Where is ‘Mind’?

smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by smcj » Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:39 am

The Kagyupas do not characterise Shravaka cessation in the way that you suggest. In the Moonbeams chapter on meditative deviations, Tashi Namgyal makes the distinction between cessation with discrimination and without. Only the latter is a deviation into formless absorption; the latter is highly regarded as a genuine state beyond samsara.
That’s what I just said. The Mahayana view of an Arhat’s liberation is different than the Arhat’s expectation. The Arhat’s understanding and expectation of extinction is incorrect. That “formless absorption” that the Mahayana sees is why there is a slumbering Arhat present that the Bodhisattvas can awaken with their blessings instead of nothing at all.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 1809
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by PeterC » Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:59 am

tobes wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:33 am
PeterC wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:14 am
Wayfarer wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:20 am
Hindus have always accused Buddhism of nihilism, even though Buddhist assert that śūnyatā=/=nothingness. Here's a journal article which spells out this accusation in detail - Sunyavada - a Reinterpretation (.pdf), Harsh Narain, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Jan., 1964), pp. 311-338. I don't agree with it but it articulates the case.
Thanks for posting that. It was a little painful to read - how can someone so obviously intelligent miss the point so completely?
It is so easy to miss the point with Madhyamaka. The article shows how far western scholarship has come on it though - it still misses the point, but not so completely.
I agree, it is difficult to understand, but one can make it a lot more difficult by failing to ask, why am I reading this? What is the purpose of these arguments? Philosophy in Buddhism does not exist for its own sake.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5105
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Wayfarer » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:19 am

PeterC wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:14 am
Wayfarer wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:20 am
Hindus have always accused Buddhism of nihilism, even though Buddhist assert that śūnyatā=/=nothingness. Here's a journal article which spells out this accusation in detail - Sunyavada - a Reinterpretation (.pdf), Harsh Narain, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Jan., 1964), pp. 311-338. I don't agree with it but it articulates the case.
Thanks for posting that. It was a little painful to read - how can someone so obviously intelligent miss the point so completely?

It was a reading when I did Buddhist Studies. I don't think it's Western scholarship, Narain was an academic at Benares university - so, a Hindu scholar, and Hindus have always said the Buddha is nihilist. If they didn't say that, they'd be Buddhists! I think the essay misses the mark, it falls into the error of saying that the negation of appearances means nothing is real. Beginner's error, really, but still many make it. Again, it's the difference between 'nothing' and 'no thing'.


(I am sometimes bothered by the talk that 'arhats' have a 'lesser attainment'. Me, I know I will never 'attain' anything near arhatship, or anything of any real merit at all. I understand how the Mahāyāna as an historical development see it (to some extent), but I also think there's a risk of interpreting it, as if we ourselves are going to somehow realise a greater degree of insight than those ancient practitioners, when truth be told probably none of us will. Just sayin'.)
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
heart
Posts: 4921
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by heart » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:24 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:19 am
PeterC wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:14 am
Wayfarer wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:20 am
Hindus have always accused Buddhism of nihilism, even though Buddhist assert that śūnyatā=/=nothingness. Here's a journal article which spells out this accusation in detail - Sunyavada - a Reinterpretation (.pdf), Harsh Narain, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Jan., 1964), pp. 311-338. I don't agree with it but it articulates the case.
Thanks for posting that. It was a little painful to read - how can someone so obviously intelligent miss the point so completely?

It was a reading when I did Buddhist Studies. I don't think it's Western scholarship, Narain was an academic at Benares university - so, a Hindu scholar, and Hindus have always said the Buddha is nihilist. If they didn't say that, they'd be Buddhists! I think the essay misses the mark, it falls into the error of saying that the negation of appearances means nothing is real. Beginner's error, really, but still many make it. Again, it's the difference between 'nothing' and 'no thing'.


