"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
Sherab
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:07 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:31 pm
Mipham, commenting on Mañjuśrīmitra's Meditation of Bodhicitta states:
Since neither the state of affliction nor of purification [10/a] is established, because awakening (buddhahood) and non-awakening (sentient beinghood) are the same in terms of being equally without characteristics, there is no buddhahood to accept or sentient beinghood to reject.
In the ultimate, where the sense of self and others do not exist, how can anything be established?
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:31 pm
Mipham, commenting on Mañjuśrīmitra's Meditation of Bodhicitta states:
Also, if the ultimate is not established, where will one see words that state “It is like this?” If there is an analysis in accordance with the meaning of how it is explained, all of those explanations for the so called “nominal ultimate”, “absence of arising and ceasing”, “sameness”, “nonduality”, “beyond thought”, “emptiness”, “the dharmadhātu”, and so on are didactic conventions. In the true definitive meaning, they are neither ultimate nor are they relative. If there is the perception, “The path is like this in accordance with the ultimate (which is not a convention),” then that is relative, but not ultimate. In reality, where is there a “relative and ultimate” that are inseparable as the two truths?
This is saying that the ultimate is inexpressible. Any expression of what the ultimate is can only be conceptual.
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:31 pm
Mañjuśrīmitra's very next passage states:
Do not abandon or dwell in any Dharma at all, with or without doubt.
Since the meditator and the dharmadhātu do not exist, there is nothing to doubt and there is nothing to perceive as ultimate.

MIpham expands on this:
Since the Dharma of those with doubt who have not seen the true meaning and those without doubt who have seen it in realty is neither true nor false at all, do not abandon the false nor dwell in the true. If it is asked why, in reality, because the meditator and the dharmadhātu do not exist, who has doubts about something? [10/b] Therefore, there is also nothing to perceive as ultimate in the Dharma that is without doubt because in scripture it is said that it is necessary for one to abandon craving to conducive Dharma and aversion to unconducive Dharma.
Do you interpret that "do not exist" in the nihilistic sense where there is no possibility of a continuum of the meditator or the dharmadhatu (in other words, no possibility of freedom from the two extremes)?

By the way, try substituting "enumerated ultimate" for all instances of "ultimate" here.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27257
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:58 pm

Sherab wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:07 pm

Do you interpret that "do not exist" in the nihilistic sense where there is no possibility of a continuum of the meditator or the dharmadhatu (in other words, no possibility of freedom from the two extremes)?
In (ultimate) reality there is no meditator nor a dharmadhātu. All such distinctions are conventional. I don't negate these things conventionally speaking, but ultimately they cannot be established at all.

With respect to this issue, I follow the position of the Jetsun Sakya Gongma who declare, "there is no reality (gnas lugs med pa)" and always have. In other words, since the four extremes cannot be established for relative phenomena, there is no way the four extremes can exist in the ultimate either. This being so, there is no reality as there isn't anything established which can be free from the four extremes. The ultimate is considered inexpressible not because it is something free from the four extremes, it is inexpressible because nothing can established by way of the four extremes either relatively or ultimately.

As the Samputa Tantra puts it:

Nothing empty, nothing not empty, and nothing to perceive in the middle.
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

thomaslaw
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:00 am
Location: Australia

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by thomaslaw » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:37 am

What are the differences between HuaYen and TianTai schools about 'One Mind'? Are both schools referring to the same metaphysical concept 'One mind'?

Thanks.

Thomas
Admin_PC wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:54 am
Still trying to dig out a reasonable Chinese translation for the idea as it's presented in English.
To give an idea how tricky this is....

一心
Basic Definition: One mind.
Senses:
- The mind as the most fundamental basis. The true thusness of all existence. 'One' means that the ordinary is one with the absolute. 'Mind' means 'certainty.' Also, the one consciousness that is the basis for all sentient beings. The absolute reality that is the basis for all phenomena in the universe. This concept is central to the Awakening of Faith 起信論, where the one mind is identified with the dharmakāya 法身 and dharmadhātu 法界 (Skt. svacitta-mātra; eka-agra; eka-citta; dhyāna). 〔起信論 T 1666.32.576a5〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): Nakamura,Iwanami]

- To unify the mind; therefore, 'unity of the psyche' or 'concentration.' The mind concentrated on Amitâbha Buddha 阿彌陀 when praying to him. [Charles Muller]

- To concentrate the mind in the empowering sense of 'devotedly' or 'whole-heartedly,' without scattering. [Charles Muller]

- Attentively, carefully, considerately (Skt. sat-kṛtya; Pāli sakkaccaṃ). (T 1426.22.554c06). [Nyanatusita]
(Skt. cittaikâgratā; adhyāśaya, ananya-citta, *eka-cittena, ekaṃcittam, ekatracitte, ekâgra, ekâgra-citta, cittaikâgra, cittaikâgrya, prayata, prahitâtman, samādhi, samāhita, *smṛtimat) [Charles Muller; source(s): Hirakawa]

一心念
Basic Definition: to think with a concentrated mind
Senses:
- (Skt. ekâgra-citta, sam-anv-ā-√hṛ) 〔文殊師利問經 T 468.14.506c26〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): Hirakawa]

一心三觀
Basic Definition: three insights in one thought
Senses:
- The three viewpoints in a single thought. A type of Tiantai 天台 meditation in which one views a phenomenon from three viewpoints within the same instant: (1) empty 空; being produced by various causes, it is in its essence devoid of any permanent existence and is therefore empty. (2) provisional 假; nevertheless, it does have a real, if only provisional, immediate existence. (3) the mean 中; since the phenomenon is a blending of both empty and provisional, it should be seen as occupying midway position between both poles. For the Tiantai follower, these three views are performed simultaneously within the same instant of thought, and hence are termed 'the integrated three views 圓融三觀' or 'the three views without sequence 不次第三觀.' Emptiness, nominal designation, and the mean indicate, respectively, the three aspects of phenomenon: its basic dependence upon conditions of causation, its temporary existence and its real nature. These three aspects cannot be independent of each other. This doctrine occupies a central position in the Tiantai school and is regarded as the ultimate teaching of the Buddha. Also written as 一心三智 and 不可思議三觀. 〔摩訶止觀 T 1911.46.55b19〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): JEBD]

一心妙戒抄
Basic Definition: Marvelous Precept of the One Mind
Senses:
- Isshin myōkai shō. A work by Gudō-bō Ejin 求道房惠尋 (?–1268) of the Kurotani (or Kurodani) branch 黑谷流 of Japanese Tendai 天台. Among Mt. Hieiʼs major scholarly trends, the most important single contribution to the restoration of the 'precepts for attaining sudden awakening preached in the perfect exoteric teaching' 圓頓戒 were seen in the works of Ejin and especially this text. The structure and contents of this work are said to be lacking in systematic form, but also clearly show that his thought and suggested practice were oriented toward restoring the precept for attaining sudden awakening at Mt. Hiei.

