悟�是哪个心 (陈兵教授)
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_461cafdf01009ttr.html
Professor Chen thinks that enlightenment can only be obtained through the 6th consciousness ..
看è§�外é�¢é‚£æ£µæ ‘的时候，看è§�一片绿色ã€�一片红色，还没有起æ„�识分别这是什么的时候，它就明明白白看è§�，这是属于å‰�äº”è¯†åŠ ä¸Šæ„�识的现é‡� ...
第å…æ„�识缘真如的时候，就连这个相也没有，å��也没有，概念也没有，那就是ä¸è§‚所说的“å��言é�“æ–，心行处ç�。”å��言é�“æ–，心行处ç�的时候仅仅是第å…æ„�识的缘法尘的功能å�œæ¢äº†ï¼Œå®ƒèƒ½å¤Ÿç¼˜æ— 为法的真现é‡�的功能并没有å�œæ¢ã€‚ä½ å�ªæœ‰å¼€å�‘第å…æ„�识的真现é‡�æ‰�能è§�性ã€�开悟 ..
现在大部分的修行人对这个问题分�清楚，究�是拿哪一个心修，究竟哪一个心去明心�性，�到真如？实际上就是我��讲的用�识的真现�去�得真如，转�识为妙观察智 ...
.
Consciousness in the context of Buddhist definition usually means subject-object duality and discriminations.
By that definition, I wouldn't say that that which realises is (dualitic) consciousness, but is pure awareness. Dualistic consciousness transforms into insight/wisdom -- aware of its own nondualistic nature as pure awareness. (Thusness defines the great round mirror wisdom as such: it is a wisdom that transformed totally the wrong view of phenomena as “out there or in here” to all as the manifestation of our pristine awareness due its emptiness nature. It is the experience of Dharmakaya.)
In other words, it is not the conceptual mind which apprehends the truth, it is the intuitive mind, the clear light mind, it is luminosity itself which apprehends its two-truth (the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness).
The professor said: "还没有起æ„�识分别这是什么的时候，它就明明白白看è§�，这是属于å‰�äº”è¯†åŠ ä¸Šæ„�识的现é‡� ..."
From my understanding the appearance before mental perception is not called识. As my Taiwanese teacher said something like, 一切唯心所现, 唯识所�。
Hence, 识 is referring to subject/object duality, and referring to discriminations. Our true nature is present even PRIOR to consciousness/识, prior to 分别/discriminations.
The 看�一片绿色�一片红色，还没有起�识分别这是什么的时候 -- that awareness is Buddha-Nature itself. It should be noted that the 'seeing' is inseparable from colours, the hearing is inseparable from sound. So it's not really 'seeing colours' -- the seeing and colour cannot be separated, there is no seer apart from seen.
The 还没有起æ„�识分别这是什么的时候, 它就明明白白看è§�，这是属于å‰�äº”è¯†åŠ ä¸Šæ„�识的现é‡� -- I find this a confusing statement. Before discrimination and duality, there is no 识 -- 识 only arise when there is the perception of a false Subject and Object dichotomy, when there is 分别. Also, the 还没有起æ„�识分别这是什么的时候, 它就明明白白看è§� -- does not require a äº”è¯†åŠ ä¸Šæ„�识的现é‡� -- Any sense of a 'knower' is an illusion -- no watcher exists or is needed, transient sensory awareness itself knows and rolls. All is One Mind. Mind is not a separate knower, as Thusness said perfectly: 一切的呈现å�³'心',有了彼与æ¤çš„分别å�³'识'.
The next thing is, the author seems to be suggesting that seeing true nature means '6th consciousness reflecting the unconditioned', as if we need to turn our attention away from the conditioned phenomena to some sort of void. But this is a false illusion -- any turning away from any manifestation towards some other state deemed as 'pure' is an illusion, because All is IT! All there is is Appearance and all Appearance is the Source, there is no one 'purest' state, all are equally pure, only conditions differ. Dust is the mirror, transient manifestation is the miraculous manifestation of our true nature. (see below)
And then the author says, æ„�识知é�“它这是一片绿色，这是现é‡�，这是世俗æ„�义上的现é‡�，它ä¸�是圆满的，ä¸�是真如，它是法相唯识å¦è®²çš„性境。那缘真如的时候，就连这个相也没有... and he said that 相是直觉的，现é‡�的。 which I believe he is suggesting that, awareness of forms, colours, and so on are 'not ultimate', not 'thusness', and in the realisation of thusness there is no form. While it is true that subject/object dichotomy and hence dualistic projection ceases upon realisation, this is only talking about dualistic conceptual projection, it is not talking about sensory awareness. There is no denying of our sensory awareness, which is in essence Buddha-Nature! Thusness/Awareness/Buddha-Nature does not exist in a split-off, undifferentiated state: it is in fact all these transience and appearances. Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness.
Also, our True Nature/True Mind is not a particular object arising in awareness. So I do not see how 6th consciousness (in his definition, Mind?) can 'reflect' our 'true nature' as if our 'true nature' is an object external/separate from Mind and can be 'observed'. Please keep in mind that realising our true nature is NOT knowing 'something' -- that is duality!! Your true nature is Mind, which is the light that though does not possess a particular form or attribute, illuminates all things... you are not a (particular) object. As the Masters said, Mind is Buddha! Seeking something external to Mind is being an outer-path/externalist. Our true nature is not an object, our true nature is the Mind (and I don't mean conceptual thoughts, but awareness). In fact there is no objects external to Mind, any notion of 'external things' are merely illusions/projections, due to the belief in the false subject/object dichotomy. All appearances that we experience is Mind (our true nature), including sights, sounds, touch, smell, taste, thoughts/projections.
So what is Mind/心 or our true nature? Mind/True Nature is not an object, our true nature is the mirror-like Awareness in which everything, including 6th consciousness and all consciousness arise/is reflected clearly. But the mirror is also not apart from the reflections, standing back and watching. It is important to take note here that the Mind is not a Knower/Witness/Watcher, but rather, it is the knowing inseparable from everything that is arising moment to moment. All reflections is not separated or apart from the mirror, to be more accurate they are actually not 'in' the mirror, rather all reflections are reflections OF the mirror-mind -- everything is just luminous clarity in nature, with emptiness as its essence. The dust is the mirror, there is no separation. We should not in any way deny transient experience -- they are all self-luminous expression of our nature. As Thusness said, Practice is neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to clearly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection. To see that there is really no mirror other than the ongoing reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature. (my further 'commentary': the mirror is not a separate background apart from reflections as what might be mistaken after an initial glimpse of buddha-nature, but rather, all dust is the mirror, and as what Zen Master Dogen and Hui-Neng says -- Impermanence is Buddha-Nature) Before a moment of thought/perception, there is just pure awareness -- just the pure sensations, thoughts, without dualistic inference/conceptualisation... at that moment it is simply our luminosity.
