Mind-streams: Separate?

[Ogyen]

So for example is Tara a specific being with a separate mindstream than Shakyamuni, or Chenrezig/Avalokiteshvara, etc. Or are they all the same buddha nature that just projects through a different lens of manifestation?

I ask because we are instructed to use specific practices to help us for specific conditions...

[PadmaVonSamba]

So for example is Tara a specific being with a separate mindstream than Shakyamuni, or Chenrezig/Avalokiteshvara, etc. Or are they all the same buddha nature that just projects through a different lens of manifestation?

I ask because we are instructed to use specific practices to help us for specific conditions...

I think, one of the challenges in talking about whatever constitutes the "reality" of buddhas and bodhisattvas, yidams, dharma protectors and so on, such as the notion of a mindstream,
is that one instinctively or automatically compares a description of their existence to the perception or experience of one's own sense of being.
Thus, we want to know, "do they function the same way you and I do?" which is to say, "are they real the way you and I are real?"

Of course, there is a problem in doing this, because it assumes a kind of intrinsic reality of the "self" to begin with, which dharma teachings refute.
There is nothing that arises that can be truly called "me", yet we want to know if the buddhas and bodhisattvas are like that very same "me" that the teachings say doesn't really exist, ultimately.

I think, while there is no describable difference, it's a bit like talking about the ocean. One person goes to the ocean to scuba dive, another to catch fish, another one goes to surf, another goes to walk along the shore and collect sea shells, and so on. each person's experience of the same ocean is different according to what they need at the time. Also, each person's experience is just as valid as the next person's experience of the ocean. So, a person meditating on Amitabha isn't having a more valid experience than someone meditating on Avalokiteshvara even though one is a buddha and the other is a bodhisattva. it would be kind of absurd to argue that Amitabha "outranks" Avalokiteshvara, even though you can see where one might perceive things like that. But anyway, you can't really surf in a submarine or go deep diving on a surf board. Each one has its own purpose. And different parts of the ocean havde different characteristics according to our relationship to them.
There is no difference in composition between the waves on the surface and the far depths of the ocean. The water pressure is different, of course (we are just using the ocean as an analogy) but its the same salt water.

Likewise, there is no intrinsic difference between any enlightened beings. The differences between you and I are differences of illusion. When we sleep, we have different dreams, but they are identical in so far as they are just dreams. The difference in Tara and Sakyamuni is a difference in our perception.

This is my understanding.
.
.
.

[Ogyen]

PadmaVonSambha thank you for taking the time to write that all up. I apologize in advance, but I didn't understand much and I've re-read a few times.. and I am totally confused.

[Grigoris]

Just to be clear - are you suggesting the view emptiness = nothing arises because people fail to understand the two truths as complimentary?

Nothing essentially substantial arises (from it's own side). Causes and conditions give rise to an impermanent phenomenon that upon examination is found to possess no essential qualities or substantial core. You still want those drinks?

Like in geometry, take the origin, the place where the x, y and z axes intersect. We can locate the intersection with precise certainty, but it has no dimensions at all. Its not nothing, because its there, and yet, we can search for its substance, take an infinitely powerful microscope and the origin will always appear too small to actually see. The x, y, and z axes actually have no dimension, either, so their intersection could have no dimension. Yet, the axes can be located, and the origin can be located. Dharmas are like that.

Like theoretical/imputed properties?

[Astus]

I'm referring to faith as the necessary disposition to even begin the path. If there is no faith, then one will not even hear the teaching. There has to be a disposition where one accepts what one hears is true, at least tentatively, without knowing whether it actually is true. All of us, without exception, started that way. We did not know Dharma before we heard it, but we listened with a modicum, at least, of faith, and thereby internalized it enough to take is seriously.

That initial faith is not related to the move from analysis to insight, as it is a condition for hearing, not for contemplation and application.

[Queequeg]

I'm referring to faith as the necessary disposition to even begin the path. If there is no faith, then one will not even hear the teaching. There has to be a disposition where one accepts what one hears is true, at least tentatively, without knowing whether it actually is true. All of us, without exception, started that way. We did not know Dharma before we heard it, but we listened with a modicum, at least, of faith, and thereby internalized it enough to take is seriously.

That initial faith is not related to the move from analysis to insight, as it is a condition for hearing, not for contemplation and application.

