根本大问

• JitKiat

  21 Oct 08, 17:33

  Anybody can explain the answer to 根本大问??

  无明，《�严�》上的妄想所讲的是根本无明，是属於根本无明。根本无明，大�里� 告诉我们，一念�觉而有无明，这是讲最�你怎麽迷的。这个问题在大乘教里��根本大问，我本�是佛，为什麽我会有一念无明？为什麽起一念无明？什麽时候起 的一念无明？什麽原因起的一念无明？这个一念，这问题困扰人。

  《楞严ç»�》第四å�·é‡Œé�¢ï¼ŒåŽŸæ�¥å¯Œæ¥¼é‚£å°Šè€…也是å�Œæ ·çš„问题问释迦牟尼佛。你为什麽会起这一念？一念ä¸�觉，为什麽会起这一念？几时起的一念？《楞严ç»�》上很长的一段ç»�文。读《楞严ç»�》很多，有几个人懂？如果真懂了，你就æˆ�佛了。你没有真懂，你还是凡夫。  - Master CK

  宗镜录 discusses the same thing:
  

  ä¼�以真æº�湛寂，觉海澄清，ç»�å��相之端，无能所之迹。最åˆ�ä¸�觉，忽起动心，æˆ�业识之由，为觉明之咎。因明起照，è§�分俄兴，éš�照立尘，相分安布，如镜现åƒ�，顿起根身。 

   

• An Eternal Now

  21 Oct 08, 21:48

  There was a thread that Thusness asked me to post a few years ago, and the name of the thread was called How did Buddha got lost in Samsara?

  Thusness asked in that thread, Now, can luminosity arise without conditions? Is there a time where there is a bright, true, essential, magnificent mind without conditions?

  The problem we (and even those with transcendental experience) continue to be confused over the question of "why original ignorance when buddha-nature is perfect and complete" is that we visualize that buddha-nature is something pure and original from the beginning untainted and untouched by conditions. Then we separate the luminosity with conditions, and we think that conditions are 'impure'. In actuality conditions and luminosity are inseparable.

  If we understand dependent origination then we understand everything, we understand that all things that arise in dependence are empty, and there is no first cause, only dependently originated phenomena. Including ignorance and suffering. When condition is, they manifest, we don't have a permanently pure original state -- because everything is equally empty, everything equally pure, but manifest according to conditions. When we become so caught up and enticed by our luminosity and don't understand its empty nature, that forms a factor/condition for further perpetuation of grasping and samsara. There is no pure vs impure states, that is only for conventional understanding, ultimately all states are empty, none purer than another. We just don't realise that and until we do we continue perpetuating samsara.

  I was just answering this question on E-Sangha a few days ago... my post:

  
  Answered by Thrangu Rinpoche: * If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?

  ----------------------------------------

  My own replies:

  Actually we don't have an original nature, we have an empty nature, that has no beginning nor ending. To visualise a purest state from the start is a dualistic view. Emptiness is not a void, not absence of suffering, emptiness is the nature of suffering and all phenomena. Getting 'lost' and becoming dualistic is natural when we develop those conditions that make us 'lost', for example being attached to our luminosity is one of the factor. When condition is there, samsara (dualistic vision) simply manifests...
  
  The assumption that there is a purest state and we will not becoming dualistic is itself a dualistic view. There is no purest state, when condition is there, delusion manifests, every states are dependently originated and are empty, and being empty all states are equally pure. Suffering too is empty and pure. Even the state of delusion is empty and pure but we just don't recognize it due to our karmic obscurations (or deep conditionings, karmic propensities of falsely projecting 'self' and 'inherency') that blinds us from seeing.
  
