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.
For the record, noted scholar Karel Werner said that no Indian school of thought has ever regarded the human soul or the carrier of human personal identity as a permeant substance. So atman, in the sense of the absolute, is ruled out as a transmigrant. Noteworthy, for Shankara, the atman is a witness - beyond all attributes, beyond action. This is not unlike the attâ (atman) of Buddhism, called the "noble witness" (A.i.149), which is to be spiritually distinguished (prajna) from the five khandhas. At any rate, the Atman is no transmigrant contrary to Western assumptions. Westerners are confused as to the difference between jivâtman and atman.
Xabir: It is not hard to admit that all Mahayana texts were not expounded directly by the Buddha. But this is also true of the Nikayas—especially Abhidhamma. Almost all of this material, in its present form, came after the Buddha's death.
The Nikayan Buddhists had no problem adding more to their canon, either. As the Nikayas reveal, it is easy to add to the canon since any idea, insofar as it is good, was considered to be Buddha's teaching! (This by the way, opens the way for Mahayana.)
"Even so, O King, whatsoever be well spoken, all that is the word of the Exalted One, Arahant, the Fully awakened One, wholly based thereon is both what we and others say"(Anguttara Nikaya, iv.163).
I have no problem with either the Nikayas or the Mahayana canon. They both agree that there is an unconditioned absolute which comes in many different names. I see it on almost every page. What I find astonishing is western Buddhists have decided to go down the road of nihilism; who insist the Buddha categorically denied the self, except to admit a provisional, temporal self while one is alive. Such nihilism boils down to a general denial of an unconditioned absolute.
Nihilism implies that there is a self which existed, can be pinned down, and then goes into non-existence. If, no self entity can be pinned down to begin with, as the Buddha stated, then non-existence cannot be applied too.
The Abhidhamma certainly were not the words of Buddha. The suttas were. And yes they were compiled orally a few weeks after Buddha's passing, and then orally passed down... but generally it is not 'written down many centuries later' as some would say, as Loppon Namdrol pointed out, "Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years."
The early suttas did not talk about an unconditioned *absolute* (as in a self, an ultimate reality).
They talked about an unconditioned, birthless, deathless, etc. This is often misunderstood out of context to be the upanishadic kind of unconditioned ultimate reality or Self or ontological essence. This is not the case (as seen below). These terms 'death-free', etc are not 'an unchanging deathless Self' but 'freedom from death, being released from death'. They are all names of 'Nirvana'. I.e. they follow the third noble truth, which is the cessation of craving, the cessation of suffering. Nirvana = cessation of craving. But that unbinding is explained in MN 1 not to be taken as self, too.
And what exactly is unconditioned, birthless, deathless, etc?
SN 43 Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta (1-44 combined & abridged):
And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.
And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.
And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.
And what, monks, is the truth (sacca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the truth.
And what, monks, is the farther shore (pāra)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the farther shore.
And what, monks, is the subtle (nipuṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the subtle.
And what, monks, is the very hard to see (sududdasa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the very hard to see.
And what, monks, is the unaging (ajajjara)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unaging.
And what, monks, is the stable (dhuva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the stable.
And what, monks, is the undisintegrating (apalokita)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the undisintegrating.
And what, monks, is the non-indicative (anidassana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the non-indicative.
And what, monks, is the unproliferated (nippapañca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unproliferated.
And what, monks, is the peaceful (santa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the peaceful.
And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.
And what, monks, is the sublime (paṇīta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the sublime.
And what, monks, is the auspicious (siva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the auspicious.
And what, monks, is the secure (khema)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the secure.
And what, monks, is the elimination of craving (taṇhākkhaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the elimination of craving.
And what, monks, is the wonderful (acchariya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the wonderful.
And what, monks, is the amazing (abbhuta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the amazing.
And what, monks, is the calamity-free (anītika)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the calamity-free.
And what, monks, is the dhamma free of calamity (anītikadhamma)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the dhamma free of calamity.
And what, monks, is extinguishment (nibbāna)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called extinguishment.
And what, monks, is the unafflicted (abyāpajjha)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unafflicted.
And what, monks, is dispassion (virāga)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called dispassion.
And what, monks, is purity (suddhi)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called purity.
And what, monks, is freedom (mutti)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called freedom.
And what, monks, is the unadhesive (anālaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unadhesive.
And what, monks, is the island (dīpa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the island.
And what, monks, is the cave (leṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the cave.
And what, monks, is the shelter (tāṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the shelter.
And what, monks, is the refuge (saraṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the refuge.
And what, monks, is the destination (parāyana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the destination.
If emptiness is essentially luminous, then it's not empty of essence, and thus isn't emptiness? i.e. emptiness is empty.
I really think emptiness outstays its usefulness at times. It's just another trick of the light.
No, the luminous essence is empty of self. You cannot say 'not empty', that will be an extreme. Luminosity and emptiness are inseparable.
Emptiness is simply the negation of extremes (existence, non-existence, both and neither). The luminous essence is Empty. This is what must be realized, otherwise you fall into the eternalist views of Hinduism who reify a luminous brahman. This understanding is half based on experience, half based on a false framework of duality and inherency deeply rooted in our minds which distorted a non-conceptual and direct experience/realization of the luminosity (into a Self).
Luminosity is in actuality, empty of self - if luminosity were a self, it would be seen as an unchanging Witness. This is a wrong understanding of luminosity.
Realizing that luminosity is empty of self, you will realize that the self-luminous process of experiencing itself rolls and knows, without a knower. Luminosity is empty of a self, empty of being a knower. And that knowing IS the entire process of sights, sounds, smells, etc.
So experientially, everything is intensely alive and vivid and conscious and cognizance and present... but empty of any self, any entity, only a verb, a process of activity.
"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."
"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."
"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."
For the record, noted scholar Karel Werner said that no Indian school of thought has ever regarded the human soul or the carrier of human personal identity as a permeant substance. So atman, in the sense of the absolute, is ruled out as a transmigrant. Noteworthy, for Shankara, the atman is a witness - beyond all attributes, beyond action. This is not unlike the attâ (atman) of Buddhism, called the "noble witness" (A.i.149), which is to be spiritually distinguished (prajna) from the five khandhas. At any rate, the Atman is no transmigrant contrary to Western assumptions. Westerners are confused as to the difference between jivâtman and atman.
for sake of transparency, this eccentric take on Zen Buddhism is traced back to this controversial site ....
As the end of all suffering is our purpose. Realization of anatta is a necessary and important part of the path.
The question becomes - If suffering is caused by clinging/aversion what is the source. Who is that suffers?
The Buddha looked and looked but could not find a self. An aggregation of dependently originated impermanent processes that we assume is self, but no self. Results of our actions, but no self to be found.
"I", "me", self, is a creation of a creative imagination. It is not that there is a separate thing "me" which is the subject of suffering. There is no separate "me" to be found other than what I dream up and perpetuate. This little fact is about as counter intuitive as you can get, as our conditioning has centered around creating an identity as the subject for attachment/aversion.
By the way, he did not say that you do not exist. But that you do not exist as the thing you have been conditioned to think you are. So what exactly does exist? Some would call it Buddha Nature. Clear simple empty present moment awareness. Timeless arising and cessation without beginning or end. The perceiver and the perceived without separation.
Anyway, anatta is very liberating. At least the glimpses I have seen.
Meditate. Learn to see impermanence in everything. Be patient. Anatta will follow.
Emptiness is simply the negation of extremes (existence, non-existence, both and neither).
