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.
Here is a good description of sunyata or insubstantiality. All conditioned phenomena are void of essence and are only dependent on conditions which are themselves impermanent and belonging to no one.
Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
"The ear is empty...
"The nose is empty...
"The tongue is empty...
"The body is empty...
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."
Sunna Sutta
“That is why in Emptiness,
Body, Feelings, Perceptions,
Mental Formations and Consciousness
are not separate self entities.
The Eighteen Realms of Phenomena
which are the six Sense Organs,
the six Sense Objects,
and the six Consciousnesses
are also not separate self entities.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited December 2015
@Jeffrey said:
A seed has potential because of conditions.
But the seeds conditions won't meet up without the potential to do so.
A seeds potential relies on conditions and a seeds conditions rely on potential but I wouldn't go as far as to say one is ultimately the cause of the other.
Conditions and potential are probably close enough to be considered the same thing.
@Jeffrey said: A seed has potential because of conditions.
Conventionally speaking you could say a mature plant arises in dependence on a number of conditions, one of which is a seed. Though going back a step you could also say the seed arises in dependence on a number of conditions, one of which is a mature plant.
But ultimately sunyata means that a seed isn't a "thing", it has no inherent existence, it is just another transient condition.
When every cause is an effect and every effect a cause, then talking about "potential" becomes rather meaningless. It could imply that sunyata is like a "ground of being" from which the aggregates arise, but I don't think that's what the Heart Sutra is saying.
Different words affect people in different ways. I probably don't understand what the word potential means to each of you. To me potential for change means it is not locked in one thing. But it doesn't mean unnatural like Lead can't be turned to gold. But in the Lam Rim teaching of Tibetan Buddhism the seed of Buddhanature is always present and it is a necessary condition for awakening. And later bodhicitta is mentioned as the only fruit in existence that does not wither. And incidentally the aggregates are (believed to be as Ihave heard) wrongly understood in some way. 'This is the body' might not be the truth.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Jeffrey said: A seed has potential because of conditions.
Conventionally speaking you could say a mature plant arises in dependence on a number of conditions, one of which is a seed. Though going back a step you could also say the seed arises in dependence on a number of conditions, one of which is a mature plant.
But ultimately sunyata means that a seed isn't a "thing", it has no inherent existence, it is just another transient condition.
When every cause is an effect and every effect a cause, then talking about "potential" becomes rather meaningless. It could imply that sunyata is like a "ground of being" from which the aggregates arise, but I don't think that's what the Heart Sutra is saying.
What do you think it is saying?
Transient conditions need order... Ice will not melt if the temperature gets colder.
@Jeffrey said: But in the Lam Rim teaching of Tibetan Buddhism the seed of Buddhanature is always present and it is a necessary condition for awakening.
So does Buddhanature stand "outside" sunyata ( conditionality )? In the suttas Nibbana is said to be the "unconditioned", the escape from the conditioned - I wonder if there is an equivalence here?
How can the conditioned be aware of the conditioned?
@David said: Transient conditions need order... Ice will not melt if the temperature gets colder.
But ultimately "ice" is also a transient condition. It's not like "things" arise in dependence on conditions, it's more like there are only changing conditions. This is alluded to later on in the Heart Sutra:
“Listen Sariputra,
all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness;
their true nature is the nature of
no Birth no Death,
no Being no Non-being,
no Defilement no Purity,
no Increasing no Decreasing."
@Jeffrey said:
A seed has potential because of conditions.
The seed has potential because of impermanence. Change or anicca IS potential. Without change, the seed will always be a seed.
All conditioned phenomena bear the mark of change or emptiness (sabbe sankhara anicca). Things that change lack inherency (sabbe sankhara anatta). Without inherency, birth and death are illusions.
Without inherency the seed can become a fruit. Seed is not fruit, fruit is not seed but seed is a necessary condition for fruit. Essentially there is no thing that changes. For seed to "become" fruit, there has to be a "something" that changes form!
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: Transient conditions need order... Ice will not melt if the temperature gets colder.
But ultimately "ice" is also a transient condition. It's not like "things" arise in dependence on conditions, it's more like there are only changing conditions. This is alluded to later on in the Heart Sutra:
“Listen Sariputra,
all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness;
their true nature is the nature of
no Birth no Death,
no Being no Non-being,
no Defilement no Purity,
no Increasing no Decreasing."
Conditions arise on conditions but there is order. Just because ice is a bunch of conditions doesn't mean it doesn't rely on the proper conditions to melt.
Events transpire according to causation which means no event will unfold until conditions allow. Conditions don't just unfold unconditionally. Potential is just the ability to change as conditions allow. To cause/effect/change.
It just doesn't make sense for something to happen without following the causal chain.
You asked @Jeffrey how the conditioned could be aware of the conditioned... How could the conditioned ask about conditions if unaware of conditions?
I look at it like evolution. Lots of micro-changes equals big change.
Isn't nibanna the unconditioned because there is no emptiness?
Unconditioned because 'awake' is there regardless of any particular thing even coffee or joy or whatever. But evidently the path to awakening needs conditions such as leisure and teachings and many others. But 'awake' is the Buddhanature and it is already there. It never started or ended.
@Jeffrey said: Buddhanature. Unconditioned because 'awake' is there regardless of any particular thing even coffee or joy or whatever. But evidently the path to awakening needs conditions such as leisure and teachings and many others. But 'awake' is the Buddhanature and it is already there. It never started or ended.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Spiny I am typing on phone so no cut and paste but Google lama shenpen hookham shepherd YouTube to yield 3 dharma talks about where Milerepa is meeting an uneducated shepherd and asking him to look at his own mind directly. The uneducated shepherd looks directly without any dogma affecting his look.
@SpinyNorman said:
You're talking about duality, not sunyata.
No, because to get in depth we cannot talk of one without the other.
Can you explain why? Duality in what sense exactly?
Emptiness is the lack of an abiding self or independent existence. Without subjectivity (duality) there is no causation and no emptiness.
No emptiness, no form.
Emptiness and form, potential and fruition, cause and effect. These are not opposites but complimentary aspects of the process of being.
Emptiness is form, potential is fruition and cause is effect.
Emptiness that is a Buddhist term, which can have different explanations according one`s level of understanding.
So we have emptiness in:
Sutra
Tantra
Dzogchen.
According to the Madhyamaka view (Sutra and Tantra), nothing solid or substantial exists anywhere, and so, everything is empty. Everything is Shunyata and that is the Absolute Truth.
Visible things represent Relative Truth; they appear to be real and solid, they appear to be really out there-- but when we examine and analyze them, pulling them apart to find their actual essence, we find that they have no inherent nature.
Absolute truth is everlasting emptiness and relative truth is based on temporal things and these things / objects can be seen as illusion.
The principal view of Madhyamaka is Shunyavada, the view of emptiness. Madhyamaka asserts that all phenomena (all dharmas or momentary physical and psychic events) lack any inherent existence. That is the meaning of Shunyata.
