"One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Forum for discussion of East Asian Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27530
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:59 pm

ItsRaining wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:16 am

I think One Mind used in the Awakening of Faith is often used to contrast with it's two aspects or the various dharmas we perceive. It defintely doesn't teach an universal mind.
We ought to be concerned with the fact that the term, "one mind," especially when it is capitalized for emphasis, carries ontological and philosophical connotations in English that may not be be present in Chinese. In particular, it seems to trap people who have a naive understanding of the term "nondual," who assume when they see the term nondual or "without duality" in Buddhist texts that it means precisely the same thing as the nonduality spoken of by Advaitan and Neo-Advaitan exponents. This is why I referred to the term as "quasi-Vedantic."
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Simon E.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Simon E. » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:00 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:48 pm
fuki wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:42 am
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.
Rejecting "God" or "Self" only creates a framework and thus asserts the "thing" in the very rejection.
"God" is not rejected out of hand, it is just that unconditioned creators contradict dependent origination.


...the source of the smile on Buddha's face and its unfanthomable gifts are not a product of practise or correct buddhadharma.

Yes, actually it, as well as they, are indeed the product of correct buddhadharma, which is why the Buddha found his two teachers teachings limited and incomplete.
This.
If you use the word 'mind' without defining your terms I will ask you politely for a definition. :smile:
This is not to be awkward. But it's really not self-explanatory.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by fuki » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:03 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:48 pm

"God" is not rejected out of hand, it is just that unconditioned creators contradict dependent origination.
the first time I heared about the concept of God was when a new kid in the street moved in who's family was religious, it was pretty clear at age 10 there was no such thing as a unconditioned creator or beard in the sky, he took me to a dead hedgehog for 2 weeks and when his body was gone he said "See I told you he is in heaven now" then later his mother explained it was his "soul" haha I was raised without concepts so theres nothing to assert or reject I see fabrication where it is, including in Buddhism. Theres nothing to assert or reject (apart from falsehood) and I clearly know about my erroneous perceptions, in your case you can only imagine what they are based on a few posts on DW to my mind there are no true ideas, so even you cant force them on me ;)

Yes, actually it, as well as they, are indeed the product of correct buddhadharma, which is why the Buddha found his two teachers teachings limited and incomplete.
Well we have the dharma which precedes the Buddha and the dharma the buddha "expounded" and thus could be said to come after the Buddha.
you know pretty well that my comment meant that illusory cultivation doesnt produce "enlightenment" the buddhadharma is a skyflower, it cultivates illusion to "remove" illusion. Again I dont see merit in taking anything I write out of context to come to your agenda again.
But please if you want to expound "right and wrong" view to me, do it at night in a dreamless sleep. When you wake up in the morning notice for a while the naked awareness, until the whole story of wrong and right, malcolm and fuki and Buddhism starts again. I'm not interested in your views concerning how you perceive my so called views, I love to read your post sometimes on DW, but everytime you quote me it has been due to you seeing ghosts. :)

this is the last time I will respond to something taken out of context to promote a personal underlying agenda.
I already understand what youre trying to convey, but it simply doesnt apply here apart from your imagination.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/

ItsRaining
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by ItsRaining » Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:09 am

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:59 pm
ItsRaining wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:16 am

I think One Mind used in the Awakening of Faith is often used to contrast with it's two aspects or the various dharmas we perceive. It defintely doesn't teach an universal mind.
We ought to be concerned with the fact that the term, "one mind," especially when it is capitalized for emphasis, carries ontological and philosophical connotations in English that may not be be present in Chinese. In particular, it seems to trap people who have a naive understanding of the term "nondual," who assume when they see the term nondual or "without duality" in Buddhist texts that it means precisely the same thing as the nonduality spoken of by Advaitan and Neo-Advaitan exponents. This is why I referred to the term as "quasi-Vedantic."
Yeah i think you're right, just using mind or pure mind is probably a better alternative than one mind in English.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27530
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:21 am

fuki wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:03 pm

you know pretty well that my comment meant that illusory cultivation doesnt produce "enlightenment" the buddhadharma is a skyflower, it cultivates illusion to "remove" illusion.
No, this is not correct. Buddhadharma does not foster illusions in any way. It merely points them out.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

