Simple_Jack

Source of translation by Ven. Indrajala: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=15236&p=210949&hilit=tiantai#p210949 Zhiyi 智顗 (538-597) in his commentary on the Lotus Sūtra states the following (note this is a quick tentative translation done in a noisy Himalayan internet cafe): 《妙法蓮華經玄義》卷5：「又凡夫心一念即具十界。悉有惡業性相。秖惡性相即善性相。由惡有善離惡無善。翻於諸惡即善資成。如竹中有火性。未即是火事。故有而不燒。遇緣事成即能燒物。惡即善性未即是事。遇緣成事即能翻惡。如竹有火。火出還燒竹。惡中有善。善成還破惡。故即惡性相是善性相也。」(CBETA, T33, no. 1716, p. 743, c25-p. 744, a3) Furthermore, a single moment of thought in the mind of a common being possesses the ten realms. They completely possess the nature and characteristics of evil karma, yet the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. It is due to evil that there is virtue. Apart from evil there is no virtue. Turning over evils, there is virtue supporting them, like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn. When meeting with conditions the phenomenon comes to exist, and then it can burn things. Evil as the nature of virtue is not yet an existent phenomenon. When it meets with conditions it become an existent phenomenon, and then there can be a turn to evil. It is like bamboo. Fire is emitted and returns, burning the bamboo. In evil there is virtue. When virtue comes to exist it returns, destroying the evil. This is why that which are the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. This might not be so controversial, but his following remarks are: 《妙法蓮華經玄義》卷5：「凡夫一念。皆有十界識名色等。苦道性相。迷此苦道生死浩然。此是迷法身為苦道。不離苦道別有法身。如迷南為北無別南也。若悟生死即是法身。故云苦道性相即是法身性相也。」(CBETA, T33, no. 1716, p. 744, a3-7) A single moment of thought of an ordinary being always possesses the consciousnesses, names and forms of the ten realms. The nature and characteristics of the path of suffering – they misunderstand this path of suffering, and saṃsāra remains expansive. This is misunderstanding the dharmakāya as the path of suffering. There is no separate dharmakāya apart from the path of suffering, like mistaking south as north, there is no separate south. If one realizes saṃsāra, then it is the dharmakāya. Thus it is said the nature and characteristics of the path of suffering are the nature and characteristics of the dharmakāya. Zhiyi derives his ideas from various scriptures. One could go into very great detail about this. As I recall, Zhiyi's theory was actually rather controversial amongst his peers and later generations, though it became a core teaching of Tiantai which was discussed and elaborated even throughout the Song Dynasty. The dictionary term for this concept is xing'e 性惡. If you read Chinese see the following lengthy explanations: http://cbs.ntu.edu.tw/dict/index.php?ke ... 7%E6%83%A1

List of essays, by Paul L. Swanson, on Tiantai and the philosophy of Zhiyi - http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/en/staff/pswanson/. Zhiyi's The Great Cessation & Contemplation trans. by Paul L. Swanson: http://www.kosei-shuppan.co.jp/english/text/books/mo-ho_chih-kuan.html -- A 42 page draft translation of the introduction http://www.ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp/~pswanson/mhck/mhck%20intro%201a-3b.pdf.

.

Sorry, but this is just a bunch of proliferations. Dharmic religions will not make sense and cannot be wholly appreciated when viewed from the framework of the physical sciences. Of course, as a matter of convention, it can be accepted that our CNS acts as a switchboard, so to speak, for the functioning of our senses and body. Though, regarding the CNS as the sole originator of consciousness, will conflict with the experiential descriptions and dialectics of Dharma.

Neti, neti = affirming negation. You negate that which is the conditioned, dualistic, differentiated identity i.e. superimpositions of nama-rupa, to reveal that which is the unconditioned, non-dualistic, undifferentiated Atman/Brahman, which in nature is Sat-Cit-Ananda. Cit is sat i.e. real (ignore the large paragraph, on Buddhism, on the top part of the page: it is a very inaccurate distortion) -- http://www.vedantaadvaita.org/Appendix_1.htm: ( Another approach is to say that Sastra does not reveal Brahman in positive terms. (there is no vidhimukha bodhana). Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.iii.6 – “Now, therefore the description (of Brahman) – ‘Not this, not this’. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this ‘not this, not this’”. Internally, we negate all names and forms like the body, sense organs, the mind and intellect and arrive at the unnegatable pure Consciousness (Cit). Externally we negate all names and forms and arrive at the unnegatable pure Existence (Sat). And we learn from Sastra that Sat is Cit; Cit is Sat and through the Mahavakyas like “Tattvamasi” one owns up one’s true nature as “aham brahma asmi”. In other words, Mahavakyas do not reveal any new entity. The consciousness available in us, the Atma, is self-evident. What mahavakyas do is to remove the wrong notion that it is limited and equate it with the infinite Brahman.

This is just physicalism.

As I remember Loppon Namdrol (Malcolm) explaining it, buddha's aren't omniscient 24/7, but are omniscient when their consciousness is directed towards an object i.e. having unimpeded knowledge of all phenomena. The abilities of a buddha are regarded as surpassing that of an arahant [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html]: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10435#p160653 Just to add: A buddha has knowledge and abilities not shared by arahant disciples. The Paṭisambhidāmagga lists the following: knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies knowledge of the twin miracle* knowledge of the attainment of great compassion omniscience & unobstructed knowledge *i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html Ten Powers of a Tathagata 9. "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.[5] What are the ten? 10. (1) "Here, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible.[6] And that [70] is a Tathagata's power that the Tathagata has, by virtue of which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. 11. (2) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future and present, with possibilities and with causes. That too is a Tathagata's power...[7] 12. (3) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the ways leading to all destinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...[8] 13. (4) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...[9] 14. (5) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...[10] 15. (6) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a Tathagata's power...[11] 16. (7) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the defilement, the cleansing and the emergence in regard to the jhanas, liberations, concentrations and attainments. That too is a Tathagata's power...[12] 17. (8) "Again, the Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons of world-contraction and expansion: 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared here.' Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives. That too is a Tathagata's power... 18. (9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathagata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions thus: 'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body, speech and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, [71] after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions. That too is a Tathagata's power... 19. (10) "Again, by realizing it for himself with direct knowledge, the Tathagata here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. That too is a Tathagata's power that a Tathagata has, by virtue of which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. 20. "The Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. 21. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.[13] Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell." Of course, this is all just conjecture, interesting, but conjecture nonetheless. The above does not have any bearing on an ordinary individual's practice or on whether someone can derive benefit from Buddhist teachings.

I wasn't referring to Dzogchen practice since the OP mentioned concepts such as anatta and neti neti. While they are conceptual approaches, by Dzogchen standards, these concepts are predicated on conflicting views which determines the mode of practice. As for Dzogchen, the 'view' is introduced by the guru, but as RongzomFan has mentioned many times, even if you recognized unfabricated presence vs. the conceptualizing mind: this is just 'Day 1' and does not officially make one a Dzogchenpa. I will add that it does not constitute the entirety of Dzogchen view and practice.

Bodhicitta and omniscience (as a result of the path) are absent from all other Indian schools of thought.

Bump.

It has a very specific meaning: the eradication of afflictive and cognitive obscurations to omniscience; which are the wisdoms, kayas, and omniscient qualities of a samyaksambuddha.

Yes, my statements are antithetical, to perennialist fanatics.

The name is based off of a portrayal of a mentally handicap person by Ben Stiller from the movie "Tropic Thunder". I apologize if this offends anyone. It's no secret that I've adopted a Buddhist view and practice, but you must also understand that the "river bank", in the case of Mahayana, is buddhahood, which is traversed by way of the 5 paths towards buddhahood. Also, in MN 28, Buddha states: "He who sees Dependent Origination, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees Dependent Origination."

That's funny because, Advaita Vedanta is a product of Gaudapada's and Shankara's plagiarism of Madhyamaka dialectics, which was then used to refute other Indian schools such as Samkyha.

P.S. Stating, "I have no views", is a view in itself.

This could also be used as a description for Brahman. Studying is one thing, but it's another thing to implement what has been studied accurately and correctly. Vipassana is not complicated, once you understand the principles, but it takes trial and error to really comprehend and be proficient at this on or off the cushion.

Ironically, you've unknowingly adopted a Vedantin view and practice, even if this is only in intention and not in name. These are a direct result of latent tendencies, expressed as reifications, at work on the subconscious level.

You've unknowingly adopted the substantialist view of an undifferentiated, conglomerate, subsuming and over-arching, "awareness". This is why it's paramount to understand the context of Buddha's teachings of the 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas, and how this applies to vipashyana/vipassana. This is why I recommended you to read Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, Ch. 9 "Examination of the Prior Entity" [http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=chapter%20nine&f=false]. Yes, you're a perennialist: http://www.religioperennis.org/documents/Fabbri/Perennialism.pdf "They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis.... This is detrimental to understanding and engaging in Buddhist meditation.

Perennialism is not applicable when dealing with two conflicting modes of meditation. As much as you want to overlook the differences, as merely 'different means of pointing to the same thing', the actual principles of meditative application in these two systems, are predicated on different views which informs the outcome of practice. For [sutrayana] Buddhist meditation, this starts and ends with, the 4 noble truths and 8 fold noble path i.e. right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right attention, right concentration; which is none other than dependent origination. I know this is not looked at favorably on this forum, but it is detrimental to a clear understanding and appreciation of both systems, when attempting to freely mix conflicting principles into a confused hodge-podge, for the sake of not upsetting perennialist sensibilities. Both systems should be engaged from within the context of their respective POV. I know that, you will look at this as mere conceptual baggage, but latent tendencies lie unnoticed, dormant, subtle, they are operative even in deep nonconceptual states of meditation; these latent tendencies inform both experiential and intellectual views of sensate experience, and can inevitably lead to appropriation of views on a subconscious level, even in the absence of gross conceptual thoughts.

@ Songtsan Its best not to rely on wikipedia for your information.

In regards to the undifferentiated 'awareness' you mentioned in the OP: http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=nagarjuna;examination+of+the+prior+entity&source=bl&ots=JS4UaRlWdR&sig=iUnb-jKJajwF7rw0NQRWwCshAkc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9NzmUovBLpSssATh0ICYAw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=examination%20of%20the%20prior%20entity&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=kfsyfoO1IlYC&q=examination+of+the+prior+entity#v=snippet&q=examination%20of%20the%20prior%20entity&f=false It's not even required that you learn Madhyamaka, but you should learn proper Buddhist meditation, such as the four frames of reference/satiphatthana/vipassana. Or you could just study the meditation manuals of Sutra Mahamudra, which is essentially a systemization of the prajnaparamita teachings into a graduated path of meditation i.e. shamatha-vipashyana. Its freely available because it doesn't require empowerment to practice this system: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/. Referring to anatta as 'not-self' or as 'no-self', is not as important as understanding, that you are just a bundle of 5 aggregates i.e. impermanent processes. I'm sure you're familiar with the principles of the 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas. The bold is a beginner mistake due to inefficient understanding and a lack of proper training in vipassana. This is a result of inappropriate attention/mindfulness, by Buddhist standards of meditation, which is contrasted with appropriate attention/mindfulness. You should refer to the four frames of reference of satipatthana and the 3 seals i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta.

This is a form of substantialism. I suggest reading the classic Indian texts on Madhyamaka in order to get a better understanding of basic Buddhist principles.

Well, post something from the tantras, in this thread if you want...

The other two quotes become clearer when understood in this way: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/?p=515844 As the glorious Chandrakirti wrote, Things do not arise causelessly, nor from Ishvara, Nor from self, nor other, nor both; Therefore, it is clear that things arise Perfectly in dependence upon their causes and conditions. Things do not arise from any of the four possible extremes: from self, other, both or without cause, and there's no fifth possibility. Therefore, things do not truly arise—they do not come into existence; they do not actually happen. Then what is the appearance of them happening? It is just like the appearance of things happening in a dream; like the appearance of a moon shining on a pool of water; and like the appearance of an illusion. It is dependently arisen mere appearance. In this way, since sounds do not exist in genuine reality, and since in relative reality they are just dependently arisen mere appearances, all sounds are simply sound-emptiness. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&p=212052&sid=02d01499d9cae1bb091cce1e4eaec52a#p212052 Loppon Malcolm: "Indeed, from the perspective of Madhyamaka a thing and its nature are identical. This is not so for those in lower schools. To elaborate, conditions are merely an appearance. The notion of conditioned and unconditioned arises out of the substantialist roots of the substantialist tenet systems. By showing that the essence of phenomena is unconditioned, you are essentially showing that phenomena are in truth unconditioned. This is why the Prajñāpāramita makes statements like: Any teaching by the Bhagavan that matter lacks inherent existence, does not arise, does not cease, is peace from the beginning and is parinirvana by nature, all such teachings are not the indirect meaning, nor the intentional meaning, but must be understood literally. (Ārya-pañcaśatikā-prajñāpāramitā)" What this basically means is that the nature of the conditioned (samsara) is itself unconditioned (nirvana); this should be understood in terms of the 5 skandhas, 18 dhatus, 12 ayatanas. On the relative level, appearances co-dependently arise, endure, and cease, but this is equivalent to an illusion; on the ultimate level, these appearances are free from arising, enduring, and ceasing, therefore all appearances are nonarising i.e. empty. The dichotomy of a conventional and ultimate levels of truth is false, because they are a teaching meant for deluded sentient beings. Appearances are unestablished by nature, since they are only established conventionally as mere imputations, these imputations do not exist in actuality, because appearances are free from the extremes of "is" or "is not" i.e. existence, nonexistence, both, neither.

In relation to a Buddha's wisdom which is free from all extremes: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4056&start=40 [Loppon] Malcolm: As for your first question: all Buddhas share the same realization. In this sense they "share" the same mind. The wisdom of a Buddha is free from being one or many. Since the dharmakāya is free from all extremes, it does not make sense to assert that Buddhas have differentiated mind streams. Their omniscience is identical because, to put it into relative terms, their minds and the object of their realization, emptiness free from extremes, have merged since Buddhas are in a constant state of equipoise on reality. In terms of Madhyamaka, Buddhas and sentient beings are the same in so far as neither are ultimately established. Conventionally speaking, however, sentient beings have not abandoned everything to be abandoned and realized everything to be realized, but Buddhas have. That constitutes the difference between buddhas and sentient beings.