Non-duality of Essence and Form

• An Eternal Now

  25 Aug 11, 12:53

  Non-duality of Essence and Form Posted by: An Eternal Now http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=H6A674nlkVEC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21 From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen Question Ten: Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages. "Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?" What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs? Answer 10: You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma. According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy. But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it. I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma. Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not? You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking. Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature. In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views. .................. Chinese translation: �元禅师《办��》-洪文亮�师(日中)翻译 (12/11/2009) 问：有 人说��怕生死，因为有一�很快�以出离生死的方法。这就是说��知�心性常�就对了。此身有生有�，�是心性���。�如知��生��的心性在我们的身 中，就是我们本性，而身体识一个�相，死此生彼�定，心�常�在过去现在未�而��，如能这样了解便永远解脱生死。此生死时，�入性海，入性海自然就有诸 佛如�的妙德，现在虽然已�明白这个��，因为被�世的妄业所�的身体还在，所以还�能和诸圣一样。如果还�知�此�，那就永远会在生死海中头出头没。因 此之故，��你赶快明了心性的常�，何必闲�空过一生，等待空花结果？这样的说法，是诸佛诸祖�船的法�？ 答：现在你所说的完全 �是佛法，是仙尼外�之�。这个外�之�是说，我们身体里有个�知，这个知，�缘就能分别善�是��痛痒苦�。而此�性当此生�时，离此生彼，看�似乎此 �彼生，所以认为常���，这是外�之�。他们以为这是佛法，简直是把瓦砾当金�，这�痴迷真�羞，无以为喻。大�国的慧忠国师深诫这个说法，计著心常相 �的邪�，以为是诸佛的妙法，起生死的本因，而以为能离生死，�愚为何？���伶��知�这是外�的邪�，����事到如今�得已，为了伶悯这些人，救救 此邪�，我��申说一番。 佛法本�说明身心一如�性相�二，�度中国都知�这个��，哪能�背？何况若�说常�，万法都是常�，�分身与心；�说 寂�，诸法都是寂�，还�分心与相�？说身�心常，�是�背正��？��这样，应该�了解生死就是涅盘，��以在生死之外说涅盘。�说，以为心离开身体而 常�，以这样的了解，妄计为解脱生死的佛智，�知�这个了解知觉之心，还�是�生�中而�常��？这个�解便�攻自破。仔细体会身心一如是佛法的�旨，怎 么说此身生�时，唯独此心离深而�生���如有时一如，有时�一如的�，佛所说的自然都是虚妄��信。�认为生死必须�厌离，难�就犯了谤佛之罪，��慎 哉？�知�佛法有心性大总相法门，包括一大法界，�分性相，�说生�，��涅盘也都是心性。一切诸法万象森罗都是一心，这些诸法皆平等一心，毫无差别，这 是佛家所说的心性。�以在一法上分身心，分生死涅盘�？既然我们都是佛的学生，��去�狂人胡言乱语�这些外�之�。
• Amitayus48

  25 Aug 11, 14:32

  My opinion is that both is correct, one is referring to imutable state on realization, while its body (response body) is still perishable in the mundance world. While the latter is referring to three bodies of Buddha (三身) in complete enlightenment, embarking on the meditation of senseless immutable quality of all beings. These are :

  (1) dharmak�ya (the dharma body or truth body), which is emptiness, the true reality of all dharmas;
  (2) sa�bhogak�ya (the reward body or enjoyment body) in a sublime ethereal form, which represents the immeasurable merit of a Buddha; and
  (3) nirm�ṇak�ya (a response body through birth or a miraculously manifested body), which is the manifestation of a Buddha in response to sentient beings that are ready to accept the Dharma. The reward body and the response body are the appearances of the dharma body, and these three bodies are inseparable.