Thus, yogis analyze with wisdom and when they definitely do not apprehend the essence of any thing ultimately, they enter into the nonconceptual concentration. They know that all phenomena lack essence. There are some whose meditation does not involve the use of wisdom to investigate the essence of things; they only cultivate the sheer and complete elimination of mental activity. Their conceptions never end and they never know the absence of essence because they lack the light of wisdom. Thus, when the fire which is a precise understanding of reality arises from correct analytical discrimination, then - as in the case of the fire from the friction of two sticks rubbed together - the wood of conceptual thought is burned up. This is what the Bhagavan said.

There is something more in the analytical approach that is not mentioned. It's the Buddha's teaching of the selflessness of dharmas. That bridges the chasm between analytical consideration and real wisdom. When the Buddha's teaching is heard, then our analysis is not primary exploration but rather evaluation and confirmation of the Buddha's teaching. When we have analyzed enough that the Buddha's word is true, we leap the chasm and enter the Buddha wisdom through faith.

Otherwise, actual exploration itself will not end. At some point a leap is necessary to dispose of the remainder.

With wisdom our analysis does not become an endless austerity.

From whence wisdom?

We receive it from the Buddha.

How do we receive it?

By listening with faith.

Faith is essential.

[Snowbear]

I'm referring to faith as the necessary disposition to even begin the path. If there is no faith, then one will not even hear the teaching. There has to be a disposition where one accepts what one hears is true, at least tentatively, without knowing whether it actually is true. All of us, without exception, started that way. We did not know Dharma before we heard it, but we listened with a modicum, at least, of faith, and thereby internalized it enough to take is seriously.

That initial faith is not related to the move from analysis to insight, as it is a condition for hearing, not for contemplation and application.

Thus, yogis analyze with wisdom and when they definitely do not apprehend the essence of any thing ultimately, they enter into the nonconceptual concentration. They know that all phenomena lack essence. There are some whose meditation does not involve the use of wisdom to investigate the essence of things; they only cultivate the sheer and complete elimination of mental activity. Their conceptions never end and they never know the absence of essence because they lack the light of wisdom. Thus, when the fire which is a precise understanding of reality arises from correct analytical discrimination, then - as in the case of the fire from the friction of two sticks rubbed together - the wood of conceptual thought is burned up. This is what the Bhagavan said.

There is something more in the analytical approach that is not mentioned. It's the Buddha's teaching of the selflessness of dharmas. That bridges the chasm between analytical consideration and real wisdom. When the Buddha's teaching is heard, then our analysis is not primary exploration but rather evaluation and confirmation of the Buddha's teaching. When we have analyzed enough that the Buddha's word is true, we leap the chasm and enter the Buddha wisdom through faith.

Otherwise, actual exploration itself will not end. At some point a leap is necessary to dispose of the remainder.

With wisdom our analysis does not become an endless austerity.

From whence wisdom?

We receive it from the Buddha.

How do we receive it?

By listening with faith.

Faith is essential.

Astus said it best. Analysis comes much later and is not a conceptual or philosophical understanding of the Teachings.

[Grigoris]

From whence wisdom?

It is an inherent quality that (depending on tradition) we need to develop or allow to shine through.

We receive it from the Buddha.

We can receive knowledge from the Buddha and the application of this knowledge can increase our wisdom.

By listening with faith.

By listening with attention.

But really, here we must define which term we are talking about when we say "wisdom". If it is jnana, it may interest you to know that the root "jna-" means to know, as in gnosis.

In which case, I will have to agree with you, to an extent.

[Malcolm]

So for example is Tara a specific being with a separate mindstream than Shakyamuni, or Chenrezig/Avalokiteshvara, etc. Or are they all the same buddha nature that just projects through a different lens of manifestation?

I ask because we are instructed to use specific practices to help us for specific conditions...

Buddhanature is not some unity that all beings share. That would be a self-view. Buddhanature is the individual potential of each sentient being to awaken.

Tārā is a being separate from Śākyamuni, Avalokiteśvara and so on, who all make their own aspirations, have their own namthars, etc.

Each deity manifests from separate aspirations to provide methods for different sentient beings. Tārā the bodhisattva and Tārā, the deity in the sadhana that one manifests are not the same, but by doing the latter one invokes the aspirations of the former. However, if one realizes Tārā, there is basically no difference at that point between oneself and Tārā because the pristine consciousness of all the buddhas is identical in terms of object of realization and so on.

[Losal Samten]

How do aspirations work once buddahood is attained? Aspirations are a conditioned phenomena and are to be abandoned at the tenth bhumi (IIRC), and since the dharmakaya is unconditioned, surely it can't be conditioned via conditioned practitioners conditionally triggering the abandoned and purified conditional traces of aspirations?

Are aspirations mentioned in Dzogchen literature, or does it rely on the natural compassion doing its business? Wish-fulfilling jewel a and wish-fulfilling jewel b have no differences in activities and potentialities, surely?

[Malcolm]

How do aspirations work once buddahood is attained? Aspirations are a conditioned phenomena and are to be abandoned at the tenth bhumi (IIRC), and since the dharmakaya is unconditioned, surely it can't be conditioned via conditioned practitioners conditionally triggering the abandoned and purified conditional traces of aspirations?

Are aspirations mentioned in Dzogchen literature, or does it rely on the natural compassion doing its business? Wish-fulfilling jewel a and wish-fulfilling jewel b have no differences in activities and potentialities, surely?

Like karma, there is no inherent nature that forces the result of aspirations, once made, to cease. AA VIII 2,8 (Conze) states concerning the "cognition concerning resolve", "As the cause comes to maturity, he manifests himself at that place, wherever and whenever his help is needed."

[Astus]

With wisdom our analysis does not become an endless austerity.

What do you mean by endless austerity?

From whence wisdom?
We receive it from the Buddha.
How do we receive it?
By listening with faith.
Faith is essential.

I did not say there is no need for faith on the path. What I say is that faith is not the bridge between contemplation and insight.

[Vasana]

How do aspirations work once buddahood is attained? Aspirations are a conditioned phenomena and are to be abandoned at the tenth bhumi (IIRC), and since the dharmakaya is unconditioned, surely it can't be conditioned via conditioned practitioners conditionally triggering the abandoned and purified conditional traces of aspirations?

Are aspirations mentioned in Dzogchen literature, or does it rely on the natural compassion doing its business? Wish-fulfilling jewel a and wish-fulfilling jewel b have no differences in activities and potentialities, surely?

Like karma, there is no inherent nature that forces the result of aspirations, once made, to cease. AA VIII 2,8 (Conze) states concerning the "cognition concerning resolve", "As the cause comes to maturity, he manifests himself at that place, wherever and whenever his help is needed."

Relevant:

The Ornament of the Light of Awareness that Enters the Domain of All Buddhas - Sarva­buddha­viṣayāvatāra­jñānālokālaṃkāra

http://read.84000.co/translation/UT22084-047-002.html

• 1.40
  “Mañjuśrī, in the same manner the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha is empty, dependent, unreal, without syllables, without voice, without place, and also not an existent thing. He is inconceivable, without signs, and free from mentality, mind, and consciousness. He is non-arisen and unceasing.
  
  “Still, Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha is seen in the world. This is due to the power of his previous aspirations during his practice as a bodhisattva, and also due to the power of all the roots of what is wholesome of the beginner bodhisattvas, of those who set out on the vehicles of the hearers and the pratyekabuddhas, as well as of all the immature, ordinary people. He is seen in the world as a tathāgata adorned with hundreds of thousands of marks, like a reflected image; and he does not move from his place. [52]
  
  1.41
  “However, Mañjuśrī, the beginner bodhisattvas and all those who set out on the vehicles of the hearers and the pratyekabuddhas, as well as all immature, ordinary people, do not think, ‘The Tathāgata, the Arhat, the Perfect and Complete Buddha is empty, dependent, unreal, without syllables, without voice, without place, and also not an existent thing. He is inconceivable, without signs, and free from mentality, mind, [F.284.b] and consciousness. He is non-arisen and unceasing.’
  
  “Yet, Mañjuśrī, from the body of the Tathāgata, adorned with hundreds of thousands of marks, during all the empty postures of a tathāgata, a great Dharma teaching emanates for the sake of varied sentient beings with diverse beliefs.
  
  “That Dharma teaching occurs to pacify all the troubles, harms, and afflictions of all sentient beings. In that regard, the Tathāgata is the same, neutral, without concepts, and does not make any distinctions. Thus, Mañjuśrī, through this explanation you should understand that ‘non-arising and non-cessation’ is an appellation of the Tathāgata.” [54]
  
  'Then, at that time, the Bhagavat spoke the following two stanzas:
  
  1.42
  
  “The tathāgata always has the quality of non-arising,
  And all dharmas resemble the Sugata.
  Yet immature minds, by their grasping at signs,
  Roam the world among non-existent dharmas.
  
  “The Tathāgata is a reflected image
  Of the wholesome Dharma without .
  Yet here there is no tathatā and no Tathāgata,
  While an image is seen in the entire world."
  
  ---
  Mañjuśrī :
  1.118
  “Those who understand the meaning,
  Do not say ‘he exists’ or ‘he does not.’
  You are not in the realm of words,
  And you do not take up anything.
  You are free of any point of reference:
  I bow to you!"

[Queequeg]

Just to be clear - are you suggesting the view emptiness = nothing arises because people fail to understand the two truths as complimentary?

Nothing essentially substantial arises (from it's own side). Causes and conditions give rise to an impermanent phenomenon that upon examination is found to possess no essential qualities or substantial core. You still want those drinks?

I realized, my question was unclear... It should have read:

Are you suggesting the view "emptiness = nothing" arises because people fail to understand the two truths as complimentary?

Like in geometry, take the origin, the place where the x, y and z axes intersect. We can locate the intersection with precise certainty, but it has no dimensions at all. Its not nothing, because its there, and yet, we can search for its substance, take an infinitely powerful microscope and the origin will always appear too small to actually see. The x, y, and z axes actually have no dimension, either, so their intersection could have no dimension. Yet, the axes can be located, and the origin can be located. Dharmas are like that.

Like theoretical/imputed properties?

Hm. This is interesting.

So recently in some notes Rev. Jikai posted in connection with the study thread he is leading on the Mohezhikuan, he mentioned a point of tension flowing from this verse, 24:9 in the Mulamadhyamikakarika:

If a person is unable to perceive
The distinction between these two truths
Then he will not know the real meaning
Of the profound Buddha-Dharma.

Jikai suggests that the Three Natures in Yogacara are one attempt to elaborate on the relationship between the Two Truths.

It sounds like your question is coming from the Yogacara perspective, in that there is no correlation between the two truths. Anything posited does not coincide with the real aspect; it is at best an imputation.

I'm suggesting something different... in my example, the Origin is not theoretical or imputed. It is a very precise thing (dharma) defined in relation to at the minimum, three other dharmas, the x, y, and z axes. In terms of its spatial location, it is at the intersection of these three axes. At the same time, without disturbing any of the component dharmas (x, y, and z axes) or the dharma of the origin itself, the actual dharma of the origin cannot be found to have any substance. It both exists (it can be precisely defined and located) and does not exist (it can't actually be found in any substantive way apart from its component dharmas, and only in the intersection of the three dharmas). It neither exists (it is like a phantom) nor does not exist (its not nothing).

I propose that this is wholly consistent with Zhiyi's Three Truths. This might hilight a distinction in the approaches to emptiness between Yogacara and Tiantai.

[Queequeg]

With wisdom our analysis does not become an endless austerity.

What do you mean by endless austerity?

There are some whose meditation does not involve the use of wisdom to investigate the essence of things; they only cultivate the sheer and complete elimination of mental activity. Their conceptions never end and they never know the absence of essence because they lack the light of wisdom.

They go on contemplating endlessly trying to find "nothing", ie. analysis without remainder. Pursuing an impossible end is, in my view, and endless austerity.

From whence wisdom?
We receive it from the Buddha.
How do we receive it?
By listening with faith.
Faith is essential.

I did not say there is no need for faith on the path. What I say is that faith is not the bridge between contemplation and insight.

As I said above, we can trade quotes on this issue exhaustively.

Do you yourself know your assertion to be true? You don't need to answer that. Its rhetorical. You can if you want to, though.

[Grigoris]

It sounds like your question is coming from the Yogacara perspective, in that there is no correlation between the two truths. Anything posited does not coincide with the real aspect; it is at best an imputation.

Not at all. Things arise from causes and conditions thus they are empty of self existence, things are empty of self existence because they arise from causes and conditions. That is the relation between the Two Truths.

My statement: "Like theoretical/imputed properties?" was in response to your statement about axes, interstices etc... since these are just theoretical/imputed properties or phenomena. There is no such thing as axes and their interstices, no matter how hard you look, they are just imputed/theoretical properties/phenomena that help us make sense of time and space.

Like the labels we attach to dependently arisen phenomena, that lack any real characteristics from their side.

[Astus]

There are some whose meditation does not involve the use of wisdom to investigate the essence of things; they only cultivate the sheer and complete elimination of mental activity. Their conceptions never end and they never know the absence of essence because they lack the light of wisdom.

They go on contemplating endlessly trying to find "nothing", ie. analysis without remainder. Pursuing an impossible end is, in my view, and endless austerity.

Kamalasila in the quote says that those who do not perform proper analysis do not end their conceptualisation, even if they temporarily suspend it. So it is the opposite of what you say.

Do you yourself know your assertion to be true? You don't need to answer that. Its rhetorical. You can if you want to, though.

The assertion that one can eliminate wrong views through learning, understanding, and contemplation? It works in science, works in philosophy, works in everyday life, and it works in Buddhism as well.

[Malcolm]

They go on contemplating endlessly trying to find "nothing", ie. analysis without remainder. Pursuing an impossible end is, in my view, and endless austerity.

The point of the analysis is not to find nothing, the point is to find something. When one's analysis fails to find something, one discovers the absence of inherent (a.k.a ultimate) existence, otherwise known as the absence of existence with respect to any of the four extremes. This analysis is not endless, since one only needs to discover the emptiness of one thing to realize the emptiness of all things. To echo Āryadeva, those who propose any sort of existence must prove the existence of each and everything they propose as existent, whereas those who make arguments via emptiness need only to prove the emptiness of one thing in order to prove the emptiness of all things.

[Queequeg]

Not at all. Things arise from causes and conditions thus they are empty of self existence, things are empty of self existence because they arise from causes and conditions. That is the relation between the Two Truths.

My statement: "Like theoretical/imputed properties?" was in response to your statement about axes, interstices etc... since these are just theoretical/imputed properties or phenomena. There is no such thing as axes and their interstices, no matter how hard you look, they are just imputed/theoretical properties/phenomena that help us make sense of time and space.

Are the assertions of the those two paragraphs dealing with the same paradigm? I don't think they are.

Axes and their intersection are causes and conditions of the origin, are they not? This a mere statement about the emptiness of dharmas.

To assert that properties are imputed/theoretical seems heavy handed and superfluous if what we are talking about is the emptiness of dharmas. The real subject of such an assertion is not the real nature of a dharma, not directly, anyway. Its a statement about the person who imputes a false or at best dependently arisen dharma. You're talking about the parikalpita svabhava, or at best, paratantra-svabhava.

In the yogacara approach, it seems to me, and I am open to correction, the two truths are not reconciled. There is a leap between the two lower levels of understanding and the perfected understanding which sees emptiness, ie. only the ultimate truth of the two truths; all dharmas, whether false or dependently originated, are not the ultimate truth.

[Queequeg]

There are some whose meditation does not involve the use of wisdom to investigate the essence of things; they only cultivate the sheer and complete elimination of mental activity. Their conceptions never end and they never know the absence of essence because they lack the light of wisdom.

They go on contemplating endlessly trying to find "nothing", ie. analysis without remainder. Pursuing an impossible end is, in my view, and endless austerity.

Kamalasila in the quote says that those who do not perform proper analysis do not end their conceptualisation, even if they temporarily suspend it. So it is the opposite of what you say.

You've utterly lost me.

Their conceptions never end

What do you call that? I call that an endless austerity.

Its nothing but convention. I make no demand that you accept my characterization.

Do you yourself know your assertion to be true? You don't need to answer that. Its rhetorical. You can if you want to, though.

The assertion that one can eliminate wrong views through learning, understanding, and contemplation? It works in science, works in philosophy, works in everyday life, and it works in Buddhism as well.

Again, do you know this? Or are you inferring?

If sheer analysis worked, then the Buddha's insights about reality should have emerged ubiquitously. Humanity has been blessed with countless geniuses whose capacity for analysis have touched the limits of possibility. And yet, the Buddha's insights have been limited to the Buddha and those who have taken refuge in him and his teachings.