(I am sometimes bothered by the talk that 'arhats' have a 'lesser attainment'. Me, I know I will never 'attain' anything near arhatship, or anything of any real merit at all. I understand how the Mahāyāna as an historical development see it (to some extent), but I also think there's a risk of interpreting it, as if we ourselves are going to somehow realise a greater degree of insight than those ancient practitioners, when truth be told probably none of us will. Just sayin'.)
There are no proof that Mahayana is an "historical development" any longer since the discovery of the Gandhara texts. Prajnaparamita and Mahaparanirvana sutras are among the oldest Buddhist text we have.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5105
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Wayfarer » Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:49 am

I stand corrected.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Simon E. » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:27 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:49 am
I stand corrected.
That the Pali Canon is somehow pristine and original Buddhism is a canard that was woven deeply into its introduction into the west and many of us who have been around for a while accepted the whole mythos of Pali Suttas evolving somehow into Madhyamika and the HYT and then Zen or Dzogchen...
Probably many folk over at DhammaWheel still do, except they would see a degeneration rather than an evolution.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5105
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Wayfarer » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:34 am

that's not the point I'm making. It's more the apparent denigration of 'the arhat'. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, I will be happy to be corrected.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

Simon E.
Posts: 7434
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Simon E. » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:47 am

Ok..sorry if I interrupted the flow.. :namaste:
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5105
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Wayfarer » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:58 am

No problems at all, I was the one digressing. It's not really related to the thread topic, just something that occasionally bothers me about threads here.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

haha
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by haha » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:47 pm

Virgo wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:14 am
Additionally, the Theravāda school definitely held that after final cessation, neither mind nor matter ever arise again. This is clear within the commentarial tradition, although I don't have any quotes handy.

They argued that this wasn't an extinction at all because there never really was a being - just mind and matter (a being would be a concept). The causes and conditions for the continued arising of mind and matter were removed by the realized person, which happens at "nirvana without remainder." Until that point, purified consciousness free of taints arises for the Arhat. After s/he passes away, mind and matter do not arise again.

Of course I think their position is faulty.

Virgo
When I listened to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s lectures on Abhidhamma (i.e. available in youtube) several years ago, he explained this view using pond, pebble and ripple. Now, I don’t have strength to recheck those videos.

I could not agree but who cares about anonymous person view. Lol

Even in the sutta, one can regard this view is refuted. One can regard it as earlier form of Madhyamika reasoning.
“But, friend, when the Tathāgata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death’?”

“Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”

Samyutta Nikaya

haha
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by haha » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:55 pm

Tathagata could not wake up and teach his former teachers (who gave information about worldly samadhi), then how could he wake up those who have gone beyond Skandha, Dhatu, Ayatana by destroying fetters? They are supposed to be awaken up from which skandha?

Let’s supposed they are awaken from that Samadhi. If that is the case, it should be regarded that they are being disqualified to become arhata. Non-returner will become returner. The once returner will become the multiple returners. Full fetter destroyer will become the full of fetters and will start the path again.
:shrug:

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7675
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Astus » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:15 pm

heart wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:24 am
There are no proof that Mahayana is an "historical development" any longer since the discovery of the Gandhara texts. Prajnaparamita and Mahaparanirvana sutras are among the oldest Buddhist text we have.
'The fact that Mahāyāna texts taught the emptiness of dharmas may not therefore signify that this is a typically or exclusively Mahāyāna position, but it does emphasise the dependence of much of Mahāyāna literature on developments that had begun in a small corner of north-western India.'
...
'The special point to be emphasised is that the ‘Perfection of Wisdom’, which is the subject matter of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā in its surviving Sanskrit version, only makes sense against the background of the overhaul of Buddhist scholasticism that had taken place in Greater Gandhāra during the last centuries preceding the Common Era. It was in Greater Gandhāra, during this period, that Buddhist scholasticism developed an ontology centred on the lists of dharmas that had been preserved.'
(Abhidharma in Early Mahayana by J. Bronkhorst)
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"

Malcolm
Posts: 31061
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:29 pm

tobes wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:09 am
Happy to have a look at this when I have time.

In the meantime, I'll note that when I have asked for evidence for which Sravakas themselves assert that they are aiming for total extinction, you provide a Sarvastivadan-Abdhidharmika critique of the Sautantrikas - who themselves reject the Abhidharma....

If that's the best we have, then so be it. At least you've put something on the table....
Even the Sarvastivada acknowledge that that their seven treatises of Abhidharma were not directly taught by the Buddha. And the sautrantikas base their critiques in sutra, rejecting abhidharma metaphysics where they contradict sutra, which is why, in the scheme of the four tenet systems, the latter are considered higher than the former. This is apropos, because you invoked sutra in defense of your claim that shravakas do not seek a kind of total cessation.

Malcolm
Posts: 31061
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:38 pm

tobes wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:50 am

What's in dispute: the claim that there is literally nothing at all from that point; total annihilation, nothingness, non-existence. i.e. you go beyond the 4 jhanas into absolute death.
Not annihilation, absolute cessation of the continuum of the aggregates. What else could it be, if there is nothing else apart from the aggregates upon which an a self is imputed.

