Tibetan Zen

[krodha]

You seem to equate an absence of view as a blank, wordless state. Now I see where you get this image from. I can tell you that it is not a blank, wordless state. It is alive with a presence and clarity that is quite different than what you are imagining. Wisdom begins to function without the obstruction of discursive mind. It is not that thoughts are bad. It is that they cannot comprehend what is. Attachment and identification are absent when you let go of your view, that is if you don't reify another view. I'm surprised that you don't see this.

Again, "letting go of views" is not what Nāgārjuna means by "abandonment of views." Nāgārjuna's "abandonment of views" denotes a pacification of referents, and this exhaustion of referents results from the experiential realization that phenomena are non-arisen.

It has nothing to do with the inability of concepts or thoughts to capture "what is."

"Letting go" of views accomplishes nothing. People can let go of views all they want, but their cognition will remain afflicted because they still perceive referents. Objects are still cognized when thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention. This is why the Kun bzang smon lam states:

• The vacant state of not thinking anything, is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion.

The so-called "abandonment of views" (or exhaustion of views) is something else entirely, and only occurs when one realizes non-arising and existents and non-existents no longer appear. One must experientially awaken to recognize this truth about phenomena, and this truth is not known by the everyday afflicted mind. Shantideva describes this awakening here:

• When neither an existent nor a nonexistent remain before the mind, at that time since there is no other aspect [concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support.

A "view" requires an existent referent, or "objective support" as Shantideva puts it. If referents no longer appear then there is no support for a "view."

The authentic exhaustion of views is something radically different than the mere "rejection of reification" you are describing. Reification occurs prior to imputation due to the afflicted perception of referents, you cannot abandon imputation in order to uproot reification. Instead you must experientially realize the absence of a basis for imputation, and only then is reification undone.

[Astus]

I can tell you that it is not a blank, wordless state. ... Wisdom begins to function without the obstruction of discursive mind.

If there is no discursive mind, there are no words, no concepts, no comprehension. How is it not a wordless state then?

It is not that thoughts are bad. It is that they cannot comprehend what is.

The whole world is whatever is defined by thoughts, hence terms like vijñaptimātra and nāmamātra. Also consider what mind actually is as defined by the four mental aggregates (vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, vijñāna), and the five universal mental functions (vedanā, saṃjñā, cetanā, sparśa, manaskāra).

Attachment and identification are absent when you let go of your view, that is if you don't reify another view.

Clinging is gone, but the functions are not.

[Anonymous X]

You seem to equate an absence of view as a blank, wordless state. Now I see where you get this image from. I can tell you that it is not a blank, wordless state. It is alive with a presence and clarity that is quite different than what you are imagining. Wisdom begins to function without the obstruction of discursive mind. It is not that thoughts are bad. It is that they cannot comprehend what is. Attachment and identification are absent when you let go of your view, that is if you don't reify another view. I'm surprised that you don't see this.

Again, "letting go of views" is not what Nāgārjuna means by "abandonment of views." Nāgārjuna's "abandonment of views" denotes a pacification of referents, and this exhaustion of referents results from the experiential realization that phenomena are non-arisen.

It has nothing to do with the inability of concepts or thoughts to capture "what is."

"Letting go" of views accomplishes nothing. People can let go of views all they want, but their cognition will remain afflicted because they still perceive referents. Objects are still cognized when thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention. This is why the Kun bzang smon lam states:

• The vacant state of not thinking anything, is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion.

The so-called "abandonment of views" (or exhaustion of views) is something else entirely, and only occurs when one realizes non-arising and existents and non-existents no longer appear. One must experientially awaken to recognize this truth about phenomena, and this truth is not known by the everyday afflicted mind. Shantideva describes this awakening here:

• When neither an existent nor a nonexistent remain before the mind, at that time since there is no other aspect [concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support.

A "view" requires an existent referent, or "objective support" as Shantideva puts it. If referents no longer appear then there is no support for a "view."

