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.
Ignorance
Silouan
Veteran
It is my understanding that the primordial eternal essence of mind is unchanging and without defining characteristics, and that the deluded or ignorant states of beings stem from a beginning less and endless chain of causes and conditions resulting from negative karmic actions. karma being an instance of the natural law of cause and affect that involves intentional action and therefore an agent.
The Heart Sutra states that form is emptiness, and emptiness is not other than form. There appears to be no dichotomy between the two. Form is not to be negated, but evidence of emptiness. However form is subject to change the other not. This does not seem plausible that they retain their separate implied natures or modes if there is no distinction or separation of the two. They are mutually dependent. Either they both are unchanging or subject to change.
Since the primordial essence of the mind is pure and unchanging how or why does it create volitional acts the are rooted in ignorance which is the source of suffering?
The Heart Sutra states that form is emptiness, and emptiness is not other than form. There appears to be no dichotomy between the two. Form is not to be negated, but evidence of emptiness. However form is subject to change the other not. This does not seem plausible that they retain their separate implied natures or modes if there is no distinction or separation of the two. They are mutually dependent. Either they both are unchanging or subject to change.
Since the primordial essence of the mind is pure and unchanging how or why does it create volitional acts the are rooted in ignorance which is the source of suffering?
0
Comments
what makes you think Self/Not-Self and Mind are separate?
To answer your last question the Primordial mind which is actually our very subtle mind as eluded to in the tantra's which is pure and unchanging, we have no direct control over its being as of yet and as a result we experience grosser states of consciousness through not having a full insight of our own nature and as a result we develop the various minds of Ignorance specifically the Ignorance of Self-grasping which perpetuates and gives rise to the Ignorance of Self-cherishing which in turn gives rise to the minds associated with Self-cherishing, anger, hatred, attachment, jealousy, intellectually formed delusions etc. (There are said to be 84,000 delusions and 84,000 methods of Buddha teachings with which to destroy them ) These Ignorances are a result of obscure cognition rather then a result of the primordial mind itself as the result and the cause cannot be one in the same or there would be no chance of enlightenment or there would be even no chance of even eliminating a negativity in the mind because our actual nature would be that of Ignorance rather then that of clear awareness as various Sutra's and Tantra's describe the mind of a fully awakened one.
I have read commentaries on the Heart Sutra, phenomena, karma, etc.. , and I'm aware of what you pointed out having been a Buddhist for a number of years. Perhaps since I now believe in God I lack the tools to understand dependent origination. Your commentary was informative, but it did not address my fundamental question.
Despite the 'subtle conciouness' having a pure nature there is no clear explanation as to why a being would fall into ignorance from a pristne state. That is unless it is implied that ignorance is the beginnigless state of all beings.
I think your explanation is insightful in helping me to progress to a better understanding. Thank you for the advice too.
Iine begins somewhere, ends somewhere. A circle, otoh ...
We are no different. The entire universe is nothing more than a configuration of pure Mind. The Buddha wants us to see pure Mind but we prefer our defiled minds. It's more fun for us to suffer needlessly, rather than behold pure Mind (bodhicitta).
That would be the understanding I had as a Buddhist too.
Form is an expression of emptiness, then, since it's a dependently arisen phenomenon, arising out of causes and conditions, and therefore empty of an inherent, unchanging nature that can be said to exist from its own side. And the same applies to the other aggregates as well. Emptiness itself isn't a thing, it's a process of change; and it's being used here as a tool to remove clinging to that which is ultimately stressful, inconstant, and not-self. This lack of own-nature (nihsvabhava) on the part of the aggregates means that they're not fit to be clung to as 'me' or 'mine' since they're more like illusions or globs of foam than something of substance (SN 22.95).
But emptiness itself shouldn't be reified into some kind of ultimate viewpoint, or as some kind of unchanging thing to replace form (or any of the aggregates or combination thereof) as the object of our attachment. In my opinion, the teachings on emptiness are primarily geared towards the removal of clinging — especially clinging to views and clinging to doctrines of self — not something to be clung to themselves. As Nagarjuna warns in MMK 13.8:
Thank you for providing the insight.
