by Ven. Jinmyo Renge osho

Dainen-ji, June 10th, 2006

Golden leaf
Not long ago it was spring and now it is becoming summer. From spreading roots, shoots and stems have appeared and now countless buds burst forth and blossom and then fall to the ground. In the monastery garden, the ferns have unfolded and now tower above spreading moss. Skunks and squirrels and hundreds of finches have come to drink from the stream along with a mother racoon and her young who also stopped by the front porch to investigate the Buddha rupa and offering bowl. And the Engleman ivy creeps up the building with small fingers that attach themselves to the brickwork.
Not long ago, it was night and now its morning. Not long ago, we began this Dharma Assembly and not too long from now, it will already be over. Not too long from now, someone will be listening to the recording of this Dharma Talk and I will have been dead for years. It all happens so quickly. This happening, this activity, this exertion of the reality of impermanence is all that is ever going on. Our practice is the practice of opening to this reality and realizing it as part of our own natures.
Virya, or exertion, is one of the six Paramitas. The Paramitas describe aspects of being Awake to Reality that unfold through the process of practice. You have to start off with some initial element of, say, generosity, exertion, and so forth, but they unfold dynamically as you actually practice. In the Mahayana schema there are six Paramitas:
Dana Paramita: generosity
Sila Paramita: Integrity or discipline
Ksanti Paramita: Patience or flexibility
Virya Paramita: Exertion
Dhyana Paramita: Zazen or practice
Prajna Paramita: Radical insight or perfectly knowing emptiness
Of these six, exertion is the most important Paramita because without exertion, nothing is going to happen. We will just sit around instead of actually sitting and doing the practice of realization.
There are many ways of understanding what virya is, such as "the sustained effort to overcome laziness"; vitality; enthusiasm; prowess and potency. But none of these understandings are adequate to what we need to understand through and within our practice.
In the book, "The Pathless Path", Zen Master Anzan Hoshin says about virya:
…Exertion may well be the most crucial of the Paramitas that we must develop. Without it, our practice can only be based on images and ideas, expectations and concepts. Exertion is like the fine steel of a sword blade. Without a strong blade, it does not matter how sharp or well-honed the edge is, because the blade will snap off at the handle as soon as it is drawn. In fact, without exertion, the blade will just stay in the scabbard.
To truly sever the confusion and duality of the usual mind with Manjusri's sword of Dhyana and Prajna we must be able to exert THIS fully, holding nothing back. If we do not sever the duality and strategies of the usual mind, then the seamless unity of the whole moment will never be lived.
In order to practice beyond strategy we must first see our strategies, not to follow them but to open beyond them. And so it is of utmost importance to stay with the instructions we have been given and refrain from making up and following our own version of the practice. Not propagating means not propagating any thoughts, feelings, theories and concepts about anything and this of course applies to our practice as much as it does any other topic that might come up while one is sitting. Thinking about practicing is not practicing. If you have not been specifically told to do something in your practice, then don't do it. Ask about it if something has caught your attention and you think it worth discussing, but don't experiment.
There are ten thousand strategies that we may attempt to apply to our practice, but in the end they all fall apart. For instance, hunkering down around the breath instead of using the breath as a touchstone from which to open to the whole of experiencing will just lead to more and more discursiveness. Students will also sometimes "watch" themselves practicing, as though following themselves around. If you follow yourself around, you will inevitably get in your own way. Continuously "assessing" one's "progress" is another pitfall that frequently comes up. Letting yourself passively drift into storylines and justifying this by occasionally checking to see if you are still breathing or if the wall is still there and then going straight back into the storyline is not exerting yourself in your practice. Over and over again I see students allowing themselves to fall into the same cesspools of confusion and torpor again and again. Don't just muck about in that stuff. Don't put your face in it. STAND UP from it. How do you do that? Sit up straight, Shut up. Practice.
The Roshi continues,
Exertion must be clean, it must be free of strategies and romantic notions about enlightenment and Buddhahood. There is no use gritting your teeth and locking your legs in full lotus and trying to pull yourself out of samsara and into nirvana.
There is simply nowhere else that you can be than right here, in this moment. Exertion does not imply some kind of spiritual gymnastics or punching out self-image.
Exertion is surrendering completely into attentiveness again and again. Exertion is being utterly straightforward with whatever arises. Exertion is doing whatever needs to be done, and doing so as completely as possible: taking a complete step, a complete breath, touching completely, hearing completely. This is complete and wholehearted practice.
Without this kind of exertion all of this would just be talk. We could say, "Oh yeah, everything is Buddha Nature inhering within itself. Don't struggle, just wake up." And we could go through the motions, sit on the zafu and stare at the wall for the prescribed number of minutes and bide our time. But what is time? Who is this?
Zen is "the direct transmission outside words and letters, pointing directly to the mind," pointing directly to the moment, directly to just this.
The wall exerts itself completely and directly as the wall. No doubts about it, nothing held back, nothing pushed forward. No matter whether you call it a wall or not, the wall exerts itself completely as what it is. This exertion is what the wall is.
Complete exertion is our practice, it is what practice is. Cutting through blame and fame, hope and fear, here we are. Breathing in, breathing out.
Without calling it samsara or nirvana, good or bad, self or other, let us exert ourselves completely in just this. If you are walking, walk; if you are talking, talk; if you are listening, listen. In complete exertion, in whole-hearted practice, the Buddha Dharma begins to exert itself. If we exert ourselves completely as this breath, then this breath will begin to exert itself. Seeing has its own intelligence, hearing has its own intelligence; you are redundant. All struggle drops away and we discover that we don't even have to try to know anything.
Everything is self-known without a knower, without a known. Limitless Knowingness begins to dawn and continues to blaze as the mandala in which enlightenment is continuously born.
This occurs nowhere else and in no other time than just this. So let us exert ourselves completely, practice completely, realize the Way completely.
Moment after moment, the world opened by practice extends in the Ten Directions, exerting itself as sun and rain and wind. It exerts itself as the pain in your knee and the pleasure of cool water on your face on a hot summer day. It exerts itself as the creaking of the floorboards on which you walk in kinhin. It exerts itself as the empty toilet roll that needs changing, the printer that won't print, the bill that can't be paid, and exerts itself as your job, your family and your friends. It exerts itself right now and in each moment as everything you experience. The world presents itself as rich, playful, ever-changing details.
You are not separate from the exertion of the world and the possibility of your Waking Up exists only because of the possibility of your exertion. Unless you exert yourself, you're not really sitting, you are just sitting around. But if you're pushing and pulling you're not sitting either. You are doing some weird meditation trip.
When we are really practicing, we are not making anything happen. We do not make the sensations happen or the colours and forms and sounds happen. They are already present. All that we need to do is let attention fall open to what is already the case. Sensations and colours and forms and sounds already exert themselves. When you release yourself into this exertion, you release yourself into that which exerts itself as you and exerts itself as the world.
In the teisho series, "Wild Time: Commentaries on Dogen zenji's "Uji: Being Time", the Roshi says,
Everything arises here and now.
It is not that this arising is a matter of here plus now.
Here is now.
Now is here.
It is not a matter of time plus place equals our experience.
It is now equals here equals is.
This is the exertion that you must release yourself into in order to realize who you are.
Without the exertion of you releasing yourself, nothing is realized, nothing is real.
All that you have are stories,
descriptions,
presumptions,
and
fixations.
By releasing yourself into That which unfolds itself as everything,
which arises everywhere as everything, right now,
you realize this arising.
You are the realization of this arising.
Without the exertion that needs no one to do it,
that is done by no one at all
but is simply exertion exerting itself,
Nothing would arise.
We are open to the exertion of this moment only when we do not hold ourselves back or get in our own way by following tendencies and habits. Actually recognizing that a pattern is a pattern, that a tendency is a tendency, can be difficult. We have used patterns and tendencies to define ourselves and can sometimes find it impossible to believe that we can be any other way. But as Roshi says, "We are really only ourselves as we really are when we are open to reality as it is." And we can do this so easily. All that we need to do is actually sit when we sit. Just sitting around just won't do it. Just sitting back and hoping it will all work out won't do it.
Open to this breath. Now. Now. I mean it. Now. I really really mean it. Please? It's not just for your own good. There is no good that you can do without doing this. Look at this world. Read the newspapers. Or just actually listen to the nasty stuff you tell yourself about yourself. And about other people. It's terrible. The problem is that every body else is saying these terrible things to themselves about themselves and every one else. And they're out there: driving cars, shooting guns, buying shoes, having babies, ruling countries, writing code, playing music, cooking and eating and all of the things that affect every one and every thing else in the world. Someone has to do these things that doesn't have such a grudge about actually doing something clearly and completely and well. So, please, exert yourself. Exert yourself by just stopping. Stop that stuff. Just sit up straight. Now.
I mentioned before how quickly everything goes. Now this Dharma Talk is almost finished. Spring comes and goes, summer comes and goes, autumn comes and goes, winter comes and goes. You and I and all of us come and go. So let go. Let go INTO this coming and going. Exert yourself by not following yourself around and open to the ten directions all around you.
Now I've finished talking. You should stop talking to yourselves too. And so let's all sit.
/r/Buddhism on Reddit -- see comments by Kyle Dixon (Krodha), very clear on the Madhyamaka's perspective of Time