  And no, realising the luminosity aspect alone can't lead to liberation. As I said... other religions talk about that aspect as well and not just Buddhism, but when its empty nature is not known, it becomes a metaphysical essence, and all phenomena becomes like dust on the mirror. And then there is a mirror reflecting external conditions. That becomes dualistic and 'inherent'. The cause of samsara is still not uprooted, and one of the fundamental causes as Thrangu Rinpoche stated is the attachment to luminosity due to not perceiving its empty nature. If you read my friend's experience you see that there must be further insights into the anatta and sunyata nature of awareness.
  
  But emptiness is also not just empty, so you must realise the union and inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Having conviction in our luminous nature as everpresent, never lost, is important, but having glimpses of that pure luminosity is just the beginning and we are still far from perceiving its nature.

   

  ----------------------------------------

  My comments on Thrangu Rinpoche's statement that ignorance comes from 'luminosity being too vivid':

  
  The luminosity is the 'knowingness', the vivid clarity. Our mind have that quality, all our experiences have that quality -- everything we see, hear, touch, is a luminous display... but not knowing the empty nature of that vivid luminosity, we get confused by that luminosity and start to grasp.
  
  The 'emptiness' I am speaking about here should not be misunderstood as formlessness. It should not be misunderstood as a void background of all phenomena (which is an illusion). Rather Emptiness is talking about dependent origination, that whatever you are experience is dependently originated, and being so all consciousness is in fact empty of inherent/substantial existence.
  
  The vision of lets say, a red flower, is a vivid luminous manifestation but quickly becomes distorted by our deeply rooted delusion into falsely perceiving a Subject perceiving an external Object. But actually there is no perceiver, and no flower truly 'out there' being perceived -- there is only the act of consciousness (e.g. vision, sound, taste, etc) due to the aggregation of the sense organs and sense objects, so what is experienced is utterly empty. Consciousness being empty is not a perceiver 'in here', and there is no red flower as an object 'out there' -- not every being can perceive redness/colours (e.g. dogs), and if you can perceive the atomic structures you'll see almost complete void. So the way we think that there are inherently existing objects out there with inherently existing characteristics is an illusion. When understood that consciousness is dependently originated, and hence empty, it can't even be seen as a mirror reflecting external conditions -- because the act of consciousness is a manifestation, there is no subject perceiving object, consciousness is not a mirror reflecting (though sometimes used as analogy) but is actually manifestation. Whatever we see/hear, thats empty, an empty-luminous manifesting vision that is dependently originated. 'Redness' and 'flowerness' is actually empty, the act of consciousness is merely an aggregation of causes and conditions, hence empty.
  
  Awareness is inseparable from conditions, and hence is empty of anything graspable that stays even a moment. And that is the nature of pure awareness (empty), and pure awareness should not be mistaken as a metaphysical essence. It easily becomes mistaken as the Hindu Brahman.
  
  Lots of religions have spoken about the luminous aspect of our nature... not just Buddhism but in fact all religions, hinduism, the mystical traditions of christianity, islam, judaism, taoism, etc. etc.
  
  As my friend said many years back, "A “True experience” is better than a thousand words but it is also the very “true experience” of the Brilliance Bright that has blinded Mystics of all ages. The Brilliance Bright is more vivid then we can imagine. In All IT is seen and In All IT is experienced. Being vividly bright it also serves as the “condition” that obscures its very own Emptiness nature."
  
  "...of late i have been seeing songs and poems relating to the luminosity aspect of Pure Awareness. Uncreated, original, mirror bright, not lost in nirvana and samsara..etc. What use is there? We have from the very beginning so and yet lost for countless aeons of lifes. Buddha did not come to tell only about the luminosity aspect of pure awareness. This has already been expressed in vedas. But it becomes Self. The ultimate controller. The deathless. The supreme..etc. This is the problem. This is not the ultimate nature of Pure Awareness. For full enlightenment to take place, experience the clarity and emptiness. That's all."
  
