Does Zen teach that true nature has an independent self-existence?

[Russian]

I'm from Russia. I don't speak English. I use Yandex machine translation. We had such a Buddhist Torchinov in Russia. Once the question was asked: "Does true nature have an independent self-existence?". Torchinov's answer: "From the point of view of Madhyamaka-prasangika and Gelugpins, it definitely does not possess (Tib. rangtong - self-emptiness). From the point of view of the main representatives of Kagyu and Nyingma (including Rime) and especially, Jonang-pa - certainly has (shentong - emptiness of the other). The vast majority of schools in China, Korea, and Japan also believe that it has (kun-bu kun, shunya-ashunya: emptiness for us and non-emptiness in itself)." The question arose: was he wrong, or was he right? From the Zen point of view, does true nature have an independent existence, or is it still dependent, has causality?

[Supramundane]

Добро пожаловать друг:)

как дела?

I studied Russian in Kiev for a year long ago. One of my greatest regrets is that i could not pursue it adequately.

Your question is quite difficult to answer because it refers to a polemic in Tibetan Buddhism, yet you ask what opinion Zen would have on it.

I think if you are studying Zen, you must have your own answer to this question before you asked it.

May I know what your answer would be?

[Astus]

From the Zen point of view, does true nature have an independent existence, or is it still dependent, has causality?

There is no Zen point of view. There were/are teachers who emphasise(d) emptiness/nonbeing (wu 無), while others emphasise(d) existence/being (you 有). From this you get in Zen:

A monk asked Zhaozhou: 'Does a dog have (you 有) buddha-nature or not (wu 無)?'
Zhou said: 'No' (wu 無).

If you are interested in some Mahayana background on the matter, start with the Treatise on Awakening Mahayana Faith:

'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 (asunya), for its essence itself is endowed with undefiled and excellent qualities.'
(BDK ed., p 14)

[Russian]

Treatise on Awakening Mahayana Faith:

'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 (asunya), for its essence itself is endowed with undefiled and excellent qualities.'
(BDK ed., p 14)

This is also what Wu Huihaya says in: "The necessary gate to the Path to Truth through Instant Awakening»:

"The nature of True Suchness is empty and at the same time not-empty. How is this possible? The wonderful essence of Bhutatathata has no form or image and is therefore undetectable, but this immaterial formless essence contains functions equal in number to the number of grains of sand in the Ganges, which invariably correspond to the circumstances that arise; and thus the True Suchness can be described as non-emptiness."

By the way, as in zhentong, it says here that suchness can be described as not emptiness.

[LastLegend]

I'm from Russia. I don't speak English. I use Yandex machine translation. We had such a Buddhist Torchinov in Russia. Once the question was asked: "Does true nature have an independent self-existence?". Torchinov's answer: "From the point of view of Madhyamaka-prasangika and Gelugpins, it definitely does not possess (Tib. rangtong - self-emptiness). From the point of view of the main representatives of Kagyu and Nyingma (including Rime) and especially, Jonang-pa - certainly has (shentong - emptiness of the other). The vast majority of schools in China, Korea, and Japan also believe that it has (kun-bu kun, shunya-ashunya: emptiness for us and non-emptiness in itself)." The question arose: was he wrong, or was he right? From the Zen point of view, does true nature have an independent existence, or is it still dependent, has causality?

Whatever says it this or that is one that leads to samsara.

[LastLegend]

Treatise on Awakening Mahayana Faith:

'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 (asunya), for its essence itself is endowed with undefiled and excellent qualities.'
(BDK ed., p 14)

This is also what Wu Huihaya says in: "The necessary gate to the Path to Truth through Instant Awakening»:

"The nature of True Suchness is empty and at the same time not-empty. How is this possible? The wonderful essence of Bhutatathata has no form or image and is therefore undetectable, but this immaterial formless essence contains functions equal in number to the number of grains of sand in the Ganges, which invariably correspond to the circumstances that arise; and thus the True Suchness can be described as non-emptiness."

By the way, as in zhentong, it says here that suchness can be described as not emptiness.

In description but what describes it is consciousness an skandha.

[Russian]

Treatise on Awakening Mahayana Faith:

'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 (asunya), for its essence itself is endowed with undefiled and excellent qualities.'
(BDK ed., p 14)

In general, the question is: this suchness, which on the one hand is empty, and on the other hand is not empty, because it has qualities, it is conditioned, does this suchness have a cause, or is it not conditioned, has no cause? Is it causal, or causeless? I apologize for "my" English, I translate automatically by Yandex.translate.

[Russian]

In description but what describes it is consciousness an skandha.

It's about something else, and it's about the aspects of wisdom and compassion that manifest for living beings. It's about qualities, properties.

[Russian]

In description but what describes it is consciousness an skandha.

It's about something else, and it's about the aspects of wisdom and compassion that manifest for living beings. It's about qualities, properties.

It seems to me that the teachers of the Tibetan schools are talking about the same thing, about the transformative aspect of wisdom and compassion, as if symbolizing it with a vajra and a bell.