- With regard to the contents, isshin (the 'One Mind' or 'oneʼs own mind' ) 一心 in Tendai teaching is used, as in the case of 'contemplation of the three truths in oneʼs own mind' 一心三觀, in a context referring to the idea of embracing the entire phenomenal world and Buddhist teachings through the contemplation of a momentary activity of oneʼs own mind. In Ejin too, we can consider isshin to possess a similar meaning, but in addition, to directly relate isshin as the 'One Mind' to the notion of precepts 戒 and naming it isshin-kai 一心戒 (precept of the One Mind), which is generally assumed to express his own original way of thinking based on the conviction that the precept for attaining sudden awakening represents the pillar of the entire Buddhist doctrinal system.

- The contents of this work can be summarized in 10 points as follows:

1. With regard to the Three Disciplines 三學 of morality 戒, meditation 定, and wisdom 慧, Ejin says: "Among the three disciplines, that of the morality is fundamental." And with regard to the marvelous precepts for sudden awakening 圓頓妙戒, he says: "The One Mind 一心 is the most essential issue."

2. The marvelous precept to sudden awakening 圓頓妙戒 is the comprehensive entity of the One Mind 一心ノ惣體, and the essence of the precepts 戒體 is the very foundation 大地 of the two phenomena of meditation and wisdom 二法. Meditation and wisdom should be established only upon the essence of the precepts. In other words, the precept of the One Mind expresses the truth that the precept to sudden awakening is the very basis of the Buddhist path, i.e., the global entity of the One Mind.

3. The Marvelous Contemplation of the Middle Way 中道妙觀, whose true identity 正體 is to observe the precept to sudden awakening, is also the practice of śamatha-vipaśyanā 止觀, the most superior contemplation.

4. The 'essence of the precepts' 戒體, i.e., the 'unproduced-ness of the true nature of all phenomena and its temporary appearance in a tangible form' 性無作假色, is classified on the basis of the teaching of both the first 迹門 and second half 本門 of the Lotus Sutra. Here, the essence of the precept of sudden awakening is classified as 'the conditioned and ever-changing form of thusness' as shown at the stage of the originally awakened Buddha (in the second half of the Lotus Sutra) 本門位ノ隨緣眞如 and 'the essence of the precepts' 戒體 as 'the unproduced-ness of the true nature of all phenomena and its momentary appearance in a tangible form' 性無作假色 is situated at the stage of the Buddha as a 'visible trace' in this world, representing the pure, unstained, unchanging ninth consciousness 第九識 (thusness 眞如) that, depending on circumstances, appears in many phenomenal forms 事相. In other words, at the stage of the Buddha as a 'visible trace' in this world preached in the first half of the Lotus Sutra 迹門位, the 'essence of the precepts' 戒體 coincides with the unchanging thusness 不變眞如, i.e., the unconditioned 無爲, the true nature of all phenomena 性, the noumenon 理. On the other hand, the psychic phenomena of the mind as 'conditioned and ever-changing forms of thusness' 隨緣眞如 operate as conditioned phenomena 有爲, so that the One Mind 一心 can be redefined as a function of thusness that appears in many forms depending on worldly circumstances.

5. All phenomena belonging to the trichiliocosm 三千諸法 and the threefold contemplation in oneʼs own mind of emptiness 空, momentary appearance 假, and the middle way 中道 are each a single phenomenon produced in our own minds 心ノ一法 . In other words, all of them can be reduced to the One Mind because they represent nothing but a momentary instant of mental activity as a conditioned and ever-changing form of thusness 隨緣眞如ノ一念.

6. The One Mind is founded on the precept to sudden awakening. For this reason, it is called the 'precept of the One Mind' 一心戒. Moreover, by contemplating that thusness, i.e., the Buddhahood 佛性, appears in a conditioned and ever-changing form, a form possessing the concretely visible shape of the precepts 戒相 pursued by a practitioner, we can become aware that the very foundation of all Buddhist paths should be found in the precepts, including the precept to sudden awakening.

7. Based on such a view, Ejin redefines the threefold contemplation within oneʼs own mind as the marvelous contemplation 妙觀, based upon the precept of the One Mind.

8. The division of correct contemplation 正觀 and marvelous contemplation 妙觀 assumes that the first reveals the meaning of śamatha-vipaśyanā 止觀 and the second reveals the meaning of the threefold contemplation of emptiness 空, momentary appearance 假, and the middle way 中 in oneʼs own mind.

9. Ejin introduces two categories: 'revealing the originally attained state of awakening through abiding at the stage of the Buddha as a 'visible trace' in this world' 住迹顯本 and 'revealing the originally attained state of awakening at the stage of the originally awakened Buddha' 住本顯本. He then considers the correct contemplation to mean 'abiding at the stage of the Buddha as a 'visible trace' in this world' 住迹 and the fruit of its practice to be the Buddhahood shown at the same stage (in the first half of the Lotus Sutra). Next, he considers the marvelous contemplation to mean 'abiding at the stage of the originally awakened Buddha' 住本 and the fruit of its practice to be the Buddhahood shown at the same stage (in the second half of the Lotus Sutra).

10. If one relies on the precept of the One Mind, i.e., the mental activity based on the precept to sudden awakening, even the śamatha-vipaśyanā 止觀 can be turned into the marvelous contemplation 妙觀, the method of contemplation superior to all others.

- The expression isshin-kai as the precept of the One Mind probably derives from the Denjutsu Isshinkai-bun 傳述一心戒文 (Dengyō Daishi Zenshū 傳教大師全集, bekkan 別卷, p. 629–636) by Kōjō 光定 (779–854), often quoted by Ejin in the Isshin myōkai-shō. The meaning of isshin-kai in the work of Kōjō is also explained by quoting the Tendai bosatsukai-so 天台菩薩戒疎 (T 1812) by Mingkuang 明曠, a disciple of Zhanran, and the Dainichikyō-so 大日經疏 by Yixing 一行 (683–727), one of the eight patriarchs of the Shingon school who learned from Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (637–735) and Vajrabodhi 金剛智 (669–741), so we can assume that the Isshin myōkai-shō also includes elements for a type of fusion of the esoteric teaching with the idea of precept for attaining sudden awakening preached in the 'perfect exoteric teaching' 圓頓戒 (see Terai Yoshinobu 寺井義宣, “Gudō-bō Ejin no Isshin Myōkai no Shisō” 求道房恵尋の「一心妙戒」の思想 (The Thought of the Perfect Precept on One Mind by Gudō-bō Ejin), Tendai Gakuhō 天台学報, N.39, Tendai Gakkai, Tōkyō, 1997, p.73–80) [Giglio Emanuele Davide]

