they merely take a position and argue it endlessly. The Dhamma is more than an intellectual's game of debate; it is a path of practice to be implemented for the one's own long term welfare and happiness.
Sincerely,
Jason
To me there is no purpose for practice other than it feels good.
To have expectaption of any result is folly. Once one see's the folly in it they can play the game however they choose.
Iawa, Besides taking Buddhist terms at a semantic level, which is to be shunned if one is serious about practice, there is the problem of trying encapsulate Buddhism in terms of human experience. As a result, we may end up identifying our human experiences with enlightenment (sambodhi).
To strike with a closed fist is to give energy to one's preonceptions.
When was the last time you could give or recieve anything with a closed hand,
let alone mind.
Especially in writing which is an act of symbol creation wihtin the being , one must be very careful in the consisitant assertion that the word is not the thing itself. the symbols are just the representation within an every larger elusive dream, the dream of the planet, society, family. Until one can truly see within everything it defines, that, which is in it's own individual state simply as witness to "other" within the interplay of all that is, one will live in the skandhas.
Labeling , plotting, defining only solidifies one's images within their own experience through expression, thereby deepening it's correlation to the conditioned mind trapping the mind/ego once again. How can one be free of this conditioned mind is the practice.
I don`t fully agree. Reasoning is what mind is there for. Elsewise, we could all eat our rice once a day and be quiet. Imo, the secret lies somewhere else.There is a difference between blindly labeling and labeling while fully aware that is first of all a label, that serves a certain purpose, but at the end, still is a label one produced thru reasoning of objects for such and such reasons serving this and that purpose.
fofoo, I can see where Patanjali may have received some inspiration for his "yogas citta-vrttii-nirodhah" that is "yoga is the stoppage of citta or mind modifications/vibrations."
Mind, we might speculate, victimizes itself by clinging to its very own self-generated phenomena, that is its citta-vrtti. On the other hand, when it stops these phenomenalizations or modifications, it comes to the unconditioned nature (svabhava) of itself, this being also the undying element (amatdhatu) and nibbana.
The ending of craving or thirst implies that fulfillment or completion has been accomplished which is another definition of vidya. Heretofore, mind's primordial restlessness made it a victim. It couldn't distinguish between itself as pure and itself as conditioned. Its thirst sought to find the cessation of thirst. But this could only be accomplished by mind seeing itself.
Phenomena we might guess, is thirst generating. Mind is under an asymmetrical relationship with itself when it engages with a phenomenon as a plausible ender of thirst. By its repeated failure to become adequate with itself, mind as viññana passes from one life to the next, seemingly without end.
An aside, I find it worthy of mention that Chinese Ch'an or Zen put the development of mind on the front burner, so to speak. The original school of Zen was actually called Buddha Mind School. Using the word school was probably a mistake. It seems that Chinese translators used 'tsung' to translate 'siddhanta' which meant realization. The idea of school stuck because 'tsung' could mean either school or realization—hence some confusion. Zen is not actually a school (tsung)—it is a realization (siddhanta) of the mind of the Buddha.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Well, Frauwallner even claims that the historical Buddha, Siddharta Gautama, did not go the way of philosophy but instead that of yoga. I understood Patanjali to be born after the Buddha left for paranibbana, and it could very well be that Patanjali was influenced by Buddhist views. Do you have a source how yoga looked like in India at the time of the Buddhas awakening?
fofoo, In common, ordinary communication words easily point to what is signified. "My house", for example, points to an actual house. "Hand me the shovel" indicates the shovel by the tree. So far so good.
The real problem comes when in Buddhist training our teacher asks us, "Show me your pure mind." Now we are rattled and confused. We start to say something, he then screams at us, "That is your defiled mind you imbecile!" We don't know what to do at this point because we don't know the pure mind. We have never apperceived it. We are clueless. So our teacher says to us, "Go back and study."
To apperceive our pure mind (visuddhicitta) is a real experience like looking at any object—only it is a super object. It isn't as word or a symbol It isn't the hoot of an owl or the sound of a frightened frog leaping back into his small pond. Pure mind is much more. When Siddhartha saw pure mind, he became the Buddha. The rest of us have been struggling ever since.
fofoo, In common, ordinary communication words easily point to what is signified. "My house", for example, points to an actual house. "Hand me the shovel" indicates the shovel by the tree. So far so good.
The real problem comes when in Buddhist training our teacher asks us, "Show me your pure mind." Now we are rattled and confused. We start to say something, he then screams at us, "That is your defiled mind you imbecile!" We don't know what to do at this point because we don't know the pure mind. We have never apperceived it. We are clueless. So our teacher says to us, "Go back and study."
To apperceive our pure mind (visuddhicitta) is a real experience like looking at any object—only it is a super object. It isn't as word or a symbol It isn't the hoot of an owl or the sound of a frightened frog leaping back into his small pond. Pure mind is much more. When Siddhartha saw pure mind, he became the Buddha. The rest of us have been struggling ever since.
:om:
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Ah, that sounds very Zen.In fact, I never could figure out the difference between UG Krishnamurti and different Zenmasters, except that I found the former one sympathic However, I have in mind visiting a Rinzai Center nearby in the next time.Maybe I will change my view. Maybe.
Ah, that sounds very Zen.In fact, I never could figure out the difference between UG Krishnamurti and different Zenmasters, except that I found the former one sympathic However, I have in mind visiting a Rinzai Center nearby in the next time.Maybe I will change my view. Maybe.
I think much of the Zen today is just the praxis of sitting without moving—which is an adaption of 'silent illumination' Zen which was popular during the Sung Dynasty. From what I can gather from the work of its founder, Hung-chi Chen-chueh (1091-1157), if one is silent, this leads to enlightenment, although he doesn't really discuss the so-called enlightenment experience.
Hung-chi taught his students to sit for hours which was intended to make the mind still, causing it to return to its inherently enlightened state. But other Zen masters, before he was born, opposed this practice including even the Sixth Patriarch. Huai-jang (d. 744) objected to this method writing the following:
"To train yourself in sitting meditation [za-zen] is to train yourself to be a sitting Buddha. If you train yourself in za-zen (you should know that) Zen is neither sitting nor lying. If your train yourself to be a sitting Buddha, (you should know that) the Buddha is not a fixed form. Since the Dharma has no (fixed) abode, it is not a matter of making choices. If you make (yourself) a sitting Buddha this is precisely killing the Buddha. If you adhere to the sitting position, you will not attain the principle of Zen."
Huai-jang also said the following:
All dharmas are born of mind, and mind is not born of anything. Dharmas cannot dwell on anything. When you reach the mind-ground you are not obstructed in your behavior. Be mindful in your use of words unless encountering superior people.
I think the real masters like Huai-jang were saying that the real nature of mind is free of postures. When we realize this mind, whatever posture we are in, the pure mind is neither more nor less. In truth, mind is before we were born (Hui-neng's original face); it is present with us now and will survive the death of this body. If we do not awaken to it (bodhi-citta) we will follow the defiled mind which is always reborn and dies.
To apperceive our pure mind (visuddhicitta) is a real experience like looking at any object—only it is a super object. It isn't as word or a symbol It isn't the hoot of an owl or the sound of a frightened frog leaping back into his small pond. Pure mind is much more. When Siddhartha saw pure mind, he became the Buddha. The rest of us have been struggling ever since.
Bobby,
Perhaps you could be of some assistance. I have never seen the Pali words visuddhi (purification, purity) and citta (mind) used in this way before. The only combination of them in the Suttas that I am familiar with is in MN 24, where they are used in the chariot analogy; however, it is not used to refer to a pure mind, but to the purification of mind (citta-visuddhi)—which in itself is not the goal, only the way to the goal of total deliverance, Unbinding. I am curious, is there somewhere else that you have seen this term used in such a way before, perhaps a non-Pali source, or a Pali source of which I am unfamiliar?
I recently read exceprts from Milindapañha, where the case of no unchanging essence in combinationwith rebirth and kamma is made utilizing parables. As an aside goodie, some Information on the era of the rule of Milinda one can find here if interested
(scroll down to 1.3, there begins the English section)
FYI: Often it is forgotten that the most naive "soul-theories",like a creature growing in one`s heart, coming out at deep sleep or after death and living an independent eternal existence is already refuted by anicca. That is often forgot when we westerners with our often clumsy idea of a soul debate the issue. The most clumsy ideas we might have is already refuted by that. To the more learned of you, I probably say nothing new, it just came to my mind.
fofoo, On the subject of "living an independent eternal existence" this is from the Nikayas. It strikes me as postive proof that the Buddha saw something beyond the normal body of flesh.
From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way -- with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. — Digha Nikaya 2 Samaññaphala Sutta
Elohim, The term I am using is from Mahayana. But the idea of pabhassara citta in Pali is the same notion relative to the defiled mind.
"Luminous, monks, is the mind.1 And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2} -- A i 10 (I,v,9-10; I,vi,1-2)
You might enjoy reading this Elohim.
FRANCESCO SFERRA
THE CONCEPT OF PURIFICATION IN SOME TEXTS OF LATE
INDIAN BUDDHISM
I
It is well-known that in Vajrayana texts the spiritual path is often
described in terms of the progressive purification (visuddhi; Tib.: rnam
dag) of the body and the psyche. This study is a contribution to the
analysis of the concept of “spiritual purification” in the light of (A)
printed and translated texts, such as the Hevajratantra and the Naropa’s
Paramarthasamgraha, and (B) some selected passages from works edited
but not translated or only partially translated. These works include the
Amrtakanika by Ravisrıjnana, the Vimalaprabha by Pundarıka, and the
Laghukalacakratantra. This study also considers (C) some unpublished
texts, such as the Abhayakarapaddhati by Abhayakaragupta and the
Muktavalı by Ratnakarasanti, which are preserved in manuscript form.
Some passages, which focus mainly on the description of initiatory
and liturgic ceremonies, insist on the elimination (or, if we prefer, on
the transformation) of impurity, which is considered an obstacle. From
this point of view, the concept of purification implies the disappearance
of a maculation (mala) (the definition of which must be gone into
more fully) and the attainment of an ontologically preexistent state
of purity. This state is usually described in positive terms: Supreme
Pleasure, Adamantine Being, tathata, and so forth. Notwithstanding
this, there are also definitions, at first sight perplexing, which arouse
the suspicion that speaking of purification in terms of elimination of
something actually reflects a partial and limited point of view, even if
this is necessary to some extent. Some texts, for example, in referring to
the ultimate reality in its pureness, speak of Great Hate, Great Aversion,
Great Envy, and so on.1 As we shall see, this type of implosion, which
“negative” energies undergo in order to reveal themselves in their true
nature, is linked to the manifestation of a particular kind of knowledge
(jnana), sometimes called Great Knowledge (mahajnana) or Buddha’s
Knowledge (buddhajnana), which is not the product of particular rites
that the adept or the practitioner has to perform.2 This knowledge
constitutes the purifying element par excellence and represents, in the
final analysis, the very nature of reality, transfigured and shining. It is
not by chance that, according to some texts, the last phase of yoga,
in which the transformation of the physical and psychical elements of
the yogin into pure elements actually occurs is, indeed, nothing but the
attainment of a body of gnosis (jnanadeha).3
Therefore, it is necessary to have a direct vision of reality without
the conceptual projection of an “I” and a “mine”, and to permit the
various realities to offer themselves to knowledge according to their true
nature. The specific nature of this knowledge, which transcends sense
organs and which is said to pertain to the Omniscient One (sarvajna),
also explains why sometimes, in connection with the subject matter,
one finds philosophical considerations on the cause-effect relationship
(this relationship, among other things, is required to justify the passage
from impurity to purity) in which it is possible to recognize an echo
of the debate between Buddhist logicians and the exponents of other
traditions.