  (you can read more on my friend's experience at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html )

• JitKiat

  22 Oct 08, 00:40

  The follow example is kind of helpful to me to get a little bit of understanding. Basically in the sutra, Buddha did not directly answer the question but described the dualistic effect as the cause (倒果為因)

   

  真觉本具妙明，如摩尼��，本具光明照用，�光�相�离，则��光，�必更加明而明之；妄觉性本�明，如电�泡，状若摩尼，必加电气以明之。有所�觉�，有所加明，则�真觉，如电�泡，必加开关一开则明，明虽已明。�真摩尼�；无所�明�，无所加明时，则�有明，如电�泡，开关�开时，则无有明。此二��觉明二义�失，咎在加明也。

   

  (圆瑛大师)

   

  倒果為因的說法。是佛沒有辦法，�好從果來說因，最��有是「覺明為咎�來的

  (�懷瑾)

   

  《正脉ç–�》云：无明亲ä¾�真心本觉，独居ä¹�相三细六粗之先，别å��独头生相，根本ä¸�觉，曰痴ã€�曰迷。å�Šæ— ä½�本，皆目此也。有二功能：一ã€�能éš�真觉之体，二ã€�能å�‘万有之相，下文自è§�。问：‘生相无明，等觉未了，今言加明于觉，æ„�何浅近？’答：‘此惑在三细之å‰�，本é�žè�©è�¨æ‰€çŸ¥ï¼ŒæƒŸä½›çŽ°é‡�亲è§�，如æ�¥æœ‰èƒœæ–¹ä¾¿ï¼Œèƒ½ä»¤åˆ�心，比é‡�而知。借言加明于觉，å�³æ˜¯å…¶ç›¸ã€‚èˆ�此方便，则如哑人è§�贼，å�«å”¤ä¸�出矣ï¼�法王自在，岂如是耶？’问：‘借言é�žçœŸï¼Œå®�ä¸�误人？’答：‘岂止ä¸�误，ä»�有大益。如æ�¥äº²è§�等觉è�©è�¨ï¼Œè¯¸å¿µçš†å°½ï¼ŒæƒŸä½™æ­¤å¿µï¼Œä½›æ³•ä¸�得现å‰�，此念若尽，便入妙觉果海，故令顿根众生，但了法空心净，一念ä¸�生，é�¥å¥‘如æ�¥æ¶…槃妙心，自具照体，ä¸�用é‡�起照察，起照便å�Œæ­¤ä¸­ï¼ŒåŠ æ˜ŽäºŽè§‰ã€‚永嘉云：‘倘顾还æˆ�能所。’顾字便是明字，能所者，本惟一真本觉，妄æˆ�能明之明，所明之觉，而能所俱é�žçœŸçŸ£ï¼�佛祖一æ�†ï¼Œè‹¥å�ˆç¬¦èŠ‚，希顿入者，宜究心焉ï¼�

   

  (圆瑛大师)

• An Eternal Now

  22 Oct 08, 02:58

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  Answered by Thrangu Rinpoche: * If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?

  ----------------------------------------

  Actually we don't have an original nature, we have an empty nature, that has no beginning nor ending. To visualise a purest state from the start is a dualistic view. Emptiness is not a void, not absence of suffering, emptiness is the nature of suffering and all phenomena. Getting 'lost' and becoming dualistic is natural when we develop those conditions that make us 'lost', for example being attached to our luminosity is one of the factor. When condition is there, samsara (dualistic vision) simply manifests...
  
  The assumption that there is a purest state and we will not becoming dualistic is itself a dualistic view. There is no purest state, when condition is there, delusion manifests, every states are dependently originated and are empty, and being empty all states are equally pure. Suffering too is empty and pure. Even the state of delusion is empty and pure but we just don't recognize it due to our karmic obscurations (or deep conditionings, karmic propensities of falsely projecting 'self' and 'inherency') that blinds us from seeing.
  
