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.
No subject= no object
RichardH
Veteran
This issue is not news to folks who have been practicing for a while, but it seems worth while to talk about. I can't claim to speak for Zen or Buddhism in general, and have no qualification to do so (inka or whatever), but what the hell, this is the practice at the centre of my life so here it goes...
"True nature" "Buddha Mind" and so forth...... are not eternalism.
I know that there have been schools of Buddhism that say these terms refer to such an eternal entity, but I reject them as off the mark.
I believe that these terms were intended for people who were already familiar with the basics of the Four Noble Truths (please correct this if I'm wrong here). Today it is heard and read by people who are not familiar with the Dharma. Terms like "True Mind" are the inroduction for many people, and unfortunately it plays right into our Eternalistic assumptions. This is a problem for new folks. It can mislead......
There is no subject without an object, and there is no object without a subject.
It is like buying and selling, take away one and you take away both. They are two sides of one occasion.
What remains when both are removed? To invoke the Zen cliche " Say something and I hit you 30 times!, say nothing and I hit you 30 times!":viking:
"True nature" "Buddha Mind" and so forth...... are not eternalism.
I know that there have been schools of Buddhism that say these terms refer to such an eternal entity, but I reject them as off the mark.
I believe that these terms were intended for people who were already familiar with the basics of the Four Noble Truths (please correct this if I'm wrong here). Today it is heard and read by people who are not familiar with the Dharma. Terms like "True Mind" are the inroduction for many people, and unfortunately it plays right into our Eternalistic assumptions. This is a problem for new folks. It can mislead......
There is no subject without an object, and there is no object without a subject.
It is like buying and selling, take away one and you take away both. They are two sides of one occasion.
What remains when both are removed? To invoke the Zen cliche " Say something and I hit you 30 times!, say nothing and I hit you 30 times!":viking:
0
Comments
Interesting perspective. You Zennies are alright.
[insert sectarian rant here]
With Metta,
Guy
<insert sectarian="" rant="" here=""></insert>
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
P.S. Like yourself I don't consider the nature of Buddha nature as eternalism
What do you think? Have you seen this kind of pattern?
Yours in the Dharma,
Toss
Eternalism is incorrect because there is no permanence. All things arise and fall based on conditions; conditions that affect change (we call this karma) through Dependent Origination.
The truth, which you call "true mind", is that which exists after the delusion of self has been completely eradicated. The delusion of self still exists at least in part up to the point of Arahantship, or full enlightenment (Nirvana).
The true mind, the Buddha mind, is in complete harmony and accord with reality and undergoes no suffering born of ignorance. There will still be pain and other sensations of the body, but these will be seen with right view and do not constitute the "dukkha" that we are concerned with in Buddhism.
Maybe this will be of assistance...
What is emptiness then? To understand the philosophical meaning of this term, let's look at a simple solid object, such as a cup. How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty? A cup empty of liquids or solids is still full of air. To be precise, we must therefore state what the cup is empty of. Can a cup be empty of all substance? A cup in a vacuum does not contain any air, but it still contains space, light, radiation, as well as its own substance. Hence, from a physical point of view, the cup is always full of something. Yet, from the Buddhist point of view, the cup is always empty. The Buddhist understanding of emptiness is different from the physical meaning. The cup being empty means that it is devoid of inherent existence.
It is part of a Dharma talk at....
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html
I'd just add that the Maha prajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra, is a practice sutra.
We want somewhere to hang our hat, even if it is an "empty" no-thing, not-eternal-no-thing. We grasp at straws. Having enough trust to rest into groundlessness seems to be the issue, we'll even make a ground out of "groundlessness".
That is not too likely.
The second way is that "God" is the universe itself, consisting of all karma at all moments. The universe is alive, literally, and so it could be said that this life is God. Parts of the universe waking up to reality may have come to the conclusion that there is an entity called God that created, as opposed to "is" it. In this case, we would all be a part of the body of God. If God is a sentient form of life, part of God's mind-body complex. Freaky, but hey, a lot of things are.
