Tibetan Zen

[LastLegend]

When I discuss a subject with others, I make it a point to read and understand what is being said so that I don't waste the other person's time and effort with a reply that is not to point.

Damn. People are lazy these days from smoking that stuff. So please just repeat what you said. You have been wasting all of your time already. So why do you care?

[LastLegend]

If even the state of buddhahood is an illusion, attaining the two benefits of buddhahood is also an illusion. Why should any being even bother with the Dharma?

Like birds taking a shower in the river, they immerse themselves. All the bodhisattvas all carry a weapon.

[Anonymous X]

Amirite?

maybe...... How can we be sure we are talking about the very same thing and describing it in the very same way? I didn't have any objection to your description.

It isn't that difficult to ascertain whether we are discussing the same thing in this instance, and my point is if we are, then that is not authentic equipoise.

Why is equipoise brought up here? Is this not a subjective dharma which is also a referent? What/who is the knower of this?

[LastLegend]

If even the state of buddhahood is an illusion, attaining the two benefits of buddhahood is also an illusion. Why should any being even bother with the Dharma?

Like birds taking a shower in the river, they immerse themselves. All the bodhisattvas all carry a weapon.

Van Thu Su Loi.jpg (197.9 KiB) Viewed 3686 times

Van Thu Su Loi.jpg (197.9 KiB) Viewed 3686 times

[krodha]

maybe...... How can we be sure we are talking about the very same thing and describing it in the very same way? I didn't have any objection to your description.

It isn't that difficult to ascertain whether we are discussing the same thing in this instance, and my point is if we are, then that is not authentic equipoise.

Why is equipoise brought up here?

Equipoise is brought up because unless one is resting in equipoise, one cannot truly claim to be abandoning [or exhausting] views (the theme of our previous interaction in this thread).

Equipoise is the state of all āryas and buddhas. We as sentient beings, on the path, fluctuate between equipoise and post-equipoise because we have not completely uprooted our affliction, as described by Jigme Lingpa here:

• Vidyā as it is explained on the path is still accompanied by impure influences of subtle energy and mind, leading to the distorted states of ordinary mind [sems] and mental events. Because one's recognition of vidyā is thus contaminated and burdened, one can truly rest in vidyā only from time to time.

In the latter part of the last sentence: "...one can truly rest in vidyā only from time to time." the term "vidyā" can be substituted with "equipoise."

Buddhas, having eradicated all contamination, no longer fluctuate between equipoise and post-equipoise but rather have merged these two "states."

Is this not a subjective dharma which is also a referent?

Equipoise is a term used to denote a period of time when the mind rests in a direct knowledge of dharmatā. Therefore equipoise is not a referent, but instead is a span of time when referents are no longer perceived.

What/who is the knower of this?

The knower is the mind, which is expressed as jñāna, or we can say vidyā is the knower. Or we can simply say the knower is you, or he, she, they, him, her, etc., as the buddhadharma has no qualms with conventional designations. Either way, a period of equipoise occurs when the mind is awakened to the way things actually are.

[Astus]

As I have mentioned before, it is because you have assumed that dependent arising is identical to temporal causality.

There is no atemporal causality, as effect must follow cause. If it is not causality, then there is neither dependence, nor origination. That's why it can only be temporal causality.

I have explained previously that dependent arising is very broad and can encompass more than mere temporal causality.

It wasn't an explanation, it was a simple statement. You wrote:

"You have also assumed dependent origination as identical to temporal causality."

That's all.

When I discuss a subject with others, I make it a point to read and understand what is being said so that I don't waste the other person's time and effort with a reply that is not to point.

Very good approach. So are there any arguments aside from the claim that they exist somewhere?

[Anonymous X]

It isn't that difficult to ascertain whether we are discussing the same thing in this instance, and my point is if we are, then that is not authentic equipoise.

Why is equipoise brought up here?

Equipoise is brought up because unless one is resting in equipoise, one cannot truly claim to be abandoning [or exhausting] views (the theme of our previous interaction in this thread).