Yes, definitely.
it would be seen as an unchanging Witness.
Which in meditation would be whatever recurring image seems to think it's doing vispassana.
This is what must be realized, otherwise you fall into the eternalist views of Hinduism who reify a luminous brahman.
I just think it likely that this, or nihilistic Buddhist views, are only possible before one has meditated. Because it's quite clear later on and I don't see how anyone could mistake what is happening.
No, the luminous essence is empty of self.
But not empty of essence?
Ok, I think there is what there is, and there's a raft for getting there, and when you get there you know what it is. Calling it luminous emptiness seems like rhetoric tied in knots after centuries of wrangling. But I think we're on the same page, I just don't share your faith in Buddhism's exclusivity.
Xabir, I have no disagreement with the connected discourses on the unconditioned (asankhata). If one has directly experienced the unconditioned (Asankhatam = nirvana), among other things it is found to be absent of the three poisons.
One has to be careful to avoid reading this discourse by the lamplight of the Sautrântikas who believed that nirvana was a non-Ens; that it was only absence (abhâva) of kleshas, etc. This is in contrast with the fact that nirvana has real existence; it is experienceable, although it cannot be attained by way of the khandhas which are make up our psycho-physical body. An obvious flaw in the abhava theory of nirvana that Buddhaghosa points out is absence of past and future would also be nirvana since both are absent at this moment! But this is absurd.
Doesn't this mean that there is no sense in which it is "you" that is reborn in a future life?
Ultimately, yes; conventionally speaking, not so much.
So with the above, taken with what you say below it, about relinking consciousness, do I understand you to be saying it is "conventional consciousness" that survives rebirth to feel the effects of karma?
Or, to put it another way, what, of this life, conventionally or unconventionally, can we call "me" in the next life? The "individual sense of continuity"?
In the Aneñjasappāya Sutta, the vipāka viññaṇa is referred to as saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ, the consciousness that links on, that proceeds in one life as vipāka from the kamma in the former life.
Thanks for pointing me to MN 106, and the term "saṃvattanikaṃ". I think it's interesting that a term that gets its most frequent usage in conjunction with meditative states, where it gets translated as "conducive to" gets translated as "links on" or "leading-on" when it is in conjunction with "consciousness". The Pali dictionaries I looked at defined it as "saṃvattanika: conducive to; involving". Given this, and that the Buddha took Sati to task when he suggested that it is consciousness that runs the rounds, I think it unlikely that the Buddha was saying consciousness survives death.
When it is said, "the consciousness that links on," it does not mean that this consciousness abides unchanged, continues in the same state without perishing throughout this cycle of existence. Consciousness is also conditioned, and therefore is not permanent. Consciousness also comes into being and passes away yielding place to new consciousness. Thus this perpetual stream of consciousness goes on until existence ceases. Existence in a way is consciousness. In the absence of consciousness no “being” exists in this sentient world. -- Piyadassi
Yes, so even if a consciousness would survive death, it would not be "me", would it? I can find no sense in which any being in a future life after the breakup of my body is "me", neither conventionally or unconventionally, so talking about "my future rebirths after my death" is an abuse of language.
And besides Piyadassi Thera, who comes from a more traditional Theravada background, people like Prof. Gombrich, founder of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies and past president of the Pali Text Society, and Prof. Kalupahana, professor philosophy at the University of Hawaii, are also aware of this term and express a similar understanding of it. For example, from Gombrich's What the Buddha Thought:
I'm aware of Prof. Gombrich's work (he published a paper of mine on dependent arising last month) but he is not saying in the section you quote that the Buddha taught that consciousness survives death.
All this is evidence that it is consciousness that serves as a connecting link between two lives, and this, of course is unequivocally stated in the early Buddhist texts. Several times it is mentioned that a person who has developed extrasensory perception is able "to perceive a man's unbroken flux of consciousness established both in this world and in the next." This stream of consciousness (vinnanasota) is the same as the stream of becoming (bhavasota) mentioned often in the early discourses.
It is important to note that in the early texts there is no mention of this consciousness surviving even for a moment without the support of a psychophysical personality. In other words, early Buddhism does not contribute to a theory of disembodied existence. (52)
I love the bald contradiction there (especially the "unequivocally"); beautiful! "consciousness...serves as a connecting link between two lives" but "there is no mention of this conscousness surviving even for a moment without the support of a psychophysical personality. ... early Buddhism does not contribute to a theory of a disembodied existence." Does pointing out that there is a contradiction mean that it can then be dismissed, simply because it's been pointed out? "It's okay! I've seen the contradiction, so we don't have to worry about it..." and then we just don't address it? Sorry, I don't get that at all.
It seems to me that we are fudging a bit to speak of our future and past rebirths when there is no "us"; I don't see any way to justify the abuse of language except in the service of perpetuating our beliefs that the Buddha was being literal when he talked about rebirth.
Then we're also fudging a bit to speak of our future and past in this life, and to speak of myself as a child would be an 'abuse of language' as much as it would be to speak of my future and past rebirths.
Not so much. There is a conventional "being" that we can see surviving from one moment to the next. That there is change over the course of time does not deny the continuity of a lifetime; bits of us do last a while. What professor Gombrich *was* saying in the portion you quoted was that the Buddha would not deny that form has continuity.
When it comes to conventions, any of us can easily see that the child continues to exist and change and grow and that there is a continuity there we can give a name to and follow from one day to the next; to deny this is to deny what's obvious to us all. Even the Buddha noticed this when it came to personalities, as he speaks about how similar types of people flock together -- those who like to meditate, find a meditative teacher; those who like to chant suttas, find a teacher who will teach them to chant, and so on.
But we do not see any evidence of even this conventional continuity surviving death, much less any "ultimate" continuity.
My only motivation here is to illustrate that the concept of rebirth as it's generally understood doesn't necessarily assert a permanent soul of some kind, even though it does, by necessity, assert a type of continuity that transcends a single birth and death.
I'd agree with you that rebirth doesn't assert a permanent soul, and it certainly asserts a continuity, though what I am saying is that those who hold that the Buddha teaches rebirth don't find any real support for a continuity that transcends that single birth and death (though I think we can see what survives death that is "ours" if we just look for it). Traditional Buddhist rebirth perhaps doesn't posit an *eternal* soul, but it definitely is positing something that survives death, and it is attaching that something from one life, across death, to the next; it is saying there is a fixed bond there between one life and the next, though it seems to have difficulty telling us what that bond is. The big problem is that, whatever it does with terms or metaphors to try to make that future life fit with the Buddha's teaching on anatta, it still has us attaching self to that rebirth: it is "your future lives" and "you should be concerned about your future lives". Giving it some other name -- calling it "relinking consciousness" and saying it, too, is impermanent -- doesn't have any effect at all on telling someone they should be concerned with their future rebirth. Either that's you in the future and you're going to feel the pain and pleasure, or that's not you in the future and you're not; traditional rebirth can't have it both ways.
Why does a conditional mind necessarily have the conditions to recognize that it is conditional?
I don't think that it "necessarily" does. A conditional mind starts out without the conditions to recognize that it is conditional -- I'd think that would be one definition of the first step of dependent arising: "ignorance". Our minds start out completely unaware that they are conditional -- or you could say that our self (or, actually, what we mistake for our self) is completely unaware that it is conditional. To that self, it just "is". Though it is a little insecure in that belief, because it keeps going out and looking for evidence to reassure itself that it really, truly, is.
The conditional mind/self does have the *capacity* to recognize that it is conditional, though -- Gotama managed to see this, right?