A very simple analogy my Taiwan teacher gave was that someone asked him "what is awareness?" -- he poked him with a sharp object, he immediately withdraw his hands. My teacher asked him why did you withdraw? He said "I was in pain!" My teacher then told him, the pain and spontaneous withdrawing is itself the awareness/luminosity/natural intelligence of our Buddha Nature, but the "I was in pain" was a dualistic inference/perception/thought. It is a projection, a concept, it is not reality.
So what is awakening? It is simply: waking up from the dream of duality into reality beyond conceptual fabrication. It is waking up to the the ongoing flow of awareness manifesting as the self-luminous world, that has always been so, but misperceived due to our belief in the false dream of duality -- thus taking the mirage/appearance for reality/solid objects or for a real self. In awakening it is seen that the mirage is just the empty display of awareness, just vibrating energy patterns, empty of inherent existence... and are not self-existing 'objects' separate from 'you' (duality).
Nothing has changed, only waking up to What (Always) Is. And there is no such thing as a Somebody/Something/6th-Consciousness that is 'Seeing' 'What Is'/'Buddha-Nature'/realising True Nature, etc -- the self/perceiver/agent/doer/thinker is seen to be false, non-existent and thus the illusion has fallen away. The false statement assumes three things: 'Something/Someone' (a subject) 'Seeing' 'What-Is/True-Nature'. All are false concepts, delusory thoughts (妄念)... much of our ideas of what enlightenment is is just 妄念. Rather, there is no subject/self/perceiver, and there is no 'Seeing' 'Buddha-Nature/What Is' -- Buddha-Nature/What Is = the Seeing, and the seeing is just the colours, the hearing is just the sound. It's that simple! It's the ongoing awareness/presence that has never left (and is) us, ever, and is our luminous nature that is never lost in the countless rebirths in samsara... apparently covered/obscured by our delusions up like clouds cover the sun, but in actuality it never was obscured -- our delusion was never real, the sun has never 'dimmed', awareness never stops functioning and allows our life to go on. Our Buddha Nature is never lost a single bit in ignorance, nor does it increase by the minutest bit in enlightenment. As Avatamsaka Sutra says, Buddha, Mind and Sentient Being are not three different things. There is fundamentally no difference in essence of 'enlightened beings' and 'sentient beings', even though confusion (belief in a self) arises for the sentient being and never arises for the 'awakened'.
'Seeing nature' is not seeing anything, it is only the ongoing authentication with Suchness. It is waking from the dream into Thusness. There is no separate perceiver of 'buddha-nature' or of anything. It is waking up and realising that the subject/object dichotomy is a false mental projection without reality: in reality, sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never was there a hearer, seer, thinker.
Many Zen Masters woke up after hearing a loud sound or seeing something. Our moderator Thusness awakened after hearing the bell sound 'Tonggg'... in that moment there is a waking up to reality: there is no hearer, only Presence... who/what awakens? Nothing! Just waking up from the dream of self/duality into everpresent Reality, what Always Is. Sound hears, scenery sees, just effortless self-luminous spontaneous manifestation according to conditions. It is not an attainment (what is there to attain and who attains? our true nature Always Is), but the permanent loss of the ignorance of being a separate self.
This is exactly the same as what a Zen Master said upon his enlightenment:
“When I heard the sound of
the bell ringing, there was no I,
and no bell, just the ringing.”
But this must occur as an insight, a quantum shift of perception into the everpresent nature of reality which is beyond conceptual fabrications and the illusory subject/object dichotomy -- it is not by effort, not by forcefully doing away the thoughts... even mindful awareness is only a practice and a means in aiding the development of insight, but the practice itself is still not the insight into that (non-dual & empty luminosity) as our everpresent nature of reality.
As Thusness said in the other thread: In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the
idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such
importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality.
Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various
assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent
tendencies. That is to 'transform' a limited view to a
boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but
simply seeing 'non-inherently'. 'Non-conceptuality' and naked
awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this
important condition.
One more thing... not just the 6th consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. All 8 consciousnesses must be transformed into wisdom, not just the 6th.
Read through the URL a bit...
I find this doesn't sound right at all to me, unless I misunderstood what he said: å�¤äººç»�常æ��å‡ºä¸€ä¸ªé—®é¢˜ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯ä½ æ‹¿å“ªä¸€ä¸ªå¿ƒåŽ»è§�这个第ä¹�识，或者è§�这个性呢。
That is duality -- it assumes that there is a Subject, the 6th consciousness, to 'See' the 'true nature', as an object, the 9th consciousness.
Our true nature is free from such duality, realising our true nature is not 'someone' seeing 'something' -- it's BEING THAT, and being that I mean, everything being It -- sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never a separate subject/agent/perceiver/thinker/doer. Note: I said 'Being', not 'Becoming' -- it is not reaching a stage of experience, but rather, it is realising a fact that was all along so. All along, there is just It manifesting: our true nature... and never was there a self.
Our true nature is not an object separate and tangible, and there is no one can ever 'see it' -- in essence there is no one, only self-luminous phenomena arising and dissolving telling its stories. Our true nature is shining right now, everywhere. The idea that there is something or someone that can 'see it' is the fundamental illusion of a Self.
Maybe JitKiat can share his comments and understanding?
Welcome Thusness, Longchen, and others' comments also!
Another point, the author wrote: å› æ¤ï¼Œè§�性ã€�开悟ä¸�在第八阿赖耶识，也ä¸�在第ä¹�阿摩罗识。第ä¹�è¯†ä½ æ‚Ÿä¸�悟，它都是清é�™çš„，它就是真如，并ä¸�æ˜¯è¯´ä½ å¼€æ‚Ÿäº†ä»¥å�Žæ‰�有一个第ä¹�识，而原æ�¥æ²¡æœ‰ç¬¬ä¹�识。
-------------
Once he posited an ontological statement such as this, that there is a 9th consciousness beyond all consciousness that is fundamental and always present, then that understanding has to be thoroughly tested.
More often than not, this 9th consciousness will be misunderstood as an eternalistic ground of being or the pure I AMness, similar to the Hindu experience of Atman-Brahman. Also if he sees 9th consciousness as separate from all other consciousness, then he is seeing a fundamental duality.
