Showing posts with label Padmasambhava. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Padmasambhava. Show all posts
May
23
A Summary of No Mind
Soh

 

    Soh Wei Yu

    rose2imt2794f0g990078ih 
    Shared with Your friends and Jayson's friends
    Someone on a forum asked me to summarise what I have been explaining about No Mind (since I have a bad habit of explaining something with too many words), I gave him this nice summary by Jayson MPaul :
    "Jayson MPaul
    none of these things are about nihilism, although that is a real danger for those who misunderstand emptiness. No Mind is what is always already true. It has no existence of its own. No mind apart from phenomena, no phenomena apart from mind. This is what Soh Wei Yu meant when he said there is no true existence of mind."

    75 Comments


    Mr./Ms. SK
    Oh thanks


    • Sangye Gyatso
    please leave me out of your confused ramblings, thank you,
    there is mind without phenomena. there is no sepereation from mind and experience. so we can cut through all attachments and rest back into the nature of mind. if this was not so, dzogchen would be impossible.
    but really,.. one needs to understand the nature of mind, bellow i gift a good teaching by kalu rinpocche.
    if you think that 'mind' is phenomena exclusivly, you better think again on this, as its bunkus. the nature of mind is VAST and is a communion of being. (see Sri Guhyasamaja tantra) ;; the lesson is that Phenomena of mind is made out of the same as Mind. and so we can release our attachment to Phenomena and rest in the Nature of mind. this is the nature of Unimpeded Awareness (no attachment to phenomena of Mind. Clarity & Wisdom.
    again: to state "No mind apart from phenomena" is bullshit. plain and simple.
    I refer you to teachings of kalu Rinpoche:
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987
    YOUTUBE.COM
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987


    • Sangye Gyatso
    I refer you to teachings of kalu Rinpoche:


    • Sangye Gyatso
    the clue is that: All Phenomena of Mind comes and goes, so we know from the 8 extremes, that pheomena is not exclusivly the nature of mind. though it is formations within mind.
    The 8 Extremes:
    arising, ceasing,being non-existent, being permanently existing, coming, going,being multiple, being single
    if it is the above 8 extremes, it is not the root nature of mind. simple as that. do not cling to what comes and goes (phenomena)
    Apply the 3 words of garab dorje to practice. Tawa, Gompa, Sopa. see for yourself.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Go argue with Zen founder Bodhidharma because this is what was stated in his Doctrine of No Mind text. http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../the-doctrine-of-no...
    It sounds like your understanding is the non Buddhist type, the Hindu or Advaita sort, eternalism.
    This sort of view is clearly rejected by Dzogchen teacher Malcolm and the Dzogchen texts — http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...
    The Doctrine of No Mind by Bodhidharma (无心论）
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    The Doctrine of No Mind by Bodhidharma (无心论）
    The Doctrine of No Mind by Bodhidharma (无心论）

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 14h
    • Edited

    • Sangye Gyatso
    yadayadayada.. go through kalu rinpoche's teaching. again. if you think phenomena is exclusivly mind and without phenomena there is no mind. then you are smoking your socks. mind does NOT come and go. all phenomena does because of the 12 links of origionation. dont argue with me, go ague with nagarjuna and the guhyasamaja tantra, and even padmasambhava... lol


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Nagarjuna said phenomena comes and goes but not mind? What are you smoking?


    • Sangye Gyatso
    again. phenomena OF mind rises and falls from the nature of mind but is not EXCLUSIVELY THE NATURE OF MIND.. go thorugh the teachings of kalu rinpoche before you start blabbing nonsense about me


    • Sangye Gyatso
    please remove my name from your post, i dont apreciate misquotes. thank you. i'll just remove myself from this nonsense. there is no point interacting here.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    I don’t need to go through teachings of this and that rinpoche to know what is the right view.
    I suspect Kalu Rinpoche is fine, but I have seen many rinpoche and masters who hold false views.
    As to myself, having the prajna wisdom of emptiness, there is no doubt on the right view.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    I will remove your name as you wish.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Soh Wei Yu oh dear... apparently you do need to go through Kalu Rinpoche's teachings since you constantly display a misunderstanding on this very point. good luck,


    • Sangye Gyatso
    thank you.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    you cant get it from a book. and you cant get it from hear-say. you need to go and practice the dharma to discover the truth. if you think phenomena is exclusivly mind and if phenomena dissolves u have no mind.. you been smoking your socks. the nature of mind does not come and go. see the 8 extremes. go read the guhyasamaja tantra... and also go read padmasambhava's teachings from juniper ridge. very applicable for this. in addition, flight of the garuda also states this... its really a no-brainer. kalu rinpoche goes to great lengths to explain the nominal states there in which there is no phenomena.
    in addition there are the 4 void realms which have no phenomena. yet mind persists. and will eventually be reborn,.. its really critical parts of basic dzogchen. not even intermediate or advanced. really basic dzogchen 101.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Malcolm:
    Also, the Buddha was quite clear that phenomena, including minds, were momentary. The Buddha may not have elaborated in detail upon what a "moment" was, but in the end, the basic unit of time in Buddhism is number of moments it takes to form a thought. In reality, moments are partless. Partless moments that perish as soon as they arise have no observable duration and are immune from Madhyamaka critique.
    The notion that the mind is permanent (i.e. not momentary) is just a Hindu idea, Vedantic.
    Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
    AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
    Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
    Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 14h

    • Sangye Gyatso
    Soh Wei Yu well, so loppon la is stating exactly what im stating. except, i do not expound on hindu anything. and we simply dont know what the longevity of mind is, but since we have been in the cycles for countless kalpas we can only sumize and theorise. i have not brought up eternalism _what so ever_ but also i have told you to go inspect the other 8 extremes.
    actually. the nature of mind does not come and go. is not singular and not plural, it is a communion of mind. ;; so again,.. go study the 8 extremes.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Soh Wei Yu also, im not going to mix up traditions. i stick to dzogchen, not zen. i dont speak badly about zen, but at the same time. we stick to the teachings of our tradition. this being the generation stage and completion stage. i can see why you're so confused now


    • Sangye Gyatso
    I refer you to teachings of kalu Rinpoche:
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987
    YOUTUBE.COM
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Soh Wei Yu in addition, go through the teachings from padmasambhava: Decending with the view from above in the Treasures of Juniper Ridge.
    he goes to show how phenomena are viewed as equal to the nature of mind. (when one cutts through attachment of labels and naming and concept)
    he expounds on various aspects of this in great detail there. very critical. ;; but while one clings to name and concept, you're so far away from dzogchen its not even worth discussing.


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso lama malcolm said that kyle is one of the few to have actually understood dzogchen and as i see kyle is agrees with soh


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso the nature of mind does not come and go, is it permanent? Why did Buddha only talk about impermanence in the Canon while everyone was already talking about a permanent consciousness


    • Explaining the Existence of the Mind
    YOUTUBE.COM
    Explaining the Existence of the Mind
    Explaining the Existence of the Mind


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori does not mean its perminent. as stated above, we stick to the middle way, and not the extremes. ;; but we can see that all phenomena come and go. so we know that is not the root nature of mind. see the 8 extremes.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Lady Tsogyal asks the Master:: How does one become free from attaching labels? The Master Replied: When you are free from the thought activity of Labeling, you will be free from the cogantive labels "good" and "evil" , and w…
    See more


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso it s not an answer : we can see that all phenomena come and go, and that s it. What is this root nature? Luminosity? This line of thinking leads to realization of the luminous nature of mind, but not it s empty nature -


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso as i say if you read theravada you can see only talking about how mind arise and how it ceases, how dukkh arise and how it ceases, while i think there is so much Wisdom in later tradition like dzogchen i can see they are also very prone to being misunderstood based on these terms like "true nature of mind"


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori the root nature of mind is that of Unimpeded Awareness free of attachement. Clarity & Wisdom.


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso and it s empty - meaning is no mind. It s dependently arisen and dependently designated, you are talking about luminous nature of the mind but nothing about it s empty nature


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori obviously didnt understand what padmasambhava said there.


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    I see but you want to make this "true nature of the mind" like an absolute while it s empty of self. I have the impression that you are talking hinduism and suggest to read some pali canon to see how the Buddha mocked people who held such views about awareness and the likes


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori actually, perhaps you should go read padmasambhava's works Treasures from Juniper Ridge. and Perhaps you should stop applying labels.. and Perhaps you should go through the teachings of Kalu rinpoche. before calling him a hindu.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori its amazing how you can sit there disagree'ing with padmasambhava and kalu rinpoche.. im totaly flabbergasted
    dont fall into the 8 extreme views.


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso i would like some pali canon quotes about this true nature of mind


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori im sorry i dont read the pali or suscribe to the theravada tradition. i practice dzogchen and generation stage. you'll have to ask theravada practitioner about that.
    however. Kalu Rinpoche explains it in great depth. i sugest that lecture from the mahayana/vajrayana tradition.
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987
    YOUTUBE.COM
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987
    Kalu Rinpoche Nature of Mind 1987


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori i will also recommend very highly getting the 'Lung' for Flight of the Garuda.




    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso it s not about subscrbing to theravada, is to read what the Buddha actually used to say before calling a set of views buddhism. I think mahayana sutras and words of lamas are very advanced but also very prone to being misunderstood if ones doesn t have a basis in theravada and classic canons


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori you're welcome to your own opinions, i'll stick to the ways of the masters, thank you..


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori lets take a phenomenon of mind for example. Anger.
    are you stating that anger is the root nature of mind?:) while one clings to the Name "anger" and the concept of "Anger" one is not at the root of nature of mind. however you wish to label... when you cease the labeling the pheonomena dissolves into the nature of mind.
    if you remain attached to name and label. you remain attached to samsara/nirvana/birth/death/bardo.. and in this case.. anger..
    i know its really diffucult for you to understand the truth, you might find it in your pali texts one day. but actually.. what padmasambhava is saying is, to move away from conceptualising completely and to actually apply it to practice till there is no practice. then you have the real dzogchen. free of labels.


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso that seems very naive understanding of no-conceptuality honestly. What i m stating is that there is no root nature of mind. When causes and condition are, mind dependently arise as anger, when causes and condition ceases, mind/anger ceases, and it arises due what causes and condition are in that moment. This is the basic of buddhism. If cause and condition for the arising of mind aren t there, there is no mind and there is no root nature of mind whatever you want to call it. That s because mind is luminous **but** empty


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori well, thats not really true, because when we cease attachment to anger it instantly becomes bliss. when we cut through the bliss, then it becomes 'empty' ;; 3rd word of garab dorje, Sopa. ;; in the beginning emotions rise and we cut throught hem and so they cut into bliss (bindu) ;; but when we mature our practice, then the emotion rises and is cut through at the same time so rises with the nature of emptiness as emptiness. ;;
    lets see you put it into practice ralther than stating how niave it is. actually what u present there is false, because when we cut through anger, mind does not cease. 🙂 we can dissolve all phenomena and mind does not cease. Mind is like space or the sky, if the birds are not in the sky does the sky cease?:)


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori if you rest in 'tawa' do you cease? nope.. attachment ceases. there u go.. 😃 dispute resolved.


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso mind is the knowing of phenomena itself and nothing else so while the first paragraph is interesting from a meditation practice perspective the 2nd doesn t make sense to me


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    Sangye Gyatso there is no me lol if you rest in tawa mind does not cease because there are still conditions for the arising of mind


    • Alessandro Socio Migliori
    That lasted way too long, agree to disagree, hope your practice goes on well


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori even in the nominal state without a body there is still unimpeded awarness, clarity and wisdom, so there is always a sense of me, but this is not an entity. even without the red and white drops,.. it is still communion of being. no individuals anywhere,.. its a difficult point this. there is no individual inherent 'self' but, always a communion of being, the guhyasamaja tantra is good at this explanation. also kalu rinpoche's teaching above goes into it.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori mind does not cease. there are 4 void realms, and if one takes rebirth there, one will simply rest as pure voidness for eons and then eventually take rebirth in lower realms.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Alessandro Socio Migliori no me? so who is typing in this thread.. does no good to run around shouting 'there is no me' ;; easy to fall into nihilism, seems capitalist cultures are prone to it. middle way.. need to have regard for this precious human birth,
    actually, when we realize dharmakaya (tawa) we manifest nirmankaya (sopa) via Gompa (sambogakaya) 🙂