Nagarjuna and Time self.Buddhism
all 20 comments

[–]krodha 14 points  
Nāgārjuna devotes an entire chapter to "time" in his Mulamadhyamakakarika, offering three different arguments against time.
The first:
Three arguments regarding time are presented. The first argument is a reprise of the production argument and relies on the common-sense view that time is split into past, present and future. Nagarjuna argues if the "parts" of time have own-being, the conception of time quickly loses its coherence. If "the past" is considered to produce "the present" and "the future," the latter two parts would be already "in" the past and could therefore not be properly said to have separate being. On the other hand, if the present and the future are separate from the past, then their very unconnectedness leaves them uncaused, independent and without reference to the past. But since the very notions of present and future imply a relation to the past, this is self-contradictory. Therefore, the present and future do not exist. Neither identity with nor difference from the past is sufficient to establish the reality of the present and future. In a similar fashion, the independence of any of the parts of time can be attacked on the basis of their inseparability and necessary reference to each other. The past, for example, can not be independent because it is nonsensical if it does not terminate in the present and future.
The second:
...if time is acknowledged to be continuously fleeting, there are no absolute static components of it that can be experienced (or, perhaps, "grasped" by the mind). If we propose, as the Abhidharmic metaphysicians held, that there can be a "static moment" of time, it would no longer count as time. Time in and of itself can never be grasped.
The third:
The third and final argument shows that time can not be considered to be a self-existing thing that is somehow not dependent on other existing objects. This is because, as Nagarjuna has shown, there are no independent "objects" in the world, nor could time be itself truly independent as long as it remained defined by its relation to such supposed entities. To place the argument in more contemporary terms, time is not a self-existing substratum or arena in which equally independent things endure or independent events occur.
This third argument is the most stand-out. Nāgārjuna essentially says that our perception of time is predicated upon our perception of objects, however since objects cannot actually be found when sought due to their inability to withstand keen scrutiny, time is a misconception and is a figment of delusion.
[–][deleted] 4 points  
This third argument is the most stand-out. Nāgārjuna essentially says that our perception of time is predicated upon our perception of objects, however since objects cannot actually be found when sought due to their inability to withstand keen scrutiny, time is a misconception and is a figment of delusion.
Ah so Nagarjuna was essentially a nominalist regarding universals but went further by claiming that everything is an illusion without denying conventional reality?
So how is "change" accounted in his views if time is a misconception? Is change only viable through experience which itself is a delusion?
[–]krodha 13 points  
Ah so Nagarjuna was essentially a nominalist regarding universals
Buddhism in general denies universals both conventionally and ultimately. Particulars are allowed a conventional status but are negated ultimately.
but went further by claiming that everything is an illusion without denying conventional reality?
Phenomena are illusory according to Buddhism because they appear while lacking a substantial essence, like a mirage or a reflection. From the standpoint of relative truth, which is a species of cognition according to adepts like Candrakīrti, phenomena appear solid and real. However this perception of solidity and substantiality is considered a byproduct of ignorance [avidyā]. Once ignorance is exhausted then the veridical nature of phenomena is known and phenomena appears like an illusion – see the eight examples of illusion which attempt to communicate a perception of ultimate truth.
So how is "change" accounted in his views if time is a misconception? Is change only viable through experience which itself is a delusion?
There are also chapters on change, coming and going, movement etc., in his Mulamadhyamakakarika.
Change likewise only appears to be valid from the standpoint of ignorance which cognizes entities, once that knowledge obscuration is uprooted then one no longer perceives entities and therefore the notion of change is also realized to be a misconception.
Nāgārjuna's deconstruction of coming and going and movement are of course far more elaborate. Many of his arguments in the MMK are being leveled at trends of substantialism that had started appearing in Buddhism during that time. Nāgārjuna believed the buddha's intention was misunderstood and was slowly becoming lost as a result.
[–][deleted] 5 points  
Interesting. Is this also related to the no-self doctrine? The self is an illusion and a byproduct of ignorance manifested from our inability to comprehend our interconnected psychological elements lacking genuine essence and thus, creating an illusory entity? Would that be something close to what dependent origination means in that context? Of course i assume that nirvana is needed for that ignorance to subside.
I guess that makes rebirth somewhat plausible in the sense that the summation of our elements are transferred without an actual identity since our identities are illusion, which is in stark contrast to Pythagorean or Platonic ideas of transmigration of the soul. So children remembering their past lives isn't as implausible as previously thought.
[–]krodha 13 points  
Interesting. Is this also related to the no-self doctrine?
Yes, phenomena ultimately lack a substantial essence [svabhāva] and therefore lack an essential identity, this is the real meaning of selflessness or no-self [anātman].
The self is an illusion and a byproduct of ignorance manifested from our inability to comprehend our interconnected psychological elements lacking genuine essence and thus, creating an illusory entity?
Precisely, although I would say the self merely "appears" as a result of our inability to recognize its genuine nature as insubstantial and illusory. "Appear" being the operative term because if we understand that the perception of identity results from a failure to recognize a lack of essence in phenomena, then it is equally understood that the misconception of identity is a mere appearance and thus nothing is ever truly "created" at any point.
When we perceive identity in persons and phenomena we are only ever relating to our own ignorance, like seeing a rope in a dark room and mistaking it to be a snake. The snake merely "appears" as a result of our failure to recognize the rope, the snake never actually originates or is created at any point in time, and when we recognize the actual nature of the alleged snake, then we see it never originated in the first place.
Would that be something close to what dependent origination means in that context?
Yes this is exactly what dependent origination means. Phenomena only appear to originate in dependence upon our ignorance regarding their actual nature. Nāgārjuna is very clear about this, for example in his Yuktiṣāṣṭikakārikā he states:
When the perfect gnosis sees that things come from ignorance as condition, nothing will be objectified, either in terms of arising or destruction.
And,
Devoid of locus, there is nothing to objectify; rootless, they have no fixed abode; They arise totally from the cause of ignorance, utterly devoid of beginning, middle and end.
This has large scale implications as well, which is why Nāgārjuna sometimes uses the example of the world itself. From the same text:
Since the Buddhas have stated that the world is conditioned by ignorance, why is it not reasonable [to assert] that this world is [a result of] conceptualization? Since it comes to an end when ignorance ceases; why does it not become clear then that it was conjured by ignorance?
The unreality of the world is also mentioned in his Acintyastavaḥ and Lokātītastava, where it is said it manifests due to the imagination, likened to a mirage, or a child that is born, lives and dies in a dream.
This is why many adepts are explicitly clear that dependent origination [pratityasamutpada] is synonymous with a lack of origination [anutpāda], because phenomena that originate in dependence on ignorance as a cause, never actually originate at all. We see many adepts state that they are equivalent, Candrakīrti for example:
The perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created [dependently arisen] is uncreated [non-arisen]."
Or Mañjuśrī:
Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise.
Nāgārjuna, once again:
What originates dependently is unoriginated!
Moving on...
Of course i assume that nirvana is needed for that ignorance to subside.
Yes, nirvana is defined as the total cessation of ignorance, or the total cessation of cause for the arising of samsara.
I guess that makes rebirth somewhat plausible in the sense that the summation of our elements are transferred without an actual identity since our identities are illusion,
Right, essentially all that is reincarnating (or being 'reborn') are causes and conditions, which is the only thing that is ever occurring. Afflicted aggregates beget afflicted aggregates, each serving as simultaneous cause and effect. So there is no individual 'soul' or entity as such that is being reborn... and ironically, the fact that there is no inherent soul or permanent entity is precisely why rebirth is possible.
Causes and conditions proliferate ceaselessly where there is a fertile basis for said proliferation. These factors create the illusion of consistency in conditoned phenomena (phenomena capable of existing and/or not-existing), and the illusion of an enduring entity which was allegedly born, exists in time and will eventually cease. Ultimately, the so-called entity is simply patterns of afflicted propensities, habitual tendencies etc. however over time, these factors become fortified and solidified creating the appearance of an autonomous sentient being. The point of the buddhadharma is to cut through this dense build up of conditioning and ideally dispel it altogether.
Rebirth is the result of unceasing karmic (cause and effect) activity. If ignorance of the unreality of that activity is not uprooted, then said activity simply persists indefinitely. An easy example is the fact that we wake up in the morning with the feeling that we are the same individual who fell asleep the night before, however all that has persisted are aggregates that appropriate further aggregates, ad infinitum. We as deluded sentient beings do not realize that there is no actual continuity to the appearance of these so-called aggregates, and so that ignorance acts as fuel for further unfolding of the illusion of a substantiated, core, essential identity in persons and phenomena (and the habitual behavior and conditioning predicated upon that ignorance serves as the conditions for the continual arising of said illusion). If these causes and conditions are not resolved then the process simply goes on and on through apparent lifetimes, the entire process being akin to an unreal charade.
Nāgārjuna is also very clear about this, for example from his Pratītyadsamutpādakarika:
Empty (insubstantial and essenceless) dharmas (phenomena) are entirely produced from dharmas strictly empty; dharmas without a self and [not] of a self. Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals, fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes. Although the aggregates are serially connected, the wise are to comprehend nothing has transferred. Someone, having conceived of annihilation, even in extremely subtle existents, he is not wise, and will never see the meaning of "arisen from conditions."
and In his Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana, Nāgārjuna states in reply to a question:
Question: "Nevertheless, who is the lord of all, creating sentient beings, who is their creator?"
Nāgārjuna replies: "All living beings are causes and results."
And in the same text:
Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called "serially joined", not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.
It is a completely agentless process driven by affliction.
which is in stark contrast to Pythagorean or Platonic ideas of transmigration of the soul.
Yes, it is also in contrast to the Hindu definitions of reincarnation that involves a substantial essence.
So children remembering their past lives isn't as implausible as previously thought.
Certainly not implausible, karmic imprints on the mindstream persist.
[–][deleted] 3 points  
Thanks for the clarification, that was a fantastic answer. I will ask more once i encounter something that i have trouble with.
[–]sruffian 3 points  
/u/krodha gave a wonderful answer.
Is this also related to the no-self doctrine?
Madhyamaka holds that objects have no inherent being. The same applies to what we tend to perceive as the self - it does not exist independently of anything. It may appear that way to us, but as we begin to investigate it's nature, we see will see that it has no independent existence. This is, indeed, firmly rooted in the idea of dependent origination.
Other schools will have different interpretations of the 'no-self doctrine' that you allude to. Some see the self falling apart under scrutiny. Madhyamaka sees the self and all other objects as lacking any inherent independent existence under scrutiny.
Of course i assume that nirvana is needed for that ignorance to subside.
Madhyamaka would probably state that seeing the nature of things is necessary to rid oneself of delusion
Finally, while I'm not going to get in on Madhyamaka ideas on the basis for rebirth, you're heading the right direction in moving away from western ideas of transmigration of the soul. Good job getting outside that framework.
There's a great Lam Rim teaching by HHDL where he talks in depth about Madhyamaka and Nagarjuna. Very accessible, and helps set up the context for Nagarjuna's work well. It was published as "From Here to Enlightenment: An Introduction to Tsong-kha-pa's Classic Text The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment"
[–][deleted] 2 points  
There's a great Lam Rim teaching by HHDL where he talks in depth about Madhyamaka and Nagarjuna. Very accessible, and helps set up the context for Nagarjuna's work well. It was published as "From Here to Enlightenment: An Introduction to Tsong-kha-pa's Classic Text The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment"
Excellent. I've been looking forward to obtaining introductory information regarding Tsong-kha-pa's epistemology as well so this could be very useful.
Discussions took place in the Awakening to Reality Discussion Group
 
  • Participant G The world of forms, as I see it, has a basis - the formless. These two are co-dependent. Just like clay is the basis of pots and mugs. But this basis of form can only be beholded because there is that which is the other side of such formless basis. Not the world of forms, which is downstream, but the opposite of any mode of existence, which is upstream of it. Nothing can be said about it because it is far more removed from conceptual thinking then the formless. Nonetheles it is the closest and the one that could not be lacking.
Participant G That is the view of one mind. That is not anatta.

In Anatta, it is realized that there is no 'the formless', there is only manifestation. Even when you shut eyes the sense of Mind as formless awareness is just another manifestation.

Manifestation - colors, sounds, sensations, tastes, touch, thoughts, are self-aware. There is absolutely nothing behind -- not even 'the formless'. No background at all. No awareness besides the seen, heard, cognized.






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G Soh, suppose, just as a play of imagination, that there was absolute void, vacuum, nothingness. Of course this is just a conceptual game, for if there is that that could imagine such scenario then obviously there already is something. Now.... this non-imaginable void suddenly turns into "something". I am calling this "something", anything, as the formless basis of form.






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G The moment you negate such formless basis, you are negating a form, a conceptual "thing". What is the form of being? Of existence?






  • The formless you are describing is just the I AM. It is doubtless, certain, I call it certainty of being in my journal.

    What is however erroneous is the view that it is an unchanging source, substance, substratum of forms. Or that it is a background. Or that it is inherent, unchanging.

    Actually it is just another manifestation, no more different, not any more ultimate or special than a transient self luminous sight, sound, and so on.

    The I AM only seem more grandiose than a transient sight, sound, thought, etc when anatta has not been realised. If anatta is realised, the same luminous taste is found and tasted directly in the entirety of transiency. There is no need to return to some formless. Nor is there some ultimate formless behind. Everything, all forms, fabric and textures are elevated to the same level as the same intensity of Presence is in everything. Plus it is realised how reifying awareness into a background, subject-action-object view of Presence-Awareness is erroneous from the first place. In seeing only the seen, never a seer, that is Presence (and same goes for all senses)

    Then there is not the slightest concern or distinction over form and formless.
  • Very few practitioners and teachers realise anatta even in Buddhism let alone elsewhere, and I mean it. The more I look around the more disappointed I become sometimes 🤣

    Once it is realised they will stop singing songs about an ultimate awareness.
    The closest is Dogen (soto zen) and Mahamudra.

    Mahamudra teaching:

    https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../self...

    Lord Gotsangpa said:

    "In general, the apparent myriad of phenomena is one’s own
    mind. Since phenomena and emptiness have never been
    abiding as two separate entities, there is no need to restrain
    cognizance within."

    Also:

    "When there is an appearance of a form in the field of the eyes,
    that appearance of form itself is one’s mind; the apparent
    form and emptiness are not two. By resting gently right on
    the form without grasping, subject and object become naturally
    liberated. The same applies to sounds, smells, tastes,
    textures, as well as mental occurrences: by resting on the
    occurrence itself, it becomes self-liberated. That is to say,
    instead of meditating on cognizance, by meditating without
    grasping right on the outer objects of the six sense perceptions,
    the six senses arise as meditation and enhancement
    will ensue."

    Self-Liberation by Khamtrul Rinpoche III
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Self-Liberation by Khamtrul Rinpoche III
    Self-Liberation by Khamtrul Rinpoche III
    1
    • Aditya Prasad Why Mahamudra and Soto Zen in particular? How does this differ from the general Mahayana view that emptiness is form and form is emptiness? Or even:

      "The being is the nought and the nought is the being..." -- Azriel of Gerona, Kabbala mystic






  • Aditya Prasad

    The being is the nought is talking about formless presence, I AM

    Mahayana view is about emptiness which is good, it is profound and nothing wrong. But im talking about experiential realization. Many talk about emptiness but end up reifying awareness. It becomes no different from advaita
  • im referring to soto zen’s dogen and some of the old mahamudra texts as being very clear. Whether today’s teachers are clear.. is another matter. Some are and some arent
  • Write a reply...





  • Participant G />

  • Participant G But you seem to have used the term "Presence".






  • Soh Wei Yu The term Presence can be misleading. Some people think Presence is like a Self, but I do not understand it in terms of a Self.

    That quality of Presence, as in I AM, is experienced constantly in everything now. Everything (and I mean the colors, shapes, textures, forms, sensations, sounds, tastes, smells, thought) are the opposite of dull and inert, they are vibrantly alive, dynamic, effervescent, sparkling, pulsating, amazing, marvellous, wondrous, magical, pure, perfect, vivid, brilliant, bright, luminous. All the qualities once relegated to some ultimate Center of Being or some 'Absolute' is now instead fully experienced as purely the relative, as the relativity itself, as the Presencing (a better word than 'Presence' because as Dogen said, Buddha-nature is Impermanence, Presencing is not a static entity but the very unfolding) of the dynamic unfolding of each moment as the 'concrete' textures and forms of each manifestation, ever so 'concrete' and yet empty (of inherency), but fully luminous. Absolutely no background behind.

    I just wrote something to a friend days ago:
  • “yes.. i do have the answer to the meaning of life 🤣 but it is something everyone should discover, it's like everyone is sleeping on a pillow that has a precious diamond which people didn't notice and so they live in poverty and misery. it's not like i have it and you don't

    what i can describe is in my day to day living, as it is seen that there is no 'I' as a seer, feeler, thinker, an agent an 'self' entity residing inside the body somewhere relating to an outside world, my experience is now constantly a state of non-division, there has not been a trace of the sense of self as a separate entity, no sense of separation at all, no sense of being an agent or a self..

    what is experienced in the absence of a 'self' is a very marvellous, wondrous, vivid, alive world that is full of intense vividness, joy, clarity, vitality, and an intelligence that is operating as every spontaneous action (there is no sense of being a doer). there is a perfection and purity pervading everything in all directions... even the fly is marvellous, is beyond beautiful, it is perfection and pure. there is no negative emotions, no getting hung up in hopes and fears, only perfection and purity

    by intensity i mean everything is literally sparkling with brilliance, a vividness, an aliveness, even the trees feel alive, the earth feels alive, and of course every cell of the body feels alive, this aliveness is not in any way bounded by a sense of self and there is no sense of separation with the whole universe. everything literally feels bright, luminous, and wonderful... like the sky is bluer than blue, the sound of raindrops are delightful and vivid, the smells and aromas... all the senses are heightened, intense, vivid. it's like being constantly on a psychedelic drug like ecstasy or LSD except sober and with no negative side-effects or mental impairments. this is not an altered state of consciousness, it is what consciousness is supposed to be experienced, it is what consciousness/the world is in its state of primordial purity. it is like someone who is blind is said to have a more acute sense of hearing as their attention is unhindered by the details of sight... all the five senses and even thoughts are experienced in its naturally heightened luminous intensity when the contracted energy of the illusion of being a 'self' is seen through and dissolved

    this universe being experienced without a 'self' is experienced as centerless (no me at the center looking out at the world outside of myself), and boundless (literally immense, large, so large that it is infinite without boundaries), and there is a constant marvelling at the infinitude of the universe being experienced afresh at every moment in vivid clarity, such that life is never dull or boring, but is experienced and expressed to the fullest intensity and joy at each moment as if each moment is like the first time you are experiencing life, that sort of feeling of amazement at seeing a wonderful scenery for the first time in your life or experiencing something new in your life.. that amazement can become constant.

    there is also not the slightest sense of a distance, for example, when looking at the 'faraway' tree or building, it is as if you are there, as if the tree or the building is closer than your heartbeat and your breath.. literally no distance at all. it is as if you are the whole world rather than merely an onlooker of the whole world, except even that is not quite correct, there is no 'you' yet there is a gapless intimacy with every person, thing and event, closer than close

    the luminous world experienced in no-self and no-separation and in its infinitude is the meaning of life being revealed each moment again.. it is truly living life to the fullest without holding back, it is liberating, it is utmost joy and perfection.

    i have been living like this for 8+ years but this year the enlightened state has deepened immensely. and i am far from the only one experiencing this

    it is possible that after reading this you may suddenly remember having had a glimpse of this before... while watching the sunset, looking at nature, listening to music, dancing to the music... that moment of enjoying something so fully until the sense of self dissolves into the perfection of that moment of experience (of the sunset, the tree, the music, the dance...) and life and the world reveals a vivid wonderful intensity. most people can recall at least having such glimpses before, often spontaneously, but for me it is a constant state after realising and penetrating the illusion of 'self' thoroughly.

    so yeah highly recommended 10/10. life is not meant to be lived in a state of misery

    ...

    I enjoy describing my experience of life/universe that is experienced like a fairy tale like paradise, where the universe, even the trees and birds and sky take on an ambience of being like a wonderland, like you are in heaven. Paradise is not far away for anyone but here and now as this moment in time and place in space.. so life is lived abundantly by living and enjoying the here and now rather than in the clouds of illusion (primarily the mentally projected illusion of being a separate self, alienated, separated, fearful and lonely by being cut off from the actual world) along with “my problems” of the past and future, the obsessive thoughts and anxieties can be ended. Practical thoughts arise when necessary but most of the time there are no thoughts. This is why i recommend “the power of now” by eckhart tolle for a start as it has practical and meditative pointers tho there is more to it”
  • Gensha Shibi once said, “The whole universe throughout all its ten directions is the One Bright Pearl.” You need to clearly recognize the converse, which is that the One Bright Pearl is the whole universe throughout all its ten directions.

    - Zen Master Dogen, https://www.thezensite.com/.../Shobogenzo/058jippo.pdf...

    "Unless the fabric and texture of awareness as 'forms', as 'things' is sufficiently experienced, we might not be talking the same stuff. " - John Tan, 2007, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../early...

    Yes jonls, agree with the example u gave. A good one and propensities and deep conditioning are exchangeable terms.

    There is also another ‘deep conditioning’ called cognitive obscuration in Buddhism. Let’s take awareness for example, when we first experienced the “I AM”, the mind very quickly ascribed all sort of attributes to that experience according to our stored information. This tendency to objectify is also part of deep conditioning.

    It is odorless, formless, colorless, thoughtless and void of any attributes and we unknowingly objectified these attributes into an ‘entity’ and make it an eternal background or an emptiness void. When this is done, it prevents us from experiencing the color, texture, fabric and manifesting nature of awareness. Suddenly thoughts are being grouped into another category and disowned. In actual case, thoughts think and sound hears. The observer has always been the observed. In naked awareness, there is no splitting of attributes and objectification of these attributes into different groups of the same experience. So thoughts are not disowned and “impermanence nature” taken in wholeheartedly in the experience of no-self. ‘Impermanence’ is never what it seems to be, never what that is understood in conceptual thoughts. ‘Impermanence’ is not what the mind has conceptualized it to be. In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so. big grin

    - John Tan, 2007 https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../early...

    (10:45 AM) Thusness: I read about the non-duality of what ken wilber wrote, very good...the description is really good about the mountain closer than the skin.
    (10:45 AM) AEN: yea tat is like wot i experienced too last time.. the description
    (10:45 AM) AEN: lol
    (10:45 AM) AEN: the closer than skin one
    (10:46 AM) Thusness: it is how deep the clarity is and the extent this experience is uninterrupted.
    (10:46 AM) Thusness: yes.
    (10:46 AM) AEN: icic
    (10:46 AM) Thusness: but even then it cannot touch the slightest depth of what one to communicate in terms of 'Emptiness is Form'.
    (10:46 AM) AEN: oic
    (10:46 AM) AEN: how come
    (10:47 AM) Thusness: it is difficult for me to tell u, that sort of description is good but it cannot tell the depth and intensity...i do not know how to describe it too. :)
    (10:48 AM) Thusness: whatever that is said and described by him and steven or by me, is only the surface.
    (10:48 AM) Thusness: what is awareness
    (10:48 AM) Thusness: what is meant by more real than the real.
    (10:48 AM) Thusness: what is the texture and fabric of awareness as form.
    (10:49 AM) Thusness: all these terms and descriptions are meaningless unless one sees the depthlessness of it.

    - 2007
  • “The realization of the Buddhist patriarchs is perfectly realized real form. Real form is all dharmas. All dharmas are forms as they are, natures as they are, body as it is, the mind as it is, the world as it is, clouds and rain as they are, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, as they are; sorrow and joy, movement and stillness, as they are; a staff and a whisk, as they are; a twirling flower and a smiling face, as they are; succession of the Dharma and affirmation, as they are; learning in practice and pursuing the truth, as they are; the constancy of pines and the integrity of bamboos, as they are. Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso[199]”
    2






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G Presence is not some self-standing entity. It is what allows you to refer to anything. Without presence we couldn't be talking here.






  • That still sounds dualistic. Presence is not a container that 'allows' anything. Presence is simply anything and everything.
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G Soh, you are presuming stuff I did not imply. You are prompted to react to certain words trough an agenda. I did not say Presence is a container. Presence is the one taste of anything appearing, not appearing, in any whatsoever way it may be. There is the presence of a fork, the presence of a dog, etc...






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G Now.... perhaps you will bring up something related to "one taste" that is already part of your nomenclature. I dont mean that.






  • Presence is just appearance. The so called formless is really another appearance, another manifestation, not any different from the appearance of a color, a sound.

    A sound is not a sight, but a sound is a manifestation, a appearance. A sight is not a sound, but a sight is a manifestation, an appearance. A sensations is not a sound, but it is manifestation, appearance. The I AM is likewise just another appearance, it is of the Mind door and therefore you say it is not a sight, not a sound. It is formless because it is not visually seen nor auditorily heard (because it is the Mind door, not the visual or auditory sense door) but it is still a manifestation. But it is really just another appearance, a manifestation. You do not say Presence allows appearance, for Presence is just appearances in all its diversities
  • It is always diverse, always differentiated, only the multiplicity being intensely vivid, luminous, pure, but not some 'formless thing taking shape as forms', that is substance view and treating awareness into some pre-differentiated undifferentiated something taking form. That is inherent view, Thusness Stage 4
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G Yes. I dont see how one could say there is Presence apart from something being present - of course.






  • The I AM is no different from a transient luminous thought, a transient luminous sound, a transient luminous sight, etc
  • In fact I AM is what John Tan calls 'non-conceptual Thought'
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G Why are you talking about "I am"? Where did it enter the conversation






  • What you call formless is what I call 'I AM'
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G No way. I would never say that the formless is "I am"






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G In a dream you have dreamed tables and chairs, but the formless basis of the dream is the dreaming.






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G the objects of the dream change, nonetheless its all one dreaming - the basis






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G The above is an analogy.






  • That is precisely the illusion that I have seen through when I realised Anatta in 2010 -- the illusion that there is a dreaming besides the dream. That is precisely the delusion that I have seen through at that moment (I was already in One Mind then). I realised that in seeing, there is no seeing besides the seen, nor a seer. I realised that in hearing, there is no hearing besides sound, never a hearer. The whole subject-action-object structure collapses and Buddha-nature and luminosity is realized to be just transience.

    Your description is still Thusness Stage 4
  • Your idea of Awareness as a basis is based on the notion of inherent existence. There is no such inherently existing basis. Awareness does not exist in and of itself, besides the 10,000 things, the differentiations, the multiplicity
    • Participant P Soh Wei Yu Can there ever be awareness absent of objects or is that just another differentiation as "awareness absent of objects" or in other words "awareness aware of itself as an object"? E.g. the empty notion of weather without any elemental properties. Or does awareness/weather simply becomes an empty imputed label, an idea?

      Is it correct to say both the animate and inanimate are self aware through the process of co-arising. Not in the sense that a rock is a separate self conscious entity, but the rock is self aware through the process of seeing/touching. Prior to sentient beings, is there simply no rock?






  • awareness can be aware of itself, but it is just one manifestation or one face of awareness. There are countless faces of awarenesses but eternalists grasp at one face of awareness. All manifestations are in fact selfaware when nondual and anatta is realised.

    A rock is not self aware in the sense of being to perceive its surrounding environment like we do (plants however do have rudimentary awareness). However the way they manifest in our experience is self luminous.

    Conventionally, before humans, of course there is a rock. The earth is a huge rock that supports the evolution of sentient beings. Or as Alan Watts say, the planet peoples.

    Ultimately, a rock is merely conventionally designated and cannot be found to exist inherently even now, so how can we speak of its inherent existence in the past and future? It is not the case that being aware of a rock establishes its inherent existence. Even as you are seeing it, it is empty, there is no inherently existing rock
  • Write a reply...





  • And you may say when all five senses subsides and concepts cease there is still that Presence (what I call I AM), that is just another manifestation. Not some basis behind everything
  • The very strong tendency to see One Mind as inherent can persist for people who resided in the I AM/One Mind phase for many decades.

    For example, Jackson Peterson is hopelessly stuck there because of his decades of conditioning.

    John Tan was stuck in I AM for maybe 15 years and even after initial insight into no-self got stuck in one mind for some time, it was not easy for him to overcome the tendencies of perceiving inherently. It was easier for me as I was trained in right view from the start, so although there were some struggles it was much more smooth sailing than for others. It is a quantum shift of perception and realization that the inherent way of perceiving Awareness is just a conditioning, a fabricated view of what awareness/reality is, it is not the true face of reality. I estimate around 98% of so called 'enlightened gurus/practitioners' never got past the I AM/One Mind phase. This naturally reinforces the echo chamber of eternal awareness with very few people coming up to say "hey! there's another way of seeing things, your view is flawed"
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G "And you may say when all five senses subsides and concepts cease there is still that Presence (what I call I AM)"

    I did not say that. I said that I can not see how presence can be without a "thing" being present. Also, I did not say there is One Mind. Such Mind is also MInd made.






  • When five senses subside, and concepts subside, there is indeed still Presence-Awareness. It is a sense of just Awareness, Presence, Beingness, Existence, not inert. If you are in a sensory deprivation chamber, and your mind is very quiet, does that mean you become unconscious? No, there is still Mind (or what we call the 'I AM Presence'). So it is not right to deny Mind. But Mind is another manifestation.
    • Participant P Soh Wei Yu Is this same as Clear Light, Cognizant Nature, Knowingness, Rigpa?

      Is Presence-Awareness present in states of unconsciousness e.g. deep sleep, knocked out, tranquilized, sedated.






  • Yes the clarity radiance of rigpa. But i dont use these terms since they pertain to Dzogchen. But all traditions do talk about it. We can use a more neutral term like “luminous presence”. The maturity of rigpa at third stage of thodgal is the realization of emptiness while the initial recognition of rigpa is the recognition of unfabricated clarity.

    Notions that presence awareness remains always unchanged is an eternalist view, i do not hold such views. It is possible to be constantly aware and experience clear light clarity in sleep but this is a straining and dangerous practice.
  • I do not need to hold the notion that awareness is always unchangingly present. Many traditions including some buddhist traditions hold it to be so. Madhyamika allows for gaps of unconsciousness. Gelug explains the clear light to be a stream that is uninterrupted, but not unchanging. Non buddhist teachings like actual freedom say that consciousness is simply a waking state, and after death there is no more consciousness. Buddhism does not accept this as we posit rebirth, and that the stream of consciousness continues to manifest depending on karmic conditions. However there is no need to reify awareness into some unchanging entity or host that transmigrates.

    Look at dogen’s explanation of the inseparability of mind and phenomena, he does not posit some unchanging host transcending phenomena. His views on this matter is similar to mine

    1






  • http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../my-opinion-on...
  • My opinion on Shurangama Sutra
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    My opinion on Shurangama Sutra
    My opinion on Shurangama Sutra
  • Participant P Soh Wei Yu Eternalists would call that Turiya? Whereas there really is no changeless, all aspects are always transient? Waking, Dreaming, Deep Sleep, Clear Light?

    Is rigpa/luminous presence also present in the 8th, 9th jhanas? Or are these transient states of not knowing, similar to deep sleep?
  • Participant P Oops you just answered me, wrote to late.
  • Theravada holds that nirodha samapatti is an unconscious state but there were other old and extinct “hinayana” traditions that held the notion that some form of subtle processes of consciousness is present there
  • Write a reply...





  • As for One Mind, it is something else
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G I have not posited some self standing Awareness either
    1






  • One Mind means Awareness is now realised to be inseparable with everything, everything are mere modulations of the one awareness that remains unchanged while everything is expressing in this vast/limitless field of awareness. Awareness and perceptions are inseparable, yet not equal, since awareness is unchanging while perceptions come and go.

    This is the delusion that I have seen through in October 2010 while contemplating on Bahiya Sutta. The whole framework of subject-action-object finally collapsed and it is realised there is never an 'awareness' or 'seeing' in and of itself besides seen, heard, sensed, cognized.. all self-luminously happening without an agent or a background or even a 'one mind manifesting as...'

    Many people are stuck at one mind. For example, Jackson Peterson is still stuck in One Mind until now after so many years, and so many others





  • Participant G />

  • Participant G "This is the delusion that I have seen through in October 2010 while contemplating on Bahiya Sutta. The whole framework of subject-action-object finally collapsed and it is realized there is never an 'awareness' or 'seeing' in and of itself besides seen, heard, sensed, cognized.. all self-luminously happening without an agent or a background or even a 'one mind manifesting as..."

    Yes. Nonetheless, this does not mean there is not "equanimity". Meaning that there is not one thing more or less meaningful regarding the nature of what is. I think it is such equanimity that is confused as being ground awareness. The mind is unable, at one point, to comprehend that there may be equanimity w/o the need for some ground to compare/relate it with. So, it projects a subtle expanded subject. Although some tend to understand that "all is Awareness", but then that is still "One Mind" perspective, there is still a subsuming into subjectivity.






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G It may be difficult to see the limiting factor of such subjective subsuming into "one modulating" view.
    There is a vast stillness in which time is limitless, dynamic yet still (dogen calls it the aspect of time which does not fall away) and space is boundless

    However it is not a formless and spaceless metaphysical substratum behind phenomena but is the boundless luminous world itself

    The stillness free of any center or identity is both still and silent, equanimous and unpertubable.

    The Buddha said, I dwell in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. (which was born out of his knowledge and confidence in what he has realized)

    There is not however some unchanging basis that is temporarily modulating into temporal forms. Not at all.

    There is just being time, temporality is buddha nature






  • John Tan, 2009:

    I think realization and development will eventually reach the same destination.

    A practitioner that experience the “Self” will initially treat
    1.The “Source as the Light of Everything”.
    then
    2. He/she will eventually move to the experience that the “Light is really the Everything”.

    In the first case, the Light will appear to be still and the transience appears to be moving. Collapsing of space and time will only be experienced when one resides in Self. However if the mind continues to see the 'Light' as separated from the 'Everything' , then realization will appear to be apart from development.

    In the second case when we experience the “Light is really the Everything”, then Everything will be experienced as manifesting yet not moving. This is the experience of wholeness and completeness in an instantaneous moment or Eternity in a moment. When this experience becomes clear in practice, then witness is seen as the transience. Space and time will also collapse when we experience the completeness and wholeness of transience. An instantaneous moment of manifestation that is complete and whole in its own also does not involve movement and change (No changing thing, only change). Practicing being 'bare' in attention yet at the same time noticing the 3 characteristics will eventually bring us to this point.

    However what has a yogi overcome when moving from case 1 to 2 and what exactly is the cause of separation in the first place? I think realizing this cause is of utmost importance for solving the paradox of realization and development.
  • Ted Biringer says:

    While it may be contrary to the suggestions of many that claim to represent Zen or Dogen, true nature, according to the classic Zen records (including Shobogenzo) is ever and always immediately present, particular, and precise. Notions or assertions suggesting that Zen is somehow mysterious, ineffable, or inexpressible are simply off the mark. The only place such terms can be accurately applied in Zen is to definite mysteries, particular unknowns, and specific inexpressible experiences. Indeed, in Zen, the terms definite, particular, and specific accurately characterize all dharmas. Dogen’s refrain, ‘Nothing in the whole universe is concealed’ means exactly what it says; no reality is the least bit obscure or vague. To emphasize this truth, the assertion that ‘real form is all dharmas’ runs like a mantra throughout Shobogenzo, for example:

    “The realization of the Buddhist patriarchs is perfectly realized real form. Real form is all dharmas. All dharmas are forms as they are, natures as they are, body as it is, the mind as it is, the world as it is, clouds and rain as they are, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, as they are; sorrow and joy, movement and stillness, as they are; a staff and a whisk, as they are; a twirling flower and a smiling face, as they are; succession of the Dharma and affirmation, as they are; learning in practice and pursuing the truth, as they are; the constancy of pines and the integrity of bamboos, as they are. Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso[199]”

    In light of Shobogenzo’s (hence Zen’s) vision of existence-time (uji), existence (ontology; being) and time are not-two (nondual); dharmas are not simply existents in time, they are existents of time, and (all) time is in and of existents (i.e. dharmas). In short, dharmas do not exist independent of time, and time does not exist independent of dharmas. On a corollary note, since (all) existence demonstrates the quality of ‘impermanence,’ time too is impermanent. In Zen the nonduality of impermanence and time is treated in terms of ‘ceaseless advance’ or ‘ever passing’ – ‘ceaseless’ and ‘ever’ connoting ‘permanence’ or ‘eternity,’
    ‘advance’ and ‘passing’ indicating ‘impermanence’ or ‘temporal’ (temporary). Accordingly, ‘impermanence’ is ‘permanent’ and ‘change’ is ‘changeless’ – existence-time ever-always (eternally) advances (changes).[92] Dogen’s vision of reality exploits the significance of this to the utmost, unfolding its most profound implications with his notion of ‘the self-obstruction of a single dharma’ or ‘the total exertion of a single dharma’ (ippo gujin). This notion reveals a number of important implications concerning the nature of existence-time; two of which are: Each and all dharmas reveal, disclose, or present the whole universe (the totality of existence-time). Each and all dharmas are inherently infinite and eternal.

    Biringer, Ted. Zen Cosmology: Dogen's Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview (p. 34). ZazensatioN. Kindle Edition.

    1






  • If we are thus trapped in time, how can we escape? The paradoxical nondual solution is to eliminate the dichotomy dialectically by realizing that I am not in time because I am time, which therefore means that I am free from time.
    Much of our difficulty in understanding time is due to the unwise use of spatial metaphors -- in fact, the objectification of time requires such spatial metaphors -- but in this case another spatial metaphor is helpful. We normally understand objects such as cups to be "in" space, which (as explained above in relation to time) implies that in themselves they must have a self-existence distinct from space. However, not much reflection is necessary to realize that the cup itself is irremediably spatial. All its parts must have a certain thickness, and without the various spatial relations among the bottom, sides, and handle, the cup could not be a cup. Perhaps one way to express this is to say that the cup is not "in" space but itself is space: the cup is "what space is doing in that place," so to speak. The same is true for the temporality of the cup. The cup is not an atemporal, self-existing object that just happens to be "in" time, for its being is irremediably temporal. The point of this is to destroy the thought-constructed dualism between things and time. When we wish to express this, we must describe one in terms of the other, by saying either that objects are temporal (in which case they are not "objects" as we usually conceive of them) or, conversely, that time is objects -- that is, that time expresses itself in the manifestations that we call objects. Probably the clearest expression of this way is given by Dōgen: "The time we call spring blossoms directly as an existence called flowers. The flowers, in turn, express the time called spring. This is not existence within time; existence

    p. 19

    The Mahāyāna Deconstruction of Time

    itself is time."[20] This is the meaning of his "being-time" (uji):

    "Being-time" means that time is being; that is, "Time is existence, existence is time." The shape of a Buddha-statue is time.... Every thing, every being in this entire world is time.... Do not think of time as merely flying by; do not only study the fleeting aspect of time. If time is really flying away, there would be a separation between time and ourselves. If you think that time is just a passing phenomenon, you will never understand being-time.[21]

    Time "flies away" when we experience it dualistically, with the sense of a self that is outside and looking at it. Then time becomes something that I have (or do not have), objectified and quantified in a succession of "now-moments" that cannot be held but incessantly fall away. In contrast, the "being-times" that we usually reify into objects cannot be said to occur in time, for they are time. As Nāgārjuna would put it, that things (or rather "thingings") are time means that there is no second, external time that they are "within."
    This brings us to the second prong of the dialectic. To use the interdependence of objects and time to deny only the reality (svabhāva) of objects is incomplete, because their relativity also implies the unreality of time. Just as with the other dualities analyzed earlier in section II, to say that there is only time turns out to be equivalent to saying that there is no time. Having used temporality to deconstruct things, we must reverse the analysis and use the lack of a thing "in" time to negate the objectivity of time also: when there is no "contained," there can be no "container." If there are no nouns, then there can be no temporal predicates because they have no referent. When there are no things which have an existence apart from time, then it makes no sense to speak of" them" as being young or old: "so the young man does not grow old nor does the old man grow old" (Nāgārjuna).[22] Dōgen expressed this in terms of firewood and ashes:

    ... we should not take the view that what is latterly ashes was formerly firewood. What we should understand is that, according to the doctrine of Buddhism, firewood stays at the position of firewood.... There are former and later stages, but these stages are clearly cut.[23]

    Firewood does not become ashes; rather, there is the "being-time" of firewood, then the "being-time" of ashes. But how does such "being-time" free us from time?

    Similarly, when human beings die, they cannot return to life; but in Buddhist teaching we never say life changes into death.... Likewise, death cannot change into life.... Life and death have absolute existence, like the relationship of winter and spring. But do not think of winter changing into spring or spring into summer.[24]

    Because life and death, like spring and summer, are not in time, they are in themselves timeless. If there is nobody who lives and dies, then there is no life and death -- or, alternatively, we may say that there is life-and-death in every moment, with the arising and disappearance of each thought, perception, and act. Perhaps this is what Heraclitus meant when he said that "both life and

    p. 20

    LOY

    death are in both our living and dying."[25] Certainly it is what Dōgen meant when he wrote that we must realize that nirvāṇa is nothing other than life-and-death, for only then can we escape from life and death.

    - Zen master David Loy, and Zen master Dogen http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../the-mahayana...
  • The Mahāyāna Deconstruction of Time
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    The Mahāyāna Deconstruction of Time
    The Mahāyāna Deconstruction of Time
    1
  • I am exploring the implications and ramifications of time, which is germane to the awareness of ‘being’. Through pure contemplation, awareness happens – not that there is an ‘I’ to be aware – awareness happens of itself. There is a realisation akin to that of ‘me’ having not happened yet ... and time seems to have come to a halt. As time stopping is patently absurd, it is worthy of further investigation. Time is an observable fact: the clock measures the hours, the day becomes night, a leaf falling from a tree takes time to reach the ground. Yet, psychologically speaking, does time exist? Many philosophers have said it does not, but I demur. Something does happen with time, subjectively, when this moment lives me – instead of ‘me’ living in the present – but what is it that happens? Is this moment actually timeless as some say that it is?

    Time has no duration when the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute. This moment takes no interval at all to be here now. Thus it appears that it is as if nothing has occurred, for not only is the future not here, but the past does not exist either. If there is no beginning and no end, is there a middle? There are things happening, but nothing has happened or will happen … or so it seems. Only this moment exists. This moment has no term, it takes no time at all to occur … which gives rise to the inaccurate notion that it is timeless. This is an institutionalised delusion, for it stems from the egocentric feeling that ‘I’ am Immortal, that ‘I’ am Eternal.

    Apperception – which is the mind’s perception of itself reveals that this moment is hanging in eternal time … just as this planet is hanging in infinite space. This moment and this place are in the realm of the infinitude of this actual physical universe. This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually here – for the term of my natural life – as this moment is; I am not Eternally Present. It is the universe that is eternal … not me. As one is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate human being, any ‘I’ - always on the look-out for self-aggrandisement – grabs the universe’s eternity for itself. Also, what helps to create the feeling that the present is timeless is that human beings – as an identity – are normally out of this universe’s eternal time. Yet time is as intimate as this body being here now at this moment. It is so intimate that I – as a body only – am not separate from it. Whereas ‘I’, as a human ‘being’, have separated ‘myself’ from eternal time by being an entity. To be an ontological ‘being’ is to mistakenly take this body being here as containing an ‘I’, a psychological or psychic entity. To ‘be’ is to take this moment of being alive personally … as being proof of ‘my’ subjective existence. ‘I’ am an illusion; if ‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ do exist, then ‘I’ am outside of eternal time. ‘I’ am forever complaining that there is ‘not enough hours in the day’, or ‘I am always running out of time’, or ‘I am always catching up with time’, or ‘I am always behind time’. All this activity is considered ‘normal’, as it is the common experience of humankind. (...)

    But I am supremely blasé about the opinion of others, for their ‘truths’ do not work ... they do not live in peace and tranquillity. They do not experience the perpetual purity of this moment of being alive; a purity welling-up in all directions from the vast, immeasurable stillness of the infinitude of this universe. They remain ignorant of the excellence of the absence of ‘being’. In short, their ‘truths’, their philosophies on life, do not work. The criterion of a fact is that it works, it produces results. Because I live here, where the immediate is the ultimate and the relative is the absolute, I have never known sorrow or malice. All my thoughts and deeds are benign, for maleficence does not exist where time has no duration.

    By living the fact that ‘I’ am not actual, evil has ceased to be. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Sixteen

    - Actual Freedom Richard http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/.../selectedw.../sw-time.htm

    There is something precious in living itself. Something beyond compare. Something more valuable than any “King’s ransom”. It is not rare gemstones; it is not singular works of art; it is not the much-prized bags of money; it is not the treasured loving relationships; it is not the highly esteemed Blissful States Of ‘Being’ ... ... it is not any of these things usually considered precious. There is something ultimately precious. It is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe … which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. That something precious is me as-I-am ... me as I actually am as distinct from ‘me’ as ‘I’ really am. I am the universe’s experience of itself. The limpid and lucid perfection and purity of being here now, as-I-am, is akin to the crystalline perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the transparent dew-drop with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with has experienced this impeccable purity and perfection in some way or another at varying stages in their life. Is it not impossible to conceive – and just too difficult to imagine – that this is one’s essential character? One has to be daring enough to live it ... for it is both one’s audacious birth-right and adventurous destiny.

    When one lives the magical perfection of this purity twenty-four-hours-a-day; when one has ceased being ‘I’ and is being genuine, one can see clearly that there is no separation between me and that something which is precious. The purity of life emerges from the perfection that wells up constantly due to an immense stillness which is utterly immense in its scope and magnitude. This stillness of infinitude is that something which is precious. It is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle character, the intrinsic basis of everything. It is this universe at its genesis. It is not, as it might commonly be supposed, at the centre of everything ... there is no centre here. This stillness, which is everywhere all at once, is the be all and end all of life itself. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Twenty-five

    - http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/.../sw-actualfreedom.htm
  • Richard's Selected Writing on Time
    actualfreedom.com.au
    Richard's Selected Writing on Time
    Richard's Selected Writing on Time
  • There is another perspective on time, which is from the perspective of dependent designation and emptiness. But I shall digress
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G I think Richard twist things to accommodate his righteousness.

    "Apperception – which is the mind’s perception of itself reveals that this moment is hanging in eternal time … just as this planet is hanging in infinite space. This moment and this place are in the realm of the infinitude of this actual physical universe. This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually here – for the term of my natural life – as this moment is; I am not Eternally Present. It is the universe that is eternal … not me."

    Time does not exist by itself. Time co-emerges with things. IOW, time is dependent on abiding or moving. There is no time apart from change. Time is just a measure of change. Infinite space, tridimensionality, is an interpretation of mind.






  • You are talking about designation, which is the province of madhyamika.

    However I am pointing out the direct insight of anatta into total exertion. Then there is boundless (and centerless) space and unlimited time, where the ten directions and three times are seamlessly exerted and consumed as one. With no trace of “you” at all there is also no trace of a noumenon, just immense, boundless temporal universe in its radiance, great and without boundary nor a center. It is not some formless absolute but the boundless, marvellous and luminous world of forms, colors, sounds, textures, fabric, smells, and so on with nothing behind or beyond.
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G Unlimited time? Imagine space w/o a single trace of objects, of things. Is there time?






  • By space i do not mean without objects. I mean boundlessness of the universe. Unlimited time is the “eternity in a moment”, it’s like being in the zone of the actual with no sensation of time passing away, plus total exertion of the three times
  •  Participant Y "There is another perspective on time, which is from the perspective of dependent designation and emptiness. But I shall digress"

    Please do keep digressing Soh Wei Yu :)
    1

  • Kyle Dixon wrote in reddit a year ago on the Madhyamaka perspective of time:

    Nāgārjuna devotes an entire chapter to "time" in his Mulamadhyamakakarika, offering three different arguments against time.

    The first:

    Three arguments regarding time are presented. The first argument is a reprise of the production argument and relies on the common-sense view that time is split into past, present and future. Nagarjuna argues if the "parts" of time have own-being, the conception of time quickly loses its coherence. If "the past" is considered to produce "the present" and "the future," the latter two parts would be already "in" the past and could therefore not be properly said to have separate being. On the other hand, if the present and the future are separate from the past, then their very unconnectedness leaves them uncaused, independent and without reference to the past. But since the very notions of present and future imply a relation to the past, this is self-contradictory. Therefore, the present and future do not exist. Neither identity with nor difference from the past is sufficient to establish the reality of the present and future. In a similar fashion, the independence of any of the parts of time can be attacked on the basis of their inseparability and necessary reference to each other. The past, for example, can not be independent because it is nonsensical if it does not terminate in the present and future.

    The second:

    ...if time is acknowledged to be continuously fleeting, there are no absolute static components of it that can be experienced (or, perhaps, "grasped" by the mind). If we propose, as the Abhidharmic metaphysicians held, that there can be a "static moment" of time, it would no longer count as time. Time in and of itself can never be grasped.

    The third:

    The third and final argument shows that time can not be considered to be a self-existing thing that is somehow not dependent on other existing objects. This is because, as Nagarjuna has shown, there are no independent "objects" in the world, nor could time be itself truly independent as long as it remained defined by its relation to such supposed entities. To place the argument in more contemporary terms, time is not a self-existing substratum or arena in which equally independent things endure or independent events occur.

    This third argument is the most stand-out. Nāgārjuna essentially says that our perception of time is predicated upon our perception of objects, however since objects cannot actually be found when sought due to their inability to withstand keen scrutiny, time is a misconception and is a figment of delusion.






  • Source: https://www.reddit.com/.../com.../6xvkdx/nagarjuna_and_time/
  • Nagarjuna and Time
    reddit.com
    Nagarjuna and Time
    Nagarjuna and Time
  • On MMK contemplations:

    [10:52 AM, 7/10/2019] John Tan: U must also understand how does it release the mind from what sort of negative emotions experientially.
    [10:53 AM, 7/10/2019] John Tan: What good it has in understanding this and how it gradually change u ...not like magic suddenly u r freed.
    [10:54 AM, 7/10/2019] John Tan: Anatta and direct insight has that sudden impact however later u will still need to stabilize these insights
  • Write a reply...





  • Participant G />

  • Participant G "Unlimited time is the “eternity in a moment” plus total exertion of the three times"

    Yes. I like to call it "timeless present". Actually it can be named according to preference, but never conceived or even referenced. Or maybe, "timeless presence". You choose... 🤔🙃






  • Write a reply...





  • The timeless presence must be understood as the very impermanence itself, manifesting yet without a sense of time passing by or moving. It is not to be misunderstood as a metaphysical, changeless, atemporal, inherently existing substance/source/substratum/noumenon/etc.
  • The I AM people and the one mind people all talk about timeless presence. Their timeless presence is a metaphysical presence, unchanged by temporality, noumenal and inherently existing substance. That is seen through in anatta, and therefore it is being-time, and boundless and centerless sensate universe
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G And, also, there is no such thing as a self-standing "time". The world, appearances and time are one enchilada.






  • Most importantly, presence is the world/appearance/time, otherwise it is still not anatta. It is the radiant world/appearance/time appearing intimately without separation and boundary and self/Self
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G There is no time w/o things, and there are no things w/o time.






  • Yes
  • • [Richard]: ‘I am speaking of the immediate perception, of this body and that body and every body and of the mountains and the streams and of the trees and the flowers and of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum, without the affective faculty operating ... which reveals actuality in all its purity and perfection. This applies not only to ocular perception but also to cutaneous perception, to gustatory perception, to olfactory perception, to aural perception ... and even to proprioceptive perception, for that matter. There is no mystery where there is such direct perception of actuality as described ... all is laid open, as it already always has been open just here right now all along, because nothing is ever hidden. One walks through the world in wide-eyed wonder simply marvelling at being here doing this business called being alive on this verdant and azure paradise called planet earth. This is what innocence looks like’.
    As immediate, direct perception (sensuous perception) does not involve either the affective faculty or the cognitive function the thinker (‘I’ as ego) and the feeler (‘me’ as soul) do not get a look-in ... hence I call this direct perception ‘apperception’ (perception unmediated by either ‘self’ or ‘Self’). Thus what I am is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... which means that the actuality of the physical can indeed be known, each moment again, day after day.
    I do not know if I can put it more briefly or succinctly than this.
    *
  • Presencing is fully sensate and manifest.. fully engaged without anything hiding behind

    Only the dependent designation and emptiness is missing above
  • Presence is time is things
  • RICHARD: Perhaps the most clarification is to be found in the very first words on the very first page of The Actual Freedom Web Site. Vis.:
    • ‘Actual Freedom ... A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom’.
    For example, the word ‘apperception’, as it is extensively used on The Actual Freedom Web Site, is not synonymous with the word ‘saksin’ which is sometimes translated into English as ‘the watcher’ ... apperception occurs when identity, by whatever name, is temporarily absent – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or permanently extinguished – as in an actual freedom from the human condition – and is best explained as consciousness being aware of being conscious (rather than the normal ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). Vis.:
    • ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’ (Oxford Dictionary).
    Put simply: apperception is direct perception (perception unmediated by any identity whatsoever) which is the same thing as saying direct sensation – be it ocular sensation, cutaneous sensation, gustatory sensation, olfactory sensation, aural sensation or even proprioceptive sensation – because in the PCE, and in an actual freedom, only the sensate world exists in all its splendour and brilliance.
    Thought may or may not be operating as required by the circumstances.
    Second, the word ‘sensuous’ was apparently introduced into the English language to avoid certain associations with the existing word ‘sensual’ – the sensual experience is typically appetitive whereas the sensuous experience is typically aesthetic – but as ‘the enticement of sensation’ (aka hedonism) is totally non-existent in the PCE, and in an actual freedom, the distinction between the two words is only necessary when discussing with a person in whom the instinctual passions are still extant.
    For an actualist it is not ‘odd to speak of sensuousness at all’ – and neither is ‘immediate sensuality’ contradictory – because one is referring to the unmediated sensate experiencing in this actual world (the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum).
    But it probably would be odd and/or contradictory for a person in whom perception is mediated by the ‘saksin’ or the ‘light-of-lights’ and any other similar spiritual entity inside the flesh and blood body.
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G i dont resonate with Richard's writings. For example, I would never say, "there is no mystery where there is such direct perception of actuality as described".






  • Participant G />

  • Participant G I think he is too much full of.......






  • You don't have direct perception of actuality?
  • Direct perception is constant here. Direct, immediate, nondual, gapless, intense, luminous, vivid, alive, etc etc... all descriptions pale in comparison to the 24/7 wonder of being alive in a marvellous and sparkling and boundless and centerless universe
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G But I dont discard the mystery - as Richard does.






  • What mystery?
  • Participant G />

  • Participant G i dont resonate with Richard's writings. For example, I would never say, "there is no mystery where there is such direct perception of actuality as described". As richard said






  • What Richard is saying is that there is no background, no hidden noumenon, no substratum, no self/Self.

    This is no different from Dogen's "nothing in the universe is hidden" or "nothing in the universe is concealed"

    Only when one is operating under the delusion that 'Awareness' or 'Mind' has a hidden substance that one perceives hidden substances and entities. Insight reveals that no such hidden background or entities exist, any more than 'weather' refers to some hidden substance or entity. 'Weather' is really just a label for the rain falling, the sun shining, the wind blowing, the clouds forming, and when we say 'the rain is falling', the 'rain' is none other than the 'falling', 'the wind is blowing' -- wind is none other than blowing, there are no entities, agents, involved at all
  • In seeing there is just scenery, no seer, seeing is just colors. In hearing there is just sounds, no hearer, hearing is just sounds. Just another label for sound. The notion of hidden substances is demonstrably false and erroneous and takes some investigation to see through. Then gapless, direct, immediate perception of actuality will become natural, effortless, ongoing around the clock
  • Zen Master Shinshu Roberts wrote the following,

    “Immediate Present, Ultimate Dharma

    Since our activity is not a progression from delusion to enlightenment made solely by the independent self, Dogen defines the first thought of practice as 'immediate present ultimate Dharma' or genjokoan: the presence and perfection of all dharmas as they are in the here-and-now.'

    Hee-Jin Kim further explains the meaning of genjokoan: 'It does not suggest an evolutionary ascent from hidden-ness to manifestation, or from imperfection to perfection, or conversely, an emanational descent from one to many, or from reality to appearance. Rather, things, events, beings are already unmistakably what they truly are; what is more, they are vibrant, transparent, and bright in their as-they-are-ness.'”
  • Soh Wei Yu Ted Biringer says:

    While it may be contrary to the suggestions of many that claim to represent Zen or Dogen, true nature, according to the classic Zen records (including Shobogenzo) is ever and always immediately present, particular, and precise. Notions or assertions suggesting that Zen is somehow mysterious, ineffable, or inexpressible are simply off the mark. The only place such terms can be accurately applied in Zen is to definite mysteries, particular unknowns, and specific inexpressible experiences. Indeed, in Zen, the terms definite, particular, and specific accurately characterize all dharmas. Dogen’s refrain, ‘Nothing in the whole universe is concealed’ means exactly what it says; no reality is the least bit obscure or vague. To emphasize this truth, the assertion that ‘real form is all dharmas’ runs like a mantra throughout Shobogenzo, for example:

    “The realization of the Buddhist patriarchs is perfectly realized real form. Real form is all dharmas. All dharmas are forms as they are, natures as they are, body as it is, the mind as it is, the world as it is, clouds and rain as they are, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, as they are; sorrow and joy, movement and stillness, as they are; a staff and a whisk, as they are; a twirling flower and a smiling face, as they are; succession of the Dharma and affirmation, as they are; learning in practice and pursuing the truth, as they are; the constancy of pines and the integrity of bamboos, as they are. Shobogenzo, Shoho-Jisso[199]”

    In light of Shobogenzo’s (hence Zen’s) vision of existence-time (uji), existence (ontology; being) and time are not-two (nondual); dharmas are not simply existents in time, they are existents of time, and (all) time is in and of existents (i.e. dharmas). In short, dharmas do not exist independent of time, and time does not exist independent of dharmas. On a corollary note, since (all) existence demonstrates the quality of ‘impermanence,’ time too is impermanent. In Zen the nonduality of impermanence and time is treated in terms of ‘ceaseless advance’ or ‘ever passing’ – ‘ceaseless’ and ‘ever’ connoting ‘permanence’ or ‘eternity,’
    ‘advance’ and ‘passing’ indicating ‘impermanence’ or ‘temporal’ (temporary). Accordingly, ‘impermanence’ is ‘permanent’ and ‘change’ is ‘changeless’ – existence-time ever-always (eternally) advances (changes).[92] Dogen’s vision of reality exploits the significance of this to the utmost, unfolding its most profound implications with his notion of ‘the self-obstruction of a single dharma’ or ‘the total exertion of a single dharma’ (ippo gujin). This notion reveals a number of important implications concerning the nature of existence-time; two of which are: Each and all dharmas reveal, disclose, or present the whole universe (the totality of existence-time). Each and all dharmas are inherently infinite and eternal.

    Biringer, Ted. Zen Cosmology: Dogen's Contribution to the Search for a New Worldview (p. 34). ZazensatioN. Kindle Edition.
  • “In Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen” becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating rice.” - Ted Biringer, https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../zazen... 
    Zazen: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror - Becoming Buddha
    awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
    Zazen: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror - Becoming Buddha
    Zazen: Polishing a Tile to Make a Mirror - Becoming Buddha