  And no, realising the luminosity aspect alone can't lead to liberation. As I said... other religions talk about that aspect as well and not just Buddhism, but when its empty nature is not known, it becomes a metaphysical essence, and all phenomena becomes like dust on the mirror. And then there is a mirror reflecting external conditions. That becomes dualistic and 'inherent'. The cause of samsara is still not uprooted, and one of the fundamental causes as Thrangu Rinpoche stated is the attachment to luminosity due to not perceiving its empty nature. If you read my friend's experience you see that there must be further insights into the anatta and sunyata nature of awareness.
  
  But emptiness is also not just empty, so you must realise the union and inseparability of luminosity and emptiness. Having conviction in our luminous nature as everpresent, never lost, is important, but having glimpses of that pure luminosity is just the beginning and we are still far from perceiving its nature.

  ----------------------------------------

  My comments on Thrangu Rinpoche's statement that ignorance comes from 'luminosity being too vivid':

  
  The luminosity is the 'knowingness', the vivid clarity. Our mind have that quality, all our experiences have that quality -- everything we see, hear, touch, is a luminous display... but not knowing the empty nature of that vivid luminosity, we get confused by that luminosity and start to grasp.
  
  The 'emptiness' I am speaking about here should not be misunderstood as formlessness. It should not be misunderstood as a void background of all phenomena (which is an illusion). Rather Emptiness is talking about dependent origination, that whatever you are experience is dependently originated, and being so all consciousness is in fact empty of inherent/substantial existence.
  
  The vision of lets say, a red flower, is a vivid luminous manifestation but quickly becomes distorted by our deeply rooted delusion into falsely perceiving a Subject perceiving an external Object. But actually there is no perceiver, and no flower truly 'out there' being perceived -- there is only the act of consciousness (e.g. vision, sound, taste, etc) due to the aggregation of the sense organs and sense objects, so what is experienced is utterly empty. Consciousness being empty is not a perceiver 'in here', and there is no red flower as an object 'out there' -- not every being can perceive redness/colours (e.g. dogs), and if you can perceive the atomic structures you'll see almost complete void. So the way we think that there are inherently existing objects out there with inherently existing characteristics is an illusion. When understood that consciousness is dependently originated, and hence empty, it can't even be seen as a mirror reflecting external conditions -- because the act of consciousness is a manifestation, there is no subject perceiving object, consciousness is not a mirror reflecting (though sometimes used as analogy) but is actually manifestation. Whatever we see/hear, thats empty, an empty-luminous manifesting vision that is dependently originated. 'Redness' and 'flowerness' is actually empty, the act of consciousness is merely an aggregation of causes and conditions, hence empty.
  
  Awareness is inseparable from conditions, and hence is empty of anything graspable that stays even a moment. And that is the nature of pure awareness (empty), and pure awareness should not be mistaken as a metaphysical essence. It easily becomes mistaken as the Hindu Brahman.
  
  Lots of religions have spoken about the luminous aspect of our nature... not just Buddhism but in fact all religions, hinduism, the mystical traditions of christianity, islam, judaism, taoism, etc. etc.
  
  As my friend said many years back, "A “True experience” is better than a thousand words but it is also the very “true experience” of the Brilliance Bright that has blinded Mystics of all ages. The Brilliance Bright is more vivid then we can imagine. In All IT is seen and In All IT is experienced. Being vividly bright it also serves as the “condition” that obscures its very own Emptiness nature."
  
  "...of late i have been seeing songs and poems relating to the luminosity aspect of Pure Awareness. Uncreated, original, mirror bright, not lost in nirvana and samsara..etc. What use is there? We have from the very beginning so and yet lost for countless aeons of lifes. Buddha did not come to tell only about the luminosity aspect of pure awareness. This has already been expressed in vedas. But it becomes Self. The ultimate controller. The deathless. The supreme..etc. This is the problem. This is not the ultimate nature of Pure Awareness. For full enlightenment to take place, experience the clarity and emptiness. That's all."
  
  (you can read more on my friend's experience at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html )

  Sorry just realised the way I arrange it is a bit confusing.

