dependent origination and middle way
-
mm i learn from other teachers too and some of the points that u have said kind of contradict what i have learnt and see.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I am exchanging views with you am I not?
The reason I can see your errors show that I have traveled a little further than you have...
Not I have arrived... where got arrived one?
mmm how can u qualify my level of understanding here?
I don't dare to say you are enlightened cos i'm no qualification.
If you think you are, then maybe you are not.
Though i'm might be stuck at dualism stage but does there mean that some of the points that u have said here is true ?
and " when i say exchanging viewpoints".. i'm not conversing this point with only you. I'm talking to all the forumers here, a reflection of what i feel in general. -
What point did I make? I only pointed out the contradiction and the conflict and I said so many times I am not interested to tell you what I think...Originally posted by Isis:mm i learn from other teachers too and some of the points that u have said kind of contradict what i have learnt and see.
mmm how can u qualify my level of understanding here?
I don't dare to say you are enlightened cos i'm no qualification.
If you think you are, then maybe you are not.
Though i'm might be stuck at dualism stage but does there mean that some of the points that u have said here is true ?
and " when i say exchanging viewpoints".. i'm not conversing this point with only you. I'm talking to all the forumers here, a reflection of what i feel in general.
If you do not accept that you have contradicted yourself... then it is ok... -
As refering to my previous explaination:Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:What point did I make? I only pointed out the contradiction and the conflict and I said so many times I am not interested to tell you what I think...
If you do not accept that you have contradicted yourself... then it is ok...
"I was speaking from a conceptual framework." U are like rejecting all dualism.Originally posted by Isis:i think when i'm saying i'm talking there is a differences.. i'm talking conceptually,
At a gross level, u see mechanism of relative reality but if you examine the relative reality deeper and more subtly, you will see ultimate reality where relative reality spurts from.
ok i need to go study liao. Really shouldn't even be in sgf... i'll come back later to read...
I went on to say relative reality spurts from ultimate reality." Essentially they are of the same nature, empty i.e is no inherent existence.
mm when u say not you have arrived... there is no arrival point.
yes in a sense but Is there an atman here in your mind ?
re-editied cos i mean you are rejecting all dualism. -
I am rejecting dualism... not rejecting non-dualism... and atman? no...Originally posted by Isis:"I was speaking from a conceptual framework." U are like rejecting all non-dualism.
I went on to say relative reality spurts from ultimate reality." Essentially they are of the same nature, empty i.e is no inherent existence.
mm when u say not you have arrived... there is no arrival point.
yes in a sense but Is there an atman here in your mind ? -
when i'm talking the differences from the conceptual framework. I'm talking it from a relative point of view. Then..
I went on to touch on that they are essentially the same.
I don't reject non-duality nor duality in here. I think to reject ALL is extreme here, in the sense that you can't deny relative reality nor ultimate reality right.
This is bascially my understanding and i really appreciate your point of views here cos just a reflection for all : the bombs makes me grow of awareness. -
Your post is full of assumption. That is why I say the dualistic mind thinks that to deny inherent existence means to impute non-existence, and will never get the point of what emptiness is about. I never meant that (non-existence) in my post. Mountain and genting highlands is also dependent arising, Conditions what. Climbing is also dependent arising and Conditions.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:If there is no objective reality, then how can you decide whether to climb the mountain or not climb the mountain?
Can you decide to climb the mountain that exists in your mind only?
Picture a mountain that is in your mind... now, climb it... you can't because it is subjective reality and the mountain in your mind does not have objective reality to enable you or someone else to physically climb it.
What is this "objective reality" that allows people to climb it?
That is where your confusion lies. The lack of inherent existence is a description of the "objective reality" and not the denial of the "objective reality" because to deny the existence of the "objective reality" is to deny the existence of it thereof.
You agree that Buddhism is not about non-existence but you keep using words and phrases that says "non-existence", without knowing it and simply deny that the words does not imply or impute "non-existence".
It is not easy... the ability to see objective reality as non-inherently existing without being dualistic and without seeing it as non-existing and if you say that you can do that, then you should be able to describe it without using words and phrases that says: "non-existing".
If you are still seeing dualistically -- that there is a 'Self' or 'Climber' that is interacting with a 'Mountain' instead of all being merely dependent arising empty of self and other, then I suggest you read on, and read the highlighted text by David Loy.
