"Near-vana"....?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27774
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:07 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is charged with making sure it all makes sense.
How so? Madhyamaka is a complete teaching as it is, so are others as well. Even in a several vehicles setting, as in Tibetan Buddhism, Madhyamaka is used separately, not as a correction. So, I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
Madhyamaka is not an independent vehicle, not even in the nine yāna setting. Madhyamaka is a division in the Bodhisattva vehicle, like Yogacāra. Madhyamaka is strictly a critical school, and does not offer basis, path, and result that is in anyway distinct from Yogacāra.

The role of Madhyamaka is to make sure that Buddhist assertions remain in line with the Buddha's teaching of emptiness and dependent origination — that's all.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:15 pm

ItsRaining wrote: Hi! Where do the quotes of ZongMi come from? I'm quite interested in reading more of his stuff. Is it in the commentary of the Complete Enlightenment Sutra?
Zongmi On Chan, by Jeffrey Broughton.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:34 pm

Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is strictly a critical school, and does not offer basis, path, and result that is in anyway distinct from Yogacāra.
The role of Madhyamaka is to make sure that Buddhist assertions remain in line with the Buddha's teaching of emptiness and dependent origination — that's all.
If one should apply the reasoning provided in Madhyamaka to all doctrines, there can be neither basis nor path, much less anything to attain as a result.

"One who is a real goer does not perform a going of any of the three kinds.
Neither does one who is not a real goer perform a going of any of the three kinds.
One who is a both-real-and-unreal goer does not perform a going of any of the three kinds.
Thus there is no going, no goer, and no destination."

(MMK 2.24-25, tr Siderits)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27774
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:44 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is strictly a critical school, and does not offer basis, path, and result that is in anyway distinct from Yogacāra.
The role of Madhyamaka is to make sure that Buddhist assertions remain in line with the Buddha's teaching of emptiness and dependent origination — that's all.
If one should apply the reasoning provided in Madhyamaka to all doctrines, there can be neither basis nor path, much less anything to attain as a result.

"One who is a real goer does not perform a going of any of the three kinds.
Neither does one who is not a real goer perform a going of any of the three kinds.
One who is a both-real-and-unreal goer does not perform a going of any of the three kinds.
Thus there is no going, no goer, and no destination."

(MMK 2.24-25, tr Siderits)
This passage does not negate the convention of going. It only negates the motion of nondependent entities.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:15 pm

Malcolm wrote:This passage does not negate the convention of going. It only negates the motion of nondependent entities.
As the Madhyamaka convention goes, conventions are not debated. But once conventions are analysed, there is nothing left to posit or rely on. That's why establishing things like basis, path, and result are not the Madhyamaka method.

By the way, a "dependent entity" (unreal goer) doesn't make more sense than an independent one (real goer).

"Given the nonexistence of intrinsic nature, how will there be extrinsic nature (parabhāva)?
For extrinsic nature is said to be the intrinsic nature of another existent (parabhāva)."

(MMK 15.3, tr Siderits)

"Moreover that on which he depends does not exist by virtue of intrinsic nature.
And how can what does not exist intrinsically exist extrinsically?"

(MMK 22.9)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:38 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is strictly a critical school, and does not offer basis, path, and result that is in anyway distinct from Yogacāra.
The role of Madhyamaka is to make sure that Buddhist assertions remain in line with the Buddha's teaching of emptiness and dependent origination — that's all.
If one should apply the reasoning provided in Madhyamaka to all doctrines, there can be neither basis nor path, much less anything to attain as a result.

"One who is a real goer does not perform a going of any of the three kinds.
Neither does one who is not a real goer perform a going of any of the three kinds.
One who is a both-real-and-unreal goer does not perform a going of any of the three kinds.
Thus there is no going, no goer, and no destination."

(MMK 2.24-25, tr Siderits)
Astus, no one argues that what you quote is true. But, it is not the whole picture that the Buddha taught. As Malcolm states, the passage does not negate the convention of going.

Zongmi states: “The voidness axiom holds that all dharmas are included within the two truths, the worldly (origination by dependence) and the real (voidness). The nature axiom has three truths: nature (voidness); characteristics (origination by dependence); and self substance (true mind). The self substance is neither voidness nor form, etc.; it is the potentiality to be both. This corresponds to a mirror’s specific images, the voidness of those images, and the brightness or reflectivity of the mirror itself. “The difference between them concerning the two truths and the three truths. All scholars know that the voidness axiom says that all dharmas, both mundane and supramundane, do not go beyond the two truths. There is no need for quotations to elucidate this. The nature axiom, however, gathers up nature, characteristics, and the self substance [xing xiang ji ziti] and considers them together as the three truths. It takes all dharmas that originate by dependence, such as forms, etc., as the worldly truth and takes [the truth that] conditions lack a self nature and [hence] all dharmas are void as the real truth. (This much is no different in terms of principle from the two truths of the voidness axiom and the characteristics axiom.) That the one true mind substance is neither voidness nor form [but] has the potentiality to be void and the potentiality to be form is the truth of the highest meaning of the middle path. This is like a bright mirror that also has three aspects.”
Excerpt From: Jeffrey Lyle Broughton. “Zongmi on Chan.”