That is not true insight into Anatta and Emptiness...
From the topic Very good articles on mental activities last
Only clear light mental activity can have nonconceptual
cognition of voidness beyond concepts, and when it does, it has
nonconceptual cognition of the two truths (bden-gnyis)
simultaneously.
In this context, the two truths are:
Impure appearances include:
[See: Divisions, Causes, and Elimination of Unpurified Appearance-Making According to Non-Gelug.]
Cognition of impure appearances resembles “periscope vision,”
with which we view reality through a limited perspective, as if
through a periscope. We see only what is in front of our noses,
seemingly separated and isolated from the state beyond the
seemingly solid categories of words and concepts.
Clear light cognition, on the other hand, produces and cognizes
appearances of what are beyond truly and non-truly existent “this”s
and “that”s. That does not mean, however, that with clear light
cognition, everything becomes an undifferentiated oneness. Objects
retain their conventional identities. Moreover, clear light mental
activity produces and cognizes appearances both of all phenomena
and of itself, for instance as a Buddha-figure. Simultaneously, it
also cognizes the voidness of them that is beyond words and
concepts.
æ‚Ÿé�“æ˜¯æ— å¿ƒ
有心如何悟�??
IMO, he actually wrote this from a Yogacara (唯识）perspective and added his own opinion which I am not qualified to comment. You can follow the URL below to more articles from him ..
http://www.xin-yuan.com/cityzen/jiangtan/chenbing/chen0.htm
The interview with 黄念祖�居士 (article 2) is really quite interesting. Another article worth reading for amitabha pureland advocates is article 11.
yogacara also wrong ...it show his shallowness in reading yogacara
if Buddhist academic can be realised by words,then Buddha not required lor
yogacara also wrong ...it show his shallowness in reading yogacara
if Buddhist academic can be realised by words,then Buddha not required lor
When the person becomes enlightened to the Ultimate Reality, he will realise that all the various consciousness are just One Mind, only in ignorance do we project discriminations and duality over them. There is in reality only One Mind, there is not two -- there is no perceiver perceiving anything -- all perceiving is only One Mind.
To think that there is a consciousness to perceive our true nature itself implies Two -- the perceiver and the perceiver. In reality there is only One Mind, so what perceives what?
True Mind is self-evident, self-felt. Just like it takes no effort to hear the aeroplane, the sound is just here, hearing is just taking place spontaneously without a hearer. Only through ignorance of this ever-present reality do we experience separation and duality. With insight, it is seen that there is always only just One Mind.
�色明心，闻声悟�
Just That!
Zen Master Huang Po:
25. The term unity refers to a homogeneous spiritual brilliance which separates into six harmoniously blended 'elements'. The homogeneous spiritual brilliance is the One Mind, while the six harmoniously blended 'elements' are the six sense organs. These six sense organs beome severally united with objects that defile them -- the eyes with form, the ear with sound, the nose with smell, the tongue with taste, the body with touch, and the thinking mind with entities. Between these organs and their objects arise the six sensory perceptions, making eighteen sense-realms in all. If you understand that these eighteen realms have no objective existence, you will bind the six harmoniously blended 'elements' into a single spiritual brilliance -- a single spiritual brilliance which is the One Mind. All students of the way know this, but they cannot avoid forming concepts of 'a single spiritual brilliance' and 'the six harmoniously blended elements'. Accordingly they are chained to entities and fail to achieve a tacit understanding of original Mind.
From The Awakening of Faith in Mahayanahttp://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Sruti-Smriti/Shastras/awakening-of-faith.html
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.
Question: If such is the meaning of the principle of Mahayana, how is it possible for men to conform themselves to and enter into it?
Answer: If they understand that, concerning all things, though they are spoken of, there is neither that which speaks, nor that which can be spoken of, and though they are thought of, there is neither that which thinks, nor that which can be thought of, then they are said to have conformed to it. And when they are freed from their thoughts, they are said to have entered into it. Next, Suchness has two aspects if predicated in words. One is that it is truly empty (sunya), for this aspect can, in the final sense, reveal what is real. The other is that it is truly nonempty (a-sunya), for its essence itself is endowed with undefiled and excellent qualities.
1. Truly Empty
Suchness is empty because from the beginning it has never been related to any defiled states of existence, it is free from all marks of individual distinction of things, and it has nothing to do with thoughts conceived by a deluded mind. It should be understood that the essential nature of Suchness is neither with marks nor without marks; neither not with marks nor not without marks; nor is it both with and without marks simultaneously; it is neither with a single mark nor with different marks; neither not with a single mark nor not with different marks; nor is it both with a single and with different marks simultaneously. In short, since all unenlightened men discriminate with their deluded minds from moment to moment, they are alienated from Suchness; hence, the definition "empty"; but once they are free from their deluded minds, they will find that there is nothing to be negated.
2. Truly Nonempty
Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called "nonempty". And also there is no trace of particular marks to be noted in it, as it is the sphere that transcends thoughts and is in harmony with enlightenment alone.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Consciousness in the context of Buddhist definition usually means subject-object duality and discriminations.
By that definition, I wouldn't say that that which realises is (dualitic) consciousness, but is pure awareness. Dualistic consciousness transforms into insight/wisdom -- aware of its own nondualistic nature as pure awareness.
In other words, it is not the conceptual mind which apprehends the truth, it is the intuitive mind, the clear light mind, it is luminosity itself which apprehends its two-truth (the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness).
'Intuitive'is just a word use to convey to the conventional mind that the One Reality is beyond any conceptualization, verbalization. There is no two mind.The professor said: "还没有起æ„�识分别这是什么的时候，它就明明白白看è§�，这是属于å‰�äº”è¯†åŠ ä¸Šæ„�识的现é‡� ..."
From my understanding the appearance before mental perception is not called识. As my Taiwanese teacher said something like, 一切唯心所现, 唯识所�。
In my opinion, 一切的呈现å�³'心',有了彼与æ¤çš„分别å�³'识'Hence, 识 is refering to subject/object duality, and refering to discriminations. Our true nature is present even PRIOR to consciousness/识, prior to 分别/discriminations.
What is Mind/心? It is like a mirror -- everything is just reflected clearly. All reflections is not separated or apart from the mirror, neither are they 'in' the mirror (the mirror is not a separate background), rather all reflections are reflections OF the mirror-mind -- everything is just luminous clarity in nature, with emptiness as its essence. Before a moment of thought/perception, there is just pure awareness -- just the pure sensations, thoughts, without dualistic inference/conceptualisation... at that moment it is simply our luminosity.