II
The theme of “purification” (visuddhi) is particularly significant, as it
reflects the difficulties and elusiveness that sometimes characterize the
sapiential language.
This theme has a particularly important role in the texts of Vajrayana,
which is evident not only from the fact that we find visuddhipatalas –
that is, “chapters on purification” – in well-known tantras, for instance,
the Hevajra (I.ix), the Candamaharosana (XV), and the Buddhakapala
(XIII), but also from the frequent occurrence, in the examined texts, of
terms such as visuddhi, suddhi, sodhana, parisodhana, suci, vyavadana
and adhivasana.
First of all, it can be noted that such words – of which visuddhi and
suddhi are certainly the most used – appear in the Vajrayana literature
substantially in two different contexts: one ritual and one speculative.4
Furthermore, within these ambits, it is possible to single out various
shades of meaning in the use of these words, which we shall now try
to illustrate briefly.
In relation to rituals that have to be performed before the drawing of
the mandala and during the initiation ceremony, the term “purification”
is generally used in a very limited sense, as signifying “elimination”.
In such cases it is necessary to remove the impurities present in the
body and the psyche of the practitioner, in the initiation substances, and
in the platform on which the rite is to be performed, so that it can be
executed in the proper way. The purification can occur through concrete
actions, such as cleaning the land, fasting or bathing, or through the
muttering of specific mantras5 or the imposition (nyasa) of particular
syllables on parts of the body,6 which the Tantras describe in detail
and usually with a certain clarity.7
Through mantras and by means of aspersions (seka), purification
is also performed during initiation. Initiation itself is often explained
as a process of purification,8 so that, sometimes, the word visuddha
(lit. ‘pure’) is commented on simply with abhisikta, viz., ‘initiated’.9
In the Kalacakra cycle, for instance, the seven inferior initiations and
the four superior ones are progressively linked to the purification of
specific aspects of reality.10 At other times – as has been noted by D.
Snellgrove - the term visuddhi, mostly used in the instrumental case,
means that something makes itself known through one of its aspects or
that it is represented by another thing. When in the Hevajratantra, for
example, we read that the initiation of the master is purified through
the smile, we should understand that this initiation is symbolized by
the smile.11
Various symbolic relationships, which often connect seemingly incon-
gruous levels of reality, are settled in the texts. Hence, specific aspects
of the religious path, deities, colours, dispositions of character, emo-
tive reactions, parts of the human body, etc. are mutually related. In
fact, in the texts there is not complete agreement about these vari-
ous symbolisms. For instance, the thirty-seven facets of awakening
(bodhipaksikadharma) are often considered to be manifested through
the various parts of the mandala, even if the four doors of the latter
may correspond to the four smrtyupasthanas,12 to the four truths,13 or
to further aspects of the spiritual path,14 according to the different tradi-
tions. However, in some texts, the bodhipaksikadharmas are connected
with the female deities, Locana and so on. The latter are purified, viz.,
symbolized, through the bodhipaksikadharmas.15
The second context in which visuddhi appears, and on which we
shall dwell a little, is the one which deals with the crucial theme of the
essential nature of things, not merely as aiming at theoretical definitions,
but also as a starting point of the practice that leads to awakening. In
this second context we see that the term “purification” is used in two
different ways. On the one hand it indicates “pureness”, Buddha’s nature
itself, the ever shining and pure condition that is always present in all
things. This pureness represents one of the foundations on which the
practice and the doctrine of Buddhist Tantras is based16 and which can
be exemplified by the formulas visuddhis tathata17 and tathatatmika
suddhih.18 On the other hand, the term indicates “purification” and
therefore a process or a means: yaya sarvabhava nirdosa bhavanti sa
visuddhih.19
This ambivalence of terms denoting purification justifies a question
concerning its true meaning. In other words, we must try to answer the
question posed by authors such as Krsnacarya and Ratnakarasanti: if a
thing is pure by its own nature, why and in what sense is it purified?20
Or, in other words, if a thing is pure, why is its pureness not evident
in itself? In effect, the statement that things possess a pure nature
is contradicted by common experience. And we might agree with
Abhayakaragupta, when he states that “pureness is [certainly manifest
in] a pure reality, but it is not reality tout court, because, if it were,
there would be the illogical consequence that, as there are realities
everywhere and in every place, there should be pureness everywhere
and in every place”,21 but we can see that this is not the case, at least
it does not seem to be.
Concerning this doubt it is possible to note within the Buddhist
schools a progressive development – even though some elements remain
constant – of the concept of purity/purification, a kind of redefinition of
the concept over the time. Since this redefinition appears to be strictly
linked to a shifting of accent in the way of defining the relationship
between mind (citta) and maculation (mala), we consider it useful to
explore this last point further.
III
It is well-known that Buddhist tradition conceives mind (citta) as being
naturally pure and shining (prabhasvara; Pali: pabhassara) but darkened
by adventitious maculations.22 In answer to the above question, we could
say that the process of purification is necessary due to the existence
of these adventitious maculations, which is precisely what prevents us
from perceiving pureness.
The fact that the citta is sometimes not mentioned, and we find it
stated that it is the various realities (bhava) that are naturally pure and
shining and that maculations veil the latter only temporarily,23 does
not substantially contradict the preeminence of mind, because worldly
realities are, in any event, perceived by the mind: it is the mind, in a
certain sense, that brings them into existence, allows them to appear
and to be the object of knowledge. There is an ancient expression that
recurs in these texts, which leaves no doubt on the matter: visayas
cittavithapitah, “objects are creations of mind”.24
The importance given to the mind as a foundation both of cognitive
process and spiritual progression is stressed in the texts of ancient
Buddhism and has constituted an element of continuity in the Buddhist
tradition until the present day; this subject has been dealt with repeat-
edly in a little but very famous work, the Cittavisuddhiprakarana by
Aryadeva, who must not be confused with the celebrated Madhyamika
teacher. A clear Yogacara trend emerges in this little work, which
was probably written at the end of the seventh century CE. It is no
coincidence that in one of the first verses the initial stanzas of the
Dhammapada are summarized: “The dharmas are preceded by mind,
which is the most important and the most rapid of them. Indeed, it is
because of mind that one speaks and acts”. 25
It is worth noting that purification depends on mind. To use a
language acceptable to all Buddhist schools, it is in the mind that the
transition between vedana (‘sensation’) and trsna (‘craving desire’)
occurs. These are the crucial factors of the pratıtyasamutpada, the
“dependent origination” (Pali: paticcasamuppada), the factors on which
it is necessary to act in order to interrupt the circle of transmigration and
sorrow and to give birth to the transcendent dependent origination, the
lokottarapratıtyasamutpada, which begins with faith.26 In other words,
attachment, aversion and ignorance become manifest in the mind after
vedana, sensation (pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral). They arise in
a conditioned sequence that can however be interrupted. Mind is the
very place in which this sequence can be broken. As Abhayakaragupta
states in his unpublished commentary on the Buddhakapalatantra:
“the [various] maculations, that is, attachment and so on, are void in
themselves [ ] their purification [is possible and] depends on the
purification of the mind. The mind, in its turn, in shining by its own
nature”.27
In the Sekoddesa, the only chapter of the Mulakalacakratantra that
has reached us and one of the most important works of the Kalacakra, we
find a statement of great import that, at first sight, appears to contradict
our initial premise: “Maculation is not adventitious in mind”.28
The explanation that the Sekoddesa itself and its commentaries29 offer
concerning this is very interesting for our discourse: (1) If maculation
were adventitious it would follow that it could characterize the mind of
a person, even that of a saint; maculations could manifest or disappear
at will. (2) If maculation preceded the mind, and had existed from time
immemorial, it would be causeless. Instead, it is a creation of mind
(cittavithapita). (3) If, on the other hand, maculation were causeless,
i.e., if it were born without the mind, it would lack causal efficiency,
and would be unable to achieve results, like a flower in the sky. (4) If
maculation were connatural with the mind, it would follow that mind
and maculations would have the same destiny: either maculations would
be indestructible or mind would vanish with them. But these last two
hypotheses are unacceptable.
The conclusion is that impurity appears with the mind. Therefore, it
does not precede the mind, does not follow the mind, and is not born
independently of the mind.30 This concept, which seemingly breaks
with the preceding tradition, is actually only the more systematic
and audacious expression of an idea already found in previous or
coeval texts of the Buddhist tradition. Let us consider, for instance, the
Acintyadvayakramopadesa where we read that mind is the support for
defects and virtues,31 or the Amrtakanika, the Gunabharanı, and the
Vimalaprabha, which, in similar words, affirm that Mara, evil personified,
is nothing but our own mind when it is affected by maculations.32 In
other terms, maculations or impurities, like everything else, do not
possess an independent reality, they are “void in themselves”. They
could not exist if there were no mind. The adventitious nature of
attachment, and so forth, exists in relation to the mind. After all, it is
the mind that becomes attached, hateful and darkened. And, in the same
way that impurities do not exist in themselves, there are no objects or
realities that are in themselves impure or pure. It is by purifying the
mind that the objects with which it comes into contact also become
pure.33 Reversing the initial assumption, we can say that the process of
purification is necessary due to the existence of the mind. However, this
is not completely true, and does not fully answer the question we posed.
Far from being a radical break with ancient Buddhist doctrines, it is
rather a change of perspective to which both the thought of Nagarjuna,
and that of the school of Asanga and Vasubandhu must have contributed
in many respects.
First of all, it should be noted that both purity and impurity are
conceived as non-subsistent from an absolute point of view. If samsara
and nirvana do not appear as separate realities but, in a certain sense,
depend on our own mind, it is precisely in the mind that the concepts of
purity and impurity also exist.34 Indrabhuti clearly states that “the idea
of pure and impure is only an idea and nothing more. This idea pertains
to common usage. The mutual dependence of these two concepts –
like the opposite shores of a sea – implies that if pureness did actually
exist, there would be some form of impurity; if – on the other hand –
there were no pureness, impurity would not exist either”.35
We would like to point out that these reflections are not aimed at
providing a basis for theories on moral relativism, even if it is sometimes
possible to interpret the texts in this light. What they seem to say –
which will become clearer later – is that “true” pureness essentially
depends on a factor that is within the mind, to such an extent that it
transcends conceptual constructs (vikalpa) and also the mind’s capacity
to create them. In this regard, we cannot gloss over what is precisely
stated in the Prajnopayaviniscayasiddhi, that is, that both maculation
and samsara are the mind endowed with conceptual constructs, whereas
nirvana is the mind devoid of these.36
From this point of view, it might be said that true pureness of mind
consists in transcending the sphere of conceptual constructs, beginning
with the very concepts of “pure” and “impure”, and, above all, those
connected with the idea of an “I” and a “mine”.37
In any event, texts do not fail to specify that transcending conceptual
constructs does not mean attaining a state of insentience.38 On the
contrary, the state reached by the mind is essentially knowledge. “Just
as the impurity of blister copper is destroyed by virtue of the union
with the elixir, but its essential nature is not dissolved and remains
pure, so the maculation of mind is destroyed by virtue of the union
with voidness, but the true nature of [mind], that is, knowledge, is not
destroyed and remains pure”.39
Knowledge is not only the result of the process of purification.
Sometimes it is described – more or less implicitly – as an active
factor, a factor that determines this process.40 “Buddhahood – we read
in the Vasantatilaka – cannot be obtained by men through the absence
of conceptual constructs, nor through conceptual constructs. It can occur
only through the knowledge of pure realities”,41 that is, the knowledge
of the actual nature of aggregates, etc. 42
In this respect, ritual baths or practices of external purification are
meaningless.43 Realities are not impure in themselves, but only to the
extent that their true nature is not known.
Concerning this, it is useful to specify that the object of criticism
is not thought as a useful and indispensable faculty, but the tendency
of thought to consider various realities as independent and substantial.
