How do you motivate yourself in your practice ?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
After some discussion with Thusness, there should be some corrections with the above translation I've gotten from the internet:
What discussed is merely a sharing of my views and experiences, nothing authentic.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:若智慧明了，æ¤å¿ƒå�·å��法性，亦å��解脱。
A better way to translate this should be:
With the illumination of wisdom (prajna), mind is known as Dharma Nature, mind is known as Liberation.
-----comments: It is important to know that mind is itself liberation. That is why knowing the nature of our mind is the way of liberation. If Liberation is not experienced, then the clarity is still not there. There is no true understanding of what mind is.
Liberation is this Pristine Awareness itself in its natural state. That is why understanding this Pristine Awareness is the direct path towards liberation. If we cannot see that the 5 aggregates are themselves our Buddha Nature, then we will not understand there is nothing to shunt from the transience. Thought liberates, sound liberates, tastes liberates. The transience liberates. If we do not see that, then we are taking a gradual path. It is also not advisable to speak too much about spontaneous arising or self liberation. It can be quite misleading.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Although Advaita Vedanta spoke of Awareness, awareness is not the transience (thoughts, sound...etc)
This is not to pick on Advaita Vedenta teachings. Phrase like “everything arises from Emptiness and subsides back to Emptiness” is equally misleading. By doing so, we have made ‘Emptiness’ into a metaphysical essence; similarly not to make the same mistake for “causes and conditions”, not to objectify it into a metaphysical essence. All are provision terms to point to our insubstaintial, essenceless and interdependent nature.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:-----应眼�色，应耳闻声，应鼻嗅香，应舌知味，乃至施为�动，皆是自心。
A better way to translate should be:
With the condition of the eye, forms are seen, With the condition of ears, sounds are heard, With the condition of nose, smells are smelled, With the condition of tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or states are all one's Mind.comments:
Although Advaita Vedanta spoke of Awareness, awareness is not the transience (thoughts, sound...etc) But here there are 2 important points to take note. First is that Buddha Nature is the transience. Second it is more of '应'. Means with the condition of the eye, forms arise. With ears, sound arises.
Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting but rather a manifesation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.
One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.
Conventionally we experience in the form of subject and object interaction taking place in a space-time continuum. This is just an assumption. Experientially it is not so. One should learn to experience awareness as the manifestation. There is no subject, there is only and always manifestation, all else are conditions of arising. All these are just provisional explanations for one to understand.
What seen is Awareness. What heard is Awareness. All experiences are non-dual in nature. However this non-dual luminosity cannot be understood apart from the ‘causes and conditions’ of arising. Therefore do not see ‘yin’ as Awareness interacting with external conditions. If you see it as so, then it still falls in the category of mirror-reflecting. Rather see it as an instantaneous manifestation where nothing excluded. As if the universe is giving its very best for this moment to arise. A moment is complete and non-dual. Vividly manifest and thorough gone leaving no traces.
-
I see... Thanks for the clarification :)
-
I have just glanced through the last few posts. I have not read them in detail. If I am not wrong, there seems to be some discussion about the issue of Rangtongpa (intrinsic Emptiness) and Zhangtongpa (extrinsic Emptiness / Absolutism). This is a hotly debated issue in Tibetan Buddhism as well.
As I am a stauch (Prasangika) Madhyamika, I am naturally a Rangtongpa. However, I do embrace the Zhangtongpa view abeit secondary to Rangtong. I believe that Rangtong and Zhangtong are not mutually exclusive. They can be reconciled / synthesized as a single coherent truth, though the Rangtong element still prevail over the Zhangtong.
As a strong adherent to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka and Ju Mipham Namgyal Gyatso's understanding, I believe in the Emptiness of Emptiness rather than Emptiness as an absolute Truth. If Emptiness is being miscontrued as an Utimate Truth with an absolute ontological / metaphysical status, it will be reduced to a Creator God as in Islam or Brahman as in Hinduism.
Emptiness is "Utimate" as a truth in the sense that everything is empty of its own being (including the tathagatagarbha), rather than being an Absolute Substratum from where the phenomenal world spring out. Emptiness is itself empty of own being for it is dependent on the conventional world / truth.
Therefore, the relation between the Utimate and Conventional Truths (the Two Truths theory) must not be miscontrued as the former being "higher" than the latter. Most Buddhists have fallen into this trap.The two Truths should be taken as "two faces of the same coin".
Just ask yourself "How can Emptiness be discerned without the conventional world?".
We should not let Buddhism to be reduced to Monotheism. We should not let Emptiness to be associated with Allah by the Muslim. If we the buddhists fail to see the Truth of Buddhism correctly, Buddhism will soon be subsumed / subordinated by the Muslims. The Muslims had repeatedly claimed that Emptiness experienced by the Buddhists is Allah. Based on my observations, the muslim scholars had made great effort to transform and reinterpret Islam into a form closer to Buddhism by importing teachings from Buddhism for this purpose. Sufism is a good example of such an adaptation. Their understanding of Allah has taken a pantheistic shift. Please DO NOT misunderstand that the muslim scholars are trying to foster religious integration and harmony.Their objective is to make Islam the only TRUTH by subordinating Buddhism under it. They are trying to crush Buddhism by Blurring the line of differences.
