Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Sutras: Being a Buddha before Practice
Hi there.
I have been practicing Zen for five years.
In Zen, many masters hold, that we are all Buddhas, perfect as we are, even if we don't practice.
Now my question is:
- Did the historical Buddha also think so?
- Some other schools seem to present the path to Awakening as an ascent.
- Are there any references in the Sutras about being a Buddha before you start practicing?
I have been practicing Zen for five years.
In Zen, many masters hold, that we are all Buddhas, perfect as we are, even if we don't practice.
Now my question is:
- Did the historical Buddha also think so?
- Some other schools seem to present the path to Awakening as an ascent.
- Are there any references in the Sutras about being a Buddha before you start practicing?
0
Comments
Such teaching is based on the great wisdom of equality to all living beings, and provide a positive encourage for them to strike for their best to bring forth their innate potential of Buddhahood.
Nonetheless, to manifest actual buddhahood , yuo may need to prove it by your noble action & wisdom , and able to turn the Dharma wheel and benefit many others
and those sutras belongs to the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine
though i think you are still not perhaps answering the question in the soto zen frame of mind
what they believe is that everyone is already buddha. what meditation does is awaken us to this fact. thus, even if you never meditate, you are already buddha. you just dont realise it
Nonetheless, such Lotus doctrine is very close with Master Dogen as he is a former Tendai monk
The historical Buddha didn't teach that everyone is a Buddha.
With metta.
I imagine the teachings as pointing to we all have the potential, within us, to be Buddha (an awakened one). In this sense, it may be considered that we already are Buddha - just a sleeping/deluded one who hasn't realized it yet!
I'm also imaging the 'Lankavatara Sutra' as speaking to this from the Chan/Zen point of view.
And, Tendai and Rinzai/Soto Zen (Chan), all arose in China; Tendai on different scriptural and practical interpertations of the teachings than Chan (Zen), which split later on into Rinzai and Soto lineages based on the focus of practice - Rinzai using such things as Koan practice and Soto emphasizing 'Just Sitting' as the way to 'Break-Through'. I'm no authority on Tendai. And for that matter, none on Zen either.
If you need to read where the Buddha pointed to the potential for each of us to be an Awakened One (Buddha), maybe the Theravada, Pali Canon adepts here can help out?
As I see it, the title of "buddha" describes some sort of attainment. We all have the potential, or the "source" of enlightenment within us - but were not there yet.
I do kinda understand the point of saying "im buddha, i just havent realiced it yet" but I all in all, I fail to agree with it comepletely.
Let's say I wanna plant an apple tree. I will need apple seeds. If I have no apple seeds, there will be no way I will obtain an apple tree, even with the best soil, the best equipment, the best climate and so on. Buddha nature means that all living beings have the seeds of Buddhahood, which doesn't mean we are making good use of it, and it doesn't mean we are making it grow into Enlightenment.
Sorry I didn't get a Zen master explanation for you. I might try to look into it.
King of Meditative Absorption Sutra:
The Essence of the Well-gone One pervades all migrators.
The Small Parinirvana Sutra says:
All sentient beings have the Essence of the Thus-gone One
The Sutra of the Great Parinirvana says:
For example, as butter permeates milk, likewise the Essence of
the Thus-gone One pervades all sentient beings.
And in the Ornament of Mahayana Sutra:
Even though suchness is not different for any being,
One is called "Thus-gone One" when it is fully purified.
Therefore, all beings are of its essence.
As for this idea in the Pali Canon, I don't think it is there in these terms, but it is very much linked to the third noble truth.
By the way, what kind of seven year old speaks like that?
I love that guy! :bowdown:
Oh, by the way - Kaz Tanahashi's Magnum Opus - translation of the 'Shobogenzo' is due out in March!!
Other Nikayan and Mahayalist define Buddha beside the physical Buddha, also the spiritual property in term of his Buddha wisdom and the eternal form of Buddha principle in the universe - this is known as the Buddha three bodies ( Trikaya )
On top of that to preceive all living beings are the potential Buddha, and seeing it from the 3 perspective of the mind .
hence the Mind, the living beings and the Thus Come One has no distinction
true, the Lankavatara Sutra ( ~ 400ce ) is one of the Tathāgatagarbha sutras, it speak on the original ground of mind is always pure, uncreated , unceasing.
it is actually an integration of two doctrines, i) the Matix of Thus Come One (Tathāgatagarbha) and ii) Consciousness-Only ( Vijnanavada , Yogachara ) doctrine.
It equate the Matrix of Thus Come One with the Alaya-consciousness.
The Buddha did not say the Buddha principle is eternal. The Dhamma is eternal but there can be times the Dhamma is not known to humanity because there are no Buddhas to reveal it. The Buddha did not dwell in a mind of non-perception. This is Advaita Hinduism. The Buddha made many distinctions. To hold a Buddha makes no distinctions is to misunderstand emptiness. Emptiness does not mean empty of thought.
even the buddha yet advent , there are still pretyebuddhas revealing the truth/partila truth
Zen is Mahayana.
Theravada does not hold that this is an original teaching.
Theravada would argue that if we're all Buddhas we're also all Maras.
Good argument - but snt this also true? Its not like our dukkha is created by some godlike being, outside ourselves. We are the source of our own dukkha, we create our own cyclic existence.
Just as the two last noble truth show us that we bring about our own enlightenment, the first pair of noble truth says that we create our own unhappiness.
So in that sense, we have both buddha-nature and mara-nature........ or maybe im just blabbering
Much love
Allan
The reason that some say we are all already Buddhas, is that it is thought that Buddha Nature goes on similtainiously with illusion, and Buddha Nature is seen clearly when illusion fades.
This is not the same thing as seeing Buddha Nature as being separate from illusion, and two different states taking place within different time slots. At least that is my understanding of this. Illusion is misapprehension.
This is like the story where a guy sees a pole and thinks it is a snake. Is the snake really different than the pole, or simply a mistaken view? So in this way they are one.
Respectfully,
S9
I was curious, and so Googled the symbolic meaning of the number 7. It means perfection, complete, and whole.
I thought you, and others, might find that interesting fact to add to your story about the 7 year old boy, who spoke like a master. : ^ )
S9
Each mindstream (I don't mean a cosmic soul, but the nature of each mindstream) is endowed with clear cognizance/awareness, and is empty: ungraspable, impermanent, dependently originated. This nature and essence of mind can be realised and discovered through practice, but you cannot manifacture it through contrivance.
So in this sense, the Buddha's nature, and our nature, is the same.
However the Buddha realises this, and we don't, and that is the difference.
We are not awakened yet to the nature of our mind or the nature of reality... but our basic cognizance or awareness which is able to perceive everything, and its empty nature, is already here, waiting to be discovered/realised.
The Theravadins do Vipassana and gradual training, Zen uses sudden methods (e.g. a koan), but in the end they still aim to realise the fundamental characteristics of reality that is 'Already So'.
<O:p</O:p
That is what precising the advance Mahayana of Tientai/Tentai/Nichiren are taught ,<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
Each of one's life is endowed with the Dharma nature , which consist of the 10 potential states of life that are inherent in each indiviedual life that could change from moment to moment: from the lowest of hell state with devoid of freedom and self destruction , hunger ghost state for craving, animal state for foolishness, asura state for anger , human state for calmness, deva state for relative happiness, voice-hearer state for learning, cause-awakened state for self realisation , bodhisattva state for compassion and wisdom, and buddha state for perfect absolute freedom in realisation to the true aspect of reality .
<O:p</O:p
And since the enviroment and the state of mind is inseparable ( non-daulity /emptiness ) , the collective tendency of the mind state of the group of living beings will affect the state of realm that they are living in . So if the group of individual have the life tendency of greed ( hunger ghost ) so their land is actually mirror reflected as the land of hungry ghosts (flood by craving) .
