From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Forum for discussion of East Asian Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by Astus » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:13 pm

White Lotus wrote: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.
In what way does that relate to the four noble truths, the six paramitas, and the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment? How is that connected to freedom from attachment to concepts and emotions?
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"

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:15 pm

Astus, you have the wrong book try 0704502003 (isbn no) p.36. One in all. All in one, one in one. All in all. Is Kegon philosophy and so i conclude 'derivative' of the Avatamsaka sutra. If i were a true schollar i would not have made that mistake. Laziness. It seems the Buddha did not say 1 in 1; but Kegon have. I wouldn't say that this in any way weakens the proposition: 1 in 1. :oops:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:56 pm

Astus and Vasana, If you can accept the Kegon formula then it will be easier to continue. If not then theres no historical basis for my argument and we will have to approach this with rigour as a new and probably heterodox teaching. I must again emphasise that my argument may be deluded. Thank you for your patience. Tom.
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

Jeff
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:22 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by Jeff » Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:07 pm

Astus wrote:Impermanence is the gateway to emptiness.
Emptiness is the gateway to non-birth.
Non-birth is the gateway to Buddhahood.


"What is the Buddha’s path? It is the bodhi-mind, the mind of Nirvana. To walk on the Buddha’s path is to follow the path of the Great Enlightened One, the one who attained the Great Nirvana, the one who has reached ultimate liberation. Through great enlightenment, one sees all phenomena with pure luminosity. From the perspective of departing from all defilements, the Buddha saw the ultimate truth: the non-arising and non-ceasing of all phenomena. Through complete cessation, he achieved total peace of mind. This complete cessation does not mean that everything is extinguished. It is the cessation of all defilements and habitual tendencies. After achieving cessation, an Enlightened One begins a new life, a life of selfless service to benefit sentient beings.
As practitioners, we must understand impermanence. Impermanence is the gateway to emptiness.
Thus to understand emptiness, we must start with an understanding of impermanence. Emptiness, in turn, is the gateway to non-birth. By understanding emptiness, you will not be attached to life. In other words, you will transcend the two extremes and all dualities. In this way, you will be able to enter non-birth. Non-birth is the gateway to Buddhahood. Understanding non-birth, one will no longer be attached to life, one will no longer be afflicted by the miseries of life. One can learn and practice the Dharma in the cycle of birth and death and enter the path to Buddhahood."


(Jen-chun: Great Bodhi Mind, p 53-54)
Great quote. Thank you.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by Astus » Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:27 pm

White Lotus wrote:It seems the Buddha did not say 1 in 1; but Kegon have. I wouldn't say that this in any way weakens the proposition: 1 in 1.
It is on page 30 in "Messenger of the Heart", and it refers to a basic Huayan/Kegon teaching in relation to the third dharmadhatu, the interpenetration of principle and phenomena. Your version of an "ultimate 1" seems not in accord with Huayan teachings either. Here is Chengguan's explanation:

Take the first point, "one in one": because the first "one" does not lose its characteristics, it has substance, which contains; because it is noumenally not different from the second "one," it can contain the second "one." Meanwhile, since the second "one" is noumenally not different from the first "one," in accord with the contained noumenon it is in the first "one," because there is no phenomenon outside of noumenon.
Second, as for "one in all," because all do not lose their characteristics, they have substance which contains; being noumenally not different from the one, they can contain the one. Because the one is noumenally not different from the all, in accord with the principle of its own oneness the one is in the all.
Third, as for "all in one," because one does not lose its characteristics, it can be that which contains, while because it is noumenally not different from the all it can contain all. The all which is contained is noumenally not different from the one, so in accord with the noumenon inherent in all it is in the one.
Fourth, as for " all in all," because the first "all" do not lose their characteristics they have substance which contains; noumenally not being different from the second "all," they therefore contain the second "all." Because the second "all" noumenally are not different from the first "all," in accord with the noumenon of the second "all" they are in the first "all." Therefore in the conclusion he says each has a reason.

(Entry into the Inconceivable, p 114-115)
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"

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Wed Apr 05, 2017 5:51 pm

Thank you Astus, i shall read that carefully. The significance of the 37 Dharmas of Enlightenment and Paramitas is that they lead to ideal 1. We 'might' know certain things about ideal 1, but it can't be conceived. If you attach to it you are misguided. It has no image. Not even '1', nor: (.). If 1 had emotions, it would be composite. I look forward to reading your post later. Tom. :popcorn:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:00 pm

Vasana, the non affirming negation is made concerning Samsara, but can we do that with Buddha and Nirvana? Samsara is Empty, but are Buddha and Nirvana empty? If not: what are they? :?:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by Vasana » Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:11 pm

White Lotus wrote:Vasana, the non affirming negation is made concerning Samsara, but can we do that with Buddha and Nirvana? Samsara is Empty, but are Buddha and Nirvana empty? If not: what are they? :?:
Buddha and Nirvana are also both empty.
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by Vasana » Wed Apr 05, 2017 6:23 pm