The authentic exhaustion of views is something radically different than the mere "rejection of reification" you are describing. Reification occurs prior to imputation due to the afflicted perception of referents, you cannot abandon imputation in order to uproot reification. Instead you must experientially realize the absence of a basis for imputation, and only then is reification undone.

Krodha,
The letting go of views happens when the referents are understood to have no basis, no true existent self. It is not let go of in order to accomplish anything. It is one less obstruction to deal with as 'thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention', as you say. The attention is quite alive and alert. Thoughts are not absent completely, but they are not engaged in the habitual way that the discursive mind operates. This has nothing to do with the ordinary afflicted mind. It is not about rejection, suppression, or reification, nor philosophy. If I am pushed to really describe it better, I would use the words vast, knowing without knowledge, clear and present. No problems to solve, nothing to understand or realize.

[Anonymous X]

I can tell you that it is not a blank, wordless state. ... Wisdom begins to function without the obstruction of discursive mind.

If there is no discursive mind, there are no words, no concepts, no comprehension. How is it not a wordless state then?

It is not that thoughts are bad. It is that they cannot comprehend what is.

The whole world is whatever is defined by thoughts, hence terms like vijñaptimātra and nāmamātra. Also consider what mind actually is as defined by the four mental aggregates (vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, vijñāna), and the five universal mental functions (vedanā, saṃjñā, cetanā, sparśa, manaskāra).

Attachment and identification are absent when you let go of your view, that is if you don't reify another view.

Clinging is gone, but the functions are not.

There are words and thoughts but they are not habitually engaged in because they have no basis of real existence. The world is not the problem. Mind is another issue. Many definitions. It is all one continuum without a 'knower'.

[krodha]

Krodha,
The letting go of views happens when the referents are understood to have no basis, no true existent self. It is not let go of in order to accomplish anything. It is one less obstruction to deal with as 'thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention', as you say. The attention is quite alive and alert. Thoughts are not absent completely, but they are not engaged in the habitual way that the discursive mind operates. This has nothing to do with the ordinary afflicted mind. It is not about rejection, suppression, or reification, nor philosophy. If I am pushed to really describe it better, I would use the words vast, knowing without knowledge, clear and present. No problems to solve, nothing to understand or realize.

Right, you are describing a neutral and indifferent state of attention where thought is not being engaged with but rather simply observed.

[Matt J]

The Mahayana is generally an inclusive path, or depending on your model, becomes more inclusive as you go higher. As I have engaged in it more, it tends to encompass more--- it is actually the vision of non-duality to include everything. Nothing is left out. Thoughts are not demons, and the mind is not to be destroyed (as if that were possible). The path even includes so-called "negative states" such as anger, hatred, etc. There is a saying, "thoughts are the dharmakaya."

There are some teachings that go in the general direction you are espousing, but I have found them more common in Theravada as opposed to Zen or Tibetan Buddhism, or in non-Buddhist traditions such as Samkhya Yoga or Gary Weber type of Vedanta. However, those paths lead in a different direction than Mahayana Buddhism--- GW has said that he has no more feeling for his daughters than a stranger, and that news of a disaster falling on them would be largely unnoticed by him emotionally. He seems cooly detached from everything. In the Metta Sutta, it is said that we should cultivate loving kindness for all beings just as a mother loves her only child.

There are words and thoughts but they are not habitually engaged in because they have no basis of real existence. The world is not the problem. Mind is another issue. Many definitions. It is all one continuum without a 'knower'.

[Sherab]

That is because you have assumed the ultimate as something permanent and unchanging.

Something is either permanent or impermanent. If the proposed ultimate is impermanent, why even call it the ultimate? If you may respond that it is not something, then it is necessarily nothing, in which case it does not exist, hence there is no ultimate at all.

