In meditation, one seeks the personality that is evident at that state.
The birth - jati can be seen as
the present personality that is evident. This is pointed out by Ajan Chah.
The cause of that can be seen
as becoming-bhava. We became this (momentary) personality because we
held to something strongly - clinging (upadana). That clinging
happened because we liked it- we craved for it- tanha. The craving was
caused by the feeling- vedana, caused by the contact-phasso. contact
of sense objects with the sense spheres occurred as there are the
sense spheres - salayatanam. The senses are because of our mind and
body- this is the key link - nama rupa. This pertains to our mind made
body- the mental concept of our body. It is interesting that in the
components of nama rupa, the sankara is included.- it is due to our
past impressions that the present concept of our mind body exits. What
exits in the mind, as a cause of mind body ? what is beyond that ?
Buddha says it is consciousness-vinnanam. I think this is where a link
Ramana Maharshi's idea of self enquiry- "the feeling of I" exists. The
cause of that Buddha says is sankara. Sankara is caused by ignorance-
Avijja. What is this now ? Is it the concept of self ? It it the
limitedness one perceives ? Is it the concept that every one of the
above links exists because of the central concept of self ? Is it,
like in the Kachayana vacha gotta sutta, the extremes of the feeling
of "is" and the other extreme of 'is not' ? Or is it the substance
view- the view that all these are existent as absolute entities ?
The mind cannot perceive, the thought cannot touch. Here another link
to Krishnamurti's idea of "Precipice" looks close.
Now, at every step Nagarjuna's idea that each of these cause effect
links are not temporally connected and are not absolute, but each
exist because the other came to be will help us from falling into the
trap 'existentialism'- considering that each this links are absolutely
existent.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Meditations
In meditation, on observation of any phenomena, the minds starts to go deeper, observes the reactions, and further deeper.
All the depth arising with the feel of layers of our consciousness are all creations of the mind.
A single sight -like the sights of Varanasi - has all the reaction, samskara, dependent origination built into it. The search of phenomena to observe is also a construct of the mind,
so is to mentally map dependent origination to the observed phenomena - although the latter leads to a deep silence within.
Why ? Lets go back to dependent origination. The Nama Rupa - name and form pertains to our own form and name - identity, inclusive of all the samskara- and not of the object. Sense bases are the evolute and contact and further it proliferates.
Retracing back takes us to ignorance.
Ignorance of what ? Ignorance of having a belief in a self- a person- defined, limited, reacting, conditionally substantiated living process bundle.
On a clearer perspective, once again we can connect with Kacchanna Gotta sutta. The Buddha says that having an opinion 'this exits' means eternalism and 'does not exist' means nihilism. Thus the feeling that some thing 'exits' - not even limiting as a self, is ignorance.
So what then is beyond the ignorance ?
Is this is the precipice versed by JK ?
Is this where the suttas stop and other spiritual paths continue verbalising ?
Indeed this should be the stoppage to all proliferations as we understand..
All the depth arising with the feel of layers of our consciousness are all creations of the mind.
A single sight -like the sights of Varanasi - has all the reaction, samskara, dependent origination built into it. The search of phenomena to observe is also a construct of the mind,
so is to mentally map dependent origination to the observed phenomena - although the latter leads to a deep silence within.
Why ? Lets go back to dependent origination. The Nama Rupa - name and form pertains to our own form and name - identity, inclusive of all the samskara- and not of the object. Sense bases are the evolute and contact and further it proliferates.
Retracing back takes us to ignorance.
Ignorance of what ? Ignorance of having a belief in a self- a person- defined, limited, reacting, conditionally substantiated living process bundle.
On a clearer perspective, once again we can connect with Kacchanna Gotta sutta. The Buddha says that having an opinion 'this exits' means eternalism and 'does not exist' means nihilism. Thus the feeling that some thing 'exits' - not even limiting as a self, is ignorance.
So what then is beyond the ignorance ?
Is this is the precipice versed by JK ?
Is this where the suttas stop and other spiritual paths continue verbalising ?
Indeed this should be the stoppage to all proliferations as we understand..
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Sights of Gaya sissa - readings in Fire sermon
Had the good fortune of gazing at the Gayasissa and recollecting the Aditta pariyaya sutta - the fire sermon.
A wrong impression one gets when one reads the suttas are they biased to the negative ? more mention of suffering, lamentation, grief ..
The awareness is the simple awareness. Awareness of the processes occurring in the senses, any thing as occurring as deep is a construct of mind, artificial.
The simile of fire pertains to transience as well as the process of proliferation. Thinking about the burning sensation causes irritation in mind something the mind wants to avoid. But it is to be noted that it is a reaction.
In a deeper perspective, it can be noted that the word 'Dukkha' creates reactions that are of the same nature as one created by 'hatred' - dwesha (dosa). That of pain - mind recoils and wants to avoid. Mind confuses between these two. But Dukkha is translated as unsatisfactoriness - a nature of dhamma and does not pertain to our minds reaction. When one tries to understand the suttas with this impression, the suttas look negative and biased towards the painful. When one notices that this is a reaction and does not address to it, the suttas look very clear and unbiased - as the truth should be.
Again, if one looks at the three roots of existence, raga dosa and moha as liking, disliking and delusion, rather than greed hatred and delusion, it can be seen to address all our types of reactions and is not biased to the painful.
This outlook clears much a mist from reading of the suttas. Suttas can be seen in a very different 'positive' light.
A wrong impression one gets when one reads the suttas are they biased to the negative ? more mention of suffering, lamentation, grief ..
The awareness is the simple awareness. Awareness of the processes occurring in the senses, any thing as occurring as deep is a construct of mind, artificial.
The simile of fire pertains to transience as well as the process of proliferation. Thinking about the burning sensation causes irritation in mind something the mind wants to avoid. But it is to be noted that it is a reaction.
In a deeper perspective, it can be noted that the word 'Dukkha' creates reactions that are of the same nature as one created by 'hatred' - dwesha (dosa). That of pain - mind recoils and wants to avoid. Mind confuses between these two. But Dukkha is translated as unsatisfactoriness - a nature of dhamma and does not pertain to our minds reaction. When one tries to understand the suttas with this impression, the suttas look negative and biased towards the painful. When one notices that this is a reaction and does not address to it, the suttas look very clear and unbiased - as the truth should be.
Again, if one looks at the three roots of existence, raga dosa and moha as liking, disliking and delusion, rather than greed hatred and delusion, it can be seen to address all our types of reactions and is not biased to the painful.
This outlook clears much a mist from reading of the suttas. Suttas can be seen in a very different 'positive' light.
Sights of Varanasi
Varanasi enlightens one.
The flow through the Ganga, one side all the ghats and the other, nothingness, infinitude.
The ghats represent various phases in ones life. As one moves through them, one can see the liking that the mind takes towards one, and the recoil that it goes thru at another.
And then it occurs that this bias of the mind is artificial. All the sights encompass life, all of this is life. This is all of life in one single snapshot.
When the boat reaches the ghat from the middle of the river, it all becomes clear. People involved in all activity- prayers, passion, poignant, faith - the faces reveal all the states, all the moods. Life comes in front of your eyes.
Then it occurs that all such facets have the same content of life in them - from gorgeous sights to that of a man gobbling a morsel of food- the choice of one to another is an erroneous construct of mind.
This construct involves our deeper impressions about things, the construct of an inner samskara and the various outcomes of the same is also an erroneous mind process.
An evolute of this thought process is all the sights that encompass life of various people various modes involves the ergodic theory. The theory says the observation of a system that evolves in time, as opposed of observation of various instantaneous snapshots of equivalent systems with different initial conditions and evolution equations, would result in the same conclusions.
Implies that all the snapshots of all the people around are snapshots of ourselves projected out in front of our eyes.
Explains why Herman Hesse's Siddhartha lives as a boatman in the Ganga.
The flow through the Ganga, one side all the ghats and the other, nothingness, infinitude.
The ghats represent various phases in ones life. As one moves through them, one can see the liking that the mind takes towards one, and the recoil that it goes thru at another.
And then it occurs that this bias of the mind is artificial. All the sights encompass life, all of this is life. This is all of life in one single snapshot.
When the boat reaches the ghat from the middle of the river, it all becomes clear. People involved in all activity- prayers, passion, poignant, faith - the faces reveal all the states, all the moods. Life comes in front of your eyes.
Then it occurs that all such facets have the same content of life in them - from gorgeous sights to that of a man gobbling a morsel of food- the choice of one to another is an erroneous construct of mind.
This construct involves our deeper impressions about things, the construct of an inner samskara and the various outcomes of the same is also an erroneous mind process.
An evolute of this thought process is all the sights that encompass life of various people various modes involves the ergodic theory. The theory says the observation of a system that evolves in time, as opposed of observation of various instantaneous snapshots of equivalent systems with different initial conditions and evolution equations, would result in the same conclusions.
Implies that all the snapshots of all the people around are snapshots of ourselves projected out in front of our eyes.
Explains why Herman Hesse's Siddhartha lives as a boatman in the Ganga.
While in the boat, we had to go into the centre of the river. The boat appeared stationary. I thought it had been anchored. Nandu the boatman said it is not anchored, and is not stationary also. It is wood, will move in the direction of the flow - he explained. But I could not feel it, not even see it looking at the water- it looked all the same. The sandy bank also gave the same feel. Nandu woke me up and said look at the Ghats - where were we and where are we now. It was amazing - we hade moved a considerable distance from our earlier location!
It occured that life also is similar. Every day looks the same, just like the other. But between two points in time, we would have moved a considerable distance - from within and without. Well, shucks, it also turns out to be only in one way ..
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Nagarjuna: musings on Mulamadhyamaka Karika - Chapter one
Pratyaya pariksha
1. Need for a cause is obvious. What is the interrelation of the cause and effect ?
An existent arisen from oneself would make the process redundant, and hence incorrect.
Arisen from another: If A was said to arise from B, when A is already existent, can we say B is the cause unless we brought in our memory, sanskara, equivalently substance view, Atta ? At present when A is, the action of B being a cause is redundant and not correct.
Arisen from both: would have the same fate being a mixture of both the ideas above.
Na vidyate -not evident- The Ariya is suggesting the way to look. It is like: is it not ? for us with a self view, the answer is no. So, why not ? there .. the self view comes to light. It starts making good sense when this is seen.
2. The four conditions correspond to the arising, existence, cessation, and the sustenance of any existent.
3. The existent is seen with a self nature for us. He is helping us look deeper. This self nature of the existent is not 'evident' in the conditions. Nor they seem to have any self that is completely other to the seen self nature in the existent. Something same yet different.
4. Activity is introduced to address the interactions between the conditions that would lead to the arising of the existent. Activity not constituted nor not constituted of conditions doesn't have an individual self. One would ascribe a self either by its existence, or its functionality. The latter is addressed in this verse. We would ascribe absolutism to conditions if activity constituted of conditions and absolutism to conditions if conditions constituted activity. The cause wouldn't be, without its potency to be one. But, the potency wouldn't be, without it being the cause either. Hence they are said to be not constituted nor not constituted of each other.
5. It is not correct to call anything a condition until the existent has arisen. But till then, it is not considered as a non-condition also - because we ascribe it a sense of self and hence continuity and 'predict' the existent. This is false view.
6. If something doesn't exist, naming a condition for it is not correct. If something is already existent, naming anything as a condition for it is rewinding its genesis in memory and hence not correct. Hence it turns out that naming a condition is not correct for an existent as well as a non-existent.
7. Producing cause: An existent is not produced, as its already there. A non existent would not be produced either. Hence a cause which produces is not correct. Hypothesize of a producing cause can lead to absolutist theories.
8. Objective Support : When an existent is seen, a supporting cause is not independently identified. Rather, when the supporting causes are independently identified, the existent no longer retains its 'self' nature. Eg. the cart simile from Milinda panha. A cart is said to be supported by wheels. But when wheels are independently identified, the rest is no longer a cart. Or a table being supported by its legs. Hence a supporting condition is not clear.
9. Immediate condition: Immediate condition before the arising of existent is incorrect as the existent is itself not defined. Immediate condition after ceasing of existent is incorrect as once ceased, ascribing any condition is not correct.
10. We perceive existent with self nature. As they have a self nature, they would not come to be because some other exists: the Buddhas words on dependent arising would be wrong. As the Buddhas words are true, existent should be perceived without the self nature. Again, another instance when the Ariya points the way to look at the errors in our perception.
11. When the conditions are separated the existent is not produced. Nor is it produced just by the combination of the conditions. If existent were a combination of the conditions would lead to hypothesis of an essence in the conditions becoming the existent. Bhaven implies self less ness of the existent.
12. However, if the effect were non existent in conditions, and were to spring forth from the same, any random cause could give rise to any effect, which is not the case. This sentence makes logical sense only because we presuppose a self to the effect ! Only if existences had self, a search of the effect in the cause, and a finding or a non finding would lead to either complications. In other words, search of an effect in a cause is actually search of the self of the effect in the cause.
13. The effect comes forth from conditions. Conditions are not made by themselves, they too had
other conditions to arise. How can we say that the effect arises from the condition, condition being a starting point ? deeper still, what is a condition other than a convention ? Thus, the effect is also a convention.
14. An effect made of conditions is not evident. It is not seen in the conditions nor by combination of the conditions, and is a seen as a convention. Effect constituting of non conditions is too not evident. Hence, the conditions that are called conditions supposing the existence of the effect are also not evident - and so are non conditions. And if they are evident, it is self view in action.
1. Need for a cause is obvious. What is the interrelation of the cause and effect ?
An existent arisen from oneself would make the process redundant, and hence incorrect.
Arisen from another: If A was said to arise from B, when A is already existent, can we say B is the cause unless we brought in our memory, sanskara, equivalently substance view, Atta ? At present when A is, the action of B being a cause is redundant and not correct.
Arisen from both: would have the same fate being a mixture of both the ideas above.
Na vidyate -not evident- The Ariya is suggesting the way to look. It is like: is it not ? for us with a self view, the answer is no. So, why not ? there .. the self view comes to light. It starts making good sense when this is seen.
2. The four conditions correspond to the arising, existence, cessation, and the sustenance of any existent.
3. The existent is seen with a self nature for us. He is helping us look deeper. This self nature of the existent is not 'evident' in the conditions. Nor they seem to have any self that is completely other to the seen self nature in the existent. Something same yet different.
4. Activity is introduced to address the interactions between the conditions that would lead to the arising of the existent. Activity not constituted nor not constituted of conditions doesn't have an individual self. One would ascribe a self either by its existence, or its functionality. The latter is addressed in this verse. We would ascribe absolutism to conditions if activity constituted of conditions and absolutism to conditions if conditions constituted activity. The cause wouldn't be, without its potency to be one. But, the potency wouldn't be, without it being the cause either. Hence they are said to be not constituted nor not constituted of each other.
5. It is not correct to call anything a condition until the existent has arisen. But till then, it is not considered as a non-condition also - because we ascribe it a sense of self and hence continuity and 'predict' the existent. This is false view.
6. If something doesn't exist, naming a condition for it is not correct. If something is already existent, naming anything as a condition for it is rewinding its genesis in memory and hence not correct. Hence it turns out that naming a condition is not correct for an existent as well as a non-existent.
7. Producing cause: An existent is not produced, as its already there. A non existent would not be produced either. Hence a cause which produces is not correct. Hypothesize of a producing cause can lead to absolutist theories.
8. Objective Support : When an existent is seen, a supporting cause is not independently identified. Rather, when the supporting causes are independently identified, the existent no longer retains its 'self' nature. Eg. the cart simile from Milinda panha. A cart is said to be supported by wheels. But when wheels are independently identified, the rest is no longer a cart. Or a table being supported by its legs. Hence a supporting condition is not clear.
9. Immediate condition: Immediate condition before the arising of existent is incorrect as the existent is itself not defined. Immediate condition after ceasing of existent is incorrect as once ceased, ascribing any condition is not correct.
10. We perceive existent with self nature. As they have a self nature, they would not come to be because some other exists: the Buddhas words on dependent arising would be wrong. As the Buddhas words are true, existent should be perceived without the self nature. Again, another instance when the Ariya points the way to look at the errors in our perception.
11. When the conditions are separated the existent is not produced. Nor is it produced just by the combination of the conditions. If existent were a combination of the conditions would lead to hypothesis of an essence in the conditions becoming the existent. Bhaven implies self less ness of the existent.
12. However, if the effect were non existent in conditions, and were to spring forth from the same, any random cause could give rise to any effect, which is not the case. This sentence makes logical sense only because we presuppose a self to the effect ! Only if existences had self, a search of the effect in the cause, and a finding or a non finding would lead to either complications. In other words, search of an effect in a cause is actually search of the self of the effect in the cause.
13. The effect comes forth from conditions. Conditions are not made by themselves, they too had
other conditions to arise. How can we say that the effect arises from the condition, condition being a starting point ? deeper still, what is a condition other than a convention ? Thus, the effect is also a convention.
14. An effect made of conditions is not evident. It is not seen in the conditions nor by combination of the conditions, and is a seen as a convention. Effect constituting of non conditions is too not evident. Hence, the conditions that are called conditions supposing the existence of the effect are also not evident - and so are non conditions. And if they are evident, it is self view in action.
Nagarjuna: musings on Mulamadhyamaka Karika - Dedication
These are the thoughts that occurred on reading the translation by Kalupahana's work.
Dedicatory verses:
The eight characteristics: non-ceasing non-arising, non-annihilation non-permanence, non- identity, non-difference, non-appearance and non-disappearance.
It is disturbing to read words non-arising, non-permanence, but the other two, non-ceasing and non-annihilation pass through without ripples. Why ? due to the substance or the inherent 'atta', 'athman' view - Ariya Nagarjuna is pointing to that. Thus the Ariya is pointing a way to look- the answer one finds is for ourselves.
In a balanced state of existence, one would feel the same reading all the eight. The opinion that the Ariya is presenting a negative logic is also, in the same footing, not balanced. Nor does he deconstruct everything, nor does he propose a new construct- the paticha samutpada- dependent co arising. He is simply stating the nature of the dharmas.
Pratitya samutpadam prapanchopashamam sivam: The state of appeasement of proliferations is the auspicious. They are not different, later it is stated that the dependent co arising and sunyata are one and the same. The path is the goal.
Dedicatory verses:
The eight characteristics: non-ceasing non-arising, non-annihilation non-permanence, non- identity, non-difference, non-appearance and non-disappearance.
It is disturbing to read words non-arising, non-permanence, but the other two, non-ceasing and non-annihilation pass through without ripples. Why ? due to the substance or the inherent 'atta', 'athman' view - Ariya Nagarjuna is pointing to that. Thus the Ariya is pointing a way to look- the answer one finds is for ourselves.
In a balanced state of existence, one would feel the same reading all the eight. The opinion that the Ariya is presenting a negative logic is also, in the same footing, not balanced. Nor does he deconstruct everything, nor does he propose a new construct- the paticha samutpada- dependent co arising. He is simply stating the nature of the dharmas.
Pratitya samutpadam prapanchopashamam sivam: The state of appeasement of proliferations is the auspicious. They are not different, later it is stated that the dependent co arising and sunyata are one and the same. The path is the goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)