About me

This blog is created by a Buddhist living in Singapore. He embraces the Mahayana spirit of Bodhicitta, deeply respecting all Buddhist Traditions as expressions of Kindness guiding us on the path towards human perfection ~ Buddhahood.

He likes to post stuff that he had read or think is good to share here, sometimes he adds a little comments here and there... just sometimes..

ひらめき電球 Contact Me

Labels


“Sariputra, if there are people who have already made the vow, who now make the vow, or who are about to make the vow, ‘I desire to be born in Amitabha’s country,’ these people, whether born in the past, now being born, or to be born in the future, all will irreversibly attain to anuttarasamyaksambodhi. Therefore, Sariputra, all good men and good women, if they are among those who have faith, should make the vow, ‘I will be born in that country.’”

~ Amitabha Sutra

When I obtain the Buddhahood, any being of the boundless and inconceivable Buddha-worlds of the ten quarters whose body if be touched by the rays of my splendour should not make his body and mind gentle and peaceful, in such a state that he is far more sublime than the gods and men, then may I not attain the enlightenment.

~ Amitabha Buddha's Thirty-Third Vow
Showing posts with label emptiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emptiness. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection

This is a post written by a friend from 'Awakening to Reality' Blog:
(Last Updated: 14th March 2009)

Article written by: Thusness/PasserBy

Wonder why but of late, the topic on anatta kept surfacing in forums. Perhaps 'yuan' (condition) has arisen. -:) I will just jot down some thoughts on my experiences of ‘no-self’. A casual sharing, nothing authentic.

The 2 stanzas below are pivotal for leading me to the direct experience of no-self. Although they appear to convey the same stuff about anatta, meditating on these 2 stanzas can yield 2 very different experiential insights -- one on the emptiness aspect and the other, the non-dual luminosity aspect. The insights that arise from these experiences are very illuminating as they contradict so much our ordinary understanding of what awareness is.

There is thinking, no thinker
There is hearing, no hearer
There is seeing, no seer

In thinking, just thoughts
In hearing, just sounds
In seeing, just forms, shapes and colors.

Before proceeding any further, it is of absolute importance to know that there is no way the stanzas can be correctly understood by way of inference, logical deduction or induction. Not that there is something mystical or transcendental about the stanzas but simply the way of mental chattering is a 'wrong approach'. The right technique is through 'vipassana' or any more direct and attentive bare mode of observation that allows the seeing of things as they are. Just a casual note, such mode of knowing turns natural when non-dual insight matures, before that it can be quite 'efforting'.

On the first stanza

The two most obvious experiences from this initial glimpse of the first stanza is the lack of doer-ship and the direct insight of the absence of an agent. These 2 experiences are key for my phase 5 of the 7 phases of insights.

1. The lack of doer-ship that links and co-ordinates experiences.
Without the 'I' that links, phenomena (thoughts, sound, feelings and so on and so forth) appear bubble-like, floating and manifesting freely, spontaneously and boundlessly. With the absence of the doer-ship also comes a deep sense of freedom and transparency. Ironical as it may sound but it's true experientially. We will not have the right understanding when we hold too tightly 'inherent' view. It is amazing how 'inherent' view prevents us from seeing freedom as no-doership, interdependence and interconnectedness, luminosity and non-dual presence.

2. The direct insight of the absence of an agent.

In this case, there is a direct recognition that there is “no agent”. Just one thought then another thought. So it is always thought watching thought rather than a watcher watching thought. However the gist of this realization is skewed towards a spontaneous liberating experience and a vague glimpse of the empty nature of phenomena -- that is, the transient phenomena being bubble-like and ephemeral, nothing substantial or solid. At this phase we should not misunderstand that we have experienced thoroughly the ‘empty’ nature of phenomena and awareness, although there is this temptation to think we have. -:)

Depending on the conditions of an individual, it may not be obvious that it is “always thought watching thought rather than a watcher watching thought.” or "the watcher is that thought." Because this is the key insight and a step that cannot afford to be wrong along the path of liberation, I cannot help but with some disrespectful tone say,
For those masters that teaches,
“Let thoughts arise and subside,
See the background mirror as perfect and be unaffected.”
With all due respect, they have just “blah” something nice but deluded.

Rather,

See that there is no one behind thoughts.
First, one thought then another thought.
With deepening insight it will later be revealed,
Always just this, One Thought!
Non-arising, luminous yet empty!