. If something existed independently, it would have its own inherent existence and nothing else could effect or change it. No karmic cause could give rise to it, because its inherent existence would be immutable and unchanging. If everything had an inherent existence, nothing could change into anything else, and all causality would be impossible. All change would be impossible because a thing would simply be its inherent nature or essence and not something else. It would be locked into this nature and could not change into something else. But our experience tells us that things are changing all the time, and so everything must lack any inherent existence.
Therefore are all phenomena seen as empty.
So then logic would be:
Form = emptiness (Form is empty of an independent self)
Emptiness = form ( Empty of an independent self that are all forms)
If one does know how one thing is seen then all things can be stamped with this vision.
Madhyamaka teaches that there is no inherent existence (rang-bzhin med), that things only exist interdependently (rten 'brel), and that, in fact, is the meaning of Shunyata.
If things exist dependently (pratiyad sammudpada) then they cannot have an own existence, so they are empty of that.
But now to other explanations about Emptiness / Shunyata / Tong pa nyid.
In Madyamika is missing in the emptiness the creation aspect.
The mistakes with a wrong understanding about Madyamika can end in nihilism ( the self is everlasting) or (the self is for ever gone after death).
So therefore one main point in Buddhism is there is no non independent self and meant is here that the Mind of karma (which causes ego) does not last for ever.
What does last for ever would be the inherent present Buddhahood in sentient beings, which is not experienced anymore by the most.
THIS NOT KNOWING OF THIS ENLIGHTENED INHERENT DWELLING MIND IS IN bUDDHISM THE FIRST CAUSE FOR REINCARNATION AND SUFFERING:
So we have seen that Emptiness would mean the absence of an inherent existing self.
But in for instance Dzogchen, out of emptiness rises everything, like lights, forms and sounds. Also everything returns to this emptiness.
So emptiness is different seen in the Buddhist traditions.
And Spiny looked at your link and have heard or glanced at some of the sutras mentioned such as Avatamsaka. Seems interesting and probably fruitful to study.
@pegembara said: Essentially there is no thing that changes.
Yes, that's the tricky bit to get hold of. "No things, only processes" is one way of saying it.
The subject collapses into the object. There is only the seen, heard, cognised and thoughts - no one who sees, hears, cognises or thinks. Thoughts without thinker. Experiences without the experiencer.
In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
@KaldenYungdrung said: So therefore one main point in Buddhism is there is no non independent self and meant is here that the Mind of karma (which causes ego) does not last for ever. What does last for ever would be the inherent present Buddhahood in sentient beings, which is not experienced anymore by the most.
So Buddhanature is eternal and "outside" sunyata? Is it universal or personal in your view?
@Jeffrey said: And Spiny looked at your link and have heard or glanced at some of the sutras mentioned such as Avatamsaka. Seems interesting and probably fruitful to study.
Some sutras describe a "True Self":
"One thing anyway is clear. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra teaches a really existing, permanent element (Tibetan: yang dag khams) in sentient beings. It is this element which enables sentient beings to become Buddhas. It is beyond egoistic self-grasping – indeed the very opposite of self-grasping – but it otherwise fulfils several of the requirements of a Self in the Indian tradition. Whether this is called the Real, True, Transcendental Self or not is as such immaterial, but what is historically interesting is that this sutra in particular (although joined by some other Tathagatagarbha sutras) is prepared to use the word ‘Self’ (atman) for this element. However one looks at it, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is quite self-consciously modifying or criticizing the not-Self traditions of Buddhism ...[29]"
@pegembara said: The subject collapses into the object. There is only the seen, heard, cognised and thoughts - no one who sees, hears, cognises or thinks. Thoughts without thinker. Experiences without the experiencer.
Bahiya Sutta
Yes, the Bahiya Sutta passage seems to describe the psychological experience of non-duality.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
But now to other explanations about Emptiness / Shunyata / Tong pa nyid.
In Madyamika is missing in the emptiness the creation aspect.
The mistakes with a wrong understanding about Madyamika can end in nihilism ( the self is everlasting) or (the self is for ever gone after death).
So therefore one main point in Buddhism is there is no non independent self and meant is here that the Mind of karma (which causes ego) does not last for ever.
What does last for ever would be the inherent present Buddhahood in sentient beings, which is not experienced anymore by the most.
THIS NOT KNOWING OF THIS ENLIGHTENED INHERENT DWELLING MIND IS IN bUDDHISM THE FIRST CAUSE FOR REINCARNATION AND SUFFERING:
So we have seen that Emptiness would mean the absence of an inherent existing self.
But in for instance Dzogchen, out of emptiness rises everything, like lights, forms and sounds. Also everything returns to this emptiness.
So emptiness is different seen in the Buddhist traditions."
I've studied Buddhism for about a year, and it has been a struggle to understand, but what you said I was drawn to, and I have questions about it - especially that 'there is no non independent self.' Can you please explain this, and maybe the other difficult parts?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
According to the Madhyamaka view (Sutra and Tantra), nothing solid or substantial exists anywhere, and so, everything is empty. Everything is Shunyata and that is the Absolute Truth.
Visible things represent Relative Truth; they appear to be real and solid, they appear to be really out there-- but when we examine and analyze them, pulling them apart to find their actual essence, we find that they have no inherent nature.
Absolute truth is everlasting emptiness and relative truth is based on temporal things and these things / objects can be seen as illusion.
The principal view of Madhyamaka is Shunyavada, the view of emptiness. Madhyamaka asserts that all phenomena (all dharmas or momentary physical and psychic events) lack any inherent existence. That is the meaning of Shunyata.
. If something existed independently, it would have its own inherent existence and nothing else could effect or change it. No karmic cause could give rise to it, because its inherent existence would be immutable and unchanging. If everything had an inherent existence, nothing could change into anything else, and all causality would be impossible. All change would be impossible because a thing would simply be its inherent nature or essence and not something else. It would be locked into this nature and could not change into something else. But our experience tells us that things are changing all the time, and so everything must lack any inherent existence.
Therefore are all phenomena seen as empty.
So then logic would be:
Form = emptiness (Form is empty of an independent self)
Emptiness = form ( Empty of an independent self that are all forms)
If one does know how one thing is seen then all things can be stamped with this vision.
Madhyamaka teaches that there is no inherent existence (rang-bzhin med), that things only exist interdependently (rten 'brel), and that, in fact, is the meaning of Shunyata.
If things exist dependently (pratiyad sammudpada) then they cannot have an own existence, so they are empty of that.
This is my position on the subject except for the absolute being empty. The subjective and conditioned are empty but the absolute is non-separation.
Madhyamaka is a view started by Nagarjuna and explaining emptiness is the same as describing dependent origination. Not viewed as negative at all.
I feel that Buddhanature is like the subjective expression of the absolute. Not caused by but cultivated (that is a huge distinction) through evolution and obscured by ignorance.
If there could be a true self but one with no form, I feel it is the same as Buddha nature as Buddha nature has no form and is not empty but can only be expressed through form and emptiness.
Nobody has Buddha nature, not even the dog. There is no-thing to have.
@KaldenYungdrung said: So therefore one main point in Buddhism is there is no non independent self and meant is here that the Mind of karma (which causes ego) does not last for ever. What does last for ever would be the inherent present Buddhahood in sentient beings, which is not experienced anymore by the most.