From this can we then infer that karma, as an instance of the law of cause and effect, is only applicable if and when it affects the experience of beings, and that despite the clear light luminosity of the mind it is only a potential therefore there is no original or pure state of being?
Furthermore, can we then say that the doctrine of dependent origination is used as the basis to refute or negate from a Buddhist perspective the notion of a "Creator God"?
I supposed if I were pressed on the matter, though, I'd say that it's ultimately an irrelevant question from a practical standpoint, and the idea of a luminous mind is only useful insofar as it refers to a potentiality, i.e., the mind that the meditator is trying to develop, free from defilements. In this, I agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who writes in his note to his translation of AN 1.49-52: If we happen, in the process of our practice, to realize our 'true mind,' which is intrinsically pure and free from defilements, or simply remove the defilements from a mind that's not intrinsically pure, but now luminous and free from defilements, I don't think it really matters. Either way, our minds will be liberated and we'll discern that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.' It's not really used that way in the Suttas, as the purpose of the teachings on dependent co-arising is to help illustrate the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind and not refute the notion of a divine creator; but the logic of dependent co-arising, when applied to cosmology, can certainly be used to negate the idea of a divine creator in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause.
"If we happen, in the process of our practice, to realize our 'true mind,' which is intrinsically pure and free from defilements, or simply remove the defilements from a mind that's not intrinsically pure, but now luminous and free from defilements, I don't think it really matters. Either way, our minds will be liberated and we'll discern that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.'
:clap:
Thank you for sharing your insight.
The Dalai Lama has said too that the doctrine can be used to negate or refute the existence of a creator god. It should be quite effective in this regards in addressing the concepts or ideas of gods that aren't distinct from their creation and viewed as part of the chain of causal processes.
However, it is deficient and limited when attempting to explain creation ex nihilo or ‘out of nothing’ from the One who is without origin, uncreated, and beyond space and time that dwells in divine darkness. The One is quite different from the gods known in the Buddha's time. The Buddha was not able to penetrate into to the divine darkness, because he was relying strictly upon his own wisdom and knowledge.
The God of Psalms "who made darkness his secret place" cannot be approached through the intellect or knowledge, but through an apophatic ascent of the stripping away of concepts and ideas in movement towards ignorance.
St. Gregory Palamas states: "The super-essential nature of God is not subject for speech or thought or even contemplation, for it is removed from all the exists and more than unknowable, being founded upon the uncircumscribed might of celestial spirits-incomprehensible and ineffable to all for ever. There is no name whereby it can be named, neither in this age nor in the age to come, nor word found in the soul and uttered by the tongue, nor contact whether sensible or intellectual, nor yet any image which may afford any knowledge of its subject, if this is not the perfect incomprehensibility which one acknowledges in denying all that can be named. None can properly name its essence or nature if he be truly seeking the truth that is above all truth. For if God be nature, then all else is not nature. If that which is not God be nature, God is not nature and likewise He is not being if that which is not God is being."
St. John Damascene states: "God, then, is infinite and incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. God does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence, but that He is above all existing things, nay even above existence itself. For if all forms of knowledge have to with what exists, assuredly that which is above knowledge must certainly be above essence, and conversely, that which is above essence will also be above knowledge".
In this way we are not attempting to remove ignorance, but that of acquiring ignorance very much the opposite.
If that's the idea or concept you have then thats what you have.
In theistic terms, it is to share the experience of divinity.
In Buddhist terms, 'no shit' . . . or to put it another way:
Bodhidharma said: "Vast emptiness, nothing holy."
The emperor says to Bodhidharma: "Who stands before me?" (對朕者誰)
Bodhidharma repliies: "Imperceptible" (不識).
If you've personally experienced the "imperceptible", the emperor wasn't shortchanged by the clever old rascal Bodhidharma.
The dissolution of the previous Universe
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html
This quote of the Lotus Sutra is beyond plausibility or comprehension. I contemplate it daily.
Something may be true but not comprehensible (almighty Cod - can it be true?)
A similar example is the trinity, 3 fish in one tale.
The important thing is whether we need an answer. The Buddha did not.
Neither do you or I. The wisdom of Cod is foolishness . . . and all that . . . as it says in some book of fishes . . . as it says in some proverb, saying or recipe . . .
