Saturday, August 9, 2014

Abandon Absolute Arising

March 28 · Brisbane

Lankavatara Sutra:

Mahamati: How did the Bodhisattvas and Mahasattvas abandon the view of an absolute arising, dwelling, or dissolving?

[Buddha]: They abandoned it in this manner. They cognized that all phenomena are like an ephemeral illusion and dream, that they are detached from the duality of self and others, and that they are therefore unborn [emptiness.] They focused on the mind's manifestations and cognized external reality as unreal. By perceiving the unreality of phenomena, they brought about the cessation of the outflowing sensory consciousness. Because they cognized the unreality of their psychosomatic aggregates and the interacting conditions of the three planes of cosmic existence as originating from their deluded mind, they saw external and internal phenomena as devoid of any inherent nature and as transcending all concepts. Having abandoned the view of an absolute arising [of phenomena,] they realized the illusory nature and thereby attained insight into the unborn Dharma [expanse of emptiness.]
LikeLike ·

    Beverly Bunker, Robert Dominik, Jacob St Onge Casavant and 15 others like this.
    Soh Wrote in another group:

    "pure experience itself is empty and non-arising." -- that means, the realization is not realizing that a conceptually imputed self is not arising, but rather the realization that pure experience itself never amounts to anything more than an appearance (just like a movie scene, or a dream scene, a mirage, a mirror reflection etc), never actually comes into existence, is unlocatable, etc.

    I know you're saying that 'coming into existence', 'birth', and so on are concepts, and therefore by saying the experience is empty of arising I am therefore suggesting the emptiness of a concept. It's not wrong to say that arising/existence/etc are concepts, however, the insight here is not merely about the absence or non-arising of conceptual constructs (like a conceptual self, or santa claus, or rabbits' horn, or any other imagined non-existents etc) but that the very vivid undeniable experience never arises or ceases or forms/comes into existence as something truly existing. It's given that the notion that experience really arise, abide and cease is conceptual, nonetheless the insight is not merely about the non-existence or non-arising of imagined self and constructs divorced from direct experience, but it is directly realizing that the very direct experience of everything free of a background perceiver, that too never arise or comes into being (like reflections on a mirror). In other words in the firstfold emptiness of self, you see that there is no imagined perceiver or self apart from experience, so you can say that the imagined self is non-arising, and there is only the self-luminous DE (direct experience), but in the secondfold emptiness one is seeing that the direct experience is itself non-arising, never coming into existence, empty.

    "It certainly doesn't make the indescribable experience labelled "pain" suddenly evaporate, or become "empty", or "illusory"."

    Yes of course, indescribable experience does not 'evaporate' upon realizing its emptiness, it's simply seen to not actually arise/abide/cease and are merely non-producing appearances (that is appearances that never produce anything into existence, appearances itself is non-producing and non-arising) like a dream, reflection, movie, etc. Experience do not 'become empty or illusory or non-arising', they already are so, none of the appearances actually produce anything into existence even though for some the feeling that there is something arising/abiding/ceasing seems undeniable, just like for some a sense of a seer/thinker/self behind experience seems undeniable, etc.

    "Just because you can "deconstruct" concepts, doesn't mean that you can deconstruct experience."

    I'm not suggesting deconstruction of any kind with regards to direct experience. I am in fact suggesting that for emptiness, there is an alternative besides endless deconstruction, which is to realize that non-arising of DE.

    "I see clearly that ""existence/birth/abiding/cessation" do not apply to DE, but I certainly don't make any leap of belief into "pure experience itself is empty and non-arising"."

    DE either arise, abide, cease, or it does not - in which case it is like a mirror reflection, a dream, a movie, appearing but never coming into existence, never amounting to anything more than appearances, and that is exactly what I mean by non-arising and emptiness. Non-arising of DE is not a belief, and not an inferential leap based on another deconstructive insight, it is a direct insight in and of itself - directly realizing that DE never arose. How can we realize this? This is not an inferential statement, it is not inferred based on another deconstructive insight into no-self or emptiness of constructs, but rather a direct insight into the emptiness of direct experience - that direct experience never arises, never amounts to anything more than appearance, never abides and never ceases - and this can be seen when one contemplates/investigates/looks into whether one's DE truly arises, where it is, etc.
    March 28 at 11:34pm · Like · 7
    David Vardy Appearance leaves no one in its wake, while featuring us pretending to ride the wave. Leave it to mind.....
    March 29 at 4:31pm · Edited · Like

No comments:

Post a Comment