From Impermanence to Buddhahood

[White Lotus]

All words are merely fabricated views. To speak of 1 is merely a view, a fabrication. Thank you Astus. But i also see that this view may point towards the moon. Infinite levels of emptiness containing 1. I can still say: "only words". Thats because the 1 is empty. Words however don't miss it, even if they can't grasp it. Like the finger and the moon. Thank you for you'r compassionate patience with my ignorance in this matter. 1 may be delusional. Tom.

[White Lotus]

The Lakkhana sutra says that Buddha had as his 31st physical mark/lakshana: a filament that arises between his eyes white like soft cotton. The Lakkhana sutra only lists 31 of his 32 marks of greatness? (my source) The question is whether a point on his forehead (Urna) or the ushnisha is his 32nd mark. Or whether he actually had 33 marks. If the whisp/urna is between his eyebrows, at the apex of the nose it represents enlightened consciousness. If higher up on the forehead: then a transcendence of consciousness. Being a significant 'point' it symbolically and geometrically represents 1. The buddhas enlightened state. If state were the right word to use. Perhaps better just to say the buddha's 1 hood. Only words. Tom.

[White Lotus]

From impermanence to 1. Permanence. Dependence/ emptiness is impermanent. (like an empty cup being filled with water) Independence is permanent. Being 1, it is not a substance/ compounded. Not being compounded: how could it decay? Please note that i am thinking here of an ideal 1; not a compounded natural 'o'ne. Tom.

[Vasana]

White Lotus, you really have a knack for both over complicating things and over simplifying them at the same time.

This topic is much simpler than you're drawing it out to be. Astus started the thread on the premise of a quote and has offered a quote from sutra as clarification.

I suggest simply typing "emptiness and impermenance" into google and going through the pages that mention their relationship to see how they are traditionally explained in relation, rather than exclusively relying on your own train of thought.

[Bristollad]

This is because he is ultimately independent. 1. Thats the symbology of the budda's Urna (point on his forehead). The buddha is perfectly and absolutely 1. Uncompounded.

The Lakkhana sutra says that Buddha had as his 31st physical mark/lakshana: a filament that arises between his eyes white like soft cotton. The Lakkhana sutra only lists 31 of his 32 marks of greatness? (my source) The question is whether a point on his forehead (Urna) or the ushnisha is his 32nd mark. Or whether he actually had 33 marks. If the whisp/urna is between his eyebrows, at the apex of the nose it represents enlightened consciousness. If higher up on the forehead: then a transcendence of consciousness. Being a significant 'point' it symbolically and geometrically represents 1. The buddhas enlightened state. If state were the right word to use. Perhaps better just to say the buddha's 1 hood. Only words. Tom.

1.2. ‘And what are these thirty-two marks? [143] (1) He has feet with level tread. This is one of the marks of a Great Man. (2) On the soles of his feet are wheels with a thousand spokes, complete with felloe and hub. (3) He has projecting heels. (4) He has long fingers and toes. (5) He has soft and tender hands and feet. (6) His hands and feet are net-like. (7) He has high-raised ankles. (8) His legs are like an antelope’s. (9) Standing and without bending, he can touch and rub his knees with either hand. (10) His male organs are enclosed in a sheath. (11) His complexion is bright, the colour of gold. (12) His skin is delicate and so smooth that no dust can adhere to his body. [144] (13) His body-hairs are separate, one to each pore. (14) His body-hairs grow upwards, each one bluish-black like collyrium, curling in rings to the right. (15) His body is divinely straight. (16) He has the seven convex surfaces. (17) The front part of his body is like a lion’s. (18) There is no hollow between his shoulders. (19) He is proportioned like a banyan-tree: the height of his body is the same as the span of his outstretched arms, and conversely. (20) His bust is evenly rounded. (21) He has a perfect sense of taste. (22) He has jaws like a lion’s. (23) He has forty teeth. (24) His teeth are even. (25) There are no spaces between his teeth. (26) His canine teeth are very bright. (27) His tongue is very long. (28) He has a Brahmā-like voice, like that of the karavīka-bird. (29) His eyes are deep blue. (30) He has eyelashes like a cow’s. (31) The hair between his eyes is white and soft like cotton-down. [145] (32) His head is like a royal turban. This is one of the marks of a Great Man.

