What is 万法唯心照？
-
There are friends who said our perceptions of good and evil derive from our thoughts "万法唯心照". Can this be true at all times? Isn't cause and effects taught us what is truly good and what is truly evil? For eg, people who commit robberies and murders for material gains are obviously evil. How to apply ä¸‡æ³•å”¯å¿ƒé€ in this case? However, I know that good and evil are also emptiness as they must have conditions for them to arise. Can someone enlighten me on this?
-
Yes, I believe what is considered to be good or evil are derive from our thoughts as all our bodily actions and speeches arises from our mind. But all these thoughts are guided by the secular laws of the society, norms and behaviours that we live in and are expected to operate within. It is also guided by the ethical values and moral responsibilities that are impart to us by our parents, friends, schools etc. Of course what is considered as good or evil may vary from country to country based on their laws and the environment that they have to adapt to. Even within religions itself, the simple commandment or precept of ‘Do not kill’ can be interpreted quite differently.
Cause and effect can teach us what is good or evil based on the guidelines as lay out in the teaching itself. If one look at the path on the Purification of Virtue, the five precepts and right livelihoods lays the basic foundation for Buddhists to gauge for themselves what actions and speeches by oneself or others that should be considered as good or evil.
It is stated also, that the act of goodness bring about the special quality of non-remorse and one live a life that have nothing to be remorseful about. It is also with the support of perfected virtue that one arrives at the three kind of clear vision; which is the recollection of Past Life, Knowledge of the Passing Away and Reappearance of Beings (Divine Eye), and Knowledge of Destruction of Cankers.
I have no idea what "万法唯心照" means, but I hope what is posted above have some relevant to you topic.
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Yes, I believe what is considered to be good or evil are derive from our thoughts as all our bodily actions and speeches arises from our mind. But all these thoughts are guided by the secular laws of the society, norms and behaviours that we live in and are expected to operate within. It is also guided by the ethical values and moral responsibilities that are impart to us by our parents, friends, schools etc. Of course what is considered as good or evil may vary from country to country based on their laws and the environment that they have to adapt to. Even within religions itself, the simple commandment or precept of ‘Do not kill’ can be interpreted quite differently.
Cause and effect can teach us what is good or evil based on the guidelines as lay out in the teaching itself. If one look at the path on the Purification of Virtue, the five precepts and right livelihoods lays the basic foundation for Buddhists to gauge for themselves what actions and speeches by oneself or others that should be considered as good or evil.
It is stated also, that the act of goodness bring about the special quality of non-remorse and one live a life that have nothing to be remorseful about. It is also with the support of perfected virtue that one arrives at the three kind of clear vision; which is the recollection of Past Life, Knowledge of the Passing Away and Reappearance of Beings (Divine Eye), and Knowledge of Destruction of Cankers.
I have no idea what "万法唯心照" means, but I hope what is posted above have some relevant to you topic.
Thanks Aik. "ä¸‡æ³•å”¯å¿ƒé€ " means our perceptions of good and evil derive from our thoughts. May be I should put my question this way. Are there not actions which are truly evil and truly good? Some said if one perceives an action as evil is because one is evil himself, our perceptions derive from our thoughts.
My question is how could it be? There are some deeds which are very clear cut that is evil, for instance murder because of jealousy or hatred. I believe everyone will perceive it as evil. I feel that this sentence is not always true : If one perceives an action as evil is because one is evil himself, our perceptions derive from our thoughts.
There's a Chinese saying 相由心生（Form derive from our thoughts). Good thought gives rise to "good form", bad thought gives rise to "bad form." Is this true all the time? However, I agree that good and evil are all emptiness as they need conditions to arise so we should not cling on or affected by good and evil.
-
é€ ï¼Œnot 照。will post something when I bookout
-
My POV:
People usually label an act good or bad... or evil to indicate the degree of seriousness... but i think in Buddhism it is more of a case of skilful or unskilful...
Because we tend to judge and have perceptions in our minds, our reasonings might be different from others and it can cause conflicts
Can't remember which thread i read, Buddha does not have wandering thoughts and perceptions but only perceives things with wisdom.
I guess that's why Buddha wasn't pissed off even though Devadatta made several attempts to kill him...
But there's something I would like to know, why Mara is called the Evil One...?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
é€ ï¼Œnot 照。will post something when I bookout
oh ... thanks... I thought 照 - something like focus, observe.... I interpret 万法唯心照 as all phenomena arises when the mind focus on something... I thought just ��觉照 will do... observe and be aware of the arising thought..... -
telling white lies for the good cause is a classic paradox of what we see as lies on the surface could be good intentions hidden in the heart to save lives or for the good of all.. truth of the heart is to be distinguished from percieved "reality"... in other words, whatever was said or done, the crux lies in goodness and intentions of the heart...there is certainly the existence of good and evil....and Buddhism helps us to see beyond that perceived "reality" into the reality of the heart.... Dawn's thread is excellent!