Sometimes, it is simply stated that impurity derives from subject-object
dichotomy. Every conception, indeed, every judgment or expectation is
basically rooted in this dichotomy. “ ‘O Blessed One – asked Vajragarbha
– what are the impure things?’ Blessed One answered: Form, and
so forth. ‘Why?’ [replied Vajragarbha]. Due to the existence of the
perceivable and the perceptive. ‘What are the perceivable realities and
the perceptives?’ asked Vajragarbha. Form is perceived by eyes, sound
by ear, smell by nose, taste by tongue, objects by touch, and pleasure
etc. by mind.”44
In the light of these arguments, we believe that we can define puri-
ty/purification essentially as a noetic experience: pureness is knowledge
because, on the one hand, it permits direct penetration through veils of
ignorance and the perception of things as they are, that is, “pure” or
adamantine realities; and, on the other hand, because it is only with the
manifestation of knowledge that maculation vanishes. As a passage of
the Cittavisuddhiprakarana reminds us, it is knowledge that completely
uproots nescience and sins: “Attachment, aversion, ignorance, envy and
craving desire (trsna) are generally held to be at the root of [all] sins;
these cannot be purified by means of a ritual bath (snana). Here [in this
world], for a being [sins] derive from the erroneous idea (graha) of an
‘I’ and a ‘mine’. In its turn, this idea stems from nescience (avidya)
and nescience is known as ‘error’ (bhranti). Just as the [erroneous]
perception of a conch as silver vanishes when the conch is recognized,
so [nescience] is utterly uprooted (nirmulam avasıdati) through the
realization of insubstantiality (nairatmya). Just as the perception of a
rope as a snake vanishes as soon as the rope is recognized and can
no longer be mistaken for a snake, so, through adamantine knowl-
edge (vajrajnana),45 here, in this life, the idea of a [substantial and
independent] being (sattva) no longer arises.”46
As we have seen, maculation has a paradoxical ontological status.
It requires mind to exist and vanishes when knowledge appears in the
mind; knowledge that could not appear if maculation did not exist.
Maculation – we could say – is in the service of the mind, in the same
way that – to use the language of alchemy with which many Buddhist
and non-Buddhist writers were acquainted – the impurity of blister
copper is the element on which the elixir acts to change it into gold. In
the Amrtakanika it is clearly stated that “[Manjusrı] is pure because all
aggregates, elements, bases and so forth, are no longer obstructed by
obstacles by virtue of the fire of Great Attachment”,47 that is, attachment
in its transfigured aspect, in the service, as it were, of awakening.48
The paradox lies in the fact that maculation veils the mind and the
essential nature of all things, but, at the same time, constitutes the
basic element through which the shining nature of the latter manifests,
to such an extent that one might say that impurity and pureness are
substantially rooted in the same reality.49
To sum up, we have said that pureness is the original (or adamantine)
nature of things, and that its manifestation corresponds to the more
or less gradual revelation of knowledge and to the disappearance of
the klesas, i.e., impurities, beginning with attachment. The gradualness
with which all this occurs and the employment of several means, which
range from the observance of specific rules of conduct to the celebration
of liturgic ceremonies and the practice of yogic techniques, authorizes
us to speak of a process of purification. Thus, visuddhi can signify both
a state of purity and a gradual process of purification, which consists
essentially in a progressively less self-centred way of knowing things.
We have previously outlined some essential characteristics of knowl-
edge that is able to purify: it can be considered a factor within the
mind, to such an extent that it transcends conceptual constructs and the
faculty of creating concepts. Far from being a state of insentience, it
consists in the consciousness that all dharmas are devoid of their own
self.50
Tantric scriptures do not systematically treat nor present univocal
or unequivocal statements on this subject. In the last part of this paper
we shall briefly examine some other characteristics of this knowledge,
in order to stimulate reflection.
One of the most interesting and original statements we find in
Buddhist tantric works concerns the more or less explicit definition of
the Buddha’s knowledge in terms of “pleasure” or “happiness” (sukha).
“The knowledge of all the Tathagatas [ ] is called Great Pleasure
(mahasukha)”.51 In the texts there are many references to this cognitive
experience, which we could compare to aesthetic rapture, to a kind of
pleasure that precedes the subject-object dichotomy, which has nothing
to do with attachment and which transcends ordinary pleasure.
Regarding this, we find another statement of considerable import:
Great (or Supreme) Pleasure derives from the pure nature of objects:
“The Supreme Pleasure – we read in the Hevajratantra –, which is
directly experienced within ourselves (svasamvedya), comes from the
pure nature (suddhabhava) of sense-objects”.52
Two things should be noted here: the reference to the “pure nature”
of sense-objects and the use of the adjective svasamvedya.
Concerning the “pure nature” of objects, it suffices to say that it
means the reality of objects devoid of conceptual superimpositions.
To know an object in its pureness does not simply mean knowing its
insubstantiality (nairatmya), but grasping it immediately, without the
mediation of mental constructs. In the light of this, the above-mentioned
passage from the Hevajratantra can be considered a modern and succinct
version of the memorable words of the Udana (I, 10): “ ‘May Blessed
One teach me the Noble Doctrine! so that I might receive benefit
and felicity for a long time!’. ‘Then, you should train yourself [in
the following way]: in what you see there must be only what [you]
have seen, in what you hear only what [you] have heard ’ ”.53
The modality through which this kind of knowledge operates shows
that it is, to some extent, linked to direct perception (pratyaksa). From
this viewpoint, the experience of purification, of non-dual knowledge
that manifests before the subject-object dichotomy – i.e., at every given
moment in the perceptive process before the manifestation of conceptual
constructs (which divide the subject from the object) – can be defined as
a return to the moment of direct perception. References to pratyaksa do
in fact abound in the texts of late Indian Buddhism, particularly in the
Kalacakra. “Direct perception – we read in the Laghukalacakratantra
– is like a star in the sky [ ], reasoning is like a corpse”.54
Thus, to know the pure nature of objects does not only mean “to
know the pureness” of their nature, but also “to know” their nature “in
a pure way”.
The term svasamvedya merits deeper examination. First of all, it has
a wide field of application; in fact, it occurs in several contexts and
circumstances in the examined texts.55
Svasamvedya is not merely pleasure (due to internal or external
causes).56 It is also Great Knowledge, which is sometimes referred to
as Tathagata’s (or Tathagatas’) knowledge, and identified with Great
Pleasure.57 “This knowledge – we read in the Hevajratantra –, which
goes beyond the realm of words, is directly knowable inside us. It
corresponds to the adhisthanakrama and is identified with the Omniscient
One’s knowledge”.58 “This knowledge, which is free from notions of
Self and Other and is similar to the ether, immaculate and void, the
very essence of existence and non-existence, supreme, and the fusion of
wisdom and means, of passion and absence of passion, arises from direct
personal experience”.59 Lastly, purification itself – logically enough –
is svasamvedya: “only purification that is [a reality] directly perceivable
within us is able to set us free, and no other means”.60
Sometimes, the term svasamvedya means simply ‘verifiable
through one’s own experience’ and can be considered a synonym of
pratyatmavedya, viz., ‘personally realizable’. However, in the above-
mentioned stanzas and, often, in the texts examined here, this term is
used with a more pregnant meaning. In reference to Great Pleasure
and Great Knowledge (which, as we have seen, are like two sides of
a coin), it is employed to stress that we are speaking of unconditioned
realities, that is, realities that can be fully known and perceived only
through a specific cognitive act, a direct and personal experience that
– as is clearly stated in some texts – even transcends the mediation of
the senses.
In several parts of the Jnanasiddhi and of the Paramaksarajnanasiddhi
– a section of the Vimalaprabha –, there is strong criticism of the idea
that Great Pleasure and Great Knowledge may depend on certain
conditions: on female and male organs, and on knowable realities
(aggregates, and so forth) and sense organs, respectively. Tathagata’s
knowledge, indeed, is completely independent of the activity of the
senses61 and Great Pleasure has nothing to do with ordinary pleasure.62
The Hevajratantra recognizes that Great Knowledge (mahajnana),
since it pervades everything, also exists in the body (dehastha);63
notwithstanding this, the text states that this knowledge does not arise
from the body64 and – as is clearly stated in the Satsahasrika – does
not disappear when the body decays.65
Therefore, ‘self-perceivable knowledge’, viz., ‘knowledge directly
experienced within ourselves’ (svasamvedyam jnanam), can be termed a
priori knowledge, in the sense that it exists independently of knowable
realities and transcends the activity of the senses, the means of knowl-
edge. In any case, knowledge being independent of knowable realities
and sense organs does not imply a state of insentience. Sometimes,
the adjective svasamvedya is used precisely to underline the fact that
the knowledge of the Buddha is not absence of thought.66 However,
this adjective is also used to emphasize that this kind of knowledge
is the presupposition for ordinary communication and ordinary knowl-
edge. Pundarıka clearly states that if this shining (i.e., self-conscious)
knowledge did not exist, it would be impossible to teach the doctrine
according to the inclinations of beings, and to know all dharmas.67
We might say that, in the process of purification, this kind of knowl-
edge assumes the leading role that in the teachings of Theravada Bud-
dhism is ascribed to sati, i.e., smrti, mindfulness or awareness, the “one
sole way that leads to the purification of beings”.68 Of course, also in the
texts of the Vajrayana we find references to the four smrtyupasthanas,
the standpoints of mindfulness, but – as far as we know – they are
mostly occasional references in often extremely summarized listings of
the thirty-seven bodhipaksikadharmas;69 whereas we also find works
partially or entirely dedicated to describing the characteristics of this
non-dual knowledge.
V
In all the phases of Tantric practice, both in the generation process
and the completion process, one tries to stimulate and strengthen in
the practitioner an awareness of his adamantine nature, insubstantial-
ity (nairatmya) and pureness.70 Concerning this, let us consider the
recitation of mantras, such as om sunyatajnanavajrasvabhavatmako
’ham71 or svabhavasuddhah sarvadharmah svabhavasuddho ’ham72
and the practice of identifying with the chosen deity through techniques
of visualization and according to the master’s teachings. 73 Through
the sixfold yoga, in particular, the adept attains the vision of every
aspect of reality in its pure form. He acquires a new way of “seeing”
and “perceiving” the entire reality. It is seen by the yogin as the pure
manifestation of divine energies that, according to the Buddhist point
of view, can be divided – for didactic purposes – into the six families
of the Bodhisattvas. Each of the elements of which the world is com-
posed is ruled by one of the Bodhisattvas or one of their partners: form
(rupa) is purified by Vairocana, notion (samjna) by Amitabha, and so
on.74 In the following table we can see the correspondence between
the thirty-six deities of the Buddhist pantheon and the various realities,
according to the Kalacakra teachings.75
1) Vajrasattva skandha 2) Vi ?svam?at ?a dh ?atu
Heruka (Aksobhya) vijn ?ana Vajradh ?atv?ı ?svar?ı ak ?a?sa
Amoghasiddhi samsk ?ara T ?arin?ı (T ?ar ?a) v ?ayu
Ratne?sa (Ratnasambhava) vedan ?a P ?andar ?a tejas
Kamaladhara (Amit ?abha) samjn ?a M?amak?ı toya
Samayajina (Vairocana) r ?upa Locan ?a prthv?ı
3) Samantabhadra indriya 4) Sabdavajr ?a visaya
Vajrap ?ani srotra Dharmadh ?atuvajr ?a dharmadh?atu
Khagarbha ghr ?ana Spar?savajr ?a spar?sa
Ksitigarbha caksus Rasavajr ?a rasa
Loke?svara jihv ?a R ?upavajr ?a r ?upa
Sarvanivaranaviskambhin k ?aya Gandhavajr ?a gandha
5) Sumbhar ?aja karmendriy ?a 6) Raudr ?aks?ı kriy ?a
Usn?ısacakravartin upastha Atin?ıl ?a sukracyuti
Vighn ?antaka v ?ac Ativ?ıry ?a vitsr ?ava
Padm?antaka p ?ani Jambh?ı gati
Prajn ?antaka p ?ada M?amin?ı ad ?ana
Yam?antaka p ?ayu Stambhin?ı al ?apa
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.12
THE CONCEPT OF PURIFICATION 95
Thus, through the sixfold yoga the yogin directly perceives and
becomes aware of the general interrelationship between all the planes
of reality; an interrelationship that also extends through the microcosm
and the different levels of the path of spiritual advancement.