-
We should understand that whatever views established are done as merely a 'raft' or a 'skillful means' and the view/raft/skillful means will eventually dissolve in its own accord after realisation. When it adds to more clinging to a particular view as absolute, then it has not properly done its job.
"Bhikkkhus, this view, so clean and pure, if you covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? No, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, this view of yours so clean and pure, do not covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it. Do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? Yes, venerable sir."
- Mahatanhasankhaya SuttaShentong grasped wrongly can lead to the mis-apprehension of eternalism, Rangtong grasped wrongly can lead to the mis-apprehension of nihilism. As a matter of fact Nagarjuna has refuted both views.
(Loppon Namdrol)Nagarjuna's refutation of rang stong [instrinsic emptiness]:
If there something subtle not empty,
there would be something subtle to be empty;
as there is nothing not empty,
where is there something to be empty?
And his refutation of gzhan stong [extrinsic emptiness]:
Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,
the conditioned is not established;
since the conditioned is never established,
how can the unconditioned be established?But at the same time they serves as 'antidotes' or 'rafts' and 'skillful means' that can help overcome certain subtle attachments. Shentongpa is particularly helpful in overcoming the false view of nihilism, Rangtong is helpful in overcoming the false view of eternalism.
(Lama Gyatso)
I've been taught that Rangtong is the best view to destroy eternalism, Shentong the best view to destroy nihilism. Since most sentient beings fall into the eternalist group Rangtong is the best view to refute views outside Buddhism, those that lack an understanding of Emptiness. Shentong is the best view to refute those who are Buddhists but have misunderstood Emptiness and slipped into a subtle nihilistic view. I think one should follow ones inclination viewing them as peers until one or the other is clearly needed.
-
Originally posted by Chenrezig:
If Emptiness is being miscontrued as an Utimate Truth with an absolute ontological / metaphysical status, it will be reduced to a Creator God as in Islam or Brahman as in Hinduism.
Emptiness is "Utimate" as a truth in the sense that everything is empty of its own being (including the tathagatagarbha), rather than being an Absolute Substratum from where the phenomenal world spring out. Emptiness is itself empty of own being for it is dependent on the conventional world / truth.
Therefore, the relation between the Utimate and Conventional Truths (the Two Truths theory) must not be miscontrued as the former being "higher" than the latter. Most Buddhists have fallen into this trap.The two Truths should be taken as "two faces of the same coin".
Just ask yourself "How can Emptiness be discerned without the conventional world?".
We should not let Buddhism to be reduced to Monotheism. We should not let Emptiness to be associated with Allah by the Muslim. If we the buddhists fail to see the Truth of Buddhism correctly, Buddhism will soon be subsumed / subordinated by the Muslims. The Muslims had repeatedly claimed that Emptiness experienced by the Buddhists is Allah. Based on my observations, the muslim scholars had made great effort to transform and reinterpret Islam into a form closer to Buddhism by importing teachings from Buddhism for this purpose. Sufism is a good example of such an adaptation. Their understanding of Allah has taken a pantheistic shift. Please DO NOT misunderstand that the muslim scholars are trying to foster religious integration and harmony.Their objective is to make Islam the only TRUTH by subordinating Buddhism under it. They are trying to crush Buddhism by Blurring the line of differences.
I have to agree with some of the very important points you brought up. It is that ultimate reality easily becomes misconstrued as a metaphysical essence, the subtrate of all phenomena, the Absolute, Atman-Brahman, and so on.
I seldom hear Muslims talk about the Buddhist realisation of Emptiness as realisation of Allah, unless perhaps of course, the Islamic mystics (Sufis) which are still a minority group among Muslims. (the article you pasted last time doesn't sound like it comes from the hands of a contemplative Muslim with transcendental experience, but rather IMHO shows very very little understanding of Buddhist teachings and lots of total mis-interpretation of scriptural meanings) But it is pretty clear to everyone who don't have dusty eyes that Buddhism outrightly rejects an external Creator.
However, it gets more subtle than that, and the subtler we go the more confusing it becomes. Many of these mystics (like the Islamic Sufis) have 'transcendental experiences' and it is a common misunderstanding that this is the same realisation in all religions including Buddhism. To them, God is not an external Being as portrayed in the essay you posted previously, not an old man sitting up there waiting for you to have a cup of coffee with him, i.e. not a personal God but rather is the Pure Being that can be experienced through total surrender of the small, egoic self (for monotheistic path their path is by surrendering, and Islam literally means 'Surrender' or 'Submission'), whereby the self completely dissolves into the pure essence of God.
