"One Mind" in Hua Yen thought

[DGA]

Upon further reflection, though, it is clear to me he was right. Many Buddhist types who reject "God" really just reject that which is easily rejected: the crudely anthropomorphized tribal deity. But they continue to hold tightly to a less-defined spiritual "oneness" or "source" of reality, and to view the goal of practice through the lens of atonement, "returning to" something, or "becoming one with" something. Even the choice often made to capitalize "One Mind" and "True Self" perhaps speaks to this. It's a factor worth acknowledging when discussing dharma in these parts.

Rejecting "God" or "Self" only creates a framework and thus asserts the "thing" in the very rejection. Its pretty silly as far as I can see. Merging with the absolute or "becoming one" is the sound of one hand clapping, its a joke, then the bell echos in primordial space and we forget about it all again, which too is part of the joke, the source of the smile on Buddha's face and its unfanthomable gifts are not a product of practise or correct buddhadharma, let alone dreamcharacters pratteling on about who are the "true buddhists" or not.

I think the reason that views and distinctions among views are discussed extensively at DW is because it's an internet discussion forum about Buddhism. This means Buddhists participate. Buddhists are really good at debating views, and have been for centuries. It's bad manners to discuss people too much and practices are often off-limits to online discussion, so what's left to debate? Views, positions, perspectives, narratives...

Alternatives:

1. threads about cats
2. thread about dogs
3. that long thread about music
4. thread about food, preferences in food, the vegetarian question, the vegan question...

[fuki]

so what's left to debate?

Well I noticed when folks drop their precious "knowledge, attainments,and experience" from illusory cultivation the Heart speaks for itself. Then all the same debates can actually bloom and will be in service of the harmony that as sentient beings we're all in this together, so we can deepen and inspire each others practise instead of fabrication division in consciousness. Then again I'm not saying I do a good job, perhaps my intentions are the very disservice.

No biggy as I said I dont invite anyone in for tea, but I also dont go running around shooting; "you're not getting any tea, you're not getting any tea" You go like, what the hell is he talking about, tea was never on my mind! As of such members put words in others mouth, and we get into cyclic debates just because there was a tea agenda somewhere. I would call that bad manners thus whatever debate was going on wasnt really a service to the dharma but just a cover to get a subtle message across.

I love cat threads but even there someone will debate about tea again!

When we keep paying attention when we close our books and the doors of the zendo one might notice the woman behind the cash register may be a dharma door, or the village idiot, or whatever. But when the world is locked up in a mental picture with preconceived notions as to who is the wise and who the fool, any place becomes a heartless clinical library.

Talk about anything buddhadharma or cats but ulterior motives and agendas makes it all stinky.

[ItsRaining]

Edit: Bad Formatting

[ItsRaining]

Hua-yen thinkers developed new theories of dependent origination [...] to clarify how the one mind manifests as the phenomenal world.
These are the theories Stone cites as examples: "dharma-realm origination (fa chieh yuan ch'i)" "tathagathagarbha origination (ju lai tsang yuan-ch'i)" and "nature origination (hsing-ch'i)"

Do these theories correspond to the summary Stone gives of them?

In the Zongjinglu, Yongming Yanshou wrote about 10 levels of the One Mind, I'll translate the 7th to 10th levels as they are most relevant to Dharma Realms Origination. It starts off with the Hinayana's view that things really exist outside of the mind and that the mind only conceptualises based on it's discrimination. Then it moves to higher and higher views.

Zongjinglu Fascicle Four

One: Conventionally speaking of the One Mind, those of the two vehicles believe that there are truly existent external dharmas, only that the mind transforms them so the One Mind is spoken of. The next nine levels are truly One Mind.

Seven: The Nature and Form Meld Without Exception. Speaking of the One Mind, it is referring to the Tathagatabarbha, it's entire essence goes along with condition causing all phenomena (So all phenomena originate from the One Mind). But it's self nature originally does not arise or cease. So it is this principle and phenomena mix and blend without obstruction. Therefore, the one mind and two truths are not impeded.

Eight: Blending Phenomena and Entering Form. Speaking of the One Mind it is referring to the mind's nature. Perfectly melding without obstruction, phenomena are created with the nature. Phenomena due to blending and melding do not obstruct one another. Entering one is entering all, within every dust the Dharma Realm can be seen. Devas and Asuras leave not a single speck of dust.

Nine: All Phenomena and Form are Identical: Speaking of the One Mind it is referring to phenomena which are depend upon the nature. 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 is one" and "One is many", all and one are identical.

Ten: Indra's Net is with Obstruction: Speaking of the One Mind, it is referring to that within one there all, 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!

Like what is said within the Gatha of the Whirl Pool:

"If practitioners desire the meaning of true emptiness, then the suchness within the body also extends outwards.

Sentient and non-sentient share one body, all places are the same as the True(Such) Dharma Realm.

Not leaving illusionary form is emptiness seen, this is the suchness that encompasses all.

One thought illuminates through all kalpas, every thought kalpa contains all (phenomena).

In one instance of objective cognition there is omniscient wisdom, within one wisdom there are all objective cognitions.

Using only one thought to observe all objects, all objects meet at once.

At that time Indra's net displays innumerable layers, the omniscient wisdom penetrates without attachment or obstruction."

[ItsRaining]

What do you mean by semi-vedantic? One Mind doesn’t mean a universal mind like in Vedanta. Originally pure mind is pretty common doctrine and so is being undifferentiated which just means the mind is empty of distinctions/conceptualisations. Are you reading it to mean all minds are one undifferentiated universal mind?

Yes, that is how I understand the term "one mind" too. However, there are others who do regard it as meaning that not only all minds but all phenomena emerge from an undifferentiated universal mind. The language Stone uses suggests that is her understanding of what Hua Yen teaches. I started this thread to clarify that point, since Stone's book has a way of coming up over and over again in a variety of discussions you wouldn't expect to see it in at DW.

Hua-yen thought sees all phenomena as expressions of an originally pure and undifferentiated one mind

I think you are misreading Stone, she's giving a pretty general explanation of what One Mind is. It doesn't have those connotations if the terms are translated into Chinese. Anyway, phenomena would being expressions of the mind is a pretty common doctrine, mind only, etc this is basically universally agreed on in the Mahayana. Then the mind's nature being pure isn't uncommon either, it's focused upon by Chan masters, , Huayan, etc, I don't think there are too many disagreements on that. Then the one mind being undifferentiated (无分别 in Chinese, this term is used a lot to describe cognition once some understands emptiness), that's just saying the the one mind which all sentient being each have an individual one of is undifferentiated as it's nature is empty and has no marks

Awakening of Faith

That which is called "the essential nature of the Mind" is unborn and is imperishable. It is only through illusions that all things come to be differentiated. If one is freed from illusions, then to him there will be no appearances (lakshana) of objects regarded as absolutely independent existences; therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness.... It should be understood that the essential nature of Suchness is neither with marks nor without marks; neither not with marks nor not without marks; nor is it... since all unenlightened men discriminate with their deluded minds from moment to moment, they are alienated from Suchness; hence, the definition "empty"; but once they are free from their deluded minds, they will find that there is nothing to be negated.

I think One Mind used in the Awakening of Faith is often used to contrast with it's two aspects or the various dharmas we perceive. It defintely doesn't teach an universal mind.

[PeterC]

Hua-yen thinkers developed new theories of dependent origination [...] to clarify how the one mind manifests as the phenomenal world.
These are the theories Stone cites as examples: "dharma-realm origination (fa chieh yuan ch'i)" "tathagathagarbha origination (ju lai tsang yuan-ch'i)" and "nature origination (hsing-ch'i)"

Do these theories correspond to the summary Stone gives of them?

In the Zongjinglu, Yongming Yanshou wrote about 10 levels of the One Mind, I'll translate the 7th to 10th levels as they are most relevant to Dharma Realms Origination. It starts off with the Hinayana's view that things really exist outside of the mind and that the mind only conceptualises based on it's discrimination. Then it moves to higher and higher views.

Zongjinglu Fascicle Four

One: Conventionally speaking of the One Mind, those of the two vehicles believe that there are truly existent external dharmas, only that the mind transforms them so the One Mind is spoken of. The next nine levels are truly One Mind.

Seven: The Nature and Form Meld Without Exception. Speaking of the One Mind, it is referring to the Tathagatabarbha, it's entire essence goes along with condition causing all phenomena (So all phenomena originate from the One Mind). But it's self nature originally does not arise or cease. So it is this principle and phenomena mix and blend without obstruction. Therefore, the one mind and two truths are not impeded.

Eight: Blending Phenomena and Entering Form. Speaking of the One Mind it is referring to the mind's nature. Perfectly melding without obstruction, phenomena are created with the nature. Phenomena due to blending and melding do not obstruct one another. Entering one is entering all, within every dust the Dharma Realm can be seen. Devas and Asuras leave not a single speck of dust.

Nine: All Phenomena and Form are Identical: Speaking of the One Mind it is referring to phenomena which are depend upon the nature. 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 is one" and "One is many", all and one are identical.

Ten: Indra's Net is with Obstruction: Speaking of the One Mind, it is referring to that within one there all, 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!

Like what is said within the Gatha of the Whirl Pool:

"If practitioners desire the meaning of true emptiness, then the suchness within the body also extends outwards.

Sentient and non-sentient share one body, all places are the same as the True(Such) Dharma Realm.

Not leaving illusionary form is emptiness seen, this is the suchness that encompasses all.

One thought illuminates through all kalpas, every thought kalpa contains all (phenomena).

In one instance of objective cognition there is omniscient wisdom, within one wisdom there are all objective cognitions.

Using only one thought to observe all objects, all objects meet at once.

At that time Indra's net displays innumerable layers, the omniscient wisdom penetrates without attachment or obstruction."

Is there an online copy of the original text? Not questioning the translation but would like to read the usage of the term in context. (I suspect some of the confusion from others on this thread is not having verified the meaning from the context.)

[ItsRaining]

Is there an online copy of the original text? Not questioning the translation but would like to read the usage of the term in context. (I suspect some of the confusion from others on this thread is not having verified the meaning from the context.)

The One Mind is used in a lot of the texts from like Awakening of Faith or Zongjinglu here. J. Stone probably didn't get her sources here

http://www.shixiu.net/dujing/fojing/zhu ... 020_4.html

http://www.jingshu.org/dachengqixinlun/yuanwen.html

Dixin Dushun the first ancestor of the Huayan school discusses Dharma Realm Origination but he does so in relation with emptiness, dependent arising while the relation with the One Mind is more so taught by later ancestors like Qingliang Chengguan.

http://www.shixiu.net/dujing/fojing/zhuzongbu/3318.html

[Wayfarer]

I think there’s something that comes through in Buddhist discussions of ‘mind’ in respect of the status of things as ‘mere appearance’. When it is said that ‘everything is an emanation of the mind’, it can be misinterpreted as being like the Hindu view of particular things as an emanation of Brahman. But when Buddhists say that ‘everything is mind’, they will then say that ‘mind itself is not anything’. So it’s not as if ‘one mind’ is some eternally existing substance, standing behind ‘things’. It’s that particulars are ‘mere appearance’ or ‘the play of mind’ - but there’s not a real subsistent mind behind appearances which remains when appearances are seen through. I think that is the meaning of the saying in the Lankavatara Sutra, that ‘things are not as they appear, but neither are they otherwise’. That is why there is ‘nothing to be negated’ (as per the above quote from the Awakening of Faith’).

[Simon E.]

Upon further reflection, though, it is clear to me he was right. Many Buddhist types who reject "God" really just reject that which is easily rejected: the crudely anthropomorphized tribal deity. But they continue to hold tightly to a less-defined spiritual "oneness" or "source" of reality, and to view the goal of practice through the lens of atonement, "returning to" something, or "becoming one with" something. Even the choice often made to capitalize "One Mind" and "True Self" perhaps speaks to this. It's a factor worth acknowledging when discussing dharma in these parts.

Rejecting "God" or "Self" only creates a framework and thus asserts the "thing" in the very rejection. Its pretty silly as far as I can see. Merging with the absolute or "becoming one" is the sound of one hand clapping, its a joke, then the bell echos in primordial space and we forget about it all again, which too is part of the joke, the source of the smile on Buddha's face and its unfanthomable gifts are not a product of practise or correct buddhadharma, let alone dreamcharacters pratteling on about who are the "true buddhists" or not.

And as long as you 'fuki', espouse such views on Buddhist forum ( and it IS a view. Not an anti-view or non view) you will be challenged again and again.
Which one has to conclude is actually what you want.
You have chosen to join a forum which does just what it says on the tin. 'A Forum for the Discussion of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism'.
The majority of its members who have taken formal Refuge HAVE rejected 'God' or 'Self'..fact.
The majority of the members of the forum who follow the Vajrayana have been told by their teachers that the idea of 'God' or 'Self' are obstacles to the understanding of Buddhadharma..fact.
Indeed they have been told that the non-rejection of such ideas means that those who hold such ideas can never understand the Dharma of The Buddha.
If that seems 'silly' to you then why, apart from wanting a fight do you stay?
Are you saying that you know better than those teachers? Or that you can interpret their teachings better than their students?
There are lots of forums which embrace with enthusiasm your belief system.And it IS a belief system..unless you are saying that you know for a fact that the majority on this forum are wrong.
And if you say that you neither accept or reject the view of the majority..then you are actually saying that they are wrong. Although I see that you have a problem in recognising that this is what you are saying.
And as long as you feel compelled to correct their views you are saying that they are wrong.

The minority view here is yours.
The intolerance of the views of others is yours.

[fuki]

The intolerance of the views of others is yours.

Simon everything you assume about my so called views is based on your own conditioned filters and how you talk to ppl I consider often to be a form of suggestive manipulation which you do with many members here, but the part left quoted is actually the first time you are saying something helpful, I do have attachments there which ironically often enhances the situation I'm trying to adress, so thanks for pointing that out.

[Simon E.]

Glad to help.
Perhaps I can help a little more.
Put aside my 'suggestive manipulation' for two minutes and ask your self why you post.
Your views..specifically the idea that Buddhadharma is just a construct ,and is not unique, and in fact is a variation on some kind of universal truth found in other traditions.. (one you often quote is the vedanta teacher Nisargadatta)..is at odds with the views of the majority of those who have taken Vajrayana Refuge.
You either do not know this, or you do not accept that this is what Vajrayana students are taught .
If the latter is correct you presumably think that this idea that Buddhadharma is unique is a misrepresentation by some of the most experienced Vajrayana students on the forum, and you feel the need to correct them.
Now if you posted your universalist views on Zen threads only then I quite probably would not have come across them. I don't usually read Zen threads..I am not anti-Zen, just engaged elsewhere.
But you in recent weeks have posted them outside of Zen threads..even on Vajrayana threads. This was always going to get a reaction. Which makes me wonder what unconscious need in you it fulfils..
I will be taking a forum break soon as I will be off for a while to an apartment we own which has extremely poor computer reception.
I will make a prediction. In my absence, you will discover if you persist in posting your views that other Vajrayanists will confront your views. They may do it more obliquely and less brusquely than I. But they will do it.
As I said to you before, this is not Z.F.I. Where you have spent several years 'preaching to the choir'.

[fuki]

Thing is Simon what you assume are my views is already made up in your mind and therefore any discussion will distort it even further, I see no use in adressing something over and over again which is taken out of context to prove a preconceived notion. I have no problems with ppl confonting me I actually welcome it, but I wont discuss it if it's taken out of context and the discussion goes astray from the OP and thus making it into a agenda due to ulterior motives, it's a distraction to other members. Which I am equally responsible for due to "defending" something which was taken out of context. I have no issues with your perception of my views again I dont find it helpful to discuss it, its a distraction. You keep coming back to "wrong and right" views and it has come to my attention you dont understand what "right and wrong" means in form and function. So to me it's useless to discuss it further. It only clogs the forum.

[Simon E.]

Well discuss it or not I will continue (within forum guidelines) to point out what I have been taught.
I do not post from my experience or from my opinions. I will continue to highlight what I believe to be Wrong Views in your posts.

You are free to ignore them. 'Foe' me. Or reply.

I don't really care which you do.

But I am going nowhere while I still have a signal from my hub. Which will be for several days yet.

[Simon E.]

Well discuss it or not I will continue (within forum guidelines) to point out what I have been taught.
I do not post from my experience or from my opinions. I will continue to highlight what I believe to be Wrong Views in your posts. What 'clogs' this Buddhist forum is repeated posting of universalist views.

You are free to ignore me. 'Foe' me. Or reply.

I don't really care which you do.

But I am going nowhere while I still have a signal from my hub. Which will be for several days yet.

[fuki]

Understood Simon, appreciate the clarity.

[Simon E.]

[Caoimhghín]

Hua-yen thinkers developed new theories of dependent origination [...] to clarify how the one mind manifests as the phenomenal world.
These are the theories Stone cites as examples: "dharma-realm origination (fa chieh yuan ch'i)" "tathagathagarbha origination (ju lai tsang yuan-ch'i)" and "nature origination (hsing-ch'i)"

Do these theories correspond to the summary Stone gives of them?

In the Zongjinglu, Yongming Yanshou wrote about 10 levels of the One Mind, I'll translate the 7th to 10th levels as they are most relevant to Dharma Realms Origination. It starts off with the Hinayana's view that things really exist outside of the mind and that the mind only conceptualises based on it's discrimination. Then it moves to higher and higher views.

Zongjinglu Fascicle Four

One: Conventionally speaking of the One Mind, those of the two vehicles believe that there are truly existent external dharmas, only that the mind transforms them so the One Mind is spoken of. The next nine levels are truly One Mind.

Seven: The Nature and Form Meld Without Exception. Speaking of the One Mind, it is referring to the Tathagatabarbha, it's entire essence goes along with condition causing all phenomena (So all phenomena originate from the One Mind). But it's self nature originally does not arise or cease. So it is this principle and phenomena mix and blend without obstruction. Therefore, the one mind and two truths are not impeded.

Eight: Blending Phenomena and Entering Form. Speaking of the One Mind it is referring to the mind's nature. Perfectly melding without obstruction, phenomena are created with the nature. Phenomena due to blending and melding do not obstruct one another. Entering one is entering all, within every dust the Dharma Realm can be seen. Devas and Asuras leave not a single speck of dust.

Nine: All Phenomena and Form are Identical: Speaking of the One Mind it is referring to phenomena which are depend upon the nature. 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 is one" and "One is many", all and one are identical.

Ten: Indra's Net is with Obstruction: Speaking of the One Mind, it is referring to that within one there all, 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!

Like what is said within the Gatha of the Whirl Pool:

"If practitioners desire the meaning of true emptiness, then the suchness within the body also extends outwards.

Sentient and non-sentient share one body, all places are the same as the True(Such) Dharma Realm.

Not leaving illusionary form is emptiness seen, this is the suchness that encompasses all.

One thought illuminates through all kalpas, every thought kalpa contains all (phenomena).

In one instance of objective cognition there is omniscient wisdom, within one wisdom there are all objective cognitions.

Using only one thought to observe all objects, all objects meet at once.

At that time Indra's net displays innumerable layers, the omniscient wisdom penetrates without attachment or obstruction."

Is there an online copy of the original text? Not questioning the translation but would like to read the usage of the term in context. (I suspect some of the confusion from others on this thread is not having verified the meaning from the context.)

Start here: 一假說一心。則二乘人。謂實有外法。 in T2016 Scroll 4. I think thats the first bit.

[PeterC]

Is there an online copy of the original text? Not questioning the translation but would like to read the usage of the term in context. (I suspect some of the confusion from others on this thread is not having verified the meaning from the context.)

Start here: 一假說一心。則二乘人。謂實有外法。 in T2016 Scroll 4

Thanks ItsRaining and Coëmgenu

[Grigoris]

Since the meta-discussion has come to a fruitful conclusion, I will not bother removing it, BUT I will say: please refrain from further meta-discussion!

Thank you.

[Malcolm]

Upon further reflection, though, it is clear to me he was right. Many Buddhist types who reject "God" really just reject that which is easily rejected: the crudely anthropomorphized tribal deity. But they continue to hold tightly to a less-defined spiritual "oneness" or "source" of reality, and to view the goal of practice through the lens of atonement, "returning to" something, or "becoming one with" something. Even the choice often made to capitalize "One Mind" and "True Self" perhaps speaks to this. It's a factor worth acknowledging when discussing dharma in these parts.

Rejecting "God" or "Self" only creates a framework and thus asserts the "thing" in the very rejection.

"God" is not rejected out of hand, it is just that unconditioned creators contradict dependent origination.

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

Yes, actually it, as well as they, are indeed the product of correct buddhadharma, which is why the Buddha found his two teachers teachings limited and incomplete.