[Buddha-l] Non-arising

[alx437 at charter.net]

   Dear Bernhard, 

     First, apologies for being dilatory in replying to this post. I have a habit of saving up my digest messages and then going through them in large gulps when I feel so inclined. But since no one else has responded yet, I figure I will take a stab at it. 
     The Sanskrit for this particular Buddhist phrase is, I believe, anupattika-dharma-ksanti, perhaps in this version the dharma is omitted. Anyhow, it means the ksanti, tolerance or forbearance, that dharmas, or elements of existence, are not produced, or do not arise. O son of a noble family, you are right to be puzzled by this phrase. Chih I, of course, did not make this up, it is quite common in Mahayana circles, and generally refers to a relatively high level of attainment, more or less synonymous with perfect wisdom, or "correct view." Indian philosophy generally is concerned with the difference between appearance and reality. The Buddhist idea here is that we ordinarily have the idea that dharmas, or elements of existence such as physical objects (although the most common lists of dharmas from Abhidharma literature are predominantly mental or psychological) exist on their own, with no help from us, independently, objectively, and so forth. This tendency is reinforced by an uncritical use of ordinary language, which uses nouns for such things as tables, chairs, desks, and so forth. Mahayana Buddhism, as I understand it, says this is a big mistake, for in perfect wisdom there is no subject or object, and thus no possibility of using language, or making any sort of distinction. When the subject-object distinction breaks down, one cannot say that objects have disappeared, because one realizes (allegedly) that they were never there in the first place, at least not in the way that they appeared to be. One realizes that all dharmas are empty, NOT that they do not exist, but that they exist in some indefinable non-conceptual manner that obviously cannot be further described. People like Huston Smith and other advocates of a so-called Perennial Philosophy then take this similarity and say, "Well, gee, mystics from other parts of the world and other religious traditions also talk about non-conceptual states, they must all be talking about the Same Thing." I believe that this is an unwarranted assumption. It may well be correct, but there is no way to prove it that I can think of, short of resorting to the techniques of someone like Ramakrishna, who claimed to have personally verified the identity of mystical attainments in a variety of religious traditions, a claim which I feel is rather dubious. 
    Anyhow, that last bit was a personal aside, not particularly germane to the specific issue here. Once one understands the true nature of dharmas as empty, or nirvana from the beginning, this loosens the grip of the habitual tendency to see them otherwise. With practice, one can overcome this tendency completely, which in turn eliminates attachment and the suffering that is said to arise from it. 
    Now you should be aware that I may be completely wrong in my interpretation. I may also be insane, a possibility which you should take seriously. The Perfection of Wisdom scriptures say that the normal reaction when encountering this idea of emptiness is to be terrified. Therefore, if it doesn't scare you, you probably haven't understood it. Very easy to misunderstand, perhaps deliberately so, in line with the Biblical injunction to not cast your pearls before swine. 
    I've blathered on here for a while, so I will stop now, hope I have succeeded in shedding some light on this obscure issue. 

              All the best,        Alex Naughton

>Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:42:27 +0100 
>From: "M.B. Schiekel" <mb.schiekel at arcor.de> 
>Subject: [Buddha-l] non-arising 
>To: buddha-l <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com> 
>Message-ID: <4B706923.4040804 at arcor.de> 
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 
 
>Hello, 
 
>I'm reading an essay of Paul Swanson "Ch'an and Chih-kuan" about Chi-i's 
>(538-597) view of dhyana/chan. There Swanson translates some passages of 
>Chi-i and in one I found this: 
>"... and realize the patient forbearance of [the idea that dharmas are] 
>non-arising." 
 
>Could someone be so kind to explain me this "patient forbearance of 
>non-arising"? 
 
>Thank you, 
>bernhard