ItsRaining
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by ItsRaining » Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:03 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:21 am
fuki wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:03 pm

you know pretty well that my comment meant that illusory cultivation doesnt produce "enlightenment" the buddhadharma is a skyflower, it cultivates illusion to "remove" illusion.
No, this is not correct. Buddhadharma does not foster illusions in any way. It merely points them out.
Pretty sure he means the Dharma is still empty, like everything else it's not substantial either. It is using illusion to remove illusion.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27530
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:51 am

ItsRaining wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:03 am
It is using illusion to remove illusion.
The difference between conventional truth and false or deceptive relative truth is that the former is strictly common perception, whereas the latter also includes hallucinations, and other deluded states which are nonfunctional.

The point of this is that without resorting to conventional truth, one cannot understand and then realize ultimate truth, and therefore, nirvana is impossible.

The point of the illusion example is that an illusion, a deceptive relative truth, is understood to arises from causes and conditions, a veridical relative truth. And further, since this illusion arises from causes and conditions, it is natureless and lacks true existence, but its appearance is not a negandum.

The mind that apprehends the arising of phenomena from causes and conditions cannot be a deluded mind in anyway, since this perception corresponds with suchness. Whereas, the mind that apprehends an illusion can be deluded if it misapprehends the source of the illusion as something other than causes and conditions, i.e. permanent or annihilated.

Thus, illusion cannot be used to remove illusion since illusions are part of relative deceptive truth, rather than conventional truth.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by fuki » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:44 am

Malcolm, all teachers I've spoken too said otherwise.
(regarding illusory cultivation etc)
Which does not mean I accept their limited view and reject your limited view. It's just not my flavour to keep analysing what is correct or not, apart from understanding the function and the direction of what is said, correct speech/understanding can function incorrectly and vice versa.

Thanks for the analysis but back to the OP.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/

ItsRaining
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by ItsRaining » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:51 am
ItsRaining wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:03 am
It is using illusion to remove illusion.
The difference between conventional truth and false or deceptive relative truth is that the former is strictly common perception, whereas the latter also includes hallucinations, and other deluded states which are nonfunctional.

The point of this is that without resorting to conventional truth, one cannot understand and then realize ultimate truth, and therefore, nirvana is impossible.

The point of the illusion example is that an illusion, a deceptive relative truth, is understood to arises from causes and conditions, a veridical relative truth. And further, since this illusion arises from causes and conditions, it is natureless and lacks true existence, but its appearance is not a negandum.

The mind that apprehends the arising of phenomena from causes and conditions cannot be a deluded mind in anyway, since this perception corresponds with suchness. Whereas, the mind that apprehends an illusion can be deluded if it misapprehends the source of the illusion as something other than causes and conditions, i.e. permanent or annihilated.

Thus, illusion cannot be used to remove illusion since illusions are part of relative deceptive truth, rather than conventional truth.
Relying on conventional truth to cultivate is what relying on illusion to cultivate illusion means I believe. Illusion may be used to refer to only deceptive truths in certain traditions but in Chan it covers all conventional truths. The dharma when taught and practiced is in the realm of the conventional truths and relies on causes and conditions making it ultimately illusionary. Since both practices and the fruit is said to be empty. I think the user you were responding to coming from a Zen POV will refer to to all relative truths as illusion. So there are sayings in Chan like "The Buddha taught all Dharmas to cure all minds - I have not any of those minds, what need is there for the Dharma?"

I'm not sure what is you mean by "its appearance is not a negandum.", don't appearances get negated in Madhyamaka as non-nonsensical? I remember reading Nagarjuna refuting distinct appearances and shared appearances (arise, stay, change, cease).