三界唯一心
Basic Definition: the triple realm is nothing but the one mind
Senses:
- The triple world is but one mind. This expression is commonly seen in Chan texts, but originally comes out of Huayan, and in turn reflects a Yogâcāra view of existence, but in a more idealistic sense. Soothill, Yokoi, and Nakamura (at least—and maybe other sources) all attribute this line to the Huayan jing 華嚴經, but although such a message might be gleaned from relevant passages in that sūtra, this actual phrase is not found there. This identification is probably made following the line from Fazangʼs commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, which indicates the Huayan jing as the source. 〔大乘起信論義記 T 1846.44.255a4〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): Soothill]

ItsRaining
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by ItsRaining » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:59 am

thomaslaw wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:37 am
What are the differences between HuaYen and TianTai schools about 'One Mind'? Are both schools referring to the same metaphysical concept 'One mind'?

Thanks.

Thomas
Admin_PC wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:54 am
Still trying to dig out a reasonable Chinese translation for the idea as it's presented in English.
To give an idea how tricky this is....

一心
Basic Definition: One mind.
Senses:
- The mind as the most fundamental basis. The true thusness of all existence. 'One' means that the ordinary is one with the absolute. 'Mind' means 'certainty.' Also, the one consciousness that is the basis for all sentient beings. The absolute reality that is the basis for all phenomena in the universe. This concept is central to the Awakening of Faith 起信論, where the one mind is identified with the dharmakāya 法身 and dharmadhātu 法界 (Skt. svacitta-mātra; eka-agra; eka-citta; dhyāna). 〔起信論 T 1666.32.576a5〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): Nakamura,Iwanami]

- To unify the mind; therefore, 'unity of the psyche' or 'concentration.' The mind concentrated on Amitâbha Buddha 阿彌陀 when praying to him. [Charles Muller]

- To concentrate the mind in the empowering sense of 'devotedly' or 'whole-heartedly,' without scattering. [Charles Muller]

- Attentively, carefully, considerately (Skt. sat-kṛtya; Pāli sakkaccaṃ). (T 1426.22.554c06). [Nyanatusita]
(Skt. cittaikâgratā; adhyāśaya, ananya-citta, *eka-cittena, ekaṃcittam, ekatracitte, ekâgra, ekâgra-citta, cittaikâgra, cittaikâgrya, prayata, prahitâtman, samādhi, samāhita, *smṛtimat) [Charles Muller; source(s): Hirakawa]

一心念
Basic Definition: to think with a concentrated mind
Senses:
- (Skt. ekâgra-citta, sam-anv-ā-√hṛ) 〔文殊師利問經 T 468.14.506c26〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): Hirakawa]

一心三觀
Basic Definition: three insights in one thought
Senses:
- The three viewpoints in a single thought. A type of Tiantai 天台 meditation in which one views a phenomenon from three viewpoints within the same instant: (1) empty 空; being produced by various causes, it is in its essence devoid of any permanent existence and is therefore empty. (2) provisional 假; nevertheless, it does have a real, if only provisional, immediate existence. (3) the mean 中; since the phenomenon is a blending of both empty and provisional, it should be seen as occupying midway position between both poles. For the Tiantai follower, these three views are performed simultaneously within the same instant of thought, and hence are termed 'the integrated three views 圓融三觀' or 'the three views without sequence 不次第三觀.' Emptiness, nominal designation, and the mean indicate, respectively, the three aspects of phenomenon: its basic dependence upon conditions of causation, its temporary existence and its real nature. These three aspects cannot be independent of each other. This doctrine occupies a central position in the Tiantai school and is regarded as the ultimate teaching of the Buddha. Also written as 一心三智 and 不可思議三觀. 〔摩訶止觀 T 1911.46.55b19〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): JEBD]

一心妙戒抄
Basic Definition: Marvelous Precept of the One Mind
Senses:
- Isshin myōkai shō. A work by Gudō-bō Ejin 求道房惠尋 (?–1268) of the Kurotani (or Kurodani) branch 黑谷流 of Japanese Tendai 天台. Among Mt. Hieiʼs major scholarly trends, the most important single contribution to the restoration of the 'precepts for attaining sudden awakening preached in the perfect exoteric teaching' 圓頓戒 were seen in the works of Ejin and especially this text. The structure and contents of this work are said to be lacking in systematic form, but also clearly show that his thought and suggested practice were oriented toward restoring the precept for attaining sudden awakening at Mt. Hiei.

- With regard to the contents, isshin (the 'One Mind' or 'oneʼs own mind' ) 一心 in Tendai teaching is used, as in the case of 'contemplation of the three truths in oneʼs own mind' 一心三觀, in a context referring to the idea of embracing the entire phenomenal world and Buddhist teachings through the contemplation of a momentary activity of oneʼs own mind. In Ejin too, we can consider isshin to possess a similar meaning, but in addition, to directly relate isshin as the 'One Mind' to the notion of precepts 戒 and naming it isshin-kai 一心戒 (precept of the One Mind), which is generally assumed to express his own original way of thinking based on the conviction that the precept for attaining sudden awakening represents the pillar of the entire Buddhist doctrinal system.

- The contents of this work can be summarized in 10 points as follows:

1. With regard to the Three Disciplines 三學 of morality 戒, meditation 定, and wisdom 慧, Ejin says: "Among the three disciplines, that of the morality is fundamental." And with regard to the marvelous precepts for sudden awakening 圓頓妙戒, he says: "The One Mind 一心 is the most essential issue."

2. The marvelous precept to sudden awakening 圓頓妙戒 is the comprehensive entity of the One Mind 一心ノ惣體, and the essence of the precepts 戒體 is the very foundation 大地 of the two phenomena of meditation and wisdom 二法. Meditation and wisdom should be established only upon the essence of the precepts. In other words, the precept of the One Mind expresses the truth that the precept to sudden awakening is the very basis of the Buddhist path, i.e., the global entity of the One Mind.

3. The Marvelous Contemplation of the Middle Way 中道妙觀, whose true identity 正體 is to observe the precept to sudden awakening, is also the practice of śamatha-vipaśyanā 止觀, the most superior contemplation.