-
Are there not actions which are truly evil and truly good?
In the Theravada tradition, all our actions can be group into wholesome, unwholesome and indifferent. In fact, in our daily living most of our actions would falls into the indifferent grouping.
Some said if one perceives an action as evil is because one is evil himself, our perceptions derive from our thoughts.
It is like saying that everything is set in concrete and is immutable. That an evil person is incapable of having good thoughts and a good person is incapable of evil deeds. That there are only saints and devils and there is nothing in between.
As a Buddhist, I would like to believe that we come into this world because we possesses both goods and evils in us, more good then evil and there is freewill for us to choose which path we wish to take, to hell or to liberation.
Good thought gives rise to "good form", bad thought gives rise to "bad form." Is this true all the time?
It may not be so all the time. In AN 3.99 Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal it is stated that;
…..There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment…….
……"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit to drink."……
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
é€ ï¼Œnot 照。will post something when I bookout
Thanks for the correction.
-
It seems to me it is not true all the time. Thanks for sharing, guys. Looking forward to AEN's post.
-
heard from Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche, that all religion got this "evil" figure. in Buddhism we have the Ten wholesome deed and the ten unwholesome deed. but u know what's the evil/demon/devil/mara in Buddhism really mean?
It is Distraction.
(while Buddhahood is Awareness)
so can say anything that are of Distraction is of unwholesome deed and anything that are of Awareness is of wholesome deed.
this is akin to MCK's talks.
ä¸‡æ³•å”¯å¿ƒé€ can be related to Mind-Only / Yogacara School. 一切万法 心现识å�˜.
这里的“心”是“心性”，在佛法里é�¢ä¹Ÿå�«“佛性”，也å�«“真性”，也å�«“真如”，也å�«“本性”，å��è¯�太多了。
识是心起作用 。由æ¤å�¯çŸ¥ï¼Œä¸�起作用的时候，我们称它作“心”，起作用我们称它作“识”；心跟识是一ä¸�是二。/\
-
posted below.
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
There are friends who said our perceptions of good and evil derive from our thoughts "万法唯心照". Can this be true at all times? Isn't cause and effects taught us what is truly good and what is truly evil? For eg, people who commit robberies and murders for material gains are obviously evil. How to apply ä¸‡æ³•å”¯å¿ƒé€ in this case? However, I know that good and evil are also emptiness as they must have conditions for them to arise. Can someone enlighten me on this?
Conventionally there is good and evil, but all appearances are dependently originated, empty and dream-like, that is why ultimately they are also empty and illusory. Like a thief and a philantropist in a dream are ultimately equal and empty. Everything is in fact empty and dream-like, thus equal.
However you must also understand that 'no good and evil' as merely a state of non-conceptuality or non-discrimination is not liberating. Buddhist non-duality is not just about 'don't discriminate good and bad'. In Buddhism, non-duality can mean two different things - non-duality of existence and non-existence, and the non-duality of subject and object.
As Simpo once said years ago on the non-duality of subject and object:
The misconceptions surrounding Transcendental Non duality
This article is related to a common misconception with regards to the Transcendental experience of Nonduality. Within the spiritual circle, the term Non-duality is a very misunderstood or misinterpreted term. It must be understood that the term has more than one meaning and its perceived meaning largely depends on a person's stage of spiritual awareness.
More often than not, a lower stage understanding of the term is misconstrued as the Transcendental experience of Nonduality or non-dualism. This confusion is largely compounded by so-called new age spiritual materials.
The most common understanding of Non duality is related to the issue of Polarity such as light and dark. In this semantic, non-duality is explained as the non-biasness towards any side of a pole. This is about the concept of there being no absolute good or evil. In another word, it is about being non-judgemental. Many spiritual materials believed that this concept of non-duality is equivalent to enlightenment. This is not entirely correct.
Non-duality as a concept for no polarity is not wrong. However, it should not be mistaken for non-duality as the state of enlightenment. The term non-duality that is being used to describe Enlightenment is actually describing a state whereby there is no subject-object division. This is an experience that is difference from the concept of no absolute polarity.
No subject-object division is the true nature of existence. The method of realising this insight lies in the dissolving of the 'sense of self'. This often involves the continual and correct letting go of mental grasping.
OK, that all I can think of and write about this topic. I will revise and improve this article where the need arises.
For your necessary ponderance. Thank you for reading. -
Sinweiy already brought out the 一切唯心所现 (all are mind-only appearances), 唯识所� (all are changed/distorted by consciousness), which is what I had in mind of posting.
We have to dwell a little into yogacara teaching, wisdom is the realization that everything is non-dual mind, while consciousness is dualistic knowledge. There are eight consciousnesses, and from the eighth consciousness, karmic seeds project a world of subject and object. From the karmic seeds of eighth consciousness springs all the other seven consciousnesses. Therefore, what we conceive of as a solid world, and an existing self or subject, are all just the projections of a sentient being's consciousness - no "external world" exists apart from such thought-constructs and projections. In short, yogacara teaches that there is no subjectively existing self or objectively existing world. All there is, is mind. Under dualistic cognition, it is consciousness, freed from dualistic constructs, it is wisdom. All appearances are the display of mind (originally whole and beyond any designations), and are distorted by dualistic consciousness ("the impressions").
As asunthatneversets points out, "The impressions themselves dictate external and internal, self and objects, apart from the impression none of these can be found, experience is whole and beyond any designations.
Everything is imputed. No thing exists apart from imputation."
When we talk about 心, we have to understand the context in which it is spoken of. Is it 妄心 (false mind) which refers to the sentient being's false projections that imputes a truly existent self and a truly existent object, a subject and object, inside and outside, dichotomy? Or is it talking about 真心 which means the true mind or true nature of mind? When sutra says “心生则ç§�ç§�法生，心ç�则ç§�ç§�法ç�”, this means the dualistic thought-projections of consciousness. When the sutras say 唯心所现, it simply means the mind-appearances (prior to thought-projections).
妄心 is the projection of a separate self, a subjective perceiver, agent, that is like an inner person behind my eyes looking outside at "the outside world out there", and the outer world is projected to consist of objects existing in an outside-there fashion, all possessing their own intrinsic existence and characteristics. The cause of 妄心 is ignorance - the fundamental ignorance ï¼ˆæ ¹æœ¬æ— æ˜Žï¼‰ which posits a truely existent person or subjective self, and truly existing inherent objects, which leads to proliferation/attachments/afflictions.ä¸‡æ³•å”¯å¿ƒé€ is as Namdrol explained,
The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.
All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being "empty not established in any way at all". If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.
In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins.Dzogchen however, unlike Yogacara does not establish mind as being existent or real - being empty and unestablished, i.e. its philosophical viewpoint is similar to Prasangika Madhyamika, except its view is not introduced via inferential analysis.
We can generally equate 妄心 with 识, because 识 means 分别心. It is a dualistic form of knowing arising only due to ignorance. In post-Yogacara teaching, consciousness is understood as dualistic vision, to be distinguished from Wisdom which is non-dualistic. But in Pali suttas, the original teachings of the Buddha, no such division was being taught - so there is no talk about converting consciousness into wisdom （转识�智）- consciousness is simply these six types of cognizance that arises whether you are awakened... except that for the awakened and liberated, there is cognizance/consciousness without taints or ignorance, while for the unawakened there is the instant of cognizance/consciousness quickly followed by the taints, the craving, attachment, and identification with 'I, me, mine'. In other words in the Pali definition, it is not the 'cognizance/consciousness' that is the problem, it is the taints, the ignorance, the grasping that is the problem. Whereas in the Yogacarin scheme, consciousness is intrinsically dualistic and problematic.
For post-Yogacara teachings, consciousness is understood to be dualistic vision, so consciousness must be transformed into wisdom. In Dzogchen, it is not too different in this respect, as Namdrol once said: Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway. ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/10/dzogchen-rigpa-and-dependent.html )
In my second Chinese essay summary:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/p/chinese-articles.html
深入观行, 婆酰迦�。
了悟ç»�æ—¨, ç›´æŒ‡æ— å¿ƒã€‚
æ— æ‰§èƒ½æ‰€, 忘å�´èº«å¿ƒã€‚
方知�性, �需明相。
明相�性, �色明心。
真心空性, �缘显相。
迷时幻相, 悟时真心。
山河大地, 原是法身。
色声香味, 尽是妙心。
So going back to topic: 一切唯心所现, 唯识所�
Why is 唯心所现?
We can say that 心 (真心）here is talking about this mirror-like awareness, our perceiving mind, that mind which is clearly and undeniably present, and aware. Without which, nothing can appear! (Seeing, hearing, all are the self-aware essence) But the analogy of a mirror is not accurate enough. Why? It can be taken to imply a separate awareness that is 'perceiving' the world at a distance, but this is wrong. It still falls under the dualistic framework and a person having such a framework plus insight into the mirror bright clarity falls into the 'I AM'/Eternal Witness level of understanding.
Dogen Zenji said: I come to realize that mind is no other than mountains and rivers and the great wide earth, the sun and the moon and stars.
So when looking at the mountains and rivers, there is in fact no looker that is looking - the seeing is JUST the scenery! The shapes, colours, forms, mountains and rivers and the great wide earth. No such thing as a subject and object dichotomy. Everything is mind, mind is just the moment to moment experience of "the sun, the moon and stars" - it is not that there is a mind in here watching something outside-mind.
So understand that everything is the mind-nature's natural radiance.
唯识所�?
Means under the power of ignorance, we no longer perceive reality in their actual state. We perceive reality through a veil of projected thoughtforms, which solidifies the self into an inner subject and the world into multiple objects outside. Pure experience, pure mind, becomes dichotomized and reified. This is the power of dualistic consciousness - a magical spell that blinds us from seeing the truth, that puts us in a spell of a make-belief world that prevents us from seeing Suchness. It is like a cataract that makes us perceive flowers in the empty sky where there is actually none, like the poor eyesight which makes someone mistaken a rope for a snake. This is 唯识所�
转识�智 (turning consciousness to wisdom) means we realize, all along there is no self! There is no objects! 本�没有我... 人法二空显真如 - the twofold emptiness reveals true suchness.
Why? It is like the awakening insight that suddenly cures the cataract forever - one realizes there never was flowers in the sky! There never was a snake! Those are delusions. (There never was a self, there never was substantial dharmas in what dependently originates).
This frees us from the delusion of self and other, subject and object. Immediately, the "唯识所�" effect is no more, you no longer see a rope as a snake, and everything is turned into the wisdom which is the cognition of true mind as it is.
So as David Loy pointed out,
That sa�s�ra is nirv�ṇa is a major tenet of Mah�y�na philosophy. "Nothing of sa�s�ra is different from nirv�ṇa, nothing of nirv�ṇa is different from sa�s�ra. That which is the limit of nirv�ṇa is also the limit of sa�s�ra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So N�g�rjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa�s�ra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.
It should be emphasized also that "Mind" is nothing substantial - it is just the insubstantial stream of experiencing, vividly luminous and present, dependently originated, and self-releasing every moment. There is no actual "self" to mind-streams.
In Buddhism Plain and Simple page 115, by Zen Teacher Steve Hagen:
With the two types of views there are two kinds of minds. As human beings, we all have what we could call ordinary minds - the mind that you've always assumed you've had. It's a calculating mind, a discriminating mind, a fragmented mind. It's the mind of ordinary consciousness, the mind of self and other. We generally think of it as "my mind."
But there's another mind that is unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned. Unlike "your mind," it is unbound, for there is nothing beyond it. To this Mind, there is no "other mind."
This Mind is nothing other than the Whole. It's simply thus, the fabric of the world itself - the ongoing arising and falling away that are matter, energy and events.
Speaking of this Mind, the great Chinese Zen master Huang Po said,
All buddhas and ordinary people are just One Mind... This Mind is beyond all measurements, names, oppositions: this very being is It; as soon as you stir your mind you turn away from It.
This Mind is self-evident - it's always switched on, so to speak. We can - and, in fact, we do - see It in every moment. If we would refrain from stirring our minds (rest our frontal lobes, as my Zen teacher used to say) and let our conceptualising die down, like the ripples on a pond after the stirring wind has ceased, we would realise - we would know Mind directly.
Also read this very well written article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/03/sun-that-never-sets.html -
Good article on yogacara: http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Yogacara/basicideas.htm
-
As to the question of 'how to apply', imo it is not just about trying to practice non-conceptuality.
It is to firmly establish the right view of twofold emptiness, and to have the right way to contemplate and uncover your wisdom.
Means any method that can lead to realization - vipassana, zazen, zen koan, dzogchen and mahamudra etc, plus you need to have the right understanding of emptiness.
This article by Thusness can be helpful in pointing out the view of anatta and emptiness: On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection
-
reading this nice profound Samdhinirmocana sutra that i just found.
http://lirs.ru/lib/sutra/Samdhinirmocana-sutra,Keenan,2000,N25-IV.pdf
The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (Chinese: 解深密經) or the Sutra of the Explanation of the Profound Secrets is a Buddhist scripture classified as belonging to the Yog�c�ra or Consciousness-only school of Buddhist thought.[1] This sūtra was translated from Sanskrit into Chinese four times, the most complete and reliable of which is typically considered to be that of Xuanzang. It also was translated into Tibetan.
always like Buddha's way of teaching and Q&A by bodhisattvas. original is still best.
/\
-
Thanks guys for sharing. This is profound. Trying hard to understand.