Those are a couple of thoughts, anyway. Though I've never believed in God, I keep my mind open and I see nothing wrong with such a belief. It is not a hindrance, but more along the lines of personal flavor. Taste for that flavor of self may lessen or disappear in time, or it may not.
Hi Richard,
Could you explain the different "types" of sutras.? I am not familiar with the distinctions. You mentioned that the Maha prajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra, is a practice sutra....and (is/how is) this somehow not relevant to the original post?
Dennis
Its a matter of opinion for sure, but I would disagree about eternalistic concepts not being a hinderance. Having started off in Advaita Vedanta, the key issue which led to Buddha Dharma was the problem of an unchanging "true subject" . So much time was spent emptying "Mind" to reveal greater and greater purity, this perfect absence that is perfect fullness, this pure spacious beingness, is-ness, and so forth.
Yet really , the whole thing was about wanting something, anything, to hold. God, I , true mind, all such notions of an unchanging experiencer are about not letting go. That has been my experience.
I'm not sure "what's what" means. There is certainly a lot more to the concept of 'God' than the attributions you make. God is a pretty common archetype in many religions.
In terms of subjective relating, I can hear what you're pointing at, and I agree on both counts. The idea of a little man on a throne doing magic tricks with creation is unlikely. That there is an intelligence behind the harmony of the universe seems a personal flavor... meaning of course a personal attribution, projection or whatnot.
I was speaking of the transition of clinging to different concepts as awareness or clarity deepens.
With warmth,
Matt
No, I was not at all offended.... i understand now. I thought there really might be different categories of sutras.
Actually if he was blind from birth he would not have darkness as an object. But that is beside the point, the subject and object referred to in the Op includes subtle objects, not that darkeness is subtle.
Thats how I was told when I had a similar question
"the idea is whichever is impermanent belongs to illusion and has no basis in reality and whichever is permanent belongs to your true nature which is unchanging and eternal."
No.
The OP rejects "Mind only" Buddhism. It does not demand you do.
I think the confusion here is that this....
"What remains when both are removed? To invoke the Zen cliche " Say something and I hit you 30 times!, say nothing and I hit you 30 times!"
is a statement consisting of a question/response. The OP was a statement. Sorry for the confusion
:coffee:
Yours in the Dharma,:)
Todd
Well, finally some room opened up around here.
*tap dances*
there's nothing else?
the frame = the subjective wisdom
the candle/fuel = the objective reality
they are two but not two / non-duality
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
A peanut butter and jelly sandwich, on whole wheat bread...and a glass of orange juice.
This laptop on a big book on my knees, the fan in the window, the sound of my kid's bath running, an astringent feeling in the mouth from that espresso, this old comfortable green T shirt with the holes, that mosquito bite on my calf, a vague concern about the week ahead..unformed..not too heavy, online by habit.
Experiences, pure and simple.
to begin with is there a subject?
is there an object?
AN 4.24 PTS: A ii 23
Kalaka Sutta: At Kalaka's Park
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 2002–2010
<!-- robots content="none" -->
<!-- #H_meta --> <!-- #H_billboard --> <!-- /robots --> On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Saketa at Kalaka's park. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!"
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata[1] it has not been established.[2]
"If I were to say, 'I don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say, 'I both know and don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be just the same. If I were to say, 'I neither know nor don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a fault in me.
"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.
"When hearing...
"When sensing...
"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.
Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.
"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such — among the self-fettered — wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. "Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."
Notes
<dl><dt>1.</dt><dd>Reading tathagate with the Thai edition.</dd><dt>2.</dt><dd>I.e., the Tathagata hasn't taken a stance on it. </dd></dl>
See also: MN 2; MN 58; MN 63; MN 72; AN 10.93; AN 10.94; AN 10.95; AN 10.96; Ud 1.10; Ud 8.1.
"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"
"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then is everything a Oneness?"
"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then is everything a Manyness?"
"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition .......
Lokayatika Sutta: The Cosmologist
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html