I repeat, you are stating something that I have addressed early in this discussion. Either did not read them or if you did, you prefer to ignore them. If you do not address my reasoning or arguments, it is difficult to make headway in the discussion as we are merely talking pass each other. I leave that to you. I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

[Anonymous X]

The Mahayana is generally an inclusive path, or depending on your model, becomes more inclusive as you go higher. As I have engaged in it more, it tends to encompass more--- it is actually the vision of non-duality to include everything. Nothing is left out. Thoughts are not demons, and the mind is not to be destroyed (as if that were possible). The path even includes so-called "negative states" such as anger, hatred, etc. There is a saying, "thoughts are the dharmakaya."

There are some teachings that go in the general direction you are espousing, but I have found them more common in Theravada as opposed to Zen or Tibetan Buddhism, or in non-Buddhist traditions such as Samkhya Yoga or Gary Weber type of Vedanta. However, those paths lead in a different direction than Mahayana Buddhism--- GW has said that he has no more feeling for his daughters than a stranger, and that news of a disaster falling on them would be largely unnoticed by him emotionally. He seems cooly detached from everything. In the Metta Sutta, it is said that we should cultivate loving kindness for all beings just as a mother loves her only child.

There are words and thoughts but they are not habitually engaged in because they have no basis of real existence. The world is not the problem. Mind is another issue. Many definitions. It is all one continuum without a 'knower'.

Whatever I am describing, I am not trying to fit it into any model. I do agree that all states, thoughts, etc., are not 'rejected'. Trying to tie in your state to a model is to identify with a view. The models have no basis themselves as they are all within this discursive mind that is conditioned and impermanent. This is what I mean when I say 'thinking about thinking'. A view can only be held in the discursive mind. They are only thoughts, impermanent and without self existence. No position can be upheld within that sphere.

[LastLegend]

Not again!

Herb.jpg (85.44 KiB) Viewed 3231 times

Herb.jpg (85.44 KiB) Viewed 3231 times

[LastLegend]

Please take a break and watch this:

phpBB [video]

[Anonymous X]

The Greek/Scythian philosopher Pyrrho, who traveled with Alexander through Bactria and other Buddhist territories in the 3rd c. BCE, must have also been influenced by Buddhist teachings pre-dating Madhyamaka, but echoing it very succinctly.

We Know Neither the Absolute Truth nor the Lie

“Therefore, neither our sense perceptions nor our doxai
‘views, theories’ tell us the (ultimate) truth or lie to us (about pragmata
‘matters’). So we certainly should not rely on them (to do it).” Because
differentiae and other criteria are provided by human minds, and
ethical “matters, affairs, topics” are by nature unstable and unfixed,
both our inductive knowledge (based on perceptions) and our deductive
knowledge (views, theories, or arguments, even if based on purely
internal logical calculation) must be circular, and therefore logically
invalid and fatally defective in general. They are thus useless for determining
any ultimate, absolute truth, or its converse, untruth—the
lie—about pragmata ‘matters’; so we certainly should not expect our
intrinsically flawed and imperfect sense perceptions and mental abilities
to do that."

Pyrrho’s point here is that humans want to know the ultimate, absolute
Truth, but the ultimate or the absolute is a perfectionist metaphysical
or ontological category created by humans and superimposed
on everything. The same people declare our task to be to learn the absolute, perfect truth, and to understand it, as if it really existed.
Yet such categories cannot exist without humans, as pointed out in the Buddha’s teaching of anātman—dharmas do not have inherent self-identities—
and in Pyrrho’s version of it, adiaphora.

Adiaphora=undifferentiated, without a logical self-identity

[Anonymous X]

Please take a break and watch this:

phpBB [video]

Perfect!!