    • Soh Wei Yu
    From Bendowa, by Zen Master Dogen
    Question Ten:
    Some have said: Do not concern yourself about birth-and-death. There is a way to promptly rid yourself of birth-and-death. It is by grasping the reason for the eternal immutability of the 'mind-nature.' The gist of it is this: although once the body is born it proceeds inevitably to death, the mind-nature never perishes. Once you can realize that the mind-nature, which does not transmigrate in birth-and-death, exists in your own body, you make it your fundamental nature. Hence the body, being only a temporary form, dies here and is reborn there without end, yet the mind is immutable, unchanging throughout past, present, and future. To know this is to be free from birth-and-death. By realizing this truth, you put a final end to the transmigratory cycle in which you have been turning. When your body dies, you enter the ocean of the original nature. When you return to your origin in this ocean, you become endowed with the wondrous virtue of the Buddha-patriarchs. But even if you are able to grasp this in your present life, because your present physical existence embodies erroneous karma from prior lives, you are not the same as the sages.
    "Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to turn forever in the cycle of birth-and-death. What is necessary, then, is simply to know without delay the meaning of the mind-nature's immutability. What can you expect to gain from idling your entire life away in purposeless sitting?"
    What do you think of this statement? Is it essentially in accord with the Way of the Buddhas and patriarchs?
    Answer 10:
    You have just expounded the view of the Senika heresy. It is certainly not the Buddha Dharma.
    According to this heresy, there is in the body a spiritual intelligence. As occasions arise this intelligence readily discriminates likes and dislikes and pros and cons, feels pain and irritation, and experiences suffering and pleasure - it is all owing to this spiritual intelligence. But when the body perishes, this spiritual intelligence separates from the body and is reborn in another place. While it seems to perish here, it has life elsewhere, and thus is immutable and imperishable. Such is the standpoint of the Senika heresy.
    But to learn this view and try to pass it off as the Buddha Dharma is more foolish than clutching a piece of broken roof tile supposing it to be a golden jewel. Nothing could compare with such a foolish, lamentable delusion. Hui-chung of the T'ang dynasty warned strongly against it. Is it not senseless to take this false view - that the mind abides and the form perishes - and equate it to the wondrous Dharma of the Buddhas; to think, while thus creating the fundamental cause of birth-and-death, that you are freed from birth-and-death? How deplorable! Just know it for a false, non-Buddhist view, and do not lend a ear to it.
    I am compelled by the nature of the matter, and more by a sense of compassion, to try to deliver you from this false view. You must know that the Buddha Dharma preaches as a matter of course that body and mind are one and the same, that the essence and the form are not two. This is understood both in India and in China, so there can be no doubt about it. Need I add that the Buddhist doctrine of immutability teaches that all things are immutable, without any differentiation between body and mind. The Buddhist teaching of mutability states that all things are mutable, without any differentiation between essence and form. In view of this, how can anyone state that the body perishes and the mind abides? It would be contrary to the true Dharma.
    Beyond this, you must also come to fully realize that birth-and-death is in and of itself nirvana. Buddhism never speaks of nirvana apart from birth-and-death. Indeed, when someone thinks that the mind, apart from the body, is immutable, not only does he mistake it for Buddha-wisdom, which is free from birth-and-death, but the very mind that makes such a discrimination is not immutable, is in fact even then turning in birth-and-death. A hopeless situation, is it not?
    You should ponder this deeply: since the Buddha Dharma has always maintained the oneness of body and mind, why, if the body is born and perishes, would the mind alone, separated from the body, not be born and die as well? If at one time body and mind were one, and at another time not one, the preaching of the Buddha would be empty and untrue. Moreover, in thinking that birth-and-death is something we should turn from, you make the mistake of rejecting the Buddha Dharma itself. You must guard against such thinking.
    Understand that what Buddhists call the Buddhist doctrine of the mind-nature, the great and universal aspect encompassing all phenomena, embraces the entire universe, without differentiating between essence and form, or concerning itself with birth or death. There is nothing - enlightenment and nirvana included - that is not the mind-nature. All dharmas, the "myriad forms dense and close" of the universe - are alike in being this one Mind. All are included without exception. All those dharmas, which serves as "gates" or entrances to the Way, are the same as one Mind. For a Buddhist to preach that there is no disparity between these dharma-gates indicates that he understands the mind-nature.
    In this one Dharma [one Mind], how could there be any differentiate between body and mind, any separation of birth-and-death and nirvana? We are all originally children of the Buddha, we should not listen to madmen who spout non-Buddhist views.


    • Dave Hermanson
    So it is as if we are projections up on a movie screen; a ghost universe?


    Sangye Gyatso
    Dave Hermanson and thats why its so easy to fall into nihilsim. its not really like that. go through the teachings of kalu rinpoche, he explains it very well and very clearly.


    • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    > there is mind without phenomena
    Nope.
    > confused ramblings
    Lol


    Sangye Gyatso
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland go through kalu rinpoche's teaching. he talks in depth of the nominal states..


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Lady Tsogyal asks the Master:: How does one become free from attaching labels?
    The Master Replied: When you are free from the thought activity of Labeling, you will be free from the cogantive labels "good" and "evil" , and when free from that, you will also be free from attaching the names of verbalised labeling. By being free of the multitude of dream habits, you are free from labeling names. By being free from that, you will be free of the label "Bardo", and free from that, you will be free from the label "birth and death" by being free of these, you will have stopped the stream of samsaric rebirths
    All Phenomena are names labeled by thoughts. These Names are not real so it would be better to be free from Labeling.
    The Lady Tsogyal asks the Master: What is the way to be free of Labeling?
    The Master Replied: The Phenomena of Samsara and Nirvana -- Even though when labeled and conceptualized, they may apear as enjoyable or offensive ; pleasant or painful; as me, myself, as others and so forth -- all naturally dissolve when you neither alter their names nor attach any labels but leave them in their natural state.
    -- Padmasambhava ;; Treasures of Juniper Ridge.

      • Reply
      • 9h
      • Edited

    • Aditya Prasad
    Sangye Gyatso
    "All phenomena are the illusory display of mind.
    There is no mind; mind is empty of an essence."
    -- 3rd Karmapa


    Sangye Gyatso
    Aditya Prasad yes indeed. this is exactly the point. and not 'no mind' as in, non-existance. its pointing at 'mind is not a thingy' ;;
    so if we cling to phenomena, we are just grasping at name and concept. ie. samsara.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    go through the teachings from padmasambhava: Decending with the view from above in the Treasures of Juniper Ridge.
    he goes to show how phenomena are viewed as equal to the nature of mind. (when one cutts through attachment of labels and naming and concept)
    he expounds on various aspects of this in great detail there. very critical. ;; but while one clings to name and concept, one is so far away from dzogchen


    • Aditya Prasad
    Sangye Gyatso He couldn't be any clearer: "there is no mind." Except, of course, as phenomena.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Aditya Prasad i sugest going through those teachings pointed at. its important to discern what is meant. padmasambhava and kalu rinpoche are very clear on this.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Aditya Prasad since phenomena come and go, it is not the root nature of mind, but not seperate from the nature of mind as long as one does not have attachment to name and concept. ;; if one names phenomana and conceptualises it, then this is not the root nature of mind. its important to differentiate.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Lady Tsogyal asks the Master:: How does one become free from attaching labels? The Master Replied: When you are free from the thought activity of Labeling, you will be free from the cogantive labels "good" and "evil" , and when free from that, you will also be free from attaching the names of verbalised labeling. By being free of the multitude of dream habits, you are free from labeling names. By being free from that, you will be free of the label "Bardo", and free from that, you will be free from the label "birth and death" by being free of these, you will have stopped the stream of samsaric rebirths
    All Phenomena are names labeled by thoughts. These Names are not real so it would be better to be free from Labeling.
    The Lady Tsogyal asks the Master: What is the way to be free of Labeling?
    The Master Replied: The Phenomena of Samsara and Nirvana -- Even though when labeled and conceptualized, they may apear as enjoyable or offensive ; pleasant or painful; as me, myself, as others and so forth -- all naturally dissolve when you neither alter their names nor attach any labels but leave them in their natural state.
    -- Padmasambhava ;; Treasures of Juniper Ridge.


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Aditya Prasad worth further study :>


    • Jayson MPaul
    Sangye Gyatso This whole interaction seems to be getting very charged and that is too bad. I used to think that the mind was, just not a thingy too. This initial presence of I AM is what is pointed at for the initial nature of mind. But it is still provisional and some get stuck there. I was stuck there for a long time. Luckily if you have a good Dzogchen teacher they will eventually lead you beyond it. This intermediate state is the path of dzogchen. Recognizing the clarity separate from the emptiness. Also think about it this way, if there is mind outside of phenomena that would be the most basic duality there is. So that can't be the final state the Buddha was talking about. There can be very strong reactions from the ego as we threaten it, especially once it has taken the position of some not a thing, but always on, permanent awareness that will never die. This talk of no mind scares that ego structure so much, because it knows this is the wisdom that puts an end to ego clinging. I'll leave you with one note. If what you are doing is working for you, keep at it. In fact go as deep as you can into it. You may eventually see even the unsatisfactories of that and become ready to go beyond. 🙏🙏🙏


    • Soh Wei Yu
    “Luckily if you have a good Dzogchen teacher they will eventually lead you beyond it.”
    That depends. Indeed, good ones do

    • Reply
    • 1h
    • Edited

    • Sangye Gyatso
    Jayson MPaul nothing charged at all, i have never said mind was a thingy at all.. no entity… vast like space.. but also not singular and not plural. Are you refuting what padmasabhava said in regards to phenomena of mind heh
    What we find is patterns of energy. No individuals, but at the same token even if you dissolve the ordinary mind though the 4 empties, exhaust the visions of thogyal B still mind is present with unimpeded awareness, clarity & wisdom. Dont cling to phenomena of mind. Let go, relax into the nature of mind raw and uncontrived







    • Soh Wei Yu
    "'Self luminous' and 'self knowing' are concepts which are used to convey the absence of a subjective reference point which is mediating the manifestation of appearance. Instead of a subjective cognition or knower which is 'illuminating' objective appearances, it is realized that the sheer exertion of our cognition has always and only been the sheer exertion of appearance itself. Or rather that cognition and appearance are not valid as anything in themselves. Since both are merely fabricated qualities neither can be validated or found when sought. This is not a union of subject and object, but is the recognition that the subject and object never arose in the first place [advaya]. ", "The cognition is empty. That is what it means to recognize the nature of mind [sems nyid]. The clarity [cognition] of mind is recognized to be empty, which is sometimes parsed as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness, or nondual clarity and emptiness." - Kyle Dixon, 2014


    Sangye Gyatso
    he missed one there.. inseperability of unimpeded Awareeness, Clarity & Wisdom.







    • Soh Wei Yu
    Bodhidharma said,
    Seeing with insight, form is not simply form, because form depends on mind. And, mind is not simply mind, because mind depends on form. Mind and form create and negate each other. … Mind and the world are opposites, appearances arise where they meet. When your mind does not stir inside, the world does not arise outside. When the world and the mind are both transparent, this is the true insight.” (from the Wakeup Discourse)


    • Sangye Gyatso
    Lady Tsogyal asks the Master:: How does one become free from attaching labels?
    The Master Replied: When you are free from the thought activity of Labeling, you will be free from the cogantive labels "good" and "evil" , and when free from that, you will also be free from attaching the names of verbalised labeling. By being free of the multitude of dream habits, you are free from labeling names. By being free from that, you will be free of the label "Bardo", and free from that, you will be free from the label "birth and death" by being free of these, you will have stopped the stream of samsaric rebirths
    All Phenomena are names labeled by thoughts. These Names are not real so it would be better to be free from Labeling.
    The Lady Tsogyal asks the Master: What is the way to be free of Labeling?
    The Master Replied: The Phenomena of Samsara and Nirvana -- Even though when labeled and conceptualized, they may apear as enjoyable or offensive ; pleasant or painful; as me, myself, as others and so forth -- all naturally dissolve when you neither alter their names nor attach any labels but leave them in their natural state.
    -- Padmasambhava ;; Treasures of Juniper Ridge.


    Soh Wei Yu
    Phenomena as reified objects are exhausted.
    LadyTsogyal asked the Lotus-Born master: What is the dividing line between the perceiver and the perceived?
    The master replied: The perceived is to regard external material ob- jects as real; the perceiver is to misapprehend the mind within as real. When applying this experientially in your stream-of-being, look at
    externally perceived objects and realize that appearances are empty in themselves. Look into the inner perceiving mind and see that mind is intangible and empty. Realizing this is the vital point of realizing that perceiver and perceived are indivisible as an appearing emptiness. Tsogyal, this advice ofutmost importance, I give to you.


    • Soh Wei Yu
    At this, the disciple all at once greatly awakened and realized for the first time that there is no phenomena apart from mind, and no mind apart from phenomena. All of his actions became utterly free. Having broken through the net of all doubt, he was freed of all obstruction.
    13
    - The Doctrine of No Mind

    • Sangye Gyatso
      Soh Wei Yu haha,.. says you.. since you cling to label, you continue to conceptualise.. you even think: "phenomena is mind. and without phenomena, mind ceases! "
      what nonsense. if you are angry.. that is phenomena. if you cut through your anger, there is no phenomena. yet mind is there,.. with the 3 aspects, Unimpeded Awareness (no attachment to phenomena), Clarity & Wisdom.
      surely you have got as far as cutting through emotions with your practice? how can you state what you're stating??? dont you practice?
      regergitating words doesnt make it correct. Perhaps you should go practice what Padmasambhava talks about in Treasures of Juniper Ridge. ;; Perhaps you should speak with your Guru's and learn how to cut through Thoughts, Emotions & Perceptions Thoroughly. (those are phenomena of mind) when you cut through attachment, all phenomena of mind dissolve.

      • Reply
      • 3h
      • Edited

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Reified phenomena ceases. Pure appearance never cease as ongoing gnosis. Otherwise where is pure vision?
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena
      Exhaustion of All Phenomena

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 2h

      • Sangye Gyatso
      Soh Wei Yu know from trekchod and thogyal directly. really one should know it right from the beginning of trekchod while working with emotions. pure vision is when you see it as it is without attachment to 'self' or 'other'. all phenomenon including "self" dissolve.
      and its not reified phenomenon. when you attach to phenomeon then you concretise it. eg. if you cling to anger, you will stay angery because you name it and continue to conceptualise it. ;; when you cease to conceptualise it, cease to name it, bring mind to buddha nature,. it dissolves,.. /all/ phenomenon is like this. even the 4 visions. actually even the physical body as we know from the teachings of generation stage and completion stage.
      ask loppon la to explain to you the classes of the trikaya. each of the trikaya has its own subset of trikaya, and this is how manifestation and dissillusion occurs, very important point. and actually, the odd thing is that if you go beyond the ordinary mind through the 4 empties of teh ghuyasamaja tantra, and then the thogyal visions occur, the thogyal visions occur in reverse order because its direct and not leaping over. intresting point. its one of the factors that proves Awareness.. is not this body yet inseperable from it till the time of death (or the 4 empties) ;; ;; Buddha nature contains all phenomena, the 5 lights saturate into the 5 elements and the 5 subtle elements saturate into the 5 aggrogates, its like water into milk,. and its not a one way street. we do not cease to be sentient beings. its always a communion of being. if it wasnt so, empowerment would be impossible. also many of the siddhi's would be impossible.
      sorry i dont mix up traditions, i stick to dzogchen and the generation stage. you're welcome to follow zen, but then follow zen exclusivly.. these paths are not paths of speculation, they are paths of practice.
      and good luck with that..


      • Soh Wei Yu
      The point isn't that awareness ceases upon death (annihilation view), it is rather that the view that awareness has an unchanging inherent existence underlying everything is seen through in the anatta realization that realizes the radiance is none other than manifestation, even if that flow of conscious manifestation (mental continuum/mindstream) continues after death. Self-luminous, self-radiant manifestation is the presence and awareness you speak of, it is not a background.
      As Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm said,
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      Since this basic awareness cannot be found to have a cause other than itself, and since it has no defining characteristics of its own, and since it cannot be denied, or separated into any kind of 'non-awareness' parts, I would suggest that it is truly existent, non-specific, non-self, synonymous with the meaning of Dharmakaya and the essence of realization.
      Malcolm wrote:
      As I said before, you have a monistic hindu nondual view. Not even dharmakāya is "truly existent".
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      Well then, refute awareness. I suggest it is "truly existent" meaning I used that phrase) for the reasons I have stated, the way that space is truly existent. not in the "Monistic Hindu" way that you suggest. Such an entity would still be an object of awareness, something which is experienced and not awareness itself. If a "Monistic Hindu" (if there is such a person) wished to label it Mahatama or something, and claim that it is awareness that is his doing, and perhaps yours but it is beside what I am saying.
      However, you may be right that it is in fact not synonymous with Dharmakaya
      if you are saying that Dharmakaya is a composite,
      produced by other causes.
      Malcolm wrote:
      You already did [refute awareness] by claiming it truly existed. There is no such thing as "truly existent". I am not refuting awareness, I am refuting your claim that awareness truly exists. Individual awarenesses exist, just not "truly", they have no original cause because they are all conditioned entities. No conditioned series has an origin. Such is the logic of the Buddha.
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      Very interesting.
      Malcolm wrote:
      Space is also not "truly existent". Nirvana is not truly existent.
      Read the Heart Sutra again, in case you forgot.
      M
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      if you are saying that Dharmakaya is a composite,
      produced by other causes.
      Malcolm wrote:
      No, but as a I just said, even uncompounded phenomena — of which Mahāyāna Buddhism recognizes only four: space, the two cessations and emptiness — are not truly existent.
      Malcolm wrote:
      Not even dharmakāya is "truly existent".
      smcj wrote:
      There is not 100% agreement on that.
      Malcolm wrote:
      People who think dharmakāya is truly existent are simply wrong, and suffer from an eternalist bias.
      In reality the three kāyas are also conventions.
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      I am talking about even the awareness of these four things [space, the two cessations and emptiness].
      Malcolm wrote:
      Yes, I understand. All awarenesses are conditioned. There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma. Even the omniscience of a Buddha arises from a cause.
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      isn't this cause, too, an object of awareness? Isn't there awareness of this cause? If awareness of this cause is awareness itself, then isn't this awareness of awareness? What causes awareness of awareness, if not awareness?
      If awareness is the cause of awareness, isn't it its own cause?
      Malcolm wrote:
      Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
      Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
      Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."
      PadmaVonSamba wrote:
      I am not referring to cognition, rather, the causes of that cognition.
      Malcolm wrote:
      Cognitions arise based on previous cognitions. That's all.
      If you suggest anything other than this, you wind up in Hindu La la land.
      Malcolm wrote:
      There is no such thing as a universal undifferentiated ultimate awareness in Buddhadharma.
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 45m
      • Edited

      • Soh Wei Yu
      gad rgyangs wrote:
      I dunno Malcolm, the basis is more like the backdrop against which any appearances appear, including any consciousness. Also, what sense would it make to say "rigpa is one's knowledge of the basis" if that basis was one's own continuum? the basis is pure no-thing as abgrund of all phenomena. Consciousness is always a phenomenon.
      Malcolm wrote:
      I prefer to put my faith in the guy whose father started the whole Nyinthig thing.And what is says is verified in many Dzogchen tantras, both from the bodhcitta texts as well as others.
      The basis is not a backdrop. Everything is not separate from the basis. But that everything just means your own skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas. There is no basis outside your mind, just as there is no Buddhahood outside of your mind.
      [Quoting gad rgyangs: Consciousness is always a phenomenon.] So is the basis. They are both dharmas.
      Or as the Great Garuda has it when refuting Madhyamaka:
      Since phenomena and nonphenomena have always been merged and are inseparable,
      there is no further need to explain an “ultimate phenomenon”.
      An 12th century commentary on this text states (but not this passage):
      Amazing bodhicitta (the identity of everything that becomes the basis of pursuing the meaning that cannot be seen nor realized elsewhere than one’s vidyā) is wholly the wisdom of the mind distinct as the nine consciousnesses that lack a nature.
      In the end, Dzogchen is really just another Buddhist meditative phenomenology of the mind and person and that is all.
      gad rgyangs wrote:
      Then why speak of a basis at all? just speak of skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, and be done with it.
      Malcolm wrote:
      Because these things are regarded as afflictive, whereas Dzogchen is trying to describe the person in his or her originally nonafflictive condition. It really is just that simple. The so called general basis is a universal derived from the particulars of persons. That is why it is often mistaken for a transpersonal entity. But Dzogchen, especially man ngag sde is very grounded in Buddhist Logic, and one should know that by definition universals are considered to be abstractions and non-existents in Buddhism, and Dzogchen is no exception.
      gad rgyangs wrote:
      There is no question of the basis being an entity, thats not the point. Rigpa is precisely what it says in the yeshe sangthal: instant presence experienced against/within the "backdrop" (metaphor) of a "vast dimension of emptiness" (metaphor).
      Malcolm wrote:
      It's your own rigpa, not a transpersonal rigpa, being a function of your own mind. That mind is empty.
      gad rgyangs wrote:
      When all appearances cease, what are you left with?
      Malcolm wrote:
      They never cease....
      gad rgyangs wrote:
      In the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.
      rigpa is ontological not epistemic: its not about some state of consciousness before dualism vision, it is about the basis/abgrund of all possible appearances, including our consciousness in whatever state its in or could ever be in.
      Malcolm wrote:
      Sorry, I just don't agree with you and think you are just falling in the Hindu brahman trap.
      Sherlock wrote:
      Isn't the difference betwee


      • Soh Wei Yu
      Whatever Acarya/Lopon said was extremely clear. I highly recommend reading through the whole article: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../clarifications-on...
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm
      Clarifications on Dharmakaya and Basis by Loppön Namdrol/Malcolm

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 44m

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Great Dzogchen masters like Dalai Lama etc have said the same.


      • Soh Wei Yu
      Sherlock wrote:
      Isn't the difference between transpersonal and personal also a form of dualism?
      Malcolm wrote:
      The distinction is crucial. If this distinction is not made, Dzogchen sounds like Vedanta.
      Malcolm wrote:
      [Quoting gad rgyangs: in the yeshe sangthal you dissolve all appearances into the "vast dimension of emptiness", out of which "instant presence" arises. This is cosmological as well as personal, since the two scales are nondual.]
      'The way that great transference body arises:
      when all appearances have gradually been exhausted,
      when one focuses one’s awareness on the appearances strewn about
      on the luminous maṇḍala of the five fingers of one’s hand,
      the environment and inhabitants of the universe
      returning from that appearance are perceived as like moon in the water.
      One’s body is just a reflection,
      self-apparent as the illusory body of wisdom;
      one obtains a vajra-like body.
      One sees one’s body as transparent inside and out.
      The impure eyes of others cannot see one’s body as transparent,
      but only the body as it was before...'
      Shabkar, Key to One Hundred Doors of Samadhi
      Outer appearances do not disappear even when great transference body is attained. What disappears are the inner visions, that is what is exhausted, not the outer universe with its planets, stars, galaxies, mountains, oceans, cliffs, houses, people and sentient beings.
      M
      gad rgyangs wrote:
      I'm talking about the perception of the relationship between nothing and something. The question of what jargon to use when talking around it is secondary, although not without historical interest.
      Malcolm wrote:
      Rigpa is just knowing, the noetic quality of a mind. That is all it is.
      Malcolm wrote:
      Omniscience is the content of a mind freed of afflictions. Even the continuum of a Buddha has a relative ground, i.e. a the rosary or string of moments of clarity is beginingless.
      Origination from self is axiomatically negated in Buddhadharma,
      Each moment in the continuum of a knowing clarity is neither the same as nor different than the previous moment. Hence the cause of a given instant of a knowing clarity cannot be construed to be itself nor can it be construed to be other than itself. This is the only version of causation which, in the final analysis, Buddhadharma can admit to on a relative level. It is the logical consequence of the Buddha's insight, "When this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose."


      • Sangye Gyatso
      awarness does not cease... im sorry im done here.. and HHDL has _NOT_ said that.
      go through the teachings of Kalu Rinpoche. geez,...


      • Sangye Gyatso
      nobody owns enligtenment. its an interdpednet nature of being. go read the guhyasamaja tantra. it is a Communion of being. this is the last time im interacting with you. go practice..


      • Soh Wei Yu
      Sangye Gyatso Clearly you haven't read the Dalai Lama carefully:
      "The fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also called the ‘clear light’ (abhasvara, ‘od gsal) and uncompounded (asamskrta, ‘dus ma byas). In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nying-ma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered ‘permanent’ in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted…"
      Dalai Lama on the Clear Light – Dream Yoga
      DREAMYOGA.COM
      Dalai Lama on the Clear Light – Dream Yoga
      Dalai Lama on the Clear Light – Dream Yoga

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 12m

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Question: Is the fundamental innate mind of clear light dependent on causes and conditions? If it is not dependent, how can it be empty of independent existence?
      HHDL: This is a very good question. Often in texts we find mention of the fundamental innate mind of clear light being not produced by causes and conditions. Now here it is important to understand that in general when we use the term 'produced phenomena' there are different connotations. Something can be called 'produced' because it is a production of delusions and the actions they induce. Again, it may also refer to a production by causes and conditions. And there is also a sense of 'produced' as being cause by conceptual thought processes.
      Certain texts speak of the activities of the Buddha as permanent and non-produced in the sense that they are continuous, and that as long as there are sentient beings, the activities of the buddhas will remain without interruption. So, from the point of view of their continuity, these activities are sometimes called permanent.
      In the same manner, the fundamental innate mind of clear light, in terms of its continuity, is beginningless, and also endless. This continuum will always be there, and so from that specific point of view, it is also called 'non-produced'. Besides, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is no a circumstantial or adventitious state of mind, for it does not come into being as a result of the circumstantial interaction of causes and conditions. Rather, it is an ever-abiding continuum of mind, which is inherent within us. So from that view point, it is called 'non-produced'.
      However, although this is the cause, we still have to maintain that, because it possesses this continuity, the present fundamental innate mind-this present instant of consciousness-comes from its earlier moments. The same holds true of the wisdom of Buddha-the omniscient mind of Buddha-which perceives the two truths directly and simultaneously, and which is also a state of awareness or consciousness. Since it is a state of awareness, the factor which will eventually turn into that kind of wisdom, namely the fundamental innate nature of clear light, will also have to be maintained to be a state of awareness. For it is impossible for anything which is not by nature awareness to turn into a state of awareness. So from this second point of view, the fundamental innate mind of clear light is causally produced.
      From Dzogchen: Heart Essence of Great Perfection by The Dalai Lama.
      Fundamental Innate Mind of Clear Light
      NEWBUDDHIST.COM
      Fundamental Innate Mind of Clear Light
      Fundamental Innate Mind of Clear Light

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 12m

      • Sangye Gyatso
      Soh Wei Yu HHDL is one of my teachers. i wont speak badly about him,.. and actually, you're darting around like a jibbery jabbery thing, and actually still have not gone through the teachings of kalu rinpoche ive posted many times now.
      sorry but you have to go practice and leave the hear-say be.


      • Soh Wei Yu
      Many more quotes by Dalai Lama on anatta, emptiness and how it relates to rigpa here: http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../dalai-lama-on...
      Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book
      Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 11m

      • Sangye Gyatso
      Soh Wei Yu in response to what has been stated. NEVER have i said it is 'independent' the nature of mind is INTERDEPENDENT. ie. a COMMUNION of being. geez.. its not even relevent to the topic at hand.
      this is like debating a 3 year old,.. im out..


      • Soh Wei Yu
      When you realise anatta, you will know that it is exactly as Acarya/Lopon Malcolm and Dalai Lama have said and they are all correct.
      You are unable to see the truth of what they said because you still cling on to a view of inherent existence. That is Hindu Atman-Brahman view. You are unable to overcome that. I have gone through those phases before like http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../thusnesss-six...
      Ok good night, keep an open mind, you will progress much faster if you have an openness to challenge your existing views.
      Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
      Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 9m
      • Edited

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Your view is 'dependent existence', that is still inherent view refuted by Nagarjuna.
      Also it is not even dependent existence, because your dependence is only one way.
      ......
      Emptiness group:
      Awareness and Emptiness.
      Many people, myself at times as well, have thought that Advaitic, atman-style awareness and emptiness are the same thing. When I began to study Nagarjuna, I was reading through a lens colored by the Advaita teachings. You know how they go, Awareness is the Self and very nature of me. The psychophysical components are certainly not me. I remain the same through the coming and going and changing of the components.
      At that time, I had had trouble understanding 50% of the key line in the Heart Sutra,
      "Form is emptiness and emptiness is form."
      I got the "form is emptiness" part. But I couldn't grok the "emptiness is form" part. Thinking that Advaitic Awareness=emptiness, I was used to thinking that Awareness IS, whether universes arise or not. How can Awareness equal its contents? And if it did, why even call it global Awareness? The contents could speak for themselves," I was thinking.
      Also, many Advaitic-style teachings proceed by refuting the phenomena (thoughts, feelings and sensations) but retaining THAT to which they arise. That was the type of teaching I was used to, and it colored my approach to Madhyamika.
      So it was very easy to read the Buddhist notion of "emptiness" in this same way. But it began to get a little puzzling. In my readings of Prasangika Madhyamika (which never mentions a global awareness), they never say that anywhere that emptiness=awareness. Nevertheless, I was supplying this equivalence for myself, making the mental substitution of one highest path's highest term with another's.
      As I continued, there seem less and less evidence that Madhyamika was doing this, but I didn't encounter anything that knocked the idea away. It got more and more puzzling for me.
      And then one day I read this from Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Sloka IX:4, about the "prior entity," or a subject or owner or substrate for what is seen and heard. (translations from the Garfield edition).
      "If it can abide Without the seen, etc., Then, without a doubt, They can abide without it."
      Then it dawned on me! The independence (and hence the dependence) that Buddhism is talking about is two-way, not just one-way. If A is logically independent from B, then B is logically independent from A.
      If you can have a self that doesn't depend on things seen, then you can have things seen that do not depend on a self.
      So, for Nagarjuna, can you really have a self that is truly bilaterally independent from what is seen?
      No, because of his next sloka, IX:10:
      "Someone is disclosed by something. Something is disclosed by someone. Without something how can someone exist? Without someone how can something exist?"
      With these two verses, I finally understood the two-way dependence that Buddhism was talking about. And both halves of that important line in the Heart Sutra finally made sense!!
      .........
      I'm not sure what you mean by "itch," but I can tell you that when I began to study the Mulamadhyamakakarika (MMK), I wanted to let it speak for itself. I didn't want to bring to it any presumptions that I picked up from other teachings, such as that all reality depends on an aware ground of being. This was my intention from the beginning, and it took me a while to detect those assumptions in myself as I proceeded with my study. The text of the MMK itself actually helped dissolve those assumptions from my study and practice of Madhyamika.
      It's pretty clear that in the MMK there is no support for an aware ground of being.
      About verses 8 and 9. they are dialectical arguments against the notion of an independent self that is the basis and unifying substance of all experience. As dialectical arguments, they examine consequences that would follow if there were really such an independent self. And they find that the consequences are absurd, or that they go against the independent-self idea. Confronting these absurd consequences frees us from assenting to the independent-self doctrine.
      Verses 8 and 9 are instances of the same/different argument schema. Those who believe in existence usually assert that if A and B exist, then they must be the same as each other, or different from each other.
      Verse 8 examines the absurd consequences of stating that the seer and hearer and feeler are the same.
      It looks at what would happen if there were a self that is the hearer and seer and feeler (which is what the independent-self doctrine asserts). If there were such a self, it would contravene the insights from Verses 4-6, which argue that the seer depends on the seen just like the seen depends on the seer.
      In our experience, seeing and hearing and feeling happen at different times, sometimes apart, sometimes together. If there WERE such a self, the very same self that hears and sees, Verse 8 is arguing that the self would have to exist PRIOR to hearing and PRIOR to seeing.
      Verse 9 examines the absurd consequences of stating that the seer and hearer and feeler are different. It argues that in this case, there would be multiple independent selves, one for seeing, one for hearing, and one for feeling. This obviously contradicts the main point of the independent self doctrine, which is that there is just ONE entity which does all the seeing and hearing.
      Nagarjuna's strategy here is to show that assuming an independent entity prior to experience makes no sense at all. This is because it makes no sense if the seer equals the hearer, and it makes no sense if the seer does not equal the hearer.
      Therefore, it makes no sense!
      And it keeps on going, getting more and more radical.
      Verse 11 - here the MMK uses the conclusion about the absurdity of the independent seer to refute the inherent existence of independent modes of perception.
      In Verse 12, the MMK says that having seen all this, we are freed from conceptions and assertions of existence and non-existence.
      Greg Goode on Advaita/Madhyamika
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      Greg Goode on Advaita/Madhyamika
      Greg Goode on Advaita/Madhyamika

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 7m

      • Soh Wei Yu
      Kyle Dixon, 2019:
      “...the heart of the buddhadharma and Dzogchen in general is the jñāna that results from recognizing the non-arising of phenomena.
      If that jñāna is revealed in your mindstream then you will know the meaning of dependent origination.
      All practices of Dzogchen and the buddhadharma aim to awaken you so that this is experientially known.
      …
      You have to differentiate interdependence i.e., dependent existence [parabhāva] and dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].
      They are not the same.
      …
      Nāgārjuna discusses the difference in many of his works.
      Parabhāva is as you mentioned above, “interdependence,” things depending on things in a coarse sense. Nāgārjuna states that parabhāva is actually a guise for svabhāva, which is the main object of refutation in his view. Thus mistaking parabhāva for pratītyasamutpāda is a major error.
      He also states that s/he who sees dependent existence [parabhāva], inherent existence [svabhāva], existence [bhāva] or non-existence [abhāva], do not see the truth of the buddha’s teaching.
      The main point is that we cannot mistake dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda] for mere interdependence.”


      • Sangye Gyatso
      Soh Wei Yu sorry again,.. im not discussing 'other' traditions,.. if u want to discuss those traditions you need to find a master of those traditions.. i have no concern for them... i treat all traditions with respect as all traditions that seek truth are sangha. ;; im done debating with you.. its pretty pointless, go practice.. im not wasting further time with you. 🙂
      again.. spamming lots of text doesnt make you any better for it, just shows u cant think at all,.. go through the teachings of kalu rinpoche.


      • Soh Wei Yu
      The point is, you hold the view that awareness exists and phenomena depends on awareness. Awareness does not dependent on phenomena, like a mirror that is unchanging and unaffected by the comings and goings of reflection.
      That is non-Buddhist, Hindu kind of eternalism. Which is not to denegrate them, but to distinguish this view from the view taught by Buddha.

    • Reply
    • 3m
    • Edited
    • Sangye Gyatso
      Soh Wei Yu unimpeded awarness, clarity and wisdom are the 3 main qualities of buddha nature. so duh... ;; i have never stated that awarness depends on phenomenal... EVER
      also, buddha nature is unchanging. see the teachings of the 8 extremes.
      also, i have never said any aspect is 'eternal'
      so really just go wake up and stop insulting me and other traditions. go practice..


      • Soh Wei Yu
      You posit awareness as unchanging, that is precisely eternalism.
      You posit awareness does not dependent on appearances, appearances come and go on the surface of an unchanging source and substratum. That is Advaita.
      It's a pity you cannot see the essence and intent of Buddha's teachings, but that is your karma. Be well and good night.

        • Reply
        • 1m
        • Edited
Sangye Gyatso
Soh Wei Yu so they wouldnt have liked padmasambhava's criqiue then :>


    • Soh Wei Yu
    Sangye Gyatso you understood neither Padmasambhava nor Bodhidharma.

      • Reply
      • 8h
      • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
    Short excerpt:
    Padmasambhava in the root text of the book The Light of Wisdom:
    "The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
    It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
    Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
    If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
    This is not the case, so were the second true,
    That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
    Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
    The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
    As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
    The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
    Longer excerpt:
    ESTABLISHING THE INNER PERCEIVER AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL SELF TO BE DEVOID OF A SELF-NATURE
    The Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo root text says:
    The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or a self-entity.
    It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
    Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
    If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
    This is not the case, so were the second to be true,
    That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
    Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
    The self is a mere imputation by the power of ego-clinging.
    Although the outer observed objects possess no true existence, doesn’t the inner observer, the mind, truly exist? No, it doesn’t.
    The mind has no existence apart from imputing such an existence upon the perpetuating aggregates and holding the belief in an ego, with the thought “I am!” Since the two kinds of self-entity are not separate from that, neither can their existence be established when examined by correct discriminating knowledge.
    When there is a belief in an “I” or a “self” it follows that its existence cannot be ultimately established, because it neither differs from nor is identical with the five aggregates.
    If, as in the first case, you could prove that there is a separately existing self, there would have to be a sixth aggregate of a substance different from the other five.
    Since such a knowable object is impossible, it would be like the name of the son of a barren woman. If the self were identical [with the five aggregates], then it would have to be of identical substance and, since the five aggregates have substantial existence while the belief in an “I” has imputed existence, their substances would be contradictory, like the concrete and inconcrete.
    Again, to describe this in an easily understandable way: since the self cannot be observed as being some entity that is separate from the gathering of the five aggregates and also cannot be seen as being identical with them, the existence of the self cannot be established. In the first instance, [it is impossible for] the self to have any existence separate from the aggregates, because an additional sixth aggregate would then have to exist, because ego-clinging applies to nothing other than the aggregates.
    Moreover, as no concrete thing exists separate from the characteristics of the aggregates and, as an inconcrete thing cannot perform a function, the self cannot be established as existing separate from them.
    Though the self does not exist separately in that way, can’t its existence be established, as in the second case, as identical with the aggregates? No, it cannot, because their characteristics are incompatible. In other words, all the aggregates are conditioned and therefore proven to be impermanent.
    This is contrary to the self, which is held to be permanent, as in the case of assuming that one knows now what one saw earlier. Furthermore, the aggregates are composed of categories with many divisions, such as forms, sensations, and so forth, while the self is believed to be singular, as in thinking “I am!” And finally, the aggregates verifiably depend on arising and perishing, while the self is obviously experienced to be independent, as in the thought “I am!” The Prajnamula describes this:
    If the self were the aggregates,
    Then it would arise and perish.
    But, if the self is different from the aggregates,
    It would have none of the aggregates’ characteristics.
    You may now wonder, “Though the self does not exist, its continuity is permanent and can be proven to exist.” That is also not the case. The Two Truths says:
    The so-called continuity or instant
    Is false, just like a chain, an army, and so forth.
    While in reality possessing not even the slightest existence, the self, the individual, and so forth, are merely imputations made by the power of ego-clinging and are simply based upon the gathering of the five perpetuating aggregates.
    Entering the Middle Way teaches:
    The self does therefore not exist as something other than the aggregates,
    Because it is not held as anything besides the aggregates.279
    And again, in the same text:
    When uttering such words as “the aggregates are the self,”
    It refers to the gathering of the aggregates and not to their identity.
    The word “chariot,” for instance, is merely a label given to the gathering of parts, such as the wheels and the main beam of the chariot, while you find no basis for the characteristics of the chariot that is not the parts but the owner of the parts. In the same way, you cannot prove the basis for the so-called self besides the mere belief that the ego is the gathering of the aggregates.
    This is described in a sutra:
    Just as the name “chariot” is given to the gathering of all the parts,
    Similarly, the name “sentient being” is superficially used for the aggregates.
    Padmasambhava - The Light of Wisdom VOLUME I - Rangjung Yeshe Publications



  • Reply
  • 3h
  •  


      • Sangye Gyatso
      Soh Wei Yu ive never stated there is an 'entity' yet.. Unimpeded Awareness, Clarity & Wisdom do not cease. 'non-existing' is one of the 8 extremes. we rest between. hehe.
      again. would have been far more simple to go through kalu rinpoche's teaching which is quite verbose and easy to follow on this topics.. 🙂
      are you stating the buddhas are not sentient beings?:) are you stating the bodhisattvas are not sentient beings?:) there are various non-caporial 'beings'
      many classes of beings of the 6 classes of realms. 🙂
      yet, go through the practice of dzogchen. and inspect if the sense of me is ever gone,.. even though the thogyal practices.. all entity dissolves, but even with 'no self' there is still sense of being. 🙂 this is because of the aspect of buddha nature which is Unimpeded Awareness.
      dont fall into the trap of trying to own enlightenment,. nobody owns it. Again. to re-itterate.. enlightenment is a Communion of being. not singular, not plural.


      • Soh Wei Yu
      Your experience of AMness or pure Beingness prior to conceptualization is correct and important. Must extend to all six senses and with pointers by Buddha (like Bahiya Sutta: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../ajahn-amaro-on... ), Padmasambhava, Bodhidharma, etc, break through to the realization of no-self and Presence extends naturally as all manifestation without agent.
      Like a river flowing into the ocean, the self dissolves into nothingness. When a practitioner becomes thoroughly clear about the illusionary nature of the individuality, subject-object division does not take place. A person experiencing “AMness” will find “AMness in everything”. What is it like?
      Being freed from individuality -- coming and going, life and death, all phenomenon merely pop in and out from the background of the AMness. The AMness is not experienced as an ‘entity’ residing anywhere, neither within nor without; rather it is experienced as the ground reality for all phenomenon to take place. Even in the moment of subsiding (death), the yogi is thoroughly authenticated with that reality; experiencing the ‘Real’ as clear as it can be. We cannot lose that AMness; rather all things can only dissolve and re-emerges from it. The AMness has not moved, there is no coming and going. This "AMness" is God.
      Practitioners should never mistake this as the true Buddha Mind! "I AMness" is the pristine awareness. That is why it is so overwhelming. Just that there is no 'insight' into its emptiness nature. Nothing stays and nothing to hold on to. What is real, is pristine and flows, what stays is illusion. The sinking back to a background or Source is due to being blinded by strong karmic propensities of a 'Self'. It is a layer of ‘bond’ that prevents us from ‘seeing’ something…it is very subtle, very thin, very fine…it goes almost undetected. What this ‘bond’ does is it prevents us from ‘seeing’ what “WITNESS” really is and makes us constantly fall back to the Witness, to the Source, to the Center. Every moment we want to sink back to Witness, to the Center, to this Beingness, this is an illusion. It is habitual and almost hypnotic.
      But what exactly is this “witness” we are talking about? It is the manifestation itself! It is the appearance itself! There is no Source to fall back, the Appearance is the Source! Including the moment to moment of thoughts. The problem is we choose, but all is really it. There is nothing to choose.
      There is no mirror reflecting
      All along manifestation alone is.
      The one hand claps
      Everything IS!
      ....
      When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replace it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. There isn't a state that is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.
      The ‘who’, ‘where’ and ‘when’, the ‘I’, ‘here’ and ‘now’ must ultimately give way to the experience of total transparency. Do not fall back to a source, just the manifestation is sufficient. This will become so clear that total transparency is experienced. When total transparency is stabilized, transcendental body is experienced and dharmakaya is seen everywhere. This is the samadhi bliss of Bodhisattva. This is the fruition of practice.
      The Buddha on Non-Duality
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      The Buddha on Non-Duality
      The Buddha on Non-Duality

        • Reply
        • Remove Preview
        • 1m
        • Edited
     
    • Labels: , , , 0 comments | | edit post