Furthermore... the dog is not going to experience the same mountain as a climber (neither does the dog experience something different, btw.. don't think dualistically). Someone high on LSD is going to see very colourful visions, we are going to see a coloured vision and a dog is going to see an uncoloured vision.
BTW, there are a few ways we can use to talk about 'subjective' and 'objective' worlds. In the relative sense, we may say that dreams belong to the subjective world... for it contains only images and symbols. When we are in the waking world, we deal with the 'objective' world.
But in ultimate reality there is No Duality, both Subject and Object are empty. When I say 'All is Mind' or 'there is no objective world' I do not mean anything like all world are merely the projection of our subjective world -- though we all experience conditions differently because our individual karmic conditions give rise to different karmic vision. An insect or reptile may see something even more different... or a came-from-the-future quantum vision guy. None of them are seeing the same things.
What I mean in regards to Ultimate Non-Duality is that Reality is completely empty of 'Self' and 'Other', Subject and Object. Ultimately there can be no line of demarcation between subject and object -- there is nothing that can be ultimately called 'subjective' or 'objective' -- there is only what is happening, there is no inside and out there. There is only ONE TASTE. Since there is no 'out there', there is no objective reality, which means there is no inherently existing mountain at all. Note again: I never say anything about non-existence.
There is only what is appearing in a field empty of self and other, there is only One World that is not split into a subjective or objective world -- and that is Mind. And yet appearances arise in diversity due to Conditions, due to Dependent Arising, and EACH arising is a universe in itself. The mountain is the universe, just as a mote of dust is an entire universe. I believe this is the core teachings of Avatamsaka Sutra. Just like the Net of Indra... it is oneness but each is a jewel by itself.
Can you see? I wrote previously in The nature of the separate self, duality,
"And as David Loy said so nicely in The Difference between Samsara and Nirvana: There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Samsara is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvana is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Madhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakirti: "Nirvana or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction" ), but which Yogacara nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature"; and so forth."
"In reality, there only is the universe manifesting as it is in itself, conditioned arising, a mere happening that happens to no-one. Whatever arises at that moment, is as it is. If pain arises, it is not 'your pain' from 'your body'. The universe is pain and it is happening to no one because there is no self apart from manifestation. "
"Whatever arises is the whole universe manifesting as that moment. Know that the universe is giving its very best for this moment to arise. All conditions and causes are just right for the birth a moment of manifestation. When this is understood, the 'conditioned arising' is really unconditioned, all spontaneously arise."
"So Buddha Nature is not one! There is no 'The Absolute' but all moments are a reality/'absolute' in itself! (just like there is no 'Essence of Flower', only conditioned manifestation according to causes and conditions) Because Buddha Nature really is the manifold -- the whole universe, everything, as conditioned arising that is empty and never fixed, everchanging. Yet it is not many either! Because all that is inseparable in One Taste, being all the manifestation of our pristine awareness, and being an inseparable wholeness, also known as One Reality or One Mind but really it does not have a single nor multiple realities because its nature is empty. (See the recent topic, the last few posts, A nightmare)"
So... When you see the mountain, there is no YOU (subject) seeing 'THE' mountain (object) as if it is an inherently existing entity out there, all there is is simply dependent arising appearance that is empty of any inherent existence, being merely like reflections on water, void of any essence and primordially unborn. And Appearance/Manifestation is itself Mind/Source! And so, the dog that sees a black and white mountain is seeing a Universe absolute in itself, the man that sees a colourful mountain is also seeing a Universe absolute in itself, the quantum vision guy that sees only void is also seeing a Universe absolute in itself.
Same goes to the notion of there being a 'Climber' or a 'Self' interacting with 'The Mountain'. You have not understood what is the Universe eating apple, the Universe climbing mountain. There is absolutely no doer interacting with the world (perceived to be a collection of entities/objects).
The Buddha taught: When seeing there is just the seen, no seer. When hearing there is just the heard, no hearer. The whole of that moment is just the sound! And sound is that reality... all of it. All of the universe is this sound.
That is all there is -- self-luminous appearances -- there is no subjective observer nor an object observed -- only dependent arising that is itself self-aware, self-luminous... gone as it arise! Utterly empty, appearances arising and subsiding in diversity like reflections.
No watcher needed, the process (the world) itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga.
(continued in the next post) -
(continued from previous post)
Every arising is an entire Universe itself void of subject and object/self or other. Of course if you wear quantum glasses and see the reality that science knows, you will see almost completely void, so don't think that what you see is an objective reality. All is merely Conditions -- the scenery, the sound, texts appearing on screen, and Conditions = Pristine Awareness/Consciousness. Mind-Only.
