Nice article. A teacher can only point a finger on the direction to take. Enlightenment is something that is unconditioned and difficult to put to words, getting there will solely depend on each individual experiencing it for oneself.
Your article reminded me of Morihei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido, a path of non violence through martial arts.
At that moment I was enlightened: the source of budo is God's love - the spirit of loving protection for all beings... Budo is not the felling of an opponent by force; nor is it a tool to lead the world to destruction with arms. True Budo is to accept the spirit of the universe, keep the peace of the world, correctly produce, protect and cultivate all beings in nature.[12]
“
...I felt the universe suddenly quake, and that a golden spirit sprang up from the ground, veiled my body, and changed my body into a golden one. At the same time my body became light. I was able to understand the whispering of the birds, and was clearly aware of the mind of God, the creator of the universe.
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Nice article. A teacher can only point a finger on the direction to take. Enlightenment is something that is unconditioned and difficult to put to words, getting there will solely depend on each individual experiencing it for oneself.
in any physical experience is it due to conditions? so then is the so-called experience of enlightenment conditional or unconditional? exactly where if one is to get there and to what is this experience happening?
Enlightenment is conditional.
If enlightenment were not conditional, everyone would be enlightened right now.
However the fact is, not everyone is enlightened. Those who say otherwise is having a confused view. We all have the potential to be enlightened, but without practice, that potential will never be actualized. This potential is also called Buddha-nature or the Tathagatagarbha, or the embryo of Buddhahood.
That said, reality is already spontaneously perfected.
However, whether we realize this makes all the difference.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Enlightenment is conditional.
If enlightenment were not conditional, everyone would be enlightened right now.
However the fact is, not everyone is enlightened. Those who say otherwise is having a confused view. We all have the potential to be enlightened, but without practice, that potential will never be actualized. This potential is also called Buddha-nature or the Tathagatagarbha, or the embryo of Buddhahood.
That said, reality is already spontaneously perfected.
However, whether we realize this makes all the difference.
so if enlightenment is conditional, means enlightenment is not permanent? bcos in buddhism, everything that is conditional is impermanent what
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Enlightenment is conditional.
If enlightenment were not conditional, everyone would be enlightened right now.
However the fact is, not everyone is enlightened. Those who say otherwise is having a confused view. We all have the potential to be enlightened, but without practice, that potential will never be actualized. This potential is also called Buddha-nature or the Tathagatagarbha, or the embryo of Buddhahood.
That said, reality is already spontaneously perfected.
However, whether we realize this makes all the difference.
Originally posted by Aloozer:so if enlightenment is conditional, means enlightenment is not permanent? bcos in buddhism, everything that is conditional is impermanent what
Wisdom is eternal but changing. To realize that in reality there is only change without experiencer is wisdom, and in the change no trace of self, enlightenment or wisdom remains, and this traceless enlightenment continues forever. But if one says one attains wisdom, one is fabricating something ('attainment', 'wisdom', 'attainer', etc) that cannot be established. No inherent wisdom can be found anywhere. Wisdom is the direct cognition of reality without distortion, which arises dependent on our practice and insights. (see http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/417530?amp%3Bpage=1)
http://www.byomakusuma.org/Ved%C3%83%C2%A0ntavis%C3%83%C2%A0visShentong/tabid/87/Default.aspx
If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist ÅšÄ�ntaraká¹£ita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like ÅšÄ�ntaraká¹£ita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged.
Originally posted by Thusness:
Yes. There is nothing that can arise without necessary supporting conditions and that includes 'nirvana'. No transcendental 'unconditioned' being or 'state' exists by itself and of itself. The 'unconditioned' in Buddhism is the spontaneous perfection of all necessary conditions in the natural state. This is only realized after the direct insights of the 2 fold emptiness. :)
I see.. thanks :)
This is how Enlightenment is conditional.
Buddha:
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/417530?amp%3Bpage=1
"Thus, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers).
thanks Thusness and AEN
般 若 心 �
[�]玄奘法师译
观自在��，行深般若波罗蜜多时，照�五蕴皆空，度一切苦厄。
èˆ�利å�,色ä¸�异空,空ä¸�异色；色å�³æ˜¯ç©º,空å�³æ˜¯è‰²ã€‚å�—ã€�想ã€�è¡Œã€�识，亦å¤�如是。èˆ�利å�，是诸法空相：ä¸�生ã€�ä¸�ç�ï¼›ä¸�垢ã€�ä¸�净；ä¸�增ã€�ä¸�å‡�。是故空ä¸æ— è‰²ã€‚æ— å�—ã€�想ã€�è¡Œã€�è¯†ï¼›æ— çœ¼ã€�耳ã€�é¼»ã€�舌ã€�身ã€�æ„�ï¼›æ— è‰²ã€�香ã€�声ã€�味ã€�触ã€�æ³•ã€‚æ— çœ¼ç•Œï¼Œä¹ƒè‡³æ— æ„�è¯†ç•Œï¼›æ— æ— æ˜Žï¼Œäº¦æ— æ— æ˜Žå°½ï¼›ä¹ƒè‡³æ— è€�æ»ï¼Œäº¦æ— è€�æ»å°½ã€‚æ— è‹¦ã€�集ã€�ç�ã€�é�“ã€‚æ— æ™ºäº¦æ— å¾—ï¼Œä»¥æ— æ‰€å¾—æ•…ã€‚è�©æ��è�¨æ�¶ï¼Œä¾�èˆ¬è‹¥æ³¢ç½—èœœå¤šæ•…ã€‚å¿ƒæ— æŒ‚ç¢�ï¼Œæ— æŒ‚ç¢�æ•…ã€‚æ— æœ‰æ��æ€–ï¼Œè¿œç¦»é¢ å€’æ¢¦æƒ³ã€�究竟涅ç£�。三世诸佛，ä¾�般若波罗蜜多故。得阿耨多罗三è—�三è�©æ��。
æ•…çŸ¥èˆ¬è‹¥æ³¢ç½—èœœå¤šï¼Œæ˜¯å¤§ç¥žå’’ï¼Œæ˜¯å¤§æ˜Žå’’ï¼Œæ˜¯æ— ä¸Šå’’ï¼Œæ˜¯æ— ç‰ç‰å’’。能除一切苦，真实ä¸�虚。故说般若波罗蜜多咒，å�³è¯´å’’曰：“æ�è°›ï¼�æ�è°›ï¼�波罗æ�è°›ï¼�波罗僧æ�è°›ï¼�è�©æ��è�¨å©†è¯ƒï¼�”
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartstr.htm for english translation and commentary
Originally posted by geis:
Nice article... however, I think he seems to mistaken the I AM/Eternal Witness as enlightenment, and treat non-dual as a passing state.
i.e. ' As we let go of clinging, we feel the tentative selflessness of things. Sometimes boundaries dissolve, and we can’t separate ourself from the plum tree, the birdsong or the morning traffic.'
This is seeing non-dual as an experience that you can enter and leave, and not as being what is already always so (which requires realization). In actuality, you can never separate yourself from the plum, because there is simply always just the experience 'plum' (or whatever you are experiencing at the moment) without an experiencer.
As Ken Wilber said:
This is why, in Zen, it is said that you cannot enter the Great Samadhi: it is actually the opening or clearing that is ever-present, and in which all experience—and all manifestation—arises moment to moment. It seems like you “enter” this state, except that once there, you realize there was never a time that this state wasn’t fully present and fully recognized—“the gateless gate.” And so you deeply understand that you never entered this state; nor did the Buddhas, past or future, ever enter this state.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Nice article... however, I think he seems to mistaken the I AM/Eternal Witness as enlightenment, and treat non-dual as a passing state.
i.e. ' As we let go of clinging, we feel the tentative selflessness of things. Sometimes boundaries dissolve, and we can’t separate ourself from the plum tree, the birdsong or the morning traffic.'
This is seeing non-dual as an experience that you can enter and leave, and not as being what is already always so (which requires realization). In actuality, you can never separate yourself from the plum, because there is simply always just the experience 'plum' (or whatever you are experiencing at the moment) without an experiencer.
As Ken Wilber said:
This is why, in Zen, it is said that you cannot enter the Great Samadhi: it is actually the opening or clearing that is ever-present, and in which all experience—and all manifestation—arises moment to moment. It seems like you “enter” this state, except that once there, you realize there was never a time that this state wasn’t fully present and fully recognized—“the gateless gate.” And so you deeply understand that you never entered this state; nor did the Buddhas, past or future, ever enter this state.
not sure about that.
i think he's describing the experiences of the various gates in a broad sense. but then again i dunno
Originally posted by geis:not sure about that.
i think he's describing the experiences of the various gates in a broad sense. but then again i dunno
Jack Kornfield has some good books and I have looked through them... but in terms of non dual insight, wasn't too impressed.
Some of the Thai forest masters (and Jack Kornfield follows them quite closely I think, as well as being influenced by Advaita teachers) are also quite dualistic... don't really like to comment too much, but quite a number of the Thai forest tradition teachers have a tendency to cling to the I AM, or reify the non-dual into substantialist non-dualism. There is a monk/moderator in e-sangha who once criticized Thai Forest Tradition for having a tendency to lead towards eternalism, while some other teachers have a tendency to lead towards nihilism. Actually he was quite right but of course came under heavy criticisms from each side of the camp. Of course this doesn't apply to every teacher in the Thai Forest Tradition. But even Ajahn Brahmavamso commented that even high monks (probably referring to his tradition) have a tendency to reify the Poo Roo ('The One Who Knows') as an ultimate self or refuge where in reality even that is a conditional arising without self.
i only read 2 of Jack's book, but at the time of reading the books most of the experiences he related resounded, never had the chance to re-read now as the books have been given away to friends.
it's may probably be so that many practitioners, even so-called masters, will have the tendency to reify the non-dual experience. i feel that that is just the tendency, and the display of this is also selfless in nature. this process is continuous and with the right conditions arising will surely be realized.
the process of the ego is very intricate, constant mindfulness is necessary throughout this very lifetime. if we think we 'got it' then surely its not.
Originally posted by geis:i only read 2 of Jack's book, but at the time of reading the books most of the experiences he related resounded, never had the chance to re-read now as the books have been given away to friends.
it's may probably be so that many practitioners, even so-called masters, will have the tendency to reify the non-dual experience. i feel that that is just the tendency, and the display of this is also selfless in nature. this process is continuous and with the right conditions arising will surely be realized.
the process of the ego is very intricate, constant mindfulness is necessary throughout this very lifetime. if we think we 'got it' then surely its not.
Having realized the I AM is different from having a non-dual experience (with sound, sight, etc). And yet, non-dual experience (a temporary state) is different from non-dual insight...
And non-dual insight without right view turns into substantial non-dualism. Non-dual insight with right view gradually leads to the realization of Anatta.
Even if one is dedicated in practice, doesn't mean they will have the right view. Like I said before... I've seen practitioners and teachers and masters much more dedicated than me practicing for decades and they still get stuck at the I AM stage or substantial non-dualism stage. Without someone to point them out, they will never realize it their entire life.
Whereas for me, though I didn't practice very hard at all (quite lazy actually haha), due to having instilled the right view, these insights came quickly, all within one year. The right view is the 'right conditions'.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Having realized the I AM is different from having a non-dual experience (with sound, sight, etc). And yet, non-dual experience (a temporary state) is different from non-dual insight...
And non-dual insight without right view turns into substantial non-dualism. Non-dual insight with right view gradually leads to the realization of Anatta.
Even if one is dedicated in practice, doesn't mean they will have the right view. Like I said before... I've seen practitioners and teachers and masters much more dedicated than me practicing for decades and they still get stuck at the I AM stage or substantial non-dualism stage. Without someone to point them out, they will never realize it their entire life.
Whereas for me, though I didn't practice very hard at all (quite lazy actually haha), due to having instilled the right view, these insights came quickly, all within one year. The right view is the 'right conditions'.
yes
like one of senior at vmc told me last week, the view needs to constantly be refined. whether the conditions for it to happen will arise or not depends very much on the karma and parami
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Having realized the I AM is different from having a non-dual experience (with sound, sight, etc). And yet, non-dual experience (a temporary state) is different from non-dual insight...
And non-dual insight without right view turns into substantial non-dualism. Non-dual insight with right view gradually leads to the realization of Anatta.
Even if one is dedicated in practice, doesn't mean they will have the right view. Like I said before... I've seen practitioners and teachers and masters much more dedicated than me practicing for decades and they still get stuck at the I AM stage or substantial non-dualism stage. Without someone to point them out, they will never realize it their entire life.
Whereas for me, though I didn't practice very hard at all (quite lazy actually haha), due to having instilled the right view, these insights came quickly, all within one year. The right view is the 'right conditions'.
AEN ,
Questions 'bout self-inquiry and right view - their connections..
In the case of someone striving hard to awakened/experience to the 'watcher',the 'One Mind' , the view he's having(or must have) at this stage seems *not* to be no-self,on the contrary,he must hold on to the perspective that "consciousness is all there is ". How is it possible the experience(for those haven't got/experience it)of oneness be achieved if one is believing otherwise?It's impossible!
As Thusness said in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html :
' when I spoke to a Buddhist friend, he told me about the doctrine of no-self, about no ‘I’. I rejected such doctrine outright as it is in direct contradiction with what I experienced. I was deeply confused for some time and could not appreciate why Buddha has taught this doctrine and worst still make it a Dharma Seal. '
(In his case,the experience he *already had* was in contradiction with anatta ; my question ,though, concerns those haven't got the experience -)
Am i right to say that at the beginning stage of inquiry,not only the view of no-self not to be hold on to,one must cling hard to the view of Self ?
Sorry for the confusion on the term ‘unconditioned’. The process toward enlightenment would be conditional. When one is enlightened, one has realized the state of the unconditioned, ultimate reality itself, which transcends all conditional, everyday existence.
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Sorry for the confusion on the term ‘unconditioned’. The process toward enlightenment would be conditional. When one is enlightened, one has realized the state of the unconditioned, ultimate reality itself, which transcends all conditional, everyday existence.
I do not agree that the unconditioned transcends conditional, everyday existence.
As Thusness puts it: Yes. There is nothing that can arise without necessary supporting conditions and that includes 'nirvana'. No transcendental 'unconditioned' being or 'state' exists by itself and of itself. The 'unconditioned' in Buddhism is the spontaneous perfection of all necessary conditions in the natural state. This is only realized after the direct insights of the 2 fold emptiness. :)
Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it:
Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
...As for Buddhism, the rope stands for interdependent origination (pratityasamutpada) for which it is a good example being itself interdependently arisen from pieces of jute etc., and the snake imputed upon it stands for real existence, which is imposed on the interdependently existing rope appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true mode of existence of Samsara (unlike the snake representing Samsara in Vedanta) and the snake is our ignorance imputing Samsara as really existing instead of experiencing it as interdependently arisen. This interdependence or emptiness is ‘parinami nitya’ i.e. an eternal continuum and this is applicable to all phenomena. Of course, this interdependence is the Conventional Truth whereas nisvabhavata which is synonymous to emptiness is the Ultimate Truth in Madhyamika. Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated. Likewise the mirror reflection analogy is used to show that just like images which have no existence at all appear and disappear on the permanent surface of the mirror so too Samsara which is an illusory reflection on the mirror of Brahma appears on the surface of the Brahma and disappears there. In Buddhism this metaphor is used to show that Samsara is interdependently arisen like the reflection on the mirror. The mirror is only one of the causes and conditions and no more real than the other causes and conditions for the appearance of the reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror is a very poor metaphor for the Brahma, being itself interdependently arisen like the reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for interdependent origination (Skt. pratityasamutpada) and not for some eternal Brahma. The mirror Brahma metaphor is only a forced one. The same can be said of the moon on the pond analogy and the rainbow in the sky analogy...
...First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance...
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I do not agree that the unconditioned transcends conditional, everyday existence.
As Thusness puts it: Yes. There is nothing that can arise without necessary supporting conditions and that includes 'nirvana'. No transcendental 'unconditioned' being or 'state' exists by itself and of itself. The 'unconditioned' in Buddhism is the spontaneous perfection of all necessary conditions in the natural state. This is only realized after the direct insights of the 2 fold emptiness. :)
Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it:
Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
...As for Buddhism, the rope stands for interdependent origination (pratityasamutpada) for which it is a good example being itself interdependently arisen from pieces of jute etc., and the snake imputed upon it stands for real existence, which is imposed on the interdependently existing rope appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true mode of existence of Samsara (unlike the snake representing Samsara in Vedanta) and the snake is our ignorance imputing Samsara as really existing instead of experiencing it as interdependently arisen. This interdependence or emptiness is ‘parinami nitya’ i.e. an eternal continuum and this is applicable to all phenomena. Of course, this interdependence is the Conventional Truth whereas nisvabhavata which is synonymous to emptiness is the Ultimate Truth in Madhyamika. Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated. Likewise the mirror reflection analogy is used to show that just like images which have no existence at all appear and disappear on the permanent surface of the mirror so too Samsara which is an illusory reflection on the mirror of Brahma appears on the surface of the Brahma and disappears there. In Buddhism this metaphor is used to show that Samsara is interdependently arisen like the reflection on the mirror. The mirror is only one of the causes and conditions and no more real than the other causes and conditions for the appearance of the reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror is a very poor metaphor for the Brahma, being itself interdependently arisen like the reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for interdependent origination (Skt. pratityasamutpada) and not for some eternal Brahma. The mirror Brahma metaphor is only a forced one. The same can be said of the moon on the pond analogy and the rainbow in the sky analogy...
...First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance...
Realizing of the ‘unconditioned’ ultimate reality here is made in reference to all things in the empirical world itself. Samsara is conditional existence, a conventional truth that cannot be denied. As the Buddha and Nagajuna have so aptly pointed out in your above write-up, ‘Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion’. Realising the unconditional does not imply the separation of Samsara and Nirvana as two and not one. The term ‘unconditioned’ here refer to basically that, it is non-relative, non-comparative, or without relation to anything else, something that is beyond conceptual thoughts.
Your above essay has also clearly stated that all things are dependent originated and have no reality of its own. Of course taken on its own, it is just words and a doctrine trying to point us on to a direction we should take. It is only when we have gone beyond this intellectual concept, and our intuition has taken over, that we will begin to reach a higher plane and realised why ‘form is emptiness and emptiness in no other than form’ - a state of the Unconditioned, which in normal conventional reasoning would said that the whole statement is meaningless.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:“the gateless gate.” And so you deeply understand that you never entered this state; nor did the Buddhas, past or future, ever enter this state.
The state is omnipresent moment or inherent Tath�gata-garbha, the Blessed one.
Om! Salutation to the Triple Treasure! Salutation to all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas!
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I do not agree that the unconditioned transcends conditional, everyday existence.
As Thusness puts it: Yes. There is nothing that can arise without necessary supporting conditions and that includes 'nirvana'. No transcendental 'unconditioned' being or 'state' exists by itself and of itself. The 'unconditioned' in Buddhism is the spontaneous perfection of all necessary conditions in the natural state. This is only realized after the direct insights of the 2 fold emptiness. :)
Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it:
Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
...As for Buddhism, the rope stands for interdependent origination (pratityasamutpada) for which it is a good example being itself interdependently arisen from pieces of jute etc., and the snake imputed upon it stands for real existence, which is imposed on the interdependently existing rope appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true mode of existence of Samsara (unlike the snake representing Samsara in Vedanta) and the snake is our ignorance imputing Samsara as really existing instead of experiencing it as interdependently arisen. This interdependence or emptiness is ‘parinami nitya’ i.e. an eternal continuum and this is applicable to all phenomena. Of course, this interdependence is the Conventional Truth whereas nisvabhavata which is synonymous to emptiness is the Ultimate Truth in Madhyamika. Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated. Likewise the mirror reflection analogy is used to show that just like images which have no existence at all appear and disappear on the permanent surface of the mirror so too Samsara which is an illusory reflection on the mirror of Brahma appears on the surface of the Brahma and disappears there. In Buddhism this metaphor is used to show that Samsara is interdependently arisen like the reflection on the mirror. The mirror is only one of the causes and conditions and no more real than the other causes and conditions for the appearance of the reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror is a very poor metaphor for the Brahma, being itself interdependently arisen like the reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for interdependent origination (Skt. pratityasamutpada) and not for some eternal Brahma. The mirror Brahma metaphor is only a forced one. The same can be said of the moon on the pond analogy and the rainbow in the sky analogy...
...First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance...
thanks for this excerpt.
it is the dualistic self view that makes the wrongly perceived separation between conditioned and unconditioned apparent.
to really come to an understanding, first the view of no-self has to be sustained from the conceptual level all the way until it is realized.
any more pointers do feel free?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I do not agree that the unconditioned transcends conditional, everyday existence.
As Thusness puts it: Yes. There is nothing that can arise without necessary supporting conditions and that includes 'nirvana'. No transcendental 'unconditioned' being or 'state' exists by itself and of itself. The 'unconditioned' in Buddhism is the spontaneous perfection of all necessary conditions in the natural state. This is only realized after the direct insights of the 2 fold emptiness. :)
Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it:
Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta
...As for Buddhism, the rope stands for interdependent origination (pratityasamutpada) for which it is a good example being itself interdependently arisen from pieces of jute etc., and the snake imputed upon it stands for real existence, which is imposed on the interdependently existing rope appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true mode of existence of Samsara (unlike the snake representing Samsara in Vedanta) and the snake is our ignorance imputing Samsara as really existing instead of experiencing it as interdependently arisen. This interdependence or emptiness is ‘parinami nitya’ i.e. an eternal continuum and this is applicable to all phenomena. Of course, this interdependence is the Conventional Truth whereas nisvabhavata which is synonymous to emptiness is the Ultimate Truth in Madhyamika. Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated. Likewise the mirror reflection analogy is used to show that just like images which have no existence at all appear and disappear on the permanent surface of the mirror so too Samsara which is an illusory reflection on the mirror of Brahma appears on the surface of the Brahma and disappears there. In Buddhism this metaphor is used to show that Samsara is interdependently arisen like the reflection on the mirror. The mirror is only one of the causes and conditions and no more real than the other causes and conditions for the appearance of the reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror is a very poor metaphor for the Brahma, being itself interdependently arisen like the reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for interdependent origination (Skt. pratityasamutpada) and not for some eternal Brahma. The mirror Brahma metaphor is only a forced one. The same can be said of the moon on the pond analogy and the rainbow in the sky analogy...
...First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance...
My earlier post was placed wrongly which when directly under AEN’s article. Here is the content.
Realizing of the ‘unconditioned’ ultimate reality here is made in reference to all things in the empirical world itself. Samsara is conditional existence, a conventional truth that cannot be denied. As the Buddha and Nagajuna have so aptly pointed out in your above write-up, ‘Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion’. Realising the unconditional does not imply the separation of Samsara and Nirvana as two and not one. The term 'unconditioned’ here refer to basically that, it is non-relative, non-comparative, or without relation to anything else, something that is beyond conceptual thoughts.
Your above essay has also clearly stated that all things are dependent originated and have no reality of its own. Of course taken on its own, it is just words and a doctrine trying to point us on to a direction we should take. It is only when we have gone beyond this intellectual concept, and our intuition has taken over, that we will begin to reach a higher plane and realised why ‘form is emptiness and emptiness in no other than form’ - a state of the Unconditioned, which in normal conventional reasoning would said that the whole statement is meaningless.