Unorthodox Ideas

[Astus]

Here are some twisted concepts I'd like to discuss.

1. Prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka and Mahamudra

As Karl Brunnhölzl explains (Straight from the Heart, p. 132f; and The Center of the Sunlit Sky, p. 52f) the meaning of the prajnaparamita teachings, of madhyamaka and what was later known as sutra mahamudra is identical in realisation. Same can be seen from Gampopa (Jewel Ornamnet of Liberation, p. 247f) equating them.

2. Inferential and Direct Method

Thrangu Rinpoche says (e.g. Pointing Out the Dharmakaya, p. 56; Essentials of Mahamudra, p. 46) that the sutra path takes long time because it applies inferential methods to realise emptiness while mahamudra is direct. However, a conceptual understanding of emptiness has never been accepted by the prajnaparamita sutras or madhyamika teachers as the true wisdom, that is also clear from point 1. Even in terms of method, as we can see in Kamalashila's meditation instruction (Stages of Meditation, p. 130-133), the analysis of mind itself is part of sutra vipashyana just as resting in suchness. To this we can also add that Chan is a direct method too that is in harmony with prajnaparamita sutras.

3. Emptiness of One is Emptiness of All

Tashi Namgyal states and backs it up with quotes (Mahamudra: The Moonlight, p. 199-200) that realising the emptiness of mind is realising the emptiness of all things. Since true realisation is not a conceptual idea of the emptiness of this and that, but awareness without abiding on any referential point, differentiations of emptiness from two to twenty are only for the sake of explanation. Therefore, whether one sees the emptiness of self or any phenomenon, the result is the same wisdom.

4. Unity of Emptiness and Compassion

In truth, emptiness and compassion cannot be separated from each other (e.g. King of Samadhi, p. 91; and Mahamudra and Related Instructions, p. 269f), therefore with the realisation of one both are attained. From this comes that with attainment of insight into the emptiness of self unbound compassion is also achieved.

5. Arhat, Buddha, Bodhisattva

Adding all the above up, it turns out that with the single realisation of emptiness of self there is all that can be realised and attained. Then the differentiations between paths and results are rendered provisional.

[Indrajala]

5. Arhat, Buddha, Bodhisattva

Adding all the above up, it turns out that with the single realisation of emptiness of self there is all that can be realised and attained. Then the differentiations between paths and results are rendered provisional.

The standard line of thought in Mahāyāna is that the arhat realizes emptiness of self, but not of phenomena. I think at least in East Asia this is in reference to the Sarvāstivāda school which posited the existence of inherent natures (svabhava). We know however that Mahāsāṃghika schools had different ideas (some of which clearly influenced Nāgārjuna who was probably a member of said school), though many of them were clearly not opposed to Mahāyāna ideas as they developed and scriptures appeared. It could have been that the bodhisattva path was initially reserved for a select few, as Jan Nattier has suggested. Arhatship was still the name of the game for the majority and this was a respectable course to take.

I have heard this opinion that said paths are all the same realization, though this is problematic to support scripturally or otherwise. The Mahāyāna scriptures are quite clear that they are not following the path to arhatship and that they propose a superior path. Moreover, a buddha has many qualities bodhisattvas and arhats alike do not possess, such as omniscience.

[Astus]

Such a distinction between the emptiness of self and phenomena is everywhere, and used as an explanation about the elimination of emotional and cognitive hindrances. And that's why I quoted the view of seeing one is seeing all.

Regarding the special qualities of buddhas, as you can see in both Chan and Vajrayana, and in the doctrine of buddha-nature, all of them have been internalised as qualities of the mind one can discover with realising the nature of mind.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

There is no direct introduction in Chan to the nature of the mind.

And by the way, the nature of the mind is not first bhumi, omniscient Buddhahood or even realizing emptiness. This is true of any system.

[Jyoti]

The Mahāyāna scriptures are quite clear that they are not following the path to arhatship and that they propose a superior path. Moreover, a buddha has many qualities bodhisattvas and arhats alike do not possess, such as omniscience.

Correct. The intellect attained is different.

