Early Buddhism and Mahayana

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Sherab » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:19 am

dzogchungpa wrote:
Sherab wrote:But you did not comment on this:

Sherab wrote:And since, in a non-dual state, the experiencer is the experienced, the experiencer must also be an illusion. So we could all be merely part of a computer simulation such as The Matrix and the Buddha is part of that as well. Or the Hindu belief that we are all the dream of the God Brahma is correct and Buddha is also part of the dream.

And that would be a problem.

Actually, Malcolm has said many times that according to Dzogchen everything, including buddhahood, is completely equivalent with an illusion.


You should read my comments again:
But you did not comment on this:

Sherab wrote:And since, in a non-dual state, the experiencer is the experienced, the experiencer must also be an illusion. So we could all be merely part of a computer simulation such as The Matrix and the Buddha is part of that as well. Or the Hindu belief that we are all the dream of the God Brahma is correct and Buddha is also part of the dream.

And that would be a problem.


The fact that you did not comment on the above is to me, a reflection of the difficulty of avoiding the extremes of unconditioned and conditioned, and by extension the extreme position of the other mutually exclusive pairs such as permanent and impermanent, existence and non-existence etc. by using those very words, ie. words such as conditioned and unconditioned etc.

I prefer to follow the approach use in science which uses the idea of conservation. For example, the conservation of energy and the conservation of information. Here, energy can take different forms and information can be anywhere but taken as a whole, energy is conserved, i.e., not destroyed. Similarly for information. I find that by borrowing this idea of conservation for the base of all phenomena, it is easier to avoid the extremes positions that labels such as conditioned and unconditioned, permanent and impermanent etc. tends to force us into, or tend to distort the meaning that we intend to convey.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby muni » Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:20 am

It is said that by the recognition of the identilessness of own mind; the whole illusion-spectacle collaps. While I am already few kalpas so busy, trying to make all things empty.
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Astus » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:40 am

Koji wrote:When you said ealier: There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty, does this pertain to "a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea"?


As Cone replied already, yes. Whatever is said here is always and inevitably a conceptual creation. One of the main aspects of the teachings on emptiness is to realise this fact, that concepts are concepts and not truths. Those who believe that one should therefore get rid of concepts still assumes that thoughts are somehow real and they are a hindrance. The only hindrance is the idea that concepts are more than concepts. Without attachment there are neither grasping nor rejecting of thoughts and appearances, they are simply dependent appearances.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Astus » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:47 am

conebeckham wrote:This leads to the question: for those who feel they have "had an experience" or "experienced" Wisdom or Buddhamind or whatnot, and have somehow consequently conceptualized that experience as a sort of "Self," is that "experience" really the experience of Wisdom that is talked about in Sutra, Tantra, and Upadesha? Or is it a mistaken experience?


As in my response above, I don't separate concepts and experience that strongly. Thoughts are parts of our everyday experience. One can taste honey, smell it, see it, touch it, and also name it and imagine it. Wisdom is seeing the nature of experience (mind, appearances, etc.), and it is readily apparent that experience is impermanent, dependently originated, empty, if looked at in the right way. At the same time, when there is mistaking this or that experience for some ultimate reality, truly abiding, permanent entity, attachment, suffering and habits occur. Even if that experience is assumed to be nirvana, the nature of mind, or any other lofty concept.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Astus » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:12 am

anjali wrote:I think we all accept the higer-order knowing model: I see an apple; I know that I see an an apple.

The trikaya model takes this three-aspect approach. The three facits/dimensions are, 1. emptiness, 2. clarity (knowing), and 3. radiance or emanation. The knowing knows itself directly; the knowing knows it is emptiness; the knowing knows radiance as itself. Again, none of this involves a knower of any kind. We discuss these three aspects separately, but in fact they are a unity and are indivisible.


Since the beginning Buddhism has the six consciousnesses and eighteen areas of experience, among them the mental consciousness and the area of mental phenomena. Thus seeing an apple is an eye-consciousness where one already has awareness of that appearance, and generating another layer of recognising that one is aware of seeing an apple is mental consciousness. In terms of the aggregates seeing an apple is form, calling it an apple is perception, and knowing about both is consciousness. All of the eighteen areas and five aggregates work together without a problem.