Separation is 'learnt'. The phenomena world appears to be filled with isolated objects because of our subject-object dualistic and inherent framework of viewing things. It will not be obvious and the views bond us like a magical spell. The two truth here 'serves' as the antedote for the dualistic mind to 'correctly' understand its nature. This is to prevent the dualistic mind from wrongly identifying and get attached to a particular state as the 'ultimate' state. Do take note that a practitioner can be non-dual and yet still attached to 'inherent existence'. There are two different 'bond' having different impacts shaping the way we experience reality.A very simple analogy my Taiwan teacher gave was that someone asked him "what is awareness?" -- he poked him with a sharp object, he immediately withdraw his hands. My teacher asked him why did you withdraw? He said "I was in pain!" My teacher then told him, the pain and spontaneous withdrawing is all awareness, luminosity itself, our Buddha Nature, but the "I was in pain" was a dualistic inference/perception/thought. It is a projection, a concept, it is not reality.
So what awakens? It is simply awareness, aware of itself, as everything. It is seeing the subject/object dichotomy as a false mental projection without reality: in reality, sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never was there a hearer, seer, thinker. But this must occur as an insight, a quantum shift of perception into the everpresent nature of reality which is beyond conceptual fabrications and the illusory subject/object dichotomy -- it is not by effort, not by forcefully doing away the thoughts... even mindful awareness is only a practice and a means in aiding the development of insight, but the practice itself is still not the insight into that (non-dual & empty luminosity) as our everpresent nature of reality.
As Thusness said in the other thread: In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality. Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent tendencies. That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'. 'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.
One more thing... not just the 6th consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. All 8 consciousnesses must be transformed into wisdom, not just the 6th.
From the experience of no-subject-object to emptiness to the right experience of emptiness of all phenomena existence, a practitioner will be gradually free from labels, symbols, verbalization and conceptualization and fully authenticated in non-dual luminous presence 'as' spontaneous arising. To me, the idea of emptiness will not remain as a concept for long for a practitioner if non-dual insight (non-dual experience with right understanding) arises.
Just a sharing.
Thanks for your comments, Thusness :)
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Updated my first post a little.
I re-read the updated version. There is clarity in what you wrote about non-duality. Well written. :)
There are some points and questions you may want to take note:
1. Dissolving subject-object split is not the same as dissolving the 'inherent view'. They are 2 different bonds and have different impacts and shape our experience of reality; therefore stage 5 an 6 (although it is not right to put them as stages).
2. If phenomena world is not as what it seems to be -- inherent and dualistic, what is a better way to describe the way things are?
Isn't this 'better way' still a form of conceptualization? Is it wrong to form concepts?
3. What does 'getting rid of concepts' in the inherent and dualistic way mean?
4. What does 'getting rid of concepts' by way of emptiness and non-duality mean?
5. After point question 4, re-look how the inherent and dualistic views affect us. What happen when these views sank deep down into our inmost consciousness.
6. What happen if the right idea of non-dual and emptiness replaces the dualistic and inherent views?
7. Why stess naked awareness in self-liberation? Why bare attention in vipassana meditation? Why go before symbols, labels and concepts?
8. Why not jump straight into non-conceptuality and rest in naked awareness? Is there a need to first purify our views with the dharma seals and emptiness?
U may want to use the answers of these questions to relate it back to the topic article on clear light and voidness.
Just a sharing. Happy exploring. :)
Originally posted by Thusness:
I re-read the updated version. There is clarity in what you wrote about non-duality. Well written. :)
There are some points and questions you may want to take note:
1. Dissolving subject-object split is not the same as dissolving the 'inherent view'. They are 2 different bonds and have different impacts and shape our experience of reality; therefore stage 5 an 6 (although it is not right to put them as stages).
2. If phenomena world is not as what it seems to be -- inherent and dualistic, what is a better way to describe the way things are?
Isn't this 'better way' still a form of conceptualization? Is it wrong to form concepts?
3. What does 'getting rid of concepts' in the inherent and dualistic way mean?
4. What does 'getting rid of concepts' by way of emptiness and non-duality mean?
5. After point question 4, re-look how the inherent and dualistic views affect us. What happen when these views sank deep down into our inmost consciousness.
6. What happen if the right idea of non-dual and emptiness replaces the dualistic and inherent views?
7. Why stess naked awareness in self-liberation? Why bare attention in vipassana meditation? Why go before symbols, labels and concepts?
8. Why not jump straight into non-conceptuality and rest in naked awareness? Is there a need to first purify our views with the dharma seals and emptiness?
U may want to use the answers of these questions to relate it back to the topic article on clear light and voidness.
Just a sharing. Happy exploring. :)
Here's an attempt to try to answer and also to ask questions.. please correct wherever necessary..
1) Can you give an example of dualistic and inherent view and what different impacts they have on our experience? Also it is said/described in the realisation of non-duality that the dream-like nature of phenomenality is seen. Is this a form of insight into non-inherency also? Or there are various depths to this insight?
2) "The All" as described by Buddha consists of 18 dhatus or the 5 skhandas, that is all there is to phenomenality... and is the 'non-dualistic' way of describing phenomena: there is no who, there is no experiencer, feeler, thinker, doer, but rather... thoughts, feelings, experience arise and pass momentarily according to conditions. Similarly, there is no self/'who' reincarnating, rather, upon condition birth arises.
This 'better way' of describing is still conceptualization but necessary to instill Right Views (the first of the 8 fold path) necessary as a requisite to enlightenment. This is because latent tendencies are linked with tightly held views deep in our psyche/subconscious and is always surfacing in our daily experience as our dualistic/inherent way of perception.
It is not wrong to form concepts in this case, because the teachings of No-Self and Emptiness are really good and necessary skillful means to bring about realisations.
To take a quote off from the Hindu Advaita Vedanta tradition, and even though he was not refering to the view of Emptiness, I guess the metaphor could still be similarly used for the view of Emptiness: "This problem was once propounded to Sri Ramana Maharshi. He was asked how it could be valid to use the mind to deal in any way with the problems of the mind. He replied that a stick is used to stir up a fire in which weeds are being burned and, in the end, the stick itself is also consumed."
Emptiness is also empty -- the last stage is to leave the raft behind the shore, into the viewless view of emptiness happening. Still, you have to take the raft first before you can reach the shore.
3) Means mistaking that we can forcefully do away with our dualistic/inherent views by suppressing thoughts from arising. Even though thoughts may temporarily subside, the karmic propensity/seed/conditioning is still latent in our subconscious/8th-consciousness. That is why enlightenment is only possible through development of insight, not shamatha/concentration, though the latter can be an aid.
4) Means the insight burning away the bonds latent in our subconscious. The insight sinks into our consciousness and burns away the dualistic/inherent seed of perception. Or as Dharma Dan calls it, the fundamental knot of perception.
5) Dualistic and inherent views keeps us in samsara, in the chain of Greed, Hatred, Ignorance. It is the source of all confusions and sufferings. For example, desire is the inner deficiency due to seeing a split, and in the attempt to bridge the gap there is further longing and separation. These views are the cause of endless sufferings, the cycle of rebirth and karma.
These dualistic and inherent views have the power of blind us, to bind us to a spell-like state. We take our dualistic projections to be reality, and thus do not experience liberation, and dull our luminosity.
6) Right Views plant the seed that transforms our way of perceiving, so that when the seed meets the other right conditions (like practicing mindfulness, etc) insight can arise.
For example: 'who feels' or 'who experience' is a wrong concept, but rather, the question should be put forth this way: with what condition does Feeling arise? Feeling is a self-luminous arising, there is no watcher apart from all arising and subsiding.
Another example: we always think that there is a self or an experiencer, such that when we inquire into rebirth (or anything), we will be confused with "who is reborn?" Buddha taught us the right way of perceiving is not to ask "who" (irrelevant, since there is no inherently existing self -- rebirth is a continuation of a process, not the passing on of any sort of self-entity), but rather, upon what condition does birth arise (in this case, affliction and action).
Yet another example: If we were to ask, "If you lost your shoe, are you still you?" or "If you lost your hands, do you still exist?". It almost seems certain to say "Yes, of course I am still I." because we always assumed there is a truly existing "Self" experiencing changes, though in reality there is no fixed Self or an experiencer: there is only Self1, Self2, Self3, moment to moment our mental and karmic factors arise spontaneously but in a disjoint way. We are not a permanent self, we are momentary selves and nothing stays, everything is ever flowing.
The right views reconstruct our inherent/dualistic way of viewing into seeing All as the flow of dharmas unfolding according to condition. However 'right views' can still remain at a pretty conceptual (still, necessary) level until there is insight/realisation.
7) To go beyond our conditionings/constructs to experience first hand what Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication, instead of what we thought it should be. To directly experience what impermanence, arising and passing is. To directly experience non-duality/no-self... and to experience the workings of our karmic propensities/bonds and how they cause suffering. Basically, being aware of the three basic facts of existence/the three dharma seals.
In a moment of naked awareness, it may be also seen that all our dualistic and inherent projections are really just thoughts without reality. Thus the conditioning/belief in the thoughts loosen.
What Is is beyond all conceptual grasp, is vividly present prior any arising thought.
8) Without right views, though naked awareness maybe experienced when thoughts subsides, but the latent propensity of seeing dualistically/inherently may still be deeply conditioned. Thus even when a glimpse of pure awareness happens, it may be distorted into the 'I AM'.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Consciousness in the context of Buddhist definition usually means subject-object duality and discriminations.
By that definition, I wouldn't say that that which realises is (dualitic) consciousness, but is pure awareness. Dualistic consciousness transforms into insight/wisdom -- aware of its own nondualistic nature as pure awareness. (Thusness defines the great round mirror wisdom as such: it is a wisdom that transformed totally the wrong view of phenomena as “out there or in here” to all as the manifestation of our pristine awareness due its emptiness nature. It is the experience of Dharmakaya.)
In other words, it is not the conceptual mind which apprehends the truth, it is the intuitive mind, the clear light mind, it is luminosity itself which apprehends its two-truth (the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness).
The professor said: "还没有起æ„�识分别这是什么的时候，它就明明白白看è§�，这是属于å‰�äº”è¯†åŠ ä¸Šæ„�识的现é‡� ..."
From my understanding the appearance before mental perception is not called识. As my Taiwanese teacher said something like, 一切唯心所现, 唯识所�。
Hence, 识 is referring to subject/object duality, and referring to discriminations. Our true nature is present even PRIOR to consciousness/识, prior to 分别/discriminations.
The 看�一片绿色�一片红色，还没有起�识分别这是什么的时候 -- that awareness is Buddha-Nature itself. It should be noted that the 'seeing' is inseparable from colours, the hearing is inseparable from sound. So it's not really 'seeing colours' -- the seeing and colour cannot be separated, there is no seer apart from seen.
The 还没有起æ„�识分别这是什么的时候, 它就明明白白看è§�，这是属于å‰�äº”è¯†åŠ ä¸Šæ„�识的现é‡� -- I find this a confusing statement. Before discrimination and duality, there is no 识 -- 识 only arise when there is the perception of a false Subject and Object dichotomy, when there is 分别. Also, the 还没有起æ„�识分别这是什么的时候, 它就明明白白看è§� -- does not require a äº”è¯†åŠ ä¸Šæ„�识的现é‡� -- Any sense of a 'knower' is an illusion -- no watcher exists or is needed, transient sensory awareness itself knows and rolls. All is One Mind. Mind is not a separate knower, as Thusness said perfectly: 一切的呈现å�³'心',有了彼与æ¤çš„分别å�³'识'.
The next thing is, the author seems to be suggesting that seeing true nature means '6th consciousness reflecting the unconditioned', as if we need to turn our attention away from the conditioned phenomena to some sort of void. But this is a false illusion -- any turning away from any manifestation towards some other state deemed as 'pure' is an illusion, because All is IT! All there is is Appearance and all Appearance is the Source, there is no one 'purest' state, all are equally pure, only conditions differ. Dust is the mirror, transient manifestation is the miraculous manifestation of our true nature. (see below)
And then the author says, æ„�识知é�“它这是一片绿色，这是现é‡�，这是世俗æ„�义上的现é‡�，它ä¸�是圆满的，ä¸�是真如，它是法相唯识å¦è®²çš„性境。那缘真如的时候，就连这个相也没有... and he said that 相是直觉的，现é‡�的。 which I believe he is suggesting that, awareness of forms, colours, and so on are 'not ultimate', not 'thusness', and in the realisation of thusness there is no form. While it is true that subject/object dichotomy and hence dualistic projection ceases upon realisation, this is only talking about dualistic conceptual projection, it is not talking about sensory awareness. There is no denying of our sensory awareness, which is in essence Buddha-Nature! Thusness/Awareness/Buddha-Nature does not exist in a split-off, undifferentiated state: it is in fact all these transience and appearances. Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness.
Also, our True Nature/True Mind is not a particular object arising in awareness. So I do not see how 6th consciousness (in his definition, Mind?) can 'reflect' our 'true nature' as if our 'true nature' is an object external/separate from Mind and can be 'observed'. Please keep in mind that realising our true nature is NOT knowing 'something' -- that is duality!! Your true nature is Mind, which is the light that though does not possess a particular form or attribute, illuminates all things... you are not a (particular) object. As the Masters said, Mind is Buddha! Seeking something external to Mind is being an outer-path/externalist. Our true nature is not an object, our true nature is the Mind (and I don't mean conceptual thoughts, but awareness). In fact there is no objects external to Mind, any notion of 'external things' are merely illusions/projections, due to the belief in the false subject/object dichotomy. All appearances that we experience is Mind (our true nature), including sights, sounds, touch, smell, taste, thoughts/projections.
So what is Mind/心 or our true nature? Mind/True Nature is not an object, our true nature is the mirror-like Awareness in which everything, including 6th consciousness and all consciousness arise/is reflected clearly. But the mirror is also not apart from the reflections, standing back and watching. It is important to take note here that the Mind is not a Knower/Witness/Watcher, but rather, it is the knowing inseparable from everything that is arising moment to moment. All reflections is not separated or apart from the mirror, to be more accurate they are actually not 'in' the mirror, rather all reflections are reflections OF the mirror-mind -- everything is just luminous clarity in nature, with emptiness as its essence. The dust is the mirror, there is no separation. We should not in any way deny transient experience -- they are all self-luminous expression of our nature. As Thusness said, Practice is neither going after the mirror nor escaping from the maya reflection; it is to clearly 'see' the 'nature' of reflection. To see that there is really no mirror other than the ongoing reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path -- the prajna wisdom of seeing that the maya is our Buddha nature. (my further 'commentary': the mirror is not a separate background apart from reflections as what might be mistaken after an initial glimpse of buddha-nature, but rather, all dust is the mirror, and as what Zen Master Dogen and Hui-Neng says -- Impermanence is Buddha-Nature) Before a moment of thought/perception, there is just pure awareness -- just the pure sensations, thoughts, without dualistic inference/conceptualisation... at that moment it is simply our luminosity.
A very simple analogy my Taiwan teacher gave was that someone asked him "what is awareness?" -- he poked him with a sharp object, he immediately withdraw his hands. My teacher asked him why did you withdraw? He said "I was in pain!" My teacher then told him, the pain and spontaneous withdrawing is itself the awareness/luminosity/natural intelligence of our Buddha Nature, but the "I was in pain" was a dualistic inference/perception/thought. It is a projection, a concept, it is not reality.
So what is awakening? It is simply: waking up from the dream of duality into reality beyond conceptual fabrication. It is waking up to the the ongoing flow of awareness manifesting as the self-luminous world, that has always been so, but misperceived due to our belief in the false dream of duality -- thus taking the mirage/appearance for reality/solid objects or for a real self. In awakening it is seen that the mirage is just the empty display of awareness, just vibrating energy patterns, empty of inherent existence... and are not self-existing 'objects' separate from 'you' (duality).
Nothing has changed, only waking up to What (Always) Is. And there is no such thing as a Somebody/Something/6th-Consciousness that is 'Seeing' 'What Is'/'Buddha-Nature'/realising True Nature, etc -- the self/perceiver/agent/doer/thinker is seen to be false, non-existent and thus the illusion has fallen away. The false statement assumes three things: 'Something/Someone' (a subject) 'Seeing' 'What-Is/True-Nature'. All are false concepts, delusory thoughts (妄念)... much of our ideas of what enlightenment is is just 妄念. Rather, there is no subject/self/perceiver, and there is no 'Seeing' 'Buddha-Nature/What Is' -- Buddha-Nature/What Is = the Seeing, and the seeing is just the colours, the hearing is just the sound. It's that simple! It's the ongoing awareness/presence that has never left (and is) us, ever, and is our luminous nature that is never lost in the countless rebirths in samsara... apparently covered/obscured by our delusions up like clouds cover the sun, but in actuality it never was obscured -- our delusion was never real, the sun has never 'dimmed', awareness never stops functioning and allows our life to go on. Our Buddha Nature is never lost a single bit in ignorance, nor does it increase by the minutest bit in enlightenment. As Avatamsaka Sutra says, Buddha, Mind and Sentient Being are not three different things. There is fundamentally no difference in essence of 'enlightened beings' and 'sentient beings', even though confusion (belief in a self) arises for the sentient being and never arises for the 'awakened'.
'Seeing nature' is not seeing anything, it is only the ongoing authentication with Suchness. It is waking from the dream into Thusness. There is no separate perceiver of 'buddha-nature' or of anything. It is waking up and realising that the subject/object dichotomy is a false mental projection without reality: in reality, sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never was there a hearer, seer, thinker.
Many Zen Masters woke up after hearing a loud sound or seeing something. Our moderator Thusness awakened after hearing the bell sound 'Tonggg'... in that moment there is a waking up to reality: there is no hearer, only Presence... who/what awakens? Nothing! Just waking up from the dream of self/duality into everpresent Reality, what Always Is. Sound hears, scenery sees, just effortless self-luminous spontaneous manifestation according to conditions. It is not an attainment (what is there to attain and who attains? our true nature Always Is), but the permanent loss of the ignorance of being a separate self.
This is exactly the same as what a Zen Master said upon his enlightenment:
“When I heard the sound of
the bell ringing, there was no I,
and no bell, just the ringing.”But this must occur as an insight, a quantum shift of perception into the everpresent nature of reality which is beyond conceptual fabrications and the illusory subject/object dichotomy -- it is not by effort, not by forcefully doing away the thoughts... even mindful awareness is only a practice and a means in aiding the development of insight, but the practice itself is still not the insight into that (non-dual & empty luminosity) as our everpresent nature of reality.
As Thusness said in the other thread: In my opinion strong emphasis should also be place on the idea of why non dualistic and non-inherent view is of such importance for leading one to right view of non-conceptuality. Otherwise the dualistic and inherent mind will fabricate various assumed states of non-conceptuality due to its latent tendencies. That is to 'transform' a limited view to a boundless views lies not in doing away totally with concepts but simply seeing 'non-inherently'. 'Non-conceptuality' and naked awareness will arise eventually with the stability of this important condition.
One more thing... not just the 6th consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. All 8 consciousnesses must be transformed into wisdom, not just the 6th.
i guess the subject object duality, in buddhism, we should avoid that, then comes to Non duality, i guess,in chinese, the corresponded word should be 分别心，yes this is a crucial factor in buddhism.But besides that, i cannot remember any other thing relate to the subject object duality.