4. The 'essence of the precepts' 戒體, i.e., the 'unproduced-ness of the true nature of all phenomena and its temporary appearance in a tangible form' 性無作假色, is classified on the basis of the teaching of both the first 迹門 and second half 本門 of the Lotus Sutra. Here, the essence of the precept of sudden awakening is classified as 'the conditioned and ever-changing form of thusness' as shown at the stage of the originally awakened Buddha (in the second half of the Lotus Sutra) 本門位ノ隨緣眞如 and 'the essence of the precepts' 戒體 as 'the unproduced-ness of the true nature of all phenomena and its momentary appearance in a tangible form' 性無作假色 is situated at the stage of the Buddha as a 'visible trace' in this world, representing the pure, unstained, unchanging ninth consciousness 第九識 (thusness 眞如) that, depending on circumstances, appears in many phenomenal forms 事相. In other words, at the stage of the Buddha as a 'visible trace' in this world preached in the first half of the Lotus Sutra 迹門位, the 'essence of the precepts' 戒體 coincides with the unchanging thusness 不變眞如, i.e., the unconditioned 無爲, the true nature of all phenomena 性, the noumenon 理. On the other hand, the psychic phenomena of the mind as 'conditioned and ever-changing forms of thusness' 隨緣眞如 operate as conditioned phenomena 有爲, so that the One Mind 一心 can be redefined as a function of thusness that appears in many forms depending on worldly circumstances.

5. All phenomena belonging to the trichiliocosm 三千諸法 and the threefold contemplation in oneʼs own mind of emptiness 空, momentary appearance 假, and the middle way 中道 are each a single phenomenon produced in our own minds 心ノ一法 . In other words, all of them can be reduced to the One Mind because they represent nothing but a momentary instant of mental activity as a conditioned and ever-changing form of thusness 隨緣眞如ノ一念.

6. The One Mind is founded on the precept to sudden awakening. For this reason, it is called the 'precept of the One Mind' 一心戒. Moreover, by contemplating that thusness, i.e., the Buddhahood 佛性, appears in a conditioned and ever-changing form, a form possessing the concretely visible shape of the precepts 戒相 pursued by a practitioner, we can become aware that the very foundation of all Buddhist paths should be found in the precepts, including the precept to sudden awakening.

7. Based on such a view, Ejin redefines the threefold contemplation within oneʼs own mind as the marvelous contemplation 妙觀, based upon the precept of the One Mind.

8. The division of correct contemplation 正觀 and marvelous contemplation 妙觀 assumes that the first reveals the meaning of śamatha-vipaśyanā 止觀 and the second reveals the meaning of the threefold contemplation of emptiness 空, momentary appearance 假, and the middle way 中 in oneʼs own mind.

9. Ejin introduces two categories: 'revealing the originally attained state of awakening through abiding at the stage of the Buddha as a 'visible trace' in this world' 住迹顯本 and 'revealing the originally attained state of awakening at the stage of the originally awakened Buddha' 住本顯本. He then considers the correct contemplation to mean 'abiding at the stage of the Buddha as a 'visible trace' in this world' 住迹 and the fruit of its practice to be the Buddhahood shown at the same stage (in the first half of the Lotus Sutra). Next, he considers the marvelous contemplation to mean 'abiding at the stage of the originally awakened Buddha' 住本 and the fruit of its practice to be the Buddhahood shown at the same stage (in the second half of the Lotus Sutra).

10. If one relies on the precept of the One Mind, i.e., the mental activity based on the precept to sudden awakening, even the śamatha-vipaśyanā 止觀 can be turned into the marvelous contemplation 妙觀, the method of contemplation superior to all others.

- The expression isshin-kai as the precept of the One Mind probably derives from the Denjutsu Isshinkai-bun 傳述一心戒文 (Dengyō Daishi Zenshū 傳教大師全集, bekkan 別卷, p. 629–636) by Kōjō 光定 (779–854), often quoted by Ejin in the Isshin myōkai-shō. The meaning of isshin-kai in the work of Kōjō is also explained by quoting the Tendai bosatsukai-so 天台菩薩戒疎 (T 1812) by Mingkuang 明曠, a disciple of Zhanran, and the Dainichikyō-so 大日經疏 by Yixing 一行 (683–727), one of the eight patriarchs of the Shingon school who learned from Śubhakarasiṃha 善無畏 (637–735) and Vajrabodhi 金剛智 (669–741), so we can assume that the Isshin myōkai-shō also includes elements for a type of fusion of the esoteric teaching with the idea of precept for attaining sudden awakening preached in the 'perfect exoteric teaching' 圓頓戒 (see Terai Yoshinobu 寺井義宣, “Gudō-bō Ejin no Isshin Myōkai no Shisō” 求道房恵尋の「一心妙戒」の思想 (The Thought of the Perfect Precept on One Mind by Gudō-bō Ejin), Tendai Gakuhō 天台学報, N.39, Tendai Gakkai, Tōkyō, 1997, p.73–80) [Giglio Emanuele Davide]

三界唯一心
Basic Definition: the triple realm is nothing but the one mind
Senses:
- The triple world is but one mind. This expression is commonly seen in Chan texts, but originally comes out of Huayan, and in turn reflects a Yogâcāra view of existence, but in a more idealistic sense. Soothill, Yokoi, and Nakamura (at least—and maybe other sources) all attribute this line to the Huayan jing 華嚴經, but although such a message might be gleaned from relevant passages in that sūtra, this actual phrase is not found there. This identification is probably made following the line from Fazangʼs commentary on the Awakening of Mahāyāna Faith, which indicates the Huayan jing as the source. 〔大乘起信論義記 T 1846.44.255a4〕 [Charles Muller; source(s): Soothill]
They don't have too much in common I believe. Huayan takes One Mind/Mind only from the Awakening of Faith and the Avatamsaka Sutra. Where it is taken as the pure mind of sentient beings. And that it's nature (emptiness/interconnectness) when realised is realising Indra's Net as all dharmas share this nature.
Nine: All Phenomena and Form are Identical: Speaking of the One Mind/Mind Only it is referring to phenomena which are depend upon the nature (Emptiness/Interconnectness). There is no other phenomena out side of one phenomena, the mind's nature is identical without difference between this and that. The phenomena is both "All (dharmas) is one (emptiness/interconnectness)" and "One is many", all and one are identical.

Ten: Indra's Net is with Obstruction: Speaking of the One Mind/Mind Only, it is referring to that within one (One is the principle of emptiness/interconnectness) there all (all dharmas), and within that all there is also all. Layer upon layer without exhaustion, in each case it is because of the nature of the mind/Tathagatabarbha. Perfectly melding without end, due to the nature of suchness it ultimately has no end. Contemplating all dharmas as identical to suchness, at all times it is Indra's Net!
-Zongjinglu

Tiantai from what I know uses One Mind in 一心三观/Three Contemplations in a Single Mind which is realising the Conventional Truth, Ultimate Truth and Middle Way (of the previous two truth) Truth. Or the 一念三千/Three Thousand Realms in a Single Though but I'm pretty sure this is the delusional mind giving rise to the appearance and generating the karma to reacte the various realms.

The One Mind isn't a metaphysical Universal mind, it means something along the lines of Mind Only. So while there are countless dharmas they are all mind only (So the one denotes only). But it also gets taken to mean a Pure Mind where the One contrasts against it's two aspects True and False.

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:52 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:58 pm
Sherab wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:07 pm

Do you interpret that "do not exist" in the nihilistic sense where there is no possibility of a continuum of the meditator or the dharmadhatu (in other words, no possibility of freedom from the two extremes)?
In (ultimate) reality there is no meditator nor a dharmadhātu. All such distinctions are conventional. I don't negate these things conventionally speaking, but ultimately they cannot be established at all.

With respect to this issue, I follow the position of the Jetsun Sakya Gongma who declare, "there is no reality (gnas lugs med pa)" and always have. In other words, since the four extremes cannot be established for relative phenomena, there is no way the four extremes can exist in the ultimate either. This being so, there is no reality as there isn't anything established which can be free from the four extremes. The ultimate is considered inexpressible not because it is something free from the four extremes, it is inexpressible because nothing can established by way of the four extremes either relatively or ultimately.

As the Samputa Tantra puts it:

Nothing empty, nothing not empty, and nothing to perceive in the middle.
This seems to be a rather evasive reply.

My reasoning for maintaining that there is a difference between the relative and the ultimate is simply this. If the ultimate is truly indescribable, then you cannot say that it is truly non-existent. If it is truly non-existent, then the word "non-existent" would be an accurate and exact description. If the ultimate cannot be described, then it truly cannot be described. And all we can say is what it is not and not what it is. Also, since we can say what the relative is, and since we cannot say what the ultimate is, the ultimate and the relative cannot be the same.

In brief, my view is that Buddhist ontology is simply that reality is constraint within the two extremes. Within this constraint, there is the ultimate reality and there is the relative reality. The ultimate is not deceptive but the ultimate is. The nature of the ultimate is the nature of the relative, so one can say that ultimately, the ultimate truth is the same as the relative truth. But we cannot say that the ultimate is the relative.

In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance. So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules. The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules. The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple. Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms. At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance. When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons. Science has managed only to penetrate to this level of reality. Beyond that, it is still speculative. Taking the analysis to its logical conclusion, we come to the ultimate reality which is the basis of all the relative realities above it. Therefore, the ultimate is not deceptive and all the various levels of relative realities above it are deceptive. According to the Buddha, this ultimate cannot be described. He did not say that it exists or did not exists. This is all we can say.

It seems to me that for this reason, the approach of Buddhism to reality is apophatic and that it holds that the only way to know what reality really is is through direct "perception" without the intermediation of any sense media.

I don't expect you to agree with me as after all, the above is just my musings.

With that, I think I have exhausted all that I would say in our discussion.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27257
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm

Sherab wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:52 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:58 pm
Sherab wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:07 pm

Do you interpret that "do not exist" in the nihilistic sense where there is no possibility of a continuum of the meditator or the dharmadhatu (in other words, no possibility of freedom from the two extremes)?
In (ultimate) reality there is no meditator nor a dharmadhātu. All such distinctions are conventional. I don't negate these things conventionally speaking, but ultimately they cannot be established at all.

With respect to this issue, I follow the position of the Jetsun Sakya Gongma who declare, "there is no reality (gnas lugs med pa)" and always have. In other words, since the four extremes cannot be established for relative phenomena, there is no way the four extremes can exist in the ultimate either. This being so, there is no reality as there isn't anything established which can be free from the four extremes. The ultimate is considered inexpressible not because it is something free from the four extremes, it is inexpressible because nothing can established by way of the four extremes either relatively or ultimately.

As the Samputa Tantra puts it:

Nothing empty, nothing not empty, and nothing to perceive in the middle.
This seems to be a rather evasive reply.

My reasoning for maintaining that there is a difference between the relative and the ultimate is simply this. If the ultimate is truly indescribable, then you cannot say that it is truly non-existent. If it is truly non-existent, then the word "non-existent" would be an accurate and exact description. If the ultimate cannot be described, then it truly cannot be described. And all we can say is what it is not and not what it is. Also, since we can say what the relative is, and since we cannot say what the ultimate is, the ultimate and the relative cannot be the same.
The relative is indescribable as well. If it were describable, it would not be empty of the four extremes.

In brief, my view is that Buddhist ontology is simply that reality is constraint within the two extremes. Within this constraint, there is the ultimate reality and there is the relative reality. The ultimate is not deceptive but the ultimate [sic] is. The nature of the ultimate is the nature of the relative, so one can say that ultimately, the ultimate truth is the same as the relative truth. But we cannot say that the ultimate is the relative.
The ultimate is the nature of the relative. Since the nature of the relative cannot be ascertained, there is no ultimate to ascertain, in other words the ultimate is simply the ascertainment of the absence of inherent existence of the relative, nothing else.
In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance. So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules. The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules. The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple. Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms. At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance. When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons. Science has managed only to penetrate to this level of reality. Beyond that, it is still speculative. Taking the analysis to its logical conclusion, we come to the ultimate reality which is the basis of all the relative realities above it.
All this shows is that an "ultimate" is just a limit of one's analysis. Glad we agree on that —— though it is a little odd to say that a limitation of analysis is the basis of anything at all.
Therefore, the ultimate is not deceptive and all the various levels of relative realities above it are deceptive. According to the Buddha, this ultimate cannot be described. He did not say that it exists or did not exists. This is all we can say.
No, you have not established that the ultimate is nondeceptive, acutally. You have only shown that the ultimate of a lower tenet system is the relative of a higher tenet system, that's it. You have not even shown the ultimate is inexpressible. The only way to show that the ultimate is inexpressible is to show that nothing relative is expressible. In fact, the ultimate depends on entirely on the relative. When the relative is not found, the ultimate vanishes.
It seems to me that for this reason, the approach of Buddhism to reality is apophatic and that it holds that the only way to know what reality really is is through direct "perception" without the intermediation of any sense media.
It is not possible to have a direct perception without sense media.
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: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:14 am

