This post is my ramblings about approaches to meditation and the realisation of emptiness. Within the Tibetan Buddhist world there is a long standing debate (~500 years) about the use of conceptual minds to realise emptiness firstly with a conceptual mind realising emptiness through a generic image and then with a mental direct perceiver of emptiness through the "gradual wearing away" of said generic image. This use of generic images to realise emptiness is at the heart of Je Tsongkhapa's Gelugpa/Kadampa tradition. Sean Robsville explains in detail the use of generic images to understand objects and how they differ from Plato's ideal forms.
When Je Tsongkhapa broke away from the Sakya tradition this use of conceptual minds was at the core of the philosophical difference in the Gelug path; as illuminated in his debates with Gorampa.
For myself, the differences between Atiyoga practices and the gradualist path is something of a connundrum as I have an strong connection to Je Tsongkhapa's tradition but am also attracted to Atiyoga practices of technique-less meditation such as that taught by Adyashanti or to a lesser extent in Dzogchen.
One of the most thought provoking of the teachings I have been studying on STTP is the rejection of Atiyoga (or simultaneist or Hashang) meditation as a true path to realise the actual nature of reality as intended by the Buddha when he exhorted his followers to attain true cessations. The argument is that all one would be left with when one has abandoned conceptual thought is the conventional nature of the mind, empty of form and empty of conceptual thought, not empty of inherent existence which is the object we need to focus on to attain liberation and enlightenment according to Je Tsongkhapa.
I've discussed this with online sangha, and include the salient posts here:
[ME]: A question that has arisen from STTP study regarding meditation on the nature of the mind free from concepts. I'm struggling to see how this is an invalid approach to perceiving emptiness. Can anyone help? My understanding is that Self-Grasping is a conceptual mind, therefore, if it is stopped as part of this form of meditation, why wouldn't emptiness be perceived?
[SANGHA]: One thing that helped me was the short section in Universal Compassion on Close Placement of mindfulness of mind (p. 64). Then the difference between meditating on the emptiness of mind versus merely stopping the flow of conceptual thoughts became more clear.
[SANGHA]: Hi, I had some thoughts about this. In answer to your initial question: it is an invalid approach to perceiving emptiness, because such a mind does not perceive emptiness either conceptually or non-conceptually. It experiences only a lack of conceptual thought. Not a lack of inherent existence. Although during such a meditation self grasping and all conceptual thoughts temporarily cease, this is temporary, because this meditation does not directly oppose self grasping or its seeds,or the imprints of self grasping. Due to the imprints of self grasping, all phenomena will still continue to appear to be inherently existent (dual appearance) . Due to the seeds of self grasping remaining, the mind of self grasping will again arise. In his root text on the mahamudra the first Panchen Lama wrote: The mind that is free from conceptualisation, Is merely a level of conventional mind; It is not the mind's ultimate nature. Therefore seek instruction from qualified Masters. (CLofB p152) The mind that realises emptiness non-conceptually, is called a yogic direct perceiver. The way these non-conceptual minds are generated is quite unlike the way that other non-conceptual minds are generated: in short though, they do so in dependence upon a union of tranquil abiding and superior seeing, which in turn depend upon first meditating with an inferential cognizer and re-cognizers which are both conceptual minds. Finally just to add, I think that CLoB outline "Avoiding mistaking the introduction to the conventional nature of the mind for an introduction to the ultimate nature of the mind" (pg151 in my copy) directly deals with your point. x
[ME]: That's getting to the issue directly, and believe it or not I was reading that very section yesterday. I might have a block here, but this seems contradictory: "such a mind does not perceive emptiness either conceptually or non-conceptually. It experiences only a lack of conceptual thought. Not a lack of inherent existence. Although during such a meditation self grasping and all conceptual thoughts temporarily cease" - if self-grasping ceases and the mind is still aware surely emptiness is perceived...?
[SANGHA]: Self grasping conceives of inherent existence. When self grasping has a temporary cessation, inherently existent objects would not be conceived. However the issue here is what our mind ascertains and thereby realises. In the meditation you mention, when we perceive the mind directly what the mind ascertains is clarity and cognizing and it experiences a lack of conceptualisation (it does not 'look' at anything else). This mind can then, in fact should, ascertain firmly how the mind and its object lack or are empty of the previously misconceived inherent existence. But this would be done quite specifically, and in dependence upon initially understanding emptiness using reasons and an inferential cognizer (ie conceptually). x
[ME]: if what is perceived is the clarity and cognising of the mind and self grasping is not present one will be perceiving the ultimate nature of that clarity. But now I think I'm just repeating the same argument.
[ME]: Hang on, if the mere appearance of an object is perceived directly - the object lacking inherent existence, is meditating on that mere appearance not a true path? Or is it merely a conventional truth and therefore won't get you anywhere... So is what you are saying when you (and Geshela and Neil) say conventional nature of the mind in this context you mean these mediators are focused on the mere appearance of the mind as opposed to the lack of inherent existence of the mind. Is that right? I though we could conjoin our experience of things as mere appearance and our understanding of emptiness as a correct and effective path a'la tantra
[SANGHA]: Yes that is right, meditator is focused on the mere appearance of the mind as opposed to the lack of inherent existence of the mind. And yes again, we can then conjoin our experience of mere appearance and understanding of emptiness by understanding the 4 profundities. This is precisely the path of such a mahamudra meditator, but conjoing this meditation with meditation on emptiness is done quite deliberately and specifically as previously mentioned. The mahamudra meditator uses the conventional nature of the mind to attain tranquil abiding because it is an easier less subtle object with which to progress to tranquil abiding than the ultimate nature of the mind. However having done so it is then easier (in comparison to other objects of TA training) for such a meditator to proceed to realise emptiness, this is one of the main benefits of choosing this object as a object of tranquil abiding training. x
More to follow...
No comments:
Post a Comment