I think the 心 we should 明心�性，usually means our true nature, i don't why this question is there, maybe most of people don't know his true nature, buddhism teach no self, yes, and everything is delusion, even dharma itself, so we talk about 心，is tricky, is it real, or just a name ，��，like in diamond sutra, 是庄严，是�庄严，是�庄严，so that's just assume it's a name only.
We should discloes to our true nature, it's tricky again, who is “our”, or i, for ordinary people, they should get no difficulty with that, but in buddhism, let's just admit that it's a å�‡å�� as well.
To avoid getting conceptually, i think we should all know which 心 we are refering, to be no self, firstly we should get to know the self.
So the self is just refering to any one, who is talking who is smelling, who is walking,
I think this question comes from the basis that many people lost their self, as i said that's just take it as a ��，so they do not really know their selves, in fact they don't like working, but they force them to think that they like it, they don't like to socialise with someone they don't like, but for promoting purpose, they force themselves to think that they like it.The social pressure is everywhere, to realise your nature, we should get over of the pressure,
Originally posted by bohiruci:yogacara also wrong ...it show his shallowness in reading yogacara
if Buddhist academic can be realised by words,then Buddha not required lor
you cannot say yogacara is wrong, before you fully know what's is yogacara, and if you want to know yogacara systematically, i think i take many years.Yogacara is difficult, so only popular among scholars, many folks only love Zen, which is easier,
Originally posted by bohiruci:æ‚Ÿé�“æ˜¯æ— å¿ƒ
有心如何悟�??
æ‚Ÿé�“æ˜¯æ— å¿ƒï¼Œit's very popular saying, but i don't believe most people could achieve that, 有心如何ä¸�æ‚Ÿé�“，那是è°�心悟é�“å‘¢
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Read through the URL a bit...
I find this doesn't sound right at all to me, unless I misunderstood what he said: å�¤äººç»�常æ��å‡ºä¸€ä¸ªé—®é¢˜ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯ä½ æ‹¿å“ªä¸€ä¸ªå¿ƒåŽ»è§�这个第ä¹�识，或者è§�这个性呢。
That is duality -- it assumes that there is a Subject, the 6th consciousness, to 'See' the 'true nature', as an object, the 9th consciousness.
Our true nature is free from such duality, realising our true nature is not 'someone' seeing 'something' -- it's BEING THAT, and being that I mean, everything being It -- sound hears, scenery sees, thought thinks, never a separate subject/agent/perceiver/thinker/doer. Note: I said 'Being', not 'Becoming' -- it is not reaching a stage of experience, but rather, it is realising a fact that was all along so. All along, there is just It manifesting: our true nature... and never was there a self.
Our true nature is not an object separate and tangible, and there is no one can ever 'see it' -- in essence there is no one, only self-luminous phenomena arising and dissolving telling its stories. Our true nature is shining right now, everywhere. The idea that there is something or someone that can 'see it' is the fundamental illusion of a Self.
i don't know where does this 9th conciousness come from, i only know up to eighth conciousness, the seventh is 末那识，maybe when you doing the meditation, you realise the non duality, but i think it's just the 分别心，avoid 分别心, we can be compassionate, see everyone else as ourself, treat others as ourselves, besides that, i don't know what's helpful ,maybe it's part of no self. Annatman, is it?
Originally posted by rokkie:
æ‚Ÿé�“æ˜¯æ— å¿ƒï¼Œit's very popular saying, but i don't believe most people could achieve that, 有心如何ä¸�æ‚Ÿé�“，那是è°�心悟é�“å‘¢
Reaching a state of no-mind is possible, but only through correct way of practice. It is not through forcefully shutting out or suppressing thoughts. This will not work.
When we become naked in awareness free of all conceptualizations, a quantum shift in perception may occur. We can wake up to non-dual Presence, Buddha-Nature, or whatever you want to call it.
As my Master said:
"è§�性"， 师父刚æ‰�æ‰€ä¼ çš„"å‰�é�¢ä¸€ä¸ªå¿µå¤´è¿‡åŽ»ï¼Œ å�Žé�¢ä¸€ä¸ªå¿µå¤´ä¸�生， 这个ä¸é—´æŠŠå®ƒå»¶
展开æ�¥ï¼Œ æ— é‡�æ— è¾¹"， 这就是è§�性， è§�到自己的佛性， è§�é�“自己的法性。
~ 圣开导师开示录 (第一集)
In an experience of 'no thought' and 'no sense impressions', the Presence will be felt as all-pervading. It is not vast, but all pervading. There is a difference here. Vast denotes great distance. All-pervading denotes infinity... no border... no center.
Further insight of this infinity may allow you to understanding why space, location and distance are merely impressions.
~ Our moderator Longchen
Dzogchen teacher Tenzin Wangyal (1997, 29) points out:
The gap between two thoughts is essence. But if in that gap there is a lack of presence, it becomes ignorance and we experience only a lack of awareness, almost an unconsciousness. If there is presence in the gap, then we experience the dharmakaya [the ultimate].
Guru Padmasambhava, in Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness:
7.Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything, awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.
It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.
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.
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.
This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.
Originally posted by rokkie:
you cannot say yogacara is wrong, before you fully know what's is yogacara, and if you want to know yogacara systematically, i think i take many years.Yogacara is difficult, so only popular among scholars, many folks only love Zen, which is easier,
Bohiruci was not saying that Yogacara is wrong.
Bohiruci was saying that the author's idea of Yogacara is wrong.
Originally posted by rokkie: i guess the subject object duality, in buddhism, we should avoid that, then comes to Non duality, i guess,in chinese, the corresponded word should be 分别心，yes this is a crucial factor in buddhism.But besides that, i cannot remember any other thing relate to the subject object duality.I think the 心 we should 明心�性，usually means our true nature, i don't why this question is there, maybe most of people don't know his true nature, buddhism teach no self, yes, and everything is delusion, even dharma itself, so we talk about 心，is tricky, is it real, or just a name ，��，like in diamond sutra, 是庄严，是�庄严，是�庄严，so that's just assume it's a name only.
We should discloes to our true nature, it's tricky again, who is “our”, or i, for ordinary people, they should get no difficulty with that, but in buddhism, let's just admit that it's a å�‡å�� as well.
To avoid getting conceptually, i think we should all know which 心 we are refering, to be no self, firstly we should get to know the self.