So Buddhanature is eternal and "outside" sunyata? Is it universal or personal in your view?
Buddha Nature is to compare with emptiness. Emptiness pervades or encompasses everything, because everything is contained in it.
So Buddha Nature is of Mind essence which is:
Causeless without first cause
Clear and is everything or encompasses everything
No Dualistic
Perfect Empty
All Pervading
Inherent in humans and other sentient beings
Compassion and Wisdom are here self-emergent because they have no cause in the eternal Mind (of Enlightenment) / Bodhicitta / Dyang chub sems.
Emptiness or Nature has everything , we in our natural State of Meditation which is no meditation, we merge into this Nature , which is finally our Nature.
@KaldenYungdrung said: So Buddha Nature is of Mind essence which is:
Causeless without first cause....the eternal Mind (of Enlightenment)
If Buddha Nature is un-caused and eternal, then that means it has independent existence. In which case it cannot be empty, it cannot have the nature of sunyata like all other phenomena.
@KaldenYungdrung said: So Buddha Nature is of Mind essence which is:
Causeless without first cause....the eternal Mind (of Enlightenment)
If Buddha Nature is un-caused and eternal, then that means it has independent existence. In which case it cannot be empty, it cannot have the nature of sunyata like all other phenomena.
@KaldenYungdrung said: So Buddha Nature is of Mind essence which is:
Causeless without first cause....the eternal Mind (of Enlightenment)
If Buddha Nature is un-caused and eternal, then that means it has independent existence. In which case it cannot be empty, it cannot have the nature of sunyata like all other phenomena.
Buddha Nature is something which has no beginning so it has no end and it can not be destroyed like emptiness cannot.
So a causeless mental entity like Buddha Nature / Bodhi citta, is ever present.
Empty of a self
Are all causeless things
So Buddha Nature is empty of a self
Empty of a self is Bodhicitta / Tathagata garbha / the seed of Emlightenment.
This Buddha Nature is in Mahayana developed like the Way of the Bodhisattva does.
This Buddha Nature is in Dzogchen NOT developed because here Buddhahood is direct experienced.
This emptiness or not having a self has similarities with Emptiness / Shunyata.
But the point of view is here important or the philosophy which explains a kind of this collective emptiness.
This emptiness is seen as the source of the arising of phenomena.
This emptiness can be seen as that which encompasses everything.
This emptiness can be seen as (similarities with) the Enlightened Mind
Emptiness is a word which can explain the non existence like in Madyamika or the denying of it, but in the other Buddhist vehicles like Dzogchen and Tantra this emptiness is the source of the Mind.
So the mind has similarities with THIS form of Emptiness which is used in the Dzogchen and Tantra vision.
Then the Buddha Nature encompasses everything because Buddha Nature is like Emptiness encompassing everything there is.
Only a Buddha is NOT this total Emptiness. This because if one Buddha would be this then there is no place any more for another Buddha.
So you are right according Madyamaka as basic philosophy and ego has right according my Dzogchen point of view.
Only the difference would be that i can integrate your poit of view easy within my philosophy, but i doubt if you could do the same.
According to the Madhyamaka view (Sutra and Tantra), nothing solid or substantial exists anywhere, and so, everything is empty. Everything is Shunyata and that is the Absolute Truth.
Visible things represent Relative Truth; they appear to be real and solid, they appear to be really out there-- but when we examine and analyze them, pulling them apart to find their actual essence, we find that they have no inherent nature.
Absolute truth is everlasting emptiness and relative truth is based on temporal things and these things / objects can be seen as illusion.
The principal view of Madhyamaka is Shunyavada, the view of emptiness. Madhyamaka asserts that all phenomena (all dharmas or momentary physical and psychic events) lack any inherent existence. That is the meaning of Shunyata.
. If something existed independently, it would have its own inherent existence and nothing else could effect or change it. No karmic cause could give rise to it, because its inherent existence would be immutable and unchanging. If everything had an inherent existence, nothing could change into anything else, and all causality would be impossible. All change would be impossible because a thing would simply be its inherent nature or essence and not something else. It would be locked into this nature and could not change into something else. But our experience tells us that things are changing all the time, and so everything must lack any inherent existence.
Therefore are all phenomena seen as empty.
So then logic would be:
Form = emptiness (Form is empty of an independent self)
Emptiness = form ( Empty of an independent self that are all forms)
If one does know how one thing is seen then all things can be stamped with this vision.
Madhyamaka teaches that there is no inherent existence (rang-bzhin med), that things only exist interdependently (rten 'brel), and that, in fact, is the meaning of Shunyata.
If things exist dependently (pratiyad sammudpada) then they cannot have an own existence, so they are empty of that.
>
Nobody has Buddha nature, not even the dog. There is no-thing to have.
If anything, Buddha nature has us.
Every sentient being in the 6 Realms of Existence have an inherent quality, namely Thathagatagarbha or the seed of Enlightenment.
This seed which dwells in the heart has to be developed to full Buddhahood.
If this inherent factor would be NOT present then Buddhhood would not be able to obtain.
So the cause here Bodhi citta or the seed of Enlightenment
has the fruit or result ( after many or short reincarnations)
To obtain full enlightenment
So we never can mix up here Advaita philosophy like one thing like a God etc. permeates everything etc.
But what is true, would be that Shunyata does encompass everything and is the source for the arising of Lights, Sounds etc.
Further maybe interesting to know that these things like Lights , Rays, forms etc. are too part of our pure Bodhi Citta. So our Bodhi Citta has similarities with this kind of Emptiness but is never similar to that.
Best wishes
KY.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
And is the unconditioned also unchanging? I guess it would be.
I guess it would be too but I admit that's something that irks my logic. It would be unchanging even though there are so many subjective aspects.
Could it at all be aware except by sentient beings waking up to it?
I wouldn't think so but that's why I'm agnostic in all these matters.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Nobody has Buddha nature, not even the dog. There is no-thing to have.
If anything, Buddha nature has us.
Every sentient being in the 6 Realms of Existence have an inherent quality, namely Thathagatagarbha or the seed of Enlightenment.
What I mean is it is not a thing to obtain or to own.
This seed which dwells in the heart has to be developed to full Buddhahood.
If this inherent factor would be NOT present then Buddhhood would not be able to obtain.
I agree but I think awakening is a gradual thing even if there are some enlightening moments along the way.
Our difference in view here may be that I see the development as a stripping away of defilements or obscurations, not adding anything except fruitful experience and the wisdom to discern it.
According to the Madhyamaka view (Sutra and Tantra), nothing solid or substantial exists anywhere, and so, everything is empty. Everything is Shunyata and that is the Absolute Truth.
Visible things represent Relative Truth; they appear to be real and solid, they appear to be really out there-- but when we examine and analyze them, pulling them apart to find their actual essence, we find that they have no inherent nature.
Absolute truth is everlasting emptiness and relative truth is based on temporal things and these things / objects can be seen as illusion.