Equipoise is the state of all āryas and buddhas. We as sentient beings, on the path, fluctuate between equipoise and post-equipoise because we have not completely uprooted our affliction, as described by Jigme Lingpa here:

• Vidyā as it is explained on the path is still accompanied by impure influences of subtle energy and mind, leading to the distorted states of ordinary mind [sems] and mental events. Because one's recognition of vidyā is thus contaminated and burdened, one can truly rest in vidyā only from time to time.

In the latter part of the last sentence: "...one can truly rest in vidyā only from time to time." the term "vidyā" can be substituted with "equipoise."

Buddhas, having eradicated all contamination, no longer fluctuate between equipoise and post-equipoise but rather have merged these two "states."

Is this not a subjective dharma which is also a referent?

Equipoise is a term used to denote a period of time when the mind rests in a direct knowledge of dharmatā. Therefore equipoise is not a referent, but instead is a span of time when referents are no longer perceived.

What/who is the knower of this?

The knower is the mind, which is expressed as jñāna, or we can say vidyā is the knower. Or we can simply say the knower is you, or he, she, they, him, her, etc., as the buddhadharma has no qualms with conventional designations. Either way, a period of equipoise occurs when the mind is awakened to the way things actually are.

Krodha,

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this. I can say that it seems my own experience approaches what you are describing though I wouldn't use the same terms as you do. I also would not equate myself with the Buddha as I have no way of knowing what his state was. I still would not use this word equipoise as it creates the idea of a subjective state to be 'achieved' and 'desired'. A span of time must be a referent if it fluctuates.

I do get the feeling that you are pointing to 'something' that you can know or exists that is not part of what appears as 'conventional truth'. Perhaps a state of mind that many meditators strive to experience. I get caught up in that myself at times and have to be mindful of engaging in that kind of thinking. Can you relate to that? Equipoise and being awakened to the way things are seem to be not the same. Equipoise still seems to be a result, an effect, a state. If vidya/jnana, which is the cessation of ignorance, and supposedly that realization of Buddha, were effected in equipoise, one instant of it would end all circular thinking which it does not as we can see in our own lives.

Further, what you are adhering to seems to be the old schism of 'gradual' vs 'sudden'. You are talking of a path and suggesting stages. This is an area that always gets sticky, don't you think? I don't want to go down that route. Much too much complication there.

[Malcolm]

If vidya/jnana, which is the cessation of ignorance, and supposedly that realization of Buddha, were effected in equipoise, one instant of it would end all circular thinking which it does not as we can see in our own lives. .

The rigpa of sentient beings is fragmented. The rigpa of buddhas is unfragmented. This is the sole difference between sentient beings and buddhas.

[Anonymous X]

If vidya/jnana, which is the cessation of ignorance, and supposedly that realization of Buddha, were effected in equipoise, one instant of it would end all circular thinking which it does not as we can see in our own lives. .

The rigpa of sentient beings is fragmented. The rigpa of buddhas is unfragmented. This is the sole difference between sentient beings and buddhas.

There really is no way to know this. This statement seems metaphysical to me.

[Malcolm]

If vidya/jnana, which is the cessation of ignorance, and supposedly that realization of Buddha, were effected in equipoise, one instant of it would end all circular thinking which it does not as we can see in our own lives. .

The rigpa of sentient beings is fragmented. The rigpa of buddhas is unfragmented. This is the sole difference between sentient beings and buddhas.

There really is no way to know this. This statement seems metaphysical to me.

It isn't. It is pragmatic. Sentient beings are not always in possession of knowledge of their own state. Buddhas are always in possession of knowledge of their own state.

[Sherab]

The only place you seem to have addressed this was on page 9. There you state that the ultimate is both functional and impermanent. Such a statement actually turns the ultimate into the relative.

As I have mentioned before, it is because you have assumed that dependent arising is identical to temporal causality. I have explained previously that dependent arising is very broad and can encompass more than mere temporal causality.

There are only three kinds of dependent origination: serial, momentary, and simultaneous. But all three operate within temporal causality. Dependent origination is presented after cause and condition and before karma for this reason.

Presented by the Buddha himself? If so, where?

[Sherab]

As I have mentioned before, it is because you have assumed that dependent arising is identical to temporal causality.

There is no atemporal causality, as effect must follow cause. If it is not causality, then there is neither dependence, nor origination. That's why it can only be temporal causality.

I have explained previously that dependent arising is very broad and can encompass more than mere temporal causality.

It wasn't an explanation, it was a simple statement. You wrote:

"You have also assumed dependent origination as identical to temporal causality."

That's all.

Goes to show that you read what I wrote in isolation.

[Malcolm]

As I have mentioned before, it is because you have assumed that dependent arising is identical to temporal causality. I have explained previously that dependent arising is very broad and can encompass more than mere temporal causality.

There are only three kinds of dependent origination: serial, momentary, and simultaneous. But all three operate within temporal causality. Dependent origination is presented after cause and condition and before karma for this reason.

Presented by the Buddha himself? If so, where?

You can understand this from the Ahidharmakosha and its commentaries, especially the one which contains extensive citations from the agamas.

[Temicco]

If vidya/jnana, which is the cessation of ignorance, and supposedly that realization of Buddha, were effected in equipoise, one instant of it would end all circular thinking which it does not as we can see in our own lives. .

The rigpa of sentient beings is fragmented. The rigpa of buddhas is unfragmented. This is the sole difference between sentient beings and buddhas.

There really is no way to know this. This statement seems metaphysical to me.

The same is taught in Zen; see the Yuanwu quote in my flair, for instance. It's knowable by anyone who has knowledge of their nature. Dahui talks about people who suddenly "get it" but then subsequently stop practicing and die while back under the sway of their dualistic mind. Shido Bunan also discusses the matter. Bankei says it is necessary to be very careful after your initial satori in order to fully perfect your dharma eye. And the Xiuxin yaolun, attr. Hongren apparently, says: "Just constantly maintain clear awareness of the True Mind in all your actions. . . To never fail in correct mindfulness—even when one’s body is being torn apart or at the time of death—is to be a buddha."

[krodha]

Krodha,

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this. I can say that it seems my own experience approaches what you are describing though I wouldn't use the same terms as you do. I also would not equate myself with the Buddha as I have no way of knowing what his state was.

No one suggested equating yourself with a Buddha, but if you've ever known equipoise there is no doubt that it is what every buddha, ārya, etc., are intending to introduce and attempting to communicate.

still would not use this word equipoise as it creates the idea of a subjective state to be 'achieved' and 'desired'.

Yes, wisdom is to be achieved, one does not possess it on the outset, as Longchenpa states:

• The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained.

A span of time must be a referent if it fluctuates.

Periods of equipoise fluctuate due to the presence of afflictive conditioning and habitual tendencies which make instances of awakening unstable. This is why initial awakening is generally brief and fleeting, it is quickly consumed again by karmic conditioning. The very meaning of the path is continually returning to equipoise so that prajñā exhausts affliction and periods of equipoise extend longer and longer until one no longer regresses, as Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche explains here:

• The glimpse of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid] that in the beginning lasted only for a few seconds gradually becomes half a minute, then a minute, then half an hour, then hours, until eventually it is uninterrupted throughout the whole day. You need that kind of training.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche stops at "throughout the whole day" in his example, but the intention is actually to make that knowledge constant, so that it even permeates sleep.

I do get the feeling that you are pointing to 'something' that you can know or exists that is not part of what appears as 'conventional truth'. Perhaps a state of mind that many meditators strive to experience.

Equipoise is not a mind state. It is resting in a direct, experiential knowledge of the nature of mind.

Per Candrakīrti, relative and ultimate truth are in essence, different species of cognition, the former afflicted and the latter unafflicted. Both "truths" are correct and incorrect knowledge of the same appearances, like mistaking a rope in a dark room to be a snake.

I get caught up in that myself at times and have to be mindful of engaging in that kind of thinking. Can you relate to that?

I cannot relate to that.

Equipoise and being awakened to the way things are seem to be not the same. Equipoise still seems to be a result, an effect, a state. If vidya/jnana, which is the cessation of ignorance, and supposedly that realization of Buddha, were effected in equipoise, one instant of it would end all circular thinking which it does not as we can see in our own lives.

The nature of mind is not affected by anything, it is simply obscured, much like the sun is not affected by cloud cover.

Further, what you are adhering to seems to be the old schism of 'gradual' vs 'sudden'. You are talking of a path and suggesting stages.

Awakening is always sudden, the removal of obscurations is always gradual (except in exceedingly rare cases), and our nature is neither sudden nor gradual.

This is an area that always gets sticky, don't you think? I don't want to go down that route. Much too much complication there.

It isn't complicated if understood correctly.

[Anonymous X]

The rigpa of sentient beings is fragmented. The rigpa of buddhas is unfragmented. This is the sole difference between sentient beings and buddhas.

There really is no way to know this. This statement seems metaphysical to me.

It isn't. It is pragmatic. Sentient beings are not always in possession of knowledge of their own state. Buddhas are always in possession of knowledge of their own state.

I'm not arguing that a Buddha is not in possession of knowledge of his own state. It's just that this kind of information has really nothing to do with our own state and how we are perceiving ourselves and the world. What good does it do to know this about a Buddha? It's meaningless, in a sense, and sets up dichotomies in the mind's of those who 'aspire'. Our own activity is the only thing we perceive and that is already conditioned before we even think about it. Seeing this seems to slow this momentum in the sense we don't chase what we think we should become.

[Anonymous X]

The rigpa of sentient beings is fragmented. The rigpa of buddhas is unfragmented. This is the sole difference between sentient beings and buddhas.

There really is no way to know this. This statement seems metaphysical to me.

The same is taught in Zen; see the Yuanwu quote in my flair, for instance. It's knowable by anyone who has knowledge of their nature. Dahui talks about people who suddenly "get it" but then subsequently stop practicing and die while back under the sway of their dualistic mind. Shido Bunan also discusses the matter. Bankei says it is necessary to be very careful after your initial satori in order to fully perfect your dharma eye. And the Xiuxin yaolun, attr. Hongren apparently, says: "Just constantly maintain clear awareness of the True Mind in all your actions. . . To never fail in correct mindfulness—even when one’s body is being torn apart or at the time of death—is to be a buddha."

It is not a matter of failing to be mindful or maintaining anything. There is no choice or effort to do any of it as it is beyond understanding and will. No-mindfulness is often spoke of in Chan terms. It is the peace that surpasseth.............

To quote once again:
Langye Huijue said:
Mahakasyapa did not know the World-Honored One's samadhi.
Ananda did not know Mahakasyapa's samadhi. Sanavasin did not know
Ananda's samadhi. Up to now, although I have samadhi, you do not know it.

Eihei Dogen said:
The World-Honored One did not know the World-Honored One's samadhi.
Mahakasyapa did not know Mahakasyapa's samadhi.
Ananda did not know Ananda's samadhi.
Sanavasin did not know Sanavasin's samadhi.
I have samadhi, but I do not know it.
You have samadhi but you do not know it.

[Malcolm]

There really is no way to know this. This statement seems metaphysical to me.

It isn't. It is pragmatic. Sentient beings are not always in possession of knowledge of their own state. Buddhas are always in possession of knowledge of their own state.

I'm not arguing that a Buddha is not in possession of knowledge of his own state. It's just that this kind of information has really nothing to do with our own state.

Of course it does. It allows one who is in possession of knowledge of their own state to understand that it is possible to be possession of the knowledge of one's own state 24/7/365, and that the only difference between a buddha and oneself is whether that knowledge is continuous or interrupted.

[Anonymous X]

Krodha,

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this. I can say that it seems my own experience approaches what you are describing though I wouldn't use the same terms as you do. I also would not equate myself with the Buddha as I have no way of knowing what his state was.

No one suggested equating yourself with a Buddha, but if you've ever known equipoise there is no doubt that it is what every buddha, ārya, etc., are intending to introduce and attempting to communicate.

still would not use this word equipoise as it creates the idea of a subjective state to be 'achieved' and 'desired'.

