Diamond Reality/Joyce/Greg

[Guest guest]

> Section XXVII. It is Erroneous to Affirm that All Things are Ever

> Extinguished

>

> Subhuti, if you should conceive the idea

> that the Tathagata attained the consummation

> of Incomparable Enlightenment by reason of

> His perfect form, do not countenance

> such thoughts. The Tathagata's attainment

> was not by reason of His perfect form.

>

> [On the other hand] Subhuti, if you should conceive

> the idea that anyone in whom dawns the consummation

> of Incomparable Enlightenment declares that all

> manifest standards are ended and extinguished,

> do not countenance such thoughts. Wherefore?

> Because the man in who the consummation of

> Incomparable Enlightenment dawns does not affirm

> concerning any formula that it is finally extinguished.

 

===This is profound. Thanks Joyce!

 

" The man in whom the consummation of

Incomparable Enlightenment dawns does

not affirm concerning any formula that

it is finally extinguished. "

 

Enlightenment does not confirm or deny

of anything, that it exists, does not exist,

that it is extinguished, or that it prevails.

 

What is the kind of thing that is the

typical subject of affirmation or denial?

 

It is the inherently existing self of

persons and self of things other than

persons.

 

To affirm concerning any of these is to grasp

onto form. It is known as falling into

essentialism. Yet to deny concerning any of

it is to grasp onto absence of form. It is

known as falling into nihilism.

 

To *affirm* of a thing or a formula that

it exists is to take it as already existing:

existing inherently, absolutely, in and

of itself, before affirmation has arisen,

outside of its pieces and parts, and

independent of causes and conditions.

 

Yet to *deny* of a thing of a formula that

it exists, is to take is as absolutely,

voidly absent, absent in and of itself,

before affirmation has arisen, outside

of its pieces and parts, and independent

of causes and conditions.

 

To affirm in this way is to commit one's

self to the parallel denial, that for the

thing *not* to exist is for it to be

*absolutely absent.*

 

To deny in this way is to commit one's self

to the parallel affirmation, that for the

thing to *exist* is for it to be *absolutely

present.*

 

So the essentialist affirmation always

carries the trace of its nihilist denial.

And vice versa.

 

So how does Incomparable Enlightenment

say anything about anything?

 

" The man in whom the consummation of

Incomparable Enlightenment dawns does

not affirm concerning any formula that

it is finally extinguished. "

 

By not making affirmations or denials

concerning any things or formulas.

Affirmations and denials can be made,

but not *of* things. The things aren't

subsisting inherently apart from the

affirmation or denial, no matter how

much it seems so. There is no essentialist

grasping onto antecedent existence, and

no nihilist grasping onto antecedent

absence. There is no feeling that things

are absolutely *there* or *not there*

independent of their parts, independent

of conceptual imputation, independent

of causes and conditions.

 

So if things are not there/absent in

that inherent way, then just how *are*

they there??

 

In the way that things are not as they

seem; nor are they otherwise. This is

the death of absolute distinctions,

absolute reliance on presence and absence.

It is the freedom of Indra's net to shine

in every direction, it is the return of

the ox-herder to the marketplace, the return

of the bodhisattva to the world to help all

sentient beings even though there are no

inherently existing sentient beings.

It is the samsara that is identical in every

way to nirvana.

 

****

 

Actually, Western philosophy has an

analogue to this. There is a distinction

between " de dicto " and " de re " propositions.

It is equivalent to the pacification of

this distinction.

 

Amituofo!

 

--Greg