Continuum of mind in Buddhism

[Vimalakirti]

In several sources on Tibetan Buddhism - one a book on the Heart Sutra by the Dali Lama - I've come across the idea of a more or less eternal continuum of mind (whether unitary or pluralist I'm not sure), and connected with this the idea of mind being independent of the other aggregates because "only mind can give rise to mind". Now, to a layperson like myself it sounds like a contradiction of the fundamental idea of dependent origination, and of emptiness as later fully developed by Nagarjuna. As my poor understanding has it, even nirvana is mutually dependent with samsara, so how can a mind continuum have what sounds like independent, substantial existence?

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

From my point of view you have a couple of misconceptions there. Nirvana is not mutually dependant with Samsara, (unless only by definition, i.e Nirvana is what Samsara is not) they are both states of mind, one wrong and one right.

I dont know what the "Fundamental idea of dependant religion" is, but the mental continuum is basically what we are at a basic level.

All our perceptions are flawed by our delusions, our bodies do not exist and our memories and our possesions will be gone at the end of this life, the only thing we really have is our mental continuum, that undefined area of formless thought which essentially IS the being, the consciousness. I suppose the concept of the Mental Continuum is similar to the concept of the Soul, it is the defining part of the being.

I have no doubt that Vajradhara will soon give a far better explanation from his great knowledge of the Sutras, but this is what it means to me. (and isnt that all that really matters?)

 

[earl]

In several sources on Tibetan Buddhism - one a book on the Heart Sutra by the Dali Lama - I've come across the idea of a more or less eternal continuum of mind (whether unitary or pluralist I'm not sure), and connected with this the idea of mind being independent of the other aggregates because "only mind can give rise to mind". Now, to a layperson like myself it sounds like a contradiction of the fundamental idea of dependent origination, and of emptiness as later fully developed by Nagarjuna. As my poor understanding has it, even nirvana is mutually dependent with samsara, so how can a mind continuum have what sounds like independent, substantial existence?

Hi Vilmalakirti. Don't know if this is what you're getting at but one of the theories present in vajrayana but other schools of buddhism posits "9 levels of consciousness." The first 5 of the root consciousnesses of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling. The sixth consciousness is the conceptual faculty that distinguishes and classifies the data of the aforementioned senses and what we typically call the intellect. the seventh rot consciousness is the seat of our persistent "I- awareness" and typically considered the source of judgments, opinions, self-centeredness, and other "temporary illusions ." Eighth consciousness is the repository-alaya-vijnana-or storehouse consciousness where theoretically all mental activity and sense experiences are recorded moment after moment. It was seen as storehouse for all past such moments as well-sort of like a big "computer bank-" and "within that storehouse," the "seeds of karmic fruit" were stored and created. It was this consciousness traditionally viewed as what "survived" death and made up the stream of mind moving into the next incarnation. Finally, the ninth level was seen as the pure, formless True nature of mind. It can perhaps be said that this "continuum" exists as some combination of actuality and potential in each and every mind moment of our lives. Of course, you also asked regarding the "continuum" of nirvana and samsara-yes,those terms typically refer to mind states and mahayanists tend to say they are one and the same for one who has achieved some degree of enlightenment but what those folks really mean is that the mind state involved can "turn hell into heaven or heaven into hell." Take care, Earl

 

[Vimalakirti]

From my point of view you have a couple of misconceptions there. Nirvana is not mutually dependant with Samsara, (unless only by definition, i.e Nirvana is what Samsara is not) they are both states of mind, one wrong and one right.

Here I'm referring to Nagarjuna's two truths, conventional and ultimate, which as I understand it refer to the same reality under two aspects and which exist as concepts only in mutual relation.

But my question has to do with this idea of a mind continuum which exists somehow eternally and indepedently and how that squares with the fundamental notion of dependent origination as clarified by Nagarjuna, i.e., that nothing exists intrinsically, as independent being. "Mind can only arise from mind" sounds like a metaphysical absolute and again I'm not sure how that fits in the tradition.

Thanks for helping me with this.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Hi Vilmalakirti. Don't know if this is what you're getting at but one of the theories present in vajrayana but other schools of buddhism posits "9 levels of consciousness." The first 5 of the root consciousnesses of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling. The sixth consciousness is the conceptual faculty that distinguishes and classifies the data of the aforementioned senses and what we typically call the intellect. the seventh rot consciousness is the seat of our persistent "I- awareness" and typically considered the source of judgments, opinions, self-centeredness, and other "temporary illusions ." Eighth consciousness is the repository-alaya-vijnana-or storehouse consciousness where theoretically all mental activity and sense experiences are recorded moment after moment.

Thanks Earl. What you're describing here is I believe the "mind-only" view, which you may know isn't shared by all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, such as the dominant Madhyamika. Again the larger question is whether Tibetan Buddhism is making a metaphysical claim and, if so, how that claim squares with tradition. Thanks again for your input.

 

[earl]

Hi Vimalakirti. Yes that's Yogacara belief if I remember correctly. But, as to the clarifed question you just posted-I would want to punt that to Vajradhara as I'm not that much of a buddhist scholar Have a good one, Earl

 

[earl]

Here I'm referring to Nagarjuna's two truths, conventional and ultimate, which as I understand it refer to the same reality under two aspects and which exist as concepts only in mutual relation.

But my question has to do with this idea of a mind continuum which exists somehow eternally and indepedently and how that squares with the fundamental notion of dependent origination as clarified by Nagarjuna, i.e., that nothing exists intrinsically, as independent being. "Mind can only arise from mind" sounds like a metaphysical absolute and again I'm not sure how that fits in the tradition.

Thanks for helping me with this.

Hi again, V-just saw this post &, as I thought I might actually have some of what you're looking for, I piped up again. Being a zen-type I'm not near as into analytical meditations as many of the vajrayanists; I'm drawn more to their dohas-spontaneous vajra verses of enlightenment. Their detailed analysis strains my brain Good way for me to truly discover "Don't Know Mind!" But, I pulled some stuff out of 1 of my books, "The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra" by HHDL that I thought applied. Use it or let it slide right out of your mind.

"In short,always cultivate your realization by not apprehending things, such as your mind and so forth (to exist in the manner in which) your mind gives rise to an apprearance of them. Do this by keeping firm to their actual mode of existence. No matter what apprehending mind and apprehended object our mind produces an occurence or appearance of, including mind itself, we do not apprehend them to exist in the manner in which they appear to exist. Their actual mode of existence is that they are devoid of existing as truly and inherently findable...When you cognize like this you see the nature of all phenomena of samsara and nirvana as being uniformally the same."

Further on..."Just by looking at the term, 'dependent arising' we can explain the entire manner of existence of conventional phenomenon. 'Dependent' means that something depends or relies on factors other than itself. When we say something relies on factor other than itself, because we understand it is severed from any possibility of having a nature of existing under its own power without relying on anything other than itself, the word 'dependent' signifies a devoid nature and eliminates the extreme of true, inherent existence. 'Arising' also implies that something exists by relying on factors other than itself. Through the power of conditions and circumstances, something has arisen, or is established as existing, or has come to be. This eliminates the extreme that it does not exist at all. Since it eliminates the extreme of total non-existence, the word 'arising' allows us to understand the orderly presentation of the dependently arising manner of the universe. therefore, because simply by virtue of the term 'dependently arising' we can understand fully both levels of truth, there is a manner for eliminating the two extreme, impossible modes of existence simply through understanding the term...As our guiding light, Nagarjuna, has said, 'when you are able to understand the voidness of phenomena and at the same time see cause and effect as being completely reasonable, this is more wonderful than wonderful, more amazing than amazing."

Oh my aching head, Earl

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I find it amazing that anyone can read through all that and retain any sense of spirituality. I find so many examples of this in buddhism, I have had to learn a lot of new, BIG words since converting to Buddhism. I dont think its necessary.

Dont think I could ever practice zen.

I dont understand the phrase "Mind can only arise from mind," it seems very illogical to me. My mental continuum is the constantly changing body of thought and energy that is essentially "me".

 

[earl]

I find it amazing that anyone can read through all that and retain any sense of spirituality. I find so many examples of this in buddhism, I have had to learn a lot of new, BIG words since converting to Buddhism. I dont think its necessary.

Dont think I could ever practice zen.

I dont understand the phrase "Mind can only arise from mind," it seems very illogical to me. My mental continuum is the constantly changing body of thought and energy that is essentially "me".

I don't like too much mental strain either-that's why I do practice zen Also why I didn't like high school biology class-too many terms to memorize. Seriously, though, practice of zen does entail study of sutras & so isn't anti-intellect by any means, Awaiting-the-fifth, like Dogen said, all you really need to study to study Buddhism is to study your-self. In fact, when you get right down to it, that's all we ever really study as even when we think we are studying "the world of reality" we are still studying how we are responding to it which is also studying the self. But, i just came back from a swim & my head feels better. Take care, Earl

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

welcome to the fourm, Vimalakirti, thank you for the post.

from a previous thread on this forum concerning the various philosophical views of Buddhism:

4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents. Chandrakirti expounds upon Nagarjuna.

The Madhyamika view has given rise to two particular schools of thought: Svatantrika and Prasangika, which is the school that i adhere to. According to the Prasangika school, the object of refutation (or negation, gag-cha)* is an extremely subtle object that is ever so slightly more than—a little over and above—what is merely labeled by the mind.

the interested reader is directed here for more information:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=719

 

[Vimalakirti]

Namaste all,

welcome to the fourm, Vimalakirti, thank you for the post.

from a previous thread on this forum concerning the various philosophical views of Buddhism:

4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents. Chandrakirti expounds upon Nagarjuna.

The Madhyamika view has given rise to two particular schools of thought: Svatantrika and Prasangika, which is the school that i adhere to. According to the Prasangika school, the object of refutation (or negation, gag-cha)* is an extremely subtle object that is ever so slightly more than—a little over and above—what is merely labeled by the mind.

the interested reader is directed here for more information:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=719

Thanks for your response. I did go to your other posting for the more complete version. The link you have there strangely enough I've already bookmarked but haven't yet explored.



What you quote from the Dalai Lama is much the same as what he included in his book on the Heart Sutra, and no doubt many other places! I'm still in the dark on the point I mentioned, i.e., for all this talk of what one might call radical interdependence, that there is no inherent existent anywhere (no way, no how!) one suddenly comes up against notions like a more or less eternal, independent "mind continuum", which sounds to me as metaphysical as any Atman, personal God or any other absolute. Let me explain.



I haven't read much in the Tibetan tradition. My main understanding - such as it is - derives from reading the suttas & sutras. My best understanding of Nagarjuna probably derives from Jay L. Garfield's translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika, and from a book by one K. Venkata Ramanan, Nagarjuna's Philosophy, which is a study of the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra attributed to Nagarjuna. My understanding is of course superficial, but I'm not troubled by the soteriological use of emptiness as such.



But what has puzzled me is what I detect as a kind of metaphysical shell game in Buddhism, there perhaps from the beginning. Nibbana, for example, is by the realist school defined as a real, if unconditioned, existent. To a worldling like myself this leaves one of two choices: we've either arrived at some metaphysical absolute (however refined) or nibbana refers to a worldly or psychological state. The classic answer of course is that only advanced meditators can understand truth at this level of subtlety, so case closed. But again, it seems to me that throughout the history of Buddhism the door has always been open for slipping through some metaphysical absolute.

Some years ago a T.R.V. Murti wrote a book called the Central Philosophy of Buddhism in which he basically as far as I could tell treated the tradition as yet another metaphysical absolutism, which used the apophatic method of negative theology to expose that absolute. In our own time, I've noticed a tendency among the more popular writers on Buddhism to smuggle the absolute Self back in as the goal transcending the limits of the interdependent self. This seems to me a reversal of what you find in the suttas, where the interdependent self is if anything celebrated - as in Dhammapada chapter 12, the final words of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, etc. - while the absolute Self is relentlessly deconstructed.


To me it comes down to this: what is left over after the Great Training, whether in meditation or emptiness or any other method? Are we back to a metaphysical absolute really undistinguishable, practically speaking, from any other, theistic or not? Or do we find liberation right here, in this very body, in this interdependent self? Is the difference between a buddha and a worldling a mere thought? Or is there some metaphysical other that we're really straining after? Which is illusion? Either? Both?

 

[earl]

Thanks for your response. I did go to your other posting for the more complete version. The link you have there strangely enough I've already bookmarked but haven't yet explored.



What you quote from the Dalai Lama is much the same as what he included in his book on the Heart Sutra, and no doubt many other places! I'm still in the dark on the point I mentioned, i.e., for all this talk of what one might call radical interdependence, that there is no inherent existent anywhere (no way, no how!) one suddenly comes up against notions like a more or less eternal, independent "mind continuum", which sounds to me as metaphysical as any Atman, personal God or any other absolute. Let me explain.



I haven't read much in the Tibetan tradition. My main understanding - such as it is - derives from reading the suttas & sutras. My best understanding of Nagarjuna probably derives from Jay L. Garfield's translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika, and from a book by one K. Venkata Ramanan, Nagarjuna's Philosophy, which is a study of the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra attributed to Nagarjuna. My understanding is of course superficial, but I'm not troubled by the soteriological use of emptiness as such.



But what has puzzled me is what I detect as a kind of metaphysical shell game in Buddhism, there perhaps from the beginning. Nibbana, for example, is by the realist school defined as a real, if unconditioned, existent. To a worldling like myself this leaves one of two choices: we've either arrived at some metaphysical absolute (however refined) or nibbana refers to a worldly or psychological state. The classic answer of course is that only advanced meditators can understand truth at this level of subtlety, so case closed. But again, it seems to me that throughout the history of Buddhism the door has always been open for slipping through some metaphysical absolute.

Some years ago a T.R.V. Murti wrote a book called the Central Philosophy of Buddhism in which he basically as far as I could tell treated the tradition as yet another metaphysical absolutism, which used the apophatic method of negative theology to expose that absolute. In our own time, I've noticed a tendency among the more popular writers on Buddhism to smuggle the absolute Self back in as the goal transcending the limits of the interdependent self. This seems to me a reversal of what you find in the suttas, where the interdependent self is if anything celebrated - as in Dhammapada chapter 12, the final words of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, etc. - while the absolute Self is relentlessly deconstructed.


To me it comes down to this: what is left over after the Great Training, whether in meditation or emptiness or any other method? Are we back to a metaphysical absolute really undistinguishable, practically speaking, from any other, theistic or not? Or do we find liberation right here, in this very body, in this interdependent self? Is the difference between a buddha and a worldling a mere thought? Or is there some metaphysical other that we're really straining after? Which is illusion? Either? Both?

Absolutely (no pun intended ) wonderful question Vimalakirti! I am nowhere near enough to enlightenment (nor do I ever expect to be) to have any personal experience of the answer. Definitely could not expound with depth and breadth of the written worldly-or perhaps non-worldly- knowledge of various buddhist thinkers on the subject to the degree I would think either of you "V's" could. I think the only real significance of the question, IM(zen-style)O, is strategic. That is, as long as we hold to any "thing," however subtle, we will still be clinging to a "self" and in that respect cannot release into the complete View of no views. I tend to suspect, too, that if/when one reaches that point of realization,however, there will be no questions, no answers, and "no one" to know. Take care, Earl

 

[earl]

Vimilakirti, you may have seen this link I had posted in another subforum here recently as relates to what the Budhha may or may not have taught regarding the existence of "self." I think it applies to this discussion. It is a link to an "Access to Insight" article by a theravadin bhikku, Thanissaro Bhikku, entitled the "Not Self Strategy." This is basically what I meant in my previous post as re the question and approach being "strategic" as much as ontologic. Here's the link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html

Have a good one, Earl

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Vimalakirti,

thank you for the post.



in the Sutta, the Mulapariyaya Sutta, the Budda explains that there is nothing which can be regarded as the "root sequence" of experience, not even Nirvana.

the Sutta, itself, isn't terribly long, so i'll post it here:

Thus I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Ukkattha, in the shade of a royal Sal tree in the Very Blessed Grove. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!"
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena [or: the root sequence of all phenomena]. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, sir," they responded.

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

"He perceives water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind1 ... beings as beings... gods as gods...Pajapati as Pajapati...Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being2 ... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception3 ... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized4 ... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity5 ... the All as the All6 ...

"He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding.7 Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

The Trainee

"A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

The Arahant

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of passion, he is devoid of passion, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of passion, he is devoid of passion, I tell you.

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you.

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.

The Tathagata

"The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

"The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001-tb0.html

But again, it seems to me that throughout the history of Buddhism the door has always been open for slipping through some metaphysical absolute.

bear in mind that when the Buddha taught, the teachings were appropriate for the beings present during the teaching. thus, if you or i are not in the same relative state as a being in the teaching, this teaching is not really for us.

have you had a chance to read about what Nirvana is and what it is not? if you haven't, i would heartily suggest the Mind Like Unbound Fire, which you can read here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/index.html

To me it comes down to this: what is left over after the Great Training, whether in meditation or emptiness or any other method? Are we back to a metaphysical absolute really undistinguishable, practically speaking, from any other, theistic or not? Or do we find liberation right here, in this very body, in this interdependent self? Is the difference between a buddha and a worldling a mere thought? Or is there some metaphysical other that we're really straining after? Which is illusion? Either? Both?

i would suggest that once you have a firm understanding of Shunyata, most of these questions will resolve themselves... at least this as been my experience.

however... let me say this about that... liberation is not something that we attain or find or something like this... to think of it in this manner is to place it outside of your essential nature, which is incorrect. some of this gets back to Buddha Nature and there are some beings that intepet Buddha Nature as something like the Atman. this, i feel, is incorrect when understood through the lens of the Buddhist teachings regarding impermenance and selflessness.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Vimilakirti, you may have seen this link I had posted in another subforum here recently as relates to what the Budhha may or may not have taught regarding the existence of "self." I think it applies to this discussion. It is a link to an "Access to Insight" article by a theravadin bhikku, Thanissaro Bhikku, entitled the "Not Self Strategy." This is basically what I meant in my previous post as re the question and approach being "strategic" as much as ontologic. Here's the link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html

Have a good one, Earl

Cheers. I'll have a look at it. Obviously-not-Vimalakirti.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Namaste Vimalakirti,

thank you for the post.



in the Sutta, the Mulapariyaya Sutta, the Budda explains that there is nothing which can be regarded as the "root sequence" of experience, not even Nirvana.



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001-tb0.html

Cheers. I have read this before, but will take another look.

bear in mind that when the Buddha taught, the teachings were appropriate for the beings present during the teaching. thus, if you or i are not in the same relative state as a being in the teaching, this teaching is not really for us.

have you had a chance to read about what Nirvana is and what it is not? if you haven't, i would heartily suggest the Mind Like Unbound Fire, which you can read here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/index.html

Cheers again. Will check it out.

i would suggest that once you have a firm understanding of Shunyata, most of these questions will resolve themselves... at least this as been my experience.

however... let me say this about that... liberation is not something that we attain or find or something like this... to think of it in this manner is to place it outside of your essential nature, which is incorrect. some of this gets back to Buddha Nature and there are some beings that intepet Buddha Nature as something like the Atman. this, i feel, is incorrect when understood through the lens of the Buddhist teachings regarding impermenance and selflessness.

Agreed. Thanks again for your response. Obviously-not-Vimalakirti.

 

[Vajradhara]

as an aside...


i was reading the Bardo Thodol (Natural Liberation by Understanding the Between) last night and i came across some information that may be very appropos for this thread.

unfortunately, i will have to wait until later this evening or this week to post the information...

i may help answer your query a bit more directly than it has been thus far...