Yes, wisdom is to be achieved, one does not possess it on the outset, as Longchenpa states:

• The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained.

A span of time must be a referent if it fluctuates.

Periods of equipoise fluctuate due to the presence of afflictive conditioning and habitual tendencies which make instances of awakening unstable. This is why initial awakening is generally brief and fleeting, it is quickly consumed again by karmic conditioning. The very meaning of the path is continually returning to equipoise so that prajñā exhausts affliction and periods of equipoise extend longer and longer until one no longer regresses, as Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche explains here:

• The glimpse of recognizing mind-essence [sems nyid] that in the beginning lasted only for a few seconds gradually becomes half a minute, then a minute, then half an hour, then hours, until eventually it is uninterrupted throughout the whole day. You need that kind of training.

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche stops at "throughout the whole day" in his example, but the intention is actually to make that knowledge constant, so that it even permeates sleep.

I do get the feeling that you are pointing to 'something' that you can know or exists that is not part of what appears as 'conventional truth'. Perhaps a state of mind that many meditators strive to experience.

Equipoise is not a mind state. It is resting in a direct, experiential knowledge of the nature of mind.

Per Candrakīrti, relative and ultimate truth are in essence, different species of cognition, the former afflicted and the latter unafflicted. Both "truths" are correct and incorrect knowledge of the same appearances, like mistaking a rope in a dark room to be a snake.

I get caught up in that myself at times and have to be mindful of engaging in that kind of thinking. Can you relate to that?

I cannot relate to that.

Equipoise and being awakened to the way things are seem to be not the same. Equipoise still seems to be a result, an effect, a state. If vidya/jnana, which is the cessation of ignorance, and supposedly that realization of Buddha, were effected in equipoise, one instant of it would end all circular thinking which it does not as we can see in our own lives.

The nature of mind is not affected by anything, it is simply obscured, much like the sun is not affected by cloud cover.

Further, what you are adhering to seems to be the old schism of 'gradual' vs 'sudden'. You are talking of a path and suggesting stages.

Awakening is always sudden, the removal of obscurations is always gradual (except in exceedingly rare cases), and our nature is neither sudden nor gradual.

This is an area that always gets sticky, don't you think? I don't want to go down that route. Much too much complication there.

It isn't complicated if understood correctly.

Once again, Krodha, thank you for the lengthy reply. I understand what the teachings say in your particular path. I understand that you choose to follow this and a lot of it makes sense to me, up to a certain point. My own experience confirms much of what you are saying, 'up to a certain point'. But, if I may be so bold or blunt or even stupid to say that all of it is not about the 'way things are'. It is all a subjective narrative culturally induced in us through contact with religions, philosophy, and our own fabrications about things we can never 'know' with our ordinary minds. In the words of my own teacher, in one instant, you and everything you've known are dissolved. What is left is a totality without a center, with no way of feeling separate ever again from life. No referents, no teaching, no knower, no attainer. To me, that is real equipoise with no one who says 'this is equipoise'. But this is something that is not possible to be talked about, IMO. Far gone. Way gone. gate gate.............

[Anonymous X]

It isn't. It is pragmatic. Sentient beings are not always in possession of knowledge of their own state. Buddhas are always in possession of knowledge of their own state.

I'm not arguing that a Buddha is not in possession of knowledge of his own state. It's just that this kind of information has really nothing to do with our own state.

Of course it does. It allows one who is in possession of knowledge of their own state to understand that it is possible to be possession of the knowledge of one's own state 24/7/365, and that the only difference between a buddha and oneself is whether that knowledge is continuous or interrupted.

I think there is a fundamental misinterpretation of what you think enlightenment entails. You are interpreting words with no real experiential change in the way you function. It's intellectual. That's okay if you believe your path will lead you to that. But becoming is not what the Buddha taught. That is the fundamental difference in what you say and what the Buddha stood for. Knowledge(knowing) is not anything that can be known. We have no capacity to know this. It's thinking about thinking.