The principal view of Madhyamaka is Shunyavada, the view of emptiness. Madhyamaka asserts that all phenomena (all dharmas or momentary physical and psychic events) lack any inherent existence. That is the meaning of Shunyata.
. If something existed independently, it would have its own inherent existence and nothing else could effect or change it. No karmic cause could give rise to it, because its inherent existence would be immutable and unchanging. If everything had an inherent existence, nothing could change into anything else, and all causality would be impossible. All change would be impossible because a thing would simply be its inherent nature or essence and not something else. It would be locked into this nature and could not change into something else. But our experience tells us that things are changing all the time, and so everything must lack any inherent existence.
Therefore are all phenomena seen as empty.
So then logic would be:
Form = emptiness (Form is empty of an independent self)
Emptiness = form ( Empty of an independent self that are all forms)
If one does know how one thing is seen then all things can be stamped with this vision.
Madhyamaka teaches that there is no inherent existence (rang-bzhin med), that things only exist interdependently (rten 'brel), and that, in fact, is the meaning of Shunyata.
If things exist dependently (pratiyad sammudpada) then they cannot have an own existence, so they are empty of that.
>
Nobody has Buddha nature, not even the dog. There is no-thing to have.
If anything, Buddha nature has us.
Every sentient being in the 6 Realms of Existence have an inherent quality, namely Thathagatagarbha or the seed of Enlightenment.
What I mean is it is not a thing to obtain or to own.
This seed which dwells in the heart has to be developed to full Buddhahood.
If this inherent factor would be NOT present then Buddhhood would not be able to obtain.
Our difference in view here is that I see the development as a stripping away of defilements or obscurations, not adding anything except fruitful experience.
Yes you are according your vision right that by the stripping away of defilements one can get mental emancipation, because we do it all for the deluded ego mind of dualisms.
The lesser ego the more realised Mind appears:
That can be done by the application of the right personal methods as well to follow a teacher / Master who is skilled in this.
Well the striping away of the obscurations which have their cause in the conflict causing emotions, with as boss the mind we know very well, the mind of ego, cannot be stripped away by not reacting.
Reacting / adding would be here the application of methods.
A method could be not to steal, kill etc.
Another would be meditation or yoga
Then the result would be a stable not fluctuating State of Mind, which has automaticly lesser ego and that causes fruitful experiences like bliss, concentration, relaxed feelings and a certain compassion for others.
@David said: Could it at all be aware except by sentient beings waking up to it?
I tend to think of the unconditioned as something to become aware of "internally", not as something to merge with "out there", which would be more like an Advaita view. In the suttas it's also called "The Deathless" ( Amata ).
Like that sense of stillness you get when the mind is really calm.
To see emptiness is to see the three characteristics and understand the four noble truths all together. To not relate them is not really seeing emptiness. Just a thought.
To be aware of one`s innate
Buddhahood or Bodhi citta
That can only be experienced by the non-dualistic Mind
But here there is spoken of no experiencer , subject and object.
So we can see without eyes and experience without having thoughts.
Yes it is indeed the experience of the non-dualistic Mind which is met in meditation which is finally no meditation, his brother is called Ego.
The Mind of non-meditation does not think and memorise
The Mind of ego thinks and memorises
The Mind of non-meditation experiences clearity and emptiness
The Mind of ego experiences positive, negative and neutral karma
The Mind of non-meditation is everlasting and does not change
The Mind of ego chances from life after life
The Mind of non-meditation is no dualistic
The ego mind only can function in the opposites like good and bad etc.
The Mind of non-meditation does not have Alaya
The ego mind is based on the contents of the Alaya /gZhi
Remarkable is that the non-meditation Mind is present, but the Mind of ego does not know this.
We call this in Buddhism basic ignorance which is the first cause for suffering.
To be aware of this non-meditation mind for 24 hours a day means one has reached Buddhahood.
@KaldenYungdrung said: The Mind of non-meditation is everlasting and does not change
So if this Mind is eternal, where does it go when the body dies? Or do you mean it is a universal Mind "out there" which we access while we're alive?
The inherent dwelling Mind of Enlightenment is eternal because it was never born.
It is difficult for the ego mind , who functions with dualisms, to accept something which is causeless and does not drive on the fuel of dualisms.
So this has to be experienced this non-meditational aspect otherwise it cannot be proved.
That does mean the non-meditational State is an awarenes state of Emptiness.
Then this non-meditational State / Mind does not leave because it is the inherent dwelling factor of our real Self. We are that, but do not know it because we forgot it by dwelling in objects and subjects which causes the body of illusion or our human body etc.
From the other Self the Self of the Ego, the Shakyamuni expalained that this does not exist , or said in the Madyamika language (the middle way / path) this State is empty of (that) self. Here is empiness used as a denotion.
So if our mental continum is emty of that ego self then it would be logic that the other Self , the reaL self is existing and well everlasting.
So this eternal Mind does not "leave us", because it is the very essence of our real, unchanging SELF. That it is like this that can be proved by self - experience done by special meditation practices.
No there is no universal mind which we acess.
It is seen like a water drop is poured into water or our Self melts with Emptiness ( Nature which is pure/clear and self emergent),
That means there is Emptiness out of which comes everything like Buddhas, we, you, matter etc. and that is the causeless energy source of creation.
That Emptiness has no center, beginning, end, no creator, has no notion about good and bad, is the foundation of Mind, is the foundation of the light and elements (frozen light), is not the possession of the Buddhas and they cannot see here a beginning and end.
That, we all have also inherent present (in our real Self) , and that is inseparable seen from Emptiness or Nature.
It is like a water drop is dropped into water, there is no difference.........
@KaldenYungdrung said: The inherent dwelling Mind of Enlightenment is eternal because it was never born.
Or perhaps the aspect of mind which is not involved in becoming. Anyway, what you've said is very reminiscent of the way the unconditioned or "The Deathless" is described in the suttas. It's interesting to see how the same ideas are expressed in the different turnings of the Wheel.
@KaldenYungdrung said:
The Mind of non-meditation is everlasting and does not change
The inherent dwelling Mind of Enlightenment is eternal because it was never born.
It is difficult for the ego mind , who functions with dualisms, to accept something which is causeless and does not drive on the fuel of dualisms.
So this has to be experienced this non-meditational aspect otherwise it cannot be proved.
That does mean the non-meditational State is an awarenes state of Emptiness.
Then this non-meditational State / Mind does not leave because it is the inherent dwelling factor of our real Self. We are that, but do not know it because we forgot it by dwelling in objects and subjects which causes the body of illusion or our human body etc.
From the other Self the Self of the Ego, the Shakyamuni expalained that this does not exist , or said in the Madyamika language (the middle way / path) this State is empty of (that) self. Here is empiness used as a denotion.
So if our mental continum is emty of that ego self then it would be logic that the other Self , the reaL self is existing and well everlasting.
So this eternal Mind does not "leave us", because it is the very essence of our real, unchanging SELF. That it is like this that can be proved by self - experience done by special meditation practices.
No there is no universal mind which we acess.
It is seen like a water drop is poured into water or our Self melts with Emptiness ( Nature which is pure/clear and self emergent),
That means there is Emptiness out of which comes everything like Buddhas, we, you, matter etc. and that is the causeless energy source of creation.