The development of such awareness is accompanied by pure
intention (subhasaya), viz., the intention to do good. As the
Cittavisuddhiprakarana states, on the basis of Vinaya texts, an action
performed with a pure intention, even if wrong, entails positive rather
than negative consequences.76 It is a condition for gaining spiritual
merits and, in the final analysis, for obtaining an increase in faith in
the master’s teachings, and in knowledge. It is a “virtuous” circle of
which there are other examples in Buddhist doctrine.
The manifestation of knowledge/awareness is not completely inde-
pendent of the intention to do good, of the bodhicitta vow, of the
practice of the four brahmaviharas and of the yoga. Great Knowl-
edge accompanies and, in a certain sense, presupposes all these things.
Thus we can say that the development of wisdom goes hand in hand
with the development of moral sensibility and concentration. They are
interdependent factors that nourish each other.
ABBREVIATIONS
AAKU Acintyadvayakramopades a
AK Amrtakanika (Namasamgıtitippanı)
AKU Amrtakanikoddyota
AP Abhayapaddhati
CIHTS Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies
CMT Candamaharosanatantra
CVP Cittavisuddhiprakarana
Dhıh Dhıh. Journal of Rare Buddhist Texts
HT Hevajratantra
JS Jnanasiddhi
LKC Laghukalacakratantra
MA Muktavalı (Hevajratantrapanjika)
NAK National Archives of Nepal, Kathmandu
NGMPP Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project
NS Namasamgıti
PAJS Paramaksarajnanasiddhi
SN Samyutta Nikaya
SS Satsahasrika (Hevajratantrapindarthatıka)
SU Sekoddesa
VP Vimalaprabha
YRM Yogaratnamala (Hevajratantrapanjika)
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.13
96 FRANCESCO SFERRA
NOTES
The author expresses his profound feeling of gratitude to the authorities of the
K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute and the Bihar Research Society of Patna (India)
for kindly having made available their valuable source materials through the good
offices of Dr. Gustav Roth and Prof. Raffaele Torella. For the same reason, he would
also like to express his deep gratitude to the authorities of the National Archives of
Nepal and the Kaiser Library of Kathmandu, of the Royal Asiatic Society (London)
and of the Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (Rome).
1
Cf. NS V, 3 and ff; SU, 161-169; CVP, 4a.
2
It is defined mandalacakrakarmajnanamudrakalpanarahitam prajnaparamitajnanam
vikalpajalarahitam (SS, MS 3-693, fol. 13r2 3 ).
3
Cf. Guhyasamajapradıpoddyotana (comm. on Guhyasamajatantra XVIII, 154, ed.,
p. 119), LKC IV, 119.
4
However, it should be noted that it is not always possible to clearly differentiate
these contexts.
5
For example, om sodhane sodhane sodhaya sarvapayan sarvasattvebhyo hum, om
sarvavit sarvavaranani visodhaya hana hum phat, etc. (Sarvadurgatiparis odhanatantra,
ed., pp. 126, 128).
6
See, for instance, VP, ed., vol. II, p. 32 and ff. For a general description, see
Tucci 19693 : 99 ff.
7
This argument is not shrouded in mystery and is generally devoid of the complex
liturgy of the mantroddhara, which is particularly important in Hindu Tantras.
Obviously, much information can be drawn from commentaries. In the LTT by
Vajrapani – a commentary on the first ten and a half stanzas of the Cakrasamvaratantra
– we find the description of the balisodhanamantra, which has to be used to purify
the substances that have to be offered to spirits (om vajrakrodhes vari sarvadravyani
visodhaya hum phat, MS, fol. 37v. C. Cicuzza kindly gave me the opportunity
to study this text from his forthcoming edition and translation). We could also
quote the SUT, which describes the mantras that are employed in the Kalacakra
for the purification of pots (kalasa) and disciples (sisya) (ed., p. 10; Gnoli-Orofino
1994: 159–61; cf. also VP, ed., vol. II, pp. 36–7), and the VP (comm. on LKC III,
87; ed., vol. II, pp. 84–5), which explains the mantra (outlined in the verse) that
the master uses in the preliminaries of initiation in order to make the Krodharaja
enter into the disciple (previously cleansed and anointed with perfumed oils) and
eliminate the Maras (cf. LKC III, 88) from him. See also Hopkins 1985: 106–7, 439–
40.
8
J. Hopkins (1985: 69) writes: “The first seven initiations establish potencies
in practitioners’ mental continuums for purifying impure appearances and impure
conceptions. Impure appearances are appearances, to the mental consciousness,
of ordinary phenomena such as a body made of flesh, blood, and bone; impure
conceptions are conceptions of oneself, based on ordinary appearance, to be ordinary.
During the stage of generation, practitioners develop clear appearance of themselves
as the deity, or ideal being, Kalacakra together with a consort and other deities.
When such meditation is successful, all ordinary appearances of bodies made of
flesh, blood, and bone and houses made of wood and so forth vanish from the mental
consciousness (not the sense consciousnesses) such that all that appears is divine
[ ].” See also pp. 13–22, 71, 108–9, 120–27.
9
Cf. VP, ed., vol. II, pp. 100, lines 24–5; Gunabharanı (MS, fol. 8v1 2 ). For some
traditional etymologies of the term abhiseka, see Hopkins 1985: 66–7, 484, note
89. In the SUT (ed., pp. 2–3) we read: sicyate kayadikam nirmalam niravaranam
kriyate ’neneti sekah “It is seka because through it the body etc. is sprinkled
(sicyate), that is, it is made pure, without obstacles (niravarana)”. See also HT II.iii,
12cd.
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.14
THE CONCEPT OF PURIFICATION 97
10
During the seven initiations we have a gradual purification of families, elements,
aggregates, etc. See SU, 12–14, LKC III, 99 and VP (ed., vol. II, p. 95). On the
basis of a wider subdivision, the initiations purify body, word, mind and knowledge.
See SU, 10–11, 15–17. See also SUT (Gnoli-Orofino 1994: 178–182, 185–6, 193);
Hopkins 1985: 72–4, 109–118.
A similar concept can be found in the Ratnavalıpanjika by Kumaracandra – a
commentary on the Krsnayamaritantra – where we read (ed., pp. 100–2) that the
kayavajra is purified through the initiation of the master, the vagvajra through the
initiation of the secret parts, and the cittavajra through the initiation of the knowledge
of wisdom.
It is also worth mentioning that we occasionally find a more specific use of the
term “purification” in the texts. Sometimes the past-participle of the root sudh or
visudh – the primary meaning of which is ‘pure’, ‘purified’, and so forth – is used to
mean ‘furnished with’, ‘perfected by’, as the glosses sometimes confirm. S adhuputra
Srıdharananda, for instance, while explaining stanzas six and seven of the Sekoddesa
(see below), comments on the word suddham precisely with samanvitam (SUTippanı,
ed., p. 120, line 12. See also Gnoli-Orofino 1994: 142, note 1).
evam satkotibhih suddham vajrayogais caturvidhaih catuhsambodhibhih
skandhadhatvayatanasatkulaih patalaih pancabhih suddham lokadhatvadikair
mataih satyabhyam adibuddham syat kalacakrabhidhanakam (SU, 6–7).
“Thus, purified by the six points, by the four vajrayogas, by the perfect com-
prehensions, by the aggregates, elements, bases, and [respective] six families, and
also purified by five chapters, the first concerning the structure of the world, and
by the two truths, we have Adibuddha, known as Kalacakra”. See also SU, 170–
172.
11
Cf. HT II.iii, 11a. “As for ‘clarification’ by a smile, a gaze etc., the Sanskrit term
means literally ‘purification’ (visuddhi), but in Buddhist tantric usage it comes to
mean to ‘represent’ or ‘symbolize’. The meanings come together when it is said for
instance that the Five Buddhas ‘purify’ the Five Evils, but it can equally well be said
that they ‘purify’ the Five Wisdoms, which they effectively symbolize” (Snellgrove
1987, vol. I: 253). With an analogous meaning the term visuddhi is used, for example,
in the Jnanodayatantra (ed. p. 5) and in the SS (MS 128, fols. 54v–55r).
12
evam vedanasmrtyupasthanavisuddhya daksinadvaram evam dharmamanusmrtyupas-
thanavisuddhya pascimadvaram evam cittanusmrtyupasthanam uttaradvaram [ ]
(Hevajratippana, MS, fol. 6v4 5 ). Cf. also Dhargyey 1985: 57.
13
atha bhagavaty aha [ ] purvoktamandalanam [cf. CMT, chap. II] tu visuddhim
me vada prabho atha bhagavan aha athatah sampravaksyami [ vaksami: MSS
4-342 and 1-220] visuddhim sarvasodhanam tatra [tatra: deest in MSS 3-661 and
1-220] caturasram caturbrahmaviharı caturdvaram catuhsatyam catustoranam
caturdhyanam astastambha aryastango margah ekaputam cittaikagrata [ ]
(CMT, chap. XV, MS 3-661, fol. 32v7 8 , [this MS has a lacuna after the compound
sarvasodhanam]; MS 4-342, fols. 57r3 -57v2 ; MS 1-220, fol. 18r5 7 ).
14
catuhsmrtyupasthanavisuddhya purvvadvaram catuhsamyakprahana [ pramana :
MS]visuddhya daksinadvaram [daksine dvaram: MS] catuhrddhipadavisuddhya
pascimadvaram pancendriyavisuddhya uttaradvaram dhyanacatustayavisuddhya
catustoranam (Hevajrasadhana, MS, fol. 66r3 4 ). See also the Abhisamayamanjarı,
Dhıh (13) 130–1.
15
See VP, ed., vol. II, pp. 129–30. See also Kalparajatantra (MS, fols. 43v9 –
44v1 ), Vasantatilaka, chap. VII, ed., pp. 51 ff, Yoginısamcaratantra, MS, fols. 2r6 –
2v4 .
16
See Snellgrove 1987: 125.
17
sarvesam khalu vastunam visuddhis tathata smrta (I.ix, 1ab). See also
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.15
98 FRANCESCO SFERRA
Srımahasamvarodayatantrara ja IV, 18d (ed. Tsuda, p. 81), AK (comm. on NS
VIII, 22), ed., p. 69, and AKU, ed., p. 176 (where this verse of the HT is quoted).
18
YRM (ed., p. 130), MA (MS, fol. 67v1 2 ), comm. on HT I.ix, 3a.
19
YRM (ed., p. 130); cf. MA (MS, fol. 67r3 ).
20
Cf. YRM (ed., p. 130) and MA, comm. on HT I.ix, 2 (MS, fol. 67r5 6 ).
21
visuddham tatvam visuddhih na tu tatvamatram visuddhih tatvasya sarva-
tra sarvada ca bhavat sarvesam sarvada ca visuddhiprasangat (AP, MS, fol.
23v2 3 ).
22
Cf. Dharmakırti’s Pramanavarttika I, 210. In the JS (chapter XV, ed., p. 140)
we read: [sarvatathagata ahuh –] prakrti pra bhasvaram idam kulaputra cittam
candramandalavat candramandalam prakrtiprabhasvaram tadvad jnanam yatha
kramac candramandalam sampurnam bhavati, tadvat prakrtiprabhasvaram cit-
taratnam api paripurnam bhavati yatha candramandalam agantukakalabhih
suryamandalarasmyapagamat kramat purnam drsyate, tadvat prakrtiparisuddham
cittaratnam api sarvaklesamalakalankapagamakramat paripurnabuddhagunam drsyate
iti.
