Hmmm... yeah it only sounds Vedantic in English? In Chinese it suggests more like an individual mind and doesn’t sound like an universal one.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:38 pmdzogchungpa wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:28 pm I'm kind of feeling the need to justify my alienation from 'ordinary' life, so I thought I might leap into the discussion with the entry from "The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism" on this topic:
The problem with this entry is that the term "ekacitta" is not attested in the Lanka, existing nowhere in the Sanskrit text or its Tibetan translation. It appears that the term ekacitta is used by Suzuki on page 269 of his study of the Lanka, but it is not listed as term appearing in his Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan glossary.
The quasi-Vedanta use of the term in Chinese Buddhism causes a lot of problems for westerners.
"One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
-
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:35 am
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
You would have to review Suzuki to see what I am talking about.thecowisflying wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:10 pmHmmm... yeah it only sounds Vedantic in English? In Chinese it suggests more like an individual mind and doesn’t sound like an universal one.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:38 pmdzogchungpa wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:28 pm I'm kind of feeling the need to justify my alienation from 'ordinary' life, so I thought I might leap into the discussion with the entry from "The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism" on this topic:
The problem with this entry is that the term "ekacitta" is not attested in the Lanka, existing nowhere in the Sanskrit text or its Tibetan translation. It appears that the term ekacitta is used by Suzuki on page 269 of his study of the Lanka, but it is not listed as term appearing in his Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan glossary.
The quasi-Vedanta use of the term in Chinese Buddhism causes a lot of problems for westerners.
-
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
I mean you said Quasi-Vedanta use in Chinese Buddhism which I will disagree with. I don't see the point of reading Suzuki to understand Chinese Buddhism. Do you read Chinese?Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:48 pmYou would have to review Suzuki to see what I am talking about.thecowisflying wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:10 pmHmmm... yeah it only sounds Vedantic in English? In Chinese it suggests more like an individual mind and doesn’t sound like an universal one.Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:38 pm
The problem with this entry is that the term "ekacitta" is not attested in the Lanka, existing nowhere in the Sanskrit text or its Tibetan translation. It appears that the term ekacitta is used by Suzuki on page 269 of his study of the Lanka, but it is not listed as term appearing in his Chinese, Sanskrit, Tibetan glossary.
The quasi-Vedanta use of the term in Chinese Buddhism causes a lot of problems for westerners.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
ItsRaining wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:17 pmI mean you said Quasi-Vedanta use in Chinese Buddhism which I will disagree with. I don't see the point of reading Suzuki to understand Chinese Buddhism. Do you read Chinese?Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:48 pmYou would have to review Suzuki to see what I am talking about.thecowisflying wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:10 pm
Hmmm... yeah it only sounds Vedantic in English? In Chinese it suggests more like an individual mind and doesn’t sound like an universal one.
No. But I have seen over time a lot of westerners following Zen in particular who seize terms like one mind with vedantic spins. The source of this problem is a) Suzuki b) Paul Reps.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Returning to the OP, it seems to me that this quotation rory offered from J Stone's book on Japanese Buddhist doctrine...
this is consequential for discussions here at DW that extend well beyond Hua Yen.
...looks a lot like the semi-Vedantic thinking that some in this thread such as Malcolm have shown to be problematic. Is Stone's description of Hua Yen accurate? Am I misreading it?Hua-yen thought sees all phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind
this is consequential for discussions here at DW that extend well beyond Hua Yen.
ItsRaining wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:17 pmI mean you said Quasi-Vedanta use in Chinese Buddhism which I will disagree with. I don't see the point of reading Suzuki to understand Chinese Buddhism. Do you read Chinese?Malcolm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:48 pmYou would have to review Suzuki to see what I am talking about.thecowisflying wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:10 pm
Hmmm... yeah it only sounds Vedantic in English? In Chinese it suggests more like an individual mind and doesn’t sound like an universal one.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
I've always wondered about that. Having absorbed quite a bit of Zen instruction and literature, I could never really find support the idea of a universal cosmic mind. However, it did appear that the one mind is one's own mind, the only mind that one ever really encounters. I know in Hua Yen they talk about mind as mirrors and say that the teacher always appears in the mirror of the student. It also falls in line with the Zen focus on finding the Buddha within. It is not clear to me that the term "one mind" in ancient China would have the same theistic ramifications it has in the West.
Francis Cook in his Hua Yen Buddhism seems to use one mind and mind only as synonyms, which backs up Malcolm's quote.