[LastLegend]

In description but what describes it is consciousness an skandha.

It's about something else, and it's about the aspects of wisdom and compassion that manifest for living beings. It's about qualities, properties.

What you mean?

[Russian]

In description but what describes it is consciousness an skandha.

When it is said that suchness is empty and not empty, in the latter case, when it is called non-empty, it implies such aspects as: clarity, wisdom, compassion. If I am not mistaken, in the Altar Sutra, self-nature is meant as transforming.

[Astus]

In general, the question is: this suchness, which on the one hand is empty, and on the other hand is not empty, because it has qualities, it is conditioned, does this suchness have a cause, or is it not conditioned, has no cause? Is it causal, or causeless?

You might want to look into the second chapter of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra:

"Good son, the term 'conditioned' is a provisional word invented by the First Teacher. Now, if it is a provisional word invented by the First Teacher, then it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination. And if it is a verbal expression apprehended by imagination, then, in the final analysis, such an imagined description does not validate a real thing. Therefore, the conditioned does not exist. Good son, the term 'unconditioned' is also invented from language [and it also validates nothing real]."
(BDK ed., p 11)

[Russian]

Too bad I don't know English. From here, it is not known whether my messages are clear or not when I use machine translation.

[LastLegend]

In description but what describes it is consciousness an skandha.

It's about something else, and it's about the aspects of wisdom and compassion that manifest for living beings. It's about qualities, properties.

It seems to me that the teachers of the Tibetan schools are talking about the same thing, about the transformative aspect of wisdom and compassion, as if symbolizing it with a vajra and a bell.

Chan’s expression of absolute cessation is falling from that 100 ft pole. In absolute cessation there is no compassion or wisdom or anything can be describable. What describes such samadhi is consciousness. When one re-emerges from samadhi to ordinary life, consciousness and everything is back to where it was. The compassion and wisdom at this point is based on their original intent to liberate sentient beings by truly exercising their power to liberate sentient beings. Someone from Mahayana side, if decided not carry the burden of liberating sentient beings, their wisdom is limited, and not considered conducting Bodhisattva work.

[Russian]

Chan’s expression of absolute cessation is falling from that 100 ft pole. In absolute cessation there is no compassion or wisdom or anything can be describable. What describes such samadhi is consciousness. When one re-emerges from samadhi to ordinary life, consciousness and everything is back to where it was. The compassion and wisdom at this point is based on their original intent to liberate sentient beings by truly exercising their power to liberate sentient beings. Someone from Mahayana side, if decided not carry the burden of liberating sentient beings, their wisdom is limited, and not considered conducting Bodhisattva work.

In the Mahayana, the aspects of wisdom and compassion are related to Trikaya. That's not what you're writing.

[LastLegend]

In description but what describes it is consciousness an skandha.

When it is said that suchness is empty and not empty, in the latter case, when it is called non-empty, it implies such aspects as: clarity, wisdom, compassion. If I am not mistaken, in the Altar Sutra, self-nature is meant as transforming.

What knows anything is consciousness even Buddhadharma...there is little bit difference between practicing compassion and utilizing it with wisdom. The latter is for beings who have reached absolute cessation, which is much more broad. Not simply have harmonious and compassionate thoughts towards everyone like how we practice.

[Russian]

About one of the aspects of suchness: "The other is that it is truly nonempty (asunya), for its essence itself is endowed with undefiled and excellent qualities" (A treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana).

This is zhentong (gzhan stong).

[Supramundane]

Too bad I don't know English. From here, it is not known whether my messages are clear or not when I use machine translation.

All good bro

[Supramundane]

It seems to me that the Rangtong-Shentong debate that you are referring to is not applicable in Zen; In Gelug and Tibetan schools, there is considerable attention given to Nagarjuna and the concept of Two Truths. I don't believe that's Zen focuses on this as much. They seem to speak more from the point of view duality and non-duality.

I'm just guessing, but I would think that a Zen practitioner might see the shentong attempt to classify Ultimate Reality as Buddhahood as simply another form of duality. Sort of like a Russian doll, if you will; you are simply putting a duality inside of duality where it doesn't belong, if you know what I mean.

I think that in Zen, if someone asks you a question like that, you can slap them suddenly or yell out 'MU'. This seems to end the debate very quickly.

[LastLegend]

It seems to me that the Rangtong-Shentong debate that you are referring to is not applicable in Zen; In Gelug and Tibetan schools, there is considerable attention given to Nagarjuna and the concept of Two Truths. I don't believe that's Zen focuses on this as much. They seem to speak more from the point of view duality and non-duality.

When the knower consciousness is completely dissolved as in ‘no knower,’ from Mahaprajnaparamita Sutras then it can be called self-wisdom. With the Great cessation of the knower, there is no six senses or fields of anything. Even Buddha is not known. There is a danger of trying to describe this great samadhi without experiencing this samadhi myself might lead people to the abyss of nihilism.

I think that in Zen, if someone asks you a question like that, you can slap them suddenly or yell out 'MU'. This seems to end the debate very quickly.

No to Mu.