At human level with the limitation of senses and body, the entire universe is conditioned according our limitation of senses... but the appearance in terms of Presence is as real as it can be.
BTW quite recently, I have showed Thusness some of the quotations from an E-Sangha administrator and dharma teacher, Loppon Namdrol. Thusness commented (from these posts) that the writer is an enlightened persons.But in the end, one's rigpa is one's own rigpa, and not anyone elses. And when it is totally realized, all sense of self and other vanish anyway, so the identity issue will also vanish. But in terms of experiencing rigpa, it is your own rigpa you are experiencing, no one else's.
N
NBecause the rigpa you experience is your own, and it isn't anyone else's; just as when you taste sweet, it is your own experience, and no one else's.
Okay, the rigpa is one's own... but then doing guru yoga, aren't we (in instant presence) one with the guru's nature....indivisible... or is that somehow not the case?
PS-- thanks everyone for many wonderful posts above....
*
The knowledge is the same. It is like, for example, when two people are looking at the same thing and both recognize it at the same time, at that moment, though their experience is personal, it concerns the same thing.
NYou should not focus on words like "primordial state" other than to understand it refers to the union of dependent origination and emptiness in a Dzogchen context.
-
I know you "never meant that (non-existence) in my post. "Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Your post is full of assumption. That is why I say the dualistic mind thinks that to deny inherent existence means to impute non-existence, and will never get the point of what emptiness is about. I never meant that (non-existence) in my post. Mountain and genting highlands is also dependent arising, Conditions what. Climbing is also dependent arising and Conditions.
That is not what I am talking about, that you "meant that (non-existence) ".
That is the problem, you are unaware. You are unaware of your own thoughts and mind... you are confused and you say things that you "never meant that (non-existence) "
Just because you "never meant that (non-existence)" does not mean that you did not say "that (non-existence)".
There is conflict and contradiction in your post but you are not aware of it.
I am not saying that you "meant that (non-existence) ", I am saying that you said "that (non-existence) ", without realizing that you are saying it.
The reason you did not realize that you said it, shows that you have a confusion in your mind... I am simply pointing that out to you... -
I think what AEN has said in the above posting is how the mind perceive reality and how it turns out to be our reality.
so what is "exactly IS reality".. IF different people view it differently in the first place. So how does we view it to make it so and so what is the nature of ALL things ( living or non-living ).
The mountain does not tell you how you view it cos it has no mind of its own. Rather it is you 'telling' the mountain to tell you how to view it. The source is still the mind.
And yet there is no division in the nature of all things. -
... that is what all these discussions are for... to point out to each other what we cannot see for ourselves... this is quite normal... nothing strange about it...
-
So similarly, the dualistic mind thinks that to deny objective reality is to impute subjective reality, and will never get the point of what nonduality is about.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Your post is full of assumption. That is why I say the dualistic mind thinks that to deny inherent existence means to impute non-existence, and will never get the point of what emptiness is about. I never meant that (non-existence) in my post -
"to deny objective reality " and I know you did not mean it, is to deny existence...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:So similarly, the dualistic mind thinks that to deny objective reality is to impute subjective reality, and will never get the point of what nonduality is about. -
Yes I'm still confused sometimes, I noticeOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:I know you "never meant that (non-existence) in my post. "
That is not what I am talking about, that you "meant that (non-existence) ".
That is the problem, you are unaware. You are unaware of your own thoughts and mind... you are confused and you say things that you "never meant that (non-existence) "
Just because you "never meant that (non-existence)" does not mean that you did not say "that (non-existence)".
There is conflict and contradiction in your post but you are not aware of it.
I am not saying that you "meant that (non-existence) ", I am saying that you said "that (non-existence) ", without realizing that you are saying it.
The reason you did not realize that you said it, shows that you have a confusion in your mind... I am simply pointing that out to you...
-
wanna go back to square oneOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:"to deny objective reality " and I know you did not mean it, is to deny existence... -
no point doing that... you have to move on from here.. you have to examine why you know that there is objective reality (existence) but when you say it, you talk about non-existence without even knowing that you are doing that... that is what you must be or become "aware of".Originally posted by An Eternal Now:wanna go back to square one -
Btw Emptiness is just a raft, a skillful means. Ultimately it requires no establishment of views -- there is only emptiness happening. But, that is only when you have become enlightened to it.
-
... and in this "emptiness that is happening..." there is subjective and objective reality... there is relative and ultimate reality... there is samsara and nivarna... but at this stage, when you think, unknown to yourself, your mind being dualistic still, you automatically fall into dualism which is reflected in your posts... and that is why it is so important not to cut and paste but to say what you mean in your own words, but you can cut and paste to support what you said in your own words.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Btw Emptiness is just a pointer, a skillful means. Ultimately it requires no establishment of views -- there is only emptiness happening. But, that is only when you have become enlightened to it. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
All is empty and mere appearance. "Outside the mind there exists neither Samsara nor Nirvana."
... and in this "emptiness that is happening..." there is subjective and objective reality... there is relative and ultimate reality... there is samsara and nivarna...but at this stage, when you think, unknown to yourself, your mind being dualistic still, you automatically fall into dualism which is reflected in your posts... and that is why it is so important not to cut and paste but to say what you mean in your own words, but you can cut and paste to support what you said in your own words.
??? -
That is not "no objective reality"; what is the Mind-Only teaching trying to tell you? That Outside the mind, there is no existence?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:All is empty and mere appearance. "Outside the mind there exists neither Samsara nor Nirvana."
-
Your questions cannot be asked that way, since there is no 'outside' or 'inside' Mind. No subject nor object. Neither is there the question of existence or non existence.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:That is not "no objective reality"; what is the Mind-Only teaching trying to tell you? That Outside the mind, there is no existence?
Dependent arising continues to display as appearances in diversity -- but merely as appearances, reflections, empty & unborn. Reality is the 'union of dependent origination and emptiness'.
"And as David Loy said so nicely in The Difference between Samsara and Nirvana: There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Samsara is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvana is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Madhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakirti: "Nirvana or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction" ), but which Yogacara nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature";; and so forth."
The Awakening of Faith in Mahayana:
"A. Mind in Terms of the Absolute
The Mind in terms of the Absolute is the one World of Reality (dharmadhatu) and the essence of all phases of existence in their totality.
That which is called "the essential nature of the Mind" is unborn and is imperishable. It is only through illusions that all things come to be differentiated. If one is freed from illusions, then to him there will be no appearances (lakshana) of objects regarded as absolutely independent existences; therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness. All explanations by words are provisional and without validity, for they are merely used in accordance with illusions and are incapable of denoting Suchness.
The term Suchness likewise has no attributes which can be verbally specified. The term Suchness is, so to speak, the limit of verbalization wherein a word is used to put an end to words. But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things in their Absolute aspect are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence the name Suchness." -
Thusness wrote something to illustrate to illustrate the argument between me an AndrewPKYap.
Someone bought 2 adjacent units of condominium and hacked down the dividing wall to make it into one. However due to certain condominium management policies, he is unable to change external appearances of the units. A friend of the owner knew about it but this friend has no access to the house. One day this friend is arguing with a passerby that the two units are really one house.
He told the passerby that it is only in appearance that the house looks as if it is two different units but in essence it is one. The passerby refuted back that if it is to be treated as one unit, then it should have only one unit number even in the eyes of the law, it should be treated as two separate units.
He told the passerby that it is only in appearance that the house looks as if it is two different units but in essence it is one. The passerby refuted back that if it is to be treated as one unit, then it should have only one unit number even in the eyes of the law, it should be treated as two separate units.
He also said that most forummers won't understand my postings because the posts were wrote based on the pre-assumption that the reader already know the concept of non-dual and emptiness pretty well. Without clarity in the concept of non-dual aka without a background and emptiness, one will not be able to understand what is written.
So, v sorry if anyone in this forum happens to find this discussion confusing. I believe if I were to read this a year ago or more, I wouldn't understand fully what I'm writing either. It's best to stick in the basics and practice from there.
Knowing the conditions for understanding is important. -
Posted b4 I post.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Thusness wrote something to illustrate to illustrate the argument between me an AndrewPKYap.
Someone bought 2 adjacent units of condominium and hacked down the dividing wall to make it into one. However due to certain condominium management policies, he is unable to change external appearances of the units. A friend of the owner knew about it but this friend has no access to the house. One day this friend is arguing with a passerby that the two units are really one house.
He told the passerby that it is only in appearance that the house looks as if it is two different units but in essence it is one. The passerby refuted back that if it is to be treated as one unit, then it should have only one unit number even in the eyes of the law, it should be treated as two separate units.