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
The relative is indescribable as well. If it were describable, it would not be empty of the four extremes.
How do you examine the relative to come to the conclusion that it is indescribable? By examining what underlies the appearance. Therefore, you can only come to the conclusion that it is indescribable after examining all the layers underlying an appearance. So, you can only conclude that the relative is indescribable only after you come to the conclusion that the ultimate layer is indescribable and not the other way round.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
The ultimate is the nature of the relative. Since the nature of the relative cannot be ascertained, there is no ultimate to ascertain, in other words the ultimate is simply the ascertainment of the absence of inherent existence of the relative, nothing else.
It is the nature of the ultimate that cannot be ascertained that makes the relative indescribable. The nature of the relative is ultimately the nature of the ultimate and not the other way round.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
All this shows is that an "ultimate" is just a limit of one's analysis. Glad we agree on that —— though it is a little odd to say that a limitation of analysis is the basis of anything at all.
It shows that there is a limit to the analysis of the relative of science. Analysis by it very character is dualistic. That is what imposes the limitation.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
No, you have not established that the ultimate is nondeceptive, acutally. You have only shown that the ultimate of a lower tenet system is the relative of a higher tenet system, that's it. You have not even shown the ultimate is inexpressible. The only way to show that the ultimate is inexpressible is to show that nothing relative is expressible. In fact, the ultimate depends on entirely on the relative. When the relative is not found, the ultimate vanishes.
If the ultimate truth is deceptive, then no wisdom or knowledge of reality is possible.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
It is not possible to have a direct perception without sense media.
It all depends on whether one assumes the eye consciousness etc is an emergent property or not. If it is, then that would impose a limitation on what can be perceived through it.

thomaslaw
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:00 am
Location: Australia

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by thomaslaw » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:13 am

>What are the differences between HuaYen and TianTai schools about 'One Mind'? Are both schools referring to the same metaphysical concept 'One mind'?

Thanks.

Thomas
---

ItsRaining:

>> They don't have too much in common I believe. Huayan takes One Mind/Mind only from the Awakening of Faith and the Avatamsaka Sutra. Where it is taken as the pure mind of sentient beings. And that it's nature (emptiness/interconnectness) when realised is realising Indra's Net as all dharmas share this nature.

>> Tiantai from what I know uses One Mind in 一心三观/Three Contemplations in a Single Mind which is realising the Conventional Truth, Ultimate Truth and Middle Way (of the previous two truth) Truth. Or the 一念三千/Three Thousand Realms in a Single Though but I'm pretty sure this is the delusional mind giving rise to the appearance and generating the karma to reacte the various realms.

The One Mind isn't a metaphysical Universal mind, it means something along the lines of Mind Only. So while there are countless dharmas they are all mind only (So the one denotes only). But it also gets taken to mean a Pure Mind where the One contrasts against it's two aspects True and False.
----

It seems that the Mind is for the foundation of all dharmas (Mind Only) is shared in common between the two schools.

Since the Mind is the foundation for phenomena (= Mind only), it is the mind of the cosmos/universe.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27257
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:11 pm

Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:14 am
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
The relative is indescribable as well. If it were describable, it would not be empty of the four extremes.
How do you examine the relative to come to the conclusion that it is indescribable? By examining what underlies the appearance. Therefore, you can only come to the conclusion that it is indescribable after examining all the layers underlying an appearance. So, you can only conclude that the relative is indescribable only after you come to the conclusion that the ultimate layer is indescribable and not the other way round.
There is no ultimate layer, there is an absence of an ultimate layer. When sought, it cannot be found.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
The ultimate is the nature of the relative. Since the nature of the relative cannot be ascertained, there is no ultimate to ascertain, in other words the ultimate is simply the ascertainment of the absence of inherent existence of the relative, nothing else.
It is the nature of the ultimate that cannot be ascertained that makes the relative indescribable. The nature of the relative is ultimately the nature of the ultimate and not the other way round.
The ultimate is the inability to find the relative. Therefore, the ultimate depends on the relative. Since the relative has no nature, the ultimate has no nature. Both are therefore merely conventions.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
No, you have not established that the ultimate is nondeceptive, acutally. You have only shown that the ultimate of a lower tenet system is the relative of a higher tenet system, that's it. You have not even shown the ultimate is inexpressible. The only way to show that the ultimate is inexpressible is to show that nothing relative is expressible. In fact, the ultimate depends on entirely on the relative. When the relative is not found, the ultimate vanishes.
If the ultimate truth is deceptive, then no wisdom or knowledge of reality is possible.
Have you considered that reality is simply the absence of the inherent existence of conditioned things and that is all? All Madhyamakas are univocal that the absence of inherent existence in things is reality. This is also the message of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
It is not possible to have a direct perception without sense media.
It all depends on whether one assumes the eye consciousness etc is an emergent property or not. If it is, then that would impose a limitation on what can be perceived through it.
No, this is irrelevant.
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 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:19 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:11 pm

Have you considered that reality is simply the absence of the inherent existence of conditioned things and that is all? All Madhyamakas are univocal that the absence of inherent existence in things is reality. This is also the message of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
:twothumbsup:
meldpunt seksueel misbruik in boeddhistische gemeenschappen nederland.
https://meldpuntbg.nl/

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:11 pm
There is no ultimate layer, there is an absence of an ultimate layer. When sought, it cannot be found.
This is merely an assertion (unreasoned argument) in response to my reasoned argument.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
The ultimate is the inability to find the relative. Therefore, the ultimate depends on the relative. Since the relative has no nature, the ultimate has no nature. Both are therefore merely conventions.
There is a serious consequence of this argument. It implied that the Buddha cannot claim that there is no Creator God because of the Buddha's inability to find the relative and therefore concluded erroneously that there is no ultimate. This would leave the Buddha opened to the counterargument that how then can he claimed that there was no Creator God? The Buddha can claim that there is no Creator God because he knows what the ultimate is and it is not a Creator God. If the ultimate is the inability to find the relative, the Buddha and all of us could be brains in vat, or living in the Matrix, or in a simulation, and can never look beyond that.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
Have you considered that reality is simply the absence of the inherent existence of conditioned things and that is all? All Madhyamakas are univocal that the absence of inherent existence in things is reality. This is also the message of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
Of course. Otherwise, how could I have pointed out that it leads to the logical incoherence/inconsistency/contradiction, which you conveniently evaded by claiming that you have all along equated words "ultimate truth" as referring to "enumerated ultimate truth". But this evasion did not hold up to scrutiny.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
No, this is irrelevant.
Not in my view. I made this assumption because when I look at the description of the death process, it would appear that there are layers of consciousness, and sense consciousnesses seemed not to be fundamental.

From all your responses, I conclude that you do not consider your position as wrong. As I have countered all your responses, I see no good reason to abandon my position. Let's just agree to disagree.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27257
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:13 am

Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:11 pm
There is no ultimate layer, there is an absence of an ultimate layer. When sought, it cannot be found.
This is merely an assertion (unreasoned argument) in response to my reasoned argument.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
The ultimate is the inability to find the relative. Therefore, the ultimate depends on the relative. Since the relative has no nature, the ultimate has no nature. Both are therefore merely conventions.
There is a serious consequence of this argument. It implied that the Buddha cannot claim that there is no Creator God because of the Buddha's inability to find the relative and therefore concluded erroneously that there is no ultimate.
This consequence is invalid since it implies that the inability of relative truth to bear analysis validates causeless arising.

This would leave the Buddha opened to the counterargument that how then can he claimed that there was no Creator God? The Buddha can claim that there is no Creator God because he knows what the ultimate is and it is not a Creator God.
The Buddha only asserts that there is no causeless arising. A creator ipso factor is a causeless cause. The Buddha never rejects this on the basis of an analysis of the relative, but only on the basis of common appearances everyone is witness too, to whit, no one ever perceives any thing at any time any where that arises without a cause. This does not require ultimate analysis at all. Therefore, your pervasion is faulty.
If the ultimate is the inability to find the relative, the Buddha and all of us could be brains in vat, or living in the Matrix, or in a simulation, and can never look beyond that.
Well, there is the Yogacāra school, which will happily agree there are is external world at all.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
Have you considered that reality is simply the absence of the inherent existence of conditioned things and that is all? All Madhyamakas are univocal that the absence of inherent existence in things is reality. This is also the message of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
Of course. Otherwise, how could I have pointed out that it leads to the logical incoherence/inconsistency/contradiction, which you conveniently evaded by claiming that you have all along equated words "ultimate truth" as referring to "enumerated ultimate truth". But this evasion did not hold up to scrutiny.
Of course it holds up to scrutiny. This is why you are unable to rebut my arguments — you have a position and I do not.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
No, this is irrelevant.
Not in my view. I made this assumption because when I look at the description of the death process, it would appear that there are layers of consciousness, and sense consciousnesses seemed not to be fundamental.


"Sense consciousness" is merely a name for one's consciousness when it is operating through a sense organ. When it is not, it is mental consciousness. There are no layers of consciousness beyond that.
From all your responses, I conclude that you do not consider your position as wrong.
I don't have a position with regard to the ultimate, that's your problem, not mine. All I have done is show that there is no ultimate apart from the convention, "ultimate."
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
mañjughoṣamaṇi
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:26 pm
Location: ཟི་ལིང་། མཚོ་སྔོན་ཞིང་ཆེན།

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by mañjughoṣamaṇi » Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:45 am

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:11 pm
The ultimate is the inability to find the relative.
Nice and succinct.
སེམས་རྣམ་པར་གྲོལ་བར་བྱའི་ཕྱིར་བྱམས་པ་བསྒོམ་པར་བྱའོ།
“In order to completely liberate the mind, cultivate loving kindness.” -- Maitribhāvana Sūtra

"The bottom always falls out of the quest for the elementary. The irreducibly individual recedes like the horizon, as our analysis advances." -- Genesis, Michel Serres

User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:37 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:13 am
Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:11 pm
There is no ultimate layer, there is an absence of an ultimate layer. When sought, it cannot be found.
This is merely an assertion (unreasoned argument) in response to my reasoned argument.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
The ultimate is the inability to find the relative. Therefore, the ultimate depends on the relative. Since the relative has no nature, the ultimate has no nature. Both are therefore merely conventions.
There is a serious consequence of this argument. It implied that the Buddha cannot claim that there is no Creator God because of the Buddha's inability to find the relative and therefore concluded erroneously that there is no ultimate.
This consequence is invalid since it implies that the inability of relative truth to bear analysis validates causeless arising.
You argument did not address correctly how analysis of the relative is done. As I mentioned before, analysis of the relative will hit a limit. But it does not mean that the limit cannot be breached through direct perception. Until you address this, your reasoning does not hold.

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:13 am
Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm
This would leave the Buddha opened to the counterargument that how then can he claimed that there was no Creator God? The Buddha can claim that there is no Creator God because he knows what the ultimate is and it is not a Creator God.
The Buddha only asserts that there is no causeless arising. A creator ipso factor is a causeless cause. The Buddha never rejects this on the basis of an analysis of the relative, but only on the basis of common appearances everyone is witness too, to whit, no one ever perceives any thing at any time any where that arises without a cause. This does not require ultimate analysis at all. Therefore, your pervasion is faulty.
The Buddha spoke from the perspective of having penetrated to the ultimate but using conventions. It does not mean that there is no ultimate. But because your position is that there is no ultimate, I have argued that your position cannot withstand a deist/theist assertion that the Buddha claim that there is no Creator God cannot be true.
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:13 am
Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm
If the ultimate is the inability to find the relative, the Buddha and all of us could be brains in vat, or living in the Matrix, or in a simulation, and can never look beyond that.
Well, there is the Yogacāra school, which will happily agree there are is external world at all.
Of course there is an external world and it is all because of dependent origination.
Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
Have you considered that reality is simply the absence of the inherent existence of conditioned things and that is all? All Madhyamakas are univocal that the absence of inherent existence in things is reality. This is also the message of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras.
Of course. Otherwise, how could I have pointed out that it leads to the logical incoherence/inconsistency/contradiction, which you conveniently evaded by claiming that you have all along equated words "ultimate truth" as referring to "enumerated ultimate truth". But this evasion did not hold up to scrutiny.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
Of course it holds up to scrutiny. This is why you are unable to rebut my arguments — you have a position and I do not.
I did rebut your arguments. You can check this out by rereading the thread.
Your position in this discussion was that the ultimate truth is the conventional truth. We have all along been debating this position of yours. My position is that within the constraints of the two extreme of existence and non-existence, there is the ultimate and the relative. Your position, to put it another way, is that within the region constraint by the two extremes, there is only the relative. Agree?
Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
No, this is irrelevant.
Not in my view. I made this assumption because when I look at the description of the death process, it would appear that there are layers of consciousness, and sense consciousnesses seemed not to be fundamental.

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:13 am
"Sense consciousness" is merely a name for one's consciousness when it is operating through a sense organ. When it is not, it is mental consciousness. There are no layers of consciousness beyond that.
Sure, but there is the mind of white appearance, mind of red increase, mind of near attainment. Of course, you would argue that these are not different layers but different degree of subtlety of the mental consciousness. Even then, there is at least a difference between the sense consciousnesses and the mental consciousness. The sense consciousnesses depends on the elements. When the elements dissolve, they dissolve but the mental consciousness remains. The sense consciousnesses are therefore not fundamental.

