RigdzinTrinley

NO NO NO!!!! Buddhist are way more CHILLLLL!!!!! - damnit I just defeated my own purpose ALAS! its all suffering

' May I ask you to share your thoughts on the deer now

why you always do that?

and that, as you mentioned in your question, also points to the ekayana, which for longchnepa and mipham rinpoche is of course best expressed in the dzogchen teachings- the dzogchen teachings are seen as the ground from which all other yanas emerged and to which they finally return now I am sure if one studies the teachings of the different karmapas, gorampa or tsongkhapa then they will have very wonderful teachings and ways to explain the ekayana as well - I unfortunately did not study them

I forgive your ingnorance if you forgive mine too 1) ekayana or the final singular vehicle is in short a teaching based on nagarjuna and chandrakirti etc. in short (but I think this is enough to understand): temporarely there are three different yanas: shravakayana pratyekabuddhayana bodhisattvayana they all have their respective goals - such as Arhatship and Buddhahood yet from the point of view of Suchness there is only one place to go right? so when thinking about the final state of realisation where the one taste of dharmadatu & primordial wisdom is fully manifest - then there is only one yana with one goal arhats in this view reach liberation - hang out in the expanse of ceassation and then after 10.000aeons the buddha wakes them up and tells them to work for sentient beings, give birth to Bodhicitta in its two aspects and finally realize buddhahood 2) in short meitreya-asanga are more connected with the 3rd turning of the wheel and teachings on buddhanature (lunminous nature) whereas nagarjuna is more connected with the 2nd turning of the wheel that is freedom from charakteristics (empty essence) now if you say either one or the other is a definitive or provisional meaning teaching then what follows is that either Nagarjuna was confused or lord maitreya was confused. But this is unlikely because both of them are regarded as the most important teachers of Sutra after Buddha Shakyamuni had passed into paranirvana both the teachings on buddhanature (the luminous nature) and emptiness beyond conceptual elaboration (empty essence) are in Longchenpas and Mipham Rinpoches view definitive meaning teachings. (how I'll try to explain later) also both nagarjuna and meitreya established the ekayana in similar ways - so in short Mipham Rinpoche just says that nagarjuna and maitreyas teachings are not contradictory if you have the correct view that can establish both as one enlightened intend

Sahaja in the Buddhist sense comes from the mahasiddha Saraha - some call his teachings of mahamudra sahajayana There are of course several other lineages that use and practice this, you find it in the nath tradition and other sivaite lineages, also kabir das a Sufi and bhakta saint talks-sings about it Mostly when it cones to sahaja - people sing dohas vajrasongs etc. Talking doesn't capture the rapture I guess Now please enlighten me about the similarities of wu wei and sahaja samadhi??? First also some general description of wu wei if possible (I'm ignorant 100%)

YES and damn you beat me on that one roger thats what causes the most painful conversations in intimate relationships as well right? you always... (fill in painful blanks) you never.... (fill in the painful blanks) that is a sure way to a messy entangled state of affairs. yes all thes absolute statements - without putting at least AT LEAST!!! a nice little "I think" or "I guess" in front - they don't sit so well with modern folk - unless the one uttering them is an approved authority and the people listening stopped thinking for themselves Such a nice threat a most wittgensteinian as well Oh and also I feel this and that.... that is something no one could ever never ever disprove, so if you say I feel like shit when you do this and or say this - well then the other person is completely frozen and you yourself as well in this "thought/feeling" no one can know/validate or invalidate anothers feelings so to shoot around with I feel this and that is also part of the "absolutes" category now put an always in front of the feel and well no one can take that conceptual construct away from you (because thought and feeling are more or less one in buddhist terms - and also we usually do not use many differetn words for our feelings so it becomes an absolute and very blurry indefinite mess) for example "I always feel bad on mondays" oi weh - good luck with this one