That Emptiness has no center, beginning, end, no creator, has no notion about good and bad, is the foundation of Mind, is the foundation of the light and elements (frozen light), is not the possession of the Buddhas and they cannot see here a beginning and end.
That, we all have also inherent present (in our real Self) , and that is inseparable seen from Emptiness or Nature.
It is like a water drop is dropped into water, there is no difference.........
what is this Mind?
where does it stay? is it in the brain? or in the heart?
why do we use different words like mano, citta, consciousness when we want to explain the mind and its works?
@KaldenYungdrung said:
The Mind of non-meditation is everlasting and does not change
The inherent dwelling Mind of Enlightenment is eternal because it was never born.
It is difficult for the ego mind , who functions with dualisms, to accept something which is causeless and does not drive on the fuel of dualisms.
So this has to be experienced this non-meditational aspect otherwise it cannot be proved.
That does mean the non-meditational State is an awarenes state of Emptiness.
Then this non-meditational State / Mind does not leave because it is the inherent dwelling factor of our real Self. We are that, but do not know it because we forgot it by dwelling in objects and subjects which causes the body of illusion or our human body etc.
From the other Self the Self of the Ego, the Shakyamuni expalained that this does not exist , or said in the Madyamika language (the middle way / path) this State is empty of (that) self. Here is empiness used as a denotion.
So if our mental continum is emty of that ego self then it would be logic that the other Self , the reaL self is existing and well everlasting.
So this eternal Mind does not "leave us", because it is the very essence of our real, unchanging SELF. That it is like this that can be proved by self - experience done by special meditation practices.
No there is no universal mind which we acess.
It is seen like a water drop is poured into water or our Self melts with Emptiness ( Nature which is pure/clear and self emergent),
That means there is Emptiness out of which comes everything like Buddhas, we, you, matter etc. and that is the causeless energy source of creation.
That Emptiness has no center, beginning, end, no creator, has no notion about good and bad, is the foundation of Mind, is the foundation of the light and elements (frozen light), is not the possession of the Buddhas and they cannot see here a beginning and end.
That, we all have also inherent present (in our real Self) , and that is inseparable seen from Emptiness or Nature.
It is like a water drop is dropped into water, there is no difference.........
what is this Mind?
where does it stay? is it in the brain? or in the heart?
why do we use different words like mano, citta, consciousness when we want to explain the mind and its works?
Our Mind can be of karmic quality and is then based on dualisms or if we practice we diminish the power of the karma mind, so that the Mind of Enlightenment becomes clearer.
The Mind of Bodhi Citta stays in the heart and is used in that way in Tantra and Dzogchen. We feel compassion within the heart. We love with the heart etc. This Mind is the inherent perfect dwelling Buddha. It is complete and nothing is there missing.
The brains deal mainly with the consciousness and memories, and is therefore karmic based. The Mind of karma is emotional disturbed and orientated and seen as real, which it is not in fact, seen after Buddhist practice. It are the activities of this mind which causes karma and a next reincarnation. It is this mind of ignorance which has to be seen as an enemy.
We make use of different Buddhist terms / words in Buddhism regarding the mind because we have 2 minds and because of this they have so their qualities and functions.
Then we have to explain with the dualistic mind the mind of enlightenment and because of that we must make use of 2 different meanings regarding mind and mind.
Our Mind can be of karmic quality and is then based on dualisms or if we practice we diminish the power of the karma mind, so that the Mind of Enlightenment becomes clearer.
The Mind of Bodhi Citta stays in the heart and is used in that way in Tantra and Dzogchen. We feel compassion within the heart. We love with the heart etc. This Mind is the inherent perfect dwelling Buddha. It is complete and nothing is there missing.
The brains deal mainly with the consciousness and memories, and is therefore karmic based. The Mind of karma is emotional disturbed and orientated and seen as real, which it is not in fact, seen after Buddhist practice. It are the activities of this mind which causes karma and a next reincarnation. It is this mind of ignorance which has to be seen as an enemy.
We make use of different Buddhist terms / words in Buddhism regarding the mind because we have 2 minds and because of this they have so their qualities and functions.
Then we have to explain with the dualistic mind the mind of enlightenment and because of that we must make use of 2 different meanings regarding mind and mind.
Best wishes
KY
thanks KY, it seems many a questions has been answered by one post
no one can do this other than a person who sees dhamma
There is the conditioned ie. sankhara (thoughts, memories, perception, feeling, ie. nama sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch ie. rupa), the unconditioned and the knowing of both. The 5 aggregates are conditioned.
Sankharas are like ripples. They are void - empty of substance.
Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.
The million dollars question: Are you willing to give up the conditioned?
@pegembara said:> The million dollars question: Are you willing to give up the conditioned?
I don't think you have to give it up, just see it for what it is.
Ice-cream is impermanent and insubstantial but can still be enjoyed.
A time will come when everything has to be given up. Even ice-cream that one enjoys. That is the time when one truly knows if practice has led to true realization ie. seeing things as they truly are or as things that can potentially burn you. Renouncing doesn't mean throwing a tasty ice-cream away but merely not having a conscious intention to go out and buy one.
"Bhikkhus, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?
"The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in the eye, finds estrangement in forms, finds estrangement in eye-consciousness, finds estrangement in eye-contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful- nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, in that too he finds estrangement.
Now during his utterance, the hearts of those thousand bhikkhus were liberated from taints through clinging no more.
Bhikkhus, imagine a fisherman, who have thrown a baited hook into a deep lake,
and then an yearning fish, hungry for food, would swallow it at first sight...
That fish, having swallowed the fisherman's hook, would indeed meet with much
pain, disaster and tragedy, since the fisherman would do with it as he wishes...
So too, Bhikkhus, there are these six hooks in the world for the pain, disaster and
tragedy of beings, for the slaughter of living beings: Forms experienceable by the
eye, sounds experiencable by the ear, smells experienceable by the nose, tastes
experienceable by the tongue, touches experienceable by the body, & mental states
experienceable by the mind, that all are seductive, gorgeous, alluring, agreeable,
pleasing, enticing, tempting and tantalizing. If a bhikkhu search for delight in them,
welcomes them, and thus remains clinging to them, he is called a Bhikkhu, who has
swallowed Mara's hook! He has met with pain, disaster & tragedy, & the Evil One
can do with him, as he wishes. However, one who does neither hunt for delight in them,
nor does he welcome them, nor does he remain clinging to them, such is a Bhikkhu,
who has resisted Mara's hook, who has broken, destroyed, and defeated this Hook!
He will neither gather, nor meet any pain, nor disaster, nor tragedy, and this Evil One
cannot do with him, as he wishes... Since he has gained true self-control & integrity!
@SpinyNorman said: @pegembara said:Renouncing doesn't mean throwing a tasty ice-cream away but merely not having a conscious intention to go out and buy one.
agree
Perhaps I shall just happen by chance to be in a place where an ice-cream van appears, playing it's joyful tune.
Comments
A seed has potential because of conditions.