  The text below Thrangu Rinpoche's link is mine, not Rinpoche's.

• bohiruci

  23 Oct 08, 11:22

  wu ming is derived from wishful thinking ..so whence wu ming can be explain

   

  to explain it is like following the first Cause ? Why human born?

   

  Buddha do not dwell on the poison source of the arrow, rather he want us to get Cured!!

   

  Homage to the Radiant Light Assembly of Buddhas and Bodhisattva

   

   

• Isis

  23 Oct 08, 13:15

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

   

  My comments on Thrangu Rinpoche's statement that ignorance comes from 'luminosity being too vivid':

  
  The luminosity is the 'knowingness', the vivid clarity. Our mind have that quality, all our experiences have that quality -- everything we see, hear, touch, is a luminous display... but not knowing the empty nature of that vivid luminosity, we get confused by that luminosity and start to grasp.
  
  The 'emptiness' I am speaking about here should not be misunderstood as formlessness. It should not be misunderstood as a void background of all phenomena (which is an illusion). Rather Emptiness is talking about dependent origination, that whatever you are experience is dependently originated, and being so all consciousness is in fact empty of inherent/substantial existence.
  
  The vision of lets say, a red flower, is a vivid luminous manifestation but quickly becomes distorted by our deeply rooted delusion into falsely perceiving a Subject perceiving an external Object. But actually there is no perceiver, and no flower truly 'out there' being perceived -- there is only the act of consciousness (e.g. vision, sound, taste, etc) due to the aggregation of the sense organs and sense objects, so what is experienced is utterly empty. Consciousness being empty is not a perceiver 'in here', and there is no red flower as an object 'out there' -- not every being can perceive redness/colours (e.g. dogs), and if you can perceive the atomic structures you'll see almost complete void. So the way we think that there are inherently existing objects out there with inherently existing characteristics is an illusion. When understood that consciousness is dependently originated, and hence empty, it can't even be seen as a mirror reflecting external conditions -- because the act of consciousness is a manifestation, there is no subject perceiving object, consciousness is not a mirror reflecting (though sometimes used as analogy) but is actually manifestation. Whatever we see/hear, thats empty, an empty-luminous manifesting vision that is dependently originated. 'Redness' and 'flowerness' is actually empty, the act of consciousness is merely an aggregation of causes and conditions, hence empty.
  
  Awareness is inseparable from conditions, and hence is empty of anything graspable that stays even a moment. And that is the nature of pure awareness (empty), and pure awareness should not be mistaken as a metaphysical essence. It easily becomes mistaken as the Hindu Brahman.
  
  Lots of religions have spoken about the luminous aspect of our nature... not just Buddhism but in fact all religions, hinduism, the mystical traditions of christianity, islam, judaism, taoism, etc. etc.
  
  As my friend said many years back, "A “True experience” is better than a thousand words but it is also the very “true experience” of the Brilliance Bright that has blinded Mystics of all ages. The Brilliance Bright is more vivid then we can imagine. In All IT is seen and In All IT is experienced. Being vividly bright it also serves as the “condition” that obscures its very own Emptiness nature."
  
  "...of late i have been seeing songs and poems relating to the luminosity aspect of Pure Awareness. Uncreated, original, mirror bright, not lost in nirvana and samsara..etc. What use is there? We have from the very beginning so and yet lost for countless aeons of lifes. Buddha did not come to tell only about the luminosity aspect of pure awareness. This has already been expressed in vedas. But it becomes Self. The ultimate controller. The deathless. The supreme..etc. This is the problem. This is not the ultimate nature of Pure Awareness. For full enlightenment to take place, experience the clarity and emptiness. That's all."
  
  (you can read more on my friend's experience at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html )

   

  Is this bright light nimitta or ?

• An Eternal Now

  23 Oct 08, 13:50

  Originally posted by Isis:

   

  Is this bright light nimitta or ?