  While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy

  I think it augurs well with the faith of reincarnation & Senika heresy, as it is a happy episode because life is eternity and full of opportunity that their unfinished joyful wishes can be carried forward like accounting, carry forward , on the basis of reincarnation & Senika heresy. - Namo Buddha Amitabha /\

• An Eternal Now

  25 Aug 11, 15:51

  dharmak�ya is not 在生�法外，常���的�性

  dharmak�ya is the empty nature of all phenomena, and there is no phenomena that is not in nature the dharmakaya. This is very different from the externalist notion of an unchanging awareness.

  Therefore, ��翠竹尽是法身,��黄花无�般若

• Amitayus48

  25 Aug 11, 16:04

  那有法身般若，拿��看看。

• An Eternal Now

  25 Aug 11, 16:10

  法身般若��得，但�相�用无穷，空明�二，性相一如

• realization

  25 Aug 11, 20:27

  I see... so there's a name for this misunderstanding.  It's called Senika heresy.

  Thanks for this!

• sinweiy

  25 Aug 11, 20:47

  i overall pick up the stanza:

  应该�了解生死就是涅盘，��以在生死之外说涅盘。

  you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana.

   

  indeed, samsara and nirvana is one not two.

  /\

• Aik TC

  26 Aug 11, 16:06

   

  Question 10 sound more like a theory of the existence of an eternal soul, nowhere near to any Buddhist teaching.

• An Eternal Now

  26 Aug 11, 16:26

  Yes, it is treating the presence and awareness as some eternal self. It is not a Buddhist teaching, but many Buddhists do go through this phase in practice after certain realizations.