The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment says this, is that the same as saying perception corresponds to suchness as both existence and non-existence is dispelled?
"Good sons, in the practice of Perfect Enlightenment of the causal stage of the Tathāgata one understands these 'sky-flowers,' thus there is no transmigration, nor body/mind to undergo life-and-death. But they are not caused to be non-existent. It is because they lack original nature. Now, this [prior] awareness is in itself void, like empty space. Yet since this awareness that perceives it to be like empty space is none other than the appearance of sky-flowers, you also cannot say that there is no nature of awareness. Existence and non- existence both being dispelled is called 'according with pure enlightenment.' "
I agree the mind that comprehends the arising from causes + conditions isn't deluded and corresponds to suchness but it doesn't make it substantially existent which is what being illusionary meant in this case.

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by fuki » Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:39 pm

ItsRaining wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm
I think the user you were responding to coming from a Zen POV will refer to to all relative truths as illusion.
Not perse that depends on the situation and circumstance, words like "illusion" and "reality" can have a function, but how it's often manifestated on forums is the illusion itself (the manifestation) no doubt. ;)

But you can't grasp or depart from it ("illusion")
So these discussion are useless (to me) if not seen in the light of its function instead of comparing philosophies or traditions. Since you cant find illusion trying to understand the meaning of it what would that be called? Same applies to "One-Mind" the word has a function in certain traditions when it's said. But it's a waste of time seeing it from a Zen or Vajrayana pov and discussing its "meaning" which cannot be understood via philosophical efforts.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27530
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:24 pm

ItsRaining wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm


Relying on conventional truth to cultivate is what relying on illusion to cultivate illusion means I believe. Illusion may be used to refer to only deceptive truths in certain traditions but in Chan it covers all conventional truths.
If the example of an illusion is being used merely to demonstrate arising from causes and conditions, this is a correct usage. If it is being used to negate appearances, it is being used incorrectly.
The dharma when taught and practiced is in the realm of the conventional truths and relies on causes and conditions making it ultimately illusionary.


If one is using the example of illusion to claim that Dharma paths and practices are not effective or functional, this is a nihilistic interpretation and is incorrect.
Since both practices and the fruit is said to be empty. I think the user you were responding to coming from a Zen POV will refer to to all relative truths as illusion. So there are sayings in Chan like "The Buddha taught all Dharmas to cure all minds - I have not any of those minds, what need is there for the Dharma?"
The basis, path, and result are all empty. Of what are they empty? nature/inherent existence. This does not render them nonfunctional, as Fuki's use of the illusion example implies.

Moreover, even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth. There is no ultimate truth per se, apart from correctly apprehending a given thing's absence of true existence. When we see things correctly, we see that they exist without any true existence. For this reason awakening does not arise randomly. Awakening only arises for those people who have correct view, and that correct view is profound dependent origination.

For example, when a magician manufactures the illusion of an elephant, we do not negate the appearance of the elephant, we negate only its functionality to do things an elephant does independently. But the cause and conditions through which that illusory elephant also cannot be negated. If they are, one cannot account for the appearance of the illusory elephant at all. If one declares the appearance of the elephant does not exist, then one is directly contradicting the evidence of one's own sense organs. Only sophists and fools will negate the evidence of their own, healthy sense organs.
I'm not sure what is you mean by "its appearance is not a negandum.", don't appearances get negated in Madhyamaka as non-nonsensical? I remember reading Nagarjuna refuting distinct appearances and shared appearances (arise, stay, change, cease).
Madhyamaka does not negate appearances, it negates true existence or inherent existence. (It also goes further and negates the four extremes, but that is a technical point not needed here.)
The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment says this, is that the same as saying perception corresponds to suchness as both existence and non-existence is dispelled?
"Good sons, in the practice of Perfect Enlightenment of the causal stage of the Tathāgata one understands these 'sky-flowers,' thus there is no transmigration, nor body/mind to undergo life-and-death. But they are not caused to be non-existent. It is because they lack original nature. Now, this [prior] awareness is in itself void, like empty space. Yet since this awareness that perceives it to be like empty space is none other than the appearance of sky-flowers, you also cannot say that there is no nature of awareness. Existence and non- existence both being dispelled is called 'according with pure enlightenment.' "
I agree the mind that comprehends the arising from causes + conditions isn't deluded and corresponds to suchness but it doesn't make it substantially existent which is what being illusionary meant in this case.
As long as we understand examples such as sky flowers, etc., to mean that all phenomena from matter to omniscience do not ultimately exist, then there is no problem, because they have no essence. But if we use such examples to negate phenomena which arise from cause and conditions, we run into the problem that conventional phenomena arise from causes and conditions; sky flowers and so on do not arise because they have no causes.