He told the passerby that it is only in appearance that the house looks as if it is two different units but in essence it is one. The passerby refuted back that if it is to be treated as one unit, then it should have only one unit number even in the eyes of the law, it should be treated as two separate units.
He also said that most forummers won't understand my postings because the posts were wrote based on the pre-assumption that the reader already know the concept of non-dual and emptiness pretty well. Without clarity in the concept of non-dual aka without a background and emptiness, one will not be able to understand what is written.
So, v sorry if anyone in this forum happens to find this discussion confusing. I believe if I were to read this a year ago or more, I wouldn't understand fully what I'm writing either. It's best to stick in the basics and practice from there. Knowing the conditions for understanding is important.
From an outsider's perspective, doesn't look healthy. Just my opinion. -
Since I mentioned this, I should also quickly mentioned I do not mean the non-existence of subject and object.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No subject nor object.
What I meant is like David Loy said, "...Nirvana is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Madhyamika insists, cannot be characterized..."
There is no separate subjective and objective worlds, there is ultimately only One World, One Mind in which diversity arises due to Conditions. Whatever arises is the arising of the entire Universe. -
Hi AEN,
Sometimes the way you presented your posts may be wrongly perceived as challenges to one’s insight. I know it is hardly your intention but the reader may take it otherwise. An example will be the 6 stages of the experiences I undergone, do not make it sound authentic and never to mistake it as a form of achievement. Simply treat it as a casual sharing with ‘JonLS’ when condition arose and nothing more than that. At most as a form of reference to help you orientate your perspectives when reading others’ experiences. Completely unnecessary to overemphasize anything.
With regards to your posts in this thread, in my opinion you are careful in what you wrote and as a whole the essence is there. To express non-duality and emptiness is a laborious undertaking; it is great effort and quite an achievement.
That said, I must also admit that it can sound extremely confusing to some. The posts that you made are like passages full of mathematical symbols; jargons are found everywhere and some of the words used denote very different meanings from ordinary usages. It is a challenge to grasp what you are trying to convey. Not to forget that over the years, you have drilled yourself very hard trying to understand some tough questions like the meaning of propensities and how they blind us from experiencing non-duality; how a world that is pre-symbolic like and what are the implications of being bare in attention; what do non-duality and dependent origination mean and their relationshipsÂ…
I think all these are very important questions. They serve as foundation for your gradual understanding of the role of emptiness in non-dual experience and later to the eventual understanding of self-liberation. The hard works are well compensated and I am no age-biased. Frankly it is unwise to discredit your 'new found insight' though personally I still find it very much conceptual. What that is needed now for you is to complement your understandings (conceptual) with actual practices and make these understandings into direct and intuitive insights. -
I see... gd points.Originally posted by Thusness:Hi AEN,
Sometimes the way you presented your posts may be wrongly perceived as challenges to one’s insight. I know it is hardly your intention but the reader may take it otherwise. An example will be the 6 stages of the experiences I undergone, do not make it sound authentic and never to mistake it as a form of achievement. Simply treat it as a casual sharing with ‘JonLS’ when condition arose and nothing more than that. At most as a form of reference to help you orientate your perspectives when reading others’ experiences. Completely unnecessary to overemphasize anything.
With regards to your posts in this thread, in my opinion you are careful in what you wrote and as a whole the essence is there. To express non-duality and emptiness is a laborious undertaking; it is great effort and quite an achievement.
That said, I must also admit that it can sound extremely confusing to some. The posts that you made are like passages full of mathematical symbols; jargons are found everywhere and some of the words used denote very different meanings from ordinary usages. It is a challenge to grasp what you are trying to convey. Not to forget that over the years, you have drilled yourself very hard trying to understand some tough questions like the meaning of propensities and how they blind us from experiencing non-duality; how a world that is pre-symbolic like and what are the implications of being bare in attention; what do non-duality and dependent origination mean and their relationshipsÂ…
I think all these are very important questions. They serve as foundation for your gradual understanding of the role of emptiness in non-dual experience and later to the eventual understanding of self-liberation. The hard works are well compensated and I am no age-biased. Frankly it is unwise to discredit your 'new found insight' though personally I still find it very much conceptual. What that is needed now for you is to complement your understandings (conceptual) with actual practices and make these understandings into direct and intuitive insights.
Thanks for the post and advise.