So likewise one who menfested his mara-nature will created his mara / hell realm.
and one who menifested his buddhahood will created the Buddhaland
In the 52 state of Bodhisattva practice, before attaining the perfect and unsurpassed Buddhahood, the last state is the win over one’s fundamental darkness ( also known as fundamental ignorance or primal ignorance that give raise to the rest of illusions ), darkness here means the inability to recognize the truth nature of one’s life. ( which you call it the mara nature ? ) It is in contrast with the fundamental enlightenment nature that inherent in one’s life ( commonly known as the Buddha nature ) .According to Grant master Tientai this fundamental darkness in life could only be eradicated by the raise of Buddha wisdom.
And the reason the Buddha is also known as the Hero of the World, because he has demonstated to us that he has won over his fundamental darkness in life/mind in each of his moment on earth.
Wish you posted more xabir.
that depends on what is the life tendency of our life , if our life tendency ( our basic nature ) is towards the asura nature, then I do not think that will equal to the Buddha nature ?
the lower 9 state all based on the alaya consciousness , where the 10th state ( buddhahood ) is based on our amala consciousness ( or pure alaya )
There are many passages of proof in the Mahayana sutras asserting that the mystic principle of the true aspect of reality possesses two aspects, the defiled and the pure
The Flower Garland Sutra ( Buddha-avatamsaka-nama-mahavaipulya-sutra, common known as Avatamsaka Sutra ) that says, “The mind, the Buddha, and all living beings— these three things are without distinction,"
The Great Perfection of Wisdom ( Pan-chavimshatisahasrika-prajnaparamita sutra ) says, “Enlightenment and ignorance are not different things, not separate things. To understand this is what is called the Middle Way.”
Enlightenment has no separate entity but completely depends upon ignorance; and ignorance has no separate entity but completely depends upon enlightenment.
The Complete and Final Teaching on Perfect Enlightenment Sutra declares, “The beginningless illusions and ignorance that beset all living beings are all produced by the perfectly enlightened mind of the Thus Come Ones.”
Oh, actually as the full story goes he is a reincarnation of a previous student of the old master, or something like that. But since it involved details more to do with the boy than with Buddha Nature I omitted. Dogen tells a lot of those stories, it's fun. :buck:
What is mind? Mind is that basic awakeness and knowingness. Undeniable. Can you deny there is a sheer presence/knowingness? Like if you hear a sound, there must be a knowingness for sound to be heard/experienced right? Can a sound be heard without knowingness? Does sound exist outside of knowingness? If there is no basic luminosity, awareness and knowingness, then it would be like nihilistic void. In a similar way, how can ignorance and Buddhahood exist outside of one's mind?
Yet at the same time mind is not really a separate entity. But the point is this: Mind is Buddha.
As someone called 'thuscomeone' from another forum who said...
I just told you. When you said "where is it?", it is right there. It is that which knows, it is that knowingness, that awakeness. It is formless, that is you cannot see that basic illuminating quality of awareness yet, really, it is also all forms. Because there is no seeing apart from the seen, hearing apart from the sound, etc. I'll quote Bodhidharma for you in his "Bloodstream Sermon"
"Student: But if they don't define it, what do they mean by mind?
Bodhidharma: You ask. That's your mind. I answer. That's my mind. If I had no mind how could I answer? If you had no mind, how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas" without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real buddha. This mind is the buddha" says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another Buddha. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible. The reality of your own self-nature the absence of cause and effect, is what's meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana. You might think you can find a Buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond the mind', but such a place doesn't exist."
Got it?