23
sadindriyam pancaskandham sadayatanam pancabhutam svabhavena visuddham
apy ajnanaklesair avrtam (HT I.ix, 2). Beings are already enlightened, their
enlightenment is obscured by adventitious maculations (HT II.iv, 70–71). Cf. also
HT II.iv, 77.
24
Cf. AP (MS, fol. 10r3 ). On the term vithapita, which lit. means ‘based on’, see
Edgerton 1970, vol. II: 486.
25
manahpurvangama dharma manahsrestha manojavah manasa hi prasannena
bhasate va karoti va (st. 10). Cf. Dhammapada, I, 1–2. In the CMT (VII, 13cd–
14ab) we read: manahpurvagamam sarvam papapunyam idam matam manasah
kalpanakaram gatisthanadibheditam (trans. George 1974: 79–80). See also JS IX,
6–9; Dhargyey 1985: 53.
26
Cf. SN XII.iii, 23.
27
mala ragadayah sunyatasvabhava [ ] nairmalyam caisam cittanairmalyat
cittam ca prakrtinirmalam (AP, MS, fol. 10r3 4 ).
28
nagantuko malas citte, st. 129a.
29
SU, 129b–131, SUT (ed., p. 65; Gnoli-Orofino 1994: 341–2), SUTippanı (ed.,
p. 139), SUPanjika (ed., pp. 290–1).
30
Cf. SU, 132–133 and SUT (ed., pp. 65–6, Gnoli-Orofino 1994: 342–43).
31
dosanam ca gunanam ca cittam adharam ucyate (st. 33cd).
32
In the AK (ed., p. 2) and in the Gunabharanı (MS, fol. 17r5 ) Ravisrıjnana quotes
a stanza in which it is stated that Mara is the mind itself: marah svacittam na paro
’sti marah [ ]. In the VP (ed., vol. I, p. 23, lines 11–2) we read: maro nama
sattvanam samsaracittam vasanamalah, buddhatvam nama samsaravasanarahitam
cittam.
33
In the AP (MS, fol. 10r4 5 ) we read: ragadir evantaram visam tad
uktam bhagavata “ragadvesas ca mohas ca ete loke trayo visa” iti te ca
cittasyaivagantusvabhavah tatas cittam eva mudharaktam dvistam cantaram visam
punyajnanasambharajıvitavighatat tac cittavasad visayasvarupam api visam
yada tu cittam sunyatakarunabhinnasvabha vam nairmalyan nirvisam niscitam tada
visayasvarupam api malarahitam.
34
In the CMT (VIII, 29–30ab) we read: na papam vidyate kincid na punyam kincid
asti hi lokanam cittaraksayai papapunyavyavasthitih cittamatram yatah sarvam
ksanamatran ca tatsthitih (trans. George 1974: 84).
35
sucitvam asti cet kincid asucitvam bhavisyati sucyabhavad asucitvam sarvatha
nopalabhyate apeksikatvam anyonyam paraparakavad yatha laukikı kalpanaivaisa
sucyasucyadikalpana (JS X, 9–10).
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.16
THE CONCEPT OF PURIFICATION 99
36
ragadidurvaramalavaliptam cittam hi samsaram uvaca vajrı prabhasvaram
kalpanaya vimuktam prahınaragadimalapralepam grahyam na ca grahakam
agrasattvas [agrasattvam: ed.] tad eva nirvanavaram jagada “Vajra-Holder said
that transmigration is the mind stained by maculation, i.e., by attachment, and so
on, which is difficult to eliminate. [Furthermore,] the Primeval Being said that
this same mind, which is shining, devoid of conceptual constructs, free from those
impurities and stains that are attachment and so forth, and without the perceivable
and the perceptor, is nirvana” (Prajnopayaviniscayasiddhi IV, 22cd–23). See also the
following verse: kalpanamalajalena cittaratnam malıkrtam “The jewel that is mind
is stained by the net of maculations that are conceptual constructs” (AAKU, 10cd).
Cf. also CVP, 25.
37
Cf. CVP, 66 (see below, note 46).
38
Cf. JS V, 7ab; PAJS (Gnoli 1997: 35–6).
39
tamrasya kalima yadvad rasayogena nasyati na tasya sattvata nasyen nir-
malatvena ya sthita tadvac cittamalah sunyatayogena pranasyati na tasya jnanata
nasyen nirmalatvena ya sthita (SU, 132–133). In the AAKU (st. 11) we read:
malapagamanad buddham [bauddham?] advayam jnanam ucyate.
40
Cf., for instance, CVP, 51 and Dharmadhatustava, 18–23 (quoted in SUT, ed.,
p. 66, Gnoli-Orofino 1994: 342–3).
41
nirvikalpan na buddhatvam savikalpac ca no tatha suvisuddhaparijnanad bhaved
eva manısinam (I, 12).
42
In the commentary we read: skandhadeh svabhavaparijnanat tad bhavati (ed.,
p. 11).
43
Cf. SN VII.i, 9 (for an interesting analysis of this passage, see Bhattacharya 1973:
116–18), CVP, 60–64.
44
he bhagavan ke te ’visuddhah bhagavan aha rupadayah kasmat
grahyagrahakabhavat vajragarbha aha ke te grahyagrahakas ceti bhagavan
aha caksusa grhyate rupam sabdah karnena sruyate gandham nasikaya vetti
jihvaya svadanam vidhuh kayena sprsyate vastu manah sukhadim apnute (HT
I.ix, 5–8ab).
45
Cf. JS I, 37, 47.
46
rago dvesas ca mohas ca ırsya trsna ca sarvada papanam mulam akhyatam naisam
snanena sodhanam atmatmıyagrahad ete sambhavantı ha janminah avidyahetukah
so ’pi savidya bhrantir isyate raupyabuddhir yatha suktau suktidrstau nivartate
nairatmyadarsanat sapi nirmulam avasıdati sarpabuddhir yatha rajjau rajjudrstau
nivartate sarpabuddhih punas tatra naiva syad iha janmani sattvabuddhis tathatrapi
vajrajnanan nivartate (stt. 65–69ab).
47
maharaganalena sakalaskandhadha tvayatanadınam niravaranıkaranat suddhatma
(comm. on NS VI, 5).
48
The same concept – mutatis mutandis – is common to Hinduism and can be found
in classical texts of traditional Hindu darsanas. Let us consider just one example: the
concept of purusartha in the Samkhya. On this subject, see interesting considerations
by C. Pensa in G. Gnoli (ed.) Mircea Eliade e le religioni asiatiche, Serie Orientale
Roma (64), IsMEO, Roma 1989, pp. 133 ff.
49
Cf. Tucci 19693 : 23.
50
In the PAJS (VP, ed., vol. III, p. 77) we read: iha tathagatam jnanam
sarvadharmanam nihsvabhavatavabodhanam nama, na sarvabhavalaksanam
susuptacittam.
51
sarvatathagatam jnanam [ ] mahasukham iti smrtam (JS VII, 3a, d).
52
visayasuddhabhavatvat svasamvedyam param sukham (HT I.ix, 3cd).
53
The full passage is: [ ] desetu me bhante bhagava dhammam desetu sugato
dhammam yam mama assa dıgharattam hitaya sukhaya ’ti tasmat iha te Bahiya
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.17
100 FRANCESCO SFERRA
evam sikkhitabbam ditthe ditthamattam bhavissati sute sutamattam bhavissati
mute mutamattam bhavissati vinnate vinnatamattam bhavissatıti || evan hi te
Bahiya sikkhitabbam yato kho te Bahiya ditthe ditthamattam bhavissati sute
sutamattam bhavissati mute mutamattam bhavissati vinnate vinnatamattam
bhavissati tato tvam Bahiya na tena, yato tvam Bahiya na tena tato tvam
Bahiya na tattha yato tvam Bahiya nev’ attha tato tvam Bahiya nev’ idha na
huram na ubhayamantarena es’ ev’ anto dukkhassa ’ti (Udana, Bodhivagga
I, 10; Cf. Udanam, ed. by P. Steinthal, Pali Text Society, London, 1885, p. 8).
A very similar passage can be found in the SN (XXXV.xcv, 12–13, ed., vol. IV,
p. 73).
54
pratyaksam [ ] udur iva gagane [ ] anumanam mrtakatanur iva (LKC IV,
232 cd). Cf also JS IV, 30cd: sarvam pratyaksato vetti sarvajnas tena kathyate.
55
Cf., for instance, HT I.viii, 25, 44–45, JS, I, 90.
56
Cf. Sahajasiddhi III, 8, PAJS (ed., VP, vol. III, p. 63, line 2).
57
JS VII, 3b.
58
svasamvedyam idam jnanam vakpathatıtagocaram adhisthanakramo hy esah
sarvajnajnanatanmayah (HT I.viii, 49).
59
svasamvedyad bhaved jnanam svaparavittivarjitam khasamam virajam sunyam
bhavabhavatmakam param prajnopayavyatimisram ragaragavimisritam (HT I.x,
7).
60
svasamvedyatmika suddhir nanyasuddhya vimucyate (HT I.ix, 3ab). Cf. also
Sahajasiddhi III, 3cd.
61
athendriyadvarikam svasamvedyam tada niskalam sarvagam sarvavyapi na bhavati,
sarvavaranat tasmat tathagatam jnanam svasamvedyam sarvadharmasvabha vajnam
nirvikalpam anindriyam iti (PAJS, ed., VP, vol. III, p. 77, lines 30–2; see also Gnoli
1997: 37). Cf. also JS III, 10.
62
Cf. JS VII; PAJS, ed., VP, vol. III, pp. 78–9.
63
Cf. HT I.i, 12a.
64
Cf. HT I.i, 12b.
65
In the SS we read: yadi buddhajnanam dehajam bhavati adharadheyasambandhena
yatha puspajam gandham tadabhave vinasyati yatha puspabhave gandhabhavo, na
caivam ato dehe bahye ca vyapitvad bahyastham dehastham ity ucyate dehabhave
na tasyabhavo yasmat tasman na dehaja [HT I.i, 12] iti niyamah tatha aha –
akasasya yatha bhango nasti kumbhasya bhangatah jnanasya ca tatha nasti bhango
dehasya bhangatah (MS 3-693, fol. 13v5 9 ). Cf. JS II, 38–40.
66
Cf. PAJS, ed., VP, vol. III, pp. 76–7.
67
prakrtiprabhasvaram nama yadi svasamvedyam tathagatam jnanam na bhavati,
tada sattvasayavasat tathagatasya dharmadesana na syat sarvadharma aprabodhah,
asamvedyatvat (PAJS, ed., VP, vol. III, p. 77, lines 28–30).
68
In the SN (XLVII.III.ii, 8 and v, 3) we read: “Then, as the Exalted One meditated
in solitude, there arose in his mind this train of thought: This is the one sole way
that leads to the purification of beings, to the utter passing beyond sorrow and grief,
to the destruction of woe and lamentation, to the winning of the Method, to the
realizing of Nibbana, to wit: the four stations of mindfulness.” (trans. Woodward
1930: 147; cf. also p. 162; ed., vol. V, pp. 167, 184).
69
The smrtyupasthanas (Pali: satipatthana; ‘foundations of awareness’) are men-
tioned for instance in the LKC V, 238c (VP, ed., vol. III, p. 148). Concerning the
thirty-seven bodhipaksikadharmas, see also the Yoginısamcaratantratıka, MS, fols.
16v–32r. See also above, note 15.