Ok, I think there is what there is, and there's a raft for getting there, and when you get there you know what it is. Calling it luminous emptiness seems like rhetoric tied in knots after centuries of wrangling. But I think we're on the same page, I just don't share your faith in Buddhism's exclusivity.
It is empty of ontological essence. Luminous essence does not mean inherently existing, independent, unchanging, absolute, etc.
As for 'Buddhism's exclusivity', I have not seen non-Buddhist teachings that negate the doctrine of self quite as fully as Buddhism. Usually they negate an 'individual self' and then then sink back to an ultimate, ontological Self.
"Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.]. The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB]"
Xabir, I have no disagreement with the connected discourses on the unconditioned (asankhata). If one has directly experienced the unconditioned (Asankhatam = nirvana), among other things it is found to be absent of the three poisons.
One has to be careful to avoid reading this discourse by the lamplight of the Sautrântikas who believed that nirvana was a non-Ens; that it was only absence (abhâva) of kleshas, etc. This is in contrast with the fact that nirvana has real existence; it is experienceable, although it cannot be attained by way of the khandhas which are make up our psycho-physical body. An obvious flaw in the abhava theory of nirvana that Buddhaghosa points out is absence of past and future would also be nirvana since both are absent at this moment! But this is absurd.
I don't agree with Theravada's generally slightly eternalistic interpretation of nirvana. (But even they do not fall into the more extreme form of eternalism that takes nirvana to be an eternal self as some late Buddhists would) Nirvana is very specific... it is the termination of the afflictions of craving, or passions, aggression and delusion. As long as that is achieved, then that is 'nirvana with residue'.
This has nothing to do with past or future being present or absent. Anything can continue to be present - as the Buddha said, sense experiences continue to be experienced in 'nirvana with residue'. And anything can become absent: all experience continue to dissolve moment by moment. The continual dissolving of experience by impermanence does not mean 'nirvana', it does not mean the end of suffering, since without removing the afflictions there can be no end of suffering. So mere absence of anything is not nirvana, it is the absence of or the uprooting of afflictions which exist as latent tendencies that is termed nirvana.
Nirvana is not merely the dissolving of a manifested affliction, it is the uprooting of the latent tendency towards affliction.
e.g. Buddha said, “Malunkhyaputta, to whom do you know me preaching, the lower bonds of the sensual world in this manner. Wouldn’t the ascetics of other sects find fault with this foolish example. To a toddler, who moves about with difficulty, there is not even a self. How could a view arise about a self?”
In other words, if you say that fetters is merely the manifestation of craving, and nirvana is the dissolving of craving, how is this any different from a baby? The baby would have been the most enlightened person in the world if this were the case, as in him is found absence of craving, view of self, etc, but it is not true that baby is enlightened.
The Buddha later goes on to say, “Ananda, the learned noble disciple who has seen noble ones, and Great Men, clever in their Teaching and trained in their Teaching abides with a mind not overcome with the view of a self. He knows the escape from the arisen view of a self, as it really is. His view of the self, fades together with the latent tendencies.”
(MN 64)
Therefore, fetter does not simply mean sense of self, ill will, desire, etc as manifested, but it is that it becomes “habitual” as a latent tendency in him – and such latent tendencies, though not manifested in infants, are present even in infants as a karmic potential waiting to ripen in future. This is why a baby, despite not having lust or even a sense of self, nonetheless cannot be said to be free from fetters.
Therefore nirvana is not a mere absence of anything, it is not even the mere absence of 'sense of self, ill will' etc (which may already absent in babies or deep states of mundane absorption), it is something deeper than that.
Nirvana is not merely the dissolving of a manifested affliction, it is the uprooting of the latent tendency towards affliction.
I agree.
But...
The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, composed of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come from nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for delight.
The escape from that is calm, permanent, beyond inference, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications, bliss.
Nirvana is not merely the dissolving of a manifested affliction, it is the uprooting of the latent tendency towards affliction.
I agree.
But...
The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, composed of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come from nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for delight.
The escape from that is calm, permanent, beyond inference, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications, bliss.
Yes indeed, the elimination, cessation of craving is what is calm, permanent, etc etc.
As I quoted from SN earlier:
And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.
And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.
And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.
So the luminosity is just a temporary phenomena, dependent on conditions?
Luminosity must be understood as a process, an uninterrupt continuum like a stream. It will never be lost but is empty of anything Self or unchanging. Check this out:
Question: Is the fundamental innate mind of clear light dependent on causes and conditions? If it is not dependent, how can it be empty of independent existence?
HHDL: This is a very good question. Often in texts we find mention of the fundamental innate mind of clear light being not produced by causes and conditions. Now here it is important to understand that in general when we use the term 'produced phenomena' there are different connotations. Something can be called 'produced' because it is a production of delusions and the actions they induce. Again, it may also refer to a production by causes and conditions. And there is also a sense of 'produced' as being cause by conceptual thought processes.
Certain texts speak of the activities of the Buddha as permanent and non-produced in the sense that they are continuous, and that as long as there are sentient beings, the activities of the buddhas will remain without interruption. So, from the point of view of their continuity, these activities are sometimes called permanent.
In the same manner, the fundamental innate mind of clear light, in terms of its continuity, is beginningless, and also endless. This continuum will always be there, and so from that specific point of view, it is also called 'non-produced'. Besides, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is no a circumstantial or adventitious state of mind, for it does not come into being as a result of the circumstantial interaction of causes and conditions. Rather, it is an ever-abiding continuum of mind, which is inherent within us. So from that view point, it is called 'non-produced'.
However, although this is the cause, we still have to maintain that, because it possesses this continuity, the present fundamental innate mind-this present instant of consciousness-comes from its earlier moments. The same holds true of the wisdom of Buddha-the omniscient mind of Buddha-which perceives the two truths directly and simultaneously, and which is also a state of awareness or consciousness. Since it is a state of awareness, the factor which will eventually turn into that kind of wisdom, namely the fundamental innate nature of clear light, will also have to be maintained to be a state of awareness. For it is impossible for anything which is not by nature awareness to turn into a state of awareness. So from this second point of view, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is causally produced.
From Dzogchen: Heart Essence of Great Perfection by The Dalai Lama.
Luminosity must be understood as a process, an uninterrupt continuum like a stream. It will never be lost but is empty of anything Self or unchanging. Check this out:
From one point of view, yes. But in my view different words can point to the same realisation. Or no words.
Process, for instance, is a noun, though it describes impermanence.
Luminosity must be understood as a process, an uninterrupt continuum like a stream. It will never be lost but is empty of anything Self or unchanging.
We find this important term, pabhassara/prabhâsvara, in the Anguttara-Nikayas.
"Oh! monks. The mind (citta) is luminous! It is defiled by the adventitious defilement. Oh! monks. The mind is luminous! it obtains release (vippamutta) from the adventitious defilements."
When mind is in a temporal state, mind's luminous or radiant nature is not at all manifest to prithagjanas (common run of the mill people). They are in the dark, so to speak. Only by directly experiencing mind absolutely shorn of its defilements does one authentically experience the luminous or radiant mind.
When Yangthang Rinpoche (dzogchen) describe Buddha-nature he says:
"Its quality is that it is naturally luminous. It is sheer luminosity, or clear light. When one realizes that it is open and radiantly clear, then with pure awareness one experiences its compassionate quality, which is all-prevasive. This is the quality of rigpa, pure awareness [more at gnosis]." (Brackets are mine.)