2.16. ‘Monks, is whatever former life the Tathāgata,... rejecting false speech, put away lies and became a truth-speaker, wedded to the truth, reliable, consistent, not deceiving the world,... on returning to earth he acquired these two marks of the Great Man: (13) his body-hairs separate, one to each pore, and (31) the hair between his brows white and soft like cotton-down.

2.17. ‘Being endowed with these marks,... as a ruler he will be obeyed by Brahmin householders...[171] As a Buddha he will be obeyed by monks...’ This was what the Lord declared.

2.18. About this it was said:
‘True to his promise in past births,
Sincere of speech, he shunned all lies.
Breaker of his word to none,
He pleased by truth and honesty.
White and bright and soft as down
The hair appeared between his brows,
And from one pore no two hairs grew,
But each one separate appeared.
Assembled augurs thus declared
(Having read the marks with skill):
“With such a mark between the brows,
And such hairs, he’ll be obeyed
By all, and if a layman still,
They’ll respect him for past deeds;
If renounced, possessionless,
As Buddha they will worship him.”’

In this Sutta (which you gave as your source) 32 marks are clearly listed, not 31 or 33. And the cause and result given for the hair between his brows is clear too. This is from Maurice Walshe's translation published by Wisdom Publications - but it does not seem to differ from others I've checked on the internet.

[White Lotus]

Thank you Bristollad, my source: Encyclopedia of Buddism 2010 Keown; lists only 31 on pages 100-101 (clearly an omission). The question remains at least in relation to the iconography of statues and thangkhas as to why Buddha is distinctly shown in most artwork with a single point in the centre of his forehead. A mistake or embelishment? I dont know the historical basis for this most profound representation. Would be fascinated to know more about it.

[White Lotus]

I may be completely wrong in my assertion that Buddha is 1 and ask you to be patient with me. Thank you for you'r kind posts. You can't be attached to 1. If you were it would no longer be 1 (i know thats abstract). Astus how do you see an interest in 1 harming my practice, is it danger of attachment? Surely 1 is by its nature: non attached.

[Astus]

how do you see an interest in 1 harming my practice, is it danger of attachment? Surely 1 is by its nature: non attached.

I do not know what your practice is. Upholding the precepts and cultivating calming the mind do not necessarily interfere with such an assumption. When it comes to studying, comprehending, and realising the Dharma, then it is better to be open and attentive about what is actually taught instead of approaching it with the attitude of only confirming one's preexisting views. For instance, the whole of reality can be summed up as the five aggregates, and the realisation of truth can be achieved through recognising that there is no independent entity or thing within or without the aggregates. Focusing on the aggregates, or the six sensory realms, means basing oneself on actual experience, instead of theories disconnected from one's life. As for seeing the complete unreality of oneness/singularity, here is Mipham's summary:

"To begin with, there is an analysis of the essential identity of all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena to determine whether or not there is true singularity. In the case of those conditioned phenomena of the five aggregates possessing physical form, there is a division into above, below, the cardinal and intermediate directions and the centre. Through this, it can be seen that, for something such as a vase, singularity is simply a conceptual notion applied to the various features that are the basis for such an imputation. True singularity is not established, and the same applies in the case of its component parts. The body and the limbs are also divided into parts in the same way.

In short, all that possesses physical form and is composed of material particles may be broken down to its basis, which is the infinitely small particle. And, according to the logic explained before, for that most subtle particle to be surrounded by particles in the various directions, it must have sides, which means it must have parts, and so on, in an infinite regression. If not, then however many subtle particles are gathered together, they could never grow any larger. Thus, all phenomena with material form lack true singularity.

In addition, the eight or the six collections of consciousness can not be established as truly singular since they consist of various cognitive acts and mental states, take various features as their focus, and arise in different forms from the gathering of the four conditions, and then cease.

