Saturday, February 13, 2021

Emptiness as Non-substantiality - Sengzhao - 081

.

Emptiness as Non-substantiality - Sengzhao

Via: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4117855418225842&id=1777650852246322 

Source of the text: Three Short Treatises By Vasubandhu, Sengzhao, And Zongmi
https://bdkamerica.org/download/1960 

(From the Translator’s Introduction:
The Text: … “Likely between 408 and 411, Sengzhao wrote “Emptiness as Non-substantiality.” In the first part of this essay Sengzhao attacks three competing theories of emptiness current in his day: emptiness defined as “no mentation,” as “original nonbeing,” and as “form.” He denounces these positions as failing, in different ways, to capture the truth that emptiness, properly understood, is the defining characteristic of form as such—form is inherently “insubstantial.” In order to arrive at emptiness, therefore, one must not abandon form but, on the contrary, develop a unique intimacy with its essential nature. The remaining sections of the essay contain Sengzhao’s elaboration of this view.”)

(Résumé: The real meaning of ‘non-being / emptiness’ is ‘emptiness of inherent existence’ (non-substantiality).
And the real meaning of the Ground / Dharmadhatu / Buddha-nature / Genuine-emptiness / Reality ... is the Union of the Two Truths about all dharmas, a ‘Union’ beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all conceptual proliferations.

Reality can be pointed using concepts like the Union of the Two Truths free from all extremes & middle: Union relative reality <==> ultimate reality; Union of conventionally dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances (1st truth) <==> and emptiness of inherent existence (2nd truth). Everything is dependently appearing but empty, empty but still appearing and relatively functional. One aspect / truth implies the other (<==>).

Also: The two truths themselves are like a Union of being empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/then conventionally dependently co-arisen (co-dependent) relatively functional impermanent appearances / tools / antidotes. That is the Union of the Two Truths about the two truths themselves

So, in the end, there is nothing to grasp as the absolute: not the first truth alone / relative reality / causality / karma (the extreme of realism), not the 2nd truth alone / ultimate reality / emptiness (the extreme of nihilism), not both truths together (a form of dualism / opposition between the two levels of reality), not neither truths (a form of holism / monism / radical oneness).

Everything is not existent, not non-existent, not both together, not neither; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither; not this, not non-this, not both together, not neither; etc. Meaning the true nature of Reality is beyond all conceptual proliferations, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualities, beyond all conditioning / karma. It cannot be described, it has to be directly perceived / realised.)

-------------------------

(Note: ‘Union’ or ‘<==>’ means that the apparent opposites (of any duality / triad / quad / etc, including the two truths) are not really in opposition, but are more like a Union of being empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-relative, co-dependent (1st truth), co-emergent, co-evolving, co-ceasing / co-transcended, in harmony, equal / non-dual / one -- in the non-dual sense of those terms: ex. Not existent, not non-existent, not both together, not neither; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither; not good / pure / perfect / divine, not bad / impure / imperfect / ordinary, not both together, not neither; not dependent / conditioned, not independent / unconditioned, not both together, not neither; not empty, not non-empty, not both together, not neither; not dependently arisen (1st truth), not empty of inherent existence (2nd truth), not both together (two truth together), not neither (neither of the two truths); not this, not non-this, not both together, not neither. Meaning the true nature of the opposites and of their co-relation is inconceivable for our flawed conceptual dualistic mind, beyond all conceptual proliferations, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all conditioning / karma.)

The perfectly vacuous, the unborn (Ground): such is the wondrous object of prajñā’s mysterious mirroring, the unifying apex of existing things (i.e. the true nature of Reality). If not through the exceptional realization of sagely insight, how could one tally one’s spirit with the space between being and nonbeing? (i.e. Reality is not existence, not non-existence, not both together, not neither. Meaning: The true nature of Reality is indescribable / inconceivable for our flawed conditioned conceptual dualistic mind; beyond all conceptual proliferations, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all conditioning / karma. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

Thus, the Perfected Person extends his spirit-mind to the limitless (2nd truth), yet individual things (1st truth) cannot obstruct him. He exerts his ear and eye to the utmost, yet sounds and forms have no power over him. Is it not because he has identified with the self-emptiness of all things (i.e. I hope this means that he has identified with the inconceivable Ground / Dharmadhatu / Buddha-nature / Genuine-emptiness free of all extremes & middle, with the true nature & dynamic of Reality as it is here & now, as pointed by the Inseparability / Interdependence / harmony / Union of the Two Truths about all dharmas -- otherwise it is a fault.) that things (1st truth) cannot hamper his spiritual brilliance? 

The sage rides the vehicle of the ultimate mind (2nd truth) and yet aligns himself with all principles (1st truth, ex. karma); there are no obstructions he cannot penetrate. He inhabits the Singular Pneuma (2nd truth) and therefore observes transformations (1st truth); he moves in accord with all he encounters. Since there are no obstructions he cannot penetrate, he attains simplicity in the midst of complexity. Since he moves in harmony with all that he encounters, he becomes one with whatever he touches. (i.e. They are not two, not one, not both together, not neither. But we usually say they are ‘one’ as an antidote to our usual position. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

In this way, though the myriad images are individually discrete (i.e. apparently many), their distinctiveness is not inherent to them (not really many). As such, images are not substantially real images. Since they are not substantially real images, (i.e. ‘Things’ are not completely non-existent (nihilism), but simply empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus dependently co-arisen (1st truth). One truth implies the other (<==>). But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.) I say that images are not images. Indeed, at the root things and I are one, affirmation and negation are the Singular Pneuma. (i.e. Union of opposites: Apparent opposites, including the two truths themselves, are like empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus co-dependent, or conventionally dependently co-arisen relatively functional impermanent appearances (1st truth). Apparent opposites are not really in opposition, but are more like inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-relative, co-dependent, co-emergent, co-evolving, co-ceasing / co-transcended, in harmony, equal / non-dual / one -- in the non-dual sense of those terms: ex. Not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither; etc. So, we say they are ‘one’ simply as an antidote to our usual position. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

This doctrine is deep and subtle—beyond, I fear, the ken of conventional understanding. (i.e. The true nature of Reality is indescribable / inconceivable for our flawed conditioned conceptual dualistic mind; beyond all conceptual proliferations, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all conditioning / karma.) Hence of late, whenever the topic of emptiness is raised in debate, disagreements inevitably arise. Is it possible to arrive at agreement when the [thing discussed] is [seen as] incongruous? Conflicting theories proliferate18 and yield no agreement on the nature [of emptiness].

[Three Doctrines of Emptiness] Why? 

  • The doctrine of “no mentation” defines emptiness as a state in which the mind no longer reaches out toward things, even though things themselves do not cease to exist. The merit of this doctrine is its valuation of the stillness of spirit; its flaw is its failure to understand that things themselves are empty. (i.e. It is not shutting the mind down.)

  • The theory of “emptiness is form” rests on the claim that since forms are not self-produced, and despite being called forms, they are not forms. But the analysis of forms should not be limited to forms produced by a coming together of forms; the analysis should apply to forms as such, and should see them as what they are in themselves. This theory acknowledges merely that forms are not self-produced, but it has yet to grasp the truth that forms as such are not forms. (i.e. ‘Things’ are not completely non-existent, but simply empty of inherent existence <==> because/thus dependently co-arisen. Co-dependent with their parts (when applicable), with their cause & conditions (when applicable), with their conceptual opposite(s) (always), and most importantly co-dependent with the mind merely labelling / imputing / conceptualising it in dependence of its past / conditioning / karma.)