" Spring comes, the grass grows by itself ".
When you experience whatever it is that we're to experience, you understand how it couldn't be any other way.
No worries about the quote thing. I can’t figure the thing out either.
To answer your questions from my perspective:
No, I don't know it all. The mountain has not fallen into to the sea, and divine ignorance is far from me.
Not imagination, but through inference. The proclamation in Buddhism that enlightenment comes entirely through one's own effort is widely accepted, and as far as I understand it that would include the reliance upon one's own wisdom and knowledge acquired.
However, I see my error in assuming that he would even attempt such a thing. He did not receive the revelation from above which Christ came to give us, and that revelation was that He and the Father are one, that before Abraham existed He was, that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him, and that if you have seen Him you have seen the Father.
The Buddha did not claim to have existed from all eternity, nor did he claim to posses the eternal destinies of all human persons, nor did he claim to be equal to God the Father, and to have all authority in the world.
His teachings are applicable to his understanding of the world that was influenced by his culture and the natural world, and the application of dependent origination assumes that creator gods must fit into certain types of constructs and within the natural world that makes the doctrine of emptiness valid when applied to them.
However, if the doctrine of emptiness can be used apophatically to remove these conceptual attachments about God entirely then I think that this could be the point but there are many, including the Dalai Lama, still attached to various conceptual notions.
For the Dalai Lama to say that a Christian shouldn't delve too deeply into the doctrine, because it might undermine their belief in a creator god shows that he is still clinging to some notion(s) regarding a creator god, and/or implying that those with less faculty wouldn't understand it to be effectual.
The point I would make is that if one relies upon his or her effort alone these conceptions will remain in some form, because ultimately it requires kenosis or self emptiness with the submission of our will in all humility to the will of God, and not emptiness. When strictly relying upon one's own effort alone there will be a residual amount of subtle pride or false humility present, and God resists the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
My question to you is how does emptiness undermine the Creator, the One, who dwells in Divine Darkness?
I have a copy of the Lankavatara Sutra, and will examine it more closely. Thank you.
Emptiness is the Inseparable truth of all phenomena it is the actual nature of all Existence any Phenomena that hypothetically was not Empty but actually Self existent would invalidate itself through not having dependence on anything else that would also mean that such a phenomena that was self existent would never be able to be apprehended or interacted with or even conceived because anything that did interact with it would automatically make such an object a dependent entity and thus subject to the laws of Impermanence.
Divine Darkness sounds like the conceptualisation of those who were unable to make this creator work in accordance with their vision, It wouldn't surprise me if it were the doings of Maha Brahma to assure himself of his own Immortality.
Regarding your statement on Emptiness. I held such views too, and it was a stumbling block for me. I was very proud of myself in falsely thinking that no one in the history of Christianity had ever possibly addressed this very topic, that Christians were all simpletons who just weren't cable of realizing emptiness, and this is why they have to believe in a god, but I was eventually introduced to a theology that addresses that supposition, and the well is deep particularly in reference to God's essence and uncreated energies.
Regrading your statement on Darkness. St. Gregory of Nyssa in his works "On the Life of Moses" states:
The Darkness: first we see God in light like Moses and then in darkness, this is the seeing that consists in non-seeing…that which is sought transcends all knowledge, being separated on all sides by incomprehensibility as by a kind of darkness”
In his works, "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church", Vladimir Lossky states: "The eastern tradition has never made a sharp distinction between mysticism and theology; between personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma affirmed by the Church... Christian theology is a unity of knowledge sub serving an end which transcends all knowledge. This ultimate end is union with God or theosis."
The truth is your theology is quite different from mine, and it seems to me that you constantly assume we are speaking about the same god when you make your assertions. If you want to apply the Doctrine of Emptiness to your god then do so, but understand it is not mine.
For me now I would rather expend my energy becoming familiar with the Lankavatara Sutra than pitting Kenosis against Emptiness. I think we should agree that we are at an impasse.
What do you expect if you spend time on a Buddhist board ? The notion of a creator was rejected by Buddha and you have rejected Buddha's Dharma as well so why spend time trying to justify your views unless you are here to simply Prosthelytize ?