70
J. Hopkins (1985: 70) writes: “Through developing, in the stage of generation,
clear appearance of pure body and pure mind, ordinary appearances are stopped for
the mental consciousness. [ ] Thus, successful meditators have a conception of
themselves as ideal beings, not inherently existent but merely designated in depen-
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.18
THE CONCEPT OF PURIFICATION 101
dence upon pure mind and body. For deity yoga to succeed, two prime factors are
needed: clear appearance of a divine body and pride in being that deity. With success
in visualizing the deity, both mind and body appear to be pure; hence, the sense of
self that the meditator has in dependence upon purely appearing mind and body is
of a pure self, a divine self.”
71
Cf. Hopkins 1985: 107.
72
Catuhpıthamahatantraraja, Parapıtha, III patala, MS, fols. 22r1 , 26v3 . The same
mantra recurs in other texts, such as the Abhisamayamanjarı (ed. in Dhıh 13, p. 128)
and the VP (comm. on LKC III, 35, ed., vol. II, p. 32). See also Dawa-Samdup
19872 : 87, 122.
73
See, for instance, CVP, 17, 29, 76–78, 80cd–81, 118, 129.
74
In Kalacakra texts we have six families (see, for instance, SU, 161–172; LKC V,
101–107). Vajrasattva is the head of the sixth family, which purifies the jnanaskandha,
the jnanadhatu, the manas, and so on. On this theme, see also NS III, 1–2 and AK
(with AKU); Guhyasamajapradıpoddyotana (ed., p. 17); PAJS (VP, ed., vol. III, pp.
71–3); Tucci 19693 : 67.
75
See also Gnoli-Orofino 1994: 79. The differences between this table and the ones
that we find in other Kalacakra texts has been analysed by Orofino (1996: 138–139).
76
Cf. CVP, 11–16; Majjhima Nikaya (vol. I, p. 371); Vinayapit aka (vol. I, p. 83).
REFERENCES
TEXTS
Abhayakaragupta, Abhayapaddhati (Buddhakapalatantratıka), NAK, MS 5–21, NGMPP,
Mf. A 48/2.
Buddhakapalatantra (Dpal sangs rgyas thod pa), The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking
Edition, Otani University, Kyoto, ed. by Daisetz T. Suzuki, 1955–1961, vol. III,
# 63, pp. 52–63.
Candamaharosanatantra, NAK, MS 3-661 NGMPP, Mf. A 138/8; NAK, MS 4-342,
Mf. A 140/7; NAK, MS 1-220, NGMPP, Mf. A 141/7. For the first eight chapters,
see also George 1974.
Catuhpıthamahatantraraja, NAK, MS 5-37, NGMPP, Mf. A 138/10,
Deuter-Aryadeva, Cittavisuddhiprakaran a, Sanskrit and Tibetan Text, ed. by P.B.
Patel, with a Foreward by V. Bhattacharya, in Visva-Bharati Research Studies (8),
Santiniketan Press, Santiniketan 1949.
Deutero-Candrakırti, Guhyasamajatantrapradıpoddyotanat ıkasatkotıvyakhya, ed. by
C. Chakravarti, Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna 1984.
Guhyadi-Astasiddhisangraha, Sanskrit and Tibetan text, Rare Buddhist Text Series
(1), ed. by S. Rinpoche and V.V. Dwivedi, CIHTS, Sarnath, Varanasi 1987.
Guhyasamajatantra, The Guhyasamaja Tantra. A New Critical Edition, by Y. Mat-
sunaga, Toho Shuppan, inc., Osaka 1978.
Hevajrasadhana, MS preserved on negative at the K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute,
Patna.
Hevajratantra, see Snellgrove 1959.
Hevajratippana, MS preserved on negative at the K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute,
Patna.
Jnanodayatantram, ed. by S. Rinpoche and V. Dwivedi, Rare Buddhist Text Series
(2), CIHTS, Sarnath, 1988.
Kalparajatantra, MS not catalogued, preserved at the IsIAO Library, Rome.
Kanha (alias Krsnacarya), Yogaratnamala, see Snellgrove 1959, vol. II: 103–59, and
Farrow-Menon 1992.
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.19
102 FRANCESCO SFERRA
Krsnacarya, Vasantatilaka of Caryavratı Srıkrsnacarya with Commentary:
Rahasyadı pika by Vanaratna, ed. by S. Rinpoche and V. Dwivedi, Rare Bud-
dhist Text Series (7), CIHTS, Sarnath 1990.
Krsnayamaritantram. With Ratnavalıpanjika of Kumaracandra, ed. by S. Rinpoche
and V. Dwivedi, Rare Buddhist Text Series (9), CIHTS, Sarnath, 1992.
Naropa, Sekoddesatıka of Nadapada (Naropa), The Sanskrit Text edited for the first
time with an introduction in English by M. Carelli, Gaekwad’s Oriental Series
(90), Baroda 1941. See also Gnoli-Orofino 1994.
Pundarıka, Vimalaprabhatıka of Kalkin Srıpundarıka on Srılaghukalacakratantraraja by
Srımanjusrıyasas, vol. I, Critically Edited & Annotated with Notes by J. Upadhyaya,
Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series (11), CIHTS, Sarnath 1986; vols. II–III, Critically
Edited & Annotated with Notes by V.V. Dwivedi and S.S. Bahulkar, Rare Buddhist
Text Series (12–13), CIHTS, Sarnath 1994. See also Newman 1987.
Ratnakarasanti, Muktavalı, NAK, MS 4–19, NGMPP, Mf. A 994/6.
Ravisrıjnana, Aryamanjusrınamasamgıti with Amrtakanika-tippanı by Bhiksu
Ravisrıjnana and Amrtakanikoddyota-nibandha of Vibhuticandra, ed. by B. Lal,
Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica (30), CIHTS, Sarnath 1994.
Ravisrıjnana, Gunabharanı, Royal Asiatic Society, London, Hodgson Sanskrit Col-
lection, MS 68.
Sadhuputra Srıdharananda, Sekoddesatippanı, “La Sekoddesatippanı di Sadhuputra
Srıdharananda. Il testo sanscrito”, ed. by R. Gnoli, Rivista degli Studi Orientali
(70) 115–46.
Sarvadurgatiparis odhanatantra, Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with Introduction, English
Translation and Notes by T. Skorupski, Delhi 1983.
Sekoddesa, A Critical Edition of the Tibetan Translation, by G. Orofino. With an
Appendix by R. Gnoli, “On the Sanskrit Text”, Serie Orientale Roma (72), IsMEO,
Roma 1994.
Sekoddesapanjika, The Results of a joint study on the Buddhist Tantric Texts, Taisho
University, Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive Studies of Buddhism, 16
(1994) 289–354.
Vajragarbha, Satsahasrika (Hevajratantrapindarthatıka), NAK, MS 3-693, NGMPP,
Mf. A 1267/6; Kaiser Library, MS 128, NGMPP, Mf. C 14/6.
Vajrapani, Laghutantratıka, NAK, MS 3-715, NGMPP, Mf. A 47/20.
Yoginısamcaratantra, NAK, MS 4-20, NGMPP, Mf. 48/5.
Yoginısamcaratantratıka, NAK, MS 3-683, NGMPP, Mf. A 1279/2.
STUDIES
Bhattacharya, K. (1973) L’Atman-Brahman dans le bouddhisme ancien, Publications
de l’Ecole Franc? aise d’Extreme-Orient (90), Paris.
Dawa-Samdup, K. (19872 ) Srı-Cakrasamvara-Tantra. A Buddhist Tantra, with a
Preface by Dr. Lokesh Chandra, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi [Calcutta 19191 ].
Dhargyey, G.L.N. (1985), A Commentary on the Kalacakratantra, translated by G.J.
Kelsang, Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works & Archives, New Delhi.
Edgerton, F.E. (19702 ) Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, 2 vols.,
Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi [New Haven, 19531 ].
Farrow, G.W. and Menon, I. (1992) The Concealed Essence of the Hevajra Tantra.
With the Commentary Yogaratnamala. Edited and Translated into English, Motilal
Banarsidass, Delhi.
George, Ch. S. (1974) The Candamaharosana Tantra, Chapters I–VIII. A Critical
Edition and English Translation, American Oriental Series (56), American Oriental
Society, New Haven (Conn.).
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.20
THE CONCEPT OF PURIFICATION 103
Gnoli, R. (1997) La realizzazione della conoscenza del Supremo immoto
(Paramaksarajnanasiddhi), Supplemento N 1 alla Rivista degli Studi Orientali
(70), Roma.
Gnoli, R. and Orofino, G. (1994) Naropa, Iniziazione (Kalacakra), a cura di, Adelphi,
Biblioteca Orientale (1), Milano.
Guenther, H.V. (1956) “The Concept of Mind in Buddhist Tantrism”, Oriental Studies,
Hong Kong (3) 261–77.
Gyatso, T. and Hopkins, J. (1985) The Kalachakra Tantra. Rite of Initiation for the
Stage of Generation, Wisdom Publications, London.
Newman, J.R. (1987) The outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayana Buddhist Cosmology in
the Kalacakra tantra, Ann Arbor, University Microfilms International (University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Ph. D. Thesis).
Orofino, G. (1996) “On the Sadangayoga and the Realisation of the Ultimate Gnosis
in the Kalacakratantra", East and West (46) 127–143.
Pensa, C. (1969) “Interdipendenza di purificazione, conoscenza e potere nello yoga
in rapporto alla continuita della tradizione indiana”, Annali dell’Istituto Orientale
di Napoli, Nuova Serie (19) 1–43.
Snellgrove, D.L. (1959) The Hevajra Tantra, A Critical Study. Part I, Introduction
and Translation, Part II, Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts, London Oriental Series (6),
London.
Snellgrove, D.L. (1987) Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Indian Buddhists & their Tibetan
Successors, 2 vols., Shambhala, Boston.
Tsuda, S. (1974) The Samvarodaya-Tantra, Selected Chapters, The Hokuseido Press,
Tokyo.
Tucci, G. (19693 ) Teoria e pratica del mandala, Ubaldini, Roma [Milano 19491 ,
London 19612 ].
Woodward, F.L. (1930) The Book of the Kindred Sayings (samyutta-nikaya) or grouped
suttas, Pali Text Society, Translation Series (16), part V, London.
Rome
Italy
indi9910.tex; 23/03/1999; 15:58; v.6; p.21
These two translations and their notes are quite interesting:
Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation and note:
"No other thing do I know, O monks, that changes so quickly as the mind. It is not easy to give a simile for how quicky the mind changes. (AN I.v.8)
"This mind, O monks, is luminous, but it is defiled by adventitious defilements. The uninstructed worldling does not understand this as it really is; therefore for him there is no mental development.
This mind, O monks, is luminous, and it is freed from adventitious defilements. The instructed noble disciple understands this as it really is, therefore for him there is mental development." (AN I.vi.1-2)
Note: Luminous (pabhassara.m) AA states that here "the mind" (citta) refers to the bhava.nga-citta, the "life-continuum" or underlying stream of consciousness which supervenes whenever active consciousness lapses, most notably in deep sleep. The adventitious defilements are greed, hatred and delusion, which appear at a stage of the cognitive process which, in later Buddhist literature, is called javana, "impulsion". AA says that the defilements do not arise simultaneously with the bhava.nga, but they "arrive" later, at the phase of javana. The fact that this expression "luminous mind" does not signifiy any "eternal and pure mind-essence" is evident from the preceding text, in which the mind is said to be extremely fleeting and transitory. The "uninstructed worldling" (assutavaa puthujjana) is one who lacks adequate knowledge of the Dhamma and training in its practice.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation and note:
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}
Note: This statement has engendered a great deal of controversy over the centuries. The commentary maintains that "mind" here refers to the bhavanga-citta, the momentary mental state between periods when the mental stream adverts to objects, but this statement raises more questions than it answers. There is no reference to the bhavanga-citta or the mental stream in any of the suttas (they appear first in an Abhidhamma treatise, the Patthana); and because the commentaries compare the bhavanga-citta to deep sleep, why is it called luminous? And why would the perception of its luminosity be a prerequisite for developing the mind? And further, if "mind" in this discourse means bhavanga-citta, what would it mean to develop the bhavanga-citta?
