imagining the samdhinirmocana sutra

8/18/2019 Imagining the Samdhinirmocana Sutra

1/29

Imagining the Samdhinirmocana Sutra

Meditating on the 3 natures

Henry FrummerApril 2008

Rev 10-13-09


2/29

Imagining the Samdhinirmocana Sutra Henry Frummer 2

A Personal Story

It was a beautiful day in June when I was waiting for a friend. I passed the time lookingat the world through the eyes of a chemist. It is a game that I play from time to time. I

had spent years looking at the world in just such a way to make a living. A warm breeze

played about my face. "Air: a colorless and odorless gas", I thought. (An old timephysical description of air.) "That is a good thing if were not colorless we would have a

hard time seeing!" I mused. My mind turned to color and I imagined a rainbow.ROYGBIV came to mind. It is the device that I learnt as child to remember the colors of

the rainbow from red and orange through to indigo and violet. I was thinking about howcolorless light was actually made up of bands of color and imagined how air would look

on a spectrograph, a device that splits the light from an object into its component

wavelengths so that it can be recorded then analyzed. Then it struck me that there are nobands on a spectrograph! The increasing frequencies of light look like a smooth line. I at

once realized that we see a range of frequencies as red and another as blue. Combinations

of frequencies give rise to all of the colors around us. These frequencies are created bylight bouncing off objects but the sense of color is not in the frequencies. It is our

reaction to them. We arbitrarily see a range of frequencies as red. Redness only exists as

a sensation in our brains and is not a part of the object itself. The object will give off areliable set of frequencies when it reflects visible light. It will not

give off redness in any

way. It is only the perceiving consciousness that generates the sensation of red. I am

deeply struck by the fact that when I see a bright red apple, that color exists only in my

mind. Redness has no existence or even meaning outside of my brain. It seems so vivid,so real to me, so a part of the apple. It was hard for me to comprehend that redness was a

mere imagination, a mere creation of appearance and not a solid reality. It made me a

little uncomfortable to think about the idea. To see that what I believed about my senseswas not quite true. Little did I realize that this thought experiment, and subsequent

understanding of its implication, prepared me so well for the study of the

Samdhinirmocana Sutra.


3/29


Introduction

This paper is the fruit of my study of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra that was taken up withLuminous Owl and a small group of people at Green Gulch Zen Center who wanted to

study it. We struggled together to understand the unusual language and the unusual ideas

of the Sutra.

The Sutra is filled with unfamiliar concepts and technical Buddhist terms. The more Istudied the Sutra, the more that I came to feel that these concepts are actually simpler

than they seem. I came to realize that some of the ideas of the Sutra are actually familiarto modern western readers already.

I will present these ideas in subsequent chapters. They can be used to help understandthe ideas that are developed in the Sutra.

The Sutra relies on logical arguments that perhaps cannot be fully appreciated by thewestern reader. For example, it takes a good deal of time and effort to just understand

what the Sutra means by the phrase “ lack of own being in terms of production”. Even

when the concept is understood intellectually, it is not clear to me that it deeply informsus about the way to perceive the world around us. Yet it is precisely the aim of these

chapters in the Sutra to make a fundamental change in our worldview.

I am not intending this work to be a commentary on the Samdhinirmocana Sutra. It isintended to be a meditation guide for individuals who have studied Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of

the Sutra. My intention is to present a guided meditation on how to use the thoroughly

established character as an object of meditation for purification leading to theunderstanding that “ all phenomena lack own being, that all phenomena are unproduced,unceasing, quiescent from the start, and naturally in a state of nirvana.”

The heart of this meditation is an act of creative imagination rather than a logicalconstruction. Logic is used to prepare the mind with certain ideas and sets the stage for

the act of imagination. There are many kinds of meditation and so the term meditation

can be vague as to what the process actually is. I use the term imagination here asopposed to meditation as it is more descriptive of the process that I am presenting.

Reasoning is Not EnoughThe understanding of the Sutra cannot be accomplished by using reasoning alone. We

must understand the concepts contained in the Sutra but then we must somehow apply

these concepts to fully understand the true value of this part of the Sutra.

The Lankavatara Sutra says:

This teaching is found in all the Sutras of all the Buddhas and is

presented to meet the varied dispositions of all beings, but it is not the

Truth itself. These teachings are only a finger pointing towards Noble

Wisdom. They are like a mirage with its springs of water, which thedeer take to be real and chase after. So with the teachings in all the

Sutras: They are intended for the consideration and guidance of the


4/29


discriminating minds of all people, but they are not the Truth itself,

which can only be realized within one’s deepest consciousness.

Mahamati, you and all the Bodhisattvas must seek for this innerrealization of Noble Wisdom, and not be captivated by word teaching.

(Goddard & Suzuki version: end of chapter 2)

Clearly words, and the teachings they contain are vital, but the real meaning lies in theconsciousness of the practitioner. Without this inner self-realization, the words

themselves will be of little benefit for the practitioner.

Jeffery Hopkins warns against too much reasoning in Emptiness Yoga:

This is very important. It is possible to become so addicted to

reasoning that when you arrive at the point where you are about to

cognize emptiness, you leave it and return to the reasoning. If youfind that one of these diamond instruments of reasoning works, settle

down and stay with it, getting used to the result of the reasoning, a

cognition of emptiness. (page 41)

Hopkins makes a key distinction between direct cognizing and reasoning. Understanding

the Sutra requires a certain kind of experience or response to the ideas of Sutra. It cannot

take place without using reasoning, but it won’t happen with reasoning alone. Understanding stands outside the reasoning. Hopkins warns that if the reasoning is not

abandoned at the correct time, the wished for result will not take place. The following

analogy may help elucidate this view:

The study of realizing emptiness is much like learning how to create fire. To create fire

you take two sticks and rub them together and eventually flames appear. In realizing

emptiness, the ideas of the Sutra are the sticks and meditation is akin to the rubbing thesticks together. Inspecting the sticks will not give fire, it is nothing like fire. The sticks on

their own yield no insights as to what is fire. If you have never seen fire, the sticks would

convey no idea of what the experience of fire is.

In a similar way, the texts give no indication of what the experience of cognizing

emptiness is. There is no clue to fire in sticks, and there is no sense of emptiness in thewords. The text needs to be meditated on. It is akin to rubbing the sticks. Again, rubbing

is not fire and meditation is not realization of emptiness. When the sticks are rubbed,

something completely unexpected happens. The flame in its light and heat are a radicaldeparture from the nature of the sticks. The realization of emptiness springs unexpectedly

from the meditations on the words as fire leaps from the rubbed wood.

Reasoning is vital to create the correct ideas to meditate on, and so reasoning is the first

step in the process. Once the ideas are properly understood, these ideas can be meditated

on. The term “cognizing emptiness” has to be left unexplained. It must be left

undefined, ready to be discovered by the practitioner.


5/29


The gap between reasoning and realization needs to be filled using meditation. In

Chapter 6 of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra, there are explicit meditation instructions for

filling this gap and potentially leading to realization of emptiness.

“Gunakara, in dependence upon names that are connected with signs,

the imputational character is known. In dependence upon stronglyadhering to the other-dependent character as being the imputational

character, the other-dependent character is known. In dependenceupon absence of strong adherence to the other-dependent character as

being the imputational character, the thoroughly established characteris known.” (Powers Page 87)

These are the instructions that I am attempting to make more accessible to the modern

practitioner.

Cognizing Emptiness is vitalNo matter how cognizing emptiness is defined, it is a vital experience for the Mahayana

path. For example in Chapter 9 on Wisdom, The Way of the Bodhisattva by Shantidevawrites:

52. To linger and abide within samsara,

But freed from every craving and from every fear,To work the benefit of those who ignorantly suffer:

Such is the fruit that emptiness will bear.

Cognizing emptiness will help the practitioner with the fulfillment of the Bodhisattva

vows. Shantideva further writes:

53. From this, the voidness doctrine will be seenTo be immune from all attack.

And so, with every doubt abandoned,

Let us meditate upon this emptiness.

54. Afflictive passion and the veils of ignorance

The cure for these is emptiness.Therefore, how could they not meditate upon it

Who wish swiftly to attain omniscience?

55.Whatever is the source of pain and suffering,

Let that be the object of our fear.But voidness will allay our every sorrow;How could it be for us a thing of dread?

56. If such a thing as "I" exists indeed,

Then terrors, granted, will torment it.But since no self or "I" exists at all,

What is there left for fears to terrify?


6/29


The Ultimate in the Samdhinirmocana SutraThe first four chapters of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra are descriptions of the “Ultimate”.

In John Power’s own commentary on the Samdhinirmocana Sutra ( Hermeneutics and

Tradition in the Samdhinirmocana-Sutra), he writes about the contradiction of using

words to express the inexpressible, and in the end, it is clear that all he can do is speculateon the matter. (See pages 49-52) He includes a lengthy and interesting discussion on the

relationship between the thoroughly established character and the ultimate. It is arepetition of the problem of defining “cognizing emptiness.” Again, the lack ofintellectual clarity about the Ultimate is not really a problem as Anne Klein in Knowledge

& Liberation says:

… a scholastic tradition, source of the meditative dialectic, may

be considered an essential formulator of a certain type of mysticalexperience. Indeed, Gelukba scholars and meditation masters scoff

at the notion that someone would study one way and meditate

another. Detailed knowledge of the books is deemed useful for ascholar, but essential for a meditator.

At the same time, Gelukbas must remain cognizant of the fact

that inexpressibility as an epithet of the ultimate is frequently

mentioned in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist texts. As generations ofscholars have noted, this description has in no way impeded a

massive scholastic tradition grown up in an endeavor, presumably,

to be informative about ultimate truth or the nature of reality. … Since the inexpressibility of the ultimate is said to refer to the

inability of words to convey a yogi's non-dualistic perception of

ultimate reality exactly as it is experienced, there is no

contradiction in words and thought leading to that experience.(Page 14)

Not a model of RealityIt is important to understand that the Samdhinirmocana Sutra is not attempting to create a

model of reality or an ontology of phenomena. It is creating a meditation to liberate ourminds from suffering. Garma C. C. Chang in his The Buddhist Teaching of Totality:

writes:

Philosophers both inside and outside of Buddhism have fought

bitterly over anatman mainly because they have treated it as aphilosophical concept or doctrine. Actually, anatman or No-Self,is only a meditational device, a practical instruction to be applied

in yogic contemplation for the purpose of liberation, as is clearly

shown in the meditation technique of the Four Mindfulnesses. No

wonder most of the debatants on anatman have missed the pointby a wide margin! Buddha was never a philosopher; His primary

concern was to point out the way to liberation - liberation from


7/29


the deep-rooted attachment to a delusory self which is the source

of all passion-desires and their resultant pains and frustrations.

Philosophical speculations were persistently rejected anddenounced by Buddha as useless, foolish and unsalutary.

Actually, in Buddha's teachings we do not find a philosophy of

No Self; what we find is a significant therapeutic device, theinstruction on how to get rid of the deep ego-clinging attitude.

(Page 74)

Or said succinctly in a often quoted phrase by Buddha himself:

I teach one thing and one thing only, suffering and the end of

suffering.Majjhima Nikaya 22 The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha P.

234

Perhaps the clearest way of putting it is by Reb Anderson in his forward to Andy

Ferguson’s book Zen’ s Chinese Heritage:

It's not that one of these stories [our day to day stories and the

enlightenment stories] is true and the other is false, and it's not that one is

better than the other. The two are intimately connected, and the one lib-

erates us from the other. Zen practice is not about preferring one of thesestories over the other; it's about letting go of both of them. (Page XVI)

Cognizing emptiness is not an end in itself or a final understanding. It is a beginning, astarting point. It can give direction to one’s practice. Just as Muslims face Mecca whenat prayers, we can face emptiness with our practice.

The ApproachBuddhists teach that there are two truths, conventional and ultimate. The conventional

truth is what we all believe in as the nature of the world. It is the very experience of our

every day lives.

The second truth is unfamiliar to us in our day-to-day experience. This is a truth that must

be somehow experienced to be understood. Once this second truth is understood, then ourviews of the first truth will be altered in an unexpected way. The first truth will remain

the first truth, but we will not understand it as we did before. For many of us, that

understanding will echo the first koan many of us ever heard:

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.(Donovan Lyrics in There Is a Mountain)

The meditations found in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra are designed to catch glimpses of

the second truth. In order to help understand this second truth, we need to first accept the

possibility of this truth. Our faith in Buddhism will allow us to suspend our normal judgments and points of view and enter into new ideas that may seem strange and outside

everything we know.


8/29


As we go through life, there is little that we can fully rely on. We are sure that we will

wake up each morning, and we will be ourselves. This will be true even if some greattragedy sweeps away all other things in our lives. We can accept the fact that we can lose

friends and family and all of our possessions. This is not outside of our accepted reality.

We can imagine waking up and finding that we have become a giant cockroach, but nonethink that this is actually ever going to happen to anyone. Despite this complete belief in

the self, Buddhism teaches there is no self in the way we understand it to be. The verything that we are most sure of does not exist in the way we think it does. We are

convinced that we live in a world of external objects whose nature is well understood. Ifwe are thirsty, it is the most normal action to pick up a glass of water and drink it. Both

the glass and the water are external objects whose nature is completely known to us. It is

inconceivable that they are not external objects. And yet Buddhists teach that there is away to see that glass not as an external object in the usual sense.

My suggested approach is an openness to the ideas of the Sutra. We should work with theideas. We should try to see how they might be true rather than to argue against them. We

need to try them on for size and live with them and see what happens.

My Sincere HopeI am hoping that the reader will find this work useful in understanding the

Samdhinirmocana Sutra and emptiness. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra radically changed

my understanding of Buddhism and the world around me. I sincerely hope that it will dothe same for you.


9/29


Section One

Chapter 5 of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra

Chapter five of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra is a dialogue between Visalamati and the

Buddha about the nature of consciousness. We are told that “Bodhisattvas are wise withrespect to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness”. This chapter goes on to say

what that means.

We are presented with several ideas:

Initially, in dependence upon two types of appropriation - the

appropriation of the physical sense powers associated with a supportand the appropriation of predispositions which proliferate conventional

designations with respect to signs, names, and concepts-the mind

which has all seeds ripens; it develops, increases, and expands in itsoperations. Although two types of appropriation exist in the form

realm, appropriation is not twofold in the formless realm.

(Page 71)

This opening description of consciousness is a foreshadowing of the 3 natures

which are explicitly discussed in the next sections. It is introducing the idea of

the arising of phenomenon in the mind that are then named. We are told that

our mind learns and grows by our sense organs, and our ability to name thethings perceived gets stronger with use. The Sutra goes on to say:

An eye consciousness arises depending on an eye and a form inassociation with consciousness. Functioning together with that eye

consciousness, a conceptual mental consciousness arises at the same

time, having the same objective reference. (Page 71)

I find this simple statement interesting in that it says the eye consciousness

arises at the same time that it perceives an object. It means that there is no eye

consciousness waiting around to see something. The eye consciousness, theobject and the mental consciousness all arise together. It could be said that in a

real sense the object is not separate from the consciousness. The eye

consciousness creates the perception of the object and the object creates theeye consciousness. With each arising with the other, we need to loosen our

grip on the idea that one causes the other.

Also,

If the causal conditions for the single arising of up to the fivefoldassemblage of consciousness are present, then up to that fivefoldassemblage of consciousness will also arise one time. (Page 75)

This means that not only a single consciousness like eye consciousness can

arise but any combination of the fives consciousness can arise given the correctconditions. It is now possible that simultaneously with an object of perception


10/29


consciousness itself can arise. Objects of perceptions, thoughts and even the

sense of self will arise together.

Bodhisattvas who rely on knowledge of the system of doctrine and

abide in knowledge of the system of doctrine are wise with respect to

the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness. (Page 75)

I have read this line a number of times and understood it to mean following the Buddhist

teachings in general. Then, I realized that the Buddha is talking about this very sutra. Ifwe abide in the sutra we become wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought, and

consciousness. It was like suddenly I was reading an ancient wisdom text revealing the

mystery of life; which of course we are.

Chapter 5 ends with this meaning of being wise with respect to the ultimate:

They do not perceive a nose, nor do they perceive a smell, nor do they

perceive a nose-consciousness. They do not perceive a tongue, nor do

they perceive a taste, nor do they perceive a tongue consciousness.They do not perceive a body, nor do they perceive a tangible object,

nor do they perceive a bodily consciousness. Visalamati, these

Bodhisattvas do not perceive their own particular thoughts, nor do

they perceive phenomena, nor do they perceive a mental con-sciousness, but they are in accord with reality. These Bodhisattvas are

said to be 'wise with respect to the ultimate'. The Tathagata designates

Bodhisattvas who are wise with respect to the ultimate as also being`wise with respect to the secrets of mind, thought, and consciousness'.

(Page 75-77)

This passage gives a glimpse into emptiness. The language closely follows that of theHeart Sutra.


11/29


Section Two


Chapter Six introduces us to the three characteristics of phenomenon.

Gunakara, there are three characteristics of phenomena. What arethese three? They are the imputational character, the other-dependent

character, and the thoroughly established character. (Page 81)

The three characters are also known as the three natures. These terms can be used

interchangeably. Phenomena are all objects that are generated by consciousness. Anything that we think hear, see and think is considered a phenomenon.

The imputational character is the names that we give phenomena creating a wholeconstellation of thought processes. This leads to the idea of self and others which we

imagine to have inherent existence.

It is that which is imputed as a name or symbol in terms of the own-

being or attributes of phenomena in order to subsequently designate

any convention whatsoever. (Page 81)

The other-dependent character is:

It is simply the dependent origination of phenomena. (Page 81)

The sutra uses the standard formulation of dependent origination, “Because this exists,

that arises”. It is the source of the myriad things. Phenomena have no inherent existencebecause they are dependent on many causes and conditions to exist. Phenomena arise

and disappear in each moment depending on all things. They have no fundamental

inherent existence. We imagine that these arisings have substance and this is calledignorance.

Vasubandhu in his Trisvabhavanirdesa (Treatise on the Three Natures) describes theother-dependent character in this way:

2. Arising through dependence on conditions andExisting through being imagined,

It is therefore called other-dependentAnd is said to be merely imaginary.

The other-dependent character is a main theme of chapter 5 (the arising of

consciousness).

Geshe Tsultim Gyeltsen says in Mirror of Wisdom,


12/29


An example we could use is the reflection of our own face in the

mirror. We all know that the reflection is not the real face, but how is

it produced? Does it come just from the glass, the light, the face? Ourface has to be there, but there also has to be a mirror, enough light for

us to see and so on. Therefore, we see the reflection of our face in the

mirror as a result of several things interacting with one another. Wecan investigate the appearance of our self to our perception in the

same way. The self appears to us, but where does this appearancecome from? Just like the reflection of the face in a mirror, it is an

example of dependent arising.

This is a way of talking about dependent arising. It makes one feel as if they understand

dependent arising. I feel that it is a simple explanation rooted in our ideas of cause andeffect of the imputational character. I believe that in actuality dependent arising is far

subtler. It is a simple idea that is hard to explain but with time, understanding deepens.

It is one of the original and fundamental teachings of the Buddha.

The thoroughly established character is described this way:

“Gunakara, what is the thoroughly established character of

phenomena? It is the suchness of phenomena. Through diligence and

through proper mental application, Bodhisattvas establish realizationand cultivate realization of [the thoroughly established character].

Thus it is what establishes [all the stages] up to unsurpassed,

complete, perfect enlightenment.” (Page 82)

This is a very exciting statement. It points to a straightforward way to attain

enlightenment. It parallels Shantideva’s statements quoted in the introduction about

emptiness.

Vasubandhu in his Trisvabhavanirdesa describes the thoroughly established character in

this way:3. The external non-existence

Of what appears in the way it appears,

Since it is never otherwise,Is known as the nature of the consummate...

4. If anything appears, it is imagined.The way it appears is as duality.

What is the consequence of its non-existence?The fact of non-duality!

5. What is the imagination of the non-existent?

Since what is imagined absolutely never

Exists in the way it is imagined,It is mind that constructs that illusion.


13/29


The terms thoroughly established character and consummate nature are different

translations for the same word.

The understanding of three characters bear the following fruit:

“Therefore, Gunakara, Bodhisattvas know the imputational character

of phenomena, the other-dependent character, and the thoroughlyestablished character of phenomena as they really are. Once they

know characterlessness, the thoroughly afflicted character, and thepurified character as they really are, then they know characterless

phenomena as they really are. They completely abandon the

phenomena of afflicted character, and when they have completelyabandoned phenomena of afflicted character, then they realize

phenomena of purified character.

“This is how Bodhisattvas are wise with respect to the character of

phenomena. When the Tathagata designates Bodhisattvas as being

wise with respect to the character of phenomena, he designates themas such for this very reason.” (Page 89)

Vasubandhu presents the fruits of the understanding in this way:

31. When one understands how things are,

Perfect knowledge, abandonment,

And accomplishment --These three characteristics are simultaneously achieved.

32. Knowledge is non-perception;

Abandonment is non-appearance;Attainment is accomplished through non-dual perception.

That is direct manifestation.

34. … through the non-perception of duality

There is the vanishing of duality.

When it vanishes completely,Non-dual awareness arises.

35. Through perceiving correctly,Through seeing the non-referentiality of mental states,

Through following the three wisdoms,One will effortlessly attain liberation

The Samdhinirmocana Sutra tells us how to cultivate this realization:


the imputational character is known. In dependence upon strongly


14/29


adhering to the other-dependent character as being the imputational

character, the other-dependent character is known. In dependence

upon absence of strong adherence to the other-dependent character asbeing the imputational character, the thoroughly established character

is known.” (Page 87)

As stated in the introduction, this is the heart of the meditation on the three characters.

This leads to the establishment of the stages to enlightenment can be entered byunderstanding the nature of three characters.


15/29


Section Three


Chapter seven develops the ideas introduced in chapter six. This chapter is

philosophically complex and its approach may not communicate effectively to a westernreader. These ideas are the ones that I will recast in the next section.

This chapter is Buddha’s response to the Paramarthasamudgata’s question,

Why was the Bhagavan thinking, ‘All phenomena lack own-being; all

phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start, and

naturally in a state of nirvana?” I ask the Bhagavan the meaning ofthis. (Page 97)

The Buddha goes on to explain about the different kinds of own being. The imputationalcharacter is a lack of own being only in terms of character. It is merely names and

nothing else. The other-dependent character lacks own being in terms of production. It

is produced independence on others. The thoroughly established character is an ultimatelack of own-being. It is distinguished as the lack of own-being of all phenomena. Since

all the characters of phenomena lack own being then phenomena must itself lack own

being.

The Buddha teaches that phenomena lack own being because people confuse the creation

of names with the actual nature of phenomenon.

"To the extent that they subsequently attribute such conventions, their

minds are infused with conventional designations. Thereafter, because

of being bound to conventional designations or due to predispositions

toward conventional designations, they strongly adhere to thecharacter of the own-being of the imputational as the own-being of

the other-dependent and the thoroughly established. (Page 105-107)

This has grave consequences. If the mind attaches strongly to conventional designations,

beings will attach to these designations as being substantial and will lead beings to

become involved with behaviors that will create negative karma creating rebirth. It mightbe a good or bad rebirth but it prevents liberation and dooms the beings to wander from

birth to birth without end.

"To the extent that they strongly adhere [to this], they strongly adhere

to the own-being of the imputational as the own-being of the other-dependent. Due to these causes and conditions, in the future [this viewof] the own-being of the other-dependent proliferates. Based on this,

the afflictive afflictions give rise to further afflictions.

"The afflictions of actions and the afflictions of birth give rise tofurther afflictions. For a long time sentient beings will wander,

transmigrating among hell beings, or animals, or hungry ghosts, or


16/29


gods, or asuras, or humans. They will not pass beyond cyclic

existence. (Page 107)

Buddha explains that to beginning students he teaches impermanence. This is the

teaching of dependent origination. This teaching alone is not enough. If people only

hear this teaching,

They do not become separated from attachment. They do not becomefully liberated. They do not become fully liberated from the afflictive

afflictions nor fully liberated from the afflictions of actions nor fullyliberated from the afflictions of birth. (Page 109)

The Buddha continues,

The Tathagata further teaches them doctrines beginning with lack of

own-being in terms of character and ultimate lack of own-being. Thusthey become wholly averse toward all compounded phenomena,

separated from attachment, and liberated; they pass beyond the

afflictive afflictions, pass beyond the afflictions of actions, and passbeyond the afflictions of birth. (Page 109)

The Buddha tells use that we must understand the teaching of the three natures to gain

liberation. These teachings will change the view of the nature of phenomenon for thepractitioner:

Hearing these doctrines, they do not strongly adhere to the own-beingof the other-dependent as being of the character of the own-being of

the imputational. Further, they become confident that the lack of own-

being in terms of production does not exist as an ultimate own-being

in the sense that it is just an absence of own-being in terms ofcharacter with respect to those phenomena. They fully distinguish

this. They realize it as it is and, in this way, their understanding is not

infused with conventional designations. Thereafter, because they arenot bound to conventional designations and because their

understanding is free from predispositions toward conventions, in this

lifetime they produce the ability to understand the other-dependentcharacter. In future lives they achieve cessation through cutting off

the continuum. (Page 111)

Here is repeated the concept that one should not confuse the nature of the imputational

with the other-dependent character. Even Sravakas who do this will attain completeenlightenment!

The answer to the question put in the beginning of the chapter is summarized this way,

Paramarthasamudgata, thinking of just these three types of lack ofown-being, through the teachings that are Sutras of interpretable

meaning, the Tathagata taught such doctrines as: `All phenomena lack


17/29


own-being; all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from

the start, and naturally in a state of nirvana. (Page 115)

Here is where a western reader may feel unconvinced. The link between lack of own

being and the fact that all phenomena are naturally in a state of nirvana may be unclear.

It is this link between the two ideas that is so critical. I have trouble seeing theconnection in an intellectual way. I feel that it is necessary to meditate on the thoroughly

established character to see into this idea.

The next part of the chapter (pages 115-125), Buddha talks about the various ways thatpeople can react to the teachings. In summary form:

1. The people who thoroughly understand the teachings and put it into practice.2. The people who don’t understand the teachings but have faith in them. They

study and the teachings and increase their merit.

3. The people who don’t understand the teaching and fall into nihilism. 4. People who adhere to the teachings without understanding them, fall away from

virtuous qualities.

5. People who are fearful of teachings and say that it is not the word of Buddha.They speak badly of the Sutra. They use their intellect to undermine the Sutra.

The verse that follows summarizes the teachings of lack of own being, the centrality of

this doctrine, the need to realize it for all beings and the fruits of the teachings.

The chapter goes on with Paramarthasamudgata giving his understanding of the

teachings. (Pages 125- 137) It is a restatement of the teachings. This part and thefollowing part talking about the three turnings of the dharma tie in all of the previous

schools to the current teachings.

The chapter concludes with the praising of the teachings. Buddha says:

I have described the merit [generated] by people who develop

conviction in Sutras of interpretable meaning up to those who applythemselves to the types of meditative cultivation. (Page 143)

This leads us to the next sections dealing with the meditative cultivation of the teachings.


18/29


Section Four

Perceiving Reality

Seeing External ObjectsThe idea that the world as we know it is a creation of our minds, is starting to filter into

the consciousness of western thinking. As a culture we are starting to understand that

what we perceive does not exactly correspond to reality.

This world is alive with sight sounds textures and smells. Walking into a meadow in the

spring with its flowers in bloom, their scent can bring back distant memories and theircolors are a delight to behold. We hold an apple in our hands, bright red and luscious

looking. Its smooth skin is cool to the touch. We take great pleasure in our senses but

what exactly are we perceiving? Everything that we have been told and experienced,says that the world is exactly what it appears to be. The apple is exactly as it appears.

It’s color, size, smoothness and weight are properties of the apple. We are seeing exactlywhat is there. We know that color blindness or nearsightedness can alter the way

something appears, but that is a defect of the eyes. If we had normal sight, we would seethe apple just as it is. We take it for granted that what we are seeing is real. After all, it

all looks and feels so real! The Samdhinirmocana Sutra is telling us that this may not be

the case.

Size MattersIt is with surprise and delight when we look at an apple under a microscope and see that

the surface is far more complex than it first appears. As we look at the apple with greaterand greater magnification the apple keeps changing its appearance. Eventually, It losesall appearance that we would recognize as apple. What are we to think about the

appearance of an apple? It would be reasonable that as we magnify an image we get to

see more of the way it truly is. That is why we use a magnifying glass to remove asplinter. The splinter and the skin come into greater focus. Because we are seeing reality

more clearly, it is now easier to extract the splinter. And yet with greater and greater

magnification, we tend to lose sense of the object we are looking at. The magnified

image now appears nothing like what we are used to seeing. What is the correctappearance of the object? Is it both or perhaps neither?

For example, the pictures below are that of a needle shown in larger and largermagnification.


19/29


As you can see at a certain level of magnification the needle does not look very needle-

like. With further magnification, we would lose all sense of needle.

Here is highly magnified snow:

Some toilet paper:

A staple in a piece of paper:

We think of the surface of a billiard ball as being smooth and the surface of the earth asbeing rough. We are seeing these objects from our perspective. If the billiard ball was


20/29


enlarged to the size of the earth, then it would have mountains bigger than Everest and

canyons that would make the Grand Canyon look puny. What we think of as smooth is

what looks smooth to us. What we think of as rough, is rough to us. An ant perceives aclosely mowed lawn as a jungle. For us, it is a like a carpet. Smoothness and roughness

are properties of our perception and not of the thing itself.

In fact, our view of reality is really quite limited. We have difficulty conceiving of

objects that are over a certain size. We may drive to work each day and perhaps by notingthe time it takes or replaying the drive as a movie in our head we can get some idea of the

distance involved. Distances larger than that are beyond us. We are told that this forestfire or that flooded area is the size of Rhode Island, all we can think of is that they must

mean that it is big. If we are told that the distance from the earth to the moon is a quarter

of million miles we can accept that as a fact but have little real feel for it. What aboutdistances of light years? There are completely beyond our conception. The universe is

measured in a way that is beyond all comprehension for us.

Similarly if we get to small sizes beyond what can be seen by magnifier, we are

completely lost. We may look into a microscope and see microbes, but we have no real

comprehension of the actual size of them. The vast world of atoms and subatomicparticles are beyond actual description. In terms of size, we perceive a very small slice

of all that is physical universe.

Light MattersIn the same way that we are limited in our perception of what we can see because of size,

we are limited in the kind of light by which we can see. We see objects that reflect

visible light but that is only a very small fraction of light available in our environment.These other wavelengths of light are simply ignored by our eyes.

Both radio waves and radar waves are examples of light that are the same as visible light

expect for the fact that the waves are longer. X-Rays and Ultra-Violet light are examples


21/29


of light with shorter wavelengths. Except for the length of the wave they are all the

same. One could think of radio waves as just another color of light we do not see. There

are animals that use either a broader part of the spectrum or a narrower part of thespectrum for vision. The way they see the world must look very different to them.

When we are in a room illuminated only by red light, we see the colors of the roomdifferently than when normal lighting is used. If the same room is illuminated with only

green light, all of the colors that we perceive in the room are different yet again. Theappearance of color is fully dependent on the nature of the light that is illuminating the

object.

Speed Matters

Not only is color important but even the movement of an object can change the way weperceive it. Fast moving objects are not clearly perceived. That is why the series of still

frames that make up a movie appears to be a smooth continuous motion. If our

perception were different we would see the same movie as a slide show. Fast movingobjects can appear as a blur. We literally can’t see things moving too fast. Similarly we

can’t see the movement of objects that are moving too slowly. It is always a marvel for

me to see time lapse photography of a plant growing. The seemingly motionless plantcomes alive and moves in what appears to be a purposeful and intelligent way. The

mountain that does not change over the course of one’s lifetime will alter greatly over thecourse of geologic time and eventually disappear completely. In order for us to see

something, it can’t be too big or too small or moving too fast or moving too slow. It isalso distorted or invisible, if it is illuminated with the wrong kind of light.

Sound and SmellWe are also limited in what we hear and smell. Our ears are only sensitive to certain

wavelengths of sound. We know that other creatures can hear higher and lower

frequencies than we can. We also know that our sense of smell is quite limited when

compared with that of a dog’s. Years ago, when I walked my dog and his focus wascompletely on what he was smelling, I wondered what world he was perceiving. I

imagined it was a world as rich as the visible world was to me. This world was one that I

was almost totally blind to.

Our ability to perceive the world around us is limited. We only see things that are of a

certain size and we really cannot even conceive of things that are much bigger or muchsmaller than ourselves. We see only certain colors, we hear only certain sounds. We feel

that the world looks sharp and in focus and perfectly real but that is only in the context of

our particular perception. These perceptions are all humans really need to see andunderstand. That is the point, we see and understand what we need in order to survive as

a species. There was little reason to see more. We have evolved just enough sensoryapparatus to survive in this world.

The Case of Color My personal story at the beginning of this paper describes how I realized that the

property that we call color exists only in my head. The redness of an apple seemed asreal as anything else in the world. It did remind me of what I’ve known most of my life,that I see red differently than most people. I am red-green color blind. I am not


22/29


completely blind to these colors but they appear color distorted. I create these colors

differently than “normal people”. Most of the time, I am unaware of this difference. I

know when a stop light changes from red to green without any problem. I can identifythe color of clothing as well as anyone.

From time to time, this different creation of color is striking. My high school had green

“black ” boards. My high school math teacher loved to use colored chalk. When she

wrote with red chalk, it was completely invisible to me but totally visible to the rest of theclass. Sometimes when playing pool, and the felt was a certain color green, the red ball I

was aiming at would no longer look solid. The ball itself would flash from red to blackand the outline of the ball would shimmer as though it was liquid. I found myself

searching the table for a different shot to make! It is easy to understand that in these

moments what I see is a creation of my mind.

The red color of a rose appears for all the world as an integral part of the rose itself. How

could it be that when looking at a vibrantly colored rose, the sensation of color wasactually only in my mind? Clearly, it only appears to be a quality of the rose. It is

actually a quality in my mind.

I have been trying to show that the properties of things that we perceive are not inherent

properties of the object itself. These properties are properties that we create with our

mind. What feels smooth is what feels smooth to us. What looks big is what looks big to

us. What is fast is fast to us. What is red is only red to us. *

The monk Yin Zong expounded on the Buddhist sutras. One dayduring his lecture a storm came up. Seeing a banner waving in the

wind, he asked his audience,"Is the wind moving or is the flag moving?"

Someone said, "The wind is moving."Someone else said, "The flag is moving."

The two people held fast to their viewpoints and asked Yin Zong to

say who was right. But Yin Zong had no way to decide, so he askedHuineng, who was standing nearby, to resolve the issue.

Huineng said, "Neither the wind nor the flag is moving."

Yin Zong said, "Then, what is it that is moving?"Huineng said, "Your mind is moving."

( Zen's Chinese Heritage P 39)

* And of course to other sentient creatures who like us create red. We were not the

inventors of creating red but inherited that ability from our ancestors perhaps hundreds of

millions of years ago.


23/29


Section Five

Imaging the Samdhinirmocana Sutra

What you see is what you getDavid Komito in his introductory remarks on his translation of “ Nagarjuna’ s Seventy

Stanzas” writes,

Now, it may seem that this is just an intellectual exercise, for even ifone accepts that existence is merely designated upon appearing

phenomena, still something does appear in perception. Nagarjuna

does not refute this. Indeed, this is precisely his point, and he refers tothis mere appearance as the true status of phenomena; the ultimate

truth about phenomena is that they are mere appearances which are

empty of the characteristics we attribute to them.... (Page 71)

Komito is interpreting Nagarjuna as saying that the ultimate truth of what we perceive isthat we take these perceptions and we impute properties upon them in such a way that we

believe that they are exactly as they appear to be and not products of our minds.

In the last section, I talked about how it is our common knowledge that the things that wesee are the products our senses and how they can be perceived differently given different

circumstances. The perception of things around us is dependent on the prevailing

conditions of our perception. What we see, for example, is dependent on the nature ofambient light, the size of the object, the speed of the object. I dare say that what we see

is also dependent on the nature of our attention to seeing at the time as well as any of the

other “physical factors”. If we are not paying much attention to the object it might

appear indistinct or completely altered in its nature. As glancing at a rope, we see asnake. We then have a familiar “double take” and it transforms into a rope before oureyes.

If you read the above paragraph and agree with its basic ideas, then you understand of the

ultimate truth of appearances. The truth of appearances is that they are merely

appearances and have more to do with our brains than the object itself. And yet when youturn away from this page, you immediately believe that whatever your eye lands on next

is real and not a product of your senses. Nothing has changed in your view of the world

and your idea of the objects in it. It is important that when you have the rope/snakeexperience that you are reminded that you have the ability to create a completely false

view of reality and completely believe it. You then can understand the rope is the samekind of creation as the snake. It is not that the snake was not real and the rope is real,they are both equally creations of our minds.

Really, this is the heart of this meditation. It requires a firm believe through intellectual

investigation, that what we see is not the way things really are. They are a product of ourbrains creating an image from a set of changeable sensory inputs.


24/29


In section Two, I quoted Geshe Tsultim Gyeltsen from Mirror of Wisdom, about the

appearance of our face in a mirror. The appearance of our face in the mirror and objects

appearing are not mistaken for real objects. We know that it is a mirror and we know thatobjects appearing in mirrors are not real and are only mere appearances. If we are in

certain state of mind and we are in a room unknown to us, we may be startled by our

appearance in a mirror, believing it to be another person. Then we realize that it is amirror and relax. Even though objects appearing in a mirror look exactly like real objects

we are never fooled as long we know that the objects are appearing in a mirror.

Images in a mirror are not the only things we should not take seriously. Perhaps it is timenot to take the images appearing in our minds so seriously. After all, that is what they

are; images in our head. They have the same kind of reality as images in a mirror. They

are both arisings in the mind.

When we look at a plain wooden chair, we see something that we can sit in. If feels

smooth and cool to the touch. It has a certain color. We can certainly sit on it but it feelssmooth and cool only to us. Its color is only the color we see. It seems reasonable as we

sit on it that something is there but everything about it is an arising in our minds.

Everything that we perceive, including the chair pushing back our bottom against gravity,is a product of our consciousness.

What we perceive is an overlay over some incomprehensible manifestation of dependent

arising. The world out there may or may not exist (I will let the adherents of the varioustenet schools argue this point), but it certainly does not exist in any way that we perceive

it. We are not witnessing a world of external objects but a creation of our mind. The

very objects that we perceive are our own creation. That is the nature of perception. Theexternal world is unknowable in the way it is. It is only knowable in the way it appears.

Finally the meditation

The meditation is a simple extension of the ideas already presented. The first step isbelieving that what we see are mere appearances of what things are. Deeply ponder these

ideas. This is very important. We must feel the deep wonder of the fact that we are

looking at the inside of our head when we see the world. We must understand that thecharacteristics of what we perceive are merely arbitrary assignments in the brain. If you

can intellectually understand that what our senses tell us is only our story about the world

then we can move onto the next step.

The act of imagination is really quite simple. Try to locate all that you perceive as

happening inside of your head. Stop thinking of a world filled with external objects. Seethe all that is happening as a creation of your mind. There is nothing that we are aware

of except for the products of our thinking. See the world as if you don’t believe it.Locate it all in your head. Try to feel that what we are perceiving is not outside of us butintimately connected with our consciousness. The table and the tree are not external to us

but part of our consciousness. Stop believing that a tree as we perceive it, is an object

that exists outside of our consciousness. This meditation can be done anywhere and at

any time. It is an eyes open meditation because you are questioning the very world thatyou are seeing in the moment.


25/29


The point is to start to break the habitual pattern that we find ourselves in. Eventually, it

can happen that you can, for a moment, see the actual truth of this simple idea. You will

then understand the complete inconceivability of the external world. The Tibetans callthis stage along the path, the path of seeing. The Tibetans feel that this is about half way

to enlightenment.

Back to the Samdhinirmocana Sutra


the imputational character is known. In dependence upon stronglyadhering to the other-dependent character as being the imputational

character, the other-dependent character is known. In dependence

upon absence of strong adherence to the other-dependent character asbeing the imputational character, the thoroughly established character

is known.” (Page 87)

This quote from the Samdhinirmocana Sutra, I identified in section two as the basic

meditation instructions. Geshe Tsultim Gyeltsen‘s example of the mirror is an example

of “In dependence upon strongly adhering to the other-dependent character as being theimputational character, the other-dependent character is known.” The idea is that thelight, the object and mirror really give rise to the image. That is a strong adherence of the

other-dependent character as being the imputational character. With continued meditation

on this idea of the way an image is formed in a mirror will give a stronger and strongersense of the other-dependent character. At first pass, the idea of the other-dependent

character is a rather simple idea of cause and effect. Eventually the idea of the

inconceivable nature of dependent arising takes form.

Similarly if we begin to see the things around us (that which is dependently arisen) as

only the names and forms that we give to it, we can begin to understand the

inconceivable nature of dependent arising. That is “In dependence upon absence ofstrong adherence to the other-dependent character as being the imputational character, the

thoroughly established character is known.” If we no longer think that what we are

seeing is connected at all to our names and labels, we can know the thoroughlyestablished character. This is the idea of the meditation, I am proposing.

As I was the doing research for the paper, I made an unexpected find. The ideas and

meditations that I came to understand were the heart of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra are

really a standard part of Tibetan teaching. The path to cognizing emptiness is clearlypresented using Tibetan terminology by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in his Understanding the

Mind ,

When we hear teachings on emptiness we begin to consider the

possibility that phenomena lack inherent existence. At first we will

generate a doubt, thinking "Probably phenomena exist in the way that

they appear, but it is possible that they do not." By continuing to thinkcorrectly about emptiness, we will pass through balanced doubt and


26/29


doubt tending towards the truth, and gradually our doubt will

transform into a correct belief in emptiness.

At this point we do not yet understand emptiness precisely, but wenevertheless have conviction about the truth of emptiness. We should

not be satisfied with this correct belief but should continue to study,

contemplate, and meditate on emptiness until we gain a valid cognizerrealizing emptiness. The first valid cognizer of emptiness we will gain

will be an inferential valid cognizer.At this stage, even though we now have a valid understanding of

emptiness, we still need to meditate on emptiness for a long timeusing re-cognizers to deepen our experience. This is because an

inferential cognizer realizing emptiness is only an intellectual

understanding, which does not have the power to eliminate self-grasping. Now we must strive to attain a direct realization of

emptiness that actually has the power to eradicate self-grasping. To do

this we must first attain the union of tranquil abiding and. superiorseeing observing emptiness, and then meditate on this until it

transforms into a yogic direct perceiver realizing emptiness. When we

attain this mind we will have attained the path of seeing and passedbeyond the level of ordinary beings. We will have become a Superior

being who can no longer fall to lower rebirths; and we will definitely

attain liberation from samsara or great enlightenment.

Until we attain an inferential cognizer realizing emptiness, there isalways a danger that we will develop doubts or wrong awarenesses

with respect to emptiness, and so we must always be on guard against

them; but once we have attained an inferential cognizer realizingemptiness, our understanding of emptiness can no longer be shaken

by doubts. However, there is still a danger that our meditation on

emptiness can be impeded by distractions. To overcome these we

must cultivate non-ascertaining perceivers towards the objects ofdistraction. If we restrain our sense doors in this way, we will easily

attain strong concentration that will enable us to transform our

inferential cognizer of emptiness into a direct perceiver realizingemptiness directly. (Pages 91-92)

What is all this inconceivable stuff anyway?In our readings on Buddhism, we encounter the word inconceivable a good deal. It could

mean that we are just not smart enough to understand dependent arising. If only it wasnot as complicated, we could get it.

Actually, I don’t think that it has anything to do with how complicated dependent arisingis (I am sure it is complicated) or that we are not smart enough (it wouldn ’t hurt to besmarter) but that it is the very nature of reality.

Madhyamika Koan:Why is dependent arising incomprehensible?


27/29


The answer lies in the fact that the self is also an arising. It arises with everything else.

We are literally not around for dependent arising, the self is the product of dependent

arising and not its witness. We have no idea how it took place. By the time that “we” have arisen, everything else has as well. The entire universe is complete in that moment.

This itself is a meditation. We can imagine the self arising with everything else.

Pondering this idea also can lead to a profound insight.

The answer and the question of the koan both can be used to understand the heart ofchapter 7 of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra .

Why was the Bhagavan thinking, ‘All phenomena lack own-being; all

phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start, and

naturally in a state of nirvana?” I ask the Bhagavan the meaning ofthis. (Page 97)

The Madhyamika Koan leads to the answer to this question. It is also the meaning ofDogen’s line from Self-Receiving and Self-Employing Awareness, “All this, howeverdoes not appear within perception, because it is unconstructedness in stillness.” (Moon in

a Dewdrop Page,146)

You can also take this idea and adopt it without believing it. It can also be imagined that ,

‘All phenomena lack own-being; all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent

from the start, and naturally in a state of nirvana?”. This imagination can lead to onegetting an insight into this idea.

Ultimate TruthMadhyamika literature is filled with references to truths and ultimate realities. We are

promised to know our true self. It makes one feel that there is some truth that we can

point to. We feel that we can finally understand the nature of our being and life.

What is “ultimately true” is that our ideas of all things that we perceive do not reach

those things. What is “ultimately true” is that there is no ultimate truth in a positive

sense. Delusion is what is thoroughly established. Everywhere the self turns, itencounters the imputational and mistakes it for the other-dependent. Everywhere the self

turns, it finds the self.

We are left to fully integrate this “ultimate truth” into our daily lives.

This is the meaning of:

The fundamental affliction of ignorance itself is the immutable knowledge of allBuddhas; this principle is most profound and mysterious in the extreme, difficultto comprehend.

(From Case 37: Book of Serenity Page 163)


28/29



29/29

Works sited in the paper

Cleary, Thomas. Book of Serenity. Lindisfarne Press: San Francisco, 1990

Dogen. Moon in a Dewdrop. Edited by Kazuaki Tanahashi North Point Press: SanFrancisco, 1985

Ferguson, Andy. Zen’ s Chinese Heritage. Wisdom Publications: Boston, 2000

Garma C. C. Chang. The Buddhist Teaching of Totality. The Pennsylvania State

University Press: University Park, 1977

Goddard, Dwight. Self-Realization of Noble Wisdom (Lankavatara Sutra). The Dawn

Horse Press: Clearlake, 1932

Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang. Understanding the Mind. London: Tharpa Publications, 1993

Hopkins, Jeffery. Emptiness Yoga: The Tibetan Middle Way. Snow Lion Publications:Ithaca, 1987

Klein, Anne. Knowledge & Liberation. . Snow Lion Publications: Ithaca, 1986

Komito, David. Nagarjuna’ s Seventy Stanzas. Snow Lion Publications: Ithaca, 1987

Nanamoli, Bhikkhu & Bodhi, Bhikkhu The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Wisdom Publications: Boston, 1995

Powers, John. Wisdom of Buddha: Samdhinirmocana Sutra . Berkeley: Dharma

Publishing, 1994

_______. Hermeneutics and Tradition in the Samdhinirmocana-Sutra. Motilal

Banarsidass Publishers: Delhi, 2004

Shantideva. The Way of the Bodhisattva. Shambhala: Boston, 1997

imagining the samdhinirmocana sutra

Documents