Peter Harvey, in Selfless Persons, argues that an unconditioned consciousness continues, but he is not a classical shravaka, and does not cite classical shravakas sources which confirm his ideas. He bases his argument, as far as I recall, On some very elusive passages in the Pali suttas. But the sautrantikas still argue that nirvana is unreal, whether you like it or not. Not only this, but everyone who has ever written a book on the subject of the four tenet systems in India and Tibet also confirms this fact.

User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 2600
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Aemilius » Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:29 pm
tobes wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:09 am
Happy to have a look at this when I have time.

In the meantime, I'll note that when I have asked for evidence for which Sravakas themselves assert that they are aiming for total extinction, you provide a Sarvastivadan-Abdhidharmika critique of the Sautantrikas - who themselves reject the Abhidharma....

If that's the best we have, then so be it. At least you've put something on the table....
Even the Sarvastivada acknowledge that that their seven treatises of Abhidharma were not directly taught by the Buddha. And the sautrantikas base their critiques in sutra, rejecting abhidharma metaphysics where they contradict sutra, which is why, in the scheme of the four tenet systems, the latter are considered higher than the former. This is apropos, because you invoked sutra in defense of your claim that shravakas do not seek a kind of total cessation.
Vasubandhu writes in Abhidharmakosa-bhasyam page 58 about the origin of Abhidharma (and the views of different schools on it):
"However, the Vaibhashikas explain, the Blessed One spoke Abhidharma in fragments. And in the same as Sthavira Dharmatrata made a collection of Udanas scattered throughout the scriptures, -the Udanavarga (the larger original Dharmapada)-, in this same way the Aryan Katyayaniputra and the other Saints established the Abhidharma (by collecting it into seven Abhidharmas)."
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)

Malcolm
Posts: 31061
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:59 pm

Aemilius wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:29 pm
tobes wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:09 am
Happy to have a look at this when I have time.

In the meantime, I'll note that when I have asked for evidence for which Sravakas themselves assert that they are aiming for total extinction, you provide a Sarvastivadan-Abdhidharmika critique of the Sautantrikas - who themselves reject the Abhidharma....

If that's the best we have, then so be it. At least you've put something on the table....
Even the Sarvastivada acknowledge that that their seven treatises of Abhidharma were not directly taught by the Buddha. And the sautrantikas base their critiques in sutra, rejecting abhidharma metaphysics where they contradict sutra, which is why, in the scheme of the four tenet systems, the latter are considered higher than the former. This is apropos, because you invoked sutra in defense of your claim that shravakas do not seek a kind of total cessation.
Vasubandhu writes in Abhidharmakosa-bhasyam page 58 about the origin of Abhidharma (and the views of different schools on it):
"However, the Vaibhashikas explain, the Blessed One spoke Abhidharma in fragments. And in the same as Sthavira Dharmatrata made a collection of Udanas scattered throughout the scriptures, -the Udanavarga (the larger original Dharmapada)-, in this same way the Aryan Katyayaniputra and the other Saints established the Abhidharma (by collecting it into seven Abhidharmas)."
However, Vasubandhu is merely reporting an opinion that he does not accept, which is clarified by Valle-Poussin in footnote 16, pg. 133: "The word kila shows that Vasubandhu presents here an opinion...that he does not accept. The Abhidharma treatises are not the word of the Master for the Sautrāntikas and for Vasubandhu."

Malcolm
Posts: 31061
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:01 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 2:38 pm
tobes wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:50 am

What's in dispute: the claim that there is literally nothing at all from that point; total annihilation, nothingness, non-existence. i.e. you go beyond the 4 jhanas into absolute death.
Not annihilation, absolute cessation of the continuum of the aggregates. What else could it be, if there is nothing else apart from the aggregates upon which an a self is imputed.

Peter Harvey, in Selfless Persons, argues that an unconditioned consciousness continues, but he is not a classical shravaka, and does not cite classical shravakas sources which confirm his ideas. He bases his argument, as far as I recall, On some very elusive passages in the Pali suttas. But the sautrantikas still argue that nirvana is unreal, whether you like it or not. Not only this, but everyone who has ever written a book on the subject of the four tenet systems in India and Tibet also confirms this fact.
Correction, Selfless Mind.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7675
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by Astus » Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:27 pm

Gampopa wrote:Geshe believes that the nature of the body of the actual perfect, complete Buddha is Dharmakaya. Dharmakaya is the exhaustion of all mistakes, or just a return to the inherent nature. But these are just labels. In reality, Dharmakaya is unborn, free from elaboration. The Ornament of Mahayana Sutra says:
Liberation is just the exhaustion of confusion.
(Jewel Ornament of Liberation, p 285)
Traleg Kyabgon wrote:Dharmakaya as a state is not an entity; it is not a thing. It is unconditional, and it is permanent. This is why it is said that dharmakaya is not a product of causes and conditions. Nevertheless, when the dharmakaya is described as permanent, this does not mean that there is an entity that endures forever. The dharmakaya is not an entity; it is nothing and cannot be said to be permanent in this way. It is permanent in the same sense as the sky can be said to be permanent. The sky is permanent because it is unconditional; it has never arisen and therefore cannot cease to exist.
(The Essence of Buddhism, p 125-126)
Nagarjuna wrote:But one who has taken up a mass of beliefs, such as that the Tathāgata exists,
so conceptualizing, that person will also imagine that [the Tathāgata] does not exist when extinguished.
And the thought does not hold, with reference to this (Tathāgata) who is intrinsically empty,
that the Buddha either exists or does not exist after cessation.
Those who hypostatize the Buddha, who is beyond hypostatization and unwavering,
they all, deceived by hypostatization, fail to see the Tathāgata.
(Mulamadhyamakakarika 22.13-15, tr Siderits)
Mahāsi Sayādaw wrote:In nibbāna there are no such things as mind or mental concomitants, which can be met with in the sense-sphere or form-sphere. It naturally follows that mind and matter that belong to the thirty-one planes of existence are totally absent in nibbāna. However, some would like to propose that after the parinibbāna of the Buddha and the Arahants, they acquire a special kind of mind and matter in nibbāna. Such an extraordinary way of thinking may appeal to those who cannot do away with self or ego.
With regard to this proposition a learned Sayādaw reasoned that if there is a special kind of mind and matter in nibbāna, there must also be a special kind of rebirth which gives rise to a special kind of old age,disease, and death, which in turn bring about a special kind of sorrow,lamentation, suffering, distress, and despair. When the teachings explicitly say cessation, it will be improper to go beyond it and formulate an idea of a special kind of existence. Extinction points to nothing other than Nothingness. Nibbāna, which is not involved in mind and matter, cannot be made to get involved either in this world or in other worlds.
(On the Nature of Nibbāna, p 63-64)
Ajahn Payutto wrote:An inevitable question that arises in the discussion of Nibbāna is: ‘What happens to an arahant after death?’ or: ‘Does a person who has realized Nibbāna exist after death or not?’ In truth, this question is centred around self-view: the devotion to self is acting as a catalyst in posing the question. This attachment to self or to the label of self (attavādupādāna) is firmly embedded in the hearts of unenlightened people, supported by the thirst for being (bhava-taṇhā) and based on ignorance (avijjā). The Buddha did not encourage debating this question if one has not eliminated ignorance and craving. He encouraged knowledge through application rather than conjecture.

No matter how one responds to these inquiries, the latent root attachment to self inevitably leads to a biased understanding. The questioner will incline towards a wrong view of Nibbāna as either an enduring self or an eradication of self. It is easy for annihilationists to view Nibbāna as extinction, because Buddhism emphasizes disentangling from the widespread belief in eternalism. As for eternalists, when their idea of self is invalidated, they search for a substitute to compensate for the sense of void or to restore the idea of a stable self. When they encounter a teaching that advocates uprooting the fixed belief in self, it can seem to them that the self vanishes. They may then seize Nibbāna as a haven for the self or equate Nibbāna as eternal life or the Promised Land. Many esteemed and wise individuals who are free from almost all forms of attachment get caught in these views. The escape from this net leads to complete liberation. The Buddhist teachings admit that such freedom is extremely difficult to achieve and refer to this subtle attachment to views as ‘the Brahma-ensnaring web’ (brahma-jāla): an entanglement for the virtuous and wise.

Nibbāna and the practice for Nibbāna have nothing to do with destroying the self because there is no self to destroy. It is the attachment to the concepts of self that must be destroyed. One must remove the attachment to self-assertions, self-views and self-perceptions. Nibbāna is the end of these misunderstandings and the end of the suffering caused by attachment. When the yearning for self ceases, all theories of self automatically lose their significance. When the attachment to self is uprooted, things will be seen as they truly are; there is no need for further speculation about self. When the desire which gives rise to self ceases, the matter of self vanishes of its own accord. Nibbāna is the cessation of suffering, not the cessation of self, since there is no self that will cease. Reflect on the Buddha’s words: ‘I teach only suffering and the end of suffering.’ In order to shift the emphasis from the preoccupation with Nibbāna and philosophical debate, the Buddha usually referred to Nibbāna in the context of practical application or the related benefits for everyday life, as demonstrated in passages of the Tipiṭaka.
(Nibbāna: the Supreme Peace)
Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda wrote:Because Nibbāna is said to be something realizable, some are of the opinion that nothing should be predicated about it. What is the reason for this special emphasis on its realizability? It is to bring into sharp relief the point of divergence, since the Buddha taught a way of realizing here and now something that in other religions was considered impossible.
What was it that they regarded impossible to be realized? The cessation of existence, or bhavanirodha. How can one be certain here and now that this existence has ceased? This might sometimes appear as a big puzzle. But all the same, the arahant experiences the cessation of existence as a realization. That is why he even gives expression to it as: Bhavanirodho Nibbānaṃ, (AN 10.7) "cessation of existence is Nibbāna".
It comes about by this extinction of influxes. The very existence of 'existence' is especially due to the flowing in of influxes of existence. What is called 'existence' is not the apparent process of existing visible to others. It is something that pertains to one's own mental continuum.
(Nibbāna - The Mind Stilled, Sermon 5)

Nibbāna has been defined as the cessation of existence. (e.g. SN 12.68) The Buddha says that when he is preaching about the cessation of existence, some people, particularly the brahmins who cling to a soul theory, bring up the charge of nihilism against him. (MN 22) Not only those brahmins and heretics believing in a soul theory, but even some Buddhist scholars are scared of the term bhavanirodha, fearing that it leads to a nihilistic interpretation of Nibbāna. That is why they try to mystify Nibbāna in various ways. What is the secret behind this attitude? It is simply the lack of a clear understanding of the unique philosophy made known by the Buddha.
(Sermon 8)
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"

smcj
Posts: 6947
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by smcj » Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:07 pm

There are no proof that Mahayana is an "historical development" any longer since the discovery of the Gandhara texts.
The previous Kalu R used to say that the 3 Yanas could be seen as the progression of an individual along the spiritual path. The Shravakayana is the initial phase where the focus is on restraining the crudest level of action. Not doing negative things is the most positive a negative person can be. Restricting love of self until karmas are expended is the strategy.

Mahayana addresses the next most subtle level, attitudes. It also sees life in a somewhat more positive perspective. It sees life as an opportunity for Dharma practice. Love of self becomes love of others.

Vajrayana is more subtle. It sees life as a Buddhafield and all beings as Buddhas. Love of 3Jewels becomes essential (via guru yoga). Positive qualities become so profound that otherwise negative obstacles can be transformed into enlightened activities.

So it is sequential over time. Just like arithmetic came before algebra, and calculus came later, I believe the the Mahayana predates Vajrayana, and Shravakayana predates Mahayana as history would sees it.

That’s the way I see it as of today. The Gandhara manuscripts do not change that.

YMMV.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

User avatar
heart
Posts: 4921
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Where is ‘Mind’?

Post by heart » Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:48 pm

smcj wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:07 pm
There are no proof that Mahayana is an "historical development" any longer since the discovery of the Gandhara texts.
The previous Kalu R used to say that the 3 Yanas could be seen as the progression of an individual along the spiritual path. The Shravakayana is the initial phase where the focus is on restraining the crudest level of action. Not doing negative things is the most positive a negative person can be. Restricting love of self until karmas are expended is the strategy.

Mahayana addresses the next most subtle level, attitudes. It also sees life in a somewhat more positive perspective. It sees life as an opportunity for Dharma practice. Love of self becomes love of others.

Vajrayana is more subtle. It sees life as a Buddhafield and all beings as Buddhas. Love of 3Jewels becomes essential (via guru yoga). Positive qualities become so profound that otherwise negative obstacles can be transformed into enlightened activities.

So it is sequential over time. Just like arithmetic came before algebra, and calculus came later, I believe the the Mahayana predates Vajrayana, and Shravakayana predates Mahayana as history would sees it.

That’s the way I see it as of today. The Gandhara manuscripts do not change that.

YMMV.
Being small minded will not change the fact that there are no longer any proof that Mahayana is a "later development". The general development for a person along the 3 yanas don't really mean you apply the practices if these yanas it just a question of attitude.

/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut

"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)

Post Reply

Return to “Kagyu”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests