Good Friends,
It is not rare for certain peoples to make category errors when attempting to understand the various orders of profundity that are the teachings associated with Shakyamuni & the family of Buddhas. Generally confusing the phenomenological, epistemological, & soteriological, with the ontological. Generally, the teachings are not meant ontologically, in fact, Shakyamuni specifically refused to answer questions in this respect, instead maintaining noble silence. This includes the teachings on dependent origination, karma, 'rebirth' etc. Nagarjuna heavily reenforced this with his own analysis of Shakyamuni's teachings, concluding the teachings are absolutely anti-foundationalist. This does not mean however that the yield is devoid of epiontic understanding.
Recognizing the possibility of category error, Shakyamuni taught generally not to spend time overly ruminating, pontificating, or trying to analyze karma etc until one is a Buddha. As many non-domesticated minds can't help but to ontologically mistake & further delineate boundaries. Upon reaching Buddhahood and having access to the proper vision samadhis & bardo visions or attaining these states prior, this conflation is destroyed. Timothy Leary for example, recognized the underlying causal structure responsible for the visions as properly the Buddhist karmic/rebirth psychological structure through the bardo visions prior to any dawning of attained Buddhahood (versus atemporal Buddhahood).
The various vision states can reveal, amongst many things, that when still subject to delineating a being, there is a moral-knowledge process who's symbols can be observed in a face-to-face visionary fashion - karma is an observable psychological law. Further that all sense and conscious-impressions appear to be wave-interference patterns of sort, perceiving reality/actuality falls under this category and thus is also considered a wave-interference pattern. There appears to be no non-dream conscious actuality, as all conscious experiences show themselves to be fabrication, albeit some more persistent than others (the sense experiences and information associated are seen to be hallucination, these rather subtle "karmic-traces"/sense-field recognitions most arahants are considered to still have upon reaching mere-personal nibbana). However, high-level bodhisattvas, Buddhas, and awareness-holders reduce the fabrication traces into superposition, where the generally typical 'non-objectified' "qualia/sensation/experience soup", the "actuality/reality/unreality", is seen as appearing to be a pre-tuned frequency of many (manual tuning is possible). Functioning identically to descriptions of quantum harmonic oscillators. There are many "experiential soup" frequencies, with little evidence of being less "real" or "external" or "actual" than that 'actuality/unreality/reality' once taken to be the consistent and "realer" or more "actual" world. This conclusion was and is of course engendered because those contemplatives who are not high-level bodhisattvas, Buddhas, or awareness-holders, and who consistently wake to a what appears to be a 'consistent' & 'persistent' world. The other tuned actualities however immolate that hasty conclusion. This is an order of the knowledge of emptiness. Further, the inconceivable extinction samapattis where awareness turns in on itself, such as the standard nirodha-samapatti, cannot be considered a more real non-dream actuality, as despite being able to hold it longer and longer and on command, it is ultimately temporary.
Considering the philosophical/logical issues that arise from seeking the ontic, it is concluded to be mostly of little use both from scientific and Buddhist traditions.
"So, what is the message of the quantum? I suggest we look at the situation from a new angle. We have learned in the history of physics that it is important not to make distinctions that have no basis -- such as the pre-Newtonian distinction between the laws on Earth and those that govern the motion of heavenly bodies. I suggest that in a similar way, the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between reality and information, cannot be made. There is no way to refer to reality without using the information we have about it." -Anton Zeilinger, inventor of quantum teleportation
There is no understanding "reality" outside phenomenon and the epistemic, making distinctions and seeking or asserting the real (ontic) beyond the epistemological boundary and its methods are generally pointless endeavors based on cultural biases and distinctions that themselves have little to no basis. Buddhism and science make use of thought-experiment and other methods of speculative logical inquiry, epiontic or otherwise; don't mistake this for the mostly meaningless seeking or assertions pertaining to the ontic.
This is a critical point if one is trying to understand the development and debate-driven emergence that is Buddhism, as this is primarily an attribute of many criticisms of inter-Buddhism between schools and individuals from various sub-traditions, and cross meta-traditions debates between Buddhism and Hinduism. Confusing this can lead to complete inversion of meaning.
One of the many examples of inter-criticism would be the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead' and its warning & criticism of the generalized traditions including the dzogchen sects, identifying various points in each that are often mistaken, & which lead to ontic reifications/"attachments". Such as the subject-object dichotomy, the extreme of the two-truths, extremes of ritual service and attainment, extremes of space and awareness. Another being the similar lankavataran criticism of various schools, identifying four types of nirvana & then considering these types merely views of philosophers, as they appear to make unnecessary distinctions that lean more towards ontic-seeking (assuming more while explaining less etc) & that have less basis in the face of the mind-model utilized by the lanka. The nirvanas descriptions considered in this fashion: 'the nirvana attained through seeing the self-nature of all things as non-entity', 'the nirvana attained through seeing the individual marks characterizing all things as non-entity', 'the nirvana attained through the recognition of the non-existence of a being endowed with its own specific attributes', and 'nirvana attained through the severance of the bondage conditioning the continuation of the individuality and generality of the skandhas'.
"About dependent origination: people from Mayahana / Vajrayana backgrounds seem to have different ideas about what dependent origination is about. I don't know why. "
Simply put, It appears this way because dependent origination is not entirely simple and straight forward, for it has orders of subtlety that are profound. Shakyamuni specifically warned Ananda against the notion that it is ultimately simple & straight forward and instead that the proper notion is profundity. One of the more in-depth explanations of dependent origination is given to Ananda right after. This is rather telling however, as Ananda appeared to be a weak contemplative that continually showed a lack of insight both during Shakyamuni's life and after Shakyamuni's parinibbana. Shakyamuni became known for his implicit teachings, so Buddhist logicians concluded over time and collective processing power by virtue of consistent mass debate, that the profundity extended even further beyond the in-depth explanations given to the monks.
-As well as the schools interested in anything beyond personal-nibbana attempting to quantify various parts of what Shakyamuni (or for that matter the knowledge of any equivalent & sufficient Buddha) understood but didn't teach (as the Buddha essentially said to the regular monks that a handful of knowledge is all that is being taught considering its relation to removing dissatisfaction; however that the knowledge of Buddha was forest-like rather than a handful). Moreover, this and the aforementioned concerning orders of dependent-origination subtlety, are extensively reenforced due to the increasingly sophisticated views of causality that were forced also by said debate processing.
Further, the texts recount Shakyamuni presenting dependent origination in several different ways, with varying emphasis and with different causal links in the chain. Serving different purposes aligned to different skill-sets and faculty-levels. Sometimes keeping the analysis rather course and simply pointing to birth and becoming as I-making with an emphasis on clinging. Beyond, sometimes implicitly pointing to direct pointing procedures to 'non-manifestive consciousness' by asserting that name & form and consciousness co-emerge and without one, the other turns back and without support falls away (and of course necessarily finalizing this for certain individual types via atammayata). While other times information gathered from vision samadhis is included, such as energetic tendencies, mundane orders & transcendental orders of birthing, dependent origination etc.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
"As the Buddha described the Awakening experience in one of his discourses, first there is the knowledge of the regularity of the Dhamma — which in this context means dependent co-arising — then there is the knowledge of nibbana. In other passages, he describes the three stages that led to insight into dependent co-arising: knowledge of his own previous lifetimes, knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of all living beings, and finally insight into the four Noble Truths."
"Although the Buddha never used any word corresponding to "rebirth" in his teachings, he did describe birth as a process following on death again and again as long as the appropriate conditions are present. In other words, even though he didn't use the word "rebirth," his teachings on birth are teachings on repeated birth: how it happens, how it inherently involves suffering and stress, and how it can be brought to an end.
The idea that death can be followed by birth was not universally accepted in India in the Buddha's time. As DN 2 and MN 101 show, some prominent contemplative schools actively rejected the idea of rebirth while others affirmed it. Thus when the Buddha taught rebirth, he wasn't simply following an unexamined cultural assumption. He was consciously taking a stand on one of the controversial issues of his time. However, his explanation of rebirth differed from other schools on both sides of the issue in that he avoided the question of whether or not there's a "what" that gets reborn, or if there is a "what," what it is (SN 12.12; SN 12.35). He also discouraged such speculations as, "If I take rebirth, what was I in the past, and what will I be in the future?" (MN 2)
He put all these questions aside because they interfered with the path of practice leading to the end of suffering. Instead, he focused on the process of how birth happens, because the process involves factors that are immediately apparent to one's awareness throughout life and lie enough under one's control to turn them toward the ending of birth. An understanding of the process as process — and in particular, as an example of the process of dependent co-arising — can actually contribute to the end to suffering, because it gives guidance in how to apply the tasks appropriate for the four noble truths to all the factors in the process leading up to birth.
One of the salient features of dependent co-arising is its lack of outside context. In other words, it avoids any reference to the presence or absence of a self around or a world behind the processes it describes. This allows one to focus directly on the factors of the process as factors, parts of a causal chain. And this, in turn, makes it easier to notice which factors — such as ignorance — cause suffering and should thus be abandoned; which ones — such as attention and intention — can be converted to the path to the end of suffering, and so should be developed before they, too, are abandoned; and which ones — such as clinging and becoming — constitute suffering, and so should be comprehended to the point of disenchantment and dispassion, leading to release.
This sutta concerns a monk — Sāti, the Fisherman's Son — who refuses to heed the Buddha's care in treating all the elements of the process of wandering on from birth to birth as processes. Sāti states that, in his understanding of the Buddha's teachings, consciousness is the "what" that does the wandering on. His fellow monks and then the Buddha treat him and his erroneous view in a way that parallels the way they treat Ariṭṭha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers in MN 22. First the narrator notes that the view is not merely wrong, but actually evil and pernicious: To adopt it would be to place an obstacle in one's path. The monks try, unsuccessfully, to dissuade Sāti from his view, after which they report the case to the Buddha. The Buddha calls Sāti into his presence, and after ascertaining that Sāti will not abandon his view even when reprimanded by the Buddha himself, he abandons Sāti as too recalcitrant to teach, and turns to cross-question the monks as to the relevant right view of how consciousness functions in the process leading to repeated birth."
The 'Mahayana / Vajrayana backgrounds' consider themselves inline with the implicit meanings of the early texts. The 'Tibetan Book of the Dead' for example, presents the twelve links in a way that isn't in disagreement with the early texts themselves.
Beyond examples like the Thai theravada tantra tradition, the distinctions between theravada, mahayana etc based on the degree of differentiation pertaining to dependent origination are actually generally minor. Amongst the early schools, varied presentations abound to a similar degree, the abhidharmists have several presentations of their own. Some early schools took a rather realist approach, while old-theravada was relatively anti-realist. Some emphasized the dependent-origination of person-only, others emphasized its psychologically therapeutic value only, deemphasizing the relationships that cause vision itself to manifest etc. Beyond, considering the cross-pollination of emergent sophistication, theravada and other traditions have embraced much of the causal subtlety, consequently becoming more anti-realist in the process (theravada in terms of dependent origination and a release of prior 'realist' views such as atoms having spatial dimension etc). For these traditions, through assimilation, indirectly concur that the later schools have brought Buddhism development and in general closer to the heart of the teachings.
<As a quick aside, it should be noted that Buddhist monks, generally of middling faculty & of every meta-category still argue based on present-"pop" representations devoid of historical perspective. For example, theravada monks asserting Shakyamuni's teachings concerning compassion & loving-kindness in the early texts as somehow antithetical to the views that madhyamaka holds concerning the early-texts, Shakyamuni's teachings, and arahantship. When the opposite is true, as madhyamaka's and Nagarjuna's basis for the bodhisattva path is derived from the early-texts, Shakyamuni's teachings, including on dependent-origination and compassion & loving-kindness etc, arahantship (and that there is more than one path to nibbana as Shakyamuni walked one of them and taught another, one is a like a PhD and the other like a bachelor's degree). A similar example, a mahayana monk of middling-faculties might incorrectly believe the early-texts are devoid of the necessary basis or compassion & loving-kindness teachings, or bodhisattva birth, or basis for the two-truths. Buddhism is so vast, many examples abound.>
To understand the relationship between the links of dependent origination, let us quickly review the five similar steps in the intellectual history of Buddhism and physics.
1. Transition from the paradigm of substance to the paradigm of causality.
2. Replacement of productive causality by lawlike successions.
3. Transition from causal and lawlike successions to co-emergence.
4. Criticism of ontological view of co-emergence, and claim that co-emergence itself is relative to the cognitive act that posits it. ("Co-emergence Co-emerges"; this is one of the meanings of "emptiness of emptiness")
5. Silent return to the practices of life, or agnostic return to the practices of experimental science.
Clearly, the subtlety of the knowledge and application of dependent origination can be discerned from the above and viewed from many facets & orders of understanding. From observing the courseness of viewing and applying the links through the paradigm of substance to applying the paradigm of co-emergence yet immolating all unnecessary views of it, etc & beyond.
Dependent origination applies to the moment, the proceeding moment at the most is a partially conditioning factor; co-origination is generally not best understood like "one mind-moment there is contact, next mind-moment there is feeling, next mind-moment there is craving", for in a mind-moment the bulk of the dependent chain can apply. However, this process almost entirely falls away & cannot be delineated if disallowing the experiential discernment (of any kind) of name & form, naming & forming. Just the rlung tendencies/trace fabrication-tendency imprints remain there.
The bulk of Mahayana / Vajrayana (hundreds of thousands of texts) fall under steps three to five. However, to iterate, the bulk of Buddhism evolved further due to the aforementioned steps, including the 'neo'-interpretations of the early schools, which are the only remaining. Just as in Science, the logicians keep pre-Newtonian & Newtonian mechanics as historical reference, a teaching tool, and logical reference for comparison. However, due to the precision of modernity, the functional/applicable representations themselves of pre-Newtonianism & Newtonianism are devoid of the unnecessary meta-physics of the heavenly bodies or of a clockwork universe (however slightly flawed historically referenced teaching tools still incorrectly percolate, past even their historical relevance, generally due to non-logicians and lay-people, such as the 'earth revolving around the sun'; when in fact by the time of Einstein we recognize that the earth and sun tug on and revolve around each other but recognize no real reference point).
Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
"Though the principle of dependent arising is applicable to any situation where an origination of phenomena takes place, the Pali Buddhist tradition has focused upon the doctrine almost exclusively in terms of its twelvefold formulation. So much has this been the case that the two have tended to be blankly identified with each other, dependent arising being equated simply with the twelvefold series and the twelvefold series being regarded as an exhaustive treatment of dependent arising. This exclusiveness of emphasis doubtlessly poses a certain danger of rigidity; but even despite this danger it is not without its justification. For the aim of the Buddha's teaching is not abstract and theoretical, but concrete and soteriological. Its goal is liberation from suffering [...] If suffering is produced by causes, these causes and the way they can be stopped must be uncovered and exposed. The twelvefold application accomplishes precisely this. In its positive or direct aspect (anuloma) it makes known the causal chain behind suffering, demonstrating how the round of existence arises and turns through the impulsions of craving, clinging, and karma, working freely behind the shielding screen of ignorance. In its negative or reverse side (patiloma) it reveals the way to the cessation of suffering, showing that when ignorance is eliminated by the rise of true knowledge all the factors dependent on ignorance likewise draw to a close.
However, as a consequence of this constriction of attention, sight has tended to be lost of the broader range of exemplifications the principle of dependent arising might have, even within the limits of the soteriological direction of the teaching. Dependent arising cannot be reduced to any single one of its applications. Any application is only a pedagogical device framed from the standpoint of the teaching's practical orientation. Above and beyond its specific instances, dependent arising remains an expression of the invariable structural relatedness of phenomena. It is a principle to which all phenomena conform by the very nature of their being, the principle that whatever comes into existence does so in dependence on conditions. From the perspective this teaching affords, things are seen to arise, not from some intrinsic nature of their own, from necessity, chance or accident, but from their causal correlations with other things to which they are connected as part of the fixed order obtaining between phenomena. Each transient entity, emerging into the present out of the stream of events bearing down from the past, absorbs into itself the causal influx of the past, to which it must be responsive. During its phase of presence it exercises its own distinctive function with the support of its conditions, expressing thereby its own immediacy of being. And then, with the completion of its actuality, it is swept away by the universal impermanence to become itself a condition determinant of the future.
As living experience, the advance to emancipation cannot be tied down to a series of mere negations, for such a mode of treatment omits precisely what is most essential to the spiritual quest — the immediacy of inner striving, growth, and transformation. Parallel to the demolition of old barriers there occurs, in the quest for deliverance, a widening of vistas characterized by an evolving sense of maturation, enrichment, and fulfillment; the departure from bondage, anxiety, and suffering at the same time means the move towards freedom and peace. This expansion and enrichment is made possible by the structure of the gradual training, which is not so much a succession of discrete steps one following the other as a locking together of overlapping components in a union at once augmentative, consummative, and projective. Each pair of stages intertwines in a mutually vitalizing bond wherein the lower, antecedent member nurtures its successor by serving as its generative base, and the higher, consequent member completes its predecessor by absorbing its energies and directing them on to the next phase in the series. Each link thus performs a double function: while rewarding the efforts expended in the accomplishment of the antecedent stage, it provides the incentive for the commencement of the consequent stage. In this way the graduated training unfolds organically in a fluid progression in which, as the Buddha says, "stage flows over into stage, stage fulfills stage, for crossing over from the hither shore to the beyond."
Mahayana and Vajrayana utilizes the vision samadhis and owe portions of their development to critically extracting information from such. These traditions stick to the script of phenomenological, epistemological, and soteriological; rejecting realism or ontology claims in favor of usefulness and utility, generally embracing the phenomenal and epistemic in a way that is clarified and magnified by the soteriological and the other way around. Understanding this leads to a clarity as to some of the purposefulness pertaining to the persistent practice of perceptual pointing, as in, inspecting, discussing, and seeing the naturally pure Buddha-qualities in all investigated and the pure-land traditions etc.
The traditions that fall under Mahayana and Vajrayana ultimately conclude (simply put) due to some of the many insights of emptiness, that fabrications can be made pure, thus consciousness can be pure, and so name & form can be pure, thus the six sense media can be pure, and so contact can be pure, thus feeling can be pure, and so craving can be pure, thus clinging/sustenance can be pure, and so becoming can be pure, thus birth can be pure etc and the combinations in-between. The bardo visions experientially verify that the long-Bodhisattva path based on merit (simply put & for the sake of understanding, psychological seeds) and compassion as to bring about pure becoming and pure birth is a viable strategy to have positive result and moment by moment release from dissatisfaction and unpleasantness (while in the face of the great mirror & test, the fully dawned bardo trances). The advanced and subtle meta-paths pointed to in other threads, utilizes knowledge of emptiness and co-origination to purely fabricate conscious sense-base contact leading to pure feeling, pure craving, and lighting the fire of pure clinging/sustenance (this process is a recipe for liberated & exalted states of fabricated bliss, paradise...for those who can handle the reigns properly). The lower awareness-holders, when releasing this fabrication-process (already & generally atammayata is perpetually the case, as it is necessarily by definition trans-state & condition) like releasing a muscle, like blowing out a candle, release to non-abiding consciousness-without feature/non-manifestive consciousness (non-objectification). The middle and greater awareness-holders have hacked into the neutrality of emptiness & reset ordinary unfabricated consciousness at its very basis to a perpetually blooming nirvanic bliss; the ouroboros of liberation & bliss; the best of all aspects; the perfect superposition of fabrication/non-fabrication, objectification/non-objectification; that which is necessitated by the truly-boundless).
Now to examine a few assertions:
"Let's remember part of the dependent origination:
"With Mind and Matter as condition, Sense Gates arise
With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises
With Contact as condition, Feeling arises"
"Actualism is ok with sense gates and contact. They don't represent any kind of suffering. Buddhism, on the other hand, seems to encounter links of creation of suffering before that."
Buddhism is okay with sense gates and contact. They don't represent any kind of intrinsic suffering or dissatisfaction. It doesn't follow to assert that "on the other hand", it is an unnecessary distinction. The actualist is confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions.
As mentioned above, dependent origination isn't a straight-line, it is beyond a model of productive causality and even law-like successions. Buddhists & Buddhism don't encounter 'links of creation of suffering' any more than actualists & actualism do in actuality (in fact, many ultimately view the links, the skandas, and even wrong views etc as Buddhas and buddhic attributes); however Buddhism's analysis is surely more subtle and sophisticated, as actualism presents no real causal model, actualism instead is primarily definitional & substantial, and inline with the methodology of direct-pointing.
"This feeling of being is the very malice and sorrow. Malice and sorrow exist because there is a feeling of being. "I" am "my" feelings and "my" feelings are "me"."
This actualist later pointed out, and even later demonstrated behavior appearing inline with what was pointed out, (self-proclaimed dishonesty, cunning). Thus when this actualist asserts "this feeling of being is the very malice and sorrow", he is likely right. Beyond this, correlation doesn't automatically or ultimately mean causation (careful of false cause fallaciousness). Is there not the logical possibility of a feeling of being that doesn't relate to malice and sorrow (why the presumed black and white thinking)? To not allow this logical possibility seems to fall for an association fallacy, where the actualist would be presupposing with no basis. Just because a feeling of being is associated with malice and sorrow, or even that malice and sorrow can arise from a feeling of being, in no way logically disproves or discounts the rational assumption that feelings of being can arise without said defilements or negative outflows. If one can completely kill/immolate affective feelings/feelings of being and further through dependent origination and if wished, can completely end all feelings (affective & non-affective) whatsoever, then why not assume the possibility that the process can be broken-down and domesticated?
The consequence of a phenomenon isn't necessarily its root cause. If 'malice and sorrow exists because there is a feeling of being', and feelings of being arise due to causes and conditions, then malice and sorrow exists because of the causes and conditions that lead to those feelings and further 'feelings of being'. Thus, in this respect, there is no ultimate conflict with Buddhism.
This is further illustrated by Richard, who proclaims the unconscious habits that cause said unwanted feelings are difficult to root out and can partially-manifest etc during virtual freedom; simply put, because humanity has been using and inheriting feelings so long and they are deeply engrained etc. Considering that unconscious habits are non-experiential (as Richard himself appears to be referring to an unconscious probability/conditional matrix), it is rather clear actualism also encounters 'links of creation of suffering' 'before' beingness co-emerges with feeling. Further Richard speaks of affective feelings necessarily having opposites, if affective feelings were truly non-conceptual and did not emerge from deep conceptual symbols, then there would be no necessary opposites. If the actualist disagrees, then it appears he must assert either that Richard's discussion on virtual freedom is flawed, as it is referring to something underneath/before present experience & consciousness; or the actualist must assert Richard is incapable of discerning or prefers some of the most basic flaws of reasoning concerning the paradigm of substance, paradigm of definition etc (if either of these is the case, then they assert less 'rational faith' in Richard's capacities & common sense then even this analysis is assuming and granting him).
Further, actualism falls for course observations and ambiguity when asserting 'feeling of being' as " "I" am "my" feelings and "my" feelings are "me" ". For the becoming and birthing process of identity isn't a 'feeling' in itself, which is corrected by logic & the dependent origination process. To assert otherwise is to fall for a fallacy where one reifies a process into a series of conceptual & substantive entities during the course of analysis. A feeling of being is not a definitional & definitive entity, it is a process of causal and conditioned relations; a co-emergent cognitive discrimination and co-conditioning tuning-function inter-related to 'feeling' and its inseparable causes (as there no actual duality as to cause and effect).
"Now, what does the Buddha said about self and feelings?
"The Buddha: Feeling, O monks, is not-self; if feeling were self, then feeling would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since feeling is not-self, therefore feeling leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding feeling: 'May my feeling be thus, may my feeling not be thus.'
(the same with form, perception, mental formations, consciousness) [...]
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
(the same with form, perception, mental formations, consciousness)"
This quote has several orders of meaning. For context, it is from the perspective of preemptively understanding that simplistic notions of ego-soul-self are unfounded, illogical, and not based on what is carefully observed. Yet the Buddha also said the self was the aggregates, purposefully.
"This seems to have the objective of not relating and embracing "feelings" as part of "me". Instead, to realize no-self, one have to detach from feelings, seeing them as "not mine". Actualism accept feelings as "mine" (actually, they are part and parcel as they constitute the self), and work from within that idea to deconstruct self."
Buddhism accepts that many foolishly and habitually accept feelings as mine and constituting the self, clinging to them or or other skandhas. However utilizing logic and observation we know this "self" isn't in accords with actuality. There is no ultimate logical reason to invoke the label of self, considering it functionally isn't a self, there are only perceptions and not a self discernible within experience. Actualism doesn't hold to an unchanging subject of experience, let alone that unchanging subject being feelings or feeling of being. If it was functionally a self, then feelings would be at beck and call. However there is no operational self as such, and if one cannot control what is considered "me", what sense does it make to add "me" to it? In actuality, there is only delusion of self, not actually a permanent self that needs to be immolated, it is all mere conventional speak. "The identity ascribed to man is nothing more than a fiction" -Hume.
The assertion appears to fall for an error related to ambiguity. Actualism doesn't have the objective of relating and embracing "feelings" as part of "me". Why would they embrace that which they believe causes malice and sorrow (or even in fact 'is' malice and sorrow)? Further, why would actualism assert/assume/presuppose a self as simplistic as the soul-Atman it criticizes as delusion? Thus it cannot be assumed that actualism is making a serious epistemic or phenomenologic claim without criticizing and rejecting the claim for lack of careful observation etc, it cannot be an ontic claim without falling for the mind-projection fallacy etc. Thus it is properly assumed actualism is dealing with this particular concept on purely a soteriological basis, or one must criticize and assert less 'rational faith' in actualism and said claims then this analysis is assuming & granting in favor of Richard and actualism. Actualism in proper, simply accepts that this tendency "is" and seeks to immolate it (in favor of non-affective/non-self feelings/sensory etc).
Buddhism also accepts that there is this tendency common and seeks to immolate it. However it sees no absolute need to placate to this simplistic notion in favor of more careful observation and analysis. Thus still working from the perspective that "mine-ness","beingness", and other identifications, with feelings or otherwise, commonly & functionally 'constitute' the self, Shakyamuni worked to deconstruct the self by the teaching mentioned by the quote and dependent origination etc. Thus beyond semantic games for the sake of uncalled-for segregation and divisiveness, there is no actual difference, meaning actualism has no claim of actual novelty, even the presuppositions and beliefs that Buddhism refutes and corrects of actualism have also existed before actualism.
The actualist asserts "instead, to realize no-self. one have to detach from feelings, seeing them as "not mine"." The quote however didn't mention realizing no-self, nor did it assert a causal structure related to said non-mentioned-realization.
Further, neuroscience demands that any positive and assertive 'acceptance' of feelings as "mine", leads to an ease of reification and further return to later acceptance of feelings as "mine", however requiring less input. Thus comparing the utility of herding the mind with assertions of self and assertions of non-self, one can lead to an ease of solidification concerning phantoms of mind, while the other is a more direct shot to the goal. Further, if properly viewing self and the all as dream and unreal, then this conditions the brain to take them as such, and will not scare at what it discerns as mind, dream, and a phantom of such. <Though there are certain immatured mind-types of certain faculties that do benefit in early stages from faith in a higher reality of certain qualities of "self" & "no-self" etc>.
Concerning presupposing and assuming self:
" "To what extent, Ananda, does one assume when assuming a self? Assuming feeling to be the self, one assumes that 'Feeling is my self' [or] 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling]' [or] 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'
"Now, one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as follows: 'There are these three feelings, my friend — feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain. Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?' At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.
"Now, a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. Having sensed a feeling of pleasure as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pleasure, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pain, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, 'my self' has perished.
"Thus he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant, entangled in pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away, he who says, 'Feeling is my self.' Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume feeling to be the self.
"As for the person who says, 'Feeling is not the self: My self is oblivious [to feeling],' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"
"No, lord."
"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling].'
"As for the person who says, 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, should feelings altogether and every way stop without remainder, then with feeling completely not existing, owing to the cessation of feeling, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"
"No, lord."
"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'
"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' "
"However, I don't think my references about no-self {from a sutta of the pali canon} and dependent origination {from a generic wiki article} are that different in Tibetan. "
The references themselves are brief and hardly provide context, however this actualist's presuppositions should not be confused with the references themselves. As the presuppositions are generally incorrect and do not necessarily follow from the references.
"If you have some Vajrayana, Mahayana or Theravada reports where the complete absence of feelings 24/7/365 is specified, please share. If not, we can't say categorically that Actualism is not new and that was covered by Buddhism before Richard's method."
Actually, when Richard or anyone else asserts novelty, 'newness', optimization, limits within other traditions etc, they are the ones who the burden of proof falls on. It is a logical fallacy to project or conflate or shift the burden of proof onto anyone else who isn't making said assertions and claims. To clarify further the nature of this fallacy, the inability or even failure to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. Further, any disinclination or disinterest to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever, even if it goes unchallenged for years. Beyond, careful in fallaciously moving the goalpost, there is no need to post-rationalize and continue presupposed beliefs concerning actualism's novelty. Appreciate the benefits of being open to changing one's mind through better reason, or evidence providing better understanding, as this is actually enjoying this moment of being alive, while inventing ways and performing trivial mental gymnastics to cling to old beliefs is not so.
Further this actualist conflates (even if just in words) the specific subset of feelings that actualism considers "bad", with feelings in general, as actualism doesn't do away with "non-affective feelings" like, hot & cold (actualism seems to consider bodily-pain as 'non-affective') etc. Thus the actulist, in proper, should be asking for implicit reference concerning removing affective feelings. However, dependent origination can apply to more than mere affective feelings, advanced practitioners like the yogi Dharma Sangha have also severed the feelings of hot & cold etc.
"As the Khemaka Sutta points out, those who have already attained one of the lower levels of enlightenment may not identify with anything in particular, but may still have the illusion of subjectivity; that is, there may not be anything for which they think "I am this", but they may still retain the tendency to feel "I am". " -wiki
"The other four aggregates constitute the mental side of experience. Feeling is the affective quality of pleasure or pain, or the neutral tone of neither pleasure nor pain, present on any occasion of mental activity. [...] whatever registers affective tone is feeling. [...] As the yogin contemplates the rise and fall of the five aggregates, his attention becomes riveted to the final phase of the process, their dissolution and passing away. [...] the realization of the unconditioned requires a turning away from the conditioned, it must be emphasized that this realization is achieved precisely through the understanding of the conditioned. Nibbana cannot be reached by backing off from a direct confrontation with samsara to lose oneself in a blissful oblivion to the world. The path to liberation is a path of understanding, of comprehension and transcendence, not of escapism or emotional self-indulgence. [...] sustained by bodily vitality [...] he is still subject to "a measure of disturbance" conditioned by the body with its six sense faculties [...] he still experiences pleasure and pain [...]"
"seeing how the aggregates that made up his "person" were also the impelling factors in the round of experience and the world at large, and how the whole show could be brought to cessation. With its cessation, there remained the experience of the unconditioned, which he also termed nibbana (Unbinding), consciousness without surface or feature, [...]"
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form (also, from the cessation of name & form comes the cessation of consciousness). From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. [...]"
"The skandha analysis of the early texts is not applicable to arahants. A tathagata has abandoned that clinging to the personality factors that render the mind a bounded, measurable entity, and is instead "freed from being reckoned by" all or any of them, even in life. The skandhas have been seen to be a burden, and an enlightened individual is one with "burden dropped". "
"Maybe you're right. I guess I mixed because, according to my poor memory, in the Tibetan Mahayana school it's said that they cover the topics of both 'Hinayana' {Theravada} and 'Mahayana', along with 'Vajrayana', but maybe I was wrong on that assumption.
"You're right in that those claims (about covering everything, about superseding previous forms of Buddhism) do seem to be commonly made in Mahayana / Vajrayana forms of Buddhism."
First, there is no such thing as 'the Tibetan Mahayana school'. Secondly, the labels of hinayana, mahayana, vajrayana are misleading, do not reflect schools themselves or their progression and development. The terms are used meta-categorically, they shouldn't be reified, and don't fully & properly reflect scholarly viewpoints. This though does not demand one necessarily individuate schools or sub-schools from one another, as this can also be misleading as to the actual development of the teachings, the relationship and stance of prominent thinkers amongst & in-between the schools (Nagarjuna was primarily a student of hinayana etc etc), as well as their opinions concerning embracing the dharma teachings in general rather than delineating by sub-tradition. Moreover, in terms of categorization, scholarship generally prefers to segregate based on development and influence dynamics related to several factors including geopolitics, rates of information transfer and which bits of information are moved and to where. Thus if one must broadly refer or label anything, it follows reason to say Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.
Third, no school or tradition covers everything. It is said it took roughly 7-9 months to recite the early 10,000 texts worth of teachings, now there are over half a million different texts, some rather long and much of them have between three to five orders of meaning. No specific school or tradition even has access to all the texts. However, the growth and development of all of those traditions emerged out of massive discussion and cross-pollination by virtue of debate and often increasingly refined analysis. Further, a complete study of one sub-tradition yields some knowledge of other traditions but not complete knowledge by any means, some specific argumentation lines will be known and many generalities. There is only so much time in the year. Thus in terms of a root-dynamic even leading to the development of a sub-tradition, 'superseding orders' can be spoken of if desired, yet know that no scholar is teaching or reading something that is covering all of Buddhism or anything close.
Withal, in some general senses there is observed superseding, however again with blatant examples like Thai Theravada Tantra, it is clear the co-emergent growth of sophistication and subtlety as a whole is more pronounced than anything else. Another example, if one understands madhyamaka rather well, even though not knowing many of the particulars of the classical arahant texts and other interpretations, let alone all the commentaries and later developments related to the abhidharmists etc, one could still walk and achieve along the arahant path well. Similarly an abhidharmist who is well versed in his own sub-tradition, could make progress towards several of the path-variants of tantra, while not knowing many of the particulars concerning those related to a specific tradition's text. Moreover, a theravadin can walk bodhisattva path-variants based off a thorough investigation of the theravadin texts while not knowing many of the particulars concerning said bodhisattva paths. Etc.
As a slight aside, with in mind the distinction mentioned in the beginning concerning the phenomenological/epistemic/soteriological versus ontic seeking and ontological emphasis. As well as beyond the ultimately collaborative argumentative/debate functions that yield co-emergent growth, if unpacking the primary criticisms between the the sub-traditions or higher order, they reduce back to asserting ontic reification tendencies and supposed mistakes deriving thereof. However, in nearly every circumstance the defending and responding sub-tradition etc sincerely counters by asserting anti-ontology/ontic-seeking. What to conclude from this? Well first, these criticisms primarily arise in the texts out of the fast-paced and rather enjoyable intellectual process of critical and soteriological debate-grounds. Often it is a psychological game, where refined intellect, and quick-wit is trained; many of the textual arguments thus are artifacts from criticisms that were meant like a move of momentum in a fast-paced game of debate rather than a truly serious criticism (beyond asserting the superiority, accuracy, utility, etc of various explanatory ordering principles invoked epistemically/soteriologically). Second, when one moves beyond certain personal projections of perceived exercises in ontology etc and certain false projections of certain students throughout history, one sees the sub-traditions as a whole are in much less in conflict with one another then often assumed. More in the fashion of similarities than differences.
Now considering the smudge of context represented in all the aforementioned. One should be careful making hasty conclusions or generalizations concerning the quotes following, further it can antagonize cherry-picking tendencies.
"The tide of misinformation on this, or on any other topic of Indian lore comes about because authors frequently read just a few verses or paragraphs of a text, then go to secondary sources, or to treatises by rivals, and presume to speak authoritatively. Only after doing genuine research on such a topic can one begin to answer the question: why were those texts and why do the moderns write the way they do?"
"Having dwelt upon the nature of nirvana, the Buddha now explains its positive aspect and says that nirvana has the four attributes of the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure ... the Buddha says: "O you bhiksus [monks]! Do not abide in the thought of the non-eternal, sorrow, non-Self, and the not-pure and have things as in the case of those people who take the stones, wooden pieces and gravel for the true gem [of the true Dharma] ... In every situation, constantly meditate upon the idea of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality meditatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like the wise person."
The above quote is lifted from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra with no context or understanding of the rather in-depth sutra.
"The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, a long and highly composite Mahayana scripture, refers to the Buddha using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. From this, it continues: "The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self."
The Ratnagotravibhaga, a related text, points out that the teaching of the tathagatagarbha is intended to win sentient beings over to abandoning "affection for one's self" - one of the five defects caused by non-Buddhist teaching. Youru Wang notes similar language in the Lankavatara Sutra, then writes: "Noticing this context is important. It will help us to avoid jumping to the conclusion that tathagatagarbha thought is simply another case of metaphysical imagination."
Further, in other portions of the text, where the positive-self discussions are being had, a monk proclaims that for the first time he has attained the proper view (that which was exceedingly soteriologically beneficial for that particular monk; as the entire text speaks to a range of contemplatives & to different faculties and paths, hearer monks, bodhisattvas, etc).
"Is the way the 'parinirvana' or parinibbana in pali described in that quote above from wiki (a mahayana related quote) universally accepted as the definition of parinibbana? Is it found in the pali sutta version?"
"It would be grossly out of place in the Pali canon... "
Automatically presupposing that the quote, either gathered from the quote and/or the link, refers to parinirvana may lead to confusions. Beyond, a team of monks under the direction of Padmasambhava wrote the Mahaparinirvana Sutra with a heavy soteriological emphasis, however the scant references to epistemic modeling/assertions & ordering principles do not fly in the face of the early teachings, though it may appear this way to overly hasty quasi-discernment. Padmasambhava appeared to be such a grandmaster of the bardo visions & actual-clear-light that many consider him developed beyond even Shakyamuni. Thus, let us not trivialize the text by projecting and assuming ontology, ontic-seeking or anti-logical and naive notions of eternality and self, some of which are the most basically refuted notions on behalf of Buddhism (it wasn't then nor now a secret that Shakyamuni fully refuted these notions, that part of what distinguished him amongst other contemplatives of his day were these varying orders of refutation).
In the early texts, Shakyamuni does conventionally teach self to those snared in conceptual/perceptual traps relating to reifying concepts of non-being, emptiness, or nihilism; thus the soteriological and conventional precedent was established. As an aside, many great thinkers later have referred to even the views of eternalism or nihilism as subtly pure Buddhas (epistemically/soteriological), as paths are possible and available for those who are attached to these views, figuring ways to use these views as fuel; again for the sake of those bound up in views.
The quote is specifically referring to and acting towards teaching monks who are not skilled in objectless meditations, meditations beyond name & form, and certainly not nibbana. As first there is criticism of abiding in the thought of non-eternal, sorrow, non-Self, and the not-pure; then it advises to meditate on the idea of the self, eternal, bliss, pure for those who are still in a position to desire the attaining of reality. Neither actually describe nirvana, for eternal/non-eternal, self/non-self, or bliss/non-bliss all refer to definitions & limitations that are non-applicable to the boundlessness of nirvana. The freedom of nirvana is the boundless freedom of inconceivability.
"Whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is Sunya, empty. Since absolute inconceivable truth is also Sunya, Sunyata or the void is shared by both Samsara and Nirvana. Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood." -Nagarjuna
Further, considering all the above, and considering the 'positive aspect' of the nibbana of the early texts: Conventional discussions can be had of nibbana as 'self' in terms of 'self' simply equaling 'consciousness without feature', in other words, for convention, it is that-which-remains-after-the-true-negation. Though even the self in actuality has departed the empty room, there is a 'space' where environmental decoherence cannot enter, leaving emptiness, nibbana is so unbounded it is beyond being or non-being; thus this 'self-contained' freedom from decoherence, the leftover after the negation of which the self departed the empty room and after even the room itself is discarded, can be conventionally called 'self' (though Buddhism in proper, Shakyamuni and otherwise, have stressed the limited utility of this, in most cases declaring there is no point in adding the label of self, however there are many different minds with different defilements).
Further, conventional positive discussions can be had of nibbana as 'eternal' in terms of gaining the two knowledges, the knowledge of destruction corresponds to the eternal destruction of the defilements at their very root; the knowledge of non-arising corresponds to the gained certainty (or 'the remaining certainty after the true-negation') of the eternal non-arising of future defilements.
Further, conventional positive discussions can be had of nibbana as 'bliss' in terms of the knowledges as well, for the first bliss is the bliss of severing all that can cause distress and make one tremble; the second bliss is the blissful presence of that discernible certainty as to future freedom and persistence of severance.
Further, conventional positive discussions can be had of nibbana as 'pure' in terms of the purity of attainment and severance, as well as the persistence of such. The resulting purity of behavioral fruit etc. Further etc as discussions of pure are somewhat self-explanatory.
Thus it is not in conflict nor grossly out of place concerning the early representations & texts. This includes when 'The Nirvana Sutra' mentions the Buddha-nature as "the boundless Dharmadhatu".
"In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha declares:
Nirvana is stated to be eternally abiding. The Tathagata [Buddha] is also thus, eternally abiding, without change.
This is a particularly important metaphysical and soteriological doctrine in the Lotus Sutra and the Tathagatagarbha sutras. According to the Tathagatagarbha sutras, failure to recognize the Buddha's eternity and, even worse, outright denial of that eternity, is deemed a major obstacle to the attainment of complete awakening (Bodhi)."
The Lotus Sutra and especially such tantras as the Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra give expression to a vision of the Buddha as the omnipresent, all-knowing, liberative essence and deathless Reality of all things."
The Tathagata/Buddha & Nirvana can be be considered eternally abiding (explained beyond the obvious conventional purpose already mentioned above) in the context that 'eternally abiding' here must implicitly & necissarily refer to 'as long as there are unliberated sentient beings' (for that matter, sentient beings in general). As long as there are sentient beings, there will be, in actuality, the eternally abiding potential of consciousness without surface and it itself etc. The Tathagata/Buddha thus is a principle/potential for full awakening, the capacity by virtue of sentience.
Further, there is no need nor evidence nor reason to take the lotus sutra or the mentioned tantra and the tathagatagarbha class sutras as 'metaphysical', atleast beyond the soteriological and epistemological boundary. Using twilight language to 'give expression to a vision of the Buddha', should not be conflated with ontological speculation.
Omnipresent as it is found where every mind is found, all-knowing as it is found where every mind is found and is beyond subject-object, it is the liberative essence as it is found where every mind is and is thus path and result (and subtly considered even the appearance of obstacles), deathless reality for as long as there are minds and sentience there will be this actuality.
Failure to recognize the Buddha's eternity, in association with path-obstacles, can be considered in respect to the relationship with the ability to see the Buddha/potential for full awakening in others etc. A reference to how, if one is lacking the capacity to understand the positive aspect in its observed & conventional, then one is lacking the sufficient knowledge and faculties to yet lift oneself to the summit of complete awakening. Further, an outright denial can be considered a major obstacle as this is an indication of being bound up in views, which may act as a preventative factor or factor of distortion in regards to many states & attainments.
As generally the bodhisattva, Buddha, awareness-holder paths necessarily attain a malleability of the dharma teachings and representations of said teachings. For example, a Bodhisattva's personal path completely ends several steps before complete-awakening, they have already attained nirvana and have gone beyond all spheres of suffering (and thus it is said their path is over), yet several steps remain concerning increasing intellectual discernment and the faculties related to 'initiating' transcendentally spontaneous wisdom. As complete realization entails becoming an increasingly suitable vessel in so far as being able to carry the weight of increasing numbers and types of beings.
"In the Dharmakaya doctrine the Buddha teaches that the Buddha is no longer essentially a human being, but has become a being of a different order altogether. In his ultimate transcendental "body/mind" mode as Dharmakaya, he has eternal and infinite life, is present in all things as the Buddha-nature, and is possessed of great and immeasurable qualities."
There really is no such thing as the 'dharmakaya doctrine'. The term and notion originated from the early texts and has been adapted to the various epistemic and soteriologic models since (its use is vast and any impulse to make hasty generalizations or conclusion should be exterminated). It can mean the emergent causal structure/phenomena concerning dhamma teachings themselves. As Shakyamuni is said to have taught "Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma". After Shakyamuni's parinibbana, his dhammakaya was distinguished from the physical body, as the only way to 'relate' to Shakyamuni from then on was through the teachings and the associated co-emergent causal structure. Amongst many of its applications during the development and refinement of modeling etc, dharmakaya became a slightly ambiguous term related to various conceptions of the higher or highest attainments. Some masters imposed limitations and made errors through consolidation concerning the level of attainment that the dharmakaya represents related to one epistemic model or another (some even limiting it to the non-actual clear light). However, an in-depth meta-approach generally concludes it proper to equate with the highest possible attainment considered out of any advanced meta-tradition, which is considered to include the maximum intelligence, knowledge & wisdom 'relatively' possible (Prasaṅgika necessarily includes this to mean mastery over that age's science and art in its consideration of 'maximum', in fact this is considered critical for the highest attainments related to having the proper capacities pertaining to assisting other beings, by being able to draw great corollaries).
However, to the quote, non-manifestive consciousness doesn't discern and entertain notions of groups of beings delineated by becoming & birth. Thus little reason to speak of human beings, as awareness does not discriminate when animating actuality. Almost every tradition of any order, Buddhist and otherwise, could be construed in some fashion or another as no longer essentially 'human being' (rather ambiguous term to begin with). The result of 'a body who has immolated feeling of being' could be considered no longer essentially 'human being'. Any contemplative who achieves any order of super-sanity can be said to be no longer essentially human being. When one fully relinquishes traces of cognitive discrimination, a knowledge related to the sameness of non-manifest consciousness dawns. The sameness of which has infinite life as long as there are minds and sentience, as non-discriminative awareness, in principle, can be found where every mind is. It is present in all things as awareness is what animates the experience of reality/actuality/unreality (biocentric-like as a practicality). Thus it can be considered 'possessed of great and immeasurable qualities' (again all within an epistemic model with soteriological efficacy).
"When you [attain] realize that samsara and nirvana are dharmakaya, you need not put effort into meditation practice." -Padmasambhava
Though the Buddha-matrix is subtly present within all, proper wisdom allows operation of said matrix.
"For the Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa, and his Jonangpa School, the Buddha is to be understood as the wondrous and holy wish-fulfilling Essence of all things, beyond comprehension:
Buddha—an essence of immeasurable, incomprehensible, unfathomable, excellent exalted body, wisdom, qualities, and activities extremely wondrous and fantastic—is vast like space and the holy source, giving rise to all that is wished by sentient beings like a wish-granting jewel, a wish-granting tree …[11]"
"Shentong teachings, and the school of Jonang, are a minority school of Tibetan Buddhism, in fact the least adherents out of the 5 schools of Tibetan Buddhism - in fact Jonang is only recently 'officially recognized' this year as one of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism by the Dalai Lama. Shentong is often accused by Tibetan Buddhists of leaning towards the eternalist side of interpretation (but so does certain early sutras of the Tathagatagarbha class of Mahayana scriptures) and is much closer to the view of Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta than other forms of Tibetan Buddhism, and I think these certain schools (like Shentong/Jonang) and some Tathagatagarbha class sutra (like the early version of Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra) are as eternalistic as they are accused of (though the degree of being affected by eternalist view very much depends on each individual shentong-view teacher, some are less eternalistic than others). However, vast majority of Tibetan Buddhism/Mahayana do not hold such views (though not very uncommon either).
Most Tibetans do not hold an eternalist view and are more towards the Nagarjuna 'middle way' teachings in terms of view... just mentioning this because Mahayana and Tibetan is very vast, there is no single uniform view that is accepted throughout."
This calls for a differing order of explanation. First however, consider that the Dalia Lama severely emphasizes Nagarjuna and middle way. Then consider the Dalia Lama taking the firm stance on Dorje Shugden (it started several decades before it was blown out of proportion by certain media outlets, claiming bans and illegality, despite this flying in the face of the chronology and facts of the issue). However, despite certain differences, this provides some clues as to the context by which the Dalia Lama 'officially recognized' Jonang. First, he was undoing a political wrong that was perpetuated a long time ago.
Second, he assessed it in detail to determine whether the teachings are anti-buddhist, non-representative of Tibetan Buddhism (this includes anti-buddhist claims such as ontology claims related to eternalism). Clearly, because of the Dorje Shugden situations, the Dalia Lama has demonstrated a seriousness in what he sees as protecting Buddhism's integrity, even in the face of political pressure within and outside Buddhist communities. Thus it isn't some passive political appeal, nor just passively allowing blatantly anti-buddhist doctrines or traditions into what is officially recognized. So we can't be so quick to jump to conclusions, especially considering the primary criticism between schools has been quantified as the false assertion of ontic reification or ontic-seeking.
Now, is the Jonangpa meta-tradition (for that matter shentong,tathagatagarbha class sutras, the mahaparinirvana sutra (or other Padmasambhava teachings/influenced teachings), yogachara etc, actually closer to the view of Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta? - No! For much of Hinduism and the meta-tradition of Advaita Vedanta are active exercises in ontology. Generally, even with what has become normative, where hindu yogis/hindu tantric yogis are non-studied and know relatively little of their texts, but are rather accomplished in their meditations, will assert ontological realness even after mind-projection fallacies and problems with induction etc are explained in detail. While in inter-dynamic Buddhism, including of yogachara, thus shentong; shentong, thus jopang, these issues are already recognized and dealt with, including the limits of utility pertaining to these problems.
Moreover, in terms of phenomenology and associated epistemic models (with soteriological efficacy) only, and comparing strictly in this fashion the aforementioned traditions with Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta. One immediately comes to some variant of the common criticism coming from many traditions upon this accusation, emptiness & co-emergence necessarily provides all the primary distinctions!
Beyond, in terms of the commonality of eternalistic views, the lay-people do occasionally have eternalistic models that they further take as ontic. However, the general consensus is that a fair portion of the lay-community leans towards nihilism as well. Nagarjuna's work is profound and easy to mistake, many monks don't know for example in Nagarjuna's tantra, the Buddha-matrix is mentioned. As far as the schools? I have never spoken to a teacher who is respected as logician, who upon discussing induction fallacies and mind-projection fallacies, asserts ontic seeking or ontic necessity, especially beyond epistemic boundaries etc (in fact, again and again, phenomenological, epistemological, & soteriological is the conclusion). I have spent good portions of time examining the more exotic and fringe schools, and in every case thus far, the supposed controversy (in these cases, if the accusation appears trivial and shallow, often it is) becomes non-sense in actuality. Further, as far as advanced monks and yogis, there is absolutely no need to ontologically seek, speculate, or distort working epistemic models & epiontic models. As the epistemic models consume all that is possibly relevant and necessary, logicians consider spending time on what's left as useful as spending time ruminating back further and further, teasing out factors of infinite regress (a generally non-meaningful use of time).
My experience sheds light on this Shentong/Jonang;
Many years ago I experienced a series of spontaneous dream-yoga events over the course of several months. Please note that dream-yoga is distinct from the practices related to the non-actual and actual clear light of sleep. Dream-yoga relates to the change and modification that occurs by falling under the spell of the temporary extinction that induces the sleep, and distinctly after that event of modification, practices initiated thereafter. While the basic non-actual clear light of sleep practices (of which the more advanced actual clear light eventually can follow), concerns maintaining awareness through the sleep-extinction, surviving it, but not falling under the spell of the modification that first is random imagery and then full dreams etc. Instead of falling under the spell of modification, the prana retracts into the heart-area and one is neither connected and aware nor not connected and aware of the body for the duration of the sleep cycle (in the beginning overall & over time per iteration, another sleep-extinction might arise).
Skipping to the primary order, more advanced dream-yoga, as relating to the experiences: through lucidity or constructed habit, the dream falls away. When the dream falls away for the general person, one of three colors will persist, these colors will be experienced like a cliff/precipice/vast abysses, however some can be experienced inversely (rather uncommon), where the cliff/precipice leads to 'ascending upwards' instead of falling downwards. Red generally represents deeply-rooted aversion, white generally represents deeply-rooted attachment, black generally represents deeply-rooted delusion (reaching black is preferred and more important, which is why it is called "near-perfected").
-It should be noted that preliminary calibers of varying lucidity can occur that should not be mistaken, the dream can go in and out of black (with falling or not) with either no actual delusion-precipice at all or with one that one 'coasts' down. The second can be considered a version, albeit a weaker version/echo, of the delusion precipice. As for the going in and out of a dream or having the dream fall away or dissolve, leaving a stationary black; this is generally either still subtle dream, one of the less-useful passive conscious states, or a delusion-of-other-emptiness (not the emptiness of other in proper, generally a self-delusion instead; thus those states are not to be considered the delusion precipice).
When the the dream falls away leaving the "near-perfected" black precipice of delusion, it is arising with the subtle perceptual corruption and vision-consciousness reification, not properly seeing/experiencing that otherness as indeed empty, instead subtly reifying some inherent quality of substantialness related to "other/object". One experiences the black-precipice as a subtle other/object/that-which-has-substance and will experience falling and similar. However, one can correct this by posturing the mind in-line with two-fold emptiness. Attending to the sameness and utter equality in the complete absence of established existence, burrowing attention in-between, on the horizon or fence of "out there/in here" and releasing both sides from the horizon. The moment the mind properly postures in this way, some sort of symmetry/threshold can be met.
A wondrous turning-about & shift occurs due to said threshold, for mind automatically adjusts and re-orients itself. The false animation & show of otherness abruptly ends, the black precipice is nowhere to be found, falling isn't possible as there is absolutely nothing "other" to relate to or fall relative to. There is still access to the knowledge held, there is of course no felt or perceived sense of "being" or "I am" associated. The senses are a super-mundane 'set' of senses that is primarily a vision-'tactile' complex (certain functions though do associate with subtle vibratory, "pseudo-audible"-registering). By vision at this point, an almost informationless, pixilated-like neither perception or non-perception; a light-like radiance and if forced, one might try to describe the visual aspect as an quasi-perceived indeterminate mix of black, grey, and white tones - however this can be extremely misleading; it is a distinct color and visual change from the black precipice (generally 'lighter' than the blackness of the black precipice, the precipice has no real discernible indeterminate function to its appearance, while it can only be said 'generally' of the post-precipice, as the indeterminacy of the post-precipice also makes it richer & luminous in some visual sense that might contradict 'lighter' in tone).
A few brief moments after this turning-about, suddenly like lightning, a natural, pre-knowledge familiarity instinct dawns, or a 'deep-knowledge', pertaining to a functional potentiality that naturally yields. An instinctual knowledge appearing like if waking to a familiar body, where there is no need to cogitate or even acknowledge the dawning familiar knowledge of functionality. It is automatically pre-understood in some abstract primal sense to be so indeterminate, inseparable, and boundless, that it is capable of being a creative-like potential, or something capable of loading multitudes and multitudes of thought-forms. It is known that one can acknowledge and connect two points in a vertical fashion, not in a sensory derived fashion, almost like operating through automatic functional knowledge of a visceral map, rather than the senate mapping & biofeedback itself (similar to the formless potentiation related to the pre-initation of muscle movement etc). Connecting what the abhidharmists might call the base of mount meru, to the peak (this mount-meru notion also corresponds to the spinal-complex when in the form body etc). In this case however, again there is no sense or feeling of spine-complex and form body, or "self", being or non-being.
When the two points are made to connect in proper fashion & symmetry, another shift occurs, like switching the "on" setting. More precisely, the "on" switch takes a few mind-moments to activate; during which, the subtlest sensory/map associated with each point dawns. A 'deep knowledge'-based sense arises as the proper connecting line is drawn (the "line" is sensed in an extremely abstract way, a pre-cognitive informational-sense, not properly tactile sensation, not properly knowledge, or cogitation or instinct). Considering the experience around this point, it can be said that the moment the two points are properly connected, the crown chakra is present, activated, and emanating. During a brief mind-moment, there is a distinct pulsating sensation (vibratory "pseudo-audible" pulsating tones as well) rapidly inflating and expanding from the crown chakra, arising inseparably with a stream of visual phantasmagoria. This moment is properly the dawning of the Sambhogakaya. After this brief-moment, the stream of visual phantasmagoria becomes an emanatory torrent & begins rushing generally and indistinguishably from both the aforementioned points and the line-relationship in-between (keep in mind, at this point, any discussion & description emerges with the crescendo of misunderstanding possibility, often blatant).
Now with the kaya "on" and functional, freedom of boundless emanation and bliss is fully the case. The limit and scope of discrimination and "the all" doesn't properly apply in its normative negative aspect. It is nirvana but it is also a harnessed control over an unborn cosmos of emanation. If to discriminate "is", "that-which-one-is" can be said to be none other and inseparable from "Pure-land" itself. There are absolutely no limbs, head, and torso to this body beyond "potentiality" itself, as in the capacity to naturally emanate anything possibly discernible and tune such potentiated emanations to whatever degree one can possibly discern (though no discerning is needed or generally used for the functioning of the emanatory body). It is beyond notions of fabrication however, the emanation aspect is easier to control and more natural than any label of, "will-to-being", "visualize", "conceptualize", "fabricate" etc. Course notions of intention or instinct don't properly apply, but for the sake of discussion one could say the subtlest discriminative-awareness intentions operate the kaya. One 'observes appearance into existence', or loads appearance/thought-form from another order by observation. Thousands and thousands of thought-forms can be pooled and morphed, solidified, made to one, made to many - all in a few mind-moments. Anything is possible there. It is a freedom free from even the conceptual & experiential limits of a negation-only freedom, as if those limits applied, it appears that it would render "freedom" into a very subtly measurable, definable, and bounded abstract or process.
It can indeed be considered vast like space (though the space-element, consciousness-element, or nothingness-element are not necessarily perceived/present, though can be made to be). It can be considered holy source/wish-granting jewel/a wish-granting tree. There are thousands (& thousands more) of explorable aspects to this, however from within the kaya, it doesn't appear possible to break the symmetry and return to the delusion precipice or generate delusional perception and fall under the spell of it, as in when experimentally attempting to reroot or reboot the perception of "other-ness", the kaya rejects it & appears incapable of becoming deluded by a sense of "other-ness" (again, in no way does this mean there is a sense/feeling of "I am", being, or sense of self). Having pushed this to various degrees, its persistence remained unbudged; even curious situations related to directly experimenting with the emanation of movement, not experiencing an abstract moving 'against' another abstract (the "other" abstract). There is instead the experience of visual layers corresponding directly with the intended emanation as well as some abstract knowledge-sense that might be summed up as "moving" through pure virtuality, spaceless yet vast virtuality (immeasurable, incomprehensible, unfathomable; the kaya, both during the movement-tests and not, is beyond movement/non-movement, beyond dynamic/static). Even to the immeasurable & incomprehensible extent of emanating a plane/world with the appearance of beings with minds cannot be properly discerned as "other-ness", as all possible information discernible from said plane is automatically pre-known to be discernible (there is an indeterminacy factor that is known and explorable as well). The kaya is measuring them into appearance, they are inseparable and cannot be "other" (though beyond simple notions of multiplicity and singularity). However, the most persistent & assertive observable/conclusion showing itself when doing the movement or world tests, is the sheer pervasiveness of certitude concerning the impossibility of the actual perception of "other-ness" (as within and related to the kaya).
The kaya itself when compared to posturing, though not identical to the two-fold-emptiness posturing, can be completely considered two-fold-emptiness by definition. As though lacking self-aspect worthy of identification, it also maintains non-passing integrity via direct analysis, against and versus regular order empty 'things', as they do not maintain integrity and are passing upon analysis.
Now considering the kaya fits the definition of two-fold emptiness and the phenomenological posturing comparison falls towards emptiness-of-other/two-fold-emptiness, it follows in likelihood that this is an example of actual two-fold-emptiness in the context of the broader discussions of emptiness; one could say an example of "deep emptiness". So the dichotomy between two-fold-emptiness and non-empty-emptiness breaks down as its basis as a problem is due to misinformed, albeit-it very careful, conceptualization. In other words, it does in fact appear that there are at least 'differing orders of emptiness' (shentongpas and Nagarjuna agree on the error of epistemic foundationalism and reject it, therefor they are aware of the flaws of representational modeling etc etc). Know that 'orders of emptiness' falls in line with emptiness of emptiness and penetrates beyond even affirming negation/non-affirming negation. It is absolutely unjustified to cast two-fold emptiness, non-empty-emptiness, Shentong, Dolpopa, Padmasambhava etc, in any sort of light such that they appear at odds with Nagarjuna's middle-way, Rangtong etc.
"Shentongpas (those who hold a Shentong view) consider their position to be the rarefied expression of Mādhyamika. They hold that this view is the fruit of direct meditative experience and not realized through the path of conceptual understanding nor scholarship. In light of that, they posit that Rangtong is expedient for individuals who approach Dharma primarily through philosophical studies, whilst Shentong is a means of support for the meditation-oriented practitioner."
"Shentongpas often present themselves as Rangtongpas as well, asserting they see the two views as a complementary unity, a continuum, a coalescence."
Having approached the dharma with an indeterminate middle-way approach, emphasizing bodhicitta, much study and sufficient meditation, I declare Shentong views do appear as properly a complementary unity; there is not a contradiction. It is the fruit of direct meditative experience and isn't properly understood or accessible through the conceptual work; it doesn't conflict with madhyamakan scholarship, but the fruit surely aids and adds to the insight into said scholarship.
Nagarjuna:
"All the Buddhas have said that emptiness definitely eliminates all viewpoints. Those who have the view of emptiness are said to be incurable."
Shåkya Chok-den:
"Self-emptiness is more profound for eliminating
proliferations by means of the view. Other-emptiness is more pro-
found for practice by means of meditation."
Nagarjuna:
"I bow to my own mind that dispels mind's ignorance by eliminating the mind-sprung web through this very mind itself.
Sentient beings with their various inclinations picture different kinds of gods, but our precious mind cannot be established as any other god than complete liberation."
<note: Don't conflate the bardo-visions in general for this kaya, while provisionally it can be said the bardo-visions generally present 'doors' that lead to the kaya(s) in varying ways, the bardo-visions themselves are not properly this kaya and most have structure and rules that absolutely don't apply to the freedom ontop of freedom that is the Sambhogakaya.>
<For more context related to the post-dream color-precipices, if the dream has genuinely fallen away leaving, or dissolving into a color other than the normative, then very careful analysis, including identifying the corresponding labels for the color, can provide insight into which and how certain advanced paths will be more natural than others. More specifically, it provides insight into the stamp or imprint on that mind that relates to applying a specific meta-path, thus attaining non-normative results.
For example, this mind experienced the black precipice many times, a non-normative type of white precipice, and two different types of blue precipice several times. No red precipice at all. However one of the non-normative colors explains why no red-aversion precipice, as one of the blues corresponds to an imprint of the 'vajrasattva-buddhamind', 'the natural purity of the aggregate of consciousness', 'pure without renunciation of aversion'. Which has many orders of implication concerning life, path, tendencies, etc. This mind-imprint type is untethered to rooting out aversion, it can be rooted out if inclined, however, it can automatically transform itself during the proper-course of life, certain paths and ultimately can 'liberate itself' (or the seed will remain, yet with no potential to arise, etc concerning other possibilities).
In this mind's case, the specific imprint-type lead to 'rediscovery intuitions' concerning many parts of the advanced techniques and verification concerning how emptiness applies to meta-paths/paths in general (meta-paths can be applied to any person, though matching a proper meta-path with a properly discerned imprint-type generally leads to a distinct increase in efficacy, performance, natural symmetry etc).
During the held-breath tummo for example and before one has attained the knowledge of non-arising, instead of shielding using 'face-to-face' non-objectification during the burning cycle as to remove the mind from dissatisfaction, one can use fabrication to generate immense pure-desire & pure-clinging/sustenance. This pure-uberdesire & pure-sustenance/clinging acts as a secret and comfortable raft, carrying one to emptiness cycles, tummo attainments such as the clearing of the channels, etc- without facing any aversion or similar difficulty. The desire gobbles up all potential-aversion and associated embers and uses it as wondrous fuel and momentum to accelerate further & longer (no need to preemptively reject or renounce aversion). It might be viewed as a total transmutation of the soil by which aversion grows, mutating the roots of aversion, the genetic-modification of aversion, as once it is so converted (this is possible even before the burning cycle has ignited), all fabrications can be dropped and one is left with the wondrous natural purity of the aggregate of consciousness. There is a distinct difference between the process of aversion-mutation with moment-by-moment fabrication as its sustenance and the specific & fabricationless natural purity of the aggregate of consciousness.
One is a comfortable and secret raft where paddling and some order of effort is still required, depending on the strength of the yogi. The other is a comfortable and secret raft, a throne of a raft, where no paddling or 'effort' is required, just a torrent and tour of paradise; destination freedom. Auto-piloting and begetting the beautifully boundless & bountiful birthright, this being the benign & bedazzling beatific beguilement of the path-itself, the secret & precious backdoor to the enlightenments, liberation... and eventually Buddhahood. The breathtaking beacon that blessedly beckons the bane, banishment and bludgeoning of dissatisfaction & defilement at its bedrock, at its backbone, at its very base and basis. >
"I remember when I studied Tibetan, the teacher even said 'the future is the most important time for a Buddhist', referring to those future states of 'Buddhahood'. For Actualism, there is no actual future, it doesn't exist yet, the most important and unique time is now and here, in this physical world. "
"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."
Actualist apologists should be careful when allowing ambiguous wordplay to confuse context. If the 'Tibetan' 'teacher' was referring to those states of Buddhahood, then the actualist apologist is committing a category error with his assertion and comparison. It is a flaw in reasoning to compare a state(s) and the attaining of, figuratively & provisionally referred to, with a position, meta-physical, ontological, or otherwise concerning temporality/time.
Further, actualist apologists, as having done so before, should in the future avoid confusing the flawed, unnecessary, and completely dispensable views/tradition of actualism, with the bare methods themselves. Some apologists have demonstrated the tendency to oscillate and conflate these contexts, using the views to cling to the presupposed notion of novelty and difference, while simultaneously claiming "that's not my actualism" in terms of when any of those particulars of said view is deconstructed and shown to be pseudo-scientific & pseudo-intellectual. This clinging leads to purposely changing contexts; purposely equivocating ambiguous language; utilizing special pleading; utilizing a self-serving bias, such as when distorting anecdotal evidence etc etc.
Actualism of course, does assert a differential comparison on more than one occasion concerning the present related to the future. There is a goal & there are processes in the present that actualism discerns needs modification, and even destruction, as to allow and attain a better, more enjoyable, "happier and more harmless" future or future-nowness. Thus there is no distinction with other contemplative traditions on this basis, as the attempted distinction is seen to be trivial and based on misunderstanding provisional statements.
This of course, has nothing to do with the apologists tacked on presupposition (the trivial one, intended to draw out the false & misleading distinction of that actualist's own creation) concerning "there is no actual future, it doesn't exist yet".
Nothing in the 'Tibetan' 'teacher's' statement, or the actualist methods, or implied by logic within that particular self-referential actualist set of views, makes any distinction or makes any statement as to the "actual future", the 'real' nature of time, or whether or not the "future exists yet". The actualist doesn't appear to realize or care that 'it doesn't follow', in other words, it is a flaw in reasoning to do what he has, which is change the subject. Further, this applies to "the most important and unique time is now and here, in this physical world ". Including all the applicable & aforementioned criticisms, this is a self-serving and misleading statement loaded with presupposed terms that are devoid of actual relevance.
" Now follows the esoteric instruction which reveals the three times to be one: Abandon your notions of the past, without attributing a temporal sequence! Cut off your mental associations regarding the future, without anticipation! Rest in a spacious modality, without clinging to the thoughts of the present. Do not meditate at all, since there is nothing upon which to meditate. [...]" -"Introduction to awareness", 'Tibetan Book Of The Dead'
If pushed to discuss views of time based on epistemic modelling, many early schools had different views. Some asserting extreme momentariness, that there is only nowness ultimately untethered from past and future. Some asserting all three-times persist. However the advanced schools, aware of the logic concerning the cognitive dependent co-origination of dependent co-origination itself, don't cling to any or assert "in reality" any model of time whatsoever. Moreover, for convenience and convention that avoids detailed discussions of co-emergence, the advanced traditions thus assert the three times as an interrelationship of past-present-future and additionally a nowness/present that is untethered to some degree or in some sense from the three-times.
This view of time is closest to modern physics, as per experimental evidence & mathematical evidence, there is an interrelated past-present-future, with a lot more flux between then most anyone expected. Experimentally proving that the present alters the past, indicating the future does influence the present; as a matter of scientific fact. Further considering the meta-material experiments showing a lag in time, thus showing us the degree to which time is quantized/digitized. Withal, at deeper orders, there is a nowness that basically untethered from the three-times, as the quantum-gravity process is emanating space and time, thus the process ("unborn" process) itself and beyond the planck sale is timeless "now" to a somewhat significant degree.
As far as any loose and created temporality relationship concerning "Tibetan paths", they can generally be divided into two categories, the long-bodhisattva paths & the tantric-bodhisattva paths (this includes mahamudra, dzogchen etc). First, the tantric-bodhisattva paths are concerned with 'segregating samsara and nirvana' and reaching an accelerated buddhahood/awareness-holder attainment as soon as possible in this life (as quickly and as soon as that individual student discerns & efforts as necessary and worthy). Not only returning again and again to the natural perfection of the moment, or seeing atemporal buddhamind & gradually extending for longer and longer (thus 'future being the most important time', beyond being a statement of provisionality alone, is completely unjustified). Though also utilizing the attained knowledge and insight through various practices, to build a moment by moment paradise.
The actualist apologist claims to have practiced deity visualizing for 'the sake of generating "bliss", however the primary use it has before the non-actual clear light, isn't generating bliss at all, it is amongst other things, to gain insight attainments into the observed fact that in a single mind-moment there can be bliss & emptiness (some traditions also equally or more so emphasize intelligence & emptiness in a single mind-moment). It means, amongst many orders of potential insight, the very root of experienced awareness can be re-programmed and sustained mind-moment by mind-moment in bliss & emptiness (thus fabrications & liberation). Further that the practice is used as a path in itself that eventually leads to liberation through bliss (this doesn't mean it is of the easiest paths). These are a few of the meanings of emptiness of emptiness.
<Note: around the time of the non-actual clear light and beyond, the dynamics for mantra practice, deity practice, etc changes and to the degree that the techniques can be utilized for different reasons from then on out.>
The fabrication paradise attained by the awareness-holders surpasses personal-freedoms concerned with merely non-objectification, as a state of extremely exalted bliss can co-mingle with liberation (emptiness) and any other fabrications one wishes (one of the liberations concerned with liberation from the limitations of personal-liberation). The fabrication paradise is one of the highest possible moment by moment enjoyments, in fact only a single great-bliss (let alone when all the great-blisses are activated at the same time, a while before the supreme and special extinction) is far more delightful than mere non-objectification, much more delightful than the regular enlightenments, where one merely destroys the feeling "I am", the center-point, associated identification, and dissatisfaction. To iterate, actual freedom, is merely a regular enlightenment, not a supreme enlightenment, and significantly underdeveloped compared to reaching buddhahood/awareness-holder enlightenments, which constitute the actual & supreme moment by moment enjoyment of this life or any other.
As to the long-bodhisattva paths, buddhahood is only spoken about as the goal in a provisional fashion to assist the very immatured pseudo-bodhisattva just beginning or having begun the paths. Beyond this, these paths disregard buddhahood in favor of personally living for sentient beings, developing emptiness knowledge as to bring about the natural perfection and to assist others. It is a different order of embracing this moment of being alive. Therefor, it is false and misleading to say that some future state is preferred as priority, or that a position is had concerning a preference of temporal states, 'preferring future'.
"As for 'future', in Dzogchen form of Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhahood is already spontaneously perfected right now as the three kayas. It only needs to be discovered."
Indeed.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present." -Padmasambhava
Padmasambhava, the great Indo-Tibetan buddhist, one of the original & prime tantric practitioners that created what became Tibetan Buddhism. The primary overseer concerning the translation and recreation of a great number of the Indo-Tibetan texts, as well directly & significantly participating in creating the written Tibetan language.
"Perhaps, it could also contribute and not only be 'detrimental'. If you think is mixed, then consider it mix. Does this mixing implies that I'm wrong point by point? I am, after all, quoting relevant and valid sources. Maybe someone could also learn from these fragmentary points in a more specific way. A Tibetan practitioner could extract some value, a Theravadan one other, and an actualist another. I will add a note in my post, if that helps."
Actually, 'texas sharpshooting' & 'cherry picking' are considered flaws in reason specifically because they are unhelpful & wrong, misleading and misconstruing relevant and valid sources. It is generally considered cheap opportunism opposed to asserting meaningful assumptions, conclusions, etc. So yes, in this case, this mixing implies the assertions are wrong point by point. A valid source with no or worse, incorrect context, often means the directly stemming assertions are wrong point by point. Suggesting that someone could or should learn by efforting through the fallacies, by deciphering and translating blatant errors, is a method to deny and avoid correcting and deleting one's error.
To argue and assert hypotheticals as to "perhaps, it could also contribute and not only be 'detrimental' " is somewhat trivial and seems to be an excuse that could be made when any error is pointed to almost under any circumstance, one could just play semantic games with what "contribute" means in the most blatant of self-serving ways. It presupposes and assumes there is "something" meaningful or of value but "hidden" and has to be put together. Further, it is assuming that said "meaningful & hidden something" is more meaningful than any potential confusion caused. Under this circumstance, that others should put in the effort to discern and translate because of the possibility of hidden meaningfulness appears absurd (it really places stock in the level of meaningfulness; to justify the expenditure of the audience's time). There isn't, due to the lack of context and miscontext reviewed & deconstructed during the course of this writing, it is clear there is no hidden value, but an example of an emergent and self-propagating error upon error stemming from said cherry-picking.
However, despite that actualist apologist not knowing clearly the "cash-value" of the "hidden something" in relation to said potential confusion, he still chose to post. Thus unreasonably putting the burden on the audience to be educated enough to refute or correct the errors, as if no one does or currently can, then those errors can bleed into the minds of those members of the audience who are completely devoid of any knowledge of the Buddhism or are at some risk of blatant mistake and being misled. A risk the actualist is willing to take in order to defend his own presuppositions.
A 'tibetan practitioner' likely won't extract any value, as there have only been incorrect contexts concerning Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, in fact the context presented by the apologist is misleading and much more unhelpful than helpful. A 'theravadan' likely won't extract any value, as there have only incorrect contexts concerning dependent co-origination, provisional teachings, etc etc, withal, the context presented by the apologist is misleading and much more unhelpful than helpful. Further, an 'actualist' likely won't extract any value, as often incorrect contexts have been presented of actualism, and incorrect contexts of Buddhism. It is not shocking that relating an incorrect context of one with an incorrect context of another doesn't generally lead to a correct contextual comparative analysis. It can however lead to a reaffirmation of incorrect presuppositions pertaining to false and non-existent distinctions.
"What conclusions should we extract out of this? Richard says that paradise is here/now experiencing reality in this physical body (experiencing delight eating mangos and having orgasms); Buddhism seems to see this human body as an (often refered as impure, repulsive) opportunity, as a means to an end (Budhahood, Parinirvana) that occurs elsewhere, and apparently is Eternal."
Yet nearly all consider this and now Nirvana, Shakyamuni's subtle pure-land, etc etc so the paradise here/now distinction falls flat.
Shallow conclusions are generally drawn from shallow analysis. Further, Richard's paradise here & now experiencing reality is bounded and a shadow of the actual paradise of here & now experiencing reality. From the shore of the actual paradise, there is absolutely no need to delineate a body (let alone placate the presupposition of physical) as the experiencer, a limited 'self' who's end is associated with the break-up of the body. The boundlessness of actual paradise is actually free of the limiting chains of actualism. The nibbana of here and now, experiencing reality as actual paradise, experiences no delineated being or self thus no self that ends with the delineated break-up of the body, nibbana is free from delineation of being or even non-being.
The compounded and conditional delight that occurs through eating mangos and having regular and conditioned orgasms, affect-less or otherwise is but a smudge compared to the orders of freedom & delight possible, from nibbana to the awareness holder's pure-paradise. Absolute freedom and emptiness is so delightful, that eating a mangos or having orgasms cannot improve or possibly increase the delight, however the delineation of a delight-tone can be observed at one's will. For the apprentice awareness-holder can generate the experience, taste & otherwise of mangos without requiring a mango, but merely knowledge of the taste & experience. Even before the awareness-holder phases, the experience can be made so apparent it becomes far clearer, more persistent, more delightful, & more pungent than any sense impression made with the mangos themselves. That mango can be saved and given to the hungry & needy beings. Just as those becoming adept at the natural purity of visual consciousness will use deity yoga to the degree of having an open-eyed visual representation clearer than anything in normative vision.
<Further, for those intending to prolong life utilizing science's increasing confirmation of the benefit of caloric-restriction might be able to use this taste-impression mechanism extensively to lower the sugar-metabolism, allowing weight retention at lower-intake levels. However this taste mechanism shouldn't be abused if one is abusing the sugar and/or has a weight problem (diabetes is one of the worst diseases attainable out of the wide range of possible due to drug use and abuse) .>
Concerning orgasm, even the proper preliminary blisses prior to the ignited great blisses or further awareness-holdership are far more delightful than the height of mere affective or non-affective orgasms. Further, a male or female actually-free individual of actualism will feel a small order of delight, while even a male or female mid-level awareness-holder will generally have already uncovered the basis bliss and caused their genitalia to be perpetually & spontaneously orgasmic, this tone of orgasm (this innate bliss is further used as fuel for other additional and simultaneous great-blisses) is infinitely greater than the standard lay-person orgasm. Further, by the point of perpetual orgasm, an even higher-order of climax becomes possible.
To say Buddhism often refers to the body as impure or repulsive is false, only a portion of Buddhism even uses those provisional teachings. Though, most people would be hard pressed to label it delightful if each bodily part is independently placed before them, bodily liquids and all (thus when doing this in their minds, they are reaching an anatomically correct perception of body, rather than strictly the perception of body as a soft, delightful and erotic skin-cloud etc that many that are still bound by delineation project on the element body and cling to). However, these assertions clearly have no ontological or epistemic basis when actually examining Buddhism, for emptiness obviously refutes any notion of the body being inherently impure or inherently repulsive. Some tantras take the explicit position that the body is the most precious and wondrous thing in all the universe (and thus dedicating the body and its time & behavior to other beings is the ultimate gift and selflessness). Further, when using the provisional teachings concerning impure or repulsive, it is to cut off clinging and I-making/identification directly and efficiently. Even if someone had not yet claimed nibbana but had some experience in the disgust-abandonings, then during the moments of death or disease, that person's unpleasantness could be reduced or minimized.
"And whenever Richard of AF accuses Buddhism, he always accuses Buddhism as if Buddhism is teaching a form of Hinduism and an eternalistic Self... obviously, this is a view held by a small minority of Buddhists even among Tibetan/Mahayana (needless to say, much less in Theravada) and most do not think it represents the teachings of Buddha."
Richard acts like he knows enough about Buddhism to claim distinction, yet he does appear to make these most basic errors that are in no way reflected in the texts he refers to. As Richard refers to the early-texts, though they are equally as 'buddhistic'; they were written hundreds of years after Shakyamuni, indicating his critique of 'buddhistic' as meaningless. It is a self-serving bias that misrepresents Buddhism to a grossly simplistic and faux degree, as it's that much easier to attempt to separate one's methods and oneself as superior or novel. Osho did a very similar thing. The question is, is Richard incapable of learning and understanding the teachings, is he unwilling or disinterested, or does he know his claims are false and is using the ignorance of others (In Osho's case, it appeared to be a mix of all three) ?
However, considering how the fisherman's son was scolded for bastardizing the teachings by asserting the notion that consciousness is the "what" that does post-death wandering, it is clear Richard has little knowledge or concern with relating what the texts actually say.
"If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that would be mistaken; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'... that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken."
"Now, you said:
Eradicating feelings isn't the "complete eradication of being"
From the Buddhist point of view, maybe, and that's where both methods are different."
In a struggle and attempt to maintain the illusion of 'difference', the actualist apologist conflates a point of view, with differences in methods (and thus results). Further due to this struggle, the actualist assumes this is a Buddhist point of view (however, that was not being asserted on behalf of Buddhism at all). A generally non-buddhist view; in fact this is closer to the developed non-buddhist Upanishad "being", which equated being/self with the state beyond feeling "I am", thus "actuality" = "being"; the Buddhist counter points out the extremely limited utility, or even lack of utility, of doing so, 'why even call it "being" then?'.
Further due to this struggle the apologist completely dodges the assertion the statement actually referred to, instead removing its context and attempting to make distinctions by converting its context as some view or opinion.
Now to correct the blatant miscontextualization (intending to misrepresent another's assertion to make it easier to discount, draw distinction, refute, or to use as evidence in some fashion, is distinctly a flaw in reason, a logical fallacy).
A logical assertion was presented, which isn't the same as an opinion, thought experiments are a cornerstone to science and philosophy, the very idea being that they are not opinions and share inter-subjectively agreeable values or features, bordering 'logically objective'. A logical fallacy violates the rules of logic regardless if the person asserting realizes it or not. This logical assertion is implicitly refuting any objective "cash-value" in the semantics that are being used, as being most proper or absolute.
What was actually said:
"A complete eradication of being would permanently extinguish a priori, which is logically untenable for a variety of reasons (like its self-refuting as this knowledge could only be known a priori, meaning if it were true that the being was eradicated, that-which-was-eradicated would have no way of knowing, so the claims or teachings couldn't possibly arise."
If being can be equated with experience itself in some semantic sense, then there is even less semantic value in saying being is eradicated. However, the implied counterexample of "being" being equated with experience itself in terms of semantic value is also arguable in favor as, because 'experience itself' might be considered 'more fundamental' than feelings (it persists once feelings are eliminated etc). Though in the implied counterexample, there is nothing underneath experience that is easily called "being".
The assertion is basically a logical proof, as it is simply stating that an experience cannot discern from the inside of a particular moment of experience that experience itself has been fully destroyed in that moment, as it requires imputed experiential-information into said experience for any discerning or knowledge of experience to be experienced and known.
"You said "There are no objects" and "physicality isn't in accords with the laws of nature", so perhaps you won't see a baseball (an object) in a frank trajectory to you (another object), and that's gotta hurt. My body is some kind of object, a lion is a kind of object, a skyscraper is a kind of object, etc."
The appearance of what is could be delineated as an approaching baseball, in no way means it is physical or even that "objects" are involved. The conventional model of physics is the standard model of quantum mechanics, this is the old and out of date model that has been replaced, and yet that old model doesn't ultimately have physical objects. Speaking of "that's gotta hurt" is an appeal to vividness, which has nothing to do with the conversations of improper delineation and presuppositions of objects and physicality. When asserting materiality, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.
When saying "My body is some kind of object, a lion is a kind of object, a skyscraper is a kind of object, etc." this is relying on a shifting context, as again delineating and labeling them, then relating or relaying these mentated labels, in no way at any step, means those are objects or physical. However, if one means 'abstract entities for convention', then what is the use of pseudo-scientific convention if there are scientifically coherent conventions that explain more with less ambiguity and implicit presuppositions? Thus if one demands to speak of "objects", then an excerpt from a model more in-sync with science and modern epistemic modelling in proper:
"In the Dialogues Berkeley argues as follows:
(1) Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are sensible objects.
(2) Sensible objects are those things perceived by sense.
(3) Those things perceived by sense are ideas.
(4) So, sensible objects are ideas.
(5) So, houses, mountains, rivers, etc., are ideas.
(6) Ideas cannot exist except in a mind.
----> Houses, mountains, rivers, etc., cannot exist except in a mind.
In the case of sensible things, then, "esse est percipi" = to be is to be perceived.
(1) Every physical object is a collection of sensible qualities.
(2) Every sensible quality is an idea.
(3) So, every physical object is a collection of ideas. (from 1, 2)
(4) No idea can exist unperceived.
(5) So, no physical object can exist unperceived. [Etc.]"
"Now, back to methods, from my understanding, Actualism enhances the receptors of physicality (senses) and leaves everything else behind ("soul" and "ego", which are interpretations of that physical inputs). "
What is being discussed there isn't methods, but views. All that is presented here is the actualist apologist presupposing the senses are "receptors of physicality". Then further, that apologist delineates and separates mind & matter based on created mentated labels derived from self-referential ideas, assumptions, and beliefs; from those created and projected assumed notions, further separation is made. It is futile to reaffirm one's pre-supposed notions. Interpretation is needed to even discern and delineate the senses themselves or from one another; further, interpretation is needed to then cogitate explanations concerning the already delineated and interpreted senses. There is nothing besides presupposing labels and explanations to fit the experience -concerning the tendency to assert or cling to 'physical'. Physics has rejected materiality and our experience in no way, shape, or form, leads us to observe or conclude definitively, or even reasonably in favor of physicality/materiality or physical/material objects, or any objects beyond mere delineation.
If one is trying to remove beliefs, why allow traces of prior beliefs inform the discovery of this moment?
"Richard names that physical because physical objects (baseballs, skyscrapers, apples) are received by other physical objects (tongue, skin) which have nerves (physical objects) that are processed by another object (brain):"
Thus Richard is merely reaffirming traces of his own beliefs. As the above is blatantly falling for flaws in reasoning by virtue of circularity. "This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good."
Richard is reported by the actualist apologist as basically saying "it is physical because it is physical because it is physical". Thus a flaw in reasoning and it does not actually follow to assume and/or assert at any point in the apologist's series "physical, or physical object". When Richard asserts materiality, the burden of proof rests on him. Science has refuted materiality as the default position.
Further unpacking the statement, we see the presupposition of an "external" physical world of objects. This is scientifically unjustified and is derived from deeply ingrained assumptions. Further we see the assumption that the result arising from processing of the brain (or the brain itself) can and should be called "physical" even though it is only a representational hallucination (thus one can only experience the mind and mentation). The mere fact that it is processed, indicates an interpretation. Thus it is also against the grain of science and logic to assert nerves are physical/material, as they are experienced and sensed only through mentation and mental experience via representational hallucinations. These representational hallucinations in neurobiology necessarily defer to physics, as to whether there is "objective world" or whether or not "objects" are really there when observing them or material is there at all etc...the results are in, our experiments indicate objects are not really there, there is no objective reality or externally physical or material reality. Time to question and root-out the culturally outdated notions; there are people who still believe the earth is flat or 6000 years old or evolution isn't true, thus some beliefs for some people die hard despite the scientific evidence. There is no need to appeal to outdated conventionality when it reaffirms pseudo-scientific notions and ignites confusion & reification tendencies concerning such conventionality.
Maha Boowa:
"When you investigate mental phenomena until you go beyond them completely, the remaining defiling elements of consciousness will be drawn into a radiant nucleus of awareness, which merges with the mind’s naturally radiant essence. This radiance is so majestic and mesmerizing that even transcendent faculties like spontaneous mindfulness and intuitive wisdom invariably fall under its spell. The mind’s brightness and clarity appear to be so extraordinary and awe-inspiring, that nothing can possibly compare. The luminous essence is the epitome of perfect goodness and virtue, the ultimate in spiritual happiness. It is your true, original self — the core of your being. But this true self is also the fundamental source of all attachment to being and becoming. Ultimately it is attachment to the allure of this primordial radiance of mind that causes living beings to wander indefinitely through the world of becoming and ceasing, constantly grasping at birth and enduring death.
The fundamental cause of that attachment is the very delusion about your true self. Delusion is responsible for all the defiling elements of consciousness, and its avenue of escape is the ongoing momentum of conscious activity. In this sphere, delusion reigns supreme. But once mindfulness and wisdom are skilled enough to eliminate conscious activity and therefore close this outlet, delusions created by the flow of mental phenomena cease. Severing all of its external outflows leaves delusion no room to maneuver inside the mind, forcing it to gather into the radiant nucleus from which all knowing emanates. That center of knowing appears as a luminous emptiness that truly overwhelms and amazes.
But that radiant emptiness should not be mistaken for the pure emptiness of Nibbana. The two are as different as night and day. The radiant mind is the original mind of the cycle of constant becoming; but it is not the essence of mind which is fully pure and free from birth and death. Radiance is a very subtle, natural condition whose uniform brightness and clarity make it appear empty. This is your original nature beyond name and form. But it is not yet Nibbana. It is the very substance of mind that has been well-cleansed to the point where a mesmerizing and majestic quality of knowing is its outstanding feature. When the mind finally relinquishes all attachment to forms and concepts, the knowing essence assumes exceedingly refined qualities. It has let go of everything — except itself. It remains permeated by a fundamental delusion about its own true nature. Because of that, the radiant essence has turned into a subtle form of self without you realizing it. You end up believing that the subtle feelings of happiness and the shining radiance are the unconditioned essence of mind. Oblivious to your delusion, you accept this majestic mind as the finished product. You believe it to be Nibbana, the transcendent emptiness of pure mind.
But emptiness, radiance, clarity and happiness are all subtle conditions of a mind still bound by delusion. When you observe the emptiness carefully, with sustained attention, you will observe that it is not really uniform, not really constant. The emptiness produced by primal delusion is the result of subtle conditions. Sometimes it changes a little — just a little — but enough for you to know that it’s transient. Subtle variations can be detected, because all conditioned phenomena — no matter how refined, bright and majestic they seem — invariably manifest some irregular symptoms.
If it is truly Nibbāna, why does this refined state of the mind display a variety of subtle conditions? It is not constant and true. Focus on that luminous center to see clearly that its radiance has the same characteristics — of being transient, imperfect and unessential — as all the other phenomena that you have already transcended. The only difference is that the radiance is far more subtle and refined.
Try imagining yourself standing in an empty room. You look around and see only empty space — everywhere. Absolutely nothing occupies that space — except you, standing in the middle of the room. Admiring its emptiness, you forget about yourself. You forget that you occupy a central position in that space. How then can the room be empty? As long as someone remains in the room, it is not truly empty. When you finally realize that the room can never be truly empty until you depart, that is the moment when that fundamental delusion about your true self disintegrates, and the pure, delusion-free mind arises.
Once the mind has let go of phenomena of every sort, the mind appears supremely empty; but the one who admires the emptiness, who is awestruck by the emptiness, that one still survives. The self as reference point which is the essence of all false knowing, remains integrated into the mind’s knowing essence. This self-perspective is the primary delusion. Its presence represents the difference between the subtle emptiness of the radiant mind and the transcendent emptiness of the pure mind, free of all forms of delusion. Self is the real impediment. As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain. Transcendent emptiness appears. As in the case of a person in an empty room, we can say that the mind is truly empty only when the self leaves for good. This transcendent emptiness is a total and permanent disengagement that requires no further effort to maintain.
Delusion is an intrinsically blind awareness, masquerading as radiance, clarity and happiness. As such, it is the self’s ultimate safe haven. But those treasured qualities are all products of subtle causes and conditions. True emptiness occurs only when every single trace of one’s conditioned reality disappears.
As soon as you turn around and know it for what it is, that false awareness simply disintegrates. Clouding your vision with its splendor, that luminous deception has all along been concealing the mind’s true, natural wonder."
“Like the clay in the artists hands, we may convert it into a divine form or merely into a vessel of temporary utility." -Lama Anagarika Govinda
“The word desire suggests that there is something we do not have. If we have everything already, then there can be no desire, for there is nothing left to want. I think that what the Buddha may have been trying to tell us is that we have it all, each of us, all the time; therefore, desire is simply unnecessary.” -Tom Robbins
Good one, too.
