"The Controversy"

Hi Jackson,

Here are a few references mentioning Gaudapada's relationship with Buddhism:

Book: "The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta: A Study of Gaudapada, Sankara, Suresvara and Padmapada"

You might want check it on Google Books (with key words like Gaudapada & crypto-buddhist). You can also check the following articles:-

etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-1130200...Kencho_200612_ma.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudapada
www.swaveda.com/articles.php?action=show&id=50
www.sunypress.edu/p-2143-early-advaita-vedanta-and-buddh.aspx

Of course, it is still a matter of controversy. Some scholars called Gaudapada a crypto-buddhist while others only consider that he only borrowed ideas from Yogacara and Madhyamika.

About the Citta, I should add that consciousness is not the Citta. Consciousness is still the 5th aggregate and is therefore marked by the three characteristics (here I still fully agree with Daniel Ingram). The idea is however that when consciousness (vi-jnana) turns away from its objects (the 6 senses) it becomes jnana, namely 'pure knowing'. From a Mahayana point of view, this pure knowing, mirror consciousness or pristine awareness is still a function of the Citta, namely the Universal Mirror Prajna (and not its unborn essence described by Ajahn Mun in his Arahatamagga).

Buddhahood involves the accomplishment of the Arahat together with the awakening of the Four Prajnas to realize and manifest the three bodies of the Buddhas. A good and very practical description of the Four Prajnas (and of Tozan's Five Ranks) by Zen master Hakuin can be found in Thomas Cleary's book "Kensho: the Heart of Zen".

Enough to keep us busy for a while

Alex,

Awesome. Thanks for the links and the book reference.

Cleary's book sounds great too. So much to read!

-Jackson

"in and out of existence constantly.
"primordial awareness"-- that sounds like God, of some kind of power or prescence and something, actually, separate or different or "better" or more "pure" and " real" from the small me.
Fortunately, or luckily, when we let go and stop adding "ourselves" to reality it creates a sense of being part of something huge and powerful and, perhaps "alive" and "primordial" and actually "aware." But today I think that is just what it seems like only. I"m completely open to being wrong especially because it seems strange to really believe in nothing permanent and big and all encompassing.
I'm curious if I'm able to move along in insight what I'll end up thinking about all this.
"

I want to go back to Mikes original question.

The subject/object duality is known with the insight of impermance. The reason for this is duality requires movement to arise as they are alternately perceived and solidified. Without movement or impermanence the subject and objects do not exist, this is why Theravadan practice works nicely here. From this point of view reality comes and goes and nothing can be known except that which comes and goes, so there can be no knowing of primordial awareness.
So to my point, primordial awareness is not known if impermance is not realised as a duality or if the focus is only on the impermance of reality. Primodal awareness is realized when nothing moves, because everything is a dance that we setup with our own observation. Therefore to know no movement is to realise not EVERYTHING is impermanent and therefore impermanence is NOT REALITY.

Hey Gary!

"therefore impermanence is NOT REALITY" - Gary

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you denying impermanence is fundamental to reality; or more a question of realizing it; or what?

Thanks mate!

In kind regards,

Adam.

Do you mind if I try, Gary? I could be wrong but I think what Gary was saying is that impermanence is not the ultimate reality. Primordial awareness is not impermanent because in it, nothing does move. Christopher Titmuss addresses this in a couple of his podcasts. His formulation is that if you believe the three characteristics to be ultimate reality, the end of the thing then, as he says, "You have not gone deep enough." What I think he means is that when you find an experience that is real truth it is not impermanent. My experience says he's right. The one real truth of the matter, primordial awareness, is like that.

I think this is exactly the issue of the friendly argument Kenneth has with Daniel, and vice versa.

If I understand you Gary, I would simply answer when observe the impermanence of things during vipassana, there is still a subtle invisible subject that is aware of the arising and passing away of phenomena. The existence of this subject is due to the fact that this invisible subject doing the practice is still partially identified with phenomena (or at least with the idea of doing vipassana). What can happen eventually is that the sense of being an observer or a subject (somewhere in the center of our head or heart) may vanish suddenly without a loss of consciousness. Things continue to move, but more like in a lucid dream. Everything moves within the mind. Everything is mind-only. Everything is seen as a magical display of primordial awareness. Stranger even, it is seen but it is as if no one was there to see; as if the seer was nothing, yet everything at the same time.

Hey Chris!

Nicely put! I enjoyed that very much! I think that is basically right also. Only thing is, we need to be careful about setting up a dualism or false dichotomy between emptiness (impermanence) and lucidity (primordial awareness). Epistemologically, it probably is so, that there is a sequential line of realization; that is, impermanence first, then primordial awareness, not always though, but fundamentally they are the same thing in essence; metaphysically speaking, though, clearly they can be divided in terms of realization, view and stages thereof.

We may say that primordial awareness is not a thing, and thus, cannot change or be impermanent - it is empty and is lucidity itself - however, it has an energetic aspect and fullness that has a propensity to bring about or present as appearance or display - like ripples on a pond or waves on an ocean, and these displays or formations are what are impermanent and ever changing, and yet, fundamentally, they are not separate, are not things that can be divided - wave is the ocean and the ocean is the wave - empty lucidity itself - non-dual - one and the same '˜non-thing'.

This topic is covered well in the 4th turning of the dharma wheel, as found in the Tibetan literature etc. The three characteristics, is primarily presented in the 1st turning of the Dharma wheel, as I understand it, in the suttas. Hence, the divergence in view between Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism etc., and the combativeness.

Chris, I wonder if you could provide a link to the said pod-casts? I'd be interested to hear what Christopher has to say about this. It is controversial from the Theravada view.

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for typo

Thanks guys!

The Controversy as I understand it is also a matter of focus. Some say that awareness is always awareness of something. About primordial awareness, they will say that this is not the absolute, because awareness is not eternal. What we might call primordial awareness is only 'in seeing, only the seen, etc'¦', but that this is only a phenomenon (the 5th aggregate of consciousness) and not the absolute. This is a valid point of view.

Others will agree with this, but may still consider that if we do not want to enter into parinirvana immediately and vanish into some form of metaphysical suicide, one may actually pay attention to this primordial awareness as a bona fide form of nirvana within samsara (absolute within the relative and relative within the absolute).

This is therefore not only a matter of focus, but also a matter of choice. The Arahat may decide to leave the wheel of samsara to enter into parinirvana. He might also opt for the bodhisattva ideal and delay the final exit to play around for a while, seeing the three worlds like a lucid dream. Some may even chose the bodhisattva path strait from the beginning.

This is the reason why I don't really see the controversy as a controversy. It mainly depends on what one is looking for.

Hey Alex!

Do you think that the final and exhaustive realization and view is a cosmic suicide? Yes, insofar as there is no 'I', but no, insofar as there never was one, thus, nothing is lost. We can see this when we have these occasional exhaustive, no trace of a self, realizations of just seeing, just hearing, just sitting etc.; we realize the nature of things, and yet 'things' continue on as they always were and are - there is no 'I', and yet there is still 'being' and existence, it is just that there is no one that is being or that exists. You've been there, as have I, and others; I wouldn't call that suicide, except by a very narrow definition. And even in this realization, there still is awareness of existence or being, just that there is no one there that is aware; otherwise there could be no consciousness of the realization itself. Without awareness there could be no consciousness of the no-self, just seeing realization, could there? And in this realization, form continues - there is still cutting wood and carrying water - appearance and display - so nothing has changed, and yet everything has. In this way we can see lucidity and impermance are fundamental to reality. I would strongly argue they are not an aggregate nor contingent phenomena.

We may say that in some mysterious way, experience is 'all' there is, and yet there is no-thing that is experienced, nor anyone who experiences - that is the nature of reality - mind-only; and yet there is no mind either.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"I want to go back to Mikes original question.

The subject/object duality is known with the insight of impermance. The reason for this is duality requires movement to arise as they are alternately perceived and solidified. Without movement or impermanence the subject and objects do not exist, this is why Theravadan practice works nicely here. From this point of view reality comes and goes and nothing can be known except that which comes and goes, so there can be no knowing of primordial awareness.
So to my point, primordial awareness is not known if impermance is not realised as a duality or if the focus is only on the impermance of reality. Primodal awareness is realized when nothing moves, because everything is a dance that we setup with our own observation. Therefore to know no movement is to realise not EVERYTHING is impermanent and therefore impermanence is NOT REALITY.




"

I like where you're going with this, Gary. It reminds me of an analogy that Dogen uses in his "Genjo Koan" text.

He says that when one is on a boat moving across the water, if they look at the shore it appears to be moving and the boat stationary. But, if s/he turns their attention to look at the boat, they will see that it is the boat that moves.

Another Zen story (of which I do not remember the reference) depicts some students as a Zen master, "Is it the flag that moves, or the wind?" He answers, "Neither. It is the mind that moves."

Hmmm....

~Jackson

Hey Adam!

Of course I agree with you. We've been there (great description BTW). But some consider that what we are talking about it not the absolute. I agree that primordial awareness it is not nirvana, but cannot follow Ajahn Brahm's description of Parinirvana as a complete extinction, even if I consider that his interpretation is somehow valid if we stick to Abhidhamma. I was kind of joking here, referring to Bill Hamilton's joke about the '˜metaphysical suicide club'. I would rather say that nirvana is the extinction of ignorance (avidya) leading to suffering.

Interestingly, the Rigpa is the Tibetan for the Sanskrit word vidya, namely knowledge (as opposed to ignorance).

My answer to the "awareness is only an aggregate marked by the 3 characteristics" argument (that I take seriously) is that when consciousness (vi-jnana) is turned away from the 6 senses to find its unborn source, it becomes jnana, vidya or rigpa which is pure and undefiled, yet empty (and luminous). But here, one must accept the idea of alayavijnana (Buddha-nature, rigpa, the gotra, etc.)

Kind regards,

Alex

I may have a weird way of thinking about this but here goes.... whenever we observe anything we are observing it from the view of primordial awareness, always. To the extent that we insert a certain mind-process into the act of observing, things will appear to be seen from a specific and unique perspective. Over time, from our very beginning as infants, we take this unique perspective to be "me." I AM seeing. I AM hearing. I AM seeing IT. I AM hearing IT. This perspective has survival value for our genes, which cannot be passed along by dead beings (!). We can learn to drop this view, however, by dropping the mental process that invokes the "I" and creates the illusion of self and the subject/object duality. When that happens we see from a new perspective. In my experience that new experience is amazing and fresh, and without the "I" involved it becomes clear that the entirety of existence is luminous and knowing. No "I" required, and this often gets presented as "it's are one thing" or everything is "non-dual."

Edit: spelling, typos

"...specifically, the conceptual aspects of a nondual philosophy can raise moral issues - not respecting the separateness of things when appropriate can brew trouble."

I agree. In the words of Korean Master Seung Sahn: "Good and bad do not exist. But bad is bad and good is good."

EDIT: Sloppy typing. ; )

" I was kind of joking here, referring to Bill Hamilton's joke about the '˜metaphysical suicide club'."

Yeah, I have met Theravada people who take this view quite seriously. And I've said, so when you die what will happen; answer, there will be nothing, absolutely nothing, because there is nothing - emptiness, and no 'I' to see it. And I furrow my brow and say, how is that different than a secular, physical reductionist view of death? Answer: no difference; we cease to exist - the end - caput.

Oh, I say...

So, Alex, If we do not postulate the Buddha-nature, what happens to a person upon the death of the physical body - 6 sense consciousnesses (including mind)? What is the medium of the karmic mind-stream that is transferred from life to life-time?

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hi Chris!

What you are saying here is not weird, it is actually the very heart of Buddhism as I understand it.

@Jackson:
Yes, Huineng answers that "the mind is moving" following the mind-only view of classic Ch'an. If everything is empty, everything is contained within the mind (call it primordial non-dual awareness), everything is a display of mind-only. It's pretty much like in the movie "The Matrix" but the matrix is Alayavijnana (the storehouse or matrix consciousness).

"
I may have a weird way of thinking about this but here goes.... whenever we observe anything we are observing it from the view of primordial awareness, always. To the extent that we insert a certain mind-process into the act of observing, things will appear to be seen from a specific and unique perspective.
"

First, unfortunately, you guys have taken the discussion to places it takes more insight than I have to follow and understand, you know? But that's to be expected, I can't see something until I can see it. I'm looking forward to reading this some time in the future and understanding what you are talking about because I've SEEN it.

Second, my only glimpse of things maybe points to what Chris is saying here. That awareness is this big, quiet, constant (permenant???) thing that we all share in all the time. And if that is true -- I just don't get it. Sure, there is a cosmos flickering like crazy in here and out there but why does it have to be wonderful? This primordial awareness I think, if real, is a wonderful thing, and, shows us, basically, that everything is all right and always was.
I think it is just as likely that the truth could be .... not wonderful. Which is why my first attraction (or hunch about the truth) is to a reality of a basic and complete emptiness with no real sense to it except for basic cause and effect. That makes more sense to me intellectually.
But, I have had moments when EVERYTHING seemed connected and quiet and alive all together and .... wonderful. Was/is the way a percieve those moments the truth - I don't know yet. Need more insight.

" when consciousness (vi-jnana) is turned away from the 6 senses to find its unborn source, "

Even the idea of an unborn source is surely controversial, since it might be taken to have connotations of an ontological essence or some kind of atman.

It's hard to have that conversation with the Theravada camp.

"Hi Chris!

What you are saying here is not weird, it is actually the very heart of Buddhism as I understand it.




"

Yeah, I think you've put it nicely, Chris!

"@Jackson:
Yes, Huineng answers that "the mind is moving" following the mind-only view of classic Ch'an. If everything is empty, everything is contained within the mind (call it primordial non-dual awareness), everything is a display of mind-only. It's pretty much like in the movie "The Matrix" but the matrix is Alayavijnana (the storehouse or matrix consciousness).


"

Ah yes, it was Huineng. I really need to brush up on my Zen references!

That's a good analogy for Mind (primordial non-dual awareness) and Alayavijnana. It's not easy to explain this stuff sometimes, at least not for me. You seem to do just fine

"Even the idea of an unborn source is surely controversial, since it might be taken to have connotations of an ontological essence or some kind of atman.

It's hard to have that conversation with the Theravada camp."

I agree Adam,

Yogachara's response is to pay a close attention to Abhidhamma's (naive) realist epistemology to see that if we follow its conclusion, we can only know 'mind-moments' and not real solid objects. Since everything is anyway in our mind, we might even assume that the outside world does not exist as such (apart from a consciousness aware of it existence). Everything is mind-only. And mind is no mind, nevermind!

Buddhist philosophy is great fun, but most dharma teachers prefer "keeping in touch with their emotions" - lol

"Ah yes, it was Huineng. I really need to brush up on my Zen references!

That's a good analogy for Mind (primordial non-dual awareness) and Alayavijnana. It's not easy to explain this stuff sometimes, at least not for me. You seem to do just fine "

Hi Jackson,

It doesn't really matter who really said what. But I think that most Zen centers in the West don't realize that these old Zen masters world view was pretty much like that of Castaneda's don Juan or the movie The Matrix. Zen practice was mainly living one's simple everyday life while maintaining this non-dual (everything is mind-only) view. A bit like Dzogchen, or what Chris was describing a few posts away.

"This primordial awareness I think, if real, is a wonderful thing, and, shows us, basically, that everything is all right and always was. I think it is just as likely that the truth could be .... not wonderful."

Mike, I don't have an answer about the wonderful/not wonderful dichotomy. I only have guesses. I would defer to anyone with better realization. My working hypothesis is based on my experience of primordial awareness, and that has been utterly and unbelievably wonderful. The only word that even comes close to describing this experience is... love. Why that is so is the mystery, to which my only hypothesis is that that's the way things really are when observed as their primordial nature or, vice versa, that's just the way mind perceives primordial nature. Either way, asking "why" this is so is a very natural thing we humans do, but I suspect it's a lot like asking why Pi has a value of 3.1416, or why the second law of thermodynamics. So my answer is very unsatisfying to the thinking/doing mind but gloriously satisfying to the, ahem, real me.

To anyone who has not read "Moon is Dewdrop," which is an anthology of Dogen's writing -- you MUST, absolutely MUST, read it. Hurry up! It is without question one of the most poignant and beautiful books I have ever read. That man was Awakened.

"
To anyone who has not read "Moon is Dewdrop," which is an anthology of Dogen's writing -- you MUST, absolutely MUST, read it. Hurry up! It is without question one of the most poignant and beautiful books I have ever read. That man was Awakened.

"

I agree. That's a fantastic book, and Dogen really knew his stuff.

The only problem with Dogen (or any other expounder of esoteric Dharma) is that he is quite easily misunderstood. For example, people read Dogen saying, "all beings are by nature Buddhas," or, "many Buddhas don't realize that they are Buddhas, but they are still Buddhas," and they conclude that they're already a Buddha and don't have to practice to realize anything. It's a complete misinterpretation. The only way to really "get" what Dogen is saying is to practice your ass off - as he did.

I'm no Dogen expert or anything (not even close). But the more I practice, the more I comprehend the enigmatic writings of masters like Dogen.

I don't know why I felt the need to drop in a disclaimer. And Chris, I can totally see how reading Dogen might be really helpful for you right now

~Jackson