If you deny that you have a mind, you are a nihilist and you are not following any tradition of Buddhism. As I've said numerous times, the mind is obviously present. For instance, in order to deny you had a mind, you would have to use your mind thereby refuting your own position. The mind may be the one and only thing that we absolutely cannot doubt the existence of because it as sensations, thoughts, etc. is the first and final basis of our reality. It is present but it just that it is dependently arisen and impermanent (always changing). Dependent arising means that there is something (well not a "thing") present. That is what it implies. There is something there that is arising dependently. That is why it avoids nihilism. This "something" is sometimes called a "clearly apparent non existent" or a "mere appearance." It is clearly apparent because you can't deny that there is something there yet it is not truly existent.
I don't laugh at the question of "who am I?." I've thoroughly investigated that and I have found that "I" am a individual mindstream which has currently taken the form of a human being and which continuously changes and arises dependently and is thus empty. This mindstream is not nothing but it is not something (truly existent). It is beginningless and endless. There is no controller in this mindstream which is outside of the sensations manipulating the sensations. Any supposed controller would be inseparable from the sensations themselves. That is, there are not "two" things in this mindstream - a hearer and hearing. There is just one happening in which the hearer and hearing are undivided. Now I don't know everything about who "I" am yet but I do know some very very important things. And I am not going to deny that.
No, no, no no, those words are not flexible at all. They have very precise meanings within Buddhism. Dependent arising can't be used to mean independent and impermanence cannot be used to mean permanence. You can't just have words mean whatever you want them to mean. You will get absolutely nowhere and will only confuse yourself.
As to how the mind "comes" from immaterial things, you have to understand that at the deepest level, the mind and material things are said to be undivided. There is no border between them. You can see this for yourself if you investigate deeply. Now this particular area - the "all is mind" stuff is something that I'm just getting into right now. So bear with me here. The ways I see this is that the mind is the all and the mind has parts and whatever has parts if empty. For instance, the mind as hearing is the all - yet that mind as hearing has parts - the person, the stick, the bell, the ears, etc. So it is empty because that mind does not have own being apart from all those parts. The whole which is the mind does not have independent being apart from the parts which make it up and the parts do not have independent being apart from other parts. Thus the parts and whole (the mind) are both empty.
Guru Padmasambhava explains:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html
27.
Because of the unobstructed nature of the mind, there is a continuous arising of appearances.
Like the waves and the waters of the ocean, which are not two (different things),
Whatever arises is liberated into the natural state of the mind.
However many different names are applied to it in this unceasing process of naming things,
With respect to its real meaning, the mind (of the individual) does not exist other than as one.
And, moreover, this singularity is without any foundation and devoid of any root.
But, even though it is one, you cannot look for it in any particular direction.
It cannot be seen as an entity located somewhere, because it is not created or made by anything.
Nor can it be seen as just being empty, because there exists the transparent radiance of its own luminous clarity and awareness.
Nor can it be seen as diversified, because emptiness and clarity are inseparable.
Immediate self-awareness is clear and present.
Even though activities exist, there is no awareness of an agent who is the actor.
Even though they are without any inherent nature, experiences are actually experienced.
If you practice in this way, then everything will be liberated.
With respect to your own sense faculties, everything will be understood immediately without any intervening operations of the intellect.
Just as is the case with the sesame seed being the cause of the oil and the milk being the cause of butter,
But where the oil is not obtained without pressing and the butter is not obtained without churning,
So all sentient beings, even though they possess the actual essence of Buddhahood,
Will not realize Buddhahood without engaging in practice.
If he practices, then even a cowherd can realize liberation.
Even though he does not know the explanation, he can systematically establish himself in the experience of it.
(For example) when one has had the experience of actually tasting sugar in one's own mouth,
one does not need to have that taste explained by someone else.
Not understanding this (intrinsic awareness), even Panditas can fall into error.
Even though they are exceedingly learned and knowledgeable in explaining the nine vehicles,
it will only be like spreading rumors of places, which they have not seen personally.
And with respect to Buddhahood, they will not even approach it for a moment.
If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and sins will be liberated into their own condition.
But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds that you commit
will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively.
But if you understand this empty primal awareness, which is your own mind,
the consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be realized,
just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky.
In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not even created.
Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see everything nakedly.
This self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness is of such great profundity,
and, this being so; you should become intimately acquainted with self-awareness.
Profoundly sealed!
But if there is no single sign of life ( mind ) - that the end of everythings
Thank you xabir, but to be more specific , I would think to elaborate , the awakened mind is the actual buddha , the physical awakened mind is the nirmanakaya , the spirtual qualities of the awakened mind is the samhagakaya , the essential gound of the mind is the dharmakaya ( that is the Yogachara definitation of trikaya )
certainly as for those unawaken minds - they could not share the physical nor the spirtual qualities aspect of the trikaya, they could only shared from the persepctive essential ground / root/ Dharmakaya - as it encompass every phenomena .
this is the distinction
it is like saying in general - lifes is the Buddha ,
but in specific - only one of those noble life that awakened and demonstrated to turn the Dharma wheel with their mind and body are the actual buddha
There are those who believe that mara (illusion) is the dreaming mind, made up completely of dream stuff and dream actions.
No matter how many pieces we perceive this mind as being, and dualistically divided up into, in order to make sense out of it all, it still remains the 'ONE,' the one Buddha Nature.
Furthermore, when the Buddha ‘Woke Up’ to the impermanence of this dream, (the mistaken view), he immediately ‘Realized’ that this dream, which continued to play in front of his eyes, was not who he was.
And:
He was ‘Free’... or 'Liberated.'
He had been ‘Suffering’ from a ‘Wrongful Identification,’ with this dream, and now he had gain a ‘Clarity' of this mistaken view. He knew who he wasn’t, and in so doing, he knew who he was.
In other words, he realized that he and his dream were not two equal but separate identities. He was, and the dream was only temporary happening. He woke up, much like we do every morning from our nightly dreams and understand.
And:
So he saw there was no need to fix the dream or change it, but only to see things clearly from this new and proper perspective, or not to be fooled any longer.
This is similar to how on being only partially awake in the morning, we might continue to fix our dream. Yet, as we woke up, even more, we might laugh and discontinue this unnecessary enterprise.
Respectfully,
S9
For example, if one must speak to a child, one speaks to a child.
One does not speak about emptiness to the child because the child will not comprehend.
In the same way, the Buddha spoke differently to different people according to their needs & dispositions.
I trust this distinction also holds in the Great Vehicle.
In Mahayana, the Avatamsaka sutra is considered as one of the highest truth, as it is the stated as the first teaching the Buddha taught after his enlightenment under the sal tree. But it only taught for a couple of days and the Buddha realised most of his audience are not up to the capacity to share his enlightenment.
The Buddha stop preaching , and after deep compassionate to the living beings and the begging from deity Geat Brahma. The Buddha changes his method of sudden teaching to gradual teaching, he used fourty over years to prepare his disciples , first started with the basic teaching of the Agama Nikaya , then the connecting wisdom teching, then the provisional Mahayana and then to the advance Mahayana, which end up with the Lotus sutra and the Mahaparinirvana sutra.
In the Avatamsaka sutra is known as entering the Dharma realm (dharma dhatu), and the teaching is suppose to give only to the advance Bodhisattvas, as it states “He ( The Buddha ) displayed his power freely and expounded a sutra of perfection and fullness.”
The famous quote in this sutra is “The mind, the Buddha, and all living beings—these three things are without distinction " - this is speaking from the aboslute plane of truth , from the perspective of Dharmakaya, and not from the relative/conventional truth.
whereas another of it's famous quote of “the phenomenal world is created by the mind alone”
Hence, in the Avatamsaka sutra states: “Among the various beings of all the different worlds, there are few who seek to practice the vehicle of the voice-hearers. There are still fewer who seek that of the cause-awakened ones, and those who seek the great vehicle are extremely rare. To seek the great vehicle is relatively easy to do, but to believe in the doctrines of this sutra is difficult in the extreme. And how much more difficult it is to uphold this sutra, keep its teachings correctly in mind, practice them as directed, and understand their true meaning
I’m always glad (like Richard) to see you come and visit us. : ^ )
Just a few questions to clarify:
Quote: Because of the unobstructed nature of the mind, there is a continuous arising of appearances.