The only place where use of such metaphors is acceptable is when we are making a case about the ultimate truth of a given thing. Ultimately, inherent existence and self are like sky flowers and so on because they have no cause, therefore, they do not arise, therefore they are utterly unreal, not even conventionally real. But there is a right way to realize this in accordance with suchness and ultimate truth, and a wrong way to realize this, which causes one to negate cause and condition in the relative. Thus, when we correctly observe phenomena, we see that in them there is no inherent existence and no self. The appearance of inherent existence and self is like the appearance of sky flowers, and so on, a complete delusion.

Illusions, mirages, and so on illustrate arising from causes and conditions. Thus, this class of metaphors needs to be distinguished from the class of metaphors involving sky flowers, hair on tortoises, horns on rabbits, and so on, which illustrate phenomena which do not arise from causes and conditions, and which are thus conventionally impossible.

The former set of metaphors indicates how conventional appearances arise in relative through cause and condition.
The latter set of metaphors describes how the imputation of self and natures (which never have any cause or condition) onto any phenomena which arise through cause and condition is utterly mistaken, even conventionally.

To put it most simple: when we see the example of illusion, we are seeing an example of arising from cause and conditions. When we see the example of a sky flower, we are seeing an example of the negation of self and nature.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by fuki » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:36 pm

This does not render them nonfunctional, as Fuki's use of the illusion example implies. 
Really? this was not my intention. I agree with everything you say above perhaps there's an error in my speech or that I struggle translating everything in English, I don't know. Where did I negate appearances or implied non-function?
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27530
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:48 pm

fuki wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:36 pm
This does not render them nonfunctional, as Fuki's use of the illusion example implies. 
Really? this was not my intention. I agree with everything you say above perhaps there's an error in my speech or that I struggle translating everything in English, I don't know. Where did I negate appearances or implied non-function?
You said:
you know pretty well that my comment meant that illusory cultivation doesnt produce "enlightenment" the buddhadharma is a skyflower, it cultivates illusion to "remove"
Please examine your statement in light of the explanation above of how these metaphors are used or misused.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
fuki
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by fuki » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:55 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:48 pm
fuki wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:36 pm
This does not render them nonfunctional, as Fuki's use of the illusion example implies. 
Really? this was not my intention. I agree with everything you say above perhaps there's an error in my speech or that I struggle translating everything in English, I don't know. Where did I negate appearances or implied non-function?
You said:
you know pretty well that my comment meant that illusory cultivation doesnt produce "enlightenment" the buddhadharma is a skyflower, it cultivates illusion to "remove"
Please examine your statement in light of the explanation above of how these metaphors are used or misused.
Oh yes, it's obvious.
I see the problems I'm causing now on DW.

Thanks, I'll do a better job at speaking or not speak at all.
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/

ItsRaining
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by ItsRaining » Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:11 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:24 pm
ItsRaining wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm


Relying on conventional truth to cultivate is what relying on illusion to cultivate illusion means I believe. Illusion may be used to refer to only deceptive truths in certain traditions but in Chan it covers all conventional truths.
If the example of an illusion is being used merely to demonstrate arising from causes and conditions, this is a correct usage. If it is being used to negate appearances, it is being used incorrectly.
The dharma when taught and practiced is in the realm of the conventional truths and relies on causes and conditions making it ultimately illusionary.