Francis Cook in his Hua Yen Buddhism seems to use one mind and mind only as synonyms, which backs up Malcolm's quote.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
There was at one time a now defunct Zen forum. I dipped into it a couple of times and a large proportion of its western members seemed to have swallowed the 'vedantic one mind' interpretation hook, line and sinker.
I suspect that was why a number of them failed to see that well known traditional Vedanta teachers, as well as current purveyors of their own syncretic systems like Adyashanti, were not teaching Buddhadharma at all.
And the actual teachers of Buddhadharma who tried to correct this were considered too rigid.
I suspect that was why a number of them failed to see that well known traditional Vedanta teachers, as well as current purveyors of their own syncretic systems like Adyashanti, were not teaching Buddhadharma at all.
And the actual teachers of Buddhadharma who tried to correct this were considered too rigid.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
-
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:13 pm
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
I seem to recall there was some discussion in Hakeda's Awakening of Faith text that explored what was meant by the work's use of Mind. I wonder if this distinction is overlooked in Stone's work? (I've not made it past the introduction of the text quoted earlier)DGA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:53 pm Returning to the OP, it seems to me that this quotation rory offered from J Stone's book on Japanese Buddhist doctrine...
...looks a lot like the semi-Vedantic thinking that some in this thread such as Malcolm have shown to be problematic. Is Stone's description of Hua Yen accurate? Am I misreading it?Hua-yen thought sees all phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind
this is consequential for discussions here at DW that extend well beyond Hua Yen.
Unfortunately, all my stuff is boxed up for a move so I can't access my copy. Perhaps if it rings a bell someone could chime in?
jake
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Stone is trying to trace the intellectual history of "original enlightenment" in Japanese thought back to some Chinese substrates. One of these is Hua Yen. Hua Yen isn't the topic of her book, although early on she summarizes some of the scholarship on it. The quotation rory gave is part of that summary. Here's more of the relevant passage (top of page 7)jake wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:26 pmI seem to recall there was some discussion in Hakeda's Awakening of Faith text that explored what was meant by the work's use of Mind. I wonder if this distinction is overlooked in Stone's work? (I've not made it past the introduction of the text quoted earlier)DGA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:53 pm Returning to the OP, it seems to me that this quotation rory offered from J Stone's book on Japanese Buddhist doctrine...
...looks a lot like the semi-Vedantic thinking that some in this thread such as Malcolm have shown to be problematic. Is Stone's description of Hua Yen accurate? Am I misreading it?Hua-yen thought sees all phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind
this is consequential for discussions here at DW that extend well beyond Hua Yen.
Unfortunately, all my stuff is boxed up for a move so I can't access my copy. Perhaps if it rings a bell someone could chime in?
jake
These are the theories Stone cites as examples: "dharma-realm origination (fa chieh yuan ch'i)" "tathagathagarbha origination (ju lai tsang yuan-ch'i)" and "nature origination (hsing-ch'i)"Hua-yen thinkers developed new theories of dependent origination [...] to clarify how the one mind manifests as the phenomenal world.
Do these theories correspond to the summary Stone gives of them?
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
A Japanese Zen teacher I know remarked RE this tendency, attributing the confusion to deep Abrahamic underpinnings carried by many westerners, unawares and despite their conscious rejection of those faith traditions. I didn't completely buy what he was saying then.Simon E. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 4:55 pm There was at one time a now defunct Zen forum. I dipped into it a couple of times and a large proportion of its western members seemed to have swallowed the 'vedantic one mind' interpretation hook, line and sinker.
I suspect that was why a number of them failed to see that well known traditional Vedanta teachers, as well as current purveyors of their own syncretic systems like Adyashanti, were not teaching Buddhadharma at all.
And the actual teachers of Buddhadharma who tried to correct this were considered too rigid.
Upon further reflection, though, it is clear to me he was right. Many Buddhist types who reject "God" really just reject that which is easily rejected: the crudely anthropomorphized tribal deity. But they continue to hold tightly to a less-defined spiritual "oneness" or "source" of reality, and to view the goal of practice through the lens of atonement, "returning to" something, or "becoming one with" something. Even the choice often made to capitalize "One Mind" and "True Self" perhaps speaks to this. It's a factor worth acknowledging when discussing dharma in these parts.
Am interested to hear what others think RE this, and to what extent they have seen noticed such conditioning in themselves (perhaps a different topic).
