Can diamonds cut diamonds?

“Samsara does not differ
Even in the slightest from nirvana
Nirvana does not differ
Even slightly from samsara.

The ultimate nature of Nirvana
Is the ultimate nature of samsara;
And between these two, the slightest difference,
Even the most subtle, is not found.

Views concerning what occurs beyond cessation,
The universe’s end, it’s permanence, and all the rest,
Are based upon [the notion of] Nirvana, On a later and an earlier limit.

Since all existent things are empty,
What is finite; what is infinite?
What’s both infinite and finite?
What is neither infinite nor finite?

What’s identical and what is different?
What is permanent and what is impermanent?
What is both impermanent and permanent?
And what indeed is neither of these two?

Every point of reference subsides;
All conceptual constructs utterly subside.
At no time, nowhere, and to no one
Did the Buddha any Dharma teach.”

Chapter 25 verses 19-24 Nagarjuna’s Root Stanzas of the Middle way.

I bring this to you because I think that what it is trying to convey is that once the links are broken and you see the world as empty of self or anything belonging to a self, it doesn’t matter what happens to you. Hell would bring no suffering, Heaven would bring no delight. It is in that perfect stillness and emptiness or suchness of mind that one finds liberation. Karma continues to be cause and effect but it is empty of the self and attachment. It just is (isn’t, is and isn’t, isnt is nor isn’t hah). In this way the mind is free from birth and thus death and all the afflictions. Entering The Great Vehicle and adopting the great compassion is no sacrifice at all. Who would be sacrificing what? Even if there were endless rebirths not a single rebirth would ever occur. Not an ounce of suffering felt, and appropriated and appropriator are both emptied.

Chapter 27 an examination of views

“To think that in the ages past
One existed or did not exist,
Or that the world is permanent and so forth—all these views
Depend upon an earlier limit.

To think that in ages yet to come
One will exist or else will not exist,
To think this world will have an end—all these views
Depend upon a later limit.

The claim that “I existed in the past”
Is not acceptable.
For what existed in the past
Is not what is existing now.

Perhaps you think the former self became the self existing now.
But that which they appropriate is not the same.
Aside from such appropriation,
What is this self of yours?

You may say that there is no self,
Apart from that which is appropriates,
And claim that what’s appropriated is the self.
If so, this self of yours does not exist.

The appropriated [aggregates] are not the self,
For these same aggregates arise and cease.
How could what’s appropriated
Be itself the appropriator?

A self apart from the appropriated is not tenable.
For if it were distinct from them,
It should be apprehended separately,
And yet it is not apprehended.

Thus the self is not distinct from the appropriated,
There is no self without the latter;
Neither can we certify that it does not exist.

To say that in the past
The self did not arise is inadmissible.
The self in this life is not alien
From what existed in a previous life.

For if this present self were alien,
It would exist in absence of the previous self.
And the past self would persist,
And here would be birth without a perishing in the past.

This would entail annihilation;
Actions would not be conserved.
One would suffer the results of deeds
Another had performed:
This and other consequences follow.

The self is not arisen from a state of nonexistence: Fallacies would be entailed thereby.
The self would be produced,
Or it’s arising would occur without a cause.

Thus the views that in the past,
One has existed or did not exist,
Or both or neither—
None of these are tenable.

The views that, in the future,
One will come to be,
Or else will not exist—
These are like the view related to the past.

If the human were the god,
There would indeed be permanence.
The god would indeed be unborn,
For in the permanence there is no birth.

If from the god the man were different,
Then there’d be impermanence.
If the god and man were different,
Then a continuity would be untenable.

If one were part divine
And one part human,
There would be impermanence and permanence, And this is also unacceptable.

If impermanence and permanence
Were both established,
One could claim establishment
Of both nonpermanence and nonimpermanence.

If one came from somewhere
And then migrated elsewhere,
One’s wandering has no starting point.
But this is not the case.

If nothing permanent exists,
What is it that’s impermanent?
What is both permanent and impermanent,
And what is neither of these two?

If this world had an end,
How could there be a further world?
And if this world had no end,
How could there be a further world?

Since the aggregates’ continuum
Is like the light shed by a lamp,
To say they have an end is incorrect—
As also that they are unending.

If the past ones were destroyed
And if, depending on the same,
The subsequent did not arise,
The world would indeed have an end.

If the past ones weren’t destroyed
And if, depending on the same,
The subsequent did not arise,
The world would indeed be unending.

If one part had an end,
And one part were unending,
The world would have an end and yet be endless.
This indeed would be absurd.

How could what appropriates
Be partially destroyed
And partly undestroyed?
Such a thing would be absurd.

How could what’s appropriated
Be in part destroyed
And partly undestroyed?
Such a thing would also be absurd.

If the infinite and the finite
Were both established,
One could assert establishment
Of both nonfinite and noninfinite.

And yet, since each and every thing is empty,
To whom and where,
And for what reason should the views
Of permanence and all the rest occur?”

Submitted June 02, 2020 at 08:37PM by autonomatical https://ift.tt/3cnXqND