And this is the whole purpose of anatta. To thoroughly see through that this background does not exist in actuality. What exists is a stream, action or karma. There is no doer or anything being done, there is only doing; No meditator nor meditation, only meditating. From a letting go perspective, "a watcher watching thought" will create the impression that a watcher is allowing thoughts to arise and subside while itself being unaffected. This is an illusion; it is 'holding' in disguise as 'letting go'. When we realized that there is no background from start, reality will present itself as one whole letting go. With practice, ‘intention’ dwindles with the maturing of insight and ‘doing’ will be gradually experienced as mere spontaneous happening as if universe is doing the work. With the some pointers from 'dependent origination', we can then penetrate further to see this happening as a sheer expression of everything interacting with everything coming into being. In fact, if we do not reify ‘universe’, it is just that -- an expression of interdependent arising that is just right wherever and whenever is.
Understanding this, practice is simply opening to whatever is.
For this mere happening is just right wherever and whenever is.
Though no place can be called home it is everywhere home.

When experience matures in the practice of great ease,
The experience is Maha! Great, miraculous and bliss.
In mundane activities of seeing, eating and tasting,
When expressed poetically is as if the entire universe meditating.

Whatever said and expressed are really all different flavors,
Of this everything of everything dependently originating,
As this moment of vivid shimmering.

By then it is clear that the transient phenomena is already happening in the perfect way; unwinding what must be unwinded, manifesting what must be manifested and subsides when it is time to go. There is no problem with this transient happening, the only problem is having an ‘extra mirror’, a reification due to the power of the mind to abstract. The mirror is not perfect; it is the happening that is perfect. The mirror appears to be perfect only to a dualistic and inherent view.

Our deeply held inherent and dualistic view has very subtly and unknowingly personified the "luminous aspect" into the watcher and discarded the "emptiness aspect" as the transient phenomena. The key challenge of practice is then to clearly see that luminosity and emptiness are one and inseparable, they have never and can never be separated.

On the second stanza

For the second stanza, the focus is on the vivid, pristine-ness of transience phenomena. Thoughts, sounds and all transient are indistinguishable from Awareness. There is no-experiencer-experience split, only one seamless spontaneous experience arising as thinker/thoughts, hearer/sounds, feeler/feelings and so on. In hearing, hearer and sound are indistinguishably one. For anyone that is familiar with the “I AM” experience, that pure sense of existence, that powerful experience of presence that makes one feel so real, is unforgettable. When the background is gone, all foreground phenomena reveal themselves as Presence. It is like naturally 'vipassanic' throughout or simply put, naked in awareness. From the hissing sound of PC, to the vibration of the moving MRT train, to the sensation when the feet touches the ground, all these experiences are crystal clear, no less “I AM” than “I AM”. The Presence is still fully present, nothing is denied. -:)
Division of subject and object is merely an assumption.
Thus someone giving up and something to be given up is an illusion.
When self becomes more and more transparent,
Likewise phenomena become more and more luminous.
In thorough transparency all happening are pristinely and vividly clear.
Obviousness throughout, aliveness everywhere!

It will be obvious by then that only the deeply held dualistic view is obscuring our insight into this experiential fact. In actual experience, there is just the crystal clarity of phenomena manifesting. Maturing this experience, the mind-body dissolves into mere non-dual luminosity and all phenomena are experientially understood as the manifestation of this non-dual luminous presence -- the key insight leading to the realization that "All is Mind".

After this, not to be too overwhelmed or over-claimed what is more than necessary; rather investigate further. Does this non-dual luminosity exhibits any characteristic of self-nature that is independent, unchanging and permanent? A practitioner can still get stuck for quite sometimes solidifying non-dual presence unknowingly. This is leaving marks of the 'One mirror' as described in the stage 4 of the 7 phases of my insights. Although experience is non-dual, the insight of emptiness is still not there. Though the dualistic bond has loosen sufficiently, the 'inherent' view remains strong.

When the 'subject' is gone, experience becomes non-dual but we forgotten about the 'object'. When object is further emptied, we see Dharmakaya. Do See clearly that for the case of a ‘subject’ that is first penetrated, it is a mere label collating the 5 aggregates but for the next level that is to be negated, it is the Presence that we are emptying -- not a label but the very presence itself that is non-dual in nature.

For sincere Buddhist practitioners that have matured non-dual insight, they may prompt themselves why is there a need for Buddha to put so much emphasis on dependent origination if non-dual presence is final? The experience is still as Vedantic, more 'Brahman' than 'Sunyata'. This 'solidity of non-dual presence' must be broken with the help of dependent origination and emptiness. Knowing this a practitioner can then progress to understand the empty (dependently originated) nature of non-dual presence. It is a further refining of anatta experience according to the first stanza.

As for those "I AMness" practitioners, it is very common for them after non-dual insight to stay in non-dual presence. They find delight in 'chop wood, carry water' and 'spring comes, grass grows by its own'. Nothing much can be stressed; the experience do appear to be final. Hopefully 'yuan' (condition) can arise for these practitioners to see this subtle mark that prevent the seeing.

On Emptiness

If we observe thought and ask where does thought arise, how does it arise, what is ‘thought’ like. 'Thought' will reveal its nature is empty -- vividly present yet completely un-locatable. It is very important not to infer, think or conceptualise but feel with our entire being this ‘ungraspability’ and 'unlocatability'. It seems to reside 'somewhere' but there is no way to locate it. It is just an impression of somewhere "there" but never "there". Similarly “here-ness” and “now-ness” are merely impressions formed by sensations, aggregates of causes and conditions, nothing inherently ‘there’; equally empty like ‘selfness’.

This ungraspable and unlocatable empty nature is not only peculiar to ‘thought’. All experiences or sensations are like that -- vividly present yet insubstantial, un-graspable, spontaneous, un-locatable.

If we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.

Likewise when standing in front of a burning fire pit, the entire phenomena of ‘fire’, the burning heat, the whole sensation of ‘hotness’ that are so vividly present and seem so real but when examined they are also not inherently “there” -- merely dependently manifest whenever conditions are there. It is amazing how dualistic and inherent views have caged seamless experience in a who-where-when construct.

All experiences are empty. They are like sky flowers, like painting on the surface of a pond. There is no way to point to a moment of experience and say this is ‘in’ and that is ‘out’. All ‘in’ are as ‘out’; to awareness seamless experience is all there is. It is not the mirror or pond that is important but that process of illusion-like phenomenon of the paint shimmering on the surface of the pond; like an illusion but not an illusion, like a dream but not a dream. This is the ground of all experiences.

Yet this ‘ungraspability and unlocatabilty’ nature is not all there is; there is also this Maha, this great without boundaries feeling of 'interconnectedness'. When someone hits a bell, the person, the stick, the bell, the vibration of the air, the ears and then the magically appearance of sound -- ’Tongsss…re-sounding…’ is all a seamless one happening, one experience. When breathing, it is just this one whole entire breath; it is all causes and conditions coming together to give rise to this entire sensation of breath as if the whole of universe is doing this breathing. The significance of this Maha experience is not in words; in my opinion, without this experience, there is no true experience of 'interconnectedness' and non-dual presence is incomplete.

The experience of our empty nature is a very different from that of non-dual oneness. ‘Distance’ for example is overcome in non-dual oneness by seeing through the illusory aspect of subject/object division and resulted in a one non-dual presence. It is seeing all as just ‘This’ but experiencing Emptiness breaks the boundary through its empty ungraspable and unlocatable nature.

There is no need for a ‘where-place' or a ‘when-time' or a ‘who-I' when we penetrate deeply into this nature. When hearing sound, sound is neither ‘in here’ nor ‘out there’, it is where it is and gone! All centers and reference points dissolve with the wisdom that manifestation dependently originates and hence empty. The experience creates an "always right wherever and whenever is" sensation. A sensation of home everywhere though nowhere can be called home. Experiencing the emptiness nature of presence, a sincere practitioner becomes clear that indeed the non-dual presence is leaving a subtle mark; seeing its nature as empty, the last mark that solidifies experiences dissolves. It feels cool because presence is made more present and effortless. We then move from "vivid non-dual presence" into "though vividly and non-dually present, it is nothing real, empty!".

On Maha and Ordinariness

The experience of Maha may sound as if one is going after certain sort of experience and appears to be in contradiction with the 'ordinariness of enlightenment' promoted in Zen Buddhism. This is not true and in fact, without this experience, non-dual is incomplete. This section is not about Maha as a stage to achieve but to see that Sunyata is Maha in nature. In Maha, one does not feel self, one 'feels' universe; one does not feel 'Brahman' but feels 'interconnectedness'; one does not feel 'helplessness' due to 'dependence and interconnection' but feels great without boundary, spontaneous and marvelous. Now lets get back to 'ordinariness'.

Ordinariness has always been Taoism’s forte. In Zen we also see the importance of this being depicted in those enlightenment models like Tozan’s 5 ranks and the The Ten Oxherding Pictures. But ordinariness must only be understood that non-dual and the Maha world of suchness is nothing beyond. There is no beyond realm to arrive at and never a separated state from our ordinary daily world; rather it is to bring this primordial, original and untainted experience of non-dual and Maha experience into the most mundane activities. If this experience is not found in most mundane and ordinary activities then practitioners have not matured their understandings and practices.

Before Maha experience has always been rare occurrence in the natural state and was treated as a passing trend that comes and goes. Inducing the experience often involves concentration on repeatedly doing some task for a short period of time for example,

If we were to breathe in and out, in and out…till there is simply this entire sensation of breath, just breath as all causes and conditions coming into this moment of manifestation.

If we were to focus on the sensation of stepping, the sensation of hardness, just the sensation of the hardness, till there is simply this entire sensation ‘hardness’ when the feet touches the ground, just this ‘hardness’ as all causes and conditions coming into this moment of manifestation.

If we were to focus on hearing someone hitting a bell, the stick, the bell, the vibration of the air, the ears all coming together for this sensation of sound to arise, we will have Maha experience.
...

However ever since incorporating the teaching of dependent origination into non-dual presence, over the years it has become more ‘accessible’ but never has this been understood as a ground state. There seems to be a predictable relationship of seeing interdependent arising and emptiness on the experience of non-dual presence.

A week ago, the clear experience of Maha dawned and became quite effortless and at the same time there is a direct realization that it is also a natural state. In Sunyata, Maha is natural and must be fully factored into the path of experiencing whatever arises. Nevertheless Maha as a ground state requires the maturing of non-dual experience; we cannot feel entirely as the interconnectedness of everything coming spontaneously into being as this moment of vivid manifestation with a divided mind.
The universe is this arising thought.
The universe is this arising sound.
Just this magnificent arising!
Is Tao.
Homage to all arising.


On Spontaneous Perfection

Lastly, when these 2 experiences inter-permeate, what that is really needed is simply to experience whatever arises openly and unreservedly. It may sound simple but do not underestimate this simple path; even aeon lives of practices cannot touch the depth of its profundity.

In fact all the subsections -- “On Stanza One”, “On Stanza Two”, “On Emptiness”, there is already certain emphasis of the natural way. With regards to the natural way, I must say that spontaneous presence and experiencing whatever arises openly, unreservedly and fearlessly is not the 'path' of any tradition or religion -- Be it Zen, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Advaita, Taoism or Buddhism. In fact the natural way is the 'path' of Tao but Taoism cannot claim monopoly over the 'path' simply because it has a longer history. My experience is that any sincere practitioner after maturing non-dual experiences will eventually come to this automatically and naturally. It is like in the blood, there is no other way then the natural way.

That said, the natural and spontaneous way is often misrepresented. It should not be taken to mean that there is no need to do anything or practice is unnecessary. Rather it is the deepest insight of a practitioner that after cycles and cycles of refining his insights on the aspect of anatta, emptiness and dependent origination, he suddenly realized that anatta is a seal and non-dual luminosity and emptiness have always been ‘the ground’ of all experiences. Practice then shift from ‘concentrative’ to ‘effortless’ mode and for this it requires the complete pervading of non-dual and emptiness insights into our entire being like how “dualistic and inherent views” has invaded consciousness.

In any case, care must be taken not to make our empty and luminous nature into a metaphysical essence. I will end with a comment I wrote in another blog Luminous Emptiness as it summarizes pretty well what that I have written.
The degree of “un-contrivance”,
Is the degree of how unreserved and fearless we open to whatever is.
For whatever arises is mind, always seen, heard, tasted and experienced.
What that is not seen, not heard and not experienced,
Is our conceptual idea of what mind is.

Whenever we objectify the “brilliance, the pristine-ness” into an entity that is formless,
It becomes an object of grasp that prevents the seeing of the “forms”,
the texture and the fabric of awareness.
The tendency to objectify is subtle,
we let go of 'selfness' yet unknowingly grasped ‘nowness’ and ‘hereness’.
Whatever arises merely dependently originates, needless of who, where and when.

All experiences are equal, luminous yet empty of self-nature.
Though empty it has not in anyway denied its vivid luminosity.

Liberation is experiencing mind as it is.
Self-Liberation is the thorough insight that this liberation is always and already is;
Spontaneously present, naturally perfected!


PS:
We should not treat the insight of emptiness as 'higher' than that of non-dual luminosity. It is just different insights dawning due to differing conditions. To some practitioners, the insight of our empty nature comes before non-dual luminosity.

For a more detailed conceptual understanding of Emptiness, do read the article "Non-Dual Emptiness" by Dr. Greg Goode.




~End of Post~



--------------------------------------
Technorati:

Read more!

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Emptiness

by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Emptiness is a mode of perception, a way of looking at experience. It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events. You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there's anything lying behind them.

This mode is called emptiness because it's empty of the presuppositions we usually add to experience to make sense of it: the stories and world-views we fashion to explain who we are and the world we live in. Although these stories and views have their uses, the Buddha found that some of the more abstract questions they raise — of our true identity and the reality of the world outside — pull attention away from a direct experience of how events influence one another in the immediate present. Thus they get in the way when we try to understand and solve the problem of suffering.

Say for instance, that you're meditating, and a feeling of anger toward your mother appears. Immediately, the mind's reaction is to identify the anger as "my" anger, or to say that "I'm" angry. It then elaborates on the feeling, either working it into the story of your relationship to your mother, or to your general views about when and where anger toward one's mother can be justified. The problem with all this, from the Buddha's perspective, is that these stories and views entail a lot of suffering. The more you get involved in them, the more you get distracted from seeing the actual cause of the suffering: the labels of "I" and "mine" that set the whole process in motion. As a result, you can't find the way to unravel that cause and bring the suffering to an end.

If, however, you can adopt the emptiness mode — by not acting on or reacting to the anger, but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves — you can see that the anger is empty of anything worth identifying with or possessing. As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the most subtle events in the realm of experience. This is the sense in which all things are empty. When you see this, you realize that labels of "I" and "mine" are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain. You can then drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that's totally free.

To master the emptiness mode of perception requires training in firm virtue, concentration, and discernment. Without this training, the mind tends to stay in the mode that keeps creating stories and world views. And from the perspective of that mode, the teaching of emptiness sounds simply like another story or world view with new ground rules. In terms of the story of your relationship with your mother, it seems to be saying that there's really no mother, no you. In terms of your views about the world, it seems to be saying either that the world doesn't really exist, or else that emptiness is the great undifferentiated ground of being from which we all came to which someday we'll all return.

These interpretations not only miss the meaning of emptiness but also keep the mind from getting into the proper mode. If the world and the people in the story of your life don't really exist, then all the actions and reactions in that story seem like a mathematics of zeros, and you wonder why there's any point in practicing virtue at all. If, on the other hand, you see emptiness as the ground of being to which we're all going to return, then what need is there to train the mind in concentration and discernment, since we're all going to get there anyway? And even if we need training to get back to our ground of being, what's to keep us from coming out of it and suffering all over again? So in all these scenarios, the whole idea of training the mind seems futile and pointless. By focusing on the question of whether or not there really is something behind experience, they entangle the mind in issues that keep it from getting into the present mode.

Now, stories and world views do serve a purpose. The Buddha employed them when teaching people, but he never used the word emptiness when speaking in these modes. He recounted the stories of people's lives to show how suffering comes from the unskillful perceptions behind their actions, and how freedom from suffering can come from being more perceptive. And he described the basic principles that underlie the round of rebirth to show how bad intentional actions lead to pain within that round, good ones lead to pleasure, while really skillful actions can take you beyond the round altogether. In all these cases, these teachings were aimed at getting people to focus on the quality of the perceptions and intentions in their minds in the present — in other words, to get them into the emptiness mode. Once there, they can use the teachings on emptiness for their intended purpose: to loosen all attachments to views, stories, and assumptions, leaving the mind empty of all greed, anger, and delusion, and thus empty of suffering and stress. And when you come right down to it, that's the emptiness that really counts.

~End of Post~




--------------------------------------
Technorati:

Read more!

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

How A Table Exists

How A Table Exists
by Lama Zopa Rinpoche
(Read also: Lama Zopa Rinpoche's Advice Book)

(Photo of Table Mountain. Source: flickr.com)

Things are empty of existing from their own side. To give a clearer idea of this, I often use the simple example of a table. Even though this way of analyzing is not the correct way to meditate on emptiness, it gives you an idea of the correct way to meditate. Especially if you're a beginner, it will give you some idea of how the table exists in reality, of what the table is.

When a person first enters this hall, they see that there is a table here in front of me. But what makes the person decide to give the name "table" to this particular object and not to the steps or to the throne? What makes the person decide to give this object the label "table"? There has to be a reason before deciding on the label "table." The reason is that the person sees, first of all, a material object that performs the function of supporting things, or of allowing things to be put on top of it. The person first seeing that becomes the reason to label "table." That is what makes the person decide, among the numberless labels, on this particular label, "table."

Seeing this object that performs the function of supporting things is the reason in the mind of the person for applying the label "table." There has to be a reason before the label is applied, and the reason is seeing the basis for the label. You see the base first, then you apply the label, "It's a table." Therefore, this material object that you first see, which can perform the function of supporting things, is not table. This is the base. You see the base first, which is the reason to give the label "table."

(Photo of Table Mountain. Source: flickr.com)

Otherwise, if seeing the base doesn't come first, you haven't got any reason to label "table." There's no reason in your mind for you to label this "table," that "steps," or that "throne." There's no reason to make you decide to give a particular label.

If the first thing you see is the table, if you see the table before giving the label "table," there would be no reason to label "table." Since it's already table, why would you label "table" on the table? There would be no reason to do that.

For example, when parents name their child Jeff, they label on something that is not Jeff. Labeling "Jeff" on something that is not Jeff has meaning. But if the base, the aggregates, were already Jeff, there would be no purpose in labeling "Jeff" on Jeff. You would then again have to label "Jeff" on Jeff; then you would again have to label "Jeff" on Jeff.... It would become endless.

(Photo of Table Mountain. Source: flickr.com)

This is one logical reasoning used in the four-point analysis.* The first of the four points is recognizing the object to be refuted. The second point is that of ascertaining the pervasion, that if anything exists it should exist either one with its base or separately from its base. If the I is truly existent, it has to exist either one with the aggregates or separately from the aggregates.

If the I is one with the aggregates, various mistakes arise. The I is the receiver and the aggregates, this body and mind, are what is received. So, the receiver and what is received would then become one. In other words, the I, the possessor, and the aggregates, the possession, would become one. So, there is no way that the possessor and the possession can be one. They have to be different.

Anyway, if you see the table first, what reason do you have to label it "table"? There's no reason to label "table" on that which is already table. It has no meaning, no purpose. Normally, you see the base and then say, "I see the table." In order to see the table, you have to see the base of the table first. Otherwise, there's no reason for you to say, "I see the table." By seeing the base, this object that you can put things on top of, you then label "I see the table" and believe in that label.

(Photo of Table Mountain. Source: flickr.com)

By seeing the base of these steps, you say, "I see the steps," and by seeing the base of this throne, you say, "I see the throne." By seeing a particular object and the particular function that it performs, you then label, "I see the table," "I see the steps" or "I see the throne."

Seeing the base has to come first. This thing that performs the function of supporting things is not the table. This thing that you climb up is not the steps. This thing that you sit on is not the throne. The thing that performs the function of supporting things is the base to be labeled "table." This is one point to meditate on to find out what the table is. Since you use this base as a reason to label "table," it's not the table, just as this is not the steps and this is not the throne.

Even from this analysis, you can see that the table and the base to be labeled "table," the steps and the base to be labeled "steps" and the throne and the base to be labeled "throne" are different. They don't exist in the way we normally think they do, which is that this concrete thing itself is the table and that is the steps and that is the throne.

Another point is that you talk about the parts of a table. When you say "the parts of the table," it means the parts of the table are not the table. This top is not the table, this leg is not the table, this leg is not the table, that leg is not the table, and that leg is not the table. Just from the language, you can tell that saying "the parts of the table" means they're not the table.

(Photo of Table Mountain. Source: flickr.com)

Even the whole group of all these parts gathered together is not the table. What is it? It is the base to be labeled "table." None of these parts is the table, and even the whole group of all the parts is not the table. This is clear.

Another point is that the table is nowhere on this. There's no table here or there or there. There's no table on this base.

The first point is that the base is not the table. When you come into the room, how do you come to apply labels to things? You can see that the reason you use to apply a label to something is not that thing. You use seeing the base of the table as the reason to label "table," but this object that can be used to put things on is not table. You apply the label "table" after seeing the base. It's clear that the base and the label are different.

The second point is that none of the parts of the table is the table. And even the whole group of all the parts is not the table. It is the base to be labeled "table." It now becomes clearer that the table is different from its base.

The third point is that you cannot find the table anywhere on this base. But that doesn't mean there's no table in this room; it doesn't mean the table doesn't exist. The table exists in this room--there are actually many tables here in this room. There's no table here on this, but there is a table in this room. This makes clear what the table is.

(Photo of Table Mountain. Source: flickr.com)

This is not the correct way to meditate on emptiness, since this way of searching for the table is related to the merely imputed table and leaves out the truly existent table. We haven't touched the object to be refuted, the truly existent table, which we are supposed to realize is empty. Therefore, according to Lama Tsongkhapa and many other great pundits, this is not the correct way of analyzing.

In this way of analyzing, when you search for the table among all its parts, you find that none of the parts is the table, and even the whole group of all the parts is not the table but the base to be labeled table. But it doesn't mean that the table doesn't exist. The table exists.

So, what is that table? Because we see this object that performs the function of allowing things to be put on top of it, we merely impute "table" and believe it is a table. Because this object is here in this room, we believe that there is a table in this room. By seeing this object, we believe, "I see a table." It is a concept. By seeing this object in this room, we merely impute, "There is a table." We leave it just at that; we are satisfied just by that. There's no table anywhere on this, but there is a table in this room.

You can see now that the way the table exists is extremely subtle. When you really analyze what the table is, it is extremely subtle. It is not that the table is nonexistent, but it is like it is nonexistent. It is not nonexistent because you can make the table, use the table, break the table. If you make this base, you believe, "I made a table"; you simply believe, "I made a table." If you use the table, you believe, "I'm using the table"; you simply believe, "I'm using the table." And if you break the table, you believe, "I broke the table."

(Photo of Table Mountain. Source: flickr.com)

The table is not nonexistent, but it is not the concrete thing that we normally think it is. We normally think of the table as something concrete that is oneness with its base, undifferentiable from its base. We can't split the base and the label "table." There is something concrete there. So, that is not table. There's no table on this, but there is a table in this room.

You can now see how the table is completely empty. It has no existence from its own side. There's no real, concrete table from its own side. From this you can get an idea of how the table exists. It is extremely subtle.

After this analysis, you know that none of the parts is the table and even the whole group of the parts is not the table. There's no table anywhere here on this base, but there is a table in this room. By analyzing like this, you see that the way the table exists is extremely fine, extremely subtle, but when you check what is appearing to you, you find that a real, concrete table is left there, oneness with its base. This is what is called the object to be refuted. That real table appearing from its own side, that truly existent table, that independent table, is the object to be refuted. That concrete thing left there is the object to be refuted, and it is a hallucination. In reality it is completely empty.

(Photo of Table Mountain. Source: flickr.com)

This is the correct way to meditate on the emptiness of the table. By recognizing that the table appears to you to be independent, unlabeled, real from its own side, you then search for that table to see whether or not it exists. When you don't find it and you see that it's empty, at that time you're seeing the emptiness, or ultimate nature, of the table. By seeing the ultimate truth of the table, that it is completely empty of existing from its own side, as a result you then realize the conventional truth of the table, that the table exists in mere name, being merely imputed by the mind. This is subtle dependent arising.

The fourth of the four schools of Buddhist philosophy, the Madhyamaka, has two divisions, Svatantrika and Prasangika. This is the Prasangika view of the subtle dependent arising of the table, the conventional truth of the table: the table exists in mere name, being merely imputed by the mind

*Note: That is, if the I were one with the aggregates, labeling "I" would be superfluous. It would simply be one more name for the aggregates. The four points are (1) recognizing the object to be refuted, (2) ascertaining the pervasion of the two possibilities of oneness and difference, (3) ascertaining the lack of oneness of the I and the aggregates, and (4) ascertaining the lack of difference of the I and the aggregates.

Lama Zopa Rinpoche gave this teaching at the Great Enlightenment Temple, New York, in 1991. It appears in the forthcoming book How Things Exist, edited from the Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive by Ven. Ailsa Cameron.





--------------------------------------
Technorati:

Read more!