By analyzing everything that has the nature of arising and ceasing deriving from its own causes, even the subtlemost indivisible moment can not be established, and so all phenomena included within mind and matter lack any true singularity. As for non-concurrent formations, they are simply imputations made upon the ‘occasion’ of mind and matter, and so they lack any essential identity. Unconditioned phenomena are imputations made with regard to the eliminated aspects of objects of negation, and are also lacking in any essential identity.

In short, all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena can not be shown to have any true singularity, and since this is not established, plurality that is made up of what is singular must also remain unestablished. And so, since there is no mode of true existence aside from being truly singular or plural, it must follow that individuals and phenomena are proven to be without inherent identity, just as it is explained more elaborately in The Ornament of the Middle Way."
(Investigation of the Essential Identity: ‘Neither One Nor Many’ from Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way)

[White Lotus]

Thank you you'r reply is much appreciated. I shall have to ponder it for a while! It is not my intention to prove anything. This concept of 1 has no personal meaning for me nor is it anything i experience. Perhaps the Buddha had no experience of it too if he was 1. Now i must read you'r post carefully. Tom.

[White Lotus]

Looking at the aggregates we look at samsara which is empty. That is to say samsara is empty. Nonetheless the Buddha said that "One is One", not only one emptiness, but also 1 - 1. Though samsara/emptiness is 1, there is also a distinct 1 that is truly 1. I was amazed by the Mipham quote, but feel he only addresses the samsaric notion of singularity.

[White Lotus]

Speaking of 1 that is 1 (and not 1 that is All) that 1 has only one side; its inside is its outside, its outside is its top, which is its bottom. Its bottom is its centre and its centre is its circumference. It is only one. Mipham thought that every singularity had multiple sides and aspects and so could never be truly 1. Whatever i say about 1 has the potential to give it more than 1 side. Perhaps its easiest and most precise just to say that 1 is 1 and leave it at that. To even say that it is independent is to embellish it and to add to its 1 ness.

[White Lotus]

One as All (not one as one): The Buddha is all people, dogs, cats, mountains, galaxies, pains, pleasures, hopes, losses.

[Astus]

the Buddha said that "One is One", not only one emptiness, but also 1 - 1.

Where exactly is that stated by the Buddha?

I was amazed by the Mipham quote, but feel he only addresses the samsaric notion of singularity.

Are you saying you have a new meaning for the number 1?

[White Lotus]

All is all: all is empty; the dog is the cat is the river is the mountain is the woman is blue is green is life is death. All is all, all is one. The aggregates are empty, all is empty all is 1.

[White Lotus]

If i say i have a new meaning for one, thats not true i just look at this logically and realise that whatever i say about 1 is 1 is just adding sides and dimensions that implies a compound and not an ideal 1. I can't with a clear conscious really say anything about the ideal one except that its one and Buddha has already said that in the Avatamsaka Sutra... So nothing new.

[White Lotus]

Im sorry Astus my source was: The Book of Angelus Silesius (auth. Frederick Franck), he quotes from the Avatamsaka sutra on page (?). Tom.

[Astus]

Im sorry Astus my source was: The Book of Angelus Silesius (auth. Frederick Franck), he quotes from the Avatamsaka sutra on page (?).

Search gave only this one result, that somewhat contradicts your assumption of oneness:

"The Hwa Yen sutra says: The incalculable aeons are but one moment, and that moment is no moment, thus one sees the Reality of the Universe"
(Messenger of the Heart: The Book of Angelus Silesius with Observations by the Ancient Zen Masters, p 31)

[Vasana]

All is all: all is empty; the dog is the cat is the river is the mountain is the woman is blue is green is life is death. All is all, all is one. The aggregates are empty, all is empty all is 1.

You're making the mistake of homogenizing all that is empty (and so by nature, not '1') into one big lump and calling it '1'.

If the parts are free of being parts, then this so called one is free of being one. Or in madhyamika terms, that which is free of extremes, is also free of any middle.

[White Lotus]

All in One (not one in all). The Buddha contains the entire universe/multiverse: all levels of magnification and microfication to infinity and beyond.

[White Lotus]

To say that 1 in 1 is self or not self is binary. In ideal 1, Buddha cannot be said to be the selfless self. He cannot be said to be the self that is no self. He is only and simply 1.