To my mind, you must add in to the Madhyamaka equation the truth of the Tathagatagarbha to complete the picture.

Another interesting point is the definition of the Tathagatagarbha, buddha in embryo, as dharmabody in bondage. However, even though they are identical in substance, as real and unreal principles [of the true mind] they differ…the storehouse consciousness suddenly transforms into the organ body, the external world, and the karmic seeds.

Maybe Malcolm can add to this as I am not a scholar, by any means.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:58 pm

Anonymous X wrote:Zongmi states:
That is Zongmi's take on the trisvabhava, not a teaching on tathagatagarbha.
To my mind, you must add in to the Madhyamaka equation the truth of the Tathagatagarbha to complete the picture.
Can you define what the tathagatagarbha is and why it would need to be added?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Anonymous X » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:13 pm

Astus wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:Zongmi states:
That is Zongmi's take on the trisvabhava, not a teaching on tathagatagarbha.
To my mind, you must add in to the Madhyamaka equation the truth of the Tathagatagarbha to complete the picture.
Can you define what the tathagatagarbha is and why it would need to be added?
If you read my previous posts, quoting Zongmi, the answers are all there. Read the sutras that Zongmi is commenting like Tathagatagarbha sutra, Srimala, etc. His nature axiom concerns itself with Tathagatagarbha and completes the 'tally' he forms. Tathagatagarbha is the Alaya-Vijnana he says, in its real aspect.

The quotes relating to Yogacara hold up with Madhyamaka, too.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27774
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:18 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:This passage does not negate the convention of going. It only negates the motion of nondependent entities.
As the Madhyamaka convention goes, conventions are not debated. But once conventions are analysed, there is nothing left to posit or rely on. That's why establishing things like basis, path, and result are not the Madhyamaka method.

Astus, you are debating conventions.

Madhyamaka does not establish a basis, a path, and result. No one said they did. They accept the basis, path, and result put forward by general Mahāyāna, as witnessed by the Madhyamaka commentaries (by Vimuktisena, Haribhadra, etc.) on the Abhisamayālaṃkara. You were the one who claimed that Madhyamaka was a complete and independent teaching, not me.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka does not establish a basis, a path, and result. No one said they did. They accept the basis, path, and result put forward by general Mahāyāna, as witnessed by the Madhyamaka commentaries (by Vimuktisena, Haribhadra, etc.) on the Abhisamayālaṃkara. You were the one who claimed that Madhyamaka was a complete and independent teaching, not me.
I wrote that Madhyamaka is a complete teaching, and not something that is meant simply to be used as a correction for other systems. But if it were used as an arbiter over others, then their methods would suffer from it. And before calling it a complete teaching, I also noted that it is not a doctrine establishing things on its own but relying on others, as a response to you stating that Madhyamaka not only negates but enforces rationality. So now when you write that they accept what others put forward, that is exactly what I meant by building on others, and not rationalising others.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27774
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:45 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka does not establish a basis, a path, and result. No one said they did. They accept the basis, path, and result put forward by general Mahāyāna, as witnessed by the Madhyamaka commentaries (by Vimuktisena, Haribhadra, etc.) on the Abhisamayālaṃkara. You were the one who claimed that Madhyamaka was a complete and independent teaching, not me.
I wrote that Madhyamaka is a complete teaching, and not something that is meant simply to be used as a correction for other systems. But if it were used as an arbiter over others, then their methods would suffer from it. And before calling it a complete teaching, I also noted that it is not a doctrine establishing things on its own but relying on others, as a response to you stating that Madhyamaka not only negates but enforces rationality. So now when you write that they accept what others put forward, that is exactly what I meant by building on others, and not rationalising others.
Madhyamaka is just a means of enforcing correct view. That's all. In fact, the system of Bhavaviveka is used for refuting non-buddhists, while the system of Candrakīrti is used for refuting Buddhists. That's it. There are no other purpose for Madhyamaka. It is strictly a critical approach for correcting other systems. It has no system of its own, but it does enforce rationality by subjecting propositions to the test of whether or not they have hidden statements of essences within them. Why? Because assertions of essence are irrational.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:57 pm

Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is just a means of enforcing correct view.
Do you not consider it a valid path for non-conceptual wisdom?
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27774
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:05 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is just a means of enforcing correct view.
Do you not consider it a valid path for non-conceptual wisdom?
Madhyamaka is not a path. If you want a path, look at Mahāyāna.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:07 am

Malcolm wrote:Madhyamaka is not a path. If you want a path, look at Mahāyāna.
Then call it a method, doctrine, system, teaching, school, tradition, etc. The question is whether Madhyamaka (and Yogacara perhaps) is taken as a theoretical basis, or something that has extensive role in how the bodhisattvayana is applied, particularly in the area of prajnaparamita. Reducing Madhyamaka (and probably the whole of sutrayana) into a mere theoretical background may be fine from a Vajrayana perspective, but the way its own authors seem to have thought of it is quite different.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Supramundane » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:50 am

muni wrote:
Supramundane wrote:
muni wrote:
I am so wondering how to describe the mind without perception or view?
is that a question or a koan, M?
:?:
Hello Supra,

Guess what.
I know actually not much about Zen, only by friends and few Zen examples once given. It is wonderful, anyway.

When there is no perceiver defining perception, only perceiving, then assertions and negations are impossible, then what to define? Or when all is not exactly mind but not different at all. Then no "thing" to define neither. Possibly that is why there is not much about “mind” in such sutras?

But I do not say, 'purification' or curing from misperception is useless to help in accordance with the great variety of confusions. Otherways Buddha guidance would be useless, and investigations would be useless, 'we' would remain in samsara's selfmade cocoon, clinging from there to what is perceived, in a way to protect that cocoon.


o o

it seems to me though that the mind is key because the mind creates the illusion/delusion of self; I guess we can say that via enlightenment, the self shrinks to nothing, a void. One realizes that the Self is but a construct of the five aggregates, and it thus has no inherent existence. The self is a construct born of the originating mind, as I said earlier.

Once the delusion of self is unraveled, there is only sunyata, but as the Madhyamaka tells us, sunyata itself is not an absolute or object in itself: it too is empty. But what is Nirvana? Is it nothingness or is it eternal life of some non-self consciousness? Or non-dualist consciousness?

If all is the True Mind, then that Nothing cannot apprehend itself, as it has nothing to compare itself to. it has no point of reference. The universe cannot be aware it is alive if it is everything….because it is not part of a collective that it can compare itself to. A mind/self requires boundaries. The universe has no boundaries. Our minds, even though they are co-extensive with other minds, are bounded by our own individuality. Hence, all is empty. From this is born a contradiction; to shrink to nothing is to become everything.

Buddhism is special, I believe, because it doesn’t view this contradiction from the outside, like a philosopher, but from the inside, in a phenomenological way. Maybe this is why Buddha spoke of Nirvana as being beyond words or refusing to answer when asked about its nature. He shunned a philosophical approach, opting instead to live it, to realize it, not looking at it from the outside but from the inside, if you know what I mean. This is why it is Near-vana.

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Anonymous X » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:32 am

Supramundane wrote: Once the delusion of self is unraveled, there is only sunyata, but as the Madhyamaka tells us, sunyata itself is not an absolute or object in itself: it too is empty. But what is Nirvana? Is it nothingness or is it eternal life of some non-self consciousness? Or non-dualist consciousness?
I would explain it a bit differently. Self is not unraveled. It is seen to be an illusion. An unraveling would be a kind of analysis. Is it expedient to analyze what is an illusion? The pointing to the nature of mind and its inherent 'substance', Knowing-Seeing, is a state that is non dual and which knows and sees all as its own nature. The dualities of samsara and nirvana are not looked at as separate things.
Supramundane wrote: all is the True Mind, then that Nothing cannot apprehend itself, as it has nothing to compare itself to. it has no point of reference. The universe cannot be aware it is alive if it is everything….because it is not part of a collective that it can compare itself to. A mind/self requires boundaries. The universe has no boundaries. Our minds, even though they are co-extensive with other minds, are bounded by our own individuality. Hence, all is empty. From this is born a contradiction; to shrink to nothing is to become everything.
Yes, except nothing shrinks. There is totality. Nothing is added.

