GG wrote:
    Soh, I also like Bodhidarma . Coincidentally I was reading him and I separated these two passages that somehow sounded strange to me. I am curious about how this is written in Chines. Both passages, indeed, reminds one of Advaita based ideas. From the Wake-Up Sermon:
    Here Bodhidarma is quoting (not criticizing): "And the Nirvana Sutra says, "All mortals have the buddha-nature. But it’s covered by darkness from which they can’t escape.Our buddha-nature is awareness: to be aware and to make others aware. To realize awareness is liberation," Everything good has awareness for its root. And from this root of awareness grow the tree of all virtues and the fruit of nirvana. Beholding the mind like this is understanding"
    "Worship means reverence and humility it means revering your real self and humbling delusions."
    • Soh Wei Yu 又《涅槃经》云:“一切众生悉有佛性,无明覆故,不得解脱。”佛性者,即觉性也。但自觉觉他,觉知明了,则名解脱。故知一切诸善,以觉为根;因其觉根,遂能显现诸功德树。涅槃之果德,因此而成。如是观心,可名为了。

      And The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "All sentient beings have buddha-nature, but due to being obscured by ignorance, they are unable to be liberated." What is termed Buddha-nature is the nature of awakening/awareness. Simply to be self-awakened and awaken others, to clearly comprehend awake-knowing, is named liberation. One should know that all virtues have awareness/awakeness as its root; from this root of awakening/awareness, thereupon it is able to manifest various trees of merits. The merit of nirvana is thus accomplished. By contemplating mind as such is understanding/knowing

      (My comments: It should be noted that the 'awareness' here is actually more like the sanskrit term 'vidya' or the Tibetan term 'rigpa', which means more precisely - the knowledge of one's nature, although often incorrectly or inadequately translated as 'awareness'. Rather than simply the plain clarity aspect of our nature, the full understanding of our nature, the full maturation and ripening of vidya/awakening/rigpa includes the understanding of the *empty* and lucid nature of mind. Thus translating this as 'awareness' is a rather misleading way of translation that lends it towards Advaitic misinterpretations, and a better term would be 'knowledge' or 'awakeness' or something of that manner)


      礼 (courteous) is respect, 拜 is to submit/surrender (礼拜 is usually meant bow in veneration). What is known as respecting true nature, giving up/submitting/surrendering ignorance, is called "bowing in veneration".
  • Soh Wei Yu The term real self (真我) does not occur in Bodhidharma's text

    Also, months ago:
    • Soh Wei Yu Geovani Geo: I am unable to find these quotes in any books:

      "(...) the empty expanse of the ground of all phenomena"

      "As the final stage of the gradual way, the practitioner unites with the Way by seeing the emptiness of Self and all phenomena and by recognizing the empty expanse of the ground of all phenomena."

      Seems to be from Wayofbodhi site. Can you provide the book reference and which quote you are referring to?
    • Geovani Geo Soh, I cant find the source from where I copied that quote either(???)

      But I found this one:

      "A Tathagata’s forms are endless. And so is his awareness." The endless variety of forms is due to the mind. Its ability to distinguish things, whatever their movement or state, is the mind’s awareness. But the mind has no form and its awareness no limit. Hence it’s said, "A Tathagata’s forms are endless. And so is his awareness." A material body of the four elements" is trouble. A material body is subject to birth and death. But the real body exists without existing, because a Tathagata’s real body never changes. (Bloodstream Sermon - translated by red pine)

      "(...)because a Tathagata’s real body never changes"
    • Soh Wei Yu 故云如来色无尽,智慧亦复然。色无尽是自心,心识善能分别一切,乃至施为运用,皆是智慧。心无形相,智慧亦无尽。故云如来色无尽,智慧亦复然。四大色身,即是烦恼,色身即有生灭,法身常住无所住,如来法身常不变异故。

      Most English translations are not precise.

      Here's my translation, as precise and word-for-word as possible:

      "The sutras say, Tathagata's forms are limitless, wisdom is likewise. The limitless forms are one's mind, mind-consciousness is able to distinguish everything, and even actions and functions are all wisdom. Mind is without form, wisdom is limitless, [and hence] the sutras say that that Tathagata's forms are limitless, wisdom is likewise. The form-body of the four great elements are suffering, form-body has birth and death, dharma-body [dharmakaya] eternally abides without abiding anywhere, as the Tathagata's dharmakaya never alters."

      It is misleading to translate dharmakaya (the body of phenomena) as 'real body'. For in truth dharmakaya refers to the nature of phenomena, empty and having never arisen. The nature of phenomena being non-arisen, how can there be abiding, change, and cessation? In direct taste it's just lucid appearance, but nothing there, nothing undergoing birth, abiding/change nor cessation, all phenomena are complete quiescence and illusory yet simultaneously a vivid brilliant luminosity. But the word 'real' often connotes something like substantial reality, so it is misleading. I do not like translations that change words at the whims and fancies of the translator.

      Even to speak of the nature of phenomena is also conventional. Dharmakaya is also unreal (the emptiness aspect), the sambhogakaya is also unreal (the luminous clarity aspect), the nirmanakaya is also unreal (the energetic manifestation aspect), and the three bodies are inseparable or three aspects of our experiential 'reality'.

      Thusness wrote in 2013:

      John Tan Haha Jackson, u never give up.

      This heart is the "space" of where, the "time" of when and the "I" of who.

      In hearing, it's that "sound".

      In seeing, it's that "scenery".

      In thinking, it is that "eureka"!

      In snapping a finger, it is seizing the whole entire moment of that instantaneous "snapping".

      Just marvelous such as it is on the fly.

      So no "it" but thoroughly empty.

      To u this "heart" is most real, to dzogchen it is illusory. Though illusory, it is fully vivid and brilliance. Since it is illusory, it nvr really truly arise. There is genuine "treasure" in the illusory.

      I think Kyle has a lot points to share. Do unblock him.

      Nice chat And happy journey jax!

      December 12, 2013 at 8:24am · Unlike · 10


      Also Thusness wrote way back:

      John Tan Hi Kyle, Actually I am saying instead of attempting to deconstruct endlessly, why not resolved that that pure experience itself is empty and non-arising. In hearing, there is only sound. This clear clean and pure sound, treat and see it as the X (treat and see it like an imputation/conventional designation as u explained), empty and non-arising. In seeing, just scenery, just this clear clean and lurid scenery. Where is this scenery? Inside, outside, other’s mind or our mind? Unfindable but nonetheless appears vibrantly. This arising thought, this dancing sensation, this passing scent, all share the same taste. All experiences are like that -- like mirages and rainbows, illusory and non-arising, they are free from the 4 extremes. Resolved that all experiences are non-arising then pure sensory experiences and conventional constructs will be of equal taste. Realize this to be the nature of experience and illusory appearances will taste magic and vajra (indestructible)! Groundless and naturally releasing! Just my 2 cents of blah blah blah in new year. Happy New Year Kyle. 2 minutes ago • Unlike • 1 February 6 at 1:50am · Edited · Like"
[1:59 PM, 12/6/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Kyle Dixon in Nonsectarian Dzogchen Atiyoga & Mahamudra:
"The real difference is that in Dzogchen, appearances are 'non-existent clear appearances' [med par gsal snang].

Not mind because they are ultimately unfindable, and then distinct on the level of convention."
[5:44 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: Meaning?
[7:15 PM, 12/6/2019] Soh Wei Yu: To dzogchen, mind and appearance are ultimately unfindable, but distinct conventionally
[7:15 PM, 12/6/2019] Soh Wei Yu: Therefore they are not same in dzogchen
[7:55 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: That is correct and accurate
[7:57 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: Actually when we say appearance is mind, it is an experiential taste.  Conventionally it should treated as distinct and DO [dependently originating].
[7:58 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: However even saying they r different is incorrect.
[7:59 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: Language cannot define this relationship appropriately ...
[7:59 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: Therefore 2 truth
[8:00 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: Also it is true to talk abt emptiness
[8:00 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: Appear and not-found
[8:01 PM, 12/6/2019] John Tan: Rather than to talk about it as if we r talking about One Mind.
Someone asked me if Toni Packer described Maha.

I said,

"This is maha

Toni Packer, The Wonder of Presence:

“When I talk about listening, I don’t mean just listening with the ear. Listening here includes the totality of perception—all senses open and alive, and still much more than that. The eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are receptive, open, not controlled. A Zen saying describes it as “hearing with one’s eyes and seeing with one’s ears.” It refers to this wholeness of perception. The wholeness of being!
Another Zen saying demands: “Hear the bell before it rings!” Ah, it doesn’t make any sense rationally, does it? But there is a moment when that bell is ringing before you know it! You may never know it! Your entire being is ringing! There’s no division in that—everything is ringing.”"

Excerpt from Finding a New Way to Listen