In the Lankavatara Sutra it says:
"The best of speakers points out that the originally clear mind (prakritiprabhasvaram cittam), along with the defilements, (such as) pride, etc. are united within the Self (atman)" (Sagatham X: 358-59 [vv. 752-761]).
Again the Lankavatara says:
“Then, Mahamati, sustained by the power of the Buddhas, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas at their first stage will attain the Bodhisattva-Samadhi, known as the Light of Mahayana (mahâyana-prabhâsa), which belongs to the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas. They will immediately see the Tathagatas, Arhats, Fully-Enlightened Ones appearing before them personally, who come from all the different abodes in the ten quarters of the world and who now facing the Bodhisattvas will impart to them their sustaining power displayed with the body, mouth, and words.”
According to the Samdhinirmocana Sutra ultimate bodhicitta is:
"[B]eyond this world, cannot be formulated by concept or speech, is extremely radiant, the image of the Ultimate, immaculate, unshakeable, and very bright like the steady glow of a lamp on a calm night."
Ajhan Chah says:
"The true Buddha, the Buddha that is clear, radiant knowing, we can still experience and attain today."
If one gets the impression that luminosity is an extraordinary spiritual or mystical state, they are correct. We just can't read a book or 'just sit', and expect to be aware of pabhassara/prabhâsvara.
Why does a conditional mind necessarily have the conditions to recognize that it is conditional?
I don't think that it "necessarily" does. A conditional mind starts out without the conditions to recognize that it is conditional -- I'd think that would be one definition of the first step of dependent arising: "ignorance". Our minds start out completely unaware that they are conditional -- or you could say that our self (or, actually, what we mistake for our self) is completely unaware that it is conditional. To that self, it just "is". Though it is a little insecure in that belief, because it keeps going out and looking for evidence to reassure itself that it really, truly, is.
The conditional mind/self does have the *capacity* to recognize that it is conditional, though -- Gotama managed to see this, right?
How do we 'know' that the experience we assign as 'realizing conditionality' is a correct perception? For example I could fantasize about snow melting, changing, flowers opening, and have all these examples kind of on a 'forced march' to learn what my teacher says is there.
In meditation I might have a 'peak experience'.
So my question is whether assigning the value 'conditional' in the mind we might have that experience because we are looking for it.
So my question is whether assigning the value 'conditional' in the mind we might have that experience because we are looking for it.
Very good point.
This has been my main stumbling block with buddhism. What if reality is such that no matter what we look for, we will find it. Is everything self-fulfilling if we can truely beleive/will it?
How do we 'know' that the experience we assign as 'realizing conditionality' is a correct perception? For example I could fantasize about snow melting, changing, flowers opening, and have all these examples kind of on a 'forced march' to learn what my teacher says is there.
In meditation I might have a 'peak experience'.
So my question is whether assigning the value 'conditional' in the mind we might have that experience because we are looking for it.
Valid point. The answer I recall the Buddha giving is to look at where whatever we are seeing leads us in our practice. Of course, then we have the problem of "an improvement" happening even with a vague but imperfect understanding, and us feeling satisfied with that as being "the true and complete answer" -- just because we haven't experienced any better at that point. There are no easy answers.
Luminosity must be understood as a process, an uninterrupt continuum like a stream. It will never be lost but is empty of anything Self or unchanging.
We find this important term, pabhassara/prabhâsvara, in the Anguttara-Nikayas.
"Oh! monks. The mind (citta) is luminous! It is defiled by the adventitious defilement. Oh! monks. The mind is luminous! it obtains release (vippamutta) from the adventitious defilements."
When mind is in a temporal state, mind's luminous or radiant nature is not at all manifest to prithagjanas (common run of the mill people). They are in the dark, so to speak. Only by directly experiencing mind absolutely shorn of its defilements does one authentically experience the luminous or radiant mind.
When Yangthang Rinpoche (dzogchen) describe Buddha-nature he says:
"Its quality is that it is naturally luminous. It is sheer luminosity, or clear light. When one realizes that it is open and radiantly clear, then with pure awareness one experiences its compassionate quality, which is all-prevasive. This is the quality of rigpa, pure awareness [more at gnosis]." (Brackets are mine.)
In the Lankavatara Sutra it says:
"The best of speakers points out that the originally clear mind (prakritiprabhasvaram cittam), along with the defilements, (such as) pride, etc. are united within the Self (atman)" (Sagatham X: 358-59 [vv. 752-761]).
Again the Lankavatara says:
“Then, Mahamati, sustained by the power of the Buddhas, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas at their first stage will attain the Bodhisattva-Samadhi, known as the Light of Mahayana (mahâyana-prabhâsa), which belongs to the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas. They will immediately see the Tathagatas, Arhats, Fully-Enlightened Ones appearing before them personally, who come from all the different abodes in the ten quarters of the world and who now facing the Bodhisattvas will impart to them their sustaining power displayed with the body, mouth, and words.”
According to the Samdhinirmocana Sutra ultimate bodhicitta is:
"[B]eyond this world, cannot be formulated by concept or speech, is extremely radiant, the image of the Ultimate, immaculate, unshakeable, and very bright like the steady glow of a lamp on a calm night."
Ajhan Chah says:
"The true Buddha, the Buddha that is clear, radiant knowing, we can still experience and attain today."
If one gets the impression that luminosity is an extraordinary spiritual or mystical state, they are correct. We just can't read a book or 'just sit', and expect to be aware of pabhassara/prabhâsvara.
Yes, luminosity is present but may not be discovered. It is like having a diamond in the pillow, the beggar continues to be poor insofar as he did not discover the diamond.
For me, it took about two years of self inquiry and more years of meditation before the direct realization of the luminous essence. The I AM realization. But even this is just the beginning, from there the luminous essence is integrated with insight into non dual, anatta and dependent origination.
But even this is just the beginning, from there the luminous essence is integrated with insight into non dual, anatta and dependent origination.
What is not to be identified with the five khandhas is my Attâ. Each khandha, on the other hand, is not Attâ (anattâ) (e.g., rupa is anattâ, ditto with the rest of the khandhas).
What is not to be identified with the five khandhas is my Attâ. Each khandha, on the other hand, is not Attâ (anattâ) (e.g., rupa is anattâ, ditto with the rest of the khandhas).
And as the khandhas represent the totality of human experience, there is no atta to be found?
And as the khandhas represent the totality of human experience, there is no atta to be found?
My self or Attâ is not any khandha. This is very clear from the Suttas. So obviously, the khandhas don't represent the totality of what I can experience as a human (sattva). The only thing they represent is Mara. So if I claim they are the totality of human experience, the alpha and omega, I side with Mara the Evil One, and samsara goes on endlessly for me.
"When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed. Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed. See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery. Those who see it thus see rightly. When there if feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed" (S.iii.189).
But even this is just the beginning, from there the luminous essence is integrated with insight into non dual, anatta and dependent origination.
What is not to be identified with the five khandhas is my Attâ. Each khandha, on the other hand, is not Attâ (anattâ) (e.g., rupa is anattâ, ditto with the rest of the khandhas).
That used to be the understanding at the I AM phase of insight, now not anymore.
A step further after I AM realization (which could itself be progressed in terms of four aspects: impersonality, intensity of luminosity, seeing through and dissolving the need to abide, effortlessness), would be to contemplate on the non-dual nature.
At this point it is better to see five aggregates as buddha-nature:
"Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral phenomena, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. Their phenomena aspects are illusory and false, but their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. Who would have thought that production and extinction, coming and going are fundamentally the eternal wonderful light of the Tathagata, the unmoving, all-pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of True Suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, one will never find them."
