The Clarity Aspect in Buddhism

[dwai]

shared by a wise sadhaka friend of mine, who is a direct disciple of His Eminence Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche

 

TO CLARIFY THAT ŚŪNYATA IS NOT A COUCH-POTATO-STATE, THE ŚĀKYAMUNI TAUGHT BUDDHA-NATURE (TATHĀGATAGARBHA)

"When we talk about emptiness, something beyond fabrication, we immediately think of a state of being that has no function, like a couch potato or piece of stone, but that is absolutely not correct. It is not merely a negation, elimination, or denial. It is not like the exhaustion of a fire or the evaporation of water. It is full of function, and we call this function buddha activity, which is one aspect of buddhanature. This buddhanature has an aspect of uninterrupted wisdom. This is the difficulty, because as soon as we talk about wisdom, we think in terms of cognition and the senses and their sense objects. We are curious about how a buddha perceives things. But although buddhanature is seemingly a cognizer, it has no object, and therefore it cannot be a subject. Furthermore, it’s not inanimate, nor is it animate, in the sense of mind. This is why the Uttaratantra Shastra is really complementary to the Mahasandhi (Dzogchen) teachings, which always say that mind and wisdom are separate—the dualistic mind of subject and object is separate from the nondual wisdom, which is not other than buddhanature.

You could say that when Nagarjuna explains the Prajnaparamita, he concentrates more on its empty aspect, whereas when Maitreya explains the same thing he concentrates more on the “-ness” aspect. This “-ness” is buddhanature. You might wonder why the Buddha taught in the sutras that all phenomena are like clouds—unstable, naturally illusory, and empty. Why is it that even though we can experience them, they are without essence, like a dream or mirage?

When Buddha says there is buddhanature, he isn’t saying that buddhanature truly exists. Rather, he is emphasizing the clarity aspect.

Why is all this taught as emptiness in the Madhyamaka teachings and the Prajnaparamita Sutras? And as Mipham Rinpoche’s commentary on the Uttaratantra Shastra asks, why in this third turning of the wheel of dharma does the Buddha say that this buddhanature exists within all sentient beings? Isn’t that a contradiction? Furthermore, since buddhanature is very difficult to understand, even for sublime beings who are on the path, why is it taught here for ordinary beings? Let’s go to Maitreya’s text (Uttara Tantra Shastra) :

He had taught in various places that every knowable thing is ever void, like a cloud, a dream, or an illusion. Then why did the Buddha declare the essence of buddhahood to be there in every sentient being? (Stanza 156)

First of all, there is no contradiction between the second turning of the wheel of the dharma, where the Buddha taught that everything is emptiness, and the third turning of the wheel, where the Buddha taught that all sentient beings have buddhanature. In the Prajnaparamita Sutras of the second turning, the Buddha emphasizes that nothing is truly existent. So here, when Buddha says there is buddhanature, he isn’t saying that buddhanature truly exists. Rather, he is emphasizing its clarity aspect. When we talk about the union of clarity and emptiness, it’s important that we understand both aspects, not only the emptiness aspect.

Beyond this, the Buddha’s teachings on buddhanature address, and counteract, five particular mistakes:

There are five mistakes: faint-heartedness, contempt for those of lesser ability, to believe in the false, to speak about the true nature badly, and to cherish oneself above all else. So that those in whom these above were there might rid themselves of them, therefore was it declared. (Stanza 157)

Generally, throughout the buddhadharma, and especially in the Mahayana, the most important thing is to generate enlightened mind. If you read the Bhadrakalpa Sutra (the Sutra of the Fortunate Aeon), you will hear how in the beginning one thousand buddhas generated enlightened mind. Generating enlightened mind is a promise or pledge to enlighten oneself and all sentient beings, and for practitioners on the path it is the most important thing. For example, when you pray, why does prayer work? It works because of this determination, this pledge to help sentient beings. It’s all based on that. Hence, there are five reasons to teach buddhanature, each one addressing one of the five mistakes, and these reasons are all about helping us make good on this pledge.

First, if buddhanature were not emphasized, then a bodhisattva on the path might become discouraged, because the path is long, rough, and endless. One might also despise oneself, thinking, how can someone impure and useless like me achieve enlightenment? Bodhichitta, the wish to enlighten all sentient beings, will not arise within people who have that kind of discouragement and who despise themselves.

When we know that buddhanature is there within us, like a gold coin buried in the dirt, it gives us a lot of encouragement. We know enlightenment is possible because buddhanature is there within us. This brings joy to the path. If we didn’t know there was a gold statue inside the mold, there would be no joy in breaking the mold. But when we know, the desire to find the statue inside is so strong that we don’t even notice the process of breaking the mold, which is generating enlightened mind.

Second, as bodhisattvas we have to benefit all sentient beings. If we don’t know that buddhanature resides within everybody, then we might not respect other sentient beings. Rather, we might think we’re great because we’re bodhisattvas, and then despise other sentient beings. This could become a big obstacle, hindering us in benefiting other beings.

Imagine that you think you’re a bodhisattva who has buddhanature and that other sentient beings don’t have buddhanature and therefore require your help. You think you have to somehow insert the buddha inside them. That’s a very big mistake. It’s what we call exaggeration or imputation. The Buddhist view is that everybody has buddhanature. It will not change. No one, no guru, no Buddha can insert it. All anyone can do is become some kind of path to enable people to realize it themselves.

The third reason buddhanature is taught is to dispel the obstacles that obstruct us from having prajna. There are two such obstacles. The first one is imputation. Even though there is no buddhanature, we impute or imagine its existence by thinking that all these buddha qualities exist, such as the ushnisha, the protuberance on top of the Buddha’s head, symbolizing his great wisdom and enlightenment. But they don’t.

We also need to overcome the second obstacle to wisdom: thinking that the buddha qualities do not exist, or that there are no buddha qualities within us, which is like some kind of criticism. This is the fourth reason buddhanature is taught.

Finally, the fifth reason is to dispel the obstacle that prevents us from understanding that we are equal to others. If we don’t know that buddhanature exists equally within all beings, then we might have more attachment to ourselves and more aversion toward others.

Those are the five reasons why buddhanature is taught.

Emotions are temporary, so action is like a dream, and therefore the aggregates — the result of emotions and action — are like a mirage.
Buddhanature is pure and free from all kinds of compounded phenomena, right from the beginning.

The ultimate true nature is always devoid of anything compounded, so it is said that defilements, karma, and their full ripening are like a cloud, etc. (Stanza 158)

Therefore, buddhanature is free from the three kinds of emotions: desire, aggression, and jealousy. It is free from the emotions of karmic formation, such as virtuous actions and non-virtuous actions. And it is free from the result of emotion, the five aggregates. Therefore, the emotions are like clouds.

The defilements are said to be like clouds, karma is likened to the experience in dreams, and the full ripening of karma and defilements—the aggregates—are likened to conjurations. (Stanza 159)

The nature of beings is primordially pure; that’s why we call it buddhanature. Although emotions are seemingly apparent and seemingly stubborn, seemingly like a second nature, they are never a second nature. They are like clouds—they are adventitious, and not a true part of you. This point is quite important. In Buddhism we always come to the conclusion that these emotions and defilements are temporary. When we’re looking at a gray cloudy sky, we might call it a cloudy sky, but it’s not really a cloudy sky. The clouds are never the sky. The clouds are temporary or adventitious.

The next part is critical for our understanding of karma. Since emotions are temporary, so-called karma or action is like a dream. This is important because many people think that karma is almost like a substitute for God. They think it’s like someone who punishes you, rewards you, and decides your fate. But it’s never like that in Buddhism. Karma is actually like a dream. In a dream, you might experience all kinds of ecstasy, but no matter how much you pant and sweat, it’s just a dream.

When we say, “It’s just a dream,” there’s sometimes a connotation that we despise it because it’s not real. But it doesn’t work like that either. If you become enamored with a dream elephant, then in the dream you go through the ecstasy of meeting the elephant, the sadness of missing the elephant, and eventually the agony of no longer having the elephant. That’s how karma works.

This stanza is a big summary of Buddhism. Emotions are temporary, so action is like a dream, and therefore the aggregates—the result of emotions and action—are like a mirage. They are like a mirage; the closer you approach them, the more futile or essenceless they become. We try so hard to get close to the elephant, but even if there’s an engagement, the exchange of rings, a marriage ceremony, or whatever, the elephant remains a mirage.

To emphasize this, the Buddha taught emptiness in the earlier turnings of the wheel of dharma. For example, in the Prajnaparamita Sutra, he said that form is emptiness, emptiness is form, and everything is like a mirage or a dream, and so forth. Then after that, in order to dispel the five kinds of obstacles or downfalls, the Buddha taught buddhanature in the third turning of the wheel of the dharma.

There’s no reason to feel inferior; you have everything that that sublime being has.
Now we come to the benefit of hearing about buddhanature. When we hear about buddhanature, we experience joy or enthusiasm toward the path because we know that enlightenment is possible. Even a dog, because it has buddhanature, is worthy of homage. No matter how many emotions you have erupting inside you, you’ll know that they are removable. That is wisdom. At the same time, you will know that all the qualities of the Buddha are within you—that is primordial wisdom."

~His Eminence Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, "The Clarity Aspect"

Credits:https://www.lionsroar.com/the-clarity-aspect/

[dwai]

I thought this is apropos because I noticed that some (many) people misunderstand emptiness. 

[TranquilTurmoil]

Namaste 🙏🏼 

[old3bob]

Not exactly in context to the op but....

That was interesting.  Btw, it remains that great Buddhist Lama's and great Hindu Guru's are not or very seldom getting together (as far as has been reported for the past couple of thousand years) for tea and veggies and then come to agree on sharing all their resources, students and teachings as if all is equal and agreed upon.  Thus one must make a choice for their main school...and the same goes for making a choice within the sub-sects, for instance off of the  major Saivite branch in Hinduism there several sub-sects with their particular and achieved lineage holders and they too don't agree on everything concerning soul and Siva...(and about some other points and I wouldn't call them "half-baked" because of that)

Edited July 30, 2021 by old3bob

[Apech]

16 hours ago, dwai said:

I thought this is apropos because I noticed that some (many) people misunderstand emptiness. 

 

 

I'm a samsara half full kind of guy myself.

[doc benway]

On 7/29/2021 at 7:37 PM, dwai said:

This is why the Uttaratantra Shastra is really complementary to the Mahasandhi (Dzogchen) teachings, which always say that mind and wisdom are separate—the dualistic mind of subject and object is separate from the nondual wisdom, which is not other than buddhanature.

 

Dzogchen teachings do not state that mind and wisdom are separate. That is could cause a misunderstanding.

[Apech]

42 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Dzogchen teachings do not state that mind and wisdom are separate. That is a misunderstanding.

 

His Eminence Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche is wrong according to Steve on the internet  

[TranquilTurmoil]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

His Eminence Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche is wrong according to Steve on the internet  

Maybe we oughta clarify the “clarity aspect”

[TranquilTurmoil]

The patients have taken over the asylum! They abolished the prohibition on cigarette smoking and are demanding a 4 oz Ice cream cup with every meal!!!! 

[dwai]

8 minutes ago, TranquilTurmoil said:

The patients have taken over the asylum! They abolished the prohibition on cigarette smoking and are demanding a 4 oz Ice cream cup with every meal!!!! 

Sometimes it's better to not stir the pot - be advised. 

[dwai]

15 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

His Eminence Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche is wrong according to Steve on the internet  

Because it is @steve I pay attention. maybe context is important?

[natural]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

Sometimes it's better to not stir the pot - be advised. 

 

Ok, does that advice apply to hash?

What do you suggest instead?

[old3bob]

13 minutes ago, natural said:

 

Ok, does that advice apply to hash?

What do you suggest instead?

 

Not sure, is it quality hash?  I have been waiting for them to come out with organic veggie spam but it hasn't happened yet...

[dwai]

25 minutes ago, natural said:

 

Ok, does that advice apply to hash?

What do you suggest instead?

Silence is golden  

[stirling]

It is worth reading this part again and thinking a bit about it:

 

Quote

Buddhanature is pure and free from all kinds of compounded phenomena, right from the beginning.

 

[S:C]

Enjoyed reading this, especially about the cloud metaphor, thanks for sharing!

Read this several times, foreign to these concepts and terms I still struggle with understanding, - with the clarity aspect:

 

When the clouds are equal to the phenomena and emotions etc. and you deduct them to be mere illusions (without essence) you will arrive at emptiness?

So clarity is emptiness? 

Is that consolation ? 

 

Or is one then sheer mesmerized with experiencing actions (& cause, conditions, effects) of the theatrical performance? (The miracle of experience AND awarenwess of it's emptiness being clarity? Or the potentiality that arises within it being clarity? Would be glad, to get some ... wait for it ... - clarity -  or opinions on this.) 

 

Did I miss the clarity aspect, because I am stuck too much in the clouds..? 

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by liberale.ironikerin
Edit: potentiality aspect

[old3bob]

got it...

[doc benway]

7 hours ago, dwai said:

Because it is @steve I pay attention. maybe context is important?

 

Dzogchen teachings say that from the practitioner’s perspective, mind appears separate from wisdom. From the side of non-dual wisdom there has never been any separation.

[dwai]

12 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Dzogchen teachings say that from the practitioner’s perspective, mind appears separate from wisdom. From the side of non-dual wisdom there has never been any separation.

I think Rinpoche meant it in that way. At least that’s how I understood it. 

[doc benway]

7 minutes ago, dwai said:

I think Rinpoche meant it in that way. At least that’s how I understood it. 

You’re probably right, although it wouldn’t be the first time I disagreed with Dzongsar Rinpoche, generally regarding his political commentary…

[Nungali]

I dont think I have ever thought of a couch potato when someone mentioned emptiness .  

 

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

10 hours ago, steve said:

 

Dzogchen teachings say that from the practitioner’s perspective, mind appears separate from wisdom. From the side of non-dual wisdom there has never been any separation.

 

Yes I think this is the point - and also there are several 'lost in translation' difficulties.

 

I think that Rinpoche is using 'mind' to mean that which knows via subject object division - probably 'manas' or 'citta' - and is distinguishing this from wisdom 'prajna' which literally is 'para' - 'jnana' and in this case means 'beyond knowing'.  It's not really what we would mean by wisdom in English which is more about accumulated learning - but more the direct awareness of non-dual reality ... which is beyond knowing.  Where knowing means to recognise something.

 

You can have clarity of mind which would mean the unobstructed or defect free perception of a thing or an idea - which is still dualistic - there is still an observer and an observed.  Or you can have Clarity where this dualistic distinction falls away leaving just the natural state.

 

Just to complicate some Mahamudra texts say that 'ordinary mind is enlightened mind' ... but this is a subtle teaching and what they don't mean is that just what you ordinarily perceive is buddha-nature or some such ... but they do mean that there is nothing to be added or taken away from Buddha-nature, it is complete and does not require effort to fabricate.

 

 

[Apech]

9 hours ago, steve said:

You’re probably right, although it wouldn’t be the first time I disagreed with Dzongsar Rinpoche, generally regarding his political commentary…

 

He seems to enjoy some kind of high level trolling politically - I'm never sure how serious it is or how much is just him deliberately unsettling his western students as some kind of teaching point.

[Michael Sternbach]

14 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Yes I think this is the point - and also there are several 'lost in translation' difficulties.

 

I think that Rinpoche is using 'mind' to mean that which knows via subject object division - probably 'manas' or 'citta' - and is distinguishing this from wisdom 'prajna' which literally is 'para' - 'jnana' and in this case means 'beyond knowing'.  It's not really what we would mean by wisdom in English which is more about accumulated learning - but more the direct awareness of non-dual reality ... which is beyond knowing.  Where knowing means to recognise something.

 

You can have clarity of mind which would mean the unobstructed or defect free perception of a thing or an idea - which is still dualistic - there is still an observer and an observed.  Or you can have Clarity where this dualistic distinction falls away leaving just the natural state.

 

Just to complicate some Mahamudra texts say that 'ordinary mind is enlightened mind' ... but this is a subtle teaching and what they don't mean is that just what you ordinarily perceive is buddha-nature or some such ... but they do mean that there is nothing to be added or taken away from Buddha-nature, it is complete and does not require effort to fabricate.

 

 

 

Does it require effort to become effortless?

[Apech]

12 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Does it require effort to become effortless?

 

Actually that's an important question.  It is important to apply effort, for instance in study and practice, but in the final analysis accomplishment comes from the Dharmakaya itself which is already perfected.  So probably the short answer is yes - you have to apply effort to be effortless.