• An Eternal Now

  27 Aug 11, 04:31

  36 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 12 The Nonduality of Appearance & Reality in Zen Postby Ted Biringer on Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:28 am This post is a response to the widespread confusion and/or misunderstanding of the Zen Buddhist principles of “nonduality� (as expressed in the teachings on emptiness and interdependence); not only here at this forum (ZFI) but in the contemporary Zen community generally. This confusion/misunderstanding commonly manifests in notions and views that “the way things (dharmas) appear� is somehow “illusory� or “unreal� and that there is a “real� reality “behind�, “underlying�, or “concealed� behind appearances. Or that the “appearance� of things is less real than the “essence� or “nature� of those things. Or that the “form� of things is temporary or provisional, while the “emptiness� of things is their “true� reality. As I hope to help shed some light on the Zen position of this with a very clear passage from Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu, it is worth pointing out a few things about another issue that in which there is also much confusion (especially among those identifying with some form of “Soto� Zen) – that issue is “kensho.� While Dogen did use this term occasionally (in its traditional sense – i.e. “initial awakening�), he did not like the dualistic connotations that had become associated with it, thus he usually uses the term “kenbutsu� to denote this initial opening. “Ken� means “seeing,� meeting,� encountering�, etc. while “sho� is “(true) nature�, “essence�, “enlightenment�, etc. and “butsu� is “Buddha.� Thus, “kensho� is “encountering true nature� while “kenbutsu� is “encountering Buddha.� Therefore by keeping in mind that the translations in the following passage about “encountering Buddha�, “meeting Buddha� , etc. are translations of “kenbutsu� we can get some clear guidance on the true significance of this experience in Zen Buddhism. Notice the ways in which Dogen distinguishes between the “pre-kenbutsu� and the “post-kenbutsu� practitioner (particularly in the distinction between their ability to understand scripture). Also notice his encouraging words to strive to attain “kenbutsu� by deeply inquiring into the “sayings� (koans) of Zen ancestors, such as, “You should thoroughly explore this statement until you encounter Buddha.� Dogen wrote: The Great Meditation Master Hogen of Seiryo-in Monastery once said, “If we see the way things appear as being devoid of form, then we will not see the Tathagata.� Now, this saying by Great Master Hogen expresses his encounter with Buddha. It contains what Hogen personally said and what his encounter with Buddha imparted. To put the matter in the colloquial, it is like Hogen and Shakyamuni Buddha coming head-on in competition and extending Their hands to each other in cooperation. You need to listen with your ears to what Hogen said, and, as to what his encountering Buddha imparted, you need to hear what he is voicing with your Eye. At the same time, those in the past who have explored this underlying principle through their training have said: All the ways in which things appear are appearances of the Tathagata. There is no single way in which the Tathagata appears, nor are the appearances of things and the appearance of the Tathagata ever to be confused with each other. And you should not, even provisionally, take these appearances not to be His appearance. Were you to treat them as not being His appearance, you would be as one deserting his father and running away from home. In other words, what these trainees are habitually saying is, “Because the appearances of things are the appearing of the Tathagata, the way things appear will be just the way things appear.� Truly, this is a profound discourse on the Greater Vehicle; it is what is awakened to in all ten quarters. You should definitely settle the Matter by taking it on faith and then making it your training. And do not be like threads of gossamer blown hither and thither by every breeze. “The way things appear is the way the Tathagata appears: He is not separate from form.� You should thoroughly explore this statement until you encounter Buddha. Then, having settled the Matter and awakened to faith, you should accept the Teaching given in this statement and, reciting it, thoroughly penetrate its meaning. In this manner you should not let there be any time when your own eyes and ears are not observing and hearkening to it, or when you are not dropping off your own body and mind, bones and marrow, or when you are not letting go of your own self-created world with its mountains and rivers, for this is the daily behavior of Buddhas and Ancestors for exploring the Way through Their training. Do not think that because it is your own way of putting things, it could not possibly bring clarity to your own eyes. Turned around by one word of your own, you may see yourself dropping off your own concept of what Buddhas and Ancestors are, for such is the everyday Way of the Buddhas and Ancestors. Hence, there is only one way to explore the Matter: ‘the way that all things appear’ has already gone beyond their not having appeared, and ‘That which transcends what appears’ is synonymous with the appearance of all things. Because That which transcends appearances is not separate from appearances, That which transcends appearances truly goes beyond what has appeared. You need to explore through your training that the appearance that is referred to as ‘That which transcends appearances’ and the appearance that is referred to as ‘the way all things appear’ are both the way that the Tathagata appears. Within what we are exploring there are the two Scriptural interpretations: that of going to visit Buddha and seeing Him, and that of going to visit Buddha and not seeing Him. These are what we explore with our vital Eye. If your Eye has not yet manifested in order to look at these Scriptural interpretations, yours will not be the Eye of thorough enlightenment. If It is not the Eye of thorough enlightenment, you have not encountered Buddha. Shobogenzo, Kenbutsu (or Kembutsu), Hubert Nearman Wow! It doesn’t get much clearer than that. Does anyone disagree with Dogen here? Peace, Ted
• Aik TC

  27 Aug 11, 22:02

   

  Is it not similar to the saying, that ‘form is mind and mind is form and they are neither two nor one’?

• An Eternal Now

  28 Aug 11, 01:16

  It is more like, there is no mind apart from the flow of phenomena, so apart from phenomena you cannot speak of a mind, an essence or a nature.

  Think of 'wind' and 'river' - there is no wind apart from blowing, no river apart from flowing, no weather apart from the everchanging flow of weatherly phenomena. Same for 'mind' - mind has no independent, unchanging essence. Its lack of an inherent existence reveals its true face as all these transient self-luminous and empty phenomena.

  So, it is as 3rd Karmapa said:

  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Karmapa%20Rangjung%20Dorje

   

  All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.
  Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind
  Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,
  manifesting as everything whatsoever.
  Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut.

  Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self.
  By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence.
  May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut.

  It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
  It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
  This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
  May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, he realised.

  If one says, "This is it," there is nothing to show.
  If one says, "This is not it," there is nothing to deny.
• An Eternal Now

  28 Aug 11, 02:59

  Its possible to think of 'all is mind' yet still hold substantialist view which becomes substantial non-duality, i.e. an inherent mind is appearing as all forms.

  This is not the case.

  There is no mind-ness of mind, just like there is no wind-ness of wind... mind is empty of any entity that is mind, and being so, it is simply the unceasing and unimpeded flow of phenomena.

• Aik TC

  28 Aug 11, 12:58

   

  //Think of 'wind' and 'river' - there is no wind apart from blowing, no river apart from flowing, no weather apart from the everchanging flow of weatherly phenomena. Same for 'mind' - mind has no independent, unchanging essence. Its lack of an inherent existence reveals its true face as all these transient self-luminous and empty phenomena.//

  //There is no mind-ness of mind, just like there is no wind-ness of wind... mind is empty of any entity that is mind, and being so, it is simply the unceasing and unimpeded flow of phenomena//

   

  Nice way of expressing the Doctrine of Dependent Origination.

   

• An Eternal Now

  29 Aug 11, 03:39

  Ted Biringer:

  
  Hello klqv,
  
  Thank you for your comments.
  
  I will try to respond to the important points you raise as best I can.
  
  You wrote: "there's lots of literature that seems to suggest, to me, that form is the phenomenal functioning of some essence. that is not limited to practicing buddhists but also contemporary scholars..."
  
  Yes there certainly is – there is also a vast amount of literature that not only “seems to suggest”, but explicitly asserts it – and a whole universe of literature that “presupposes” this conception.
  
  
  You quoted and commented: “Nature... refers to the one mind of the Awakening of Faith... origination refers to the mainfestation of the manifold phenomena of universe from the nature...”
  “… i read as saying the absolute is the essential teaching about the mind so the absolute is the most "real" and least "provisional" and lies "behind" phenomena in the sense that it is the essence of what we can know about the mind - or its highest truth… are you saying ted that that's fine but it's wrong to see some kind of ontological message in that?”
  
  
  First, thank you for the quote. The Awakening of Faith is certainly one of the most influential shastras in regard to Zen – and one of the few shastras that Dogen quotes and cites as an “authority” of Buddha Dharma in Shobogenzo.
  
  In response to your “reading,” let’s take a closer at the vision presented by the Awakening of Faith. Chapter One (Revelation of True Meaning) section I. (One Mind and Its Two Aspects) & A. (Mind in Terms of the Absolute) reads:
  
  I. One Mind and Its Two Aspects
  The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahayana can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute (tathata or Suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara or birth and death). Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why, because these two
  aspects are mutually inclusive.
  
  A. Mind in Terms of the Absolute
  The Mind in terms of the Absolute is the one World of Reality (Dharmadhatu) and the essence of all phases of existence in their totality. That which is called "the essential nature of the Mind" is unborn and is imperishable. It is only through illusions that all things come to be differentiated. If one is freed from illusions, then to him there will be no appearances (lakshana) of objects regarded as absolutely independent existences; therefore all things from the beginning transcend all forms of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are, in the final analysis, undifferentiated, free from alteration, and indestructible. They are only of the One Mind; hence the name Suchness.
  
  
  Now, consider the following excerpted passages (with added notes) in relation to your above inquiry concerning the view of "your reading":
  
  (From I.) “One Mind has two aspects”, “Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence”, “…these two aspects are mutually inclusive.”
  
  (From A.) “The Mind in terms of the Absolute is…” (note; “IS”) “…all phases of existence…” , “It is only through illusions that…” “…things come to be differentiated…” (“THINGS”; i.e. dharmas), “…freed from illusions…” “…no appearances of objects…” (i.e. dharmas) will be “…regarded as…” (viewed as, seen as, considered to be, believed to be, etc.) “…independent existences…” …therefore all things from the beginning (originally) transcend (include and surpass) all forms (dharmas) of verbalization, description, and conceptualization and are…” (ARE; exist as, consist of) “…undifferentiated…” (nondual, interdependent) “…free from alteration…” (do not “become” different things, beings, events (dharmas), “…and indestructible…” (cannot be “eradicated” or “diminished” – they are “totally exerted”)…, “They are…” (THEY; dharms, things – ARE; exist as) “…the One Mind…”
  
  Make sense? The “One Mind” CONSISTS OF the “Myriad Dharmas” - the “Myriad Dharmas” continuously APPEARING around-and-as us (you and I) ARE the forms, bodies, images, instances, etc. of the “One Mind.”
  
  “ONE human being” is constituted of multiple aspects called the “Five Skandhas” (form, feeling, perception, mental formulation, and consciousness), the “Five Skandhas” are “ONE human being.” No five skandhas, no human being. “Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form” - a human being is exactly five skandhas, five skandhas exactly a human being. Likewise, the One Mind (or Absolute) is exactly the Myriad Things (or Relative) the Myriad Things are/is exactly the One Mind.
  
  Clearly the One Mind could not be the “most real” or even the slightest bit “more real” than the Myriad Things of which it is constituted.
  
  Thanks again.
  
  I hope this is helpful.
  
  Peace,
  Ted

• Aik TC

  29 Aug 11, 13:31

   

  I believe the comments by Ted Biringer would not differ much with Grand Master Tan Hsu below commentary on the Heart Sutra about Suchness and the essence of the Mind?

   

  //………A mirror is made to reflect whatever is in front of it, the "whatever" may be near or far, round or square, green, yellow, red, white or all four. The mirror will reflect all with equal clarity. Facing clothes, the mirror will reflect clothes, facing a table the mirror will reflect a table, and when made to face the sky, the mirror will reflect it. Mirror always reflects something and, therefore, it is comparable to our Self Nature; the reflection can be compared to dust. A person of mundane concerns will misunderstand the situation, hold the reflection (dust) for the real thing, and struggle to grasp it. Who would believe that mountains, rivers, the earth, even the entire universe is a mere reflection or dust, and as such, they must all rise and vanish in the cyclic existence? What this means is that phenomena are the Dharma of Birth and Death. The mirror's reflective capacity is like the True Nature of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching: being true Suchness, it is unmovable, and cyclic existence cannot touch it. But without a mirror, how can there be reflection?

  Their relationship is immutable yet clearly defined in terms of sharp contrast. Similarly, form and mind-nature are one and the same. One can became enlightened and see one's own True Nature practicing this dharma, The Surangama Sutra says: "When you see light, your seeing is not the light and when you see darkness, your seeing is not the darkness; when you see void, seeing it is not the void and when seeing a slab, the seeing is not the slab. When your absolute seeing perceives the essence of seeing, the former is not the latter; they still differ from one another; how can your affected seeing reach that absolute seeing?" In the part of the sutra we are presently studying, "seeing" applies in the first instance to subject seeing and in the second one to object seeing. This point should be cogitated and comprehended intuitively. Without form there is no nature - form and nature are of the same substance and there is no inside or outside. This is the stupendous Dharma of Suchness.

  Let us return to the example of the bright mirror. The worldling, unlike the saint, is interested solely in the reflection, never giving as much as a thought to the mirror's reflectivity. Clinging, grasping the reflection, the worldling grasps an incidental occurrence on the mirror's surface and mistakes it for the original. The uninformed fail to understand that all that exists has its nature; earth has earth nature; fire has fire nature; water has water nature; wind has wind nature and consequently the mirror has mirror nature. Our True Nature is also like that and yet most people are confusing illusion with reality, quite unaware of their True Nature. They grasp and cling to reflections and dust………..//

   

• An Eternal Now

  29 Aug 11, 16:10

  Close but not quite there. This is substantial non-dualism, and like the 2nd case:

  http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/01/three-levels-of-understanding-of-non.html

  The Three Levels of "Understanding" of Non-dual Awareness

  Posted by: An Eternal Now

  Thusness/Passerby's reply to me (slightly edited based on references to another post):

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  What I said here, is not really correct. Thought is, but no thinker. Sound is, but no hearer. Awareness cannot be separated from thoughts and manifestation.

  Yes but what said can still have the following scenario:

  1. There is an Awareness reflecting thoughts and manifestation. ("I AM")

  Mirror bright is experienced but distorted. Dualistic and Inherent seeing.

  2. Thoughts and manifestation are required for the mirror to see itself.

  Non-Dualistic but Inherent seeing. Beginning of non-dual insight.

  3. Thoughts and manifestation have always been the mirror (The mirror here is seen as a whole)

  Non-Dualistic and non-inherent insight.

  In 3 not even a quantum line can be drawn from whatever arises; whatever that appears to come and goes is the Awareness itself. There is no Awareness other than that. We should use the teachings of Anatta (no-self), DO (dependent origination) and Emptiness to see the 'forms' of awareness.

• Domo Kun

  29 Aug 11, 16:10

  If you keep a non judgemental mind, isn't it like a mirror reflecting everything infront of it ?
• An Eternal Now

  29 Aug 11, 16:25

  Originally posted by Domo Kun:

  If you keep a non judgemental mind, isn’t it like a mirror reflecting everything infront of it ?

  Yes. But there are different levels of insights about the mirror-bright awareness.

• Aik TC

  29 Aug 11, 16:36

   

  I see, so the Non-Dualistic and non-inherent insight is referred to below as follows?

   //A bodhisattva who attained the intermediate level of practice views the reflection as the characteristic of the mirror's nature, and the mirror's capacity for reflecting is not held as separate from the reflection. There is a cohesive hold, meaning that form and mind are inseparable. It is the material entities that are unreal; that is what "immateriality of substance" means. Although it is true that a bodhisattva is enlightened and the Mahayana doctrine more accomplished then the Theravada one, there is still more that needs to be done. The only complete enlightenment is that of the buddha, and it is attainable only by means of mindfulness, by being observant and by awakening to the Ultimate Truth. Form is mind, mind is form and they are neither two nor one: That is the fundamental Buddhadharma. True Existence is the supramundane Void, and the True Void inconceivably exists.//

   

• An Eternal Now

  29 Aug 11, 16:42

  No, this is non-dualistic and inherent. That excerpt talks about the inseperability of mind and form. This is Thusness Stage 4.

  If there is no mind as an entity, there is no such thing as inseparability, as there is no mind apart from the skandhas to be inseperable with them.

  More elaborated in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

• Aik TC

  29 Aug 11, 16:50

   

  If there are neither two nor one, there is already no present of any subtle awareness that can be taken as a ‘I’?

• An Eternal Now

  29 Aug 11, 17:00

  Originally posted by Aik TC:

   

  If there are neither two nor one, there is already no present of any subtle awareness that can be taken as a ‘I’?

  Think of it this way: if river is already empty of any entity called river, being a mere label collating the activity of flowing, would it make sense to say 'the independent and permanent river is inseparable with the impermanent flowing' or 'the independent and permanent weather is inseperable with rain and wind'? It would not, as no independent and permanent river and weather apart from those phenomena can be found.

  Therefore there is no one or two, because there is no river-entity to begin with that could be one or two with the flowing.

  The same is with mind and phenomena, awareness and phenomena.

  In actual case, in the seeing there is just the seen without seer, the seen is itself the seeing, the seen is itself its knowing.

• An Eternal Now

  29 Aug 11, 17:20

  By the way if your insight is as clear as Dogen or Ted Biringer, you can talk about no-self, or One Mind, Self, Buddha-nature, it doesn't matter. There is no fixed way to talk about this.

  But more often than not, One Mind, Self, Buddha-nature is misunderstood by the untrained, therefore ending up in the non-Buddhist extremes.

• Aik TC

  29 Aug 11, 17:43

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

  By the way if your insight is as clear as Dogen or Ted Biringer, you can talk about no-self, or One Mind, Self, Buddha-nature, it doesn't matter. There is no fixed way to talk about this.

  But more often than not, One Mind, Self, Buddha-nature is misunderstood by the untrained, therefore ending up in the non-Buddhist extremes.

   

  Yes, the One Mind teaching can easily be misunderstood and lead to a substantialist understanding of non-duality which you have termed as the ‘I Am’ stage. Thanks also to you in pointing out the danger of getting stuck at that stage in many of your other postings and also articles.