.
.
"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata, the nature of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings’ minds absorb itaccording to their capacity to know. Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words."
So with the above, taken with what you say below it, about relinking consciousness, do I understand you to be saying it is "conventional consciousness" that survives rebirth to feel the effects of karma?
No, I'm talking about the conventional point of view/use of language.
Or, to put it another way, what, of this life, conventionally or unconventionally, can we call "me" in the next life? The "individual sense of continuity"?
Ultimately speaking, there isn't anything among the aggregates that we can call 'me' or 'mine,' whether in this life or the next. Even so, conventional speaking, there's still a person "with such a name, such a clan-name" in this life (SN 22.22). And assuming that the same process of conditionality underlying rebirth is at work from moment to moment, as well as over multiple lifetimes, it's possible to have a sense of continuity over multiple 'lifetimes' without positing some sort of static thing that "survives rebirth to feel the effects of karma."
Thanks for pointing me to MN 106, and the term "saṃvattanikaṃ". I think it's interesting that a term that gets its most frequent usage in conjunction with meditative states, where it gets translated as "conducive to" gets translated as "links on" or "leading-on" when it is in conjunction with "consciousness". The Pali dictionaries I looked at defined it as "saṃvattanika: conducive to; involving". Given this, and that the Buddha took Sati to task when he suggested that it is consciousness that runs the rounds, I think it unlikely that the Buddha was saying consciousness survives death.
It seems to me the Buddha rebukes Sati in MN 38 for his idea of consciousness as a static entity (i.e., "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another") — explaining that consciousness arises in dependence on certain causes and condition — but not the idea of rebirth in general. Instead of positing some type of permanent, unchanging consciousness that travels from life to life, rebirth is described in terms of moments of dependently arisen consciousness arising, persisting for a brief period, and then ceasing in a successive causal stream, a process that doesn't necessarily cease at death due to the presence of craving (tahna), which acts as the catalyst or fuel for renewed existence (SN 44.9).
I'm aware of Prof. Gombrich's work (he published a paper of mine on dependent arising last month) but he is not saying in the section you quote that the Buddha taught that consciousness survives death.
Awesome. Congratulations. I'd love to read it if you're able/willing to share it with us.
Traditional Buddhist rebirth perhaps doesn't posit an *eternal* soul, but it definitely is positing something that survives death, and it is attaching that something from one life, across death, to the next; it is saying there is a fixed bond there between one life and the next, though it seems to have difficulty telling us what that bond is.
I disagree. Instead of positing something that survives death, rebirth is better understood as a causal process whereby causes produce effects, where actions condition potential experiences— not one where some thing 'survives' death and goes places. A cause is simply an event that we conceive of as setting into motion, or at least helping to condition, a serious of related events. And Buddhism for the most part accepts the efficacy of immaterial causes as well as physical ones, meaning that this process isn't necessarily limited solely to the sphere of physical/bodily processes.
As for the mechanics of this process, they're generally described in places like MN 38, SN 44.9, etc. — which are often applied by those who accept the traditional interpretation of rebirth to both moment-to-moment and postmortem rebirth — and fairly well mapped out by the Abhidhamma and commentarial literature. Whether one chooses to do the former or accept the latter as reliable sources is another matter, however; but I don't think either approach is mutually exclusive as the point is the same: all that really matters in the here and now is whether suffering is present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
It isn't obvious to me. Can you point to a sutta where something other than the khandhas is described as part of our human experience?
Your argument as I understand it runs as follows:
The five khandhas represent the totality of what man can experience as if to suggest they also know what is true and what is false.
The counter to this argument:
The Buddha tells us not to identify with the five khandhas ((M.i.136)). Obviously, my self, the Attâ, represents the totality of what man can experience, not the khandhas. It knows what is true and false (A. i. 149). In fact, there is no sutta which says that the five khandhas can determine what is true and what is false. In addition, these aggregates belong to Mara the Evil One.
The Buddha tells us not to identify with the five khandhas ((M.i.136)). Obviously, my self, the Attâ, represents the totality of what man can experience, not the khandhas. It knows what is true and false (A. i. 149). In fact, there is no sutta which says that the five khandhas can determine what is true and what is false. In addition, these aggregates belong to Mara the Evil One.
Do you mean Majhima Nikaya 136 and Anguttara Nikaya 1:149? It would be helpful to have some brief quotes supporting your argument. Is there a sutta which describes the atta as the totality of human experience?
Porpoise, I have given the proper PTS citations. They are about as precise as it gets, and will take you to the proper passages.
There is no sutta which deals with the totality of human experience. On the other hand, it is by the Attâ or self that we can know what is true and false. It is certainly not by the five khandhas - our psycho-physical organism that we tenaciously cling to. :cool:
I'm confused because I thought the Buddha taught anatta, not atta.
The Buddha taught that the five aggregates or pañcaskandhas are not the self (anattâ). On the other hand, to teach that the self is a skandha or aggregate is eternalism. The Buddha also did not teach nattha attâ, i.e., there is no self (cp. S.iv.400). If the Buddha taught nattha attâ he would be siding with annihilationists. Buddhists who insist that the Buddha does not teach a self which is not associated with the aggregates are teaching a false doctrine which is not found in the canon. The Buddha doesn't want us to attach to the five aggregates. They are impermanent and suffering—and illusory. He said of each aggregate: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ) (S. iii. 45). Obviously, this is saying there is a self apart from the aggregates, a self that is the refuge (attasaranam).
I'm confused because I thought the Buddha taught anatta, not atta.
The Buddha taught that the five aggregates or pañcaskandhas are not the self (anattâ). On the other hand, to teach that the self is a skandha or aggregate is eternalism. The Buddha also did not teach nattha attâ, i.e., there is no self (cp. S.iv.400). If the Buddha taught nattha attâ he would be siding with annihilationists. Buddhists who insist that the Buddha does not teach a self which is not associated with the aggregates are teaching a false doctrine which is not found in the canon. The Buddha doesn't want us to attach to the five aggregates. They are impermanent and suffering—and illusory. He said of each aggregate: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self (na meso attâ) (S. iii. 45). Obviously, this is saying there is a self apart from the aggregates, a self that is the refuge (attasaranam).
This approach to the teachings on not-self reminds me of a lot of Sankara'a conception of anatman in his version of Advaita Vedanta. In one of his commentaries, for example, Sankara writes, "Whenever we deny something unreal, we do so with reference to something real; the unreal snake, e.g. is negatived with reference to the real rope." Sankara was essentially using the notion of anatman to deny the reality of the individual self (atman) in favour of the ultimate self (Brahman), whereas here it seems the reality of the aggregates is being denied in favour of one that transcends these impermanent and ultimately unsatisfactory phenomena. Not sure if this is precisely what the Buddha meant, but it's not a completely unreasonable interpretation, either.
Buddhists who insist that the Buddha does not teach a self which is not associated with the aggregates are teaching a false doctrine which is not found in the canon.
You still haven't quoted a sutta which shows the Buddha teaching that there is an atta beyond the aggregates.
Porpoise, Yes I have. I guess we can respectfully disagree. Personally, the Theravada position is really disguised natthattâ, not anattâ. This is a huge difference. However, let me say that not all Thera are attâ-deniers. One of the most famous monks of Thailand, Phramongkolthepmuni (1884–1959), was very much pro-attâ.
I'm confused because I thought the Buddha taught anatta, not atta.