Like the waves and the waters of the ocean, which are not two (different things).
S9: isn’t this similar to how I describe a dream? If not, how is it different?
Q: Whatever arises is liberated into the natural state of the mind.
S9: What exactly does this entail, and seriously, (I’m not being cute), does this include rocks?
Q: With respect to its real meaning, the mind (of the individual) does not exist other than as one.
S9: Does this mean one essence?
Q: Immediate self-awareness is clear and present.
S9: How is this different than 'Awareness of Awareness' or what I call the “I Am?” (AKA the 'One Ultimate Awareness' where impermanence is simply allowed, temporarily.)
I’ve got a million of them (questions). ; ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
</o> I think 'thuscomeone' and Archaya Mahayogi Shridar Rinpoche explains on this topic very well:<o>
</o> Look, there is a reality out there. There is something present that doesn't just vanish when you approach it. Now what is present is ungraspable but it is not a nothingness. Like take a mirage for instance. That is a perfect example of an actual illusion. When you approach and investigate that mirage, it dissapears. That means there was never anything there to begin with. It was actually just a nothingness that you were tricked into believing was something actually present. Now if I am looking at this chair and I find that the chair cannot be said to exist, not exist, both or neither then the chair still doesn't disappear does it? Now, there is still a dependently arisen chair obviously present. Yet as is said, the chair is like an illusion because it is always changing and it has no self substance. But it not actually an illusion because it isn't actually just a nothingness. It doesn't vanish like a real illusion that I described would. So the chair is both real and like an illusion but not an illusion.<o>
</o> ...............<o></o>
No, reality is very real. It's just that mind is really all there is. Reality is certainly not an abstraction. If you kick a rock that pain you feel is not an abstraction, it is very real. Thinking like this is going into more nihilism, saying that everything is just an abstraction.
<o></o>
............... <o></o>
Look, this is it basically. First, all is mind. This means that if we really look into our own experience, all we can find is the mind. There is actually no border or division between mind and matter at the deepest level. So we can say "all is mind". Yet this mind is empty because it is always changing and because it arises dependently. What does it depend on? Take a moment of hearing for instance. In that moment, the stick, bell, a previous moment of mind, etc. are conditions for (or parts that make up) that total moment of experience of mind. Without these things, that moment of mind could not be. Thus it and all other moments of mind come about dependently on parts, causes and conditions. So the mind is not truly existent. Yet it is also not non existent. This is because there is obviously something present. And it is because without a "thing" (existence) there cannot the absence of a thing (non existence). In order for there to absence, there must be something that is absent. This is why the term unborn is sometimes used. If something has never been born, it cannot be absent. It has never been there to be absent in the first place! Because there is not existence or non existence, there is also not both. How could there be both? That is just taking two wrong views and putting them together. So not both. Then we can't say neither either. For to say neither existence or non existence we would still be presuming that there is existence and non existence both of which we have previously refuted. So we can't say neither.So the mind (or mindstream) is undeniably present yet it is not existent, not non existent, not both and not neither. In the end, it is ultimately ungraspable. Yet we can still talk about it's presence validly on the relative level. And actually the relative and absolute are the same. I should mention here that the relative is dependently arisen phenomena and the ultimate is emptiness. The relative and absolute are actually the same because whatever is dependently arisen is empty and vice versa. So in the end, the mind's undeniable dependently arisen relative presence is it's ultimate ungraspability. Strange huh? This is why I talked about being in the world and out of it at the same time. Being in the world IS being out of the world (unaffected by it). It is really the best of both worlds. That's it, a very very basic summary of the mind's nature. This is certainly not all there is to the mind. Not by a long shot. But as to the whole thing about the stick, the bell, immaterial, material, arising, etc. this is basically it.<o>
</o> Archaya Mahayogi Rinpoche:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/02/madhyamika-buddhism-vis-vis-hindu.html
So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory Samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahma, which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that Samsara is merely an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge, if there were no eternal Brahma remaining, it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance), an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (Skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation, else one would fall into nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: “How can there be liberation if a Brahma does not remain after the illusory Samsara vanishes in Gyana?” is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.