Vis a vis confusion in some corners of the Zen world, it is also important to recognize the classic model of the path in which sutra and other textual study is largely taken up later - primarily as a means to confirm and identify lacks within one's experiential understanding - rather than as a foundation. I do not disagree with this approach. But a complete lack of any conceptual framework, coupled with the lack of guidance from a qualified teacher, is obviously a recipe for disaster. Oddly, it is also the approach from which folks more and more seem to need disabusing.
~ Meido
Last edited by Meido on Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:35 am
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
What do you mean by semi-vedantic? One Mind doesn’t mean a universal mind like in Vedanta. Originally pure mind is pretty common doctrine and so is being undifferentiated which just means the mind is empty of distinctions/conceptualisations. Are you reading it to mean all minds are one undifferentiated universal mind?DGA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:53 pm Returning to the OP, it seems to me that this quotation rory offered from J Stone's book on Japanese Buddhist doctrine...
...looks a lot like the semi-Vedantic thinking that some in this thread such as Malcolm have shown to be problematic. Is Stone's description of Hua Yen accurate? Am I misreading it?Hua-yen thought sees all phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind
this is consequential for discussions here at DW that extend well beyond Hua Yen.
ItsRaining wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:17 pmI mean you said Quasi-Vedanta use in Chinese Buddhism which I will disagree with. I don't see the point of reading Suzuki to understand Chinese Buddhism. Do you read Chinese?
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Yes, that is how I understand the term "one mind" too. However, there are others who do regard it as meaning that not only all minds but all phenomena emerge from an undifferentiated universal mind. The language Stone uses suggests that is her understanding of what Hua Yen teaches. I started this thread to clarify that point, since Stone's book has a way of coming up over and over again in a variety of discussions you wouldn't expect to see it in at DW.thecowisflying wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:44 pm What do you mean by semi-vedantic? One Mind doesn’t mean a universal mind like in Vedanta. Originally pure mind is pretty common doctrine and so is being undifferentiated which just means the mind is empty of distinctions/conceptualisations. Are you reading it to mean all minds are one undifferentiated universal mind?
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
What you describe I've noticed plenty of times but it is also seen as what it is, a construct of mind, or a sky flower if you will. The conditioning comes from thinking, feeling, living from an imagined phenomenal center. Again a construct of mind.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
It might be worth considering the sense in which ‘the One’ is sometimes understood in religious and spiritual thought. In this context, ‘one’ doesn’t necessarily denote a numerical unity, but something which is the same in everything. If you say that ‘there is one’ of something, then this very cognitive act makes an object of what is being spoken about - this one, as distinct from some other one. But that is an intrinsically dualistic concept. Whereas it might be understood better, by analogy, as ‘the one cloth from which varying forms are cut’. So - not a numerical one, but a unity. Subtle difference in the concepts.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Meido wrote:A Japanese Zen teacher I know remarked RE this tendency, attributing the confusion to deep Abrahamic underpinnings carried by many westerners, unawares and despite their conscious rejection of those faith traditions.
Beat Zen, Square Zen, and ZenAlan Watts wrote:the Westerner who is attracted by Zen and who would understand it deeply must have one indispensable qualification: he must understand his own culture so thoroughly that he is no longer swayed by its premises unconsciously. He must really have come to terms with the Lord God Jehovah and with his Hebrew-Christian conscience so that he can take it or leave it without fear or rebellion.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
We could have a constructive talk about this if this forum wouldn't have an "seek out the advaita errors/there is no liberation outside of buddhadharma" agenda which is projected unto members because they're already locked up in a mental picture no matter what they say. Unfortunately this is a distraction from having a civil open minded discussion and mutual interest instead of playing the endless praise and blame game, "right and wrong view" loophole narrative. Group politics/behaviour as usual, a ghost chasing its tail, alas.Wayfarer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:29 pm It might be worth considering the sense in which ‘the One’ is sometimes understood in religious and spiritual thought. In this context, ‘one’ doesn’t necessarily denote a numerical unity, but something which is the same in everything. If you say that ‘there is one’ of something, then this very cognitive act makes an object of what is being spoken about - this one, as distinct from some other one. But that is an intrinsically dualistic concept. Whereas it might be understood better, by analogy, as ‘the one cloth from which varying forms are cut’. So - not a numerical one, but a unity. Subtle difference in the concepts.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
-
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
I don't know what Stone says but the four types of dependent origin are definitely Huayan though I don't know if all of them relate to the One Mind. The first two is just the interpretations of the Sravakayana and then the Yogacara Eight Consciousnesses. The third is dependent origination based on Suchness in other words the Tathagatabarbha. Here the Alaya is taught to be dependent upon the Tathagatabarbha and that every being inherently has the pure Buddha Nature and that it is based on the Tathagatagarbha that appearance of arising and ceasing come forth. So the phenomena that appears are like waves on the ocean which is Suchness or the Tathagatagarbha, I think here is when the One Mind becomes relevant.DGA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:54 pmStone is trying to trace the intellectual history of "original enlightenment" in Japanese thought back to some Chinese substrates. One of these is Hua Yen. Hua Yen isn't the topic of her book, although early on she summarizes some of the scholarship on it. The quotation rory gave is part of that summary. Here's more of the relevant passage (top of page 7)jake wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:26 pmI seem to recall there was some discussion in Hakeda's Awakening of Faith text that explored what was meant by the work's use of Mind. I wonder if this distinction is overlooked in Stone's work? (I've not made it past the introduction of the text quoted earlier)DGA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:53 pm Returning to the OP, it seems to me that this quotation rory offered from J Stone's book on Japanese Buddhist doctrine...