Obviously, this is saying there is a self apart from the aggregates, a self that is the refuge (attasaranam).
And what would such a self consist of? I think you can not find anything outside of the aggregates. For sure, 'the self' you speak of can not be conscious, because consciousness is in the aggregates. It can not be mental formations either because of the same reason..
It are these two things that are the base for mind & matter to exist in the first place (according to Dependent Origination). So what else can there be? Nothing. There is no self in or outside the aggregates, otherwise there would be something constant and that's not what Buddhism teaches.
Here the Buddha says if we (mistakenly) see anything as the self, it should be the body, which we all know dies and falls apart.
It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. [...]
The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising:
"'When this is, that is.
"'From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
"'When this isn't, that isn't.
"'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
There is no self in or outside the aggregates, otherwise there would be something constant and that's not what Buddhism teaches
Your comment contradicts this passage (brackets are mine).
“But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies [sankhâra] as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is see, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’” (M. i. 136).
This disciple (ariyasavaka)—not a puthujjana—doesn't regard his Attâ as any of the pañcakhandha which, incidentally, belong to the Buddhist devil, Mara.
This disciple (ariyasavaka)—not a puthujjana—doesn't regard his Attâ as any of the pañcakhandha which, incidentally, belong to the Buddhist devil, Mara.
That's what you said before. It isn't anywhere in your quote, but ok... my question is, what would that 'atta' be? Considering for example
But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. [...]
That's what you said before. It isn't anywhere in your quote, but ok... my question is, what would that 'atta' be? Considering for example
Attâ or pure Mind cannot be approached with the aggregates or khandhas. To confuse attâ with the aggregates is, in fact, eternalism (and to deny the self, natthattâ, is annihilationism). How we enter the world that transcends the aggregates is through dhyana/jhana.
Porpoise, Yes I have. I guess we can respectfully disagree. Personally, the Theravada position is really disguised natthattâ, not anattâ. This is a huge difference. However, let me say that not all Thera are attâ-deniers. One of the most famous monks of Thailand, Phramongkolthepmuni (1884–1959), was very much pro-attâ.
Suttas are lengthy - could you please just post a short quote from a sutta which clearly shows the Buddha teaching atta? I've read the suttas quite a lot and I can't recall a passage like this.
There is no self in or outside the aggregates, otherwise there would be something constant and that's not what Buddhism teaches
Your comment contradicts this passage (brackets are mine).
“But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies [sankhâra] as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is see, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’” (M. i. 136).
In this passage the Buddha is advising that we should not "own" the aggregates or regard them as self. He doesn't seem to be saying that we have a self though.
Comments
The Abhidhamma certainly were not the words of Buddha. The suttas were. And yes they were compiled orally a few weeks after Buddha's passing, and then orally passed down... but generally it is not 'written down many centuries later' as some would say, as Loppon Namdrol pointed out, "Worst case scenario, Buddha's teachings were written down 150 years after his parinirvana (dates of Asokha pillars), which best scholarship places 407-400 BCE. But it is very likely that the earliest sutras were being written down within 50 years."
The early suttas did not talk about an unconditioned *absolute* (as in a self, an ultimate reality).
They talked about an unconditioned, birthless, deathless, etc. This is often misunderstood out of context to be the upanishadic kind of unconditioned ultimate reality or Self or ontological essence. This is not the case (as seen below). These terms 'death-free', etc are not 'an unchanging deathless Self' but 'freedom from death, being released from death'. They are all names of 'Nirvana'. I.e. they follow the third noble truth, which is the cessation of craving, the cessation of suffering. Nirvana = cessation of craving. But that unbinding is explained in MN 1 not to be taken as self, too.
And what exactly is unconditioned, birthless, deathless, etc?
SN 43 Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta (1-44 combined & abridged):
And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.
And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.
And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.
And what, monks, is the truth (sacca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the truth.
And what, monks, is the farther shore (pāra)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the farther shore.
And what, monks, is the subtle (nipuṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the subtle.
And what, monks, is the very hard to see (sududdasa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the very hard to see.
And what, monks, is the unaging (ajajjara)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unaging.
And what, monks, is the stable (dhuva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the stable.
And what, monks, is the undisintegrating (apalokita)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the undisintegrating.
And what, monks, is the non-indicative (anidassana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the non-indicative.
And what, monks, is the unproliferated (nippapañca)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unproliferated.
And what, monks, is the peaceful (santa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the peaceful.
And what, monks, is the death-free (amata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the death-free.
And what, monks, is the sublime (paṇīta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the sublime.
And what, monks, is the auspicious (siva)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the auspicious.
And what, monks, is the secure (khema)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the secure.
And what, monks, is the elimination of craving (taṇhākkhaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the elimination of craving.
And what, monks, is the wonderful (acchariya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the wonderful.
And what, monks, is the amazing (abbhuta)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the amazing.
And what, monks, is the calamity-free (anītika)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the calamity-free.
And what, monks, is the dhamma free of calamity (anītikadhamma)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the dhamma free of calamity.
And what, monks, is extinguishment (nibbāna)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called extinguishment.
And what, monks, is the unafflicted (abyāpajjha)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unafflicted.
And what, monks, is dispassion (virāga)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called dispassion.
And what, monks, is purity (suddhi)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called purity.
And what, monks, is freedom (mutti)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called freedom.
And what, monks, is the unadhesive (anālaya)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the unadhesive.
And what, monks, is the island (dīpa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the island.
And what, monks, is the cave (leṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the cave.
And what, monks, is the shelter (tāṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the shelter.
And what, monks, is the refuge (saraṇa)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the refuge.
And what, monks, is the destination (parāyana)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the destination.
Emptiness is simply the negation of extremes (existence, non-existence, both and neither). The luminous essence is Empty. This is what must be realized, otherwise you fall into the eternalist views of Hinduism who reify a luminous brahman. This understanding is half based on experience, half based on a false framework of duality and inherency deeply rooted in our minds which distorted a non-conceptual and direct experience/realization of the luminosity (into a Self).
Luminosity is in actuality, empty of self - if luminosity were a self, it would be seen as an unchanging Witness. This is a wrong understanding of luminosity.
Realizing that luminosity is empty of self, you will realize that the self-luminous process of experiencing itself rolls and knows, without a knower. Luminosity is empty of a self, empty of being a knower. And that knowing IS the entire process of sights, sounds, smells, etc.
So experientially, everything is intensely alive and vivid and conscious and cognizance and present... but empty of any self, any entity, only a verb, a process of activity.
What Thich Nhat Hanh said here is good:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2008/10/sun-of-awareness-and-river-of.html
Sunshine and Green Leaves
"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'."
"..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming...."
"In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."
http://www.darkzen.org/
Try a new orientation:
http://mathematicalbuddhism.blogspot.com/
The question becomes - If suffering is caused by clinging/aversion what is the source. Who is that suffers?
The Buddha looked and looked but could not find a self. An aggregation of dependently originated impermanent processes that we assume is self, but no self. Results of our actions, but no self to be found.
"I", "me", self, is a creation of a creative imagination. It is not that there is a separate thing "me" which is the subject of suffering. There is no separate "me" to be found other than what I dream up and perpetuate. This little fact is about as counter intuitive as you can get, as our conditioning has centered around creating an identity as the subject for attachment/aversion.
By the way, he did not say that you do not exist. But that you do not exist as the thing you have been conditioned to think you are. So what exactly does exist? Some would call it Buddha Nature. Clear simple empty present moment awareness. Timeless arising and cessation without beginning or end. The perceiver and the perceived without separation.