In the internalised trikaya model, as you said, the three are explained separately but they are not actually three different things. There are a number of ways to explain that. The simplest is the statement of the third "kaya" that emptiness and clarity are inseparable; here it is understood that clarity includes all appearances, it is dependent origination. When clarity is meant only as awareness and the nirmanakaya as phenomena, one can add the fourth body to confirm their inseparability. It is also possible to turn to a Huayan explanation where there are 10 bodies, that is, each body includes the other two making nine and all of them together to arrive at ten. So, when you say that knowing knows itself, emptiness and radiance, that is actually the Huayan model. Although logically to say that knowing includes (knows) knowing is nothing but stating that knowing is knowing.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Astus » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:25 am

Sherab wrote:Consider a situation when there is no internal or external stimulus for the mind. In that situation, the mind should still be aware that it is aware in spite of the lack of any form of stimulus (ie. appearance). So to me, reflexivity should be part and parcel of mind itself.


When there is no "internal stimulus", it means there is no mental movement, no mental phenomena. And that means unconsciousness, mindlessness. Mind does not exists as some container, it is not above and beyond mental content. That's why in Buddhism there is the teaching of the eighteen dhatus. There is no "consciousness itself" in Buddhism, not even in Yogacara (Asanga-Vasubandhu, Xuanzang). If there were such a thing it would mean that everyone is always aware, but that's not the case. It would mean there is a consciousness independent of everything else, consequently not conscious of anything other than itself. What would be the use of that kind of self-contained consciousness? It would be like an unmoved mover that doesn't actually move anything.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby jeeprs » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:28 am

Astus wrote:When there is no "internal stimulus", it means there is no mental movement, no mental phenomena. And that means unconsciousness, mindlessness.


Why then is there significance given to dhyana states such as the 'immaterial dhyanas'? Do you think when yogis are in those states they are simply inert? Might they as well be asleep? The way I would understand it, this is what is implied by 'passing beyond duality', but it is not simply 'unconsciousness'. It is consciousness without the sense of there being an observer. "Contentless consciousness" is one description I have read.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby muni » Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:54 am

jeeprs wrote:
Astus wrote:When there is no "internal stimulus", it means there is no mental movement, no mental phenomena. And that means unconsciousness, mindlessness.


Why then is there significance given to dhyana states such as the 'immaterial dhyanas'? Do you think when yogis are in those states they are simply inert? Might they as well be asleep? The way I would understand it, this is what is implied by 'passing beyond duality', but it is not simply 'unconsciousness'. It is consciousness without the sense of there being an observer. "Contentless consciousness" is one description I have read.


I see a light in this post, certainly there are everywhere. It is said by Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche regarding the phenomena; "when being is not in equipoise there are own conceptions appearing as image. In equipoise it is faithful reflections, as the object encountered during samadhi absorption".

Here, see also previous pages if there is interess: http://books.google.be/books?id=5V_5Jtz ... on&f=false
All consciousness/awareness
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:35 pm

Sherab wrote:
But you did not comment on this:

Sherab wrote:And since, in a non-dual state, the experiencer is the experienced, the experiencer must also be an illusion. So we could all be merely part of a computer simulation such as The Matrix and the Buddha is part of that as well. Or the Hindu belief that we are all the dream of the God Brahma is correct and Buddha is also part of the dream.

And that would be a problem.


The fact that you did not comment on the above is to me, a reflection of the difficulty of avoiding the extremes of unconditioned and conditioned, and by extension the extreme position of the other mutually exclusive pairs such as permanent and impermanent, existence and non-existence etc. by using those very words, ie. words such as conditioned and unconditioned etc.



It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:36 pm

jeeprs wrote:
Astus wrote:When there is no "internal stimulus", it means there is no mental movement, no mental phenomena. And that means unconsciousness, mindlessness.


Why then is there significance given to dhyana states such as the 'immaterial dhyanas'? Do you think when yogis are in those states they are simply inert? Might they as well be asleep? The way I would understand it, this is what is implied by 'passing beyond duality', but it is not simply 'unconsciousness'. It is consciousness without the sense of there being an observer. "Contentless consciousness" is one description I have read.


Those yogis are governed by the concept that propells them into that formless āyatana.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:40 pm

Koji wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
This leads to the question: for those who feel they have "had an experience" or "experienced" Wisdom or Buddhamind or whatnot, and have somehow consequently conceptualized that experience as a sort of "Self," is that "experience" really the experience of Wisdom that is talked about in Sutra, Tantra, and Upadesha? Or is it a mistaken experience?


Let's say I had the experience of attaining nirvana whose self-nature (svabhâva) is that of being unconditioned and, moreover, my attainment is incapable of being conceptualized. How can I be refuted? In fact, there is no way I can be refuted.


The question is, why would anyone believe your testimony.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:44 pm

Astus wrote:In the internalised trikaya model, as you said, the three are explained separately but they are not actually three different things. There are a number of ways to explain that. The simplest is the statement of the third "kaya" that emptiness and clarity are inseparable; here it is understood that clarity includes all appearances, it is dependent origination.


This is in line with Mahāmudra schools like Kagyu and Sakya's take on things. But rang bzhin gsal ba which is the sambhogakāya in Dzogchen teachings is definitely not all appearances and is not dependent origination.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Koji » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:53 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Koji wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
This leads to the question: for those who feel they have "had an experience" or "experienced" Wisdom or Buddhamind or whatnot, and have somehow consequently conceptualized that experience as a sort of "Self," is that "experience" really the experience of Wisdom that is talked about in Sutra, Tantra, and Upadesha? Or is it a mistaken experience?


Let's say I had the experience of attaining nirvana whose self-nature (svabhâva) is that of being unconditioned and, moreover, my attainment is incapable of being conceptualized. How can I be refuted? In fact, there is no way I can be refuted.


The question is, why would anyone believe your testimony.


You need a NPOV on the matter.
User avatar
Koji
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:07 pm

Koji wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The question is, why would anyone believe your testimony.


You need a NPOV on the matter.


This is religion, baby, it is all just smoke and mirrors.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Koji » Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:20 pm

Astus wrote:
Koji wrote:When you said ealier: There is neither an experiencer nor an experienced, there is just experience, and even that is empty, does this pertain to "a presumption, a hypothesis, a fantasy, an idea"?


As Cone replied already, yes. Whatever is said here is always and inevitably a conceptual creation. One of the main aspects of the teachings on emptiness is to realise this fact, that concepts are concepts and not truths. Those who believe that one should therefore get rid of concepts still assumes that thoughts are somehow real and they are a hindrance. The only hindrance is the idea that concepts are more than concepts. Without attachment there are neither grasping nor rejecting of thoughts and appearances, they are simply dependent appearances.


Let's look at conceptual appearances. Upon what, specifically, do these "dependent appearances" depend?
User avatar
Koji
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Koji » Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:28 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Koji wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The question is, why would anyone believe your testimony.


You need a NPOV on the matter.


This is religion, baby, it is all just smoke and mirrors.


But religion can also be this: "All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature." ~ Schleiermacher
User avatar
Koji
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:29 pm

Koji wrote:
But religion can also be this: "All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature." ~ Schleiermacher


As I said, smoke and mirrors. Pablum to feed the confused and ignorant. As the Buddha pointed out, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Koji » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:16 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Koji wrote:
But religion can also be this: "All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature." ~ Schleiermacher


As I said, smoke and mirrors. Pablum to feed the confused and ignorant. As the Buddha pointed out, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas.


Correct, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas like another twelve āyatanas, or like another sabba beyond the first sabba. At SN 35:23 we learn that the sabba is the 12 ayatana. At SN 35:24 the Buddha teaches us the Dhamma for abandoning sabba (sabbappahānāya). At SN 35:28 we learn the sabba is burning. Seeing thus the Ariyasāvaka experiences a revulsion towards the 12 ayatana after which he is liberated.
User avatar
Koji
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby Malcolm » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:24 pm

Koji wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Koji wrote:
But religion can also be this: "All religion expresses itself in such an awareness of something outside and beyond nature." ~ Schleiermacher


As I said, smoke and mirrors. Pablum to feed the confused and ignorant. As the Buddha pointed out, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas.


Correct, there is nothing outside of the twelve āyatanas like another twelve āyatanas, or like another sabba beyond the first sabba. At SN 35:23 we learn that the sabba is the 12 ayatana. At SN 35:24 the Buddha teaches us the Dhamma for abandoning sabba (sabbappahānāya). At SN 35:28 we learn the sabba is burning. Seeing thus the Ariyasāvaka experiences a revulsion towards the 12 ayatana after which he is liberated.


When you have relinquished all traces for rebirth, automatically the twelve āyatanas will cease at the break up of the body. This is classic "hināyāna" nirvana. Peter Harvey's books suggests that after the eradication of affliction there is a tiny shred of evidence in the Nikayas that Buddha suggests that there is a which vinnana/vijñāna survives in a now unconditioned state (i.e. a state unconditioned by affliction) and that this is nirvana intended by the Buddha. He nevertheless insists that this continuum is not to be referred to as a self, and that Buddha would find it inappropriate to do so.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10202
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Postby anjali » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:34 pm

Astus wrote:So, when you say that knowing knows itself, emptiness and radiance, that is actually the Huayan model. Although logically to say that knowing includes (knows) knowing is nothing but stating that knowing is knowing.


The question on the table is whether the knowing quality of the mind can turn back on itself (self-reflexive knowing)? To hijack a zen phrase, is it possible to "turn the light and illuminate back?" From the perspective of self-reflexive knowing, this can be interpreted as taking the light of one's awareness and turning it back on itself. There are folks who say this can be done, and describe it as a singular experience.
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

>