  No, the luminosity here does not refer to the visual sense of being bright. It's just an analogy. Luminosity is ever-present whether in light or darkness. The mind is 'brightly' aware, alive, it is a knowing presence... and it can never be lost, luminosity never goes out no matter what happens, even while emotions and ignorance appears to obscure it it's still there, like the sun shining through the clouds. We just focus too much on the clouds to notice that all clouds (emotions, phenomena) cannot separate itself from the light source that is animating all of them.

  Mind's brilliance is always here no matter what. Luminosity never 'passes out of existence', does not come and go. And all our experiences are the expressions of pure luminosity.

  Guru Padmasambhava says,

   

  Since the Clear Light of your own intrinsic awareness is empty, it is the Dharmakaya;

  And this is like the sun rising in a cloudless illuminated sky.

  Even though (this light cannot be said) to possess a particular shape or form, nevertheless, it can be fully known.

  The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is especially significant.

  -----------

  To add -- This clear light while possessing no particular form, colour, shape, etc, shines and allows everything to be seen.

• An Eternal Now

  23 Oct 08, 14:06

  What Thrangu Rinpoche is saying is that all our experiences (being a luminous expression) seems too real, and because its too vivid we miss out on its empty essence and start to grasp on the luminosity. And that is a factor that leads to continuation of samsara.

• JitKiat

  23 Oct 08, 19:10

  What is the best translation of luminosity in Chinese?

  照 as in 寂而常照， 照而常寂 ？

• An Eternal Now

  23 Oct 08, 20:17

  Originally posted by JitKiat:

  What is the best translation of luminosity in Chinese?

  照 as in 寂而常照， 照而常寂 ？

  I don't know the exact terms. There can be many different terms. But 寂而常照， 照而常寂 is luminosity.

• An Eternal Now

  23 Oct 08, 20:47

  Originally posted by Isis:

   

  Is this bright light nimitta or ?

  The Dark Silence

  We keep searching

  for the light

  but the luminosity

  we long for

  is not visible.

  It is the Dark One,

  the root,

  hidden from sight

  and yet always Seeing.

   

  ~ John Astin

• An Eternal Now

  25 Oct 08, 13:38

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  No, the luminosity here does not refer to the visual sense of being bright. It's just an analogy. Luminosity is ever-present whether in light or darkness. The mind is 'brightly' aware, alive, it is a knowing presence... and it can never be lost, luminosity never goes out no matter what happens, even while emotions and ignorance appears to obscure it it's still there, like the sun shining through the clouds. We just focus too much on the clouds to notice that all clouds (emotions, phenomena) cannot separate itself from the light source that is animating all of them.

  Mind's brilliance is always here no matter what. Luminosity never 'passes out of existence', does not come and go. And all our experiences are the expressions of pure luminosity.

  Guru Padmasambhava says,

   

  Since the Clear Light of your own intrinsic awareness is empty, it is the Dharmakaya;

  And this is like the sun rising in a cloudless illuminated sky.

  Even though (this light cannot be said) to possess a particular shape or form, nevertheless, it can be fully known.

  The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is especially significant.

  -----------

  To add -- This clear light while possessing no particular form, colour, shape, etc, shines and allows everything to be seen.

  
  Awareness is not to be freshly acquired, reached or attained. Awareness is already here. Knowing that you are alive and well this very moment is awareness itself. You do not have to kick start awareness or cultivate awareness. Self-shining like the Sun. Being aware is present awareness itself.
  

  ...

  
  Awareness is nothing new to anyone alive, it is the state of pure being common to everyone alive. Awareness is the 'you' that knows what everything is when you are conscious, awake or aware. Pure awareness is simply pure cognizing, witnessing or perceiving what everything is, just as it is without giving it any acquired name or any kind of label. Just sentience and witnessing what is going on naturally is itself being aware or this present awareness.
  
  Seeing is awareness, hearing is awareness.

  ...