...looks a lot like the semi-Vedantic thinking that some in this thread such as Malcolm have shown to be problematic. Is Stone's description of Hua Yen accurate? Am I misreading it?
this is consequential for discussions here at DW that extend well beyond Hua Yen.
Unfortunately, all my stuff is boxed up for a move so I can't access my copy. Perhaps if it rings a bell someone could chime in?
jake
These are the theories Stone cites as examples: "dharma-realm origination (fa chieh yuan ch'i)" "tathagathagarbha origination (ju lai tsang yuan-ch'i)" and "nature origination (hsing-ch'i)"Hua-yen thinkers developed new theories of dependent origination [...] to clarify how the one mind manifests as the phenomenal world.
Do these theories correspond to the summary Stone gives of them?
The fourth Dharma Realm Origination is the highest view of the Huayan school, it's generally described to be like Indra's Net. I'm not that great at explaining, Yongming Yanshou has a passage on it. I'll pull it up and translate it a bit later.
-
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
'There is no liberation outside of buddhadharma" is a pretty standard stance of Buddhism. Liberation hinges on the Eightfold path has Right View as it's first step.fuki wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:54 pmWe could have a constructive talk about this if this forum wouldn't have an "seek out the advaita errors/there is no liberation outside of buddhadharma" agenda which is projected unto members because they're already locked up in a mental picture no matter what they say. Unfortunately this is a distraction from having a civil open minded discussion and mutual interest instead of playing the endless praise and blame game, "right and wrong view" loophole narrative. Group politics/behaviour as usual, a ghost chasing its tail, alas.Wayfarer wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:29 pm It might be worth considering the sense in which ‘the One’ is sometimes understood in religious and spiritual thought. In this context, ‘one’ doesn’t necessarily denote a numerical unity, but something which is the same in everything. If you say that ‘there is one’ of something, then this very cognitive act makes an object of what is being spoken about - this one, as distinct from some other one. But that is an intrinsically dualistic concept. Whereas it might be understood better, by analogy, as ‘the one cloth from which varying forms are cut’. So - not a numerical one, but a unity. Subtle difference in the concepts.
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
That is not my point (whether it is so or not)ItsRaining wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:31 pm
'There is no liberation outside of buddhadharma" is a pretty standard stance of Buddhism. Liberation hinges on the Eightfold path has Right View as it's first step.
I dont end up marrying every woman I meet, but do I go out and say to every woman I meet "I would never marry you" What's the motive of doing that? It would be considered very antisocial behaviour.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought
Rejecting "God" or "Self" only creates a framework and thus asserts the "thing" in the very rejection. Its pretty silly as far as I can see. Merging with the absolute or "becoming one" is the sound of one hand clapping, its a joke, then the bell echos in primordial space and we forget about it all again, which too is part of the joke, the source of the smile on Buddha's face and its unfanthomable gifts are not a product of practise or correct buddhadharma, let alone dreamcharacters pratteling on about who are the "true buddhists" or not.Meido wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2018 8:17 pm Upon further reflection, though, it is clear to me he was right. Many Buddhist types who reject "God" really just reject that which is easily rejected: the crudely anthropomorphized tribal deity. But they continue to hold tightly to a less-defined spiritual "oneness" or "source" of reality, and to view the goal of practice through the lens of atonement, "returning to" something, or "becoming one with" something. Even the choice often made to capitalize "One Mind" and "True Self" perhaps speaks to this. It's a factor worth acknowledging when discussing dharma in these parts.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/
https://meldpuntbg.nl/