So the self is just refering to any one, who is talking who is smelling, who is walking,
I think this question comes from the basis that many people lost their self, as i said that's just take it as a ��，so they do not really know their selves, in fact they don't like working, but they force them to think that they like it, they don't like to socialise with someone they don't like, but for promoting purpose, they force themselves to think that they like it.The social pressure is everywhere, to realise your nature, we should get over of the pressure,
The emphasis on æ— åˆ†åˆ«å¿ƒ is not on 分别, but rather it is it is on 内外, "我" å’Œ "对象", "人" å’Œ"法" 的对立/分别. As Thusness said, 一切的呈现å�³'心',有了彼与æ¤çš„分别å�³'识'.
The reason why we take our 分别 to be real, to be "有实体" is because we think that there is a Subject/Perceiver/Observer (我/观者) looking at a real self-existing Object (实在的对象), like "I" am looking at my "table", as if there is a "me" and a "table" as separate entities.
Because of the illusion of a fundamental duality of Subject and Object, 内 and 外, we experience the world as an "I" which dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. That is Samsara.
But Ultimate Reality is Non-Dual... our Buddha-Nature, or the True Nature of Reality (佛性/法性) is æ— å†…å¤–ï¼Œæ— æ–¹æ‰€ï¼Œæ— ä¸è¾¹...
Enlightenment is realising there is There is only one reality -- this world, right here...
...Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.
When some Zen master hear a sound or see something break, and suddenly attain Enlightenment, it is because for that moment the illusion of the Self has broken down... in that moment, there is no 观者 (perceiver/observer), 对象 (i.e 'bell'), there is only 清�觉... which is 佛性... just the pure awareness/hearing/sound. And it is realised that all along, there is just hearing, no hearer... and the hearing IS the sound, the seeing IS the scenery, they are not separate, no seer/observer apart from seen/observed. Everything is pure awareness, and there is only that, there is no I.
This is exactly the same as what a Zen Master said upon his
enlightenment:
“When I heard the sound of
the bell ringing, there was no I,
and no bell, just the ringing.”
This is what the scriptures meant by �色明心，闻声悟�.
The 心 here is 真心/一心/佛心/佛性, not the 妄心. Like what 黄檗希è¿�禅师 said, “ è¾¾ æ‘© 大 师 到 ä¸ å›½ ， 唯 说 一 心 ， 唯 ä¼ ä¸€ 法 ， 以 ä½› ä¼ ä½› ， ä¸� 说 ä½™ ä½› ， 以 法 ä¼ æ³• ， ä¸� 说 ä½™ 法 。 ”
And because 有了彼与æ¤çš„分别å�³'识', Enlightenment is ä¼ è¯†æˆ�智. As Thusness explains that the Great Round Mirror Wisdom (大圆镜智) is a wisdom that transformed totally the wrong view of phenomena as “out there or in here” to all as the manifestation of our pristine awareness due its emptiness nature. It is the experience of Dharmakaya (法身).
I think the first article on the 唯识浅谈 thread explains well, you may want to read it carefully: http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/324944
However his terminology of '心' and '识' may be a little different.
................
A song by my Master:
ä¸€æ— ä¿®æŒ�æŒ
修修修，���，
得到了��，宇宙的富�，
é�žç©ºé�žæœ‰ä¸ï¼Œæ³•æ€§é��虚空，
还有什么人我是é�žï¼Œè¿˜æœ‰ä»€ä¹ˆçƒæ�¼è½®å›žï¼›
二å…æ—¶ä¸ï¼Œå…‰æ˜Žè§‰ç…§ï¼Œ
éš�缘生æ»å�³äº†ï¼Œæ— 处ä¸�是圆通，
çœ‹ç ´æ”¾ä¸‹ï¼� 自由自在ï¼�
粗衣淡食，茅屋蔽身，
白雪当阳，万里长空，
晚上一轮明月，冬天处处和风，
å››å£ç™¾èŠ±å¼€æ”¾ï¼Œé£˜æ’万年馨香，
醒�� ��� ��� 醒��
高山的暮鼓，远处的晨钟。
Originally posted by rokkie:i don't know where does this 9th conciousness come from, i only know up to eighth conciousness, the seventh is 末那识，maybe when you doing the meditation, you realise the non duality, but i think it's just the 分别心，avoid 分别心, we can be compassionate, see everyone else as ourself, treat others as ourselves, besides that, i don't know what's helpful ,maybe it's part of no self. Annatman, is it?
No, we should not mistake Non-Duality or No-Self with empathy and compassion. Non-Duality and No-Self is talking about the nature of reality, which means even when there is ego or attachment, in reality there is No-Self. The No-Self means there is no perceiver/observer/观者, there is no thinker, doer, soul, etc. In hearing, there is just sound, no hearer. It is talking about the everpresent nature of reality.
Enlightenment is not just a matter of letting go of 分别 or attachment to ego. Even if you are very ego-free, you can still be unenlightened. No-Self is not talking about letting go of attachment to personality, even though this is an important aspect of practice. Rather, it is strictly talking about the nature of reality as having no Subject/Object division. i.e. Always there has never been an experiencer/subject, in hearing just the sound -- no hearer. In seeing, just scenery, no seer.
A quantum shift of perception into the nature of reality has to occur, and the way to that is through having Proper Practice leading to insight and one must also have Right Views (proper understanding of emptiness, no-self, conditionality, awareness, etc)
Also, the way to develope insight is not by concentration, concentration alone can only lead to samadhi and jhanas but not enlightenment. What is important is Awareness, the important element of all insight practices (vipassana, vipashyana, zazen, shikantaza, mahamudra, dzogchen, etc etc)
----------------
A related article on the Misconception of Non-Duality by our moderator Longchen:
http://www.dreamdatum.com/nondual-misinfo.html
Category: Self discovery articles
The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality
This article is related to a common misconception with regards to the Transcendental experience of Nonduality. Within the spiritual circle, the term Non-duality is a very misunderstood or misinterpreted term. It must be understood that the term has more than one meaning and its perceived meaning largely depends on a person's stage of spiritual awareness. |
|
|
More often than not, a lower stage understanding of the term is misconstrued as the Transcendental experience of Nonduality or non-dualism. This confusion is largely compounded by so-called new age spiritual materials. The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct. Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity. |
<!--
google_ad_client = "pub-9718179356331760";
google_ad_width = 336;
google_ad_height = 280;
google_ad_format = "336x280_as";
google_ad_type = "text_image";
google_ad_channel ="";
google_color_border = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "000000";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_text = "000000";
google_color_url = "E1771E";
//-->
|
|
No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping. OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises. For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading. These articles are parts of a series of spiritual realisation articles . |
|