[LastLegend]

Dalai Lama.png (340.42 KiB) Viewed 3223 times

[krodha]

Krodha,
The letting go of views happens when the referents are understood to have no basis, no true existent self. It is not let go of in order to accomplish anything. It is one less obstruction to deal with as 'thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention', as you say. The attention is quite alive and alert. Thoughts are not absent completely, but they are not engaged in the habitual way that the discursive mind operates. This has nothing to do with the ordinary afflicted mind. It is not about rejection, suppression, or reification, nor philosophy. If I am pushed to really describe it better, I would use the words vast, knowing without knowledge, clear and present. No problems to solve, nothing to understand or realize.

Right, you are describing a neutral and indifferent state of attention where thought is not being engaged with but rather simply observed.

Amirite?

[Anonymous X]

Krodha,
The letting go of views happens when the referents are understood to have no basis, no true existent self. It is not let go of in order to accomplish anything. It is one less obstruction to deal with as 'thought subsides and one rests in neutral and indifferent, bare attention', as you say. The attention is quite alive and alert. Thoughts are not absent completely, but they are not engaged in the habitual way that the discursive mind operates. This has nothing to do with the ordinary afflicted mind. It is not about rejection, suppression, or reification, nor philosophy. If I am pushed to really describe it better, I would use the words vast, knowing without knowledge, clear and present. No problems to solve, nothing to understand or realize.

Right, you are describing a neutral and indifferent state of attention where thought is not being engaged with but rather simply observed.

Amirite?

maybe...... How can we be sure we are talking about the very same thing and describing it in the very same way? I didn't have any objection to your description.

[Astus]

I repeat, you are stating something that I have addressed early in this discussion.

The only place you seem to have addressed this was on page 9. There you state that the ultimate is both functional and impermanent. Such a statement actually turns the ultimate into the relative.

If you do not address my reasoning or arguments, it is difficult to make headway in the discussion as we are merely talking pass each other.

If there are other arguments from you I missed, please quote/link them.

[krodha]

Right, you are describing a neutral and indifferent state of attention where thought is not being engaged with but rather simply observed.

Amirite?

maybe...... How can we be sure we are talking about the very same thing and describing it in the very same way? I didn't have any objection to your description.

It isn't that difficult to ascertain whether we are discussing the same thing in this instance, and my point is if we are, then that is not authentic equipoise.

[Sherab]

I repeat, you are stating something that I have addressed early in this discussion.

The only place you seem to have addressed this was on page 9. There you state that the ultimate is both functional and impermanent. Such a statement actually turns the ultimate into the relative.

As I have mentioned before, it is because you have assumed that dependent arising is identical to temporal causality. I have explained previously that dependent arising is very broad and can encompass more than mere temporal causality.

If you do not address my reasoning or arguments, it is difficult to make headway in the discussion as we are merely talking pass each other.

If there are other arguments from you I missed, please quote/link them.

When I discuss a subject with others, I make it a point to read and understand what is being said so that I don't waste the other person's time and effort with a reply that is not to point.

[Malcolm]

I repeat, you are stating something that I have addressed early in this discussion.

The only place you seem to have addressed this was on page 9. There you state that the ultimate is both functional and impermanent. Such a statement actually turns the ultimate into the relative.

As I have mentioned before, it is because you have assumed that dependent arising is identical to temporal causality. I have explained previously that dependent arising is very broad and can encompass more than mere temporal causality.

There are only three kinds of dependent origination: serial, momentary, and simultaneous. But all three operate within temporal causality. Dependent origination is presented after cause and condition and before karma for this reason.

[aflatun]

Amirite?

maybe...... How can we be sure we are talking about the very same thing and describing it in the very same way? I didn't have any objection to your description.

It isn't that difficult to ascertain whether we are discussing the same thing in this instance, and my point is if we are, then that is not authentic equipoise.

Keeping in mind how elusive verbal formulations of these things can be, how would you describe authentic equipoise and how does it differ from the above?

FWIW, what you described to AnonX sounds more to me like a well-but not fully-developed Sati-Sampajanna.

EDIT: Scratch that, its not even Sati-Sampajanna yet as I understand it, something more rudimentary