Interdependent Totality in Buddhadharma

[Simple_Jack]

Source: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Huayan

 

 

 

 

From Garma C.C. Chang's "The Buddhist Teaching of Totality. The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism.":

"One day Empress Wu asked Fa Tsang the following question: Reverend Master, I understand that man's knowledge is acquired through two approaches: one is by experience, the direct approach, and the other by inference, the indirect approach. I also understand that the first five consciousnesses and the Alaya only take the direct approach; whereas, the mind, or the sixth consciousness, can take both. Therefore, the findings of the conscious mind are not always trustworthy. The superiority and reliability of direct experience over indirect inference is taught in many scriptures. You have explained the Hwa Yen Doctrine to me with great clarity and ingenuity; sometimes I can almost 'See the vast Dharmadhatu in my mind's eye, and touch a few spots here and there in the great Totality. But all this, I realize, is merely indirect conjecture or guesswork. One cannot really understand Totality in an immediate sense before reaching Enlightenment. With your genius, however, I wonder whether you can give me a demonstration that will reveal the mystery of the Dharmadhatu including such wonders as the "all in one" and the "one in all," the simultaneous arising of all realms, the interpenetration and containment of all dharmas, the Non-Obstruction of space and time, and the like? After taking thought for a while, Fa Tsang said, "I shall try, your Majesty. The demonstration will ·be prepared very soon."

A few days later Fa Tsang came to the Empress and said, "Your Majesty, I am now ready. Please come with me to a place where the demonstration will be given." He then led the Empress into a room lined with mirrors. On the ceiling and floor, on all four walls, and even in the four corners of the room were fixed huge mirrors-all facing one another. Then Fa Tsang produced an image of Buddha and ·placed it in the center of the room with a burning torch beside it. "Oh, how fantastic! How marvelous!" cried the Empress as she gazed at this awe-inspiring panorama of infinite interreflections. Slowly and calmly Fa Tsang addressed her: Your Majesty, this is a demonstration of Totality in the Dharmadhatu. In each and every mirror within this room you will find the reflections of all the other mirrors with the Buddha's image in them. And in each and every reflection of any mirror you will find all the reflections of all the other mirrors, together with the specific Buddha image in each, without omission or misplacement. The principle of interpenetration and containment is clearly shown by this demonstration. Right here we see an example of one in all and all in one-the mystery of realm embracing realm ad infinitum is thus revealed. The principle of the simultaneous arising -of different realms is so obvious here that no explanation is necessary. These infinite reflections of different realms now simultaneously arise without the slightest effort; they just naturally do so in a perfectly harmonious way. . . . As for the principle of the non-obstruction of space, it can be demonstrated in this manner . . . (saying which, he took a crystal ball from his sleeve and placed it in the palm of his hand) . Your Majesty, now we see all the mirrors and their reflections within this small crystal ball. Here we have an example of the small containing the large as well as of the large containing the small. This is a demonstration of the non-obstruction of "sizes," or space. As for the non-obstruction of times, the past entering the future and the future entering the past cannot be shown in this demonstration, because this is, after all, a static one, lacking the dynamic quality of the temporal elements. A demonstration of the non-obstruction of times, and of time and space, is indeed difficult to arrange by ordinary means. One must reach a different level to be capable of witnessing a "demonstration" such as that. But in any case, your Majesty, I hope this simple demonstration has served its purpose to your satisfaction."

.........

Garma C.C. Chang's "The Buddhist Teaching of Totality. The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism.":

"(...)we have found that the Totality and Non-Obstruction of Buddhahood are expressed in these terms:

1. That a universe can be infinitely vast or small depending on the scale of measurement, or the position from which a measurement is made.

2. That the "larger" universes include the "smaller" ones as a solar system contains its planets, or a planet contains its atoms. This system of higher realms embracing the lower ones is pictured in a structure extending ad infinitum in both directions to the infinitely large or the infinitely small. This is called in the Hwa Yen vocabulary the view of realms-embracing-realms.

3. That a "small" universe, (such as an atom) not only contains the infinite "lesser" universes within itself, but also contains the infinite "larger" universes (such as the solar system), thus establishing the genuine Totality of Non-Obstruction.

4. That "time" has lost its meaning as merely a concept for measuring the flow of events in the past, present, and future. It has now become an element of Totality which actualizes the total interpenetration and containment of all the events of past, present, and future in the eternal present.

5. Upon the grand stage of the infinite Dharmadhatu, countless various dramas of religion are being enacted in numerous dimensions of space/time throughout eternity.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

 

 

Tu-Shun

(Tu-shun (557-640), a specialist in the Hua-yen (Avatamsaka) Austra, became the first patriarch of the Hua-yen school of Chinese Buddhism. He is remembered as a monk with exceptional healing abilities who lived close to the peasants. Translation by Thomas Cleary)

Question: Things being thus, what about knowledge?

Answer: Knowledge accords with things, being in one and the same realm, made by conditions, tacitly conjoining, without rejecting anything, suddenly appearing, yet not without before and after. Therefore the sutra says, “The sphere of the universal eye, the pure body, I now will expound; let people listen carefully.” By way of explanation, the “universal eye” is the union of knowledge and reality, all at once revealing many things. This makes it clear that reality is known to the knowledge of the universal eye only and is not the sphere of any other knowledge. The “sphere” means things. This illustrates how the many things interpenetrate like the realm of Indra’s net of jewels – multiplied and remultiplied ad infinitum. The pure body illustrates how all things, as mentioned before, simultaneously enter each other. Ends and beginnings, being collectively formed by conditional origination, are impossible to trace to a basis – the seeing mind has nothing to rest on.

Now the celestial jewel net of Kanishka, or Indra, Emperor of Gods, is called the net of Indra. This imperial net is made all of jewels: because the jewels are clear, they reflect each other’s images, appearing in each other’s reflections upon reflections, ad infinitum, all appearing at once in one jewel, and in each one it is so – ultimately there is no going or coming.

Now for the moment let us turn to the southwest direction and pick a jewel and check it. This jewel can show the reflections of all the jewels all at once – and just as this is so of this jewel, so it is of every other jewel: the reflection is multiplied and remultiplied over and over endlessly. These infinitely multiplying jewel reflections are all in one jewel and show clearly – the others do not hinder this. If you sit in one jewel, then you are sitting in all the jewels too. And the reverse applies to the totality if you follow the same reasoning. Since in one jewel you go into all the jewels without leaving this one jewel, so in all jewels you enter one jewel without leaving this one jewel.

Question: If you say that one enters all the jewels in one jewel without ever leaving this one jewel, how is it possible to enter all the jewels?

Answer: It is precisely by not leaving this one jewel that you can enter all the jewels. If you left this one jewel to enter all the jewels, you couldn’t enter all the jewels. Why? Because outside this jewel there are no separate jewels.

Question: If there are no jewels outside this one jewel, then this net is made of one jewel. How can you say then that it’s made of many jewels tied together?

Answer: It is precisely because there is only one jewel that many can be joined to form a net. Why? Because this one jewel alone forms the net – that is, if you take away this jewel there will be no net.

Question: If there is only one jewel, how can you speak of tying it into a net?

Answer: Tying many jewels to form a net is itself just one jewel. Why? “One” is the aspect of totality, containing the many in its formation. Since all would not exist if there were not one, this net is therefore made by one jewel. The all entering the one can be known by thinking about it in this way.

Question: Although the jewel in the southwest contains all the jewels in the ten directions completely, without remainder, there are jewels in every direction. How can you say then that the net is made of just one jewel?

Answer: All the jewels in the ten directions are in totality the one jewel of the southwest. Why? The jewel in the southwest is all the jewels of the ten directions. If you don’t believe that one jewel in the southwest is all the jewels in the ten directions, just put a dot on the jewel in the south-west. When one jewel is dotted, there are dots on all the jewels in all directions. Since there are dots on all the jewels in the ten directions, we know that all the jewels are one jewel. If anyone says that all the jewels in the ten directions are not one jewel in the southwest, could it be that one person simultaneously put dots on all the jewels in the ten directions? Even allowing the universal dotting of all the jewels in the ten directions, they are just one jewel. Since it is thus, using this one as beginning, the same is so when taking others first – multiplied over and over boundlessly, each dot is the same. It is obscure and hard to fathom: when one is complete, all is done. Such a subtle metaphor is applied to things to help us think about them, but things are not so; a simile is the same as not a simile – they resemble each other in a way, so we use it to speak of. What does this mean? These jewels only have their reflected images containing and entering each other – their substances are separate. Things are not like this, because their whole substance merges completely. The book on natural origination in the Hua-yen Sutra says, “In order to benefit sentient beings and make them all understand, nonsimiles are used to illustrate real truth. Such a subtle teaching as this is hard to hear even in immeasurable eons; only those with perseverance and wisdom can hear of the matrix of the issue of thusness.” The sutra says, “Nonsimiles are used as similes. Those who practice should think of this in accord with the similes.”

Vairocana Buddha’s past practices

Made oceans of Buddha-fields all pure.

Immeasurable, innumerable, boundless,

He freely permeates all places.

The reality-body of the Buddha is inconceivable;

Formless, signless, without comparison,

It manifests material forms for the sake of beings.

In the ten directions they receive its teaching,

Nowhere not manifest.

In the atoms of all Buddha-fields

Vairocana manifests self-subsistent power,

Promising the thundering sound of the ocean of Buddhahood

To tame all the species of sentient beings.

[Simple_Jack]

The above should be understood from the POV of dependent origination/emptiness. From my post here in this thread:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33391-for-the-benefit-of-all-beings/#entry516547

 

Interdependent origination. Even in the abhidharma, the arising of the universe is described as a result of the actions, which requires intention, of all sentient beings. It should be noted that a singular or universal consciousness is not posited in buddhadharma, positions such as this are conceptual proliferations by way of grasping to signs and characteristics for true existence (most often due to meditative experiences).

Edited January 22, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

A pretty good summary describing the basic principles of Huayan Buddhism:

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fazang/#SH2a

 

 

a. Shunyata

 

At the very heart of Flower Garland Buddhism is the idea of what is known in Sanskrit as shunyata(“emptiness”): universal interconnectedness, all-inclusiveness, intercausality and interpenetration. Fazang did a great deal to elevate Flower Garland Buddhism over rival schools, acknowledging other Buddhist schools and sutras, but championing the Flower Garland Sutra as the central teaching of the Buddha. As the Buddha’s first sermon upon attaining enlightenment, the nearly incomprehensible Flower Garland Sutra was invested with a profundity and wisdom unequalled in the Buddha’s subsequent works. In this effort, Fazang gathered and classified the rather unsystematic and wide-ranging Buddhist teachings into five categories in order of ascending profundity and power. In ascending order: Hinayana, Initial Mahayana, Final Mahayana, Sudden Teaching of the One Vehicle (proto-Zen), and, at the pinnacle, the Comprehensive Teaching of the One Vehicle—in essence, the Flower Garland Sutra. The sense of universality allowed the Flower Garland School to be compatible with other sects, effectively encompassing their doctrine, while maintaining the overarching primacy of the Flower Garland teachings.

 

b. Bodhicitta

This doctrine of interdependence is also reflected in Fazang’s thoughts on bodhicitta (mental dedication to helping all sentient beings and attaining enlightenment). Following the logic that each element pervades all that exists and itself contains all other elements in the phenomenal world, “In practicing the virtues, when one is perfected, all are perfected,” he writes, “and when one first arouses the thought of enlightenment one also becomes perfectly enlightened” (trans. Wright). Fazang’s emphasis on the omniversal generative power of the tathagatagarbha, the “womb of Buddhahood,” while not unique, subsequently developed into an important concept in the East Asian Mahayana Buddhist tradition.

So that others might better comprehend the profound doctrine of the Flower Garland Sutra, Fazang used the metaphor of the Ten Mysteries (Ten Mysterious Gates) to explicate the interconnectedness and inter-causality in the Flower Garland universe. These Ten Mysteries illustrate how seemingly contradictory pairs—the hidden and the manifest, truth and falsehood, the infinite and the infinitesimal, the general and the specific–mutually complement each other and coexist without obstruction. Indra’s net (see below) is one of the Ten Mysteries.

[Simple_Jack]

A comparative essay on the principles of Tian'Tai and Huayan Buddhism:

 

http://faculty.fullerton.edu/jeelooliu/Tian-tai%20vs.%20Hua-yan.pdf

 

...The Flower Ornament Scripture denies that the phenomenal world really exists. The phenomenal world means the world we, as human beings, presently experience. In the Flower Ornament Scripture, this world is likened to dream, illusion, phantom, echo, the magician’s conjuring, and the reflection in the mirror. (Chapter 29, 880-86) Everything we perceive around us, this worldly phenomena, is also like a reflection or an illusion. As reflections, objects “have no location” and “no substantial nature.” (Chapter 2, 175) As illusions, objects do not have a real beginning or end, nor do they have a definite origin or a final exit. In one synopsis, the Scripture says that all things “have no true reality.” (Chapter 5, 248) .....

The third patriarch Fa-zang also says, “[W]hatever there is in the world is only the creation of one mind; outside of mind

there is not a single thing that can be apprehended…. It means that all discriminations

come only from one’s own mind. There has never been any environment outside the

mind which could be an object of mind.” (“Cultivation of Contemplation of the Inner Meaning of the Hua-yan,” Cleary 1983,165) Fa-zang further denies the warranty of sense perception and claims that “sense data have no existence.” (ibid.) In other words, it is the mind’s discerning abilities that create myriad things in the world. Reality itself does not have all these discriminations; all things we perceive are thus the mind’s fabrication....

To say that the phenomenal worlds are the result of various minds’ fabrication, is not to say that each mind really “creates” a genuine world. For Hua-yan Buddhists, minds are not real either. The unreal mundane world is not simply the experiential world external to us; we are part of it as well. In other words, our sensation, perception, consciousness, are all part of this unreal phenomenal world; Furthermore, our self-identity and even our very existence are not real. As the Flower Ornament Scripture says, "Living beings, too, are not other than illusion -- on comprehending illusion, there are no 'living beings'. ” (Chapter 29, 880) Even though it is the individual’s actions that create the world, “in truth action has no agent” (Chapter 26, 751) and “the doer has no existence.” (Chapter 10, 301) The [Flower Ornament] Scripture further denies the functions of individual minds: “Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, intellect, the faculties of sense, all are void and essenceless, the deluded mind conceives them to exist.” (Chapter 10, 300) ...

[Simple_Jack]

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.

[RongzomFan]

who cares about the sutras?

[RongzomFan]

its all about tantras

[Simple_Jack]

who cares about the sutras?

its all about tantras

 

 

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

[asunthatneversets]

Loppon Malcolm has clarified that 'interdependent origination' is an incorrect translation, there is no 'inter-' in pratītyasamutpāda. Only 'dependent':

 

 

smcj wrote:

I personally think 'dependent arising' is better rendered as 'interdependent arising', which is even better rendered into simple language as 'paradox'.

 

Malcolm wrote:

There is no "inter" in pratītyasamutpada

 

A more literal translation is "conditioned co-origination", where pratitya bears the sense of pratyaya, i.e. conditioned.

 

The tibetan "rten cing 'brel bar 'byung ba" means something like " dependent and relational origination".

 

There is however nothing "paradoxical" about dependent origination.

Edited January 27, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

Also with the Indrajala [indras net], it's sometimes presented as a giant web of jewels (or reflective surfaces) which are all reflecting each other simultaneously; X reflects X which reflects X ad infinitum. However the true interpretation of this is that each reflection is simultaneously the cause and effect of every other reflection, so there is no established web of dependency, no jewels which are reflecting one another, each facet (or reflective occurrence) is the product and cause for every other facet, the entire web is thus totally illusory.

[RongzomFan]

I care about Hindu tantra more than Buddhist sutra.

[RongzomFan]

Aren't you guys missing the point about D.O.?

 

Nonarising?

 

Some of you are quoting Loppon Namdrol, but even recently he has said many times that D.O. is about nonarising.

[RongzomFan]

There is however nothing "paradoxical" about dependent origination.

 

Then you need to go back and read Loppon Namdrol's posts.

[RongzomFan]

"Dependent origination is exactly the meaning of non-arising"

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3667&p=32877&hilit=Manjushri#p32877

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=185946&hilit=Manjushri#p185946

Edited January 27, 2014 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

There is however nothing "paradoxical" about dependent origination.

 

Wrong.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=185946&hilit=Manjushri#p185946

 

Also with the Indrajala [indras net], it's sometimes presented as a giant web of jewels (or reflective surfaces) which are all reflecting each other simultaneously; X reflects X which reflects X ad infinitum. However the true interpretation of this is that each reflection is simultaneously the cause and effect of every other reflection, so there is no established web of dependency, no jewels which are reflecting one another, each facet (or reflective occurrence) is the product and cause for every other facet, the entire web is thus totally illusory.

 

No.

[asunthatneversets]

Then you need to go back and read Loppon Namdrol's posts.

 

That is Loppon Namdrol's post. Everything from "Malcolm wrote" on down, is what Malcolm wrote.

Edited January 28, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

Aren't you guys missing the point about D.O.?

 

Nonarising?

 

Some of you are quoting Loppon Namdrol, but even recently he has said many times that D.O. is about nonarising.

 

Yes, conditioned arising is not arising, dependent origination is not origination. For something to be truly arisen or existent it would need to exist independently of causes and conditions.

[asunthatneversets]

Wrong.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=14040&p=185946&hilit=Manjushri#p185946

 

 

No.

 

If you think Malcolm is wrong, take it up with him, the comment that there is nothing paradoxical about dependent origination was not mine.

 

Also, you literally just linked a post which stated that dependent arising is non-arising, and then when I gave an example of Indra's net to show that dependent arising is non-arising, you disagreed. You either aren't reading what I wrote, or you do not understand. Either way, both of your critiques are unwarranted, as they are based on misconceptions on your part.

 

That dependent origination is non-arising [emptiness], is Madhyamaka 101. Take it from the horses mouth itself:

 

"'Who understands this?' one might wonder;

It's those who see dependent origination.

The supreme knower of reality has taught

That dependent arising is unborn."

- Yuktiṣāṣṭikakārikā

 

"You have declared, O Master of words,

that what originates dependently is unoriginated!"

- Lokātītastava

Edited January 28, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[RongzomFan]

--------

Edited January 28, 2014 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

----------

Edited January 28, 2014 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

Nevermind.

 

It seems Malcolm is contradicting himself then.

[asunthatneversets]

I'm saying you are wrong asunthatneversets

 

 

Malcolm is right.

 

You aren't understanding. I quoted Malcolm. You read the quote and thought it was my writing. It was not my writing. You then proceeded to tell me I was wrong. All I did was quote Malcolm. Ergo, you are by default, stating that Malcolm is wrong. So take it up with him.

[asunthatneversets]

Nevermind.

 

It seems Malcolm is contradicting himself then.

 

He isn't, you're just reading his post out of context. At any rate, the latter section that you addressed wasn't even the focal point of the post in the context I was using it, but that is okay.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14929&p=204909&hilit=interdependent#p204909

Edited January 28, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[asunthatneversets]

*Edit: double post

Edited January 28, 2014 by asunthatneversets