God, to them, is basically the substance wherein thoughts and phenomena arise from and subsides to, while the substance itself remains unmoved and unaffected. While that view partially comes from true transcendental experience, it is partly due to our deep karmic conditoining/propensities at seeing dualistically and inherently which misinterpretes such transcendental experiences into an eternal, unchanging metaphysical essence. The insight into non-dual (no separation between substance and phenomena) and furthermore the insight into the Emptiness nature of Awareness is lacking.
Also see our forum moderator Thusness's Six Stages of Experience: Thusness's Six Stages of Experience
In this area Buddhism has thrown light into many subtleties that other religions/contemplative traditions [Hindu Advaita & Kashmir Shaivism, Taoism, Judaist Kabbalah, Christian Mysticism, Islamic Sufism, and more] have overlooked. (more on that below)
As I wrote months ago:
On the surface it seems very similar. For example, Hinduism teaches Self-realisation, Non-ego, and purportedly provides a path to enlightenment and liberation for its followers. (Mystical) Taoism, Christian Mysticism, Islamic Sufism, Judaist Kabbalah and so on are also very similar.
Because when we're talking about the core of religions, it's the mystics/contemplatives that are the 'highest level' practitioners... who seek to understand the truth of their religions not just by belief, theories or even feelings/emotions (common religious seekers may have powerful life-changing experiences or encounters with the divine force/spirit, or miracles, but Spirit/God will always seem to be "separate" from the "seeker" until they realise union/its true nature) but by complete union with the true essence of god.
But for the mystics, its a direct experience of the UNION with the Divine Presence of God, or in Hinduism they call it the realisation of the (true) Self, which is a non-personal Self, its the true self, the God-self. "God-consciousness". It's a complete dissolving of any sense of individuality into God/true-Self, a sort of non-dual experience (but not the kind of non-duality in Buddhism) and realising the true identity of luminous pure consciousness as God. It is an aspect of our Buddha-Nature (explained below).
In Hinduism its the identity of atman with Brahman (God, the Whole). Means completely dropping false notions of self and become/realise the true divine mind.
In Christianity, Paul said: I no longer live, but Christ lives in me! (Gal. 2.20) -- see http://frimmin.com/faith/mysticismintro.php
In Taoism, Chuang Tzu calls it entering the Divine, the One. The Tao. And the forgetting of the 'self'.
The falling away of self is common to all religions. But in Buddhism, No-Self is not a state or stage of the falling away of the ego or personality or a state of union with divine, it's actually a Dharma Seal or the nature of reality. And, there is no identification with an eternal witnessing consciousness as the Self, the view and experience of other mystics.
That means, almost all of those mystics experience Consciousness/Awareness as an Eternal Watcher (which is God), a non-judging and permanent watcher watching everything in life yet remaining unaffected and unchanged. But when non-duality is realised, it's seen that there is no Observer apart from Observed. The true face of consciousness is seen. Scenery sees, there is no seer. Sound hears, there is no hearer. Thought thinks, there is no thinker. All along the transience rolls and knows; no separate watcher is real or needed.
As an example, the Hindu Advaita-Vedantins when they experience pure consciousness, they will make Consciousness into a permanent luminous-void background reality where phenomenon arise and subsides within while the background is unchanged (notice the duality here)... they will fail to realise that consciousness is everything without a background.
The core difference in Buddhism compared to other religions/teachings is the teaching of Dependent Origination, Emptiness. Even if they have realisation of Non-Duality (that consciousness is not an eternal formless witnessing background substratum where illusory phenomena pops in and out within the only absolute reality, substratum/background while the substratum/background is unchanged, but is instead all manifestation without a background), they will fail to see that consciousness and conditions cannot be separated, and the nature of consciousness is Empty. For example, Kashmir Shaivism teaches that since all things are the Absolute Shiva, and Shiva is real, everything is real. This is the realist point of understanding, but they will fail to understand that consciousness is Empty and inseparable from conditions.
(Wikipedia: Among the various Hindu philosophies, Kaśmir Śaivism is a school of Śaivism categorized by various scholars as monistic[1] idealism (absolute idealism, theistic monism[2], realistic idealism[3], transcendental physicalism or concrete monism[4]). These descriptors denote a standpoint that Cit - consciousness - is the one reality. Matter is not separated from consciousness, but rather identical to it. There is no gap between God and the world. The world is not an illusion (as in Advaita Vedanta), rather the perception of duality is the illusion.)
I am not good at explaining, but just want to say that the subtlety of spirituality cannot be overlooked. Have a good understanding of No-Self, Emptiness/Dependent Origination, and everything will be very clear.
The problem with all religions/mysticism outside Buddhism, and actually much of modern Buddhism, is that it stresses on the luminosity aspect of Buddha Nature, and overlooks the Emptiness aspect of Buddha Nature. Luminosity and Emptiness (which means dependent origination) is inseparable.