First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.<o></o> First of all you must understand that, as explained by 'thuscomeone' (not Thusness) above, that experientially we cannot find a so called 'matter' that exists apart from or outside of mind.
It's like the question "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Thusness considers this an important koan that contemplated deeply can lead to non-dual insight. This question is very important in George Berkeley's work (see http://www.sacred-texts.com/phi/berkeley/three.txt), who has some level (but not at the anatta level) of spiritual insights, and he proposes: "But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park [. . .] and nobody by to perceive them. [...] The objects of sense exist only when they are perceived; the trees therefore are in the garden [. . .] no longer than while there is somebody by to perceive them."<o>
</o> So we must understand that when we talk so called 'objects' like rocks, stones, trees falling etc, in Buddhism we are talking at the phenomenological, experiential sense, that all things experienced are Mind, and all perceptions and sensations and thoughts that are not apart from one's mindstream, is automatically arising and self-liberating on its own accord.<o>
</o> Everything is literally arising and vanishing in lightning speed moment to moment, leaving no trace, like drawing a picture with your finger on the surface of a pond, vividly manifesting yet disappearing as it appears, no traces.<o>
</o> We must not presume that a 'rock' is an 'external object existing outside one's Mind', that exists 'independently'. If we have such assumptions, we will not experience/perceive its self-liberation, because if something is permanent or has an essence, how can it self-liberate upon its arising like drawing on pond. If things have inherent existence, it will be solidly existing, and not like pond drawings. Due to the view of 'inherency' we will grasp on the notions of self and things having independent, solid existence. In actuality, everything experienced is spontaneously arising due to the meeting of causes and conditions, and is impermanent and self-liberates upon contact, it is empty of independent/inherent existence, and is luminous (clearly perceived as clear awareness).<o></o> Everything is actually just Mind, just this single nature of mind which is luminous in essence and empty in nature, but we're not talking about something like a cosmic consciousness, a universal substratum, a metaphysical essence, a background void, etc.<o>
</o> But we can say: everything has One Taste (the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness) like all the waves on the ocean have a single taste of saltiness.
So, Guru Padmasambhava said:
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.<o></o> I'm not denying direct experience. I'm not denying awareness, presence.<o>
</o> What I'm denying is wrong understanding. As explained above, we do not say that 'Mind' does not exist, for clearly, as 'thuscomeone', Bodhidharma, Padmasambhava, have clearly said that there is an undeniable presence, mind, which they identify to be Buddha (buddha-nature) itself.
At first at the I AM stage Awareness appears like the unchanging background, or Witness, behind all phenomena. However it can then be seen that 'Mind' not as an separate entity, but a non-dual mind-stream. There is no hearer apart from heard, no seeing apart from seen, no witness apart from witnessed. Just One Witnessing, a non-dual mindstream not divided into subject and object, and is actually present as all sensations itself. Everything is self-aware. At this stage it seems that all appearances that are part of the clear bright mirror of awareness, is inseparable from it, like the images in the mirror and the mirror is inseparable. There is just One Mind in which subject and object are inseparable, but it is not yet the No Mind, No-Mirror-Just-Manifestation experience.