Anyway, anatta is very liberating. At least the glimpses I have seen.
Meditate. Learn to see impermanence in everything. Be patient. Anatta will follow.
Best Wishes
vispassana. I just think it likely that this, or nihilistic Buddhist views, are only possible before one has meditated. Because it's quite clear later on and I don't see how anyone could mistake what is happening. But not empty of essence?
Ok, I think there is what there is, and there's a raft for getting there, and when you get there you know what it is. Calling it luminous emptiness seems like rhetoric tied in knots after centuries of wrangling. But I think we're on the same page, I just don't share your faith in Buddhism's exclusivity.
One has to be careful to avoid reading this discourse by the lamplight of the Sautrântikas who believed that nirvana was a non-Ens; that it was only absence (abhâva) of kleshas, etc. This is in contrast with the fact that nirvana has real existence; it is experienceable, although it cannot be attained by way of the khandhas which are make up our psycho-physical body. An obvious flaw in the abhava theory of nirvana that Buddhaghosa points out is absence of past and future would also be nirvana since both are absent at this moment! But this is absurd.
Or, to put it another way, what, of this life, conventionally or unconventionally, can we call "me" in the next life? The "individual sense of continuity"? Thanks for pointing me to MN 106, and the term "saṃvattanikaṃ". I think it's interesting that a term that gets its most frequent usage in conjunction with meditative states, where it gets translated as "conducive to" gets translated as "links on" or "leading-on" when it is in conjunction with "consciousness". The Pali dictionaries I looked at defined it as "saṃvattanika: conducive to; involving". Given this, and that the Buddha took Sati to task when he suggested that it is consciousness that runs the rounds, I think it unlikely that the Buddha was saying consciousness survives death. Yes, so even if a consciousness would survive death, it would not be "me", would it? I can find no sense in which any being in a future life after the breakup of my body is "me", neither conventionally or unconventionally, so talking about "my future rebirths after my death" is an abuse of language.
I'm aware of Prof. Gombrich's work (he published a paper of mine on dependent arising last month) but he is not saying in the section you quote that the Buddha taught that consciousness survives death. I love the bald contradiction there (especially the "unequivocally"); beautiful! "consciousness...serves as a connecting link between two lives" but "there is no mention of this conscousness surviving even for a moment without the support of a psychophysical personality. ... early Buddhism does not contribute to a theory of a disembodied existence." Does pointing out that there is a contradiction mean that it can then be dismissed, simply because it's been pointed out? "It's okay! I've seen the contradiction, so we don't have to worry about it..." and then we just don't address it? Sorry, I don't get that at all. Not so much. There is a conventional "being" that we can see surviving from one moment to the next. That there is change over the course of time does not deny the continuity of a lifetime; bits of us do last a while. What professor Gombrich *was* saying in the portion you quoted was that the Buddha would not deny that form has continuity.
When it comes to conventions, any of us can easily see that the child continues to exist and change and grow and that there is a continuity there we can give a name to and follow from one day to the next; to deny this is to deny what's obvious to us all. Even the Buddha noticed this when it came to personalities, as he speaks about how similar types of people flock together -- those who like to meditate, find a meditative teacher; those who like to chant suttas, find a teacher who will teach them to chant, and so on.
But we do not see any evidence of even this conventional continuity surviving death, much less any "ultimate" continuity. I'd agree with you that rebirth doesn't assert a permanent soul, and it certainly asserts a continuity, though what I am saying is that those who hold that the Buddha teaches rebirth don't find any real support for a continuity that transcends that single birth and death (though I think we can see what survives death that is "ours" if we just look for it). Traditional Buddhist rebirth perhaps doesn't posit an *eternal* soul, but it definitely is positing something that survives death, and it is attaching that something from one life, across death, to the next; it is saying there is a fixed bond there between one life and the next, though it seems to have difficulty telling us what that bond is. The big problem is that, whatever it does with terms or metaphors to try to make that future life fit with the Buddha's teaching on anatta, it still has us attaching self to that rebirth: it is "your future lives" and "you should be concerned about your future lives". Giving it some other name -- calling it "relinking consciousness" and saying it, too, is impermanent -- doesn't have any effect at all on telling someone they should be concerned with their future rebirth. Either that's you in the future and you're going to feel the pain and pleasure, or that's not you in the future and you're not; traditional rebirth can't have it both ways.
The conditional mind/self does have the *capacity* to recognize that it is conditional, though -- Gotama managed to see this, right?
As for 'Buddhism's exclusivity', I have not seen non-Buddhist teachings that negate the doctrine of self quite as fully as Buddhism. Usually they negate an 'individual self' and then then sink back to an ultimate, ontological Self.
Therefore I must agree with the Buddha here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.011.ntbb.html
"Cula-sihanada Sutta (MN 11) -- The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar {M i 63} [Ñanamoli Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans.]. The Buddha declares that only through practicing in accord with the Dhamma can Awakening be realized. His teaching is distinguished from those of other religions and philosophies through its unique rejection of all doctrines of self. [BB]"
This has nothing to do with past or future being present or absent. Anything can continue to be present - as the Buddha said, sense experiences continue to be experienced in 'nirvana with residue'. And anything can become absent: all experience continue to dissolve moment by moment. The continual dissolving of experience by impermanence does not mean 'nirvana', it does not mean the end of suffering, since without removing the afflictions there can be no end of suffering. So mere absence of anything is not nirvana, it is the absence of or the uprooting of afflictions which exist as latent tendencies that is termed nirvana.
Nirvana is not merely the dissolving of a manifested affliction, it is the uprooting of the latent tendency towards affliction.
e.g. Buddha said, “Malunkhyaputta, to whom do you know me preaching, the lower bonds of the sensual world in this manner. Wouldn’t the ascetics of other sects find fault with this foolish example. To a toddler, who moves about with difficulty, there is not even a self. How could a view arise about a self?”
In other words, if you say that fetters is merely the manifestation of craving, and nirvana is the dissolving of craving, how is this any different from a baby? The baby would have been the most enlightened person in the world if this were the case, as in him is found absence of craving, view of self, etc, but it is not true that baby is enlightened.
The Buddha later goes on to say, “Ananda, the learned noble disciple who has seen noble ones, and Great Men, clever in their Teaching and trained in their Teaching abides with a mind not overcome with the view of a self. He knows the escape from the arisen view of a self, as it really is. His view of the self, fades together with the latent tendencies.”
(MN 64)
Therefore, fetter does not simply mean sense of self, ill will, desire, etc as manifested, but it is that it becomes “habitual” as a latent tendency in him – and such latent tendencies, though not manifested in infants, are present even in infants as a karmic potential waiting to ripen in future. This is why a baby, despite not having lust or even a sense of self, nonetheless cannot be said to be free from fetters.
Therefore nirvana is not a mere absence of anything, it is not even the mere absence of 'sense of self, ill will' etc (which may already absent in babies or deep states of mundane absorption), it is something deeper than that.
But... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html
As I quoted from SN earlier:
And what, monks, is the not-fabricated (asaṅkhata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-fabricated.
And what, monks, is the not-inclined (anata)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the not-inclined.
And what, monks, is the outflowless (anāsava)? The elimination of passion, the elimination of aggression, the elimination of delusion: this is called the outflowless.
etc etc...
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/14234/fundamental-innate-mind-of-clear-light
Question: Is the fundamental innate mind of clear light dependent on causes and conditions? If it is not dependent, how can it be empty of independent existence?
