xabir2005

Different causes and conditions give rise to different appearance.

There is no universal soul, there are only diverse appearances. Even 'there is' does not apply ultimately. To share experiences it implies there is a universal experiencer. No such thing can be found. The hindu explanation of how beings don't share experience, is that the universal essence expresses itself through different persons. I say - there is no universal essence and no individual atman either.

I think you missed my statement: A process of sentient and non-sentient causes and conditions. It does not establish anything. What dependently originates cannot be established as having inherent/independent existence. Again, you missed my previous statement. Consciousness cannot arise without a previous moment of consciousness. The universal act thing is impersonality experience. Maha and dependent origination contains the impersonality aspect, but it does not reify a larger self being the source of activities. In this case, what acts is simply relativity.

Dolpopa, Shentong, is no different from Advaita essentially. They have fallen into eternalist views. See http://www.byomakusu...isShentong.aspx As for Ghanavyuha Sutra and other sutras talking about a permanent nature, that permanent nature is emptiness (lack of inherent existence). It could even be talking about an eternal luminous mind (but is empty of self) - but this eternality is not the same as unchanging* As Loppon Namdrol states, Paradoxically, in Tathāgatagarbha literature, that mind that lacks identity and is empty is being called "self". It is standard Buddhist subversion of Hindu norms, once again. The Tantras do it with Samkhya. *From the shentong article: If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣita’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 Śāntarakṣita. 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.

This one clarifies more: http://www.surajamrita.com/bon/points4.html

Appearance is mind, mind is sentient, but as HHDL said, mind/appearance does not come into existence independently: it has causes and conditions, which may not be sentient. Relatively yes. Ultimately non-arising. But in Dzogchen they don't even admit the two truths. They just talk about a single truth, the inseperability of emptiness (kadag) and dependent arising (lhun grub). You should read this anyway: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/12/dependent-arising-of-consciousness.html Means nothing is separable, everything is relatively, causally inseparable. Think of net of indra. Without the entire world (drums, hitting, air, stick, etc), there isn't this dewdrop (i.e. sound), in this dewdrop, is the entire world. Other than Dogen, Thich Nhat Hanh is also always talking about Maha. http://efipaz.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/interbeing/ A process of sentient and non-sentient causes and conditions. "Though not physical, our states of mind also come about by causes and conditions, much the way things in the physical world do. It is therefore important to develop familiarity with the mechanics of causation. The substantial cause of our present state of mind is the previous moment of mind. Thus, each moment of consciousness serves as the substantial cause of our subsequent awareness. The stimuli experienced by us, visual forms we enjoy or memories we a react to, are the cooperative conditions that give our state of mind its character. As with matter, by controlling the conditions, we affect the product: our mind. Meditation should be a skillful method of doing just this, applying particular conditions to our minds in order to bring about the desired effect, a more virtuous mind." ~ HHDL There is no 'me'. Just: appearances playing.

Actually when I say sentient universe, I am just talking about appearance and processes and relative interconnectivity, not some cosmic substance. Everything is relative and utterly unestablished. When I say universe manifest this, I mean relatively all the causes and conditions coming together to manifest this... when hearing sound, it is the entire body-mind, the air, the drum, the stick, the ears, the action of hitting, the person hitting, everything is manifesting this! I have to go into hearer-mode again and quote something from Dogen: it is “mustering the whole body-mind (the whole of existence-time, inclusive of “A” and “not-A”) to look at forms and listen to sounds,” It is not just you hearing sound or ears hearing sound... it is the entirety of it! Cause and effect is relative truth and therefore true relatively... and what arises relatively are ultimately empty of thingness, therefore non-arising... like a dream object, a dream house, a dream unicorn is mere D.O.ed appearance and cannot be located anywhere, or have a real arising, abidance, or disappearance.. This is the ultimate truth, which does not deny relative truth.

The sentient universe D.O.s and is empty, therefore utterly unestablished. If A and B are not established, then a cause from A to B is also not established. What dependently originates is empty and cannot be established.

Actually I gave the same analogies in this thread before. He just worded it better.

There is no beginning to ignorance, but there can be an end to ignorance. Basically: ignorance sustains ignorance, while wisdom ends ignorance. Why do you see it as a contradiction? As I said earlier, it is precisely because of D.O., that things are empty. D.O. and emptiness does not contradict. http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/emptiness-and-middle-way.html That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena. As I told simple jack: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html Since everything is an empty cognizance, there is nothing out there, or in here, or anywhere in between, therefore the cessation of the 'outflowing sensory consciousness' (I take it to mean projecting a solid world out of empty perceptions). The deluded mind is what projects inherent nature to the aggregates and the interacting conditions. Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated. What's your experience with it?

No they don't. But that does not deny the appearance of suffering and ignorance.

Just flipped open my book, the bookmarked page shows just what I need. "Considering that the attainment of enlightenment is accompanied by the realization of the empty nature of all things, you may wonder why noble beings, having realized that we are not truly existing, would still feel so compassionate towards us. Is it even possible to carry out activities for the benefit of others in such a state of realization? The stage of Nonmeditation is accompanied by the wisdom that perceives the nature of things as it is. Therefore, thre is no longer any fear of samsaric suffering or any confusion in one's own experience. Yet, one still perceives how other beings suffer due to not realizing the natural state of all things. This realization is accopmanied by immense compassion. Imagine two friends: one is asleep and the other awake. The sleeping person has a nightmare in which he is chased by vicious carnivores like tigers, lions and leopards. He is scared for his life, yet these vicious animals do not exist at all. There are no tigers, lions or leopards, but the dreamer believes that they actually do exist. The other person sees that his friend is suffering a horrible nightmare. he knows very well that the house is perfectly safe and there is absolutely no reason to be afraid. Of course he shakes his friend and says, "hey, wake up! You are having a nightmare. You do not have to suffer - wake up!" When his friend wakes up, he discovers that it was only a dream and all his suffering was for naught. In the same way, sentient beings undergo all kinds of worry, pain and suffering believing what they perceive to be real. None of samsara's deluded experiences truly exist in any way whatsoever, and yet we attach a solid reality to them and cause ourselves endless suffering. Even though they have attained true and complete enlightenment, buddhas and realized masters still perceive our suffering and so they teach, write treatises, sing vajra songs and perform countless other activities to benefit others. In the ultimate sense, there is no difference in the identity of any phenomenon - everything is of one taste; but in the relative experience of individual beings there is a great difference. This is why the buddhas employ so many different techniques and methods to guide, inspire and teach others." ~ Thrangu Rinpoche, 'Crystal Clear'

You're basically asking: If wisdom is like an illusion and suffering is like an illusion, why advocate one over another? Because even though this is like a dream, sentient beings suffer due to ignorance (even though suffering is an appearance) and 'we' naturally and compassionately respond to them, even though without even the notion of a self or other.

Yes absolutely. Nibbana, the name of the sutta, means cessation. There are only two types of cessation: “Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbana-elements. What are the two? The Nibbana-element with residue left and the Nibbana-element with no residue left. “What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left. “Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant… completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.

I believe I answered your question. But for clarification sake, I just found the following statement:^ Thus, ignorance arises from the taints (or "mental fermentations," in Thanissaro's translation) and the taints arise from ignorance. Noting the circularity of this part of the causal chain, Thanissaro (2005b) simply notes: "... Ven. Sariputta here continues the pattern of dependent co-arising past ignorance – the usual endpoint – to look for its origination, which is mental fermentation. Because these fermentations in turn depend on ignorance, the discussion shows how ignorance tends to prompt more ignorance." Nope, it is simply the non-conceptual experience that the entire universe is manifesting this, doing this. When eating, the universe eats, when walking, the universe walks. This is called the experience of Maha by Thusness. No reification is involved, in fact, reification of self prevents the experience or seeing of this. Yes - like I said earlier, even causes and conditions are not established, because what dependently originates relatively are ultimately empty. It is precisely because what dependently originates relatively, that it is ultimately empty. I just posted something of relevance: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/dalai-lama-on-emptiness.html

I have described everything from my personal insight and experience. And I believe I answered your question.

'unfindability' is not a thing that can be found... so yes. In other words, emptiness is empty. 'Self' is merely a fabricated imagination of the mind. It is a fiction. A fiction cannot be found or located as something, other than a mere mental projection. He is talking about the state of parinirvana, the state of cessation for an arhant where there is no more samsaric births. It must certainly not be mistaken as an unborn metaphysical essence of sorts. I have written an article of relevance http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html First of all, I do not say that things are an illusion. But rather, they are like an illusion - the appearance is undeniable, so it is not mere non-existence, yet while appearing they cannot be located (to have inherent existence). Recognitions, wisdom, nirvana, ignorance, suffering, all are equally empty and insubstantial. They are equally like an illusion (but not that they are illusions). You can't get out of dream-likeness - even nirvana is dream-like and illusion-like, but you can wake up to that fact. Emptiness is ultimate truth. Dependent origination is relative truth. So yeah, truth. Emptiness is ultimate truth, but it is not an 'ultimate reality' (because even emptiness is empty).

It is a mental conceiving, due to ignorance, due to the view of inherent self/existence, or there being something graspable, locatable. Like... the view that there is a self here, leads to grasping on to 'this'... be it 'self', 'awareness', or whatever being reified. In reality, 'self', 'awareness' is simply an illusory construct - awareness is not a solid subject 'here'... the ungraspable process of experiencing is itself self-luminous, but due to reification, due to the view 'there is' with regards to awareness, we keep referencing back to an 'awareness'.... If this illusion of solidity of self (rather than condition of solidity - which was never there to begin with) is dissolved, clinging stops, we no longer fixate on an illusory 'self-ness', 'here-ness', 'now-ness', an inherent 'awareness here', an inherent agent, perceiver, doer, etc.... Then there is simply hearing hears, seeing sees, everything is vibrant aliveness and clarity without the illusion or sense of a perceiver... there is no sense of an agent or self standing apart from the flow of experience... the process flows and is self-luminous just as it is. It is wonderful and blissful to see and experience this... and freeing, since there is no more clinging to any sense of self. Then when the emptiness of object realization arises, there is no clinging to 'there is' in terms of objects either.

It doesn't. That things exist (inherently, independent, permanently) is precisely what I mean by solidity: there is some core, substance, here-ness or there-ness to 'it'. But if by 'exist' you mean 'appear', then yeah sure, things appear without solidity. Actually, the non-solidity I am talking about is not about form in contrast with space. Yes there is no ultimate existence. How can you find a substance to stream when it is only the flowing? How can you grasp wind when it is only blowing? It is not that there is a 'stream' that is 'fluid and instable' or a 'stream' that transforms into this and that.... it is that there is no stream apart from fluidity. Like Dogen said, A does not turn into B, A is A, B is B. So do not conceive that Mind transforms into the myriad objects, which is substantial non-duality. All are manifestations complete in its expression (they are not expressions 'of' a mind, the expression is mind). A previous instance of ignorance which relatively speaking has no beginning (there is no first cause)... plus luminosity is too brilliant that we fail to see it's empty nature*. * http://www.rinpoche.com/q&a.htm "If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?" Realize anatta, and when the sense of agent dissolves we can start to experientially see everything as a process of universe manifesting and acting as this action, this sound, this sight, etc. Everything is a process of the interaction of causes and conditions. But if there is a sense of an agent or self, then we will fail to see this. if we cling to a self, we cling to something inherent, and fail to see that there is only the process... and therefore fail to see that the process is the interaction of universe/d.o. Like the word 'weather' is conveniently labelled to collate a conglomerate of everchanging phenomena (rain, lightning, clouds, etc), 'cooker', 'cooking', etc are labels that actually do not point to a findable entity. Same with 'self'. It is simply not something that has inherent existence, that can be described by 'there is' or 'is not'. It is like wind blowing, river flowing, it is like weather. The sense of an agent, perceiver, or controller is to reify an existence of a self standing apart from the flow or process... there is in reality only an ungraspable process.

If mind is not dependent, that means it is inherently existing, which means you are an eternalist and don't understand anatta, emptiness, or middle way.

I mean more like inherently there, with substance, core, essence.

What I mean by 'absence' is more about 'unfindability' or 'unestablish-ability' of an entity, than 'non-existence' of an established entity. An absence, or presence, of santa claus cannot be established when santa claus cannot be found to begin with. Just as the Buddha have explained, the existence and non-existence (or both and neither) of the Tathagata cannot be established when a Tathagata cannot even be pinned down as a truth or reality in the present. Seeing is always just the seen, not 'seeing becomes the seen' after negation, in the same way that the river is always flowing whether or not you realized it is flowing or is under the delusion that the river is solid and static. The unfindability of an essence, aka emptiness, is the ultimate truth. Of course, emptiness is not itself something inherent or findable. When emptiness is realized, you naturally wake up from the four extremes, you see how they do not apply to reality. When you do not, then you will certainly lean towards one of the sides. I do not proclaim the absence of seer as victory. (there is no established seer to be present or absent) I proclaim that that there is no findable, independent, permanent self, in the same way that there is no eye, no ear, no nose.... no five skandhas.... no five skandhas, no wisdom, no suffering, no ....(full list see heart sutra).

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self. ~ HHDL, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/His%20Holiness%20the%20Dalai%20Lama

You are assuming that mind is a subject, sort of an unseen seer. My inquiry at finding mind is when you already realized that mind is not a subject, that there is only what is vividly seen and experienced - that alone is mind, and yet there is still the view that there is some solidity to experience. At this point, you should investigate and realize that mind/experience is vividly apparent yet unlocatable, unfindable, insubstantial, like an illusion, like a magic show. This is the emptiness of objects. If however, one still has the idea or notion that mind is a subject behind things, then one should first investigate on anatta. Simple. Dependent origination. Yes. But it is not that the process is only Mind (subsuming things into 'mind')... but that mind is the process and empty of any self. TNH is talking about knowing, being, etc as verb, process, activities, rather than as entities. This mean anatta.