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Supramundane » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:06 am

Anonymous X wrote:
Supramundane wrote: Once the delusion of self is unraveled, there is only sunyata, but as the Madhyamaka tells us, sunyata itself is not an absolute or object in itself: it too is empty. But what is Nirvana? Is it nothingness or is it eternal life of some non-self consciousness? Or non-dualist consciousness?
I would explain it a bit differently. Self is not unraveled. It is seen to be an illusion. An unraveling would be a kind of analysis. Is it expedient to analyze what is an illusion? The pointing to the nature of mind and its inherent 'substance', Knowing-Seeing, is a state that is non dual and which knows and sees all as its own nature. The dualities of samsara and nirvana are not looked at as separate things.
Supramundane wrote: all is the True Mind, then that Nothing cannot apprehend itself, as it has nothing to compare itself to. it has no point of reference. The universe cannot be aware it is alive if it is everything….because it is not part of a collective that it can compare itself to. A mind/self requires boundaries. The universe has no boundaries. Our minds, even though they are co-extensive with other minds, are bounded by our own individuality. Hence, all is empty. From this is born a contradiction; to shrink to nothing is to become everything.
Yes, except nothing shrinks. There is totality. Nothing is added.
so there is no gradual enlightenment, you are saying? it must be sudden?

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Anonymous X » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:31 am

Supramundane wrote:
Anonymous X wrote:
Supramundane wrote: Once the delusion of self is unraveled, there is only sunyata, but as the Madhyamaka tells us, sunyata itself is not an absolute or object in itself: it too is empty. But what is Nirvana? Is it nothingness or is it eternal life of some non-self consciousness? Or non-dualist consciousness?
I would explain it a bit differently. Self is not unraveled. It is seen to be an illusion. An unraveling would be a kind of analysis. Is it expedient to analyze what is an illusion? The pointing to the nature of mind and its inherent 'substance', Knowing-Seeing, is a state that is non dual and which knows and sees all as its own nature. The dualities of samsara and nirvana are not looked at as separate things.
Supramundane wrote: all is the True Mind, then that Nothing cannot apprehend itself, as it has nothing to compare itself to. it has no point of reference. The universe cannot be aware it is alive if it is everything….because it is not part of a collective that it can compare itself to. A mind/self requires boundaries. The universe has no boundaries. Our minds, even though they are co-extensive with other minds, are bounded by our own individuality. Hence, all is empty. From this is born a contradiction; to shrink to nothing is to become everything.
Yes, except nothing shrinks. There is totality. Nothing is added.
so there is no gradual enlightenment, you are saying? it must be sudden?

For me, I don't really make that distinction. I was just refining some points that I was making. Some people use the term 'established' or 'stabilized' in your own nature as being requisite for understanding all this. Being in this state is not necessarily a permanent thing because of the strength of dualistic thinking. That's why people like Zongmi and others say that even after awakening, there is still practice. But, that practice has a different principle than the practice of someone who has not awakened to their own nature. There is no becoming or struggle to change anything. It is an allowance of phenomenon to be what they are. They become self-perfecting, arising and dissolving into this awakened nature of so-called Mind. I don't think it is possible to explain this, unfortunately. It needs to be contemplated.

User avatar
Supramundane
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:38 am
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Supramundane » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:57 am

Anonymous X wrote:
Supramundane wrote:
Anonymous X wrote: I would explain it a bit differently. Self is not unraveled. It is seen to be an illusion. An unraveling would be a kind of analysis. Is it expedient to analyze what is an illusion? The pointing to the nature of mind and its inherent 'substance', Knowing-Seeing, is a state that is non dual and which knows and sees all as its own nature. The dualities of samsara and nirvana are not looked at as separate things.


Yes, except nothing shrinks. There is totality. Nothing is added.
so there is no gradual enlightenment, you are saying? it must be sudden?

For me, I don't really make that distinction. I was just refining some points that I was making. Some people use the term 'established' or 'stabilized' in your own nature as being requisite for understanding all this. Being in this state is not necessarily a permanent thing because of the strength of dualistic thinking. That's why people like Zongmi and others say that even after awakening, there is still practice. But, that practice has a different principle than the practice of someone who has not awakened to their own nature. There is no becoming or struggle to change anything. It is an allowance of phenomenon to be what they are. They become self-perfecting, arising and dissolving into this awakened nature of so-called Mind. I don't think it is possible to explain this, unfortunately. It needs to be contemplated.
i understand; thanks for explaining.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 6915
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: "Near-vana"....?

Post by Astus » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Supramundane wrote:But what is Nirvana? Is it nothingness or is it eternal life of some non-self consciousness? Or non-dualist consciousness?
Trying to establish oneself in some form of consciousness is the root of suffering. Nirvana is relinquishing all that clinging.

"Not even “non-existence” qualifies as nirvāṇa.
How much the less might “existence” qualify as such?
The complete end of attachments to existence or non-existence—
The Buddha described this as essential to nirvāṇa."

(Ratnavali, v 42, tr Dharmamitra)
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mantrik, Yahoo [Bot] and 28 guests