  • The teaching of “original nonbeing” is obsessed with the idea of nonbeing, which dominates the discussion throughout. It takes negations of being as assertions that being is actually nonexistent, and negations of nonbeing as claims that nonbeing likewise is actually nonexistent. However, if one were to investigate the original purport of the scriptures, one would understand that negations of being are merely a rejection of substantialized being, while negations of nonbeing are merely a refutation of substantialized nonbeing. Why insist that negations of being mean that this being is actually nonexistent, and that negations of nonbeing mean that nonbeing is likewise actually nonexistent? Such words reveal an infatuation with “nonbeing”; surely they cannot harmoniously enter the reality of events nor reach the true character of things. (i.e. Reality is not mere-emptiness / non-existence / nihilism, but more like an inconceivable Union of the Two Truths: Union of being conventionally dependently co-arisen relatively functional impermanent appearances (1st truth) <==> and being empty of inherent existence (2nd tuth). And inconceivable ‘Union’ beyond all extremes & middle. Extremes like existence, non-existence, both together, neither; manyness, oneness, both together, neither; differentness, sameness, both together, neither; etc.)

[Argument] If you conceptualize a thing as a thing, what you thus conceptualize can indeed be called a thing. But if you conceptualize a non-thing a thing, though you conceptualize it as a thing it is not a thing. For things do not derive their reality from names, and names are not brought about simply by virtue of there being things. (i.e. People think exactly the opposite: That ‘things’ really exist exactly because they are dependently arisen, dependent on parts, causes & conditions, opposite(s), and on the mind.)

Thus ultimate truth dwells in sovereign stillness beyond the domain of ordinary naming;19 how could mere words and letters articulate it? Yet I cannot remain silent and will try to fashion for it an approximation in words. (i.e. Reality is beyond all opposites like: existence/being & non-existence / non-being, manyness & oneness, differentness & sameness, permanence & impermanence, continuity & discontinuity, action & non-action, thinking & non-thinking, conceptualisation & non-conceptualisation, discrimination & non-discrimination, characterisation & non-characterisation, etc. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

It is said in the Mahayana Treatise, “Dharmas do not possess marks, nor do they lack marks.”20 And in the Middle Way Treatise, “Dharmas do not exist, nor do they not exist.” This is the supreme ultimate truth. (i.e. the self-arisen unalterable eternal pristine Ground / Buddha-nature / Genuine-emptiness / Suchness / Dharmadhatu / Indivisible-universe …)

Now, on close examination, these assertions of “neither being nor nonbeing” cannot mean that ultimate truth is realized only when one has purged the mind of all things, shut the doors of seeing and hearing, and when the mind is still and empty (i.e. doctrine of “no mentation”). Indeed, ultimate truth is realized when one identifies with things and penetrates them harmoniously, (i.e. I hope this means that he has identified with the inconceivable Ground / Dharmadhatu / Buddha-nature / Genuine-emptiness free of all extremes & middle, with the true nature & dynamic of Reality as it is here & now, as pointed by the Inseparability / Interdependence / harmony / Union of the Two Truths about all dharmas -- otherwise it is a fault.) for then things in their concrete reality do not oppose it; and when this very reality (1st truth) is rendered selfsame with the ultimate (2nd truth), (i.e. when one directly perceives / realises the Inseparability / Interdependence / harmony / Union of the Two Truths about ‘things’. That ‘things’ are dependently appearing but empty of inherent existence, empty of inherent existence but still dependently co-arisen and relatively functional. One aspect / truth implies the other (<==>). But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.) for then empty Nature (2nd truth) does alter their individual reality (1st truth). Since Nature (2nd truth) does not alter their reality, even though they are nonexistent (ultimately - 2nd truth), things do exist (conventionally / relatively / 1st truth). Since things do not oppose [ultimate truth], even though they are existent, they do not exist. While nonexistent, things exist; hence “existence” does not capture them. While existent, they do not exist, hence “nonexistence” also does not apply. Thus, it is not that nothing exists; rather, things are not substantially real things. (i.e. ‘Things’ are not completely non-existent (nihilism), but simply empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus dependently co-arisen (1st truth). One truth implies the other (<==>).) And since they are not substantially real things, what is there that could possibly be conceptualized as a thing? (i.e. Union of the Two Truths about the three spheres -- subject / actor, relation / action, object / result --. This works for any types of actions -- physical, conceptual, mental; individual, collective, cosmic --.)

Thus, when it is said in the sutra, “Emptiness is the nature of form, not an obliteration of form,” this is to demonstrate that the sagely mode of engaging things is to identify with their essential vacuity. (i.e. I hope this means that he has identified with the inconceivable Ground / Dharmadhatu / Buddha-nature / Genuine-emptiness free of all extremes & middle, with the true nature & dynamic of Reality as it is here & now, as pointed by the Inseparability / Interdependence / harmony / Union of the Two Truths about all dharmas -- otherwise it is a fault.) Could the sage, in striving for the ultimate, have to “hack (reject)” his way there through forms (1st truth)? (i.e. This is the Middle Way free of all extremes & middle: nothing to accept / affirm / seek / do / add in absolute terms, nothing to reject / negate / abandon / not-do / subtract in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively if it helps someone to get closer to the liberating Truths.)

Therefore [Vimalakīrti,] in his sickbed, teaches about insubstantiality; and Supreme Brightness speaks of the identity [of form] and vacuity (i.e. Union of the Two Truths). In all, though the teachings in the tripartite canon are diverse, what unifies them is one. (i.e. Union of opposites: Apparent opposites, including the two truths themselves, are like empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus co-dependent, or conventionally dependently co-arisen relatively functional impermanent appearances (1st truth). Apparent opposites are not really in opposition, but are more like inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-relative, co-dependent, co-emergent, co-evolving, co-ceasing / co-transcended, in harmony, equal / non-dual / one -- in the non-dual sense of those terms: ex. Not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither; etc. So, we say they are ‘one’ simply as an antidote to our usual position. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

[Realising without realising:] The Radiance proclaims, “From the standpoint of supreme ultimate truth (2nd truth) there is no [inherently existing] realization [of bodhi], no attainment; from the standpoint of relative truth there is realization and attainment.” Now, “attainment” is but the relative name of nonattainment, and “nonattainment” is the ultimate name of attainment. In view of the ultimate name they are ultimate, yet they do not exist. In view of the relative name they are relative, yet they do not nonexist. Thus, to call them “ultimate” is not to say that they exist; to call them “relative” is not to say that they nonexist. These descriptions are mutually opposed, yet the principles behind them are not different. (i.e. The two truths -- ‘things’ and ‘emptiness’ -- are not really in opposition / contrary, but more like inseparable, interdependent, co-defined, co-relative, co-dependent, co-emergent, co-evolving, co-ceasing / co-transcended, in harmony, equal / non-dual / one -- in the non-dual sense of those terms <==> thus/because the two truths are empty of inherent existence. This is the Union of the Two Truths about the two truths themselves. The two truths are not existing, not non-existing, not both together, not neither; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither; etc. All this applies to any group of conceptual opposites = Union of the Two Truths about opposites in any duality / triad / quad / etc. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

Thus a sutra says, “Ultimate truth and relative truth: are they distinct? They are not.”24 In this sutra ultimate truth is asserted only to refute “existence,”and relative truth is asserted only to refute “nonexistence.” (i.e. The two truths, and their relationship, are themselves conventional tools / truths / methods / antidotes / adapted skillful means <==> thus empty of inherent existence. One is the antidote of the other one. They are not individually or together the absolute Reality / Ground.) Just because there are two “truths,” must one impute two-ness to the reality of things? (i.e. They are not two, not one, not both together, not neither. But we usually say they are ‘one’ as an antidote to our usual position. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

[Existing without existing:] Things have both an aspect of not-existing and an aspect of not-nonexisting. Under the aspect of not-existing, even though existent, things do not exist. Under the aspect of not-nonexisting, even though nonexistent, they do not nonexist. While nonexisting they do not nonexist, hence their nonexisting is not a one-sided emptiness. While existing they do not exist, hence their existing is not substantial being. (i.e. ‘Things’ are not completely non-existent (nihilism), but simply empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus dependently co-arisen (1st truth). One truth implies the other (<==>). But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

Since the being of things never becomes substantial being, and since their nonexistence is not just an erasure of traces, then even though their “being” and “nonbeing” are distinguished in name, in reality they are one. (i.e. They are not two, not one, not both together, not neither. But we usually say they are ‘one’ as an antidote to our usual position. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

Thus the youth exclaimed, “You teach that since things arise due to karmic conditions, they neither exist nor nonexist,” and in the Bodhisattva’s Diadem it is written, “The turnings of the wheel of Dharma are neither turnings nor non-turnings: its very turnings are non-turnings.” Such are the subtle words of all sutras. (i.e. So we talk about being without being, acting without acting, etc. to point out that, although the three spheres -- subject, relation / action, objects -- are existing conventionally / relatively (1st truth) <==> ultimately they are not really existing, they are empty of inherent existence (2nd truth). But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

  • Also, you wish to argue that things nonexist? Then you would fail to denounce the views of annihilationists

  • You wish to claim that things do exist? Then you would give sanction to the positions of eternalists

  • Yet, things do not nonexist, hence annihilationist beliefs are to be denounced. 

  • Things do not exist, hence eternalist views are also to be rejected. 

  • Negation of both being and nonbeing: verily, such are the words of ultimate truth. (i.e. Reality is not existence, not non-existence, not both together, not neither. Meaning: The true nature of Reality is indescribable / inconceivable for our flawed conditioned conceptual dualistic mind; beyond all conceptual proliferations, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all conditioning / karma. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

  • Thus it is said in the Dao Practice, “Mind neither exists nor does not exist,” 

  • and in the Middle Way Verses, “Since things arise from conditions, they do not exist; since they do arise, they do not nonexist.”28 

  • Consider this well, and you will see it is so. 

Here is why. If being existed substantially, then it would exist of itself, constantly, and it would not depend on conditions in order to come into being. Similarly, substantial nonbeing exists by itself, perdures eternally as nonbeing, and would not depend on conditions in order to come about. 

However, being is not being by and of itself; it becomes being depending on conditions (1st truth)—therefore (<==>), being does not exist substantially (2nd truth). Since being is not substantial being, (i.e. ‘Things’ are not completely non-existent (nihilism), but simply empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus dependently co-arisen (1st truth). One truth implies the other (<==>). But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.) even though it exists it cannot be called “being [existing].” 

Likewise nonbeing. The term “nonbeing” truly applies only to something perfectly quiescent, unchanging. If myriad things nonexisted in this manner, it would be inconceivable that they would arise at all. Yet they do arise, hence “nonbeing” does not apply. But since it is through conditions that they arise, things do not nonexist. 

Thus it is said in the Mahayana Treatise that 

  • all dharmas, constituted as they are by all causes and conditions, should be considered existent (1st truth); 

  • all dharmas, constituted as they are by all causes and conditions, should not be considered existent (2nd truth); 

  • all nonexistent dharmas, constituted as they are by all causes and conditions, should be considered existent (1st truth); 

  • all existent dharmas, constituted as they are by all causes and conditions, should not be considered existent (2nd truth). 

Are these pronouncements on being and nonbeing nothing but a futile exercise in contrariness? 

  • If one were to take things as “being” in a real, substantial sense, then they could not be described as “nonbeing”; 

  • if one were to take them as “nonexistent” in a real, substantial sense, then “existence” would not apply. 

  • But when “being” is predicated of things, it is merely that the term “being” is used as expedient to refute claims of their “nonbeing.” 

  • Likewise, when “nonbeing” is asserted, it is just that the term “nonbeing” is applied provisionally in order to reject the assertions of their “being.” 

  • (i.e. One is used as an antidote to the other position. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

The reality is one (2nd truth), even though the concepts are dualistic (1st truth). The descriptions may be incongruous, but if one grasps the unified reality behind them no disagreement will be left unresolved. (i.e. Reality is not many / dual, not one / non-dual, not both together, not neither. But we usually say they are ‘one’ as an antidote to our usual position. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

  • From one perspective myriad things truly do not exist —they cannot be described as “being.” 

  • From another perspective they do not nonexist–they cannot be taken as “nonbeing.” 

  • (i.e. Reality is not existence, not non-existence, not both together, not neither. Meaning: The true nature of Reality is indescribable / inconceivable for our flawed conditioned conceptual dualistic mind; beyond all conceptual proliferations, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all conditioning / karma. But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.)

How so? 

  • Do you wish to claim that they exist? Even though they exist, they do not emerge into substantial being. 

  • Do you want to say that they nonexist? Images of events are already formed in them, and with images already formed they cannot be simply nonexistent. 

  • Since their being is not substantial they do not really exist. 

  • (i.e. ‘Things’ are not completely non-existent (nihilism), but simply empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus dependently co-arisen (1st truth). One truth implies the other (<==>).)

With this, emptiness as non-substantiality has been demonstrated. 

Accordingly, it is said in the Radiance, 

  • “Dharmas, as merely conventional appellations, are not substantial. (i.e. ‘Things’ are not completely non-existent (nihilism), but simply empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus dependently co-arisen (1st truth). One truth implies the other (<==>). But if one grasps at any of those extremes, or both together, or neither, then one is missing the point.) 

  • They are akin to a phantom. (i.e. transparent) 

  • It is not that the phantom does not exist, rather, the phantom is not a substantial being.”

Now, if one uses names to consider the [respective] things, [one will find that] things lack the actuality corresponding to their names; if one uses things to consider their names, [one will find that] the names lack the power of obtaining the things. That things lack the reality corresponding to their names means they are not “things.” That names lack the power of obtaining things means they are not “names.” Thus, names do not correspond to actuality, and actuality does not correspond to names. Since names and actuality do not correspond to each another, where are the “myriad things”? 

Thus, it is said in the Middle Way Treatise that there is in things no distinction between “this” and “that,” (i.e. Union of opposites) it is just that people take “this” as “this” and “that” as “that.” “That” becomes “that” in relation to “this,” “this” becomes “this” in relation to “that.” Neither “this” nor “that” can be defined independently of the other. Yet the deluded take the duality as self-evident. Thus, though the division between “this” and “that” originally does not exist, they think that it has never been absent. However, should they attain insight into the fact that “this” and “that” do not exist, will there be any thing left for them that could be called “being”? From this it is known that truly things are not substantially real, they are only made to appear so by conventional designations. (i.e. ‘Things’ are not completely non-existent (nihilism), but simply empty of inherent existence (2nd truth) <==> because/thus dependently co-arisen (1st truth). One truth implies the other (<==>).) 153a This is why the Complete Realization describes the arbitrariness of names32 and why the master from Yuanlin Grove uses the metaphors of the finger and the horse. Such profound teachings are everywhere to be found. 

Thus again: the Sage rides the vehicle of the thousand transformations (1st truth) yet remains unchanged (2nd truth); he treads amid the myriad objects of delusion (1st truth) yet always penetrates them (2nd truth). This is because he has identified with the self-emptiness of things, (i.e. I hope this means that he has identified with the inconceivable Ground / Dharmadhatu / Buddha-nature / Genuine-emptiness free of all extremes & middle, with the true nature & dynamic of Reality as it is here & now, as pointed by the Inseparability / Interdependence / harmony / Union of the Two Truths about all dharmas -- otherwise it is a fault.) instead of imputing vacuity to things through conventional concepts. 

Thus it is said in the sutra, “How marvelous, World-honored One! Unmoved in the apex of reality, you establish all dharmas. ”Dharmas are not established outside of the ultimate, they are established as one with the ultimate. 

Is the Dao beyond reach? Touch phenomena—they are the ultimate. Is sagacity beyond reach? Realize them—you will be like a spirit. (i.e. like transparent)

.

.


.

.

Quotes

Awareness - not a blank nothingness ~ Dudjom Rinpoche 

In brief, from the beginning, awareness has never existed as a substantial entity with elaborated characteristics, its nature is primally pure, void, vast, and all-pervasive. As the radiance of voidness is unobstructed, the ocean of phenomena of samsara and nirvana appears spontaneously, like the sun and its rays; thus awareness is not a blank nothingness, totally void, for its natural expression is the great spontaneous presence of the qualifies of primordial wisdom.


-- Kabjye Dudjom Rinpoche - On The Path to Enlightenment by Matthieu Ricard

Via: https://www.facebook.com/dudjomtersarpage/posts/3472130999579674 

=======================

.


.
.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.