If one is using the example of illusion to claim that Dharma paths and practices are not effective or functional, this is a nihilistic interpretation and is incorrect.
Since both practices and the fruit is said to be empty. I think the user you were responding to coming from a Zen POV will refer to to all relative truths as illusion. So there are sayings in Chan like "The Buddha taught all Dharmas to cure all minds - I have not any of those minds, what need is there for the Dharma?"
The basis, path, and result are all empty. Of what are they empty? nature/inherent existence. This does not render them nonfunctional, as Fuki's use of the illusion example implies.

Moreover, even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth. There is no ultimate truth per se, apart from correctly apprehending a given thing's absence of true existence. When we see things correctly, we see that they exist without any true existence. For this reason awakening does not arise randomly. Awakening only arises for those people who have correct view, and that correct view is profound dependent origination.

For example, when a magician manufactures the illusion of an elephant, we do not negate the appearance of the elephant, we negate only its functionality to do things an elephant does independently. But the cause and conditions through which that illusory elephant also cannot be negated. If they are, one cannot account for the appearance of the illusory elephant at all. If one declares the appearance of the elephant does not exist, then one is directly contradicting the evidence of one's own sense organs. Only sophists and fools will negate the evidence of their own, healthy sense organs.
I'm not sure what is you mean by "its appearance is not a negandum.", don't appearances get negated in Madhyamaka as non-nonsensical? I remember reading Nagarjuna refuting distinct appearances and shared appearances (arise, stay, change, cease).
Madhyamaka does not negate appearances, it negates true existence or inherent existence. (It also goes further and negates the four extremes, but that is a technical point not needed here.)
The Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment says this, is that the same as saying perception corresponds to suchness as both existence and non-existence is dispelled?
"Good sons, in the practice of Perfect Enlightenment of the causal stage of the Tathāgata one understands these 'sky-flowers,' thus there is no transmigration, nor body/mind to undergo life-and-death. But they are not caused to be non-existent. It is because they lack original nature. Now, this [prior] awareness is in itself void, like empty space. Yet since this awareness that perceives it to be like empty space is none other than the appearance of sky-flowers, you also cannot say that there is no nature of awareness. Existence and non- existence both being dispelled is called 'according with pure enlightenment.' "
I agree the mind that comprehends the arising from causes + conditions isn't deluded and corresponds to suchness but it doesn't make it substantially existent which is what being illusionary meant in this case.
As long as we understand examples such as sky flowers, etc., to mean that all phenomena from matter to omniscience do not ultimately exist, then there is no problem, because they have no essence. But if we use such examples to negate phenomena which arise from cause and conditions, we run into the problem that conventional phenomena arise from causes and conditions; sky flowers and so on do not arise because they have no causes.

The only place where use of such metaphors is acceptable is when we are making a case about the ultimate truth of a given thing. Ultimately, inherent existence and self are like sky flowers and so on because they have no cause, therefore, they do not arise, therefore they are utterly unreal, not even conventionally real. But there is a right way to realize this in accordance with suchness and ultimate truth, and a wrong way to realize this, which causes one to negate cause and condition in the relative. Thus, when we correctly observe phenomena, we see that in them there is no inherent existence and no self. The appearance of inherent existence and self is like the appearance of sky flowers, and so on, a complete delusion.

Illusions, mirages, and so on illustrate arising from causes and conditions. Thus, this class of metaphors needs to be distinguished from the class of metaphors involving sky flowers, hair on tortoises, horns on rabbits, and so on, which illustrate phenomena which do not arise from causes and conditions, and which are thus conventionally impossible.

The former set of metaphors indicates how conventional appearances arise in relative through cause and condition.
The latter set of metaphors describes how the imputation of self and natures (which never have any cause or condition) onto any phenomena which arise through cause and condition is utterly mistaken, even conventionally.

To put it most simple: when we see the example of illusion, we are seeing an example of arising from cause and conditions. When we see the example of a sky flower, we are seeing an example of the negation of self and nature.
Thank you!