Srimala-devi simhanada-sutra
勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經講記

The arahat who attained the cessation meditation, although it is termed the intellect of purity, it is not the ultimate that arrived at the truth of cessation of suffering (3rd noble truth), viz. their intellect of purity strayed to the extreme of emptiness, since not even the complete emptiness is the ultimate, not to mention the intellect from the reliance of the four noble truths is not the ultimate.

二乘人得滅盡定，雖曰淨智，但於一滅諦尚非境界。換句話說，二乘淨智偏空
，於畢竟空尚非境界。何況四依智，更非境界了。

again,

The uppermost intellect of the supramundane is the intellect of the truth of cessation of suffering, it is said the arahat and the pratika-buddha do not possess.

出世間上上智，即彼滅諦智，謂阿羅漢辟支佛不具。

Jyoti

[Jyoti]

There is no direct introduction in Chan to the nature of the mind.

Moreover Chan people, at the maximum, can only reach this far.

This is not first bhumi, omniscient Buddhahood or even realizing emptiness.

Realizing the nature itself is equivalent to direct introduction.

Jyoti

[viniketa]

The Mahāyāna scriptures are quite clear that they are not following the path to arhatship and that they propose a superior path. Moreover, a buddha has many qualities bodhisattvas and arhats alike do not possess, such as omniscience.

Correct. The intellect attained is different.

Different = superior?

Sometimes I wonder if some of these highly realized teachers are delusional to think people who think themselves superior will be willing to abandon that idea...

[Jyoti]

The Mahāyāna scriptures are quite clear that they are not following the path to arhatship and that they propose a superior path. Moreover, a buddha has many qualities bodhisattvas and arhats alike do not possess, such as omniscience.

Correct. The intellect attained is different.

Different = superior?

Sometimes I wonder if some of these highly realized teachers are delusional to think people who think themselves superior will be willing to abandon that idea...

Merely stating superior or inferior does not make any sense. It is important to understand the differences. The intellect of the arahat and pratika-buddha has a limited scope, they neither possessed the same all-intellect of the buddha nor able to see the dharmakaya. Their limited scope is the causes of the four inversions, these four inversions obstruct the attainment of the four non-obstructions of the bodhisattvas. The four inversions are the actual ignorance from the stand point of the mahayana, this is a different form of ignorance not stated in the pali scriptures, and so this ignorance is not aware by persons of the two vehicles.

Jyoti

[anjali]

There is no direct introduction in Chan to the nature of the mind.

A true Chan master through sound, word, phrase, question or gesture can cut through and abruptly introduce a ripe student to the nature of the mind. A Mahamudra or Dzogchen master can verbally introduce an unripe student to the nature of the mind on numerous occasions over many years with no result. It all depends on the Master and student.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Name one Chan master who gives direct introduction.

[DarwidHalim]

Adding all the above up, it turns out that with the single realisation of emptiness of self there is all that can be realised and attained. Then the differentiations between paths and results are rendered provisional.

Yes and No.

If we see the understanding of emptiness, there are 2 things:
1. Understanding the nature as what it is.
2. Understanding how the nature can appear as such.

Most of the time, we are dealing with No. 1.

We don't care what is coming, what is happening, what will happen, all of them are empty of self. But this is just No. 1

When everything is empty of self, it is no longer important what will come next, because all of them become one taste. Whether the next hour has explotion, or has tsunami, or whatever, all of them have no different with Tushita.

However, although all of them are no longer important, there this obstruction not knowing how come tsunami will arise today, how come in this area, with only this amount of people affected. We just know, it is the act of karma. And that's it.

Although it is not as important as No. 1, we still have obstruction here. The is issue is no longer not knowing the nature as what it is. We already know that. So, there is another issue here - the smell. Why it appears like this or that.

If we see all realization of the text, there is a missing point there:
It tells you the nature of reality as it is.

But, there is missing point for example why that as it is reality appear at such and such at this place, not at that place.

There is no explanation for example why you can become a flower, why you can explain he get this or that. This one cannot be explained by words, because the issue is already clearing the smell in the bowl.

[DarwidHalim]

Name one Chan master who gives direct introduction.

Why do you think that direct introduction just belong to Dzogchen?

If Heart sutra or diamond sutta is not direct introduction then what is that?

For you, may be that is not. But for other it can be.

Huineng cannot read. At the last day, before he left his master, his master read for him Diamond sutra (if I am not wrong), and he gor enlightened at that instant.

THat is direct introduction.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Why do you think that direct introduction just belong to Dzogchen?

and also Mahamudra

If Heart sutra or diamond sutta is not direct introduction then what is that?

They are just texts. And by the way, its pretty sad that people think these are some sort of supreme texts. All the rest of the PP Sutras are more important.

[DarwidHalim]

That is text if it is written down.

But, when it is read by the enlightened master, it is more than text.

[Thus-gone]

Name one Chan master who gives direct introduction.

Could you explain the difference between direct pointing (the basis of Chan) and direct introduction? The purpose of dokusan, the teacher-student confrontation that is found in Chan, is to bring the student to ripeness and then introduce them to the nature of mind directly. Is this something different?

[Matt J]

This is the one that hooked me.

I have a general feeling that mind is different from objects in an important way. Some of those ways include a subjective sense, that objects rely on the mind yet the mind does not seem to rely on objects, the mind is immaterial and not subject to the senses.

3. Emptiness of One is Emptiness of All

Tashi Namgyal states and backs it up with quotes (Mahamudra: The Moonlight, p. 199-200) that realising the emptiness of mind is realising the emptiness of all things. Since true realisation is not a conceptual idea of the emptiness of this and that, but awareness without abiding on any referential point, differentiations of emptiness from two to twenty are only for the sake of explanation. Therefore, whether one sees the emptiness of self or any phenomenon, the result is the same wisdom.

[Jyoti]

This is the one that hooked me.

I have a general feeling that mind is different from objects in an important way. Some of those ways include a subjective sense, that objects rely on the mind yet the mind does not seem to rely on objects, the mind is immaterial and not subject to the senses.

3. Emptiness of One is Emptiness of All

Tashi Namgyal states and backs it up with quotes (Mahamudra: The Moonlight, p. 199-200) that realising the emptiness of mind is realising the emptiness of all things. Since true realisation is not a conceptual idea of the emptiness of this and that, but awareness without abiding on any referential point, differentiations of emptiness from two to twenty are only for the sake of explanation. Therefore, whether one sees the emptiness of self or any phenomenon, the result is the same wisdom.

Both the subjective and objective perception are just the two-fold manifestation of consciousness. The subjective perception is the basis for atman, whereas the objective perception is the basis for all phenomena (dharmas), both the atman and dharmas does not exist in reality, only the thusness of consciousness is true. The subjective field of perception corresponds to the inner six sensory entrances, whereas the objective field of perception corresponds to the outer six sensory entrances, therefore the twelve entrances are none other than consciousness. The emptiness conventionally speaking is the consciousness, ultimately speaking it is the thusness. So the twelve entrances are none other than thusness, subject and object have no difference. This is the meaning of the terms as stated above: ' realising the emptiness of mind is realising the emptiness of all things', 'awareness without abiding on any referential point', 'whether one sees the emptiness of self or any phenomenon, the result is the same wisdom.'

Jyoti

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Could you explain the difference between direct pointing (the basis of Chan) and direct introduction? The purpose of dokusan, the teacher-student confrontation that is found in Chan, is to bring the student to ripeness and then introduce them to the nature of mind directly. Is this something different?

I'm just giving you the standard Vajrayana take.

Chan/Zen people may disagree.

Either way, the rest of my criticisms still apply.

[viniketa]

I'm just giving you the standard Vajrayana take.

So your comment is to post the 'orthodox view' to a thread about the 'unothodox'.

Either way, the rest of my criticisms still apply.

Umm, your only 'criticism' seemed to be that unorthodox views are unorthodox...

[SSJ3Gogeta]

Anyway, believe what you want but realizing the nature of the mind is NOT the same thing as first bhumi, omniscient Buddhahood or even realizing emptiness.

This is true of every Buddhist system.