Another interpretation equates the luminosity of the mind with the "consciousness without feature," desribed as "luminous" in MN 49 and DN 11, but this interpretation also has problems. According to MN 49, that consciousness partakes of nothing in the describable world, not even the "Allness of the All," so how could it possibly be defiled? And, because it is not realized until the goal of the practice is reached, why would the perception of its luminosity be a prerequisite for developing the mind? And again, if "mind" here means consciousness without feature, how could the sutta talk of its development?
A more reasonable approach to understanding the statement can be derived from taking it in context: the luminous mind is the mind that the meditator is trying to develop. To perceive its luminosity means understanding that defilements such as greed, aversion, or delusion are not intrinsic to its nature, are not a necessary part of awareness. Without this understanding, it would be impossible to practice. With this understanding, however, one can make an effort to cut away existing defilements, leaving the mind in the stage that MN 24 calls "purity in terms of mind." This would correspond to the luminous level of concentration described in the standard simile for the fourth jhana: "And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness." From this state it is possible to develop the discernment that not only cuts away existing defilements but also uproots any potential for them to ever arise again. Only in the stages of Awakening that follow on those acts of discernment would "consciousness without feature" be realized.
What exactly do you make out of these two different views?
...because the commentaries compare the bhavanga-citta to deep sleep, why is it called luminous?
I really think it is the old thingie that lived in India since ancient time. Atman strikes back Part42! :vimp:
Therefore the awareness of 'I' as particularized awareness exists even during the deep sleep, for self-luminous atman persists in deep sleep in the form of 'I'.22 from Deep sleep awareness
My commentary I have tries hard to put it in psychlogical terms, while trying not to equate it with Western depth psychology. Nyanatiloka even translates "concsiousness" instead of mind. Everyone familiar with German can have a look here
Comments
In addition, the Tathagata is said to be deep, unfathomable as the great ocean (M.i.487). He is the body of Dhamma, the body of Brahma, Dhamma-become and Brahma-become (D.iii.84).
I find it hard to acccept any reading of Buddhism that is dismissive of the immaterial. Negating the jiva or self, for example, is too close to Prince Payasi's materialist theory. I think the canonical evidence is more convincing that the Buddha espoused spirituality.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
I agree. I think it makes much more sense to follow the idea that that particular theory of a soul was refuted, in order to let the jiva not fall prey to being disproved by empirial experiments. Postulating the jiva as to be seen by the eye after death destroys every belief in it the moment someone sees another being dying and no jiva escaping the body.
It is interesting to read the term "Brahma-become" on that ocassion. Is its meaning different from the enumeration in Udana I ( Bodhivaggo), where we find several characteristics of those who can be called Brahmana? Or can we take the occassions of Brahmana in Udana as expounding what`s already implied in "having cut off and rooted out the five khandha"?
Regards
On the same track, it would be extreme to assert there is no self or the self is a mere proxy for the five khandhas. This is the essence of annihilationism no matter how you slice it.
I think there is another possible wrong view as well, which has developed in contemporary Buddhism over many years. Negating the self, it is the belief that when the khandhas are manifest this is samsara; and when they become unmanifest this is nirvana. This is akin to the nirguna Brahman of Vedanta insofar as it is believed that the khandhas when unmanifest are in nirvana. This seems to be the direction from where Walpola Rahula is formulating his idea of nirvana. He writes in What the Buddha Taught:
Let me add emphasis and post the critical phrase with elisions for the sake of clarity. "...what is compared to a flame or fire gone out is...but the 'being' composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvana."
This seems much different, in essence, that this passage:
Note that the mind is turned away from the five khandhas being, instead, turned to the deathless element which is synonymous with nirvana. Now here come the exciting part. Based on a passage from the Samyutta-Nikaya, I translate from the Pali the following passage into English: "Unagitated, the very self (paccattam) surely attains complete nibbana" (S.iii.53–54)."
This seems to prove that Walpola Rahula's direction is wrong. I think one could make a very good argument that he is advancing a Buddhist version of nirguna Brahman. At any rate, this all goes to underscore what happens when one takes the course of eternalism or annihilationism, both of which greatly depend on the five khandhas. I should mention in passing that I don't think Walpola Rahula is a materialist like Prince Payasi. I think he believes that the khandhas do pass into an unconditioned or unmanifest state; which is immaterial.
Love ya'all,
Bobby
Love ya'all,
Bobby
Whilst not an expert on Vedic Religions,I agree that "the fire gone out" hints to vedic thought. We know that the soul in indian thoughts underwent an "evolution", it was seen in the water element (moon), wind element (atman, breathe) and in the fire element (the sun). It never was found in the earth Element to the best of my knowledge.
According to Frauwallner the fire-soul was the latest stage of that evolution, the soul is the fire element in one`s body, to be heared when one presses his hands against his ears. What one heard then was considered the fire to loath within one`s body, already invisible, non-material living principle. The fire gone out as state of a being, compared to bliss and so on, cleary hints to the idea that moksha, nirvana, whatever,you name it, is related to a dreamless sleep.
I am not so sure that your personal translation of this passage from SN 22.53, "Unagitated, the very self surely attains complete nibbana." is all that more accurate than Thanissaro's, "Not agitated, he is totally unbound right within."
As one of the six qualities attributed the Dhamma, doesn't the term paccattam (personal; individual) mean that the Dhamma as an experience is directly known through intuitive insight and is thus a matter of personal knowledge *?
Jason
I think this brings us back to whether or not we are to regard nirvana as the five khandhas becoming unmanifest. I happen to believe this particular theory has all the signs of being a veiled form of annihilationism.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Of course, all of these considerations for how to correctly interpret the the term paccattam'eva parinibbayati accords quite beautifully with the sense of the term samma samadhi as a unification or concentrification of the self.
May I ask a couple of follow up questions?
The first is, can you elaborate as to why you feel that scholars and monastics such as the Venerable Thanissaro (Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within.) and the Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi (Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbana.) are incorrect in their translations?
The second is, do you truly believe that the very core of Theravada tradition is somehow corrupt, and that the majority of their translators are completely inept at their profession? I ask this because you seem to have implied as much—especially in regards to the Abhidamma Pitaka.
In essence, what is your bottom line here?
Jason
Obviously,the notion seems to hint to a counciousness that is not foundet on the 5 khandhas. This sometimes seems to be confused with the idea of "cessation of conciousness" (Alas, the vedic idea that relief from the cycle of rebirth is a brother of deep sleep without dreams).If one were to read SN 22.53 (PTS S iii 53) carefully, one would realize that at least in this sutta, there is no talk of cessation of conciousness, but conciousness is released from the aggregates, not beng estblished on them.
What I am troubled with currently is the question if mind is synonymous with conciousness in the nikayas.
regards
As for my understanding of your second question, I am not in agreement with anattavada. I am not alone in this. A number of prominent scholars don't buy the anattavada theory one of whom is the legendary Hajime Nakamura and A.P. Buddhadatta, one of the greatest of all Sinhalese Pali scholars who subscribes to George Grimm's views.
Like most people who started out in Buddhism (and that was a long time ago!) I believed the anattavada doctrine. The Buddha would call this "preserving the truth" (saccânurakkhana.m). But then I tested it out. It didn't work for me. About this the Buddha said:
Finally, the truth hit me. I understood where the Buddha was coming from with respect to the self or attâ. I quickly devoured the Pali canon (nikayas). I read Mrs. Rhys Davids, I.B. Horner, Pande and others. I read the anattvada literature as well.
I don't have anything personal against Theravada translators. Why should I? Truth, and its attainment is much more important. I know you agree.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
I have to admit I cannot answer you myself, but I can offer you the viewpoint of Frauwallner, maybe it is of some use for you: (transated on the fly, don`t expect miracles)
"Was it possible to avoid completely of speaking of an I, a soul in [the buddha`s] doctrine of salvation? Was one not outright forced to speak of a subject that attains salvation? The Buddha understood it with great skill go around that problem. What helped him was a basic view on which the buddhist doctrine of salvation is based. As soon as in philosohpical circles a view of a psychic organism were shaped, the question [...] arose if the senses and the psychic organs belonged to the realm of the matter or the soul. The answer that was given in different teachings was different. In the Dialogue between Manu and Brahspati (Manubraspatisamvadah) we got familiar with a teaching where the pychic organism springs from the soul and returns to it after salvation from the round of rebirths.
The second possibility was held above all by the Samkyah System and its predecessors in the epic period, where all psychic organs with their functions were attributed as resulting from and returning to the matter. This results from the striving which has its origin in the fire-teaching of the upanishads that was continued in the "epos" and especially in samkyha, in order to free the soul from al wordly burdens, and most of all, to put the soul out of the process of becoming and the causal happening. Hence, as we will seen soon, in Samkyha, all activities are transfered to the realm of matter and the soul is a passive obsever. And the same conviction lays within the Buddhist doctrine of salvation. This is the most important agreement of Samkyha with the oldest Buddhism. (E.Frauwallner, Geschichte der indischen Philosophie I, Page 142)
Note that oldest Buddhism is presumably nikayas only, Frauwallner is all to aware that later Buddhist sects departet from that view and he explicitly mentions it in that chapter. Additonally, I want to repeat that we found one sutta that supports Frauwallner`s assessment. (Aïguttara Nikàya, Book of the threes, Aadhipatteyyasuttaü -Authorities)
Regards
from wikipedia:Samkhya : This was a dualistic philosophy. But there are differences between the Samkhya and other forms of dualism. In Western philosophy the main focus of discussions about dualism concern dualism between the mind and the body. In Samkhya, however, it is between the self (purusha) and matter, and the latter incorporates much of what Western thought would normally refer to as "mind". This means that the Self as the Samkhya understands it is more transcendent than "mind". It is sometimes defined as 'that which observes' and the mind is the instrument through which this observation occurs.
Any takers for this position, the soul is not one thing and the body another, since the soul or self as such is never objectivated, i.e never becomes a phenomena, hence cannot be called thing,phenomena or dhamma? If it`s worthwhile to track that view, one should examine more closely if the buddha used always jivan when questions about the soul being different from the body, and if a specific relation to purusha can be found, i.e. if the terms are allowed to be understood synonmous.
Maharishi Kapila is a Vedic sage traditionally considered to be the original proponent of the Samkhya system of philosophy but there are no known writings by him that deal with the Samkhya system as it is understood today. He is desribed as an incarnation of Vishnu within the Puranas, famous for teaching a process of liberation known as bhakti yoga.
Very little historical data is known for sure regarding Maharishi Kapila's life. He is said to have lived in the Indian subcontinent, some say around 500 BC, other accounts give much earlier dates. Tradition has it that Shakyamuni Buddha studied the Samkhya system before his "awakening," putting Kapila's birth at least before that time. He is also mentioned by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita as the greatest of all perfected beings which could possibly move the date back further still:
PS:It`s astouding, I confess I never was aware of that link until I read Frauwallner recently. Is Maharishi mentioned in the canons, or is above "just" "hindu"-view?
