RigdzinTrinley

whoops

Glad you find it helpful brain, One thing about this tantra lingo - it really only makes sense within practice of the living lineage Then these terms will be alive for the mantrika, but I'm asure you're aware of that. Probably same with terms like wu wei etc.

So I guess you can see why its easy to reify the tantric teachings? Looks like there is something to be attained called jnana or what you really are is jnana not vijnana etc Or a specific meditation that can reveal your jnana or a guru outside that'll point out your jnana to you etc But really understanding jnana correctly is almost impossible without grounding in sutra philosophy and practice Specially prasangika madhyamika (consequentialist centrism) All the lamas that I asked what should I focus on before studying tantra said "madhyamika"

I'll try, So usually its a twofold division Prim.Wisdom of the example and actual prim.wisdom The prim.wisdom of the example is introduced to a disciple in the 4th empowerment, called tsik don rin po che'i dbang = the empowerment of the precious word As you can see it uses a symbolic word or sentence to introduce you to your jnana or primordially awakened state - they of course say this is not the same like the fully blossomed jnana of an enlightened being and that is called the actual prim.wisdom That actual prim.wisdom is what an arya bodhisattva on the bhumis is "experiencing" (how ever else you want to call it) while meditating Its beyond mind, inexpressible, unthinkable gnosis (jnana) Its the actual experience of the union of emptiness/appearances Now during post meditation such a bodhisattva still perceives "dreamlike" happenings, like dream beings, dream doings etc without grasping and without being harmed or benefited by this magic show (so a arya bodhisattva is beyond samsara and suffering) Also because of realizing the whole thing to be a hologram such a being has a lot of siddhis Now the prim.wisdom of union must be buddhahood because only a Buddha can perceive the union of relative and ultimate truth without wavering, no more difference between meditation and post meditation, doesn't matter if there is activity from the disciples point of view like "oh Buddha went to take a bath, oh now he teaches the assembly, oh now he is in meditative equipoise - better not disturb him/her, the Buddha is sleeping etc..." The Buddha never wavers from the dharmadatu is always in "union" it is totally inconceivable what this could mean for an ordinary being - its not some sort of "present in the now" mindfulness - the Buddha has no concepts at all and still accomplishes the benefit of infinite sentient beings without effort - no effort at all. yet the Buddha is always on time (even beyond swiss german austrian conception of "on time")->teaching the right disciple the right teaching at exactly the perfect moment, without any effort and concept One of the most difficult points to understand - because its so far removed from our ordinary way of perception (vijnana) In short the state where all rnam shes or vijnana is burned and "transmuted" so that only jnana remains "Nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error" remember?

Also I think we go a little of topic, its not unrelated but maybe a new topic on buddhanature in a nutshell?

I didn't know many of the things you wrote about manas and citta very interesting... To prajna and jnana This is how I was thought the jnana prajna difference also (one being based on hearing/contemplation and the other as being beyond mind period) As for shentong or extrinsic emptiness I just give a short explanation of that term and use the most radical or extreme position They would say that buddhanature is the ultimate (that the second turning of the wheel of dharma the prajnaparamita is a provisional meaning teaching and only the third turning on the luminous nature is definitive or nitharta) They use an affirmative negation (ma yin Ddgag) to explain there position: Its primordially free of adventitious stains, or in other words primordially empty of dualistic phenomena like vases, houses, pillars, mind etc. yet, and that is the extreme school of shentong it is not empty of itself (hence shentong extrinsic emptiness - empty of other) So you negate the dualistic phenomena but posit clear light (ma yin dgag or affirming negation) Now some people, and lamas, scholars of course explain mahamudra and maha ati like that...which is for mipham,longchenpa etc a very simplistic explanation that falls into an extreme and conceptual view and can't be jnana And miphams actually says "how is your view different then the inconceivable self of the thirtikas?" But also he doesn't go to the other extreme of certain gelug scholars who said that the 3rd turning of the wheel of dharma on Buddha nature is not a definitive (nitharta) meaning teaching but just a provisional one and needs interpretation Only prasangika madhyamika and the second turning of the wheel (freedom of all characteristics) is a definitive meaning teaching And then we have mipham and longchnepa who said its all one enlightened intend Its neither rangtong nor shentong And I'm biased and brainwashed by longchenpa and mipham so I think the way they explain everything in harmony is remarkable how sutra tantra and dzogchen upadesha is not in contradiction Incredible But I try to explain how mipham explains the whole emptiness/buddhanature situation another time - tomorrow I travel to Pondicherry and need to get up early (to not melt in the bus) and its getting late here

Prajna or shes rab can be linked with Lodrö (the superior intellect -> before it becomes shesrab) Some teachers wouldn't equate shesrab with yeshes though (prajna with jnana) Some do for sure I think it has to do with prajna being the subject realizing emptiness in the sutra context Whereas jnana is more directly related with tantra Prajna comes from hearing/contemplation (based on mind) Whereas jnana is directly introduced in the 4th empowerment or direct introduction of ones lama - (is based on jnana beyond mind, hence seen as more profound) One of the differences between sutra and tantra Now what jnana and prajna are "seeing" is in both instances the dharmadatu beyond conceptual extremes That's why I repeat sakya pandita "If there is a view higher then the prajnaparamita, then this view would be conceptual" This is how and why rangzom, longchenpa, mipham etc proclaimed that the actual great madhyamika and the view of kadak is the same Its about the freedom of conceptual elaboration (dharmadatu) How that is realized and practiced is very very different in the bodhisattvayana and inner tantric vehicles Aim is the same

Well they are used in different contexts but I feel they are essentially same as being conventional truth - dualistic perceivers we could say Blo (I think citta, not sure) is intellect and can become superior intellect (a conceptual intellect pondering emptiness if you like) Whereas sems is translated as mind a more general term Now you have "distinguishing rnam shes and ye shes" "Distinguishing sems and rig pa" But nothing much with blo, poor blo doesn't get distinguished as far as I know - but can analyise reality conceptually "yid blo dbyod pa" and become a superior intellect That's all I know without googling Also there are exact definitions of those terms - I never studied debate, then I could give you those definition easy Alas! The lack of a geshe when one needs one!!!

And hence nirvana is just the exhaustion of error And nirvana is not gained by abandoning samsara ........................ There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic [conventional] existence and nirvana. There is not the slightest difference Between nirvana and cyclic existence. Whatever is the limit of nirvana, That is the limit of cyclic existence. There is not even the slightest difference between them, Or even the subtlest thing. (Nagarjuna 75; MMK XXV: 19-20)

Hence the closes translation of jnana might be gnosis And the rest of what you wrote YES!!! It can self destruct

Yes, but how dear sir could that be jnana? Other then jnana in a not purified or natural state?

Says what I said about vijnana if you ask me... Its what creates our dualistic perception (our world) I guess or no?

Dpe ye shes = primordial wisdom of the example Don ye shes = actual primordial wisdom This terms are very important in tantra and dzogchen and not vague at all, my reply to apech has to do with that as well Maybe read again and see if you can figure out what actual primordial wisdom of an arya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise could mean (Not that we could put it in words, but we can try) Also I refer you to the last part of the forth topic of mipham rinpoches "beacon of certainty" that shows how this jnana can be used as the path also by an ordinary being (someone who didn't attain the bodhisattva grounds) Here miphams says: The primordial wisdom of the example, the actual primordial wisdom and the primordial wisdom of union are like the drawing of the moon, the reflection of the moon in water and the actual moon respectively (Mipham in accordance with Jigme lingpas yonten dzod - "precious treasury of qualities" makes this threefold division which is a bit unusual)

I don't know if mind = primordial wisdom is a shentong view or not... Let me explain why I said its hard to maintain But for example citta I think is blo in tibetan, vijnana is definitely rnam shes and manas is sems All those are really more or less the same as they are used in Tibetan (more contextually differenr then that they mean completely different things essentially) Let's pick vijnana "rnam shes" - usually translated as consiousness (rnam = aspect, shes = knowing, cognizing, consciousness as in the skandha of consciousness, rnam shes phung po) - also as you read rnam shes ye she by the 3rd karmapa that makes all the more sense So rnam shes literally means something like the subjective cognition of an aspect, or a consciousness apprehending its aspect Like eye consciousness apprehending form Mind consciousness apprehending thought etc. That's vijnana right Now you say vijnana = jnana Or rnam shes = yeshe Consciousness = primordial wisdom Which is difficult to maintain but not totally incorrect because (now you'll see why I used these terms as example and why the Indian and Tibetan Masters were incredibly skilled in their use of terms) ... Because vijnana and jnana have both jnana in there right? Rnam shes and ye shes both have shes in there right? So the clear and cognizing aspect is the same The difference is in how pure it is - did it return to its natural primordial purity? (ye points to that in ye shes) means rnam shes/vijnana always apprehends its object ...this or that thing (form, smell...thought) that's why we might say its encumbered or impure But ye shes apprehends what? No conceptual aspects that's for sure Conventionally speaking it apprehends the dharmadatu (freedom of the four conceptual extremes, how could you conceive of seeing the dharmadatu?) Its a nondual gnosis, not subject seeing object like with vijnana or rnam shes That's why ye shes is light, unencumbered and pure I hope you know what I meant by "hard to maintain" mind = primordial wisdom Yet on the other hand its true also that they are one nature but different aspects Also where there is vijnana there is no jnana And where there is an instant of jnana there is no vijnana Where there is darkness there is no light and the other way around EDIT: the exhaustion of rnam shes is Nirvana or once all rnam shes became ye shes you are called a Buddha - yet did you get something new or isn't that merely the exhaustion of error

Dear apech sir, This became longer then intended but I couldn't stop myself sorry This is not a side note, I think it fits perfectly into the little discussion If you allow me to summarize (why do ask in such a hypocritical manner? I'll do it anyway MUAHAHAHAA!) I think what you talk about is a very good understanding of the matter (in my view... Which is not perfect) Once a meditator starts discovering the emptiness of appearance then that meditator starts to discover the union of the two truths or the union of samsara/nirvana You said that primordial wisdom is mind which is a bit difficult to maintain but if you like to then please explain what you mean by that and then maybe its correct after all ............................ Back to my ramblings based on what you wrote apech: Say there is phenomena X if you use the different madhyamika reasonings into the true nature of that phenomena you discover the lack of substance - no phenomena is actually really there Which is most probably still conceptual because one uses a "non affirmative negation" (this equals if done correctly to a rangtong view, another topic maybe in the future) Anyway this is a taste of this union of the two truth Form is emptiness (negating true existence - that's where you start, you negate the appearances substantial existence) Emptiness is form (negating its total non existence -> meditating on the union of emptiness/dependent origination) Form is not other then emptiness (negating both existence and non existence -> deepening that insight) Emptiness is not other the form (negating neither -> perfecting the insight) When the mind is utterly purified of the four conceptual extremes (we can say when dualistic mind "exhausts" - which is the exhaustion of error) then one will attain the first bodhisattva ground. Here the meaning of "nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error" and "nirvana is not gained by abandoning samsara" will be as clear as I see the form of my smartphone right now. OK coming back to what an ordinary RT like myself can do - using the conceptual ultimate (or the meaning generality of emptiness) as my object of meditation - what happens is a slow purification of "wrong views" these are all views including a view of emptiness that is a conceptual target for the dualistic mind (form is emptiness - refuting true existence, refuting the first option of the catuskoti only) This slow purification of mind through meditating on emptiness will stop the reification of thought, and one feels more and more free and "tuned in" to what's actually happening without so much projections, hope and fear etc... Still its not even close to actual meditation which is inexpressible, unthinkable and beyond mind (if I would know what actual meditation in the sense of jigme lingpa, longchenpa, milarepa etc. means I would share that... I just don't have a clue unfortunately) So in fact when starting to meditate on emptiness correctly samsara and nirvana start to reveal their primordial unity (if the reasoning is done correctly - and the view is refined enough) This will give rise to wonder and gratitude and for me a heightened sense of devotion towards the lineage masters of India and Tibet (they don't need to teach or write these books... Its pure kindness that they do) Also as Samsara/nirvana was never seperate its a discovering or uncovering rather then a fabricating Its an exhaustion of misperception or error without positing a discrete attainable entity called Nirvana in place of Samsara (like the carrot in front of the donkey) Freedom in illusion Or "Resting in illusion" like longchenpa termed one of his most enlightening works Chillin out in Maya

Yes that exactamundo sir! Thanks for making sense of my nonsense

Wowsers,you mentioned implicit and explicit nothingness Can you flash out what you mean by those in relation to nirvana being a thing or a nothing? Pretty please Not sure you ever heard of extrinsic and intrinsic emptiness but those are important points in the Indo Tibetan tradition as well - but a bit different then what you wrote there (but please elaborate so I can be sure) And actually "Nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error" has a lot to do with the extrinsic vs intrinsic emptiness debate (rangtong vs shentong) Because you could explain this sentence using either approach - that ties in nicely with Nirvana a thing? A nothing? An absence? A presence? Michael I say your intuition is pretty amazing;)

Dear ilumairenSure, take and leave what ever you like from my scribbles - I don't think I have anything to tell you beyond what you know already. Just one thing, negating "I,me,mine" can be done correctly and incorrectly One leading to denial, nihilism etc. One leading to deeper and deeper liberating insights that bring joy, feelings of interconnectedness -> freedom of expression Just to defend my dear dear via negativa here!!!!! Waaaaaaahhhh don't take it away, don't challenge it waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!! (OK I'm done, you can take it now...) That's why the teacher becomes more important the deeper one digs. in the three inner tantric yanas of mahayoga,anuyoga,atiyoga the guru becomes of primary importance because the teachings of non duality and the conclusions of that become more radical in these yogas with their respective teachings on view meditation action Its sort of understood that you did the negating business properly and to a degree that is workable in tantra, so the disciple doesn't end up - how shall we say it? Weeeeiiirrrddd, yes that'll do The greater the teaching the bigger the Maras

We propably all do guess work, excuse me if I offended any realized beings that dwell on TDB, so that's what I'm doing as well - specially with regard to Nirvana But ilumairen, I would call that a healthy and functional human being Something worth aspiring to, but I'm not sure if it is the same as non-abiding Nirvana or Buddhahood, full enlightenment? Would you say that a being on the bodhisattva grounds perceives or clings to body/mind while in meditative equipoise? Also I guess the zen people use this line about killing body/mind or dropping body/mind to show that realisation is not to be found in either the body nor the mind (the body and the mind get liberated) But that actual liberating insight goes beyond apprehension of body/mind Doesn't nullify them sure, they'll still appear like dream characters but without any ordinary grasping that is still there in ordinary dreams More like an old man watching children's play

Well then if you like share with us how 1)nirvana if it would be a thing can't be nirvana 2)And if it would be a nothing can't be nirvana either Which I guess is what you're saying .............. Also the whole point is to spend time thinking and discussing the dharma (which is a wholesome activity in ones post meditation) We can of course just say "its beyond words" or "sit on the cushion and kill body/mind" and go practice - which is probably better But then I like talking about dharma with people, so its important to know that I don't want a specific answer And I if I can I'll keep bugging you with questions

Hi there Steve, My question would be "is there a nirvana other then the exhaustion of error" Thats how I would try to understand the "merely"

About the relationship between dzogchen (specially kadak treckchod) and the prajnaparamita I would like to share this quote by sakya pandita "If there was a view higher then the prajnaparamita, that view would be conceptual" (Khenchen Namdrol Rinpoche uses that one a lot in his teachings on ju miphams beacon of certainty - that's where I got it from) There are many ways how dzogchen is different (superior we could say) from the prajnaparamita but when it comes down to the freedom of all conceptual elaboration then well if it would be a "higher" view then the prajnaparamita it would become something other then the freedom of all conceptual elaboration (great emptiness) -> something conceptual (needles to say that that's not the enlightened intend of garab dorje etc.) Sakya pandita is pretty amazing isn't he The main difference lies in certain other aspects of the view and also how it explains the subject realizing the dharmadatu - conventionally speaking; its a non dual gnosis(jnana) and not like somebody sees something (maybe another time we could discuss ju miphams beacon of certainty in some greater detail, for now its impossible but maybe later this year, we'll see - this text is constantly blowing my mind ) The dharmadatu is the dharmadatu - no difference between madhyamika and dzogchen (freedom of all conceptual elaboration) But the wisdom realizing this is introduced differently and explained differently - more direct I guess Also dzogchen has superior methods and teaches a more radical form of nondualism you could say - and because of that is also harder to digest properly and much easier to misunderstand My teachers like to make the point again and again that you need good grounding in madhyamika to digest tantra and dzogchen otherwise it might backfire (which I learned the hard way)

Also I hope this doesn't come off as too harsh, I forgot that you had many experiences of near fatal sickness So my death talk might be a bit much On the other hand I feel a lot of honesty and dedication so why not be a bit more direct Again the instruction to meditate on death was for me from the guru principle for a certain point of the path and I don't feel like giving advice at all, just telling a bit of my story adi hope it helps you keep walking (I still meditate on death daily, became a habit to remembered I'm dead already - mind you I'm just pretending and don't have that kind of realisation. I'm very much bound by hope and fear, and very much bound by my thoughts and feeling... So obviously I didn't die before I died)

Dear yueva Also I feel Mr.Gray is misrepresenting Buddhist view escpescially when we talk about madhyamika and tantra And that's alright, if I wouldn't spend my life studying and practicing daoism I probably would misrepresent it as well Appearance and emptiness are primordially a union, that's why dzogchen would even say in actual meditation neither is present, which might make some Buddhist schools feel a bit uneasy and say dzogchen is nihilism - but in actuality we need to understand that the point of view of dzogchen is jnana or primordial wisdom not mind (mind can't conceive of perceiving emptiness and appearance as a union because it just can't do it fully. Mind always gets stuck in one of the four extremes it can't go beyond them), so dzogchen explains reality how an elightened being perceives it Also dzogchen doesn't talk from the point of view of the primordial wisdom of the example (what is introduced by the fourth empowerment or by the guru during dzogchen upadesha - unless the disciple reaaaaallly gets it and attains one of the bodhisattva grounds) But the actual primordial wisdom of an arya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise - (how that looks is explained in the second half of the heart sutra) And the prajnaparamita also teaches that in reality there are not two truths not even one so why crow about four etc.. Why? The two truths are a skillful means to get us out of our box - but they are concepts still - useful ones if understood correctly (if not they are another nice concept to keep us bound - like exchanging iron chains for golden chains), edit: in the best case scenario they are self destructing Like apech said - the fire is exhausted when the wood is consumed completely But still so far no one answered this question clearly: "what is there once you're out of your box? Is there something or not?" "Nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error"

I like what you wrote over all, you made some very good points I think The way you explained "merely" in this context (its not wrong in many other contexts btw) is I think a bit missing the point And its the main point of this line, and you touched this main point in other parts of what you shared So if you like think about the merely again and what it means in the context of "nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error" There is a pith instruction there like you said