HHDL: This is a very good question. Often in texts we find mention of the fundamental innate mind of clear light being not produced by causes and conditions. Now here it is important to understand that in general when we use the term 'produced phenomena' there are different connotations. Something can be called 'produced' because it is a production of delusions and the actions they induce. Again, it may also refer to a production by causes and conditions. And there is also a sense of 'produced' as being cause by conceptual thought processes.
Certain texts speak of the activities of the Buddha as permanent and non-produced in the sense that they are continuous, and that as long as there are sentient beings, the activities of the buddhas will remain without interruption. So, from the point of view of their continuity, these activities are sometimes called permanent.
In the same manner, the fundamental innate mind of clear light, in terms of its continuity, is beginningless, and also endless. This continuum will always be there, and so from that specific point of view, it is also called 'non-produced'. Besides, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is no a circumstantial or adventitious state of mind, for it does not come into being as a result of the circumstantial interaction of causes and conditions. Rather, it is an ever-abiding continuum of mind, which is inherent within us. So from that view point, it is called 'non-produced'.
However, although this is the cause, we still have to maintain that, because it possesses this continuity, the present fundamental innate mind-this present instant of consciousness-comes from its earlier moments. The same holds true of the wisdom of Buddha-the omniscient mind of Buddha-which perceives the two truths directly and simultaneously, and which is also a state of awareness or consciousness. Since it is a state of awareness, the factor which will eventually turn into that kind of wisdom, namely the fundamental innate nature of clear light, will also have to be maintained to be a state of awareness. For it is impossible for anything which is not by nature awareness to turn into a state of awareness. So from this second point of view, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is causally produced.
From Dzogchen: Heart Essence of Great Perfection by The Dalai Lama.
Process, for instance, is a noun, though it describes impermanence.
"Oh! monks. The mind (citta) is luminous! It is defiled by the adventitious defilement. Oh! monks. The mind is luminous! it obtains release (vippamutta) from the adventitious defilements."
When mind is in a temporal state, mind's luminous or radiant nature is not at all manifest to prithagjanas (common run of the mill people). They are in the dark, so to speak. Only by directly experiencing mind absolutely shorn of its defilements does one authentically experience the luminous or radiant mind.
When Yangthang Rinpoche (dzogchen) describe Buddha-nature he says:
"Its quality is that it is naturally luminous. It is sheer luminosity, or clear light. When one realizes that it is open and radiantly clear, then with pure awareness one experiences its compassionate quality, which is all-prevasive. This is the quality of rigpa, pure awareness [more at gnosis]." (Brackets are mine.)
In the Lankavatara Sutra it says:
"The best of speakers points out that the originally clear mind (prakritiprabhasvaram cittam), along with the defilements, (such as) pride, etc. are united within the Self (atman)" (Sagatham X: 358-59 [vv. 752-761]).
Again the Lankavatara says:
“Then, Mahamati, sustained by the power of the Buddhas, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas at their first stage will attain the Bodhisattva-Samadhi, known as the Light of Mahayana (mahâyana-prabhâsa), which belongs to the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas. They will immediately see the Tathagatas, Arhats, Fully-Enlightened Ones appearing before them personally, who come from all the different abodes in the ten quarters of the world and who now facing the Bodhisattvas will impart to them their sustaining power displayed with the body, mouth, and words.”
According to the Samdhinirmocana Sutra ultimate bodhicitta is:
"[B]eyond this world, cannot be formulated by concept or speech, is extremely radiant, the image of the Ultimate, immaculate, unshakeable, and very bright like the steady glow of a lamp on a calm night."
Ajhan Chah says:
"The true Buddha, the Buddha that is clear, radiant knowing, we can still experience and attain today."
If one gets the impression that luminosity is an extraordinary spiritual or mystical state, they are correct. We just can't read a book or 'just sit', and expect to be aware of pabhassara/prabhâsvara.
In meditation I might have a 'peak experience'.
So my question is whether assigning the value 'conditional' in the mind we might have that experience because we are looking for it.
"When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed. Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed. See it as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as really misery. Those who see it thus see rightly. When there if feeling ... When there is perception ... When there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed" (S.iii.189).
A step further after I AM realization (which could itself be progressed in terms of four aspects: impersonality, intensity of luminosity, seeing through and dissolving the need to abide, effortlessness), would be to contemplate on the non-dual nature.
At this point it is better to see five aggregates as buddha-nature:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/05/isness-of-thought-between-two-moments.html
Shurangama Sutra:
"Ananda, you have not yet understood that all the defiling objects that appear, all the illusory, ephemeral phenomena, spring up in the very spot where they also come to an end. Their phenomena aspects are illusory and false, but their nature is in truth the bright substance of wonderful enlightenment. Thus it is throughout, up to the five skandhas and the six entrances, to the twelve places and the eighteen realms; the union and mixture of various causes and conditions account for their illusory and false existence, and the separation and dispersion of the causes and conditions result in their illusory and false extinction. Who would have thought that production and extinction, coming and going are fundamentally the eternal wonderful light of the Tathagata, the unmoving, all-pervading perfection, the wonderful nature of True Suchness! If within the true and eternal nature one seeks coming and going, confusion and enlightenment, or birth and death, one will never find them."
.
.
"You still have not realized that in the Treasury of the Tathagata, the nature of form is true emptiness and the nature of emptiness is true form. That fundamental purity pervades the Dharma Realm. Beings’ minds absorb itaccording to their capacity to know. Whatever manifests does so in compliance with karma. Ignorant of that fact, people of the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the mind, are nothing but the play of empty and meaningless words."
As for the mechanics of this process, they're generally described in places like MN 38, SN 44.9, etc. — which are often applied by those who accept the traditional interpretation of rebirth to both moment-to-moment and postmortem rebirth — and fairly well mapped out by the Abhidhamma and commentarial literature. Whether one chooses to do the former or accept the latter as reliable sources is another matter, however; but I don't think either approach is mutually exclusive as the point is the same: all that really matters in the here and now is whether suffering is present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
The five khandhas represent the totality of what man can experience as if to suggest they also know what is true and what is false.
The counter to this argument:
The Buddha tells us not to identify with the five khandhas ((M.i.136)). Obviously, my self, the Attâ, represents the totality of what man can experience, not the khandhas. It knows what is true and false (A. i. 149). In fact, there is no sutta which says that the five khandhas can determine what is true and what is false. In addition, these aggregates belong to Mara the Evil One.
There is no sutta which deals with the totality of human experience. On the other hand, it is by the Attâ or self that we can know what is true and false. It is certainly not by the five khandhas - our psycho-physical organism that we tenaciously cling to. :cool:
It are these two things that are the base for mind & matter to exist in the first place (according to Dependent Origination). So what else can there be? Nothing. There is no self in or outside the aggregates, otherwise there would be something constant and that's not what Buddhism teaches.
Here the Buddha says if we (mistakenly) see anything as the self, it should be the body, which we all know dies and falls apart. Metta!
“But monks, an instructed disciple [ariya-savako] of the pure ones...regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies [sankhâra] as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards consciousness as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And also he regards whatever is see, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’” (M. i. 136).
This disciple (ariyasavaka)—not a puthujjana—doesn't regard his Attâ as any of the pañcakhandha which, incidentally, belong to the Buddhist devil, Mara.
Suttas are lengthy - could you please just post a short quote from a sutta which clearly shows the Buddha teaching atta? I've read the suttas quite a lot and I can't recall a passage like this.