Here is a good description of sunyata or insubstantiality. All conditioned phenomena are void of essence and are only dependent on conditions which are themselves impermanent and belonging to no one.
“That is why in Emptiness,
Body, Feelings, Perceptions,
Mental Formations and Consciousness
are not separate self entities.
The Eighteen Realms of Phenomena
which are the six Sense Organs,
the six Sense Objects,
and the six Consciousnesses
are also not separate self entities.
http://plumvillage.org/news/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/
But the seeds conditions won't meet up without the potential to do so.
A seeds potential relies on conditions and a seeds conditions rely on potential but I wouldn't go as far as to say one is ultimately the cause of the other.
Conditions and potential are probably close enough to be considered the same thing.
Form is condition and emptiness is potential.
Conventionally speaking you could say a mature plant arises in dependence on a number of conditions, one of which is a seed. Though going back a step you could also say the seed arises in dependence on a number of conditions, one of which is a mature plant.
But ultimately sunyata means that a seed isn't a "thing", it has no inherent existence, it is just another transient condition.
When every cause is an effect and every effect a cause, then talking about "potential" becomes rather meaningless. It could imply that sunyata is like a "ground of being" from which the aggregates arise, but I don't think that's what the Heart Sutra is saying.
Different words affect people in different ways. I probably don't understand what the word potential means to each of you. To me potential for change means it is not locked in one thing. But it doesn't mean unnatural like Lead can't be turned to gold. But in the Lam Rim teaching of Tibetan Buddhism the seed of Buddhanature is always present and it is a necessary condition for awakening. And later bodhicitta is mentioned as the only fruit in existence that does not wither. And incidentally the aggregates are (believed to be as Ihave heard) wrongly understood in some way. 'This is the body' might not be the truth.
What do you think it is saying?
Transient conditions need order... Ice will not melt if the temperature gets colder.
So does Buddhanature stand "outside" sunyata ( conditionality )? In the suttas Nibbana is said to be the "unconditioned", the escape from the conditioned - I wonder if there is an equivalence here?
How can the conditioned be aware of the conditioned?
But ultimately "ice" is also a transient condition. It's not like "things" arise in dependence on conditions, it's more like there are only changing conditions. This is alluded to later on in the Heart Sutra:
“Listen Sariputra,
all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness;
their true nature is the nature of
no Birth no Death,
no Being no Non-being,
no Defilement no Purity,
no Increasing no Decreasing."
The seed has potential because of impermanence. Change or anicca IS potential. Without change, the seed will always be a seed.
All conditioned phenomena bear the mark of change or emptiness (sabbe sankhara anicca). Things that change lack inherency (sabbe sankhara anatta). Without inherency, birth and death are illusions.
Without inherency the seed can become a fruit. Seed is not fruit, fruit is not seed but seed is a necessary condition for fruit. Essentially there is no thing that changes. For seed to "become" fruit, there has to be a "something" that changes form!
Conditions arise on conditions but there is order. Just because ice is a bunch of conditions doesn't mean it doesn't rely on the proper conditions to melt.
Events transpire according to causation which means no event will unfold until conditions allow. Conditions don't just unfold unconditionally. Potential is just the ability to change as conditions allow. To cause/effect/change.
It just doesn't make sense for something to happen without following the causal chain.
You asked @Jeffrey how the conditioned could be aware of the conditioned... How could the conditioned ask about conditions if unaware of conditions?
I look at it like evolution. Lots of micro-changes equals big change.
Isn't nibanna the unconditioned because there is no emptiness?
Yes, that's the tricky bit to get hold of. "No things, only processes" is one way of saying it.
Buddhanature.
Unconditioned because 'awake' is there regardless of any particular thing even coffee or joy or whatever. But evidently the path to awakening needs conditions such as leisure and teachings and many others. But 'awake' is the Buddhanature and it is already there. It never started or ended.
So is it Buddhanature which "sees" sunyata?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Awakened_Mind
That was a pretty funny question.
Spiny I am typing on phone so no cut and paste but Google lama shenpen hookham shepherd YouTube to yield 3 dharma talks about where Milerepa is meeting an uneducated shepherd and asking him to look at his own mind directly. The uneducated shepherd looks directly without any dogma affecting his look.
Emptiness that is a Buddhist term, which can have different explanations according one`s level of understanding.
So we have emptiness in:
According to the Madhyamaka view (Sutra and Tantra), nothing solid or substantial exists anywhere, and so, everything is empty. Everything is Shunyata and that is the Absolute Truth.
Visible things represent Relative Truth; they appear to be real and solid, they appear to be really out there-- but when we examine and analyze them, pulling them apart to find their actual essence, we find that they have no inherent nature.
Absolute truth is everlasting emptiness and relative truth is based on temporal things and these things / objects can be seen as illusion.
The principal view of Madhyamaka is Shunyavada, the view of emptiness. Madhyamaka asserts that all phenomena (all dharmas or momentary physical and psychic events) lack any inherent existence. That is the meaning of Shunyata.
. If something existed independently, it would have its own inherent existence and nothing else could effect or change it. No karmic cause could give rise to it, because its inherent existence would be immutable and unchanging. If everything had an inherent existence, nothing could change into anything else, and all causality would be impossible. All change would be impossible because a thing would simply be its inherent nature or essence and not something else. It would be locked into this nature and could not change into something else. But our experience tells us that things are changing all the time, and so everything must lack any inherent existence.
Therefore are all phenomena seen as empty.
So then logic would be:
Form = emptiness (Form is empty of an independent self)
Emptiness = form ( Empty of an independent self that are all forms)
If one does know how one thing is seen then all things can be stamped with this vision.
Madhyamaka teaches that there is no inherent existence (rang-bzhin med), that things only exist interdependently (rten 'brel), and that, in fact, is the meaning of Shunyata.
If things exist dependently (pratiyad sammudpada) then they cannot have an own existence, so they are empty of that.
But now to other explanations about Emptiness / Shunyata / Tong pa nyid.
In Madyamika is missing in the emptiness the creation aspect.
The mistakes with a wrong understanding about Madyamika can end in nihilism ( the self is everlasting) or (the self is for ever gone after death).
So therefore one main point in Buddhism is there is no non independent self and meant is here that the Mind of karma (which causes ego) does not last for ever.
What does last for ever would be the inherent present Buddhahood in sentient beings, which is not experienced anymore by the most.
THIS NOT KNOWING OF THIS ENLIGHTENED INHERENT DWELLING MIND IS IN bUDDHISM THE FIRST CAUSE FOR REINCARNATION AND SUFFERING:
So we have seen that Emptiness would mean the absence of an inherent existing self.
But in for instance Dzogchen, out of emptiness rises everything, like lights, forms and sounds. Also everything returns to this emptiness.
So emptiness is different seen in the Buddhist traditions.
Best wishes
KY
And Spiny looked at your link and have heard or glanced at some of the sutras mentioned such as Avatamsaka. Seems interesting and probably fruitful to study.
The subject collapses into the object. There is only the seen, heard, cognised and thoughts - no one who sees, hears, cognises or thinks. Thoughts without thinker. Experiences without the experiencer.
