Good Friends,
Some of these & associated discussions should have been settled long ago. Much of the necessary information is available.
In The Treatise on the Great Virtue Of Wisdom Of Nagarjuna, {Etienne Lamotte}
" Among the Buddhas, clinging has been extinguished; there are not even traces of it left. When he goes to visit his parents, he feels no emotion 328." 328 says "This absence of emotion is one of the eighteen special attributes of the Buddha."
From the wiki on Anatta:
"The Buddha criticized conceiving theories even of a unitary soul or identity immanent in all things as unskillful.[22] In fact, according to the Buddha's statement in Khandha Samyutta 47, all thoughts about self are necessarily, whether the thinker is aware of it or not, thoughts about the five aggregates or one of them.[23] 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".[24]"
Arahantship ends the aforementioned tendency. Having actually attained the knowledge-of-destruction & knowledge-of-non-arising, there is absolutely no "affective identity"/tendency to feel "I am".
How many iterations and ways, implicit and explicit, need to be stated? Especially considering how forward many of the implicit references are, the entire dependent co-origination chain applied to the moment for example. Dependent co-origination process explains that momentary selfing-process, feelings co-emerging with becoming/birth etc etc.
Further, regressing before causality, and back to a more substantial notion of ' "I" am "my" feelings and "my" feelings are "me" ', is absolutely nothing new or profound, and is equally as limited in logic as it was long ago.
"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. [...]"
He makes himself out to be something that cannot be pinned down in terms of the body (among other things). Only an affective identity could say this, because with no affective identity, it is obvious that you are just the body (and not "neither body nor not-body nor within-body" etc). "
"Likewise with the other four aggregates - so he isn't feeling or consciousness, either. He also isn't "in form" or "elsewhere than form" or "form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness" or "without form". What on earth could he be, then, given he is obviously sitting there as a flesh and blood body and saying he isn't, but an affectively based identity, for what but an affectively based identity could sincerely (and accurately) say they are not their body? "
There is no affective identity and yet it isn't "obvious" that "you" are "just" the "body". There is no experiential imperative compelling these hasty conclusions. Inseparability and co-emergence demands substantial thinking & labeling be disregarded, too much error and too little gained through such provisionality. Considering that the body doesn't coherently exist as a singularity or a multiplicity, what sense does it make to proclaim 'it is obvious that you are just the body'? Considering logic is not on the side of ontic-seeking and mind-projection fallacies, what sense does it make to proclaim 'it is obvious that you are just the body'? Even without the affective identity, there can be cognitive & perceptual delusion/ignorance which can still very much play a factor. There are trace perceptual tendencies which have nothing to do with feelings or "affective identity", which can alter sense-contact etc etc quite dramatically.
Further, the vision samadhis/bardo visions have nothing to with requiring the 'affective identity', in fact if one experiences the bardo visions with any identity tendencies whatsoever, they are made much more apparent and become easier to root out. However, once all identification is gone, 'the affective identity' included, the visions samadhis and bardo visions can still be had; which lead to observed experiences that further require a destruction of many notions, even of "is" "is not".
"In our own system, although there is [conventionally existent] dis-
integration in each moment, it is not contradictory for former and later
to be one continuum. Due to this, memory of lives is feasible.
Those who do not understand the meaning of the above think that
because in the sets of discourses Buddha frequently says, “In the past I
became such-and-such [a person],” the two persons—the one after
enlightenment and the one at an earlier time—are one. Furthermore,
[they think that] it would not be suitable for them to be one if they
were compounded phenomena, since they would disintegrate moment
by moment, and therefore they say that both are permanent. In this way the first of the four bad views based on past factors is generated in
them. To prevent falling to such [a view], when Buddha remembered a
life, he spoke of remembering in general, saying “I” without qualifying
it with a specific place, time, or nature. You need to understand well
this feature of his mode of remembering [former lives]."
It is better to compare "apperceptive consciousness" with a personal-liberation such as Arahantship (specifically, realizing both the knowledge of destruction & the knowledge of non-arising), a lower-level awareness holder, or certain hermit realizer enlightenments.
There are a great many differing enlightenments relating to awareness holders, as well as some specific enlightenments 'segregating samsara and nirvana' focusing on feelings, thus targeting improper objectification & feeling-identification specifically, again from that basis being a focal point.
A major difference between Arahantship's "consciousness without surface or feature" & 'apperceptive consciousness' is "consciousness without surface or feature" drops subtle orders of delineation that 'apperceptive consciousness' doesn't necessarily (subtle & very subtle orders of duality etc). However, though apperceptiveness is closer to walking a razors edge in terms of delineation tendencies, if naked sense contact is applied properly, a removal of personal dissatisfaction can generally be the case, like many of the other personal-liberations. By razors edge, it is easier in principle, even if requiring being under extreme circumstance, to delineate, for example, a limited 'being' in relation to the body, that "dies" by virtue of the break-up of the body (& there can still be deep symbolic dissatisfaction with death & impermanence, associated painful sense, some cases fatigue etc etc). With "consciousness without surface or feature", the death of sorts has already occurred, an extreme security pertaining to the break-up of the body is the case. In the event of a bodily immolation, as in setting the body ablaze with flame until the body breaks up, 'apperceptive consciousness' would generally yield more dissatisfaction in sensed pain and in cognitive terms etc - while "consciousness without surface or feature" is far more resilient. Beyond, those arahants of higher-faculty can destroy experience at will, thus they could escape into an extinction of all experience if they chose (in total a much more comprehensive tool for removing dissatisfaction).
"Nearly 100 Tibetan monks, nuns and lay people have set themselves on fire since 2009" -A.P. Pain and suffering transcendence from disease, to broken bones & being tortured, to self-immolation, has been taken to a rigorous & extreme degree- from which even the survival instinct is no longer binding; the subtlest personal limitations can be made to vanish.
A less extreme example would be using a rather large portion of naga jolokia pepper extract to set the tongue ablaze, 'apperceptive consciousness' might reduce unpleasantness or pain to some degree; "consciousness without surface or feature" eliminates unpleasantness completely, maintaining supreme happiness; and adept awareness-holders allow bliss-only delight tones if wished.
Now, concerning "he makes himself out to be something that cannot be pinned down in terms of the body (among other things)". If really needing something to equate 'himself' to, despite substantial notions of 'himself' having absolutely no basis in anything understood or observed of reality, 'he' can be understood as merely an interference-pattern of sorts, and/or 'he' can be understood as a wave-function that has ceased environmental decoherence, thus leaving a superposition that is virtually immeasurable and informationless and thus cannot be pinned down in a very direct way (or, depending on which ordering principles are being used to consider wave-functions, it can be viewed as leaving an interaction-free collapse of the wave-function). In this case, "neither body nor not-body nor within-body...likewise with the other four aggregates - so he isn't feeling or consciousness, either. He also isn't "in form" or "elsewhere than form" or "form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness" or "without form" " & "not an organic unity, or a substratum, or a summation, or part of any or all of the aggregates" retains logical integrity through & through and accurately describes the relationship implicitly established by the aforementioned wave-function convention.
Shakyamuni often took care pertaining to labels because of how easy it is for many to misconstrue and run wild with even the emptiest of labels (in historical past but also to present). Despite it being explained again and again, there were still attempts to derive and compare properties of a label-only. The tendency to presume, reify, and substantiate qualities of comparison between labels-only generally leads to obstacles-only to coherent cogitation.
For further clarity, a Tathagata subtly refers to the imminent process (and 'result') of dependent co-origination and emptiness itself. However, more pointed to the questioning, Shakyamuni ceased delineation of the aggregates, yet "consciousness without surface or feature" was indeed the case (which is distinct from the 'aggregate of consciousness'). Tathagata is used to distinguish from someone merely having attained personal liberation ("consciousness without surface or feature" or equal to or lessor than), as a Tathagata has matured a whole series of other states like the visions samadhis, has matured the faculties needed to read an individual/group & prognosticate a direct antidote to the specific defilement-complex, has matured behavior to the degree of effortlessly engaging in task after task as seen fit, to effortlessly set an example, properly & effortlessly responding peacefully to some and forcefully to others, as in line with expediting the domestication process, further grand-mastering the process of rooting out the traces, so all sorts of very subtle experiential/perceptual, cognitive & epistemic traces are removed, leading to super-sanity & unusually clear and profound intellectual discernment. Shakyamuni was also a Tathagata in the sense of being a prime seed for an extremely large, lasting, and historically relevant meta-tradition.
Moreover & beyond Tathagata being associated with the truth-body.
"After the Buddha's Parinirvana a distinction was made between the Buddhas physical body, rupakaya, and his Dharmakaya aspect. As the Buddha told Vakkali, he was a living example of the 'Truth' of the Dharma. Without that form to relate to, the Buddha's followers could only relate to the Dharmakaya aspect of him." -wiki on Dharmakaya
- the Tathagata can be associated with the rupakaya; however, we can see more of & have more of an insight into Shakyamuni through the representations, implications, and attained results of the teachings -than we can or could merely through the associated rupakaya. It is said that he said when you see him, you see the teachings, and when you see the teachings, you see him.
"I vaguely recall something like that, but wasn't able to find it quickly. If I recall correctly, though, Richard was talking about physical heat - as in, their bodies were warmer - whereas you seemed to be talking about a sense impression that did not correspond to your body actually being warmer, rather, just a sense impression arising in your mind. Did I misunderstand that?"
The meditative heat of Brahmin & Hindu, Buddhist & Bonpo, & various bushman throughout many cultures is measurable bodily heat (the heat practices use very similar foundational methodology throughout, like breath control). In the 80's, Western scientists went into Tibet & India and used several measuring devices to find that yogis were able to take towels dipped in freezing water and drape them over their backs while sitting/standing or on their stomachs while horizontal, and dry them out, causing visible stream during the process. They stabilized their core body temperature yet their skin temperature was measured to rise by up to 17 degrees. This information has been presented even on television and even in recent times, such as on an episode of "Through the Wormhole".
Further, the "Ice Man" admits it (tummo, meditative heat) is how he is breaking those world records and running ice marathons barefoot with no frostbite; full submerging in water that can kill most people within a very short amount of time (cold shocking the heart) etc etc.
Having experience with tummo, it is surely the case that one with very little practice can warm a freezing towel pretty rapidly in one burning cycle; one can gradually heat a room etc.
To clarify, various teachers, including this mind, generally also teach another order of fabrication while someone is just learning (and generally utilizing basic and core techniques such as breath-control to generate heat initially), where one wills the yielding of a heat vector around different areas of the body, heating the body. This fabrication builds a bridge to eventually directly yielding bodily heat through very subtle will-only, rather than utilizing even that prior order of fabrication, or breath control, or asana etc (as well as providing a broad increase in flexibility and control over the heat and emanation in general). This is critical if to become adept over the heat in all its aspects, such as establishing control over neo-normative regulated heat-generation while asleep or in unrelated samadhis.
1) "Why do you say you launch into emotional reactions after solidifying into a mental object? It sounds like you do not understand that the feeling-being itself is the problem (which comes before thought), and without understanding that, you will never become actually free."
"Yea essentially it leaves the root cause there (the feeling-being), although it does seem to seriously disarm it."
In turn, it sounds like you do not understand in the slightest that solidifying into a mental object does not necessarily have to do with course notions of 'thinking' at all. The forming of unfabricated experience into the 'feeling-being' is the 'solidifying into a mental object'. The silent-thinker, or that-which-whispers-'silent'-thoughts is considered the least subtle level of mind, having for the most part somewhat little to do with the present roots of unpleasantness. It appears you are under the impression that the goal is the samadhi of no-thought or something very similar. However, the samadhi of no-thought is generally considered a samadhi of little to no use, purposeless save being a momentary place-holder while switching between mental postures/meditations (so very close to completely lacking any use). There is a story related to this, as a foreign monk was expelled from Tibet for being a nuisance in relation to spreading false & outrageous views to laypeople concerning the samadhi of no-thought being equated to enlightenment.
It seems you are oblivious to atammayata, 'not making anything of that', 'not made of that', 'the absence of craving' and 'non-identification'. The domestication and abandonment of the tendency to make experience/awareness itself into something it isn't. The abandonment of the root delusion of self. The Sappurisa sutta makes clear atammayata transcends equanimity and the jhanas. The atammayata awareness doesn't rest in any state of mind, nor is it constructed. The atammayata awareness is well beyond a feeling-being or other self-identifications.
The "feeling-being" is not substantial, and it has causes and conditions. Without certain causes & conditions, feelings, let alone the "feeling-being" cannot arise. Pulling out those "feeling-being" causes & conditions by their roots, thus roots out the "feeling-being"; moreover, it could be said in proper that those causes and conditions are the problem. It could be said in proper that you are conflating a symptom with the cause of the problem. If one ceases the automatic experiential delineation (such as solidifying into subtle mental/perceptual/experiential 'objects') that can lead to a feeling-being, then said 'feeling-being' & said potential is automatically severed and immolated, not merely "seriously disarmed". To iterate, the feeling-being generally requires uncontrolled experiential/perceptual forming, once delineation has been domesticated, the feeling-being cannot be automatically & emergently formed experientially. Or on another order, using meditative heat & often dynamic asanas in proper burns away the pranic knots, immolating the grounds by which the 'feeling-being' arises from.
“You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself.”
― Alan Wilson Watts
"When I pointed this out to Richard he (eventually, after seeming nonplussed) explained that he had often, over the years, responded to pieces of text given him by his wife for comment.. (ie. to elucidate exactly how his condition differs from the author's).
It seemed a plausible explanation to me at the time, and still does. I think it's very likely that the Bhante G / "apperceptiveness" article had the same genesis."
This is a very plausible explanation (it explains more with less assumed) and thanks for sharing. As the "apperceptiveness" article appears to strive to find difference at every possible turn, even when the actual context doesn't justify it in the slightest. In addition to that, there is no apparent attempt to hide the relational simiarlities between that article and Bhante G's; quite the opposite. If textual portions were presented to him specifically to interpret, explicate, & pontificate on differences by another, it explains why the context of Bhante G's article appears to be lost on Richard.
Though it doesn't explain his far reaching claims concerning contemplative traditions in general, his claims to understanding early Buddhist texts, or his "tried and failed" mentality towards all great contemplatives of past. However this can be explained, as quantified by advanced Buddhism, when one practices and targets feelings under the natural purity of the aggregate of feelings, purity can be achieved without releasing or renouncing subtle cogitative pride. It appears Richard has still not rooted out or renounced such pride.
"Well if everything is fabricated then the word 'fabricated' ceases to be very useful for communication, doesn't it? It no longer differentiates anything. "
Hence the purpose of context, as simply allotting context solves and refutes your purported communicative differentiation problem. Thus, the assertion as to decreased or lack-of usefulness does not hold water, as many monist assertions for example, retain usefulness in communication. Neutral monism or not.
There are different orders of fabrications as well as habitual fabrications (something doesn't necessarily have to be 'intentional' to be a fabrication) by virtue of differing causes and conditionings; fabrication, as a mere word itself, differentiates from all other possibilities & can serve as a practical epistemic basis, thus its importance is retained. Further, as there are different orders of 'emptiness', like dependent emptiness versus non-existent emptiness; so with 'fabrication'.
Moreover, it can act as an assisting axiom to further understand whatever is being investigated or communicated. Withal, it can provide soteriological benefit almost no matter the topic.
If the Buddha was asked to identify 'himself' in a photo, it is highly unlikely he would say "that one" (it is not that he is incapable of understanding the question, or the conventionality of some simplistic answer; he would fully understand the question and further, Richard's answer). This type of delineation occurs due to cognitive traces related to grasping at duality. Since non-duality/inseperability, it is incoherent to delineate beyond the provisional necessity to expedite further domestication; moreover, it is especially purposeless to partake in provisional thinking or language if it relates to essentially frivolous chatter. As Shakyamuni did in response to so many who were wasting their own time, or were not interested in understanding, or lacked the faculties to understand etc, Shakyamuni would of likely ignored the person asking such questions, or pointed out the purposelessness & error of such questions.
However, let us assume that the Buddha saw a non-trivial potential for accelerating the domestication and acted to placate the erroneous question deriving from cognitive/perceptual defilements. Depending on faculty level, Shakyamuni might respond that he isn't in or depicted by the photograph, nor does the photograph represent him; or that it depicts or represents a being or someone partially resembling him.
Further, let us assume the Buddha, due to various reasons and observables, saw a non-trivial potential for accelerating the domestication and acted to placate the erroneous question with a provisional 'bait' answer. After the follow-up question "so, given that you pointed yourself out, you are that body/you identify with that body?" Shakamuni might respond:
"Friend, know that all thoughts of "self", "yourself", & "himself/herself", whether the thinker knows or not, are thoughts of the aggregates or one of them. In relation to your first question, my friend, what can be depicted in a photograph beyond contextually trivial visual-consciousness particulars, such as light or plurality? Form, my friend. Thus, that question is implicitly concerning the realm of delineating form particulars, and so the answer. Therefor, my friend, the next question does not follow."
There is a flaw in answering the second question with "i don't identify with that body, i am that body". "I am that body" is delineating & identifying-with the body; the statement is thus self-refuting. Why would 'the body' eliminate one order of identification, but retain another? "I" however, does not have a one-to-one relationship with the body. If a photograph of the sleeping body is presented to Richard, it is improper and a leap of faith to refer to that heap of flesh as "I".
Further, if 30 hours before Richard's death, up until several months after, photographs (by thousands of cameras at nearly all possible resolutions, including even imaging into the body) were taken, persistently, every second. At what interval is Richard no longer that body or "there"? Why not 1 or 5 seconds before or after your designated interval? Why not 50 or 100 seconds before or after the designated interval? Etc. If at any point, Richard is no longer the body, or anything related to Richard is "lost", "displaced", or "destroyed", than there is thus not a one-to-one relationship with the body and further be it non-legitimate & incoherent to ever say "I am that body".
The body has more bacteria cells and genes than human cells (and is an open-system) even before anti-entropy deceases for faster body break-up. Moreover, we see at each interval a non-resting place for any sort of coherent delineation concerning body and not-body. So, it can be understood that at no point, following logic, that the non-duality/inseparability changes at all; delineating body in contrast to the rest of the interpenetrating & inter-entangled emergent flux is seen to be illogical as no proper roost is found at any photographic interval & resolution. Thus there is no reason, in logical proper, for the second order of identification, concerning identifying the body separately from anything else, let alone ever being justified in saying that "Richard is that body"/"I am that body". It is a label that doesn't add any useful information (beyond necessitated by the functional constraints of our limited & outdated languages), the label trivializes, overly decomplexifies, and takes away information concerning the flux-state of reality and unfortunately distorts reality through a completely unfounded and substantial lens/perspective. English is generally ill-equipped to properly describe the non-substantial emergent flux-only reality, yet this doesn't justify or call for making ontic "am" or "is" etc claims like "I am that body". Once you understand that particles are not fundamentally objects, but rather processes, you will see clearer as to the illogic of substantial entity claims.
"Could you clarify what is meant by saying that in Dzogchen 'everything is unreal from top to bottom'? I ask because it could be taken as a statement of solipsism, whereas Longchenpa in my understanding was clear to differentiate Dzogchen from Yogachara partly because of this issue*, and I seem to recall him dismissing the notion that mountains and rivers and such are 'mere appearances'."
Dzogchen isn't solipsism. If 'everything is unreal from top to bottom' then it doesn't reasonably follow to assume 'only one's own mind is sure to exist' or 'the self is the only existent thing' or 'self can know nothing but its own modifications'. A close & pointed comparison: "Zen holds that each individual has 'Buddha Mind': an all-pervading awareness that fills their entire existence, including the 'external' world. This need not imply that one's mind is all that exists, as with solipsism, but rather that the distinction between "I am" and "it is" is ultimately unnecessary, and a burden that, paradoxically, gives rise to an illusory sense of permanence and independence—that "separate" self which suffers and dies. In this sense, Zen reflects Meister Eckhart's "The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love." Zen works across both divisions of inside "me" and outside "me", with meditation practice unraveling the very notion of binary oppositions, which ultimately are seen as the source of any "problem" of solipsism."
Differentiation often provides soteriological benefit for certain individuals along certain paths. Everything can be unreal from top to bottom, but this doesn't necessarily mean that a silent-thinker secreting psycho-babble or "sky flowers" are of the same technical order as co-emerging sense impressions or suchness.
Dzogchen & Yogachara are not playing in trivial exercises in ontology, thus there should be no distinction from this basis. Following, if Longchenpa dismissed notions that mountains & rivers & such are 'mere appearances', he was skillfully & soteriologically segregating epistemic ordering principles. Many ultimately unnecessary distinctions are skillfully allowed for who may benefit from such, yet the Buddhic-wisdom as to the all encompassing inseparability of the Dharma sees the immanently emerging meta- path-complex of soleness.
-Ch'uan Teng Lu:
"Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters."
The wondrous Dharma seeds a nearly inconceivable number of possible divergent points and branches. Know that they fit into one another and absolutely converge in the end. Further, that the answer to one question beckons the beginning of another is merely a samsaric aspect. Thus, for those bound, a lack of distinction can also cause obstacles, as there are those who misunderstand Dzogchen and/or Yogachara etc and they may stray towards subset views of nihilism and eternalism as a result (these wrong views of nihilism and eternalism are also however considered to be very subtle vehicles that allow the confused to temporarily progress their path).
"It seems also that the difference between trekcho and thodgal may come into play here, since I could see that 'everything is illusion' view as being a useful pointer towards the experience of trekcho but perhaps off the mark for thodgal."
It could provide use to either, depends on individual knowledge, cogitative tendencies, prior conditioning, etc. Beyond, if a student of Nagarjuna, as both necessarily stem from and apply 'Nagarjuna's emptiness', then you see the rejection of epistemic foundationalism; you further see the distinction between the two break-down.
"*I think Yogachara is interesting philosophically because it is more logical than much Western idealism, in that it seems to posit a sort of inter-subjective phenomenalism, in that there is still a 'world' but rather than being objective the Yogachara world is an intersubjective, collective dream, or a dependantly arisen plurality of over-lapping dreams. Yet Dzogchen is differentiable from this, is it not? "
There is no inherent need or justification calling for Dzogchen to be seen to be actually differentiable, or further mutually exclusive; they can be seen as compatible and further accentuating one another. As in the Standard model in particle physics, where a symmetrical & hyper-dimensional pattern is necessarily represented from several different perspective-vectors, as a single modelling cannot capture the interpenetrating complexity, in fact it is necessarily limited by the modelling iteration itself; so with the Dharma. The emptiness of emptiness demands co-emerging confines of a representational set; further co-emerging confines of a perspective-vector. Representational set confines logically persist until representation transcends from model to complete & proper re-creation.
"Dzogchen is not Yogaracara for few basic reasons - Yogacara takes mind to be real. Madhyamika, Mahamudra and Dzogchen does not. Mind too is completely empty without real existence. Yogacara takes everything to be mind, and that mind is real. Madhyamika and Dzogchen does not seem to take the stance that matter = mind. If I am not wrong, Mahamudra seems to take that all phenomena = mind, but mind is unreal/empty. Yogacara seems to take that all phenomena = mind, and mind is real."
"The contemporary western Kagyu scholar Karl Brunnhölzl argues that there is no such thing as “Shentong Mādhyamaka,” but rather that orthodox Yogācāra philosophy (when understood properly) is entirely compatible with Mādhyamaka, and therefore Shentong is not a novel position. He argues that Yogācāra has often been mischaracterized and unfairly marginalized in Tibetan Buddhist curricula."
Yogachara provides highly effective epistemic ordering principles, generally intended specifically for those interested in intensive meditation (& often extended retreats). Yogachara generically emphasizes extended and often retreated meditation over rigorous learning, logic, and associated knowledge acquisitioning. Madhyamaka generically emphasizes rigorous learning, logic, and associated knowledge acquisitioning over the ease of meditation.
Yogachara has no reason to assert ontological foundationalism, especially considering its generally intended audience. It doesn't posit a mind as substance or as independent from interpenetration. Yogachara is often misinterpreted as metaphysical idealism; this is rather unjustified considering the texts themselves speak of the mind being considered only conventionally real; in fact targeting it as the issue, the cause of the karmic problem they seek to solve (if that mind however wasn't empty, there would be no 'solving' it). Yogachara does not deny dependent co-origination or emptiness and thus the associated implications that refute said foundationalism. Though, Yogachara's epistemic interests did indeed lead to some of the most sophisticated works on cognition & perception ever by Indian philosophy or Buddhism (the majority of eastern philosophy is generally non-ontological and instead epistemological).
Madhyamaka, Yogachara, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen subsume everything into interpenetrating emergence (necessarily including co-originating models of said emergence). They (including Yogachara if it isn't clear already) see mind and matter to be empty and unreal. They do however conventionally apply different ordering principles to skillfully collapse issues such as infinite regress related to modelling causality/emergence.
"A better translation for vijñapti-mātra is representation-only.
According to Kochumuttom, Yogacara is an realistic pluralism. It does not deny the existence of individual beings:
What it denies are:
That the absolute mode of reality is consciousness/mind/ideas,
That the individual beings are transformations or evolutes of an absolute consciousness/mind/idea,
That the individual beings are but illusory appearances of a monistic reality.
Vijñapti-mātra then means mere representation of consciousness: The phrase vijñaptimātratā-vāda means a theory which says that the world as it appears to the unenlightened ones is mere representation of consciousness. Therefore, any attempt to interpret vijñaptimātratā-vāda as idealism would be a gross misunderstanding of it."
"Prior to analyzing phenomena as mind-only, mind and matter are conventionally regarded as a dualism even in Yogacara. Why, because the imputed nature is exactly the conventional world."
"In Dzogchen, mind and matter are regarded as seamlessly welded, not that mind has primacy over matter. "
"Mind and matter are inseparable from a tantric point of view."
Mind & matter are 'inseparable' in Buddhism in general by virtue of delineation & its necessitated boundaries. In 'mind-only' (representation-only in proper), mind is not asserted as having actual primacy in Yogachara, it is emphasizing inseparability but soteriologically labeling (it is so conventional that Yogachara has been taken by a few to mean mind is epiphenomenal & hyper-conventional and that Yogachara is subtly pointing to 'body'/'form' as the solution, that-which-remains-after-negation, a provisional delineation of the result).
"The normative Madhyamaka view re: consciousness would be that a consciousness arises conventionally only if there is an object and an organ meeting. Hence, conventionally speaking, normative Madhyamaka allows for the existence of external phenomena."
If Madhyamaka considers mind and matter to be interdependently arisen, considers classifications as purely conventional without true existence, and considers mind and matter to be empty & unreal, then Madhyamaka doesn't actually consider 'matter to be matter, mind to be mind' (even a function dualism violates classifications as having no true existence and being purely conventional; Madhyamaka rejects such foundationalism). Madhyamaka holds to interpenetrating inseparability. The aggregate of consciousness, or conventionally arising consciousness, only arises when delineating; implicitly, if there is a lack of ignorance as to the 'primal substance', then this ceases. Beyond, the realm of interaction between an object and an organ meeting (and further the realm of interaction as to said arising consciousness) absolutely refutes externality/internality in favor of interpenetrating inseparability.
" [...]the substance dualism in Buddhism is only satisfactorily resolved in Dzogchen (but not by regarding all phenomena as mind-- which is a point of view rejected by Longchenpa incoherent)."
During even the emergence of the early groups, with their wide and varied opinions, during the phase in which some still vigorously discussed substance, there is no satisfactory reason to believe a substance dualism was ever asserted (the vast majority disregard substance entirely, there can be no substance dualism when there are no asserted substances; once a paradigm of causality, or beyond with co-emergence, has been completely embraced, these type of issues cannot be taken seriously). The early teachings implicitly refute such dualism, as there can be no interaction between consciousness & form if there is an actual dualism. Further, considering their interpenetration, they can reduce to one another, they thus reduce to interpenetration itself (which is what Buddhism has been saying, and now physics is in agreement). Everything is defined only by the outlines formed by everything else, only through its relationships, which are nothing but outlines defined through & by other relationships, which are nothing but outlines defined through & by other relationships etc etc. Thus the realm of interaction itself absolutely refutes any substance dualism. This is of course further evidenced by even a cursory examination of dependent co-origination. As "mind" & "matter" are delineated, but delineated "from" what, "out of" what? Thus if you are forced to assert a substance, a "primal substance" is reasonable, however this has to be a form of informational neutral monism/non-dualism (thus the implicit non-assertion of ontology); such as the informational monism advocated by the mainstream study of cutting-edge physics. Shakyamuni was pointing to a paradigm of inter-causality, however, then like now, the tendency for many (laypeople & young to middle monks of lower to average faculties) to continually return to substance persists.
"Also, Madhyamika follows the Abhidhamma in basically ALL its classification of dharmas. That means, Madhyamika considers matter to be matter, mind to be mind, even if they may be interdependently arisen. It does not subsume everything to be mind like Yogacara. However, it understands that the classifications are purely conventional without true existence, in contrast to Abhidhamma realism which posits that dharmas have elemental existences. So both mind and matter are, ultimately after analysis, seen to be empty and unreal phenomena. And on this point, Madhyamika, Mahamudra and Dzogchen all agree. "
Abhidhammaists actually cover a range of subtle stances. They are often unfairly lumped together and mischaracterized. Abhidhammism in general is often misinterpreted as implying ontologically inherent existence, though the natures of the dharmas are said to arise dependently on other qualities and conditions opposed to an absolute reality, substance, or substrate. It is thus well off to distinguish abhidhamma realism etc. This misinterpretation is a consequence due to a minority of abhidhammaists, few following the abhidhamma have posited elemental existences, enduring substances, or ultimate reality. These tendencies are not common, the standard abhidhamma texts assert dharmas as dynamic psycho-physical events/properties. The dharmas cover both psychological and physiological, again implying a neutral non-dualism or a 'monism of dharmas' (thus it is rather unjustified to say 'matter to be matter', 'mind to be mind'). Yet the dharmas are interacting dynamic properties themselves & also dependent on other qualities and conditions, so again, deemphasizing ontology in favor of an epistemic model of informational causality, thus opposed to substantialism or elemental-like realism. Unlike how they are often portrayed, Abhidhammists were generally open to change, they did not assume their models were unchangeable or infallible. However, Madhyamaka (Nagarjuna etc) was partially rooted in the refutation of aspects of the dharmas & their 'reality' in every fashion, also becoming far more skeptical and generally rejecting or reducing their value as epistemic instruments (their capacity to deliver knowledge, wisdom, truth etc).
"However whereas Madhyamika teaching generally comes to this conclusion through conceptual analysis, Mahamudra and Dzogchen would point this out directly in an experiential form of investigation and pointing out so that it can be directly realized in your experience."
True indeed.
As Zen can be considered esoteric Madhyamaka, & Madhyamaka considered exoteric Zen. Mahamudra and Dzogchen (& Tantra) can be considered esoteric Madhyamaka, & Madhyamaka considered exoteric Mahamudra and Dzogchen (& Tantra).
Madhyamaka focuses on knowledge acquisition through conceptual analysis, eventually leading to directly studying the coalescence of emptiness & intelligence, eventually leading to directly studying transcendental-wisdom. However, upon choosing to 'abide' or 'meditate', with a surplus of knowledge and wisdom, Madhyamaka practice is suffused with hyper-efficiency & is generally profound. While Mahamudra and Dzogchen utilizes Madhyamaka emptiness as its working basis.
Nagarjuna in explaining that one should go beyond all dichotomies (experientially etc), is pointing to direct techniques that in a very practical sense, are identical to Zen/Chan, Mahamudra, & Dzogchen postures/practices. In other words, if deeply understood, these schools share essentially the same basis for meditation and essentially the same basis in terms of fundamental reasoning.
This does not imply that Yogachara is somehow more distanced from Madhyamaka, as Nagarjuna's pointing to the trans-dichotomous 'state' necessarily includes the emphasized destruction of subject-object dichotomy of Yogachara (and anti-binary Zen etc). It is just that Yogachara, like Chan to a smaller degree, strikes its own methodological-balance of esoteric/exoteric that sightly alludes the aforementioned comparison.
" "Yes, and there is no such "ONE" in Buddha's teachings. ""
There is indeed no such "one" in the teachings or the result. With the resulting "consciousness without surface or feature", "one" completely left the room, became locked out, and thus perished due to lack of shelter; there is no remaining "one". There being no house-builder to repair the shelter, it breaks apart as well; there is no remaining shelter.
"imho , I find that its all about taking a deeper level of direct seeing(3 Cs or shunyata etc or the actual world) and use it as some 'ultimate' thing , an anchor/refuge to let go of craving and clinging (and hence "me" - making ) for liberation..
Richard takes the universe/actual world to be that ultimate..
Buddhism takes dhamma/3cs/shunyata etc to be the that ultimate..
Advaits take Brahm to be that ultimate..
Theists take God to be the ultimate.. "
Concerning provisional & soteriological efficacy , one could flesh out arguments with favorability, to certain extents. Though in Buddhism, some "ultimate thing" isn't asserted ontologically in any strict sense; or epistemically beyond reasonable and highly provisional soteriological bounds, and is necessarily anti-foundationalist. There is no ontic-seeking assertion as to 'real ultimate thing' or 'actual ultimate thing' etc.
One can make arguments that actualism isn't ontic seeking/claiming, but this is debatable.
Generally Advaits and Theists assert via ontological foundationalism.
Jan Westerhoff:
"[...] the Madhyamaka position is not on the map of philosophical positions, so it is not that we could 'some say 'ultimately matter', some say 'ultimately mind', & Nagarjuna says 'ultimately emptiness' ' and that's it. So, because this would mean to misunderstand the emptiness of emptiness. Even though Nagarjuna is not on the map, we can also say he isn't off the map. We don't want to say that Nagarjuna's position is some ineffeible position, since the systems of conventions in which we formulate this convention also creates the very notion of a fact & philosphical position. So it is not the case that 'there are the effible positions, and the ineffible positions & Nagarjuna's is one of those. [...] You don't want to say that Nagarjuna's position is off the map and ineffable."
Beyond,
-
'Introduction to Awareness', Tibetan book of the Dead:
" As for this apparent and distinct phenomenon which is called 'mind':
In terms of existence, it has no inherent existence whatsoever.
In terms of origination, it is the source of the diverse joys and sorrows of cyclic existence and nirvana,
In terms of philosophical opinion, it is subject to opinions in accordance with the eleven vehicles.
In terms of designation, it has an inconceivable number of distinct names:
Some call it 'the nature of mind', the 'nature of mind itself',
Some eternalists give it the name 'self',
Pious attendants call it 'selflessness of the individual' or 'partial absence of self',
Cittamatrins call it 'mind',
Some call it the 'Perfection of Discriminative Awareness',
Some call it the 'Nucleus of the Tathagata',
Some call it the 'Great Seal',
Some call it the 'Unique Seminal Point',
Some call it the 'Expanse of Reality',
Some call it the 'Ground-of-all',
And some call it 'ordinary unfabricated consciousness'.
The following is the introduction to the means of experiencing this single nature of mind
Through the application of three considerations:
First, recognize that past thoughts are traceless, clear, and empty,
Second, recognize that future thoughts are unproduced and fresh,
And third, recognize that the present moment abides naturally and unconstructed.
When this ordinary, momentary consciousness is examined nakedly and directly by oneself,
Upon examination, it is a radiant awareness,
Which is free from the presence of an observer,
Manifestly stark and clear,
Completely empty and uncreated in all respects,
Lucid, without duality of radiance and emptiness,
Not permanent, for it is lacking inherent existence in all respects,
Not a mere nothingness, for it is radiant and clear,
Not a single entity, for it is clearly perceptible as a multiplicity,
Yet not existing inherently as a multiplicity, for it is indivisible and of a single savor.
This intrinsic awareness, which is not extraneously derived,
Is itself the genuine introduction to the abiding nature of all things.
[...]
Now follows the instruction which brings one to the point where the six extreme perspectives are exhausted:
Though there is a vast plethora of discordant views,
Within this intrinsic awareness or single nature of mind,
Which is the naturally originating pristine cognition,
There is no duality between the object viewed and the observer.
Without focusing on the view, search for the observer!
Though one searches for this observer, none will be found.
So, at that instant, one will be brought to the exhaustion point of the view.
At that very moment, one will encounter the innermost boundary of the view.
Since there is no object at all to be observed,
And since one has not fallen into a primordial vacuous emptiness,
The lucid awareness, which is now present,
Is itself the view of the Great Perfection.
Here, there is no duality between realization and lack of realization.
Though there is a vast plethora of discordant meditations,
Within this intrinsic awareness,
Which penetrates ordinary consciousness to the core,
There is no duality between the object of meditation, and the meditator.
Without meditating on the object of meditation, search for the meditator!
Though one searches for this meditator, none will be found.
So, at that instant, one will be brought to the exhaustion point of meditation.
At that very moment, one will encounter the innermost boundary of meditation.
Since there is no object at all on which to meditate,
And since one has not fallen under the sway of delusion, drowsiness, or agitation,
The lucid contrived awareness, which is now present,
Is itself the uncontrived meditative equipoise or concentration.
Here, there is no duality between abiding and non-abiding.
Though there is a vast plethora of discordant modes of conduct,
Within this intrinsic awareness,
Which is the unique seminal point of pristine cognition,
There is no duality between the action and the actor.
Without focusing on the action, search for the actor!
Though one searches for this actor, none will be found.
So, at that instant one will be brought to the exhaustion point of conduct.
At that very moment, one will encounter the innermost boundary of conduct.
Since, from the beginning, there has been no conduct to undertake
And since one has not fallen under the sway of bewildering propensities,
The lucid uncontrived awareness, which is now present,
Is itself pure conduct, without having to be contrived, modified, accepted or rejected.
Here, there is no duality between purity and impurity .
Though there is a vast plethora of discordant results,
Within this intrinsic awareness,
Which is the true nature of mind, the spontaneous presence of the three Buddha-bodies,
There is no duality between the object of attainment and the attainer.
Without focusing on the attainment of the result, search for the attainer!
Though one searches for this attainer, none will be found.
So, at that instant, one will be brought to the exhaustion point of the result.
At that very moment, one will encounter the innermost boundary of the result.
Since, whatever the projected result, there is nothing to be attained,
And since one has not fallen under the sway of rejection and acceptance, or hope and doubt,
The naturally radiant awareness, which is now spontaneously present,
Is the fully manifest realization of the three Buddha-bodies within oneself.
Here is the result, atemporal Buddhahood itself.
This awareness, free from the eight extremes, such as eternalism and nihilism and so forth,
Is called the Middle Way, which does not fall into any extremes.
It is called 'awareness' because mindfulness is uninterrupted.
It is given the name 'Nucleus of the Tathagata'
Because emptiness is naturally endowed with this nucleus of awareness.
If one understands this truth, one reaches perfection in all respects,
For which reason, this awareness is also called the 'Perfection of Discriminative Awareness'.
Furthermore, it is called the 'Great Seal' because it transcends the intellect and is atemporally free from extremes,
And, further it is called the 'Ground-of-all',
Because this awareness is the ground of all joys and sorrows associated with cyclic existence and nirvana -
The distinction between these being contingent on whether or not this awareness is realized.
Further, this radiant and lucid awareness it itself referred to as 'ordinary consciousness',
On account of those periods when it abides in its natural state in an ordinary non-exceptional way.
Thus, however many well-conceived and pleasant-sounding names are applied to this awareness,
In reality, those who maintain that these names do not refer to this present conscious awareness,
But to something else, above and beyond it,
Resemble someone who has already found an elephant, but is out looking for its tracks elsewhere."
-
Beyond,
-
" [...] for what but an affectively based identity could sincerely (and accurately) say they are not their body? "
"Only an affective identity could say this, because with no affective identity, it is obvious that you are just the body (and not "neither body nor not-body nor within-body" etc). "
To address the flaws in reasoning by virtue of black and white thinking, when disinterested, not willing, or unable to consider other possibilities etc. Further, the psychologist's fallacy.
Thus merely hypothetical, humorously, & for the sake of demonstrating another possibility:
1. There is a zen saying as such "enlightenment is controlled psychosis".
2. Thus if a psychosis is properly controlled, it in of itself or its associated traits are not automatic disqualifies and are not definitively antithetical to enlightenment.
1. Shakyamuni is said to have gone through an extreme fasting phase for an extended period during his retreat.
2. Extreme fasting, especially for extended periods, generally is known for eating into brain-fat.
3. Thus, Shakyamuni could of had unusually low levels of brain-fat.
3. A loss of brain fat/low levels of brain-fat, especially by virtue of extreme fasting, increases the likelihood of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like traits.
4. Thus, Shakyamuni could of experienced schizophrenia or schizophrenic-like traits.
1. Schizophrenics and those experiencing schizophrenic-like traits often report a complete lack of affect (many report even a lack of any perception of fatigue, some report hot/cold and pain & pleasure too; distinct compared to schizo-affective disorder for example).
2. Shakyamuni could of experienced schizophrenia or schizophrenic-like traits.
3. Thus Shakyamuni could of experienced a complete lack of affect.
1. Schizophrenics often describe their experience and reality in terms paralleling a holographic quality.
2. So, schizophrenics speak of an oceanic inseparability with reality, they speak of experiencing a drop in the boundary between them and others (often to the degree of thinking their thoughts are no longer their own, and that they are able to read the thoughts of others).
3. Following, schizophrenics often cease viewing individual objects/things and people (often little to no self-identification), and instead tend to view them as members of larger and larger sub-classes.
4. Shakyamuni could of experienced schizophrenia or schizophrenic-like traits.
5. So Shakyamuni may have experienced holographic-like-qualities, therefor ceased viewing individualness, & began viewing all as members of larger and larger sub-classes.
5. Thus Shakyamuni could of experienced no affective identity and sincerely (and accurately*) observed it not in fact, 'obvious that you are just the body'.
Concerning "accurately*", it is a flaw in reason to think anything experienced by consciousness apparently represents or reflects the way the world really is...when someone's projections are mistaken for the way the world is. For example, just because someone 'experiences space' going infinitely in every direction, - in no way, shape, or form, means that there space going infinitely in every direction; or that space is infinite or finite, or that it goes in every direction or any direction for a finitude or infinitude, or that space really exists or is really established at all. Another example, just because someone experiences 'things' or the 'external' world as 'there' every time when looked upon, and it appears that other humans agree something is there when they look, in no way means 'it is there' when not observed or that it is actually there. Some studies indicate less than 50% of what we see is actually based on information 'entering' the eyes. The other 50% is likely due to our expectations of how the world should look like and possibly other factors. Thus there is no basis from experience to establish that it is 'obvious that you are just the body'.
Einstein believed 'things are there when not being observed', in fact, however, physics has debunked this idea. When something isn't being observed/measured, the universe does not render it.
-