  
  Every time you say 'I' see or 'I' hear, the thought is only translating what is being perceived by awareness. The Thought is only translating what is but prior to any thoughts awareness is the Pure Seeing and the Pure Hearing. Awareness is non-conceptual.

   

  ...

  
  Consciousness is not something lost or far away but always present so near and so dear, present closer to you than you can ever imagine. Just remove ignorance with understanding for Freedom, that is all that needs to be done.
  
  Obviously if you want to see consciousness as some holy, spiritual or religious presence or experience consciousness as something new, different or see a blazing light, well then realize that you will always be chasing illusion and always overlook the most simple, subtle and the most plain unchanging ordinary everyday presence of existence you have always known yourself to be.

   

  ...

  
  If you look for your true nature outside yourself you are only looking away from your own being.

   

  ...

  
  Nothing new but so familiar is awareness to everybody and always present and unchanging that awareness is very subtle and easily overlooked simply because it is no-thing new. That affectionate being-ness which is always present and unchanging with you is awareness. Again and again. Awareness is the most familiar, the most common, the most plain and most ordinary affectionate presence you have always known yourself to be.

   

  note: All these are only describing the luminous aspect of our nature. it is called "ordinary mind", "ordinary awareness" simply because it is present at all moments (actually, at THIS moment which is all there ever IS) regardless of circumstances, it is all too familiar that we have overlooked it. It is what is not lost and not gained in samsara or nirvana. It is the single nature of mind encompassing all of samsara and nirvana. Even the attempt to achieve a state of awareness contains a false assumption that pure awareness is not already our natural state that is right here right now, that which is effortlessly perceiving and cognizing everything all-at-once and not separate from everything. Our natural state is functioning naturally whether or not we notice it. The only problem lies in misidentifications with finite temporary objects (body and mind). Drop and dissolve without a trace like the river enters the shining sea.

  But all these is still not describing about the empty nature of the inseparability with conditions. The pasted quotations also shows a lack of insight into its nature as Anatta (No-Self), and so is mistaken as an unchanging metaphysical essence. As Thusness said, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html

  "Although there is non-duality in Advaita Vedanta, and no-self in Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta rest in an “Ultimate Background” (making it dualistic), whereas Buddhism eliminates the background completely and rest in the emptiness nature of phenomena; arising and ceasing is where pristine awareness is. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change."
  

• rokkie

  18 Nov 08, 16:46

  Originally posted by JitKiat:

  Anybody can explain the answer to 根本大问??

  无明，《�严�》上的妄想所讲的是根本无明，是属於根本无明。根本无明，大�里�告诉我们，一念�觉而有无明，这是讲最�你怎麽迷的。这个问题在大乘教里��根本大问，我本�是佛，为什麽我会有一念无明？为什麽起一念无明？什麽时候起的一念无明？什麽原因起的一念无明？这个一念，这问题困扰人。

  《楞严ç»�》第四å�·é‡Œé�¢ï¼ŒåŽŸæ�¥å¯Œæ¥¼é‚£å°Šè€…也是å�Œæ ·çš„问题问释迦牟尼佛。你为什麽会起这一念？一念ä¸�觉，为什麽会起这一念？几时起的一念？《楞严ç»�》上很长的一段ç»�文。读《楞严ç»�》很多，有几个人懂？如果真懂了，你就æˆ�佛了。你没有真懂，你还是凡夫。  - Master CK

  宗镜录 discusses the same thing:
  

  ä¼�以真æº�湛寂，觉海澄清，ç»�å��相之端，无能所之迹。最åˆ�ä¸�觉，忽起动心，æˆ�业识之由，为觉明之咎。因明起照，è§�分俄兴，éš�照立尘，相分安布，如镜现åƒ�，顿起根身。 

   

  
  are you talking about the question, since everyone have buddha seeds in nature, why people is blinded by delusion? actually there is the answer on sutra, but i cannot remember