So Buddhanature is eternal and "outside" sunyata? Is it universal or personal in your view?
Some sutras describe a "True Self":
"One thing anyway is clear. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra teaches a really existing, permanent element (Tibetan: yang dag khams) in sentient beings. It is this element which enables sentient beings to become Buddhas. It is beyond egoistic self-grasping – indeed the very opposite of self-grasping – but it otherwise fulfils several of the requirements of a Self in the Indian tradition. Whether this is called the Real, True, Transcendental Self or not is as such immaterial, but what is historically interesting is that this sutra in particular (although joined by some other Tathagatagarbha sutras) is prepared to use the word ‘Self’ (atman) for this element. However one looks at it, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is quite self-consciously modifying or criticizing the not-Self traditions of Buddhism ...[29]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāyāna_Mahāparinirvāṇa_Sūtra#Buddha-nature.2C_.22true_Self.22_and_Emptiness
Yes, the Bahiya Sutta passage seems to describe the psychological experience of non-duality.
@KaldenYungdrung said, "...are empty of that.
But now to other explanations about Emptiness / Shunyata / Tong pa nyid.
In Madyamika is missing in the emptiness the creation aspect.
The mistakes with a wrong understanding about Madyamika can end in nihilism ( the self is everlasting) or (the self is for ever gone after death).
So therefore one main point in Buddhism is there is no non independent self and meant is here that the Mind of karma (which causes ego) does not last for ever.
What does last for ever would be the inherent present Buddhahood in sentient beings, which is not experienced anymore by the most.
THIS NOT KNOWING OF THIS ENLIGHTENED INHERENT DWELLING MIND IS IN bUDDHISM THE FIRST CAUSE FOR REINCARNATION AND SUFFERING:
So we have seen that Emptiness would mean the absence of an inherent existing self.
But in for instance Dzogchen, out of emptiness rises everything, like lights, forms and sounds. Also everything returns to this emptiness.
So emptiness is different seen in the Buddhist traditions."
I've studied Buddhism for about a year, and it has been a struggle to understand, but what you said I was drawn to, and I have questions about it - especially that 'there is no non independent self.' Can you please explain this, and maybe the other difficult parts?
This is my position on the subject except for the absolute being empty. The subjective and conditioned are empty but the absolute is non-separation.
Madhyamaka is a view started by Nagarjuna and explaining emptiness is the same as describing dependent origination. Not viewed as negative at all.
I feel that Buddhanature is like the subjective expression of the absolute. Not caused by but cultivated (that is a huge distinction) through evolution and obscured by ignorance.
If there could be a true self but one with no form, I feel it is the same as Buddha nature as Buddha nature has no form and is not empty but can only be expressed through form and emptiness.
Nobody has Buddha nature, not even the dog. There is no-thing to have.
If anything, Buddha nature has us.
Buddha Nature is to compare with emptiness. Emptiness pervades or encompasses everything, because everything is contained in it.
So Buddha Nature is of Mind essence which is:
Emptiness or Nature has everything , we in our natural State of Meditation which is no meditation, we merge into this Nature , which is finally our Nature.
Best wishes
KY.
If Buddha Nature is un-caused and eternal, then that means it has independent existence. In which case it cannot be empty, it cannot have the nature of sunyata like all other phenomena.
The question of whether Buddha Nature is empty or not ( conditioned or unconditioned ) reminded me of this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html
And is the unconditioned also unchanging? I guess it would be.
Buddha Nature is something which has no beginning so it has no end and it can not be destroyed like emptiness cannot.
So a causeless mental entity like Buddha Nature / Bodhi citta, is ever present.
Empty of a self
Are all causeless things
So Buddha Nature is empty of a self
Empty of a self is Bodhicitta / Tathagata garbha / the seed of Emlightenment.
This Buddha Nature is in Mahayana developed like the Way of the Bodhisattva does.
This Buddha Nature is in Dzogchen NOT developed because here Buddhahood is direct experienced.
This emptiness or not having a self has similarities with Emptiness / Shunyata.
But the point of view is here important or the philosophy which explains a kind of this collective emptiness.
This emptiness is seen as the source of the arising of phenomena.
This emptiness can be seen as that which encompasses everything.
This emptiness can be seen as (similarities with) the Enlightened Mind
Emptiness is a word which can explain the non existence like in Madyamika or the denying of it, but in the other Buddhist vehicles like Dzogchen and Tantra this emptiness is the source of the Mind.
So the mind has similarities with THIS form of Emptiness which is used in the Dzogchen and Tantra vision.
Then the Buddha Nature encompasses everything because Buddha Nature is like Emptiness encompassing everything there is.
Only a Buddha is NOT this total Emptiness. This because if one Buddha would be this then there is no place any more for another Buddha.
So you are right according Madyamaka as basic philosophy and ego has right according my Dzogchen point of view.
Only the difference would be that i can integrate your poit of view easy within my philosophy, but i doubt if you could do the same.
Best wishes
KY
>
This seed which dwells in the heart has to be developed to full Buddhahood.
If this inherent factor would be NOT present then Buddhhood would not be able to obtain.
So the cause here Bodhi citta or the seed of Enlightenment
has the fruit or result ( after many or short reincarnations)
To obtain full enlightenment
So we never can mix up here Advaita philosophy like one thing like a God etc. permeates everything etc.
But what is true, would be that Shunyata does encompass everything and is the source for the arising of Lights, Sounds etc.
Further maybe interesting to know that these things like Lights , Rays, forms etc. are too part of our pure Bodhi Citta. So our Bodhi Citta has similarities with this kind of Emptiness but is never similar to that.
Best wishes
KY.
I guess it would be too but I admit that's something that irks my logic. It would be unchanging even though there are so many subjective aspects.
Could it at all be aware except by sentient beings waking up to it?
I wouldn't think so but that's why I'm agnostic in all these matters.
What I mean is it is not a thing to obtain or to own.
I agree but I think awakening is a gradual thing even if there are some enlightening moments along the way.
Our difference in view here may be that I see the development as a stripping away of defilements or obscurations, not adding anything except fruitful experience and the wisdom to discern it.
Yes you are according your vision right that by the stripping away of defilements one can get mental emancipation, because we do it all for the deluded ego mind of dualisms.
The lesser ego the more realised Mind appears:
That can be done by the application of the right personal methods as well to follow a teacher / Master who is skilled in this.
Well the striping away of the obscurations which have their cause in the conflict causing emotions, with as boss the mind we know very well, the mind of ego, cannot be stripped away by not reacting.
Reacting / adding would be here the application of methods.
A method could be not to steal, kill etc.
Another would be meditation or yoga
Then the result would be a stable not fluctuating State of Mind, which has automaticly lesser ego and that causes fruitful experiences like bliss, concentration, relaxed feelings and a certain compassion for others.
Best wishes
KY
I tend to think of the unconditioned as something to become aware of "internally", not as something to merge with "out there", which would be more like an Advaita view. In the suttas it's also called "The Deathless" ( Amata ).
Like that sense of stillness you get when the mind is really calm.