Dharma Flower
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Dharma Flower » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:02 am

In this video, Shodo Harada Roshi explains that the purpose of Zen practice is to stop thinking with the ego-mind, and instead awaken to the One Mind:

Dharma Flower
Posts: 1035
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 9:03 am
Contact:

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Dharma Flower » Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:35 am

The One Mind is a teaching of the Lankvatara Sutra, in addition to the Flower Garland Sutra:
Ma-tsu (709-788)
The Patriarch said to the assembly, “All of you should believe that your mind is Buddha, that this mind is identical with Buddha. The great master Bodhidharma came from India to China, and transmitted the One Mind teaching of Mahayana so that it can lead you all to awakening. Fearing that you will be too confused and will not believe that this One Mind is inherent in all of you, he used the Lankavatara Sutra to seal the sentient beings’ mind-ground. Therefore, in the Lankavatara Sutra, mind is the essence of all the Buddha’s teachings, no gate is the Dharma-gate.
https://www.dailyzen.com/journal/sermons
When there is an aversion to the Mahayana concept of the One Mind, this might be due to its apparent similarity to the Hindu concept of Atman and Brahman. The Mahayana and Hindu teachings, however, are not the same.

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 16865
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Grigoris » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:56 pm

Dharma Flower wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:35 am
The One Mind is a teaching of the Lankvatara Sutra, in addition to the Flower Garland Sutra:
Ma-tsu (709-788)
The Patriarch said to the assembly, “All of you should believe that your mind is Buddha, that this mind is identical with Buddha. The great master Bodhidharma came from India to China, and transmitted the One Mind teaching of Mahayana so that it can lead you all to awakening. Fearing that you will be too confused and will not believe that this One Mind is inherent in all of you, he used the Lankavatara Sutra to seal the sentient beings’ mind-ground. Therefore, in the Lankavatara Sutra, mind is the essence of all the Buddha’s teachings, no gate is the Dharma-gate.
https://www.dailyzen.com/journal/sermons
When there is an aversion to the Mahayana concept of the One Mind, this might be due to its apparent similarity to the Hindu concept of Atman and Brahman. The Mahayana and Hindu teachings, however, are not the same.
How are they different?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27530
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:59 pm

"One Mind" is an English mistranslation of 一心 (cittamatra), i.e., mind-only.

You can clearly see this if you examine the Sanskrit and the Chinese side by side.

https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index ... xt&vid=441
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:21 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:24 pm
Moreover, even ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth....
This to me looks like an over negation. It creates a circularity and/or contradiction to dependent origination that invalidate all modes of existences. In other words, if ultimate truth is merely a conventional truth, none of us can even be here debating about it.

What does dependent origination refers to? Dependent origination relies on the idea of causes and conditions. But conditions can be understood as a subset of causes. Therefore, many if not all, understood dependent origination as referring to a causal chain of one sort or another. But causal chains are temporal chains. And the flow of time is in my opinion what distinguished the relative from the ultimate. So, if the ultimate is merely a conventional truth, it would mean that the ultimate is the endless linear temporal chain of causes and effects. Alternatively, one must somehow argue that the endless chain is a closed loop. Such a position necessarily imply that the endless temporal chain of causes and effects ITSELF is real while the phenomena on this endless chain are not. If the closed loop of causal chain is accepted, it would mean accepting that phenomena hold itself up by its own bootstraps. Neither position seems satisfactory to me.

If time is central in dependent origination, then that in itself contradicts what is understood in the Special Theory of Relative by Einstein, a theory that has withstood all experiments so far. In Special Relativity, all frames of reference are valid. But the photon ( a light "particle") experiences no time in its frame of reference. So an atemporal frame of reference is also valid. Causality as commonly understood only applies in frame of references other than that of the photon. That is why the speed of light can be understood as the speed of causality. Also, more theoretical physicists are now thinking that like space, time may not be fundamental.

One can read in various places in the sutras how the state of enlightenment is really not something describable. I think dependent origination is similar and not easily describable ultimately by unenlightened beings like ourselves.

Post Reply

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests