"The Controversy"

Yeah, he's easily misunderstood. I first read Dogen about five years ago, Jackson. At the time I was blown away by the beauty of the language just all by itself, even though it's translated from the original Japanese. I had no idea, really, what he was talking about, and if I did it was in a really nebulous and conceptual way. So he is both a beautiful writer, qua writer, and a beautiful *dharma* writer.

Honestly, that one book provided me with the motivation to practice so that I would one day, maybe, be able to get what he was saying! I still don't get it all by any means, and "Moon in a Dewdrop" has become a beautiful yardstick for me.

"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."

Hi Adam,
I am saying all that is known is impermanent, so all experience is impermanent. This impermanance is neccesary or fundamental to knowing because knowing is a perception of the movement. Primordial Awareness is both knowing and not knowing neither constant nor impermanent and its realization is dependent on recognising that this movement does not occurr in isolation.

We should examine ALL things not be blinded by looking for the 3 characteristics IN reality (particulary impermanence). Even though it has served us well to a point.

[edit] I think a little different to many, have I explained myself?

"
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.

"

Hi Chris,
I have not listened to Christopher Titmuss so I cannot comment there. Certainly sounds close to what I meant. Yes "Primordial awareness is not impermanent because in it, nothing does move" it is neither movement nor not movement and its realization is in "not movement".
It is interesting that you confirm this with your experience, I only had real subtle, almost inconsequential, flashes as I put this together.

Chris and Gary,

We're going to run in to some problems if we start considering that which is permanent to be "ultimate reality" while characterizing impermanence as not being so.

Let's not forget the Heart Sutra: "Form is not different from emptiness. Emptiness is not different than form."

The Ultimate Reality transcends and includes permanence and impermanence alike. Though we may distinguish between impermanent objects and unimpeded cognizant emptiness, there is no fundamental separation between the two. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.

Discuss

"
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.
"

If I put this in my "weird way".
The subject, object and the "I" all put in an illusionary appearence together. The subject and object are clearly defined perceptual boundaries, while the "I" is qualitative aspects of the subject or the mirad of subjective relationships not well defined that may vary as does vary significantly. So there are two subjective parts the "I" and the subject part of the subject / object duality. The subject object duality is required for one thing to be percieved separate from another. The subjective reference to "I" is another beast, this body, this controling entity, this "owner" of the subjective perception. To know position like "sound over there" requires a subject and object so you cannot walk without a dual experience, the "I" however is baggage that we do not need to carry around.

"Chris and Gary,

We're going to run in to some problems if we start considering that which is permanent to be "ultimate reality" while characterizing impermanence as not being so.

Let's not forget the Heart Sutra: "Form is not different from emptiness. Emptiness is not different than form."

The Ultimate Reality transcends and includes permanence and impermanence alike. Though we may distinguish between impermanent objects and unimpeded cognizant emptiness, there is no fundamental separation between the two. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.

Discuss "

Hi Jackson,

The Ultimate Reality is permanence and impermanence, where have you interpreted I said otherwise?

"Hi Jackson,

The Ultimate Reality is permanence and impermanence, where have you interpreted I said otherwise?

"

I guess my response was more directed toward some statements made by Chris...

"I could be wrong but I think what Gary was saying is that impermanence is not the ultimate reality..."

"... What I think [Titmuss] 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 wrote my post to both you (Gary) and Chris since you were the one's engaged in the discussion. My post was in no way a reprimand. I just wanted to join in the discussion. Hence my closing invitation (discuss).

Hi Jackson,

Yeah, I did alter another statement by Chris to qualify what I believe he was saying
"Primordial awareness is not impermanent because in it, nothing does move" it is neither movement nor not movement and its realization is in "not movement".

So we'll wait for Chris to enguage you and me on this one .

"
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.

"

Thanks Chris,

With this recommendation I better read it.
Does anyone know if there is an e - version available?

"We're going to run in to some problems if we start considering that which is permanent to be "ultimate reality" while characterizing impermanence as not being so."

You got me! I was making a pretty course distinction earlier. Serves me right for posting while at the office. What i was getting at is the primordial awareness that (addressing what I think Jackson is saying) contains all that is impermanent or permanent, everything, really, but that itself is utterly and always... timeless. This "thing" or whatever you choose to call it is timeless. Timeless. So how can IT be impermanent?

That's the best I can do. I have no reference points but my own experience to go on here and, as I said earlier, will quickly bow to a deeper realization.

You know what I don't like about the primordial awareness camp? It imposes a kind of belief system on the experience of awareness. "It's the primordial awareness - all things arise from it!"

It doesn't let awareness be itself.

Anything that rouses this much philosophical controversy has to be problematic, conceptually speaking.

Hi Haquan,

You are right.
It's the primordial awareness.
All philosophical controversies arise within it.
All thoughts are made of its substance.

-Alex

I have to say, I'm not in any "camp." I was just babbling about stuff. But, David, I'm interested in your comment. The subject matter (primordial awareness, the clear light, the ultimate thing, whatever) is so slippery when you talk or write about it but so clear when you "have" it that it frustrates people to no end. That's what I think Jackson was getting at both when he challenged Gary and me here and when he said that Dogen and others who write about this are so easily misunderstood. It could also be why there is a "controversy" in the first place. Language is powerful stuff. So.... my question becomes, "Is there a way to define and describe this "thing" so that we can all agree on it?"

Edit: added a lot of words

"You know what I don't like about the primordial awareness camp? It imposes a kind of belief system on the experience of awareness. "It's the primordial awareness - all things arise from it!"

It doesn't let awareness be itself.

Anything that rouses this much philosophical controversy has to be problematic, conceptually speaking."

Hi David,

iMaybe I am being naive and it doesn't operate like I said, be that as it may what I put forward was of my meditative observation where the distinction "seemed" apparent. The subject / object duality arises from movement and primodial awareness appeared to be that "thing / no thing" of absolute stillness. This stillness being both movememt and no movement. Now how can I say that without creating some problems! Anyway the subject / object duality only requires examination of the movement, not the realization of no movement.

Philosophical contorversy is good conceptually, the boundaries are broadened or existing thinking given more depth. As I was advised, if this causes observational investagtion in practice even better!

Granted it is not for everyone ( although you are normally more expansive about these matters ).

"everything is empty and flickering in and out of existence constantly." I'm far from expert in this very new field for me, but couldn't maybe that experience of "flickering" be just our own limited personal perception of "reality" that we have by nature as a limited human vessel built into our nervous system and not a pronouncement on the actual nature of reality which may be actually "inherently existing"?

Perhaps this controversy exists and is unresolvable because its premise is both hidden and flawed. I would like to know on what basis people feel justified in moving from reflections on perception (for this is surely what has to be happening in order to posit or discuss the controversy) to ontological statements on the nature of reality. Until this is addressed the 'controversy' is of secondary interest.

I stand in awe
of those of you
who know so much.

;-D

HIt the cushion, troops! All will be revealed. And you still won't be able to say anything definitive about it.

There are no conclusions to be drawn.

"I stand in awe
of those of you
who know so much.

;-D

HIt the cushion, troops! All will be revealed. And you still won't be able to say anything definitive about it.

There are no conclusions to be drawn.

"

I'm so glad that is true. saves so much time and energy and increases the amount of time spent in freedom

"HIt the cushion, troops! All will be revealed. And you still won't be able to say anything definitive about it.

There are no conclusions to be drawn.

"

So true. So, so true!

Yeah, and we need like blazes to avoid the ol' hidden flawed premise fallacy

"Yeah, and we need like blazes to avoid the ol' hidden flawed premise fallacy "

I'm still unable to understand what's meant by this, or to whom the wink is directed. Is it a joke? Or do you have an aversion to rationality? Given that this site is a comparative treasure chest of clear and rational explication, I would be surprised to find such an aversion here. Perhaps it's a confusion. Did you notice that I was speaking about the existence of the controversy rather than it's resolution? But, surely that was obvious. So, what gives?

At any rate "I would like to know on what basis people feel justified in moving from reflections on perception to ontological statements on the nature of reality".

Whilst "Hit the cushion, troops! There are no conclusions to be drawn" may in time free you from the controversy (which is not the same as resolving it), through seeing that 'Form is emptiness and emptiness is form', it doesn't address this question.

The Chief of Police! No! Too nice of a guy! And he seems to know so much! You're crazy! ....

A lifetime of chasing the senses. Another 7 years of having the senses chase the senses. Oh my God! It's nothing more than the chasing! What's this, watching the watching? Everything becoming a beautiful paradox. No preferences.

Is this that is left, do you call it Primordial Awareness?

Excellent! I had to laugh. "Primordial Awareness" is a good term but I like "Consciousness", "Reality", "The Self", After more than 42 years of studying the Great Spiritual Traditions for me it all got Resolved (The Search) with Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi. David Loy and Ken Wilber both do an excellent job of explaining and resolving "The Controversy" between Advaita and Buddhism. I agree with Wilber that Ramana is One of the Greatest Sages ever to walk the earth. Like Wilber He is also my all time Favorite Teacher. I have no Great Philosophical Questions left. As Ramana says "the mind must be dissolved in The Heart." The mind= the Police Chief".

See, this is the problem with Buddhism. I realize that I'm walking into the proverbial "Lions Den" with all of the Buddhists here but, here goes. ( Used to be one myself.) David Loy, Professor of philosophy, Zen Buddhist teacher and scholar for some decades has written a great piece that's on the web comparing Advaita Vedanta with Buddhism. while superficially they appear to be opposites of each other, they are actually two fingers pointing at the same moon, but pointing at it from two different angles. (Philosophical assumptions.) The ever changing "reality" that you speak of is actually just your experience filtered through the mind. You are not experiencing "what is" but only the play (Lila) of phenomena, otherwise known as Maya. (Or Samsara) The Buddha himself spoke of a Consciousness that was "Infinite, Eternal, Unchanging, and was the Liberator" of those suffering and lost in Delusion. (That last part was a paraphrase.) There are other scholars who have also pointed out these statements by the Buddha. And these were early sayings in the Pali language. Yes there is something (No-thing.) which is Transcendental Eternal, Divine, Infinite and the Source of Intelligence and Love. Also known as Buddha Mind and Buddha Nature. Yes Dorothy..there is a God. Everything Is Consciousness. Or "Mind Only". Advaita and Zen point to same "Supreme Identity" All of these words point to the same Reality. Namaste'.

Personally, I'm skeptical that there is a "right" answer, so I'm always a little puzzled by the certitude of those who have this figured out. That said, Awingandaprayer, I thought you did a reasonably good job of explaining your position and the reason for it. If I may presume to say so, I always find it most helpful to renounce everything I think I know in favor of whatever is next.

As far as walking into the Buddhist lion's den with your subversive Advaita leanings, fahgettaboudit! You are welcome here and all these crusty Buddhists need to be shaken up now and then anyway.