Whenever "I" try to explain emptiness, "I" have nothing to offer...When searching for words of explanation "I" always come up empty....Funny that
To see emptiness is to see the three characteristics and understand the four noble truths all together. To not relate them is not really seeing emptiness. Just a thought.
To see emptiness with the eyes
That is impossible
To be aware of one`s innate
Buddhahood or Bodhi citta
That can only be experienced by the non-dualistic Mind
But here there is spoken of no experiencer , subject and object.
So we can see without eyes and experience without having thoughts.
Yes it is indeed the experience of the non-dualistic Mind which is met in meditation which is finally no meditation, his brother is called Ego.
The Mind of non-meditation does not think and memorise
The Mind of ego thinks and memorises
The Mind of non-meditation experiences clearity and emptiness
The Mind of ego experiences positive, negative and neutral karma
The Mind of non-meditation is everlasting and does not change
The Mind of ego chances from life after life
The Mind of non-meditation is no dualistic
The ego mind only can function in the opposites like good and bad etc.
The Mind of non-meditation does not have Alaya
The ego mind is based on the contents of the Alaya /gZhi
Remarkable is that the non-meditation Mind is present, but the Mind of ego does not know this.
We call this in Buddhism basic ignorance which is the first cause for suffering.
To be aware of this non-meditation mind for 24 hours a day means one has reached Buddhahood.
Best wishes
KY
So if this Mind is eternal, where does it go when the body dies? Or do you mean it is a universal Mind "out there" which we access while we're alive?
The inherent dwelling Mind of Enlightenment is eternal because it was never born.
It is difficult for the ego mind , who functions with dualisms, to accept something which is causeless and does not drive on the fuel of dualisms.
So this has to be experienced this non-meditational aspect otherwise it cannot be proved.
That does mean the non-meditational State is an awarenes state of Emptiness.
Then this non-meditational State / Mind does not leave because it is the inherent dwelling factor of our real Self. We are that, but do not know it because we forgot it by dwelling in objects and subjects which causes the body of illusion or our human body etc.
From the other Self the Self of the Ego, the Shakyamuni expalained that this does not exist , or said in the Madyamika language (the middle way / path) this State is empty of (that) self. Here is empiness used as a denotion.
So if our mental continum is emty of that ego self then it would be logic that the other Self , the reaL self is existing and well everlasting.
So this eternal Mind does not "leave us", because it is the very essence of our real, unchanging SELF. That it is like this that can be proved by self - experience done by special meditation practices.
No there is no universal mind which we acess.
It is seen like a water drop is poured into water or our Self melts with Emptiness ( Nature which is pure/clear and self emergent),
That means there is Emptiness out of which comes everything like Buddhas, we, you, matter etc. and that is the causeless energy source of creation.
That Emptiness has no center, beginning, end, no creator, has no notion about good and bad, is the foundation of Mind, is the foundation of the light and elements (frozen light), is not the possession of the Buddhas and they cannot see here a beginning and end.
That, we all have also inherent present (in our real Self) , and that is inseparable seen from Emptiness or Nature.
It is like a water drop is dropped into water, there is no difference.........
Hope this helps
Best wishes
KY.
Or perhaps the aspect of mind which is not involved in becoming. Anyway, what you've said is very reminiscent of the way the unconditioned or "The Deathless" is described in the suttas. It's interesting to see how the same ideas are expressed in the different turnings of the Wheel.
what is this Mind?
where does it stay? is it in the brain? or in the heart?
why do we use different words like mano, citta, consciousness when we want to explain the mind and its works?
"What is mind in Buddhism?" would make a good thread.
Off you go.....
Our Mind can be of karmic quality and is then based on dualisms or if we practice we diminish the power of the karma mind, so that the Mind of Enlightenment becomes clearer.
The Mind of Bodhi Citta stays in the heart and is used in that way in Tantra and Dzogchen. We feel compassion within the heart. We love with the heart etc. This Mind is the inherent perfect dwelling Buddha. It is complete and nothing is there missing.
The brains deal mainly with the consciousness and memories, and is therefore karmic based. The Mind of karma is emotional disturbed and orientated and seen as real, which it is not in fact, seen after Buddhist practice. It are the activities of this mind which causes karma and a next reincarnation. It is this mind of ignorance which has to be seen as an enemy.
We make use of different Buddhist terms / words in Buddhism regarding the mind because we have 2 minds and because of this they have so their qualities and functions.
Then we have to explain with the dualistic mind the mind of enlightenment and because of that we must make use of 2 different meanings regarding mind and mind.
Best wishes
KY
thanks KY, it seems many a questions has been answered by one post
no one can do this other than a person who sees dhamma
that is my understanding
thanks again kY
There is the conditioned ie. sankhara (thoughts, memories, perception, feeling, ie. nama sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch ie. rupa), the unconditioned and the knowing of both. The 5 aggregates are conditioned.
Sankharas are like ripples. They are void - empty of substance.
The million dollars question: Are you willing to give up the conditioned?
>
The conditioned is conditioned by illusion.
Illusion is something that is temporal, compounded, lacking inherent existence and not everlasting.
To give this up is accepted in all Buddhist Traditions but the problem would be the renouncing of all dualisms / phenomena as objects.
The question arises is the object different from the perceiver ?
Best wishes
KY
I don't think you have to give it up, just see it for what it is.
Ice-cream is impermanent and insubstantial but can still be enjoyed.
A time will come when everything has to be given up. Even ice-cream that one enjoys. That is the time when one truly knows if practice has led to true realization ie. seeing things as they truly are or as things that can potentially burn you. Renouncing doesn't mean throwing a tasty ice-cream away but merely not having a conscious intention to go out and buy one.
Bhikkhus, imagine a fisherman, who have thrown a baited hook into a deep lake,
and then an yearning fish, hungry for food, would swallow it at first sight...
That fish, having swallowed the fisherman's hook, would indeed meet with much
pain, disaster and tragedy, since the fisherman would do with it as he wishes...
So too, Bhikkhus, there are these six hooks in the world for the pain, disaster and
tragedy of beings, for the slaughter of living beings: Forms experienceable by the
eye, sounds experiencable by the ear, smells experienceable by the nose, tastes
experienceable by the tongue, touches experienceable by the body, & mental states
experienceable by the mind, that all are seductive, gorgeous, alluring, agreeable,
pleasing, enticing, tempting and tantalizing. If a bhikkhu search for delight in them,
welcomes them, and thus remains clinging to them, he is called a Bhikkhu, who has
swallowed Mara's hook! He has met with pain, disaster & tragedy, & the Evil One
can do with him, as he wishes. However, one who does neither hunt for delight in them,
nor does he welcome them, nor does he remain clinging to them, such is a Bhikkhu,
who has resisted Mara's hook, who has broken, destroyed, and defeated this Hook!
He will neither gather, nor meet any pain, nor disaster, nor tragedy, and this Evil One
cannot do with him, as he wishes... Since he has gained true self-control & integrity!
Perhaps I shall just happen by chance to be in a place where an ice-cream van appears, playing it's joyful tune.
agree
perhaps
I have very good kamma when it comes to ice-cream.