Sherab wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm
From all your responses, I conclude that you do not consider your position as wrong.
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:14 pm
I don't have a position with regard to the ultimate, that's your problem, not mine. All I have done is show that there is no ultimate apart from the convention, "ultimate."
Already addressed above.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27257
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Malcolm » Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:07 am

Sherab wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:37 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:13 am

You argument did not address correctly how analysis of the relative is done. As I mentioned before, analysis of the relative will hit a limit. But it does not mean that the limit cannot be breached through direct perception. Until you address this, your reasoning does not hold.
This is so simple really. Can there be an ultimate truth separate from relative truth? No. There is no ultimate independent of the relative. If you say that there is, you have not understood the Buddha's distinction of the two truths. There is no ultimate truth other than the absence of inherent existence in conditioned phenomena.
The Buddha spoke from the perspective of having penetrated to the ultimate but using conventions. It does not mean that there is no ultimate. But because your position is that there is no ultimate, I have argued that your position cannot withstand a deist/theist assertion that the Buddha claim that there is no Creator God cannot be true.
You made an assertion, you have not proven it because your thesis is faulty in toto.
Of course there is an external world and it is all because of dependent origination.
That was a typo, meant to say, "there is no external world at all."
Your position in this discussion was that the ultimate truth is the conventional truth. We have all along been debating this position of yours.
Correct, ultimate truth is a conventional truth because it is efficient in bringing about a result. That is what makes the ultimate truth conventional, as I have explained repeatedly. If you claim the ultimate truth is not conventional, the consequence is that it is also nonfunctional.
My position is that within the constraints of the two extreme of existence and non-existence, there is the ultimate and the relative. Your position, to put it another way, is that within the region constraint by the two extremes, there is only the relative. Agree?
My point of view is that within the constraints of the four extremes (there are four, not only two), the relative is not established, and therefore, the ultimate is also not established since it too cannot be established according to any of the four extremes.
Sure, but there is the mind of white appearance, mind of red increase, mind of near attainment.
It is very inappropriate to mix Vajrayāna into a sūtric conversation.
Of course, you would argue that these are not different layers but different degree of subtlety of the mental consciousness.
I am not going to discuss these here: apart from mentioning these experiences are not different kinds of minds.
Even then, there is at least a difference between the sense consciousnesses and the mental consciousness. The sense consciousnesses depends on the elements. When the elements dissolve, they dissolve but the mental consciousness remains. The sense consciousnesses are therefore not fundamental.
The sense consciousnesses and the mental consciousness are the one and same, that is, the "eye-consciousness" is merely consciousness operating though the eye organ, taking form as an object; likewise, the mental consciousness operates through the mental organ, taking the dharma-āyatana/dhatu as its object. All consciousness are included in the vijn̄āna-skandha. There is therefore no distinction between a "fundamental consciousness" on the one hand, and secondary sensory consciousnesses on the other hand. We don't in fact have six consciousnesses, we have only one, given different names when it performs different operations. Likewise, all the vāyus in our body are actually the prāṇa vāyu, but it is given different names depending on whether is assists speech, movement, digestion, circulation, or sense perception.

The more you talk, the more misunderstandings you introduce.
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: 1172
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Sherab » Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:33 am

From my perspective Malcolm, there were quite a few points that I made that you did not address directly nor satisfactorily.

I will now focus only on one point, that is the method of analysis of the relative.

The only way an ordinary being can properly analyze the relative is this: (I wrote this previously)
In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance. So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules. The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules. The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple. Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms. At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance. When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons.....

Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?

krodha
Posts: 2286
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by krodha » Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:51 am

Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:33 am
Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?
You really are a materialist.

User avatar
SonamTashi
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by SonamTashi » Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:33 pm

Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:33 am
The only way an ordinary being can properly analyze the relative is this: (I wrote this previously)
In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance. So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules. The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules. The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple. Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms. At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance. When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons.....

Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?
At this point, your argument has completely left the confines of Buddhism (and entered the framework of materialism and a very materialistic view of science); you are no longer even discussing Buddhist ideas, although you seem to think you are. It is obvious from your posts that you do not know enough about Buddhism, and especially Madhyamika, to debate it competently, or enough to even recognize that you don't know enough to debate it competently. Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect? If you don't know enough to analyze or criticize, then isn't it better to accept that you could be wrong? Refusing to admit you're wrong is a quick way to go in self-imposed circles in Buddhism.

Do you have a teacher/sangha? If you have a teacher, you should work out your misconceptions with them.
Formerly known as emceecombs

Also known as:

Kenyo

Josh

Amituofo :anjali:

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 16563
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Grigoris » Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:48 pm

krodha wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:51 am
Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:33 am
Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?
You really are a materialist.
:rolling: In another thread he was arguing from a Yogacara perspective!
"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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: "One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:38 pm

SonamTashi wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:33 pm
Sherab wrote:
Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:33 am
The only way an ordinary being can properly analyze the relative is this: (I wrote this previously)
In analyzing the relative, we look at the appearance and then ask what is underneath that appearance. So we look at an apple and see that it is formed from molecules. The apple therefore does not exist at the level of the molecules. The apple therefore is simply the appearance of the apple if we don't look at the underlying reality of the apple. Similarly, when we look at a molecule, we see that it is comprised of atoms. At the level of the atom, the molecule does not exist and is simply an appearance. When we look at an atom, we see that it comprises other particles such as quarks and electrons.....

Do you agree or do you think there is a better approach?
At this point, your argument has completely left the confines of Buddhism (and entered the framework of materialism and a very materialistic view of science);
How is it significantly different than when Nāgasena Bhikṣu deconstructs the chariot for Menander I principally by breaking it down into its constituents in analysis?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the "properly" and "only" and whatnot in the above quoted material, but I wouldn't call deconstructing the atom unBuddhist.
子念昔貧,志意下劣,今於父所,大獲珍寶,并及舍宅、一切財物。甚大歡喜,得未曾有。
The son thought of past poverty, outlook humble, now having from father a treasure harvest, also father's house, all his wealth. Great joy - to have what was never before had.

Τῆς πατρῴας, δόξης σου, ἀποσκιρτήσας ἀφρόνως, ἐν κακοῖς ἐσκόρπισα, ὅν μοι παρέδωκας πλοῦτον· ὅθεν σοι τὴν τοῦ Ἀσώτου, φωνὴν κραυγάζω· Ἥμαρτον ἐνώπιόν σου Πάτερ οἰκτίρμον, δέξαι με μετανοοῦντα, καὶ ποίησόν με, ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
Your fatherly due I withheld unthinking, in evil I wasted your wealth; a prodigal cries, "I've erred, father, receive the repentant as serf."

妙法蓮華經 Κοντάκιον τοῦ Ἀσώτου

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tktru and 17 guests