At this stage, there's a strong tendency to treat Awareness as an Ultimate universal Source of all manifestations. When we talk about Awareness as a Source, we already have an assumption that appearances has a beginning and end. We also presumed the reality of time. But in Buddhism, there is no creation, no beginning, no end, to this individual mindstream. Since there is no beginning, how can there be a Source? Mind and phenomena is co-arising. For example, if both mind and phenomena existed from beginningless time, can we say that mind is the 'source'? In Buddhism, there is no first cause, no ultimate essence, and thus we cannot even talk about sensations as being 'manifestation FROM the source' as if manifestation has a beginning and end. Mind and arising are actually co-arising, cannot be separated. Thus we cannot say that appearances 'arise IN' or 'arise FROM' or is 'PART OF' Awareness. Rather, the individual and non-dual mindstream, the entire stream of manifestation itself IS Awareness, without origin or universal source. This is Anatta or Thusness Stage 5 Enlightenment. It should also be noted that the experience of No Mind can be glimpsed after maturing of non-dual experience at the One Mind phase, but without the insight that thoroughly ends all such views without remainder, the No Mind experience can remain as a stage, there will still be 'remainder'.
The presence of 'individual non-dual mindstream' is what Padmasambhava meant by 'self-awareness', not an unchanging or separate Self. The entire experiential universe is self-aware, and is just one's non-dual and individual Mind.
The clear vivid experience of Self/Mind is not denied, what is denied is these false views of 'beginning/end', time, Source, permanence, independence, etc. One must integrate non-dual experience without such subtle notions and presumptions that blinds. The experience of clear luminosity is found in all religions, but only Buddha emphasizes that freedom from such extremes and views is essential for true liberation. Only in Buddhism do we not talk about an ultimate unchanging Self, or an ultimate Source or God. Only in Buddhism do we talk about anatta and interdependent origination.<o></o>
<O>:)
The Heart Sutra teaches nothingness.
Whilst I will not disagree about the illusion theory, such reasoning is unnecessary. The Buddha occassionally spoke about illusion but did not emphasise it. The Buddha emphasised impermanence & dispassion. <O>
</O>
<O></O>
Nagarjuna may have taught this way but the Buddha did not. To the Buddha, samsara is the cycle of ignorance, craving & attachment. The Buddha ended samsara, completely.
Indeed, in Nagarjuna’s words.
Nagarjuna appears to regard the sense spheres and aggregates as samsara. This reasoning is flawed because it is rooted in nihilism as it would assert the end of samsara is the end of consciousness existence.
Samsara is not the sensory world around us. Samsara is dukkha. Nibbana is not dukkha. Dukkha is regarding the five aggregates as "I" and "mine". Nibbana is the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion or afflictive emotions. The sense spheres per se are not dukkha. The Buddha provided one unusual discription of emptiness to negate the future wrong views he saw would occur: This is delusion & mere subjectivity. Subjectively, indeed, the rock is dependent on our consciousness for its existence. But objectively, based in intelligent reasoning, the rock is independent of our consciousness because when we leave the rock by travelling to another location, it goes. When we return, the rock is still there.
The Buddha did not regard such views as necessary to discuss. The Buddha was concerned with the nature of dukkha & nibbana. Such views are 'white darkness' , 'bright delusion' or 'defiled insight', beguiled or tricked by the experience of consciousness.
The Buddha did not say everything is just mind and has One Taste. The Buddha said the Dhamma has One Taste, namely, the taste of freedom. Adhamma is not freedom. Samsara is not freedom. The Buddha taught there are five aggregates rather than one aggregate of mind.
Suffering & non-suffering are dependent on the mind. But not everything is mind. This is subjectivity rather than truth.
For example, if a sound was 'just mind', the mind could will that sound to cease. But mind cannot do this.
Mind can only influence its relationship with the sound rather than end the sounds existence.
When the Buddha first taught anatta, he taught the mind cannot will things to be as the mind wishes. This is why all things are not mind.
The Buddha taught the arising & passing of mind (consciousness) has been discerned. Consciousness is not a stream or continuum and thus all things are not mind.
thank you for the bedtime fairy story
in actuality, most of the fully enlightened disciples were such within 14 days
forty-years comes from bibles stories
:smilec:
Anyway, thanks for your comments.