Okay lets open the word-can as an Intro: First I would like to remind on the prajnaparamita and how it estasblishes all phenomena contained within samsara and nirvana as emptiness - that means that not only impure samsaric phenomena (the karmic vision of the 6-classes of beings) are empty of their own essence but also that the pure nirvanic phenomena, such as the kayas and wisdoms are essentially empty so from the form skandha up to and including the omniscient mind of the buddha everything is empty and illusionlike - nothing to grasp, no ground to stand on - no views to formalize that could ever grasp the ungraspable now the great Sakya Pandita made an incredible observation: "There is no higher view then the prajnaparamita, for if there was - then that view would be conceptual" thats one sentence to spend some time with, and it will help to show how longchenpa and mipham rinpoche establish the ekayana and how they show that nagarjuna and maitreya-asanga are not contradicting each other even slightly. In Mipham Rinpoches words: they are like Honey and Molasses mixed together Okay if we have that in mind then perhabs Miphams Rinpoches refutation of "certain" shentong interpretations will become clear - now I want to say that Mipham Rinpoche is not denegrating the teachings of the third turning of the wheel of dharma. I think only certain Nyigma and Kagyu Masters manage to explain the 2nd and 3rd turnings to be non-contradictory and he was one of them. Thats why many great contemporary Kagyu Masters took Mipham Rinpoches writing into their shedra (Buddhist-University type situation) curriculum. but again I will keep with the pattern of Mipham Rinpoches text, and he does once in a while give a taste of his view - but first he works with interpretations of Buddha Nature that he finds unreasonalbe and lacking in establishing a step towards freedom from conceptual elaboration We could actually also say that the 3rd turning of Buddha-Nature is nothing but the union of emptiness and appearance - but it focuses on the appearing aspect more; and within this context it illuminates the enlightened qualities of how things appear in actuality or from the p.o.v of an awakened being And that the 2nd turning that teaches emptiness, is nothing but the union of emptiness and appearance - but that it focuses on how to ascertain emptiness with a flawless ultimate reasoning now some masters say only the second turning is a definitve meaning teaching, some say that only the 3rd turning is a definitive meaning teaching - and some f.e. Longchenpa and Mipham Rinpoche establish that both are definitve meaning teachings and how they can be understood from "within" the vast view of Dzogchen now in order to do so certain interpretations of rangtong and shentong will be refuted, because they fail to explain the 2nd and 3rd turning in harmony - something that Mipham Rinpoches just regards as a very poor understanding of the vast sky of Dharma -> it means for him that either nagarjuna or maitreya got it wrong, and that can't possibly be the case so thats the intro - and then I will try to explain how "certain" shentong views can fall into an extreme and because of that then many different dharma-teachings appear to be contradictory even though they are not

what would be interesting for me to hear is how you (plural) see the relationship of classical magic and modern psychology or also of modern magic and psychology The following points come to mind: 1) how they are similar, how they differ? 2) how they enrich each other, how they limit each other?

I do not know much about magic, a little about jung - what I can say from my studies of estern tantra and modern western psychology is that - magic or tantra for that matter is an ancient form of psychology, and so modern psychology can't really help it but be influenced by it, things don't emerge without causes or just manifest randomly. Jung just made the logical connections on some level no?

may the blessings of dzogchen not enter this discussion

Lets Debate!!! no just kidding, 84.000 doors to the dharma brotherr 84.000 doors

Yes Sir.M and Sir.N - I like Regardies work very much so far. I think monstly because he was a therapist yes! And I second Nungalis observation that you can go way off with magical discplines, also those of tibetan tantric buddhism (because the more I read of the western hermetic tradition the more I have to say that well tantriscm is "magical" in some aspects) anyway - I stop to hi jack the thread now, promise and go back to the spectator seats

I also saw that you feel there is a certain attitude within the tantric teachings, but you have to understand that yes one can find such an attitude in certain circles and books - but you can't take it out of context of the treatises that proclaim dzogchen as the "apex" approach the highest most profound path to enlightenement... it has a specific context and no lineage holder of these teachings will run around and talk like this out of context, if they do then just regard them as the frog in the well that never saw the vast ocean.... most probably they have no real clue about the skylike nature of mind, that is easy to see as they are very much busy with trying to cut the vast sky of true dharma into little pieces... I am pretty sure there is a lot of daoist scriptures that proclaim the dao and the methods of this path as a superior path (see the painitng of lao tsu, buddha and the other dude..... - where the only happy guy seems to be lao tsu ) you know I posted before about the "rime" outlook - not to fall into extremes, judging traditions based on this or that aspect this will just wear one out I feel - thats not the point of either buddha dharma or daoism no?

I would just like to add that there is no nihilistic element in buddhism, if you get the teachings on emptiness correctly it is one of the most profound teachings on the suchness of reality - and it does not fall into any conceptual extremes such as non-existence or "eternal" existence etc. - it is utterly beyond conetpual elaboration On first look one might think - buddha thought nihilism or some eternal substance, but there is nothing more confused then a thought like that... buddha was surely beyond tradition and conventional terminology, so why would he teach "this" or "that" as his final enlightened intend?

agreed! "certainty" as miphamn rinpoche understands it is Vipassana, it is reached after a long period of listening to teachings on madhyamika and dzogchen etc. plus a long time of reflecting on these teachings and using madhyamika analysis into the unreality of reality so yes this line up there "the certainty that this experience right now is empty" could be just a thought - like sitting down and saying repeatatly "this does not exist" or "all that appears is great equality" or to remind oneself again and again "leave it uncontrived, don't change experience" etc. for sure its easy to see that this is only mind having a nice conversation with itself anyway the certainty that mipham rinpoche talks about can be understood to mean penetrating insight, or vipassana. And again it would come from years of work with these teachings on many levels.... it probably starts with a concpetual target that is in accord with reality, the famous nominal ultimate truth, or the even better translation "conceptual ultimate truth" (dougles duckworth uses this term, and me likes!!!) and that is an important step towards jnana (see the long discussion I had with apech in a previous thread) first one forms a pretty sophisticated meaning generality of emptiness (not just "its empty, the Dalai Lama said so") - that then is used as a still conceptual - target for meditation, that will slowly wear away grasping at appearances as real and substantial... remember the two stick analogy? yet to think the conceptual ultimate = the actual or non-conceptual ultimate would be well a big mistake or to think that above mentioned meditation on a meaning generality of emptiness is actual jnana etc. I would just say what links both the conceptual and non-conceptual ultimate or what links vijnana (knowing) with jnana(gnosis) is this precious certainty that mipham rinpoche praises and illuminates in his great masterpiece but all this strange meditation stuff is going to be explained more in the next topics of the text - like you already mentioned. Specially topic 3-4 that deal with meditation. As it is an organic whole to jump in front and then back again is allright I guess I am still afraid to open the shentong can of worms - but as soon as I feel some confidence I will promise

I am not more then a dabbler when it comes to western occultism. I was just wondering what people think of Isreal Regardie and Dr. Hyatt? I really like those two - they strike a specific cord in my being, and I feel their overall approach to the western hermetic arts is very much of a tantric nature. So it is very easy for me to follow them specially when it comes to the way they explain the general approach or path of magic. Now the books I read do not go too deep into the underlying philosophy, they are much more practice oriented I would say - Isreal Regardies "complete magical system of the G.D." deals a little with philosophy as well, but I am sure reading the classics will be a much deeper and intellectually satisfying experience (one problem is that I have a lot of intellectually satisfying deep study to do in another lineage and tradition - hence not sooooo much time - I saomehow focus on getting a general grip on things for now, and for that are Mr.Regardie and Mr.Hyatt a good start? Crowley talks sometimes a bit to big and I can't follow the man - me being a mere beginner in these studies) I would just like to hear some reflections of people like Donald and Nungali etc. who worked with western esoteric teachings on a deep level - what they think about these two, are they a good start? - and I guess it has to do with eliphas levi on a certain level as well, if you trace a lineage (eastern people love lineages ) then I think one could trace it somehow through F. Barrett -> Eliphas Levi, the G.D. founding members, Crowley - Regardie and Hyatt no? If this is too much off topic for Aetherous and of no real concern for this discussion and where ZYD is taking it, then please forget about it, I can always PM these two gentleman

I just cherry pick here - on one hand I know what you mean, and it is true while we ascertain the view, we approach emptiness through appearance we could say, otherwise we couldn't know it, yet I just post this answer because I want to quote longchenpa.... there is no space/emptiness/openess other then appearance itself - it is that non dual. Our inner/outer experience is what is space (emptiness) I guess on the cushion one can approach it through appearance, but then at one point having gained confidence in the view - one can just rest in the certainty that what is happening right now is empty like longchenpa said: if there would be an emptiness apart from appearance, this emptiness would not be possible in either of the two truths, it could not be an object of realisation, nor would it work as an antidote for the afflictions f.e.: if one encounters an enemey, it doesn't help to recollect the emptiness of space, but we need to know the very appearance of the enemy itself to be emptiness in order that the afflictions can be pacified - or selfliberated in its own place. Now I talk big, I don't actually know what that means - just ask my partner about my realisation of emptiness and the resulting freedom from grasping at form, sound, or mental stories I tell myself... then I like to talk, so what to do?

I think you got it right yes because one cannot conceive of emptiness, without having a basis of emptiness = an appearance as an object of investigation, what follows is that both are dependently designated - mere labels and not the absolute truth beyond mind appearance is dependendly designated based on parts, dimension, form etc emptiness is dependently designated based on the appearance both are objects of mind, or not the true abiding nature of reality, that is only "seen" by "non-seeing" primordial wisdom or jnana

I know not excuses for laziness - but but but, yesterday I was pretty burned out after all them study!!! and no coffee could help that - I was not the only one suffering from dharma overload yesterday, also other students took a break from anything and everybody after the teachings yesterday morning. so anyway today I feel a bit more on top of things and I thought maybe I do a short summary of the main point of this discussion so far and then we can go straight for the shentong biscuits next (tomorrow mayhabs?) also I think we should introduce the term Basis of emptiness 1)basis of emptiness - wylie: stong gzhi 1) basis of emptiness, this term is used when establishing the emptiness/Dharmata-true nature of a given Phenomena, or Dharma-possesor (dharmin) also it becomes apparent very fast when we talk about a basis of emptiness that without an appearance there is no emptiness, and without emptiness an appearance could not arise either (but that is another can of worms, that I won't open now) so for example the good old "Pillar" without the appearance of the pillar itself as the basis of emptiness we could not conceive of emptiness at all remember Pillar stands for all phenomena contained within samsara and nirvana from the from aggregate up to and including the omniscient mind of the Buddha anyway after using an ultimate reasoning into the dharamta-true nature of the pillar nothing is found whatsoever - so appearance on one hand and emptiness on the other are both merely designated - or dependently designated phenomena. From Pov of primordial wisdom or Jnana (Gnosis) of a sublime Bodhisattva on the Bhumis, neither is apprehended, both being merely objects of an other-excluding mind, or a mind that apprehends meaning generalities of things (mental images or ideas) if you want to know more about other-excluding mind and why it is always incorrect (deceptive, relative truth), then its time for some pramana. Most don't have time for that (me included) so just a short intro: an other-excluding mind points to an ordinary mind, that can only conceive of one thing at a given time - now how does our mind conceive of only one thing at a given time? by excluding all other meaning generalities of things. that is why they use this term of other-excluding mind if I say think of a vase - then well mind being limited it can only ever think of the meaning generality "vase" and not simultaniously of houses, trees and flowers one thought at a time I talk about thought not visualisation, you can form a mental picture of many different things at once sure, like a painting - but other excluding mind is labeling mind, thinking mind - conceptual activity (so visualisation is of course somehow part of this mind, but can be used to expand and at one point transcend this mind completely - see ceratin tantric methods of visualisation that boggle your mind so much that you just let go. One famous example is visualizing guru rinpoche as big as the universe residing in his copper coloured mountain - that is as big as a sesame seed, both fitting perfectly without guru rinpoche getting smaller nor copper coloured mountain getting bigger) so appearance and emptiness is established in the lower madhyamika teachings gradually, by recognizing the basis of emptiness f.e.: the dharmin "pillar" one will then investigate into its Dharmata-true nature and find there is nothing substantial - nothing non-empty whatsoever now this emptiness is dependently designated based on this basis of emptiness (here to remind you "pillar") this we can see is still the realm of mind - on one hand the basis of emptiness (appearance) and on the other the emptiness of that appearance that is ascertained after a flawless reasoning into its true nature this and the actual state of jnana of a sublime being is like the difference of earth and sky. Yet many great masters explain that ascertaining this meaning generality of emptiness without fault is a very important first step to enter actual jnana or primordial wisdom beyond conceptual elaboration because this mental image, or mental understanding of emptiness will be like a second piece of wood that one can rub against a first piece piece of wood; this first piece of wood being our ordinary grasping at phenomena as solid and real if one rubs these two stick against each other long enough - fire will emerge and consume these two stick without anything remaining, this fire examplifies non connceptual jnana so with this in mind, when we approach jnana in a step by step fashion (not in the sense of the precious word empowerment, or dzogchen/mahamudra teachings), then it should obvious that in order to realize this jnana that sees the union of emptiness and appearance beyond any mental fabrication, the reasoning we use needs