PS: following quotes from Kapila havestriking similarities with Buddhas`s doctrine:
* My appearance in this world is especially to explain the philosophy of Sankhya, which is highly esteemed for self-realization by those desiring freedom from the entanglement of unnecessary material desires. This path of self-realization, which is difficult to understand, has now been lost in the course of time. Please know that I have assumed this body of Kapila to introduce and explain this philosophy to human society again." (3.24.36-37)
* "When one is completely cleansed of the impurities of lust and greed produced from the false identification of the body as "I" and bodily possessions as "mine," one's mind becomes purified. In that pure state he transcends the stage of so-called material happiness and distress."(3.25.16)
*A professor at the University of Tübingen, had earned his reputation through his scholarship on Indian philosophy, particularly his work on reconstructing the Bhagavad Gita in its original form. Unlike most Western scholars during that period who never went to India, Garbe studied his subject in situ.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Ross also quotes a wonderful from Jalal al Din Rumi:
Insofar as this discussion has both merit and use, it reminds me of a remark I heard made by Canon John Fenton of Oxford: "What difference will it make when I say my prayers?" In the case of self vs. Self, nothing much changes in the actual practice undertaken but the outcome may be somewhat other than expected.
you might enjoy some of meister eckharts prayers, especially about self and detachment, you find some of his works in english here:
http://www.ellopos.net/theology/eckhart.htm
my favorite speach of him is "Von der Armut". It inspired me and helped me much. you can find the english version here: http://www.omalpha.com/jardin/meckhart52-imp.html
And finally, remember his words while you read it:
If anyone cannot understand this discourse, let them not trouble their hearts about it. For, as long as people do not equal this truth, they will not understand this speech. For this is an unveiled truth that has come immediately from the heart of God. That we may so live as to experience it eternally, so help us God. Amen.
cheers
Eckhart is often a great comfort. Thank you. Are you a fan of the mystics? Do you know our clutch of English mystics?
The links are useful. Many thanks.
He knew that you may need to remove muck and straw from around an egg but, if you break the shell, nothing will ever hatch from it
Of course he might have not been able to say all what he thought, thanks to Avignon, but I highly doubt that he would have turned out as nihilist even if he was allowed to be one. I think you hit exactly the point with your remark.
Thanks for your effort and the information, Bobby.
2) is there a difference on the notion? I mean dukkha isn`t literally suffering, isn`t it more being incomplete / unsufficient / unsatisfactory? What`s the term used in Samkhaya and is it equivalent to dukkha, or differs it on the notion?
3) I read that much material of the Upanishads can be understood in that way too
4) Again, same for the Upanishads also I believe. The "state" of indian society at that time seems to have pretty much in rebellion against vedic sacrifices and stiff rituals
5) But as we saw, Samkhya as well as the Upanishads didn`t totally break with the unconditioned, not become, not born/objectivated, even if it was transformed over and over. The dispute does not seem so much about that at all, but mere on the term "self" or "soul", not on the idea of an not become, unconditioned as such.
1), 6) and 7) I cannot comment currently.
If we give the above a moment of reflection, isn't this the problem we Buddhist face with the five holding (upadana) khandhas, viz., that we identify with them as if they were the self when in fact they are not? Although we will not admit it, we conceive of them (the khandhas) to be mine (eta.m mama); or I am this (eso aham asmi), 'this' being the khandhas. Aren't we dealing with the subtle conceit of I am the khandhas which is a very real over-involvement with the khandhas?
Our real problem is holding (sa-upadana) on to the five khandhas in the belief that they are for me. For example, form (rupa) is for me as is feeling (vedana). In fact my entire life experience from birth, as this individual, has consisted in holding (upadana) on to the khandhas which are for me. Unlike the Buddha who considers the five khandhas as "not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (netam mama, neso'hamasmi, na me so atta) ordinary people hold on to them as being their self.
If the root cause of my suffering is holding on to the five khandhas, how then might I lay them down (pahâtabba) so as to be free of this burden? How can I self-identify with nirvana instead of these khandhas?
Over all, self-identification with what is impermanent is the problem—not the self. The ordinary person is under the spell that they are this impermanent individual entity (i.e., the khandhas) being unable to realize the perils of such an identification. But what is this entity except a finite thing. And as with all such things, it is subject to decay and death.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
I am aware that we are examining the topic on a wide scope, I try keep the topic in mind all the time and only post if I think it contributes to a better understanding of anatta.
Regards
I think that this is a vital point, Fofoo.
Masao Abe addresses this question a number of times and it is raised here over and again. I have written, elsewhere, that, since my own noviciate days, I have taken to heart the mission that H.H. Paul VI gave to the Society: to bring the 'good news' to a materialist and atheist generation. My view of the scope of 'good news' may have enlarged in the decades since then but the principle remains. As William Carlos Williams says:
I agree that emphazising that a conciuosness is neededfor conceiving a chariot is important. On the other hand, what`soften missed when taking about the chariot analogy is that it is not merely the parts that construct it. More precisely, it is the parts and their exact order in space and time. The mere sum of the parts are no chariot, take the parts, distribute them around the world, parts still there, chariot adios
Thus, there is an efficient cause, that causes the chariot parts to be assembeled or dissembled. It is volition or kamma. Someone wants to build a chariot, someone wants to deconstruct it afterwards.
Besides that, the chariot analogy when taken in strict literal sence does not hold up with science (not that I would be an advocate of scientism who seeks to press every belief into the newest scientific theories). We can deconstruct the chariot parts also. there is also no wheel then. And so on. We arrive at the elemntary particles then, which really causes me trouble because all that micro-cosmic stuff renderes my brain paralzyed.
Regards
"Reached the Unconditioned" for "vi-sankhara-gatam" is actually a pretty good fit. The Pali-English Dictionary renders "visankhara" as "divestment of all material things" which its equated with nirvana (DhA.iii.129). In Sanskrit the sense in English is un (vi) conditioned (samskâra).
Craving, on the part of the mind, constructive. One could even make a case that the Buddha's creator is mind's craving or tanhâ, which is the house-maker (the house is a metaphor for the human body).
Finally, mind, by seeing its unconditioned or its pure nature ends its craving which previously had blinded and conditioned it.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
I agree. As soon as we visualize or think of the self as something particular, it will be contained in the khandas. Actually, I do not see the samkyha position in conflict with any of the 20 sakkāya-ditthis. Self there is transcendet, and if described at all, it is merely metaphorically, like "that which observes, mind being a thing (not self) already thru which observation occurs". what really at the end observes is not named, as far as i could see it, only the instruments thru which observation takes place.
Regards
8. visankharagatam cittam: lit., my mind has reached the Unconditioned, having Nibbana as its object, my mind has realized Nibbana.
9. tanhanam khayamajjhaga: The end of craving has been attained. I have attained Arahatta Fruition
What would be the argument against : craving->conditioning of mind. destructionof craving->unconditionend mind=nibbana, other that it is just reasoning from that passage?
Mind, we might speculate, victimizes itself by clinging to its very own self-generated phenomena, that is its citta-vrtti. On the other hand, when it stops these phenomenalizations or modifications, it comes to the unconditioned nature (svabhava) of itself, this being also the undying element (amatdhatu) and nibbana.
The ending of craving or thirst implies that fulfillment or completion has been accomplished which is another definition of vidya. Heretofore, mind's primordial restlessness made it a victim. It couldn't distinguish between itself as pure and itself as conditioned. Its thirst sought to find the cessation of thirst. But this could only be accomplished by mind seeing itself.
Phenomena we might guess, is thirst generating. Mind is under an asymmetrical relationship with itself when it engages with a phenomenon as a plausible ender of thirst. By its repeated failure to become adequate with itself, mind as viññana passes from one life to the next, seemingly without end.
An aside, I find it worthy of mention that Chinese Ch'an or Zen put the development of mind on the front burner, so to speak. The original school of Zen was actually called Buddha Mind School. Using the word school was probably a mistake. It seems that Chinese translators used 'tsung' to translate 'siddhanta' which meant realization. The idea of school stuck because 'tsung' could mean either school or realization—hence some confusion. Zen is not actually a school (tsung)—it is a realization (siddhanta) of the mind of the Buddha.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Labeling , plotting, defining only solidifies one's images within their own experience through expression, thereby deepening it's correlation to the conditioned mind trapping the mind/ego once again. How can one be free of this conditioned mind is the practice.
To me there is no purpose for practice other than it feels good.
To have expectaption of any result is folly. Once one see's the folly in it they can play the game however they choose.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
When was the last time you could give or recieve anything with a closed hand,
let alone mind.
dogs respond in protest
In gassho
That`s a nice metaphor Iawa. I really liked it. I could see myself many times in the role of the owl and the dog from time to time.
I don`t fully agree. Reasoning is what mind is there for. Elsewise, we could all eat our rice once a day and be quiet. Imo, the secret lies somewhere else.There is a difference between blindly labeling and labeling while fully aware that is first of all a label, that serves a certain purpose, but at the end, still is a label one produced thru reasoning of objects for such and such reasons serving this and that purpose.
Regards
Well, Frauwallner even claims that the historical Buddha, Siddharta Gautama, did not go the way of philosophy but instead that of yoga. I understood Patanjali to be born after the Buddha left for paranibbana, and it could very well be that Patanjali was influenced by Buddhist views. Do you have a source how yoga looked like in India at the time of the Buddhas awakening?
The real problem comes when in Buddhist training our teacher asks us, "Show me your pure mind." Now we are rattled and confused. We start to say something, he then screams at us, "That is your defiled mind you imbecile!" We don't know what to do at this point because we don't know the pure mind. We have never apperceived it. We are clueless. So our teacher says to us, "Go back and study."
To apperceive our pure mind (visuddhicitta) is a real experience like looking at any object—only it is a super object. It isn't as word or a symbol It isn't the hoot of an owl or the sound of a frightened frog leaping back into his small pond. Pure mind is much more. When Siddhartha saw pure mind, he became the Buddha. The rest of us have been struggling ever since.
:om:
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Ah, that sounds very Zen.In fact, I never could figure out the difference between UG Krishnamurti and different Zenmasters, except that I found the former one sympathic
I think much of the Zen today is just the praxis of sitting without moving—which is an adaption of 'silent illumination' Zen which was popular during the Sung Dynasty. From what I can gather from the work of its founder, Hung-chi Chen-chueh (1091-1157), if one is silent, this leads to enlightenment, although he doesn't really discuss the so-called enlightenment experience.
Hung-chi taught his students to sit for hours which was intended to make the mind still, causing it to return to its inherently enlightened state. But other Zen masters, before he was born, opposed this practice including even the Sixth Patriarch. Huai-jang (d. 744) objected to this method writing the following:
Huai-jang also said the following:
I think the real masters like Huai-jang were saying that the real nature of mind is free of postures. When we realize this mind, whatever posture we are in, the pure mind is neither more nor less. In truth, mind is before we were born (Hui-neng's original face); it is present with us now and will survive the death of this body. If we do not awaken to it (bodhi-citta) we will follow the defiled mind which is always reborn and dies.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
Bobby,
Perhaps you could be of some assistance. I have never seen the Pali words visuddhi (purification, purity) and citta (mind) used in this way before. The only combination of them in the Suttas that I am familiar with is in MN 24, where they are used in the chariot analogy; however, it is not used to refer to a pure mind, but to the purification of mind (citta-visuddhi)—which in itself is not the goal, only the way to the goal of total deliverance, Unbinding. I am curious, is there somewhere else that you have seen this term used in such a way before, perhaps a non-Pali source, or a Pali source of which I am unfamiliar?
Jason
(scroll down to 1.3, there begins the English section)
Regards
PS: I found following article that is relevant to the debate: Brain and mind - Mahayana Buddhist arguments against Materialism.
Love ya'll,
Bobby
You might enjoy reading this Elohim.
Love ya'll,
Bo
These two translations and their notes are quite interesting:
What exactly do you make out of these two different views?
Jason
I really think it is the old thingie that lived in India since ancient time. Atman strikes back Part42! :vimp:
Therefore the awareness of 'I' as particularized awareness exists even during the deep sleep, for self-luminous atman persists in deep sleep in the form of 'I'.22 from
Deep sleep awareness
My commentary I have tries hard to put it in psychlogical terms, while trying not to equate it with Western depth psychology. Nyanatiloka even translates "concsiousness" instead of mind. Everyone familiar with German can have a look here