Silouan and Christians who have been involved in Buddhism are usually well aware that the transcendent does not exist as emptiness, suchness or arisings. Rather it is an abiding or a grace, that defies direct expression.
He is willing to read sutra and we may gain from any insight. :clap:
An acceptance of Christ is not a rejection of dharma. Is he not a precious jewel?
I sense no fault in any of us (well me maybe). Let's be friends as an example to the hungry lions that we can throw our selves away . . .
:thumbsup:
I agree, and I think the board is actually developing into one of more sharing then opposition, and I have been affected and changed by interactions with others. I have had some wonderful discussion with many, and they have provided me with great insights and recommendations to further enhance my understanding, and I prefer rather to participate in this manner.
I'm highly interested in the human condition, and spirituality is the common thread that we all share. I see having some understanding of another's spirituality, whether we agree with it or not as our personal path, as a means to provide insight into the human person, and actually conducive for developing compassion which I’m coming to firmly believe.
Buddha was good... As somebody said on another thread, Buddha may not have been a scientist as per our current understanding of the term but his insights into causation are so cool. To me, the only way it could be unchanging is if it is change itself. Change is progression for "good" or "bad".
Ignorance is a lack of understanding and waking up is a process.
Not "a" being but being. I'd suppose it depends on the artist and then it's wherever the tool falls.
What came first, the tool or the art?
EDIT: Yes, a mess. I've re-editied it.
S - " The proclamation in Buddhism that enlightenment comes entirely through one's own effort is widely accepted, and as far as I understand it that would include the reliance upon one's own wisdom and knowledge acquired."
P - Yes. But I think what has to be taken into account is that the Buddha transcended his own knowledge as a discrete human being. In the end 'his own' wisdom and knowledge was not 'his own' any more or less than it is mine or yours.
S - However, I see my error in assuming that he would even attempt such a thing. He did not receive the revelation from above which Christ came to give us, and that revelation was that He and the Father are one, that before Abraham existed He was, that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him, and that if you have seen Him you have seen the Father.
P - Well, my guess is that this is exactly what he received. He just didn't put it this way, and your way does seem to require an unjustifiable multplication of theoretical entitites. What he said, if we put it as a Sufi might, is that once we have seen the Father we have seen ourself. Do you know 'The Conference of the Birds?' For Buddhism there are not two things, so all these characters in the play would be metaphorical, didactic, explanatory devices etc.
S - The Buddha did not claim to have existed from all eternity,
P - He claimed that nothing really exists, so no.
S - nor did he claim to posses the eternal destinies of all human persons, nor did he claim to be equal to God the Father, and to have all authority in the world.
P - Does anyone claim this?
S - His teachings are applicable to his understanding of the world that was influenced by his culture and the natural world, and the application of dependent origination assumes that creator gods must fit into certain types of constructs and within the natural world that makes the doctrine of emptiness valid when applied to them.
P - I think we either believe that the Buddha discovered the entire truth or that he was a fraud.
S - For the Dalai Lama to say that a Christian shouldn't delve too deeply into the doctrine, because it might undermine their belief in a creator god shows that he is still clinging to some notion(s) regarding a creator god, and/or implying that those with less faculty wouldn't understand it to be effectual.
P - I cannot follow you here. If he really did say this I imagine he is allowing people to retain their clinging belief in a creator God, not suggesting that there is one.
S - The point I would make is that if one relies upon his or her effort alone these conceptions will remain in some form, because ultimately it requires kenosis or self emptiness with the submission of our will in all humility to the will of God, and not emptiness. When strictly relying upon one's own effort alone there will be a residual amount of subtle pride or false humility present, and God resists the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
P - I'd say that this is just the Buddha's view in other language, and that you are setting up an opposition that isn't really there. I believe that you are right, that Grace is required for Godhead, if we want to use these words, and that this is perfectly consistent with the Buddha's teaching.
S - My question to you is how does emptiness undermine the Creator, the One, who dwells in Divine Darkness?
P - I don't know. I find that reason alone is sufficient to do away with a creator God. I believe it is me that dwells in divine darkness, if I can just find the way home. And you of course.