[Buddha-l] Non-arising

[JKirkpatrick]

"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. "
 
Well, on second thought, what about attachment to nonattachment? 
Certainly a logical question, but in general, I don't see the
proof either that realisation of the essencelessness (emptiness)
of things automatically ends the suffering of attachment.   

Skeptically yours,
JK



   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 Sa!
 me Thing." I believe that this is an unwarranted assumption. It
may we ll 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

_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l