(But the emptiness of a Buddhas mind still 'has' primordially present qualities.)
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:01 pm

I can agree at this stage that nirvana might be samsara (O), i still need evidence that Buddha is not ideal 1. 1's prescence is its abscence. That's not emptiness. (This is speculative.)
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:42 pm

Relativity. In Empty form there is no 1 and yet that is 1. Quantum Physics wave and particle metaphor may apply. If you look for a wave thats what you find. If you look for a particle then you find a particle. Hope to respond properly to you'r quote tomorrow afternoon Astus. :smile:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

smcj
Posts: 5858
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by smcj » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:16 am

Vasana wrote:(But the emptiness of a Buddhas mind still 'has' primordially present qualities.)
:good:
I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by Vasana » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:36 pm

White Lotus wrote:I can agree at this stage that nirvana might be samsara (O), i still need evidence that Buddha is not ideal 1. 1's prescence is its abscence. That's not emptiness. (This is speculative.)
Buddha, in the The Diamond Sutra says,

"In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the sign-less nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata."
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:11 pm

Tu Shan has clarified for me that i cannot say 1 'in'/within 1 when talking about ideal 1; for the simple reason that would imply 2. So why does he use the word "One" to express noumena/emptiness?To talk about a temporal samsaric 1 is to talk about a substance/ compounded singularity and so "one in one" would be many in many, but since in samsara a true/ideal 1 does not appear to exist we cannot even say 'many' (ones). Samsara is entirely empty. If the Buddha is ideal 1 and temporal/collective one: then it 'seems' that both of these are entirely seperate and yet i speculate that the Buddha is: "truly 1 and yet empty". If we describe ideal 1 as 'ultimate' we add letters to it. This 1 has only 1 dimension. And as simple 1: words probably dont touch or influence it. Emptiness has many expressions and many dimensions, and yet none; those expressions are not one nor many. They are empty. It may be that Buddha is true 1 hood and emptiness both in an uncompounded unity. Form and emptiness comprise a unity. Ultimately, it is impossible for anything to be a 'compounded' substance because temporal one's do not exist. Thank you Astus Tu Shan has been food for thought, but not as impressive as Mipham, nonetheless: very much appreciated! So, thank you. Tom. :anjali:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7092
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by Astus » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:19 pm

White Lotus wrote:It may be that Buddha is true 1 hood and emptiness both in an uncompounded unity. Form and emptiness comprise a unity. Ultimately, it is impossible for anything to be a 'compounded' substance because temporal one's do not exist.
The 4th and final dharmadhatu in the Huayan teaching is the interpenetration of phenomena with phenomena. In other words, there's just dependent origination. Or as The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra on Dependent Arising says:

"This dependent arising is the dharmakāya of all the tathāgatas. A person who sees dependent arising sees the Tathāgata."
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"

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:49 pm

I have begun to doubt that Buddha, God or any thing/one can be ideal 1 except ideal 1. If separate entities are true 1: then it is not truly and simply 1. And yet wave is particle. To say 1 is emptiness may be so? Since both are uncompounded and could complement each other. To me emptiness and buddhist practice has led to an appreciation of the simplest thing: 1. Buddha has the urna, a symbol of temporal 1. But he cannot be 1 since he has parts which signify multiplicity, which is emptiness. Since 1 is totally simple can it be the complex simplicity of sunyata. I dont know. Can ideal 1 be All/sunyata; perhaps, but i worry that sunyata complicates 1, which can only be said to be 1. (if i am to avoid complication; and i must). Perhaps 1 has given the Buddha a special blessing and so his urna.
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:25 pm

"Theres just dependent origination." Emptiness expressed as form. Form expressed as form. Besides dependence i would say 'un'-dependent ideal 1, which is not empty, but truly 1. To say that ideal 1 existed would make it empty, or compounded and therefore a substance, which it is not. It is not being with extension or form. If it existed it would not be one dimensional. It is just 1. :anjali:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:18 pm

Because it is uncompounded true 1 it has no need to add to itself or change. Nor can anything be added to or taken away from it. One dimensional: not influenced by time or change. It is not dependent on anyone nor anything. It is not a thing, it is just '1'. :meditate:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:38 pm

True 1 is not created, nor has it ever been created. It does not exist since it only has 1 dimension and is outside time, space and being, it is just 1. but without a primary 1 of some sort there would be no emptiness. A single raindrop splash creates circular ripples; concentric circles of emptiness. Emptiness i propose is an emergent property of a 1, is this 1 dependent on ideal/true 1? I wonder.
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: From Impermanence to Buddhahood

Post by White Lotus » Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:51 pm

The concept 1 is simpler than the concept 0 and therefore more fundamental and also more complex. 1 as a concept is simpler than sunyata the concept, but both concepts are needed.
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

Post Reply

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests