Enlightenment

last SG · 2011-01-11T20:59:02+00:00

Enlightenment is conditional.If enlightenment were not conditional, everyone would be enlightened right now.However the fact is, not everyone is enlightened....

An Eternal Now SG

Sorry for the confusion on the term ‘unconditioned’. The process toward enlightenment would be conditional. When one is enlightened, one has realized the state of the unconditioned, ultimate reality itself, which transcends all conditional, everyday existence.

I do not agree that the unconditioned transcends conditional, everyday existence.

As Thusness puts it: Yes. There is nothing that can arise without necessary supporting conditions and that includes 'nirvana'. No transcendental 'unconditioned' being or 'state' exists by itself and of itself. The 'unconditioned' in Buddhism is the spontaneous perfection of all necessary conditions in the natural state. This is only realized after the direct insights of the 2 fold emptiness. :)

Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it:

Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

...As for Buddhism, the rope stands for interdependent origination (pratityasamutpada) for which it is a good example being itself interdependently arisen from pieces of jute etc., and the snake imputed upon it stands for real existence, which is imposed on the interdependently existing rope appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true mode of existence of Samsara (unlike the snake representing Samsara in Vedanta) and the snake is our ignorance imputing Samsara as really existing instead of experiencing it as interdependently arisen. This interdependence or emptiness is ‘parinami nitya’ i.e. an eternal continuum and this is applicable to all phenomena. Of course, this interdependence is the Conventional Truth whereas nisvabhavata which is synonymous to emptiness is the Ultimate Truth in Madhyamika. Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated. Likewise the mirror reflection analogy is used to show that just like images which have no existence at all appear and disappear on the permanent surface of the mirror so too Samsara which is an illusory reflection on the mirror of Brahma appears on the surface of the Brahma and disappears there. In Buddhism this metaphor is used to show that Samsara is interdependently arisen like the reflection on the mirror. The mirror is only one of the causes and conditions and no more real than the other causes and conditions for the appearance of the reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror is a very poor metaphor for the Brahma, being itself interdependently arisen like the reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for interdependent origination (Skt. pratityasamutpada) and not for some eternal Brahma. The mirror Brahma metaphor is only a forced one. The same can be said of the moon on the pond analogy and the rainbow in the sky analogy...

...First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance...

Aik TC SG

I do not agree that the unconditioned transcends conditional, everyday existence.

Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it:

Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

Realizing of the ‘unconditioned’ ultimate reality here is made in reference to all things in the empirical world itself. Samsara is conditional existence, a conventional truth that cannot be denied. As the Buddha and Nagajuna have so aptly pointed out in your above write-up, ‘Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion’. Realising the unconditional does not imply the separation of Samsara and Nirvana as two and not one. The term ‘unconditioned’ here refer to basically that, it is non-relative, non-comparative, or without relation to anything else, something that is beyond conceptual thoughts.

Your above essay has also clearly stated that all things are dependent originated and have no reality of its own. Of course taken on its own, it is just words and a doctrine trying to point us on to a direction we should take. It is only when we have gone beyond this intellectual concept, and our intuition has taken over, that we will begin to reach a higher plane and realised why ‘form is emptiness and emptiness in no other than form’ - a state of the Unconditioned, which in normal conventional reasoning would said that the whole statement is meaningless.

Amitayus48 SG

The state is omnipresent moment or inherent Tathāgata-garbha, the Blessed one.

Om! Salutation to the Triple Treasure! Salutation to all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas!

geis SG

I do not agree that the unconditioned transcends conditional, everyday existence.

Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it:

Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

thanks for this excerpt.

it is the dualistic self view that makes the wrongly perceived separation between conditioned and unconditioned apparent.

to really come to an understanding, first the view of no-self has to be sustained from the conceptual level all the way until it is realized.

any more pointers do feel free?

Aik TC SG

I do not agree that the unconditioned transcends conditional, everyday existence.

Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it:

Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

My earlier post was placed wrongly which when directly under AEN’s article. Here is the content.

Realizing of the ‘unconditioned’ ultimate reality here is made in reference to all things in the empirical world itself. Samsara is conditional existence, a conventional truth that cannot be denied. As the Buddha and Nagajuna have so aptly pointed out in your above write-up, ‘Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion’. Realising the unconditional does not imply the separation of Samsara and Nirvana as two and not one. The term 'unconditioned’ here refer to basically that, it is non-relative, non-comparative, or without relation to anything else, something that is beyond conceptual thoughts.

geis SG

My earlier post was placed wrongly which when directly under AEN’s article. Here is the content.

Realizing of the ‘unconditioned’ ultimate reality here is made in reference to all things in the empirical world itself. Samsara is conditional existence, a conventional truth that cannot be denied. As the Buddha and Nagajuna have so aptly pointed out in your above write-up, ‘Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion’. Realising the unconditional does not imply the separation of Samsara and Nirvana as two and not one. The term 'unconditioned’ here refer to basically that, it is non-relative, non-comparative, or without relation to anything else, something that is beyond conceptual thoughts.

juz a half cent worth

there is a difference in taking the unconditioned as a plane or a state, rather than intuiting that it is just the nature of all conditioned phenomena.

in the former, there is still a goal of attainment, stemming from the workings of the process of the ego self. there is arising of resistance, for the differentiation of the unconditioned from the conditioned is a mirage.

in the latter, it is intuited that every phenomena is conditionally arisen and this is the nature of all things. intuiting this, sense of self arises, with the aggregates as the conditions, appearing as a mirage of our thoughts, there is yet no resistance as the sense of self is already seen to be anatta in nature.

any experience of being in a higher plane is also supported by conditions, seeing through and staying with this is to touch the unconditioned nature.

let me know if my views are wrong, this ego needs a teacher haha

An Eternal Now SG

AEN ,

Questions 'bout self-inquiry and right view - their connections..

In the case of someone striving hard to awakened/experience to the 'watcher',the 'One Mind' , the view he's having(or must have) at this stage seems *not* to be no-self,on the contrary,he must hold on to the perspective that "consciousness is all there is ". How is it possible the experience(for those haven't got/experience it)of oneness be achieved if one is believing otherwise?It's impossible!

As Thusness said in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html :

' when I spoke to a Buddhist friend, he told me about the doctrine of no-self, about no ‘I’. I rejected such doctrine outright as it is in direct contradiction with what I experienced. I was deeply confused for some time and could not appreciate why Buddha has taught this doctrine and worst still make it a Dharma Seal. '

(In his case,the experience he *already had* was in contradiction with anatta ; my question ,though, concerns those haven't got the experience -)

Am i right to say that at the beginning stage of inquiry,not only the view of no-self not to be hold on to,one must cling hard to the view of Self ?

There is no need to develop a view of self. You simply need to discover what you are. This is a non-conceptual insight into an undeniable fact of Being. You don't need a concept of self or no-self to see that an undeniable fact of existence is present right where you are. Without a thought of 'I am' or 'I am not', what is present and shining?

By asking 'Who am I', you are finding out what the word 'I' refers to even in the absence of concepts and names. It leads to a non-conceptual realization of Presence, Beingness. There will be utter certainty about it. As there is no duality and separation in pure beingness, you will make statements like 'I am That'. This experience will be initially be treated as a purest identity due to the lack of insights into non-dual and emptiness. When non-dual insight arise, one finds non-dual Presence in every manifestation and no longer clings to a formless state of Presence as one's purest identity (all states and experiences are equally IT).

But no need to worry about that part yet, just start with the question 'Who am I?'

Aik TC SG

juz a half cent worth

there is a difference in taking the unconditioned as a plane or a state, rather than intuiting that it is just the nature of all conditioned phenomena.

any experience of being in a higher plane is also supported by conditions, seeing through and staying with this is to touch the unconditioned nature.

let me know if my views are wrong, this ego needs a teacher haha

It is not so much an experience of being on a higher plane. It is a heightened awareness of the true nature of all conditioned phenomena.

The Heart Sutra’s description of conventional truths as no different from ultimate truth, by a process of negation of the conditioned to arrive at the Unconditioned, Emptiness itself, is of course well known to most Buddhists. Negation of a doctrine, in this case, the teaching of the Abhidharmika, does not mean that its teachings are wrong, nor does it beget another set of opposing theory. It is a critical consciousness of the doctrine itself.

Well, I thought you put your views across rather nicely.

Lovushka SG

...First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements

It may sound like a heresy, but I would not put the Buddha and Nagarjuna together on this matter. Well, it is a heresy. I am not sure, that I will be able to defend it now... so, just a remark... unimportant.

What is important is that "like an illusion" is redundant. If you analyse "illusion" you will find a quite sufficient amount of "likes" inside. "Illusion" is a difficult word and should be treated carefully. "Illusion" is enough. Do not be so much afraid of it. It is just an illusion but it is an illusion and not nothing. "Like an illusion" seems to be a fear of emptiness, of reality.

Words are deceitful. In the same article phrases like "the way Samsara itself actually exists" are used and I am not sure that Nagarjuna would be very happy to hear that.

An Eternal Now SG

Words are deceitful. In the same article phrases like "the way Samsara itself actually exists" are used and I am not sure that Nagarjuna would be very happy to hear that.

Basically, all Advaita teachers including Maharshi and Maharaj teach that there is an unchanging Awareness that is the substratum or ground of all things. This is very obviously the case and the Buddhists are not making any vedanta straw man.

This is the eternalist view of Consicousness/Awareness (I'm using these terms synonymously here). Once Anatta is realized, you no longer entertain or believe in any view of an unchanging consciousness/awareness, and it has become impossible for me to hold on to a view of an unchanging consciousness because it is seen through. I am not afraid of eternalism, I simply see it for what it is - an illusion.

The negation of 'neti neti' already implies there is a positive unchanging truth underlying the not-Self. In Buddhism, we do not use 'neti neti'. 'Neti neti' denies thoughts, experiences, phenomena as the eternal truth. In Buddhism, we do not deny thought and phenomena - in fact there is always only phenomena, manifestation, and Truth is exhibited completely in each moment of manifestation. The eternal truth is change.

Manifestation is like an illusion, but not an illusion because manifestation precisely is the undeniable and actual Consciousness/Awareness/Aliveness/Luminosity itself. It is like an illusion because even though self-luminous/aware/alive, it is without an inherent locatable existence. It is like a magician's trick or the mirage off the horizon - vividly present, and yet ungraspable.

There is change, but no changing thing (as thoroughgoing change breaks down the view of solidity and entities). The notion that you need an unchanging background for change is simply a logical deducation, it is not the truth. As Thusness pointed out in Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am":

Thoughts, feelings and perceptions come and go; they are not ‘me’; they are transient in nature. Isn’t it clear that if I am aware of these passing thoughts, feelings and perceptions, then it proves some entity is immutable and unchanging? This is a logical conclusion rather than experiential truth. The formless reality seems real and unchanging because of propensities (conditioning) and the power to recall a previous experience. (See The Spell of Karmic Propensities)

There is also another experience, this experience does not discard or disown the transients -- forms, thoughts, feelings and perceptions. It is the experience that thought thinks and sound hears. Thought knows not because there is a separate knower but because it is that which is known. It knows because it's it. It gives rise to the insight that isness never exists in an undifferentiated state but as transient manifestation; each moment of manifestation is an entirely new reality, complete in its own.

Each moment of arising is a fresh arising with no 'coming from' nor 'going to' - yet no arising stays for even a moment. Vanishes without a trace like drawing pictures on the pond, or like the strike of a lightning.

Lastly, in Dzogchen, nothing is established. Check this out:

Anyway I'm curious... how did you find this forum and my e-book?

Lovushka SG

Thank you for answering. I would appreciate if you could answer some following questions. I need it to decide what to do next. Can you, please, be honest. Some questions need just "yes" or "no" reply. I won't tell anybody, I promise.

1. On “unchanging Awareness that is the substratum or ground of all things” and “'neti neti' already implies there is a positive unchanging truth” in Advaita Vedanta

Have you ever read “I Am That” by Maharaj? I mean the book itself, at least first 10 pages, and not just interpretations by others?

2. On “The notion that you need an unchanging background for change is simply a logical deduction, it is not the truth”.

Have you ever read Mulamadhyamakakarika? If yes, then which translation?

3. I will not argue on Dzogchen, I am not an expert. I have read an article, where Dzogchen was compared with Madhyamika by a Dzogchen master. He (the master) will not agree with you, but that is too much for me. BTW, I was talking about “affirmation” and not “establishing”. Not the same for me, but again I am miles away from Dzogchen. Sorry for bringing it here.

4. On “Enlightenment is conditional”.

It is conditional in divided mind.

What do you mean by conditional? Having causes? Arising from causes? But nothing arises from causes (as was pointed out by Nagarjuna and a good common sense). If “conditional” does not mean “caused”, “arising from causes”, then what do you mean by “conditional”?

5. “Anyway I'm curious... how did you find this forum and my e-book?”

Aha!!

I am Russian and work for KGB.

It's a joke.

I am Russian and do not work for KGB.

I will be as honest as you in your answers. I’ve set up a Google Alert on “Madhyamika Buddhism”.

So it is KGB, G for Google, B for Buddhism, K …. might be for Kremlin or for kisses, I am neti-neti sure.

An Eternal Now SG

1. On “unchanging Awareness that is the substratum or ground of all things” and “'neti neti' already implies there is a positive unchanging truth” in Advaita Vedanta

Have you ever read “I Am That” by Maharaj? I mean the book itself, at least first 10 pages, and not just interpretations by others?

2. On “The notion that you need an unchanging background for change is simply a logical deduction, it is not the truth”.

Have you ever read Mulamadhyamakakarika? If yes, then which translation?

4. On “Enlightenment is conditional”.

It is conditional in divided mind.

5. “Anyway I'm curious... how did you find this forum and my e-book?”

Aha!!

I am Russian and work for KGB.

It's a joke.

I am Russian and do not work for KGB.

I will be as honest as you in your answers. I’ve set up a Google Alert on “Madhyamika Buddhism”.

So it is KGB, G for Google, B for Buddhism, K …. might be for Kremlin or for kisses, I am neti-neti sure.

1. I have read at least half of I Am That. I have that book on my bookshelf.

2. I have read a few texts by Nagarjuna, but maybe not the one you mentioned.

3. It's ok. I can highly recommend Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's books to you if you are interested in Dzogchen.

4. Nagarjuna is not denying causes and conditions nor appearance, but rejecting the notion that things come from somewhere. Because everything arises dependently, there is nothing that arises from a cause or a source. To see that something has an origin or cause is to see things with inherent existence.

Let's say... a sound of bell ringing being heard.

Does the sound originate from the ear? Does it originate from the bell? No! Actually... it is much more complex than that.

The sound of bell ringing being perceived actually has various supporting conditions... the stick, the bell, the vibration of the air, the ears, the hand hitting the stick, and so on. These supporting conditions all come together and in that instantaneous moment a completely new phenomenon/arising of sound-consciousness appears. It is not the case that an existing thing called 'sound' came from a location or source or cause to you - that is to see things as having inherent existence, birth, death, location, etc, i.e. failing to see the dependently originated and empty nature of appearance.

Does sound-consciousness have an origin? It cannot be said to have a source, cause, agent, or origin. It does not come from the ears, it does not come from the air, the stick, the bell, and so on. It does not come from somewhere, it does not abide somewhere, and it does not go somewhere. 'It' (the appearance) is entirely dependently arisen and hence without core and essence!

So, it is with the combination of these various supporting conditions, a new and complete phenomenon arises. This is thus called Interdependent Origination.

Relatively, everything is conditional - i.e. arisen dependently on conditions and factors, and ultimately speaking because everything arises dependently, they are empty, unborn, uncreated - they are without an inherent, independent, and locatable essence or core. Thus, he is pointing out that what dependently originates, is empty, and as such is unconditioned. The appearance and the causes and conditions are all empty (dependently originated, without inherent existence). As Archaya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche puts it in his article Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta, Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty; its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahma but an unconditioned truth i.e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated.

Nagarjuna:

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.

5. Cool! I think I need to look more closely into Nagarjuna's stuff...

Lovushka SG

Thank you!

Bye and good luck!!!

An Eternal Now SG

By the way also wanted to add... there is impermanence, but there is no movement. Something I wrote quite recently:

...Every moment the universe stands still. Complete. Whole. Yet not permanent. It is impermanence without movement. It is a process without the continuity of an entity. Past, present and future do not apply to This. Ever just this one thought, this one sound, this one sight, this one breathe. Certain and undeniable. Non-arising and non-ceasing.

There is no ‘non-arising and non-ceasing Awareness reflecting the comings and goings of arising and ceasing phenomena’, there is just This, non-arising, non-ceasing, transient phenomena.

There are no two moments... and yet there is also no one unchanging moment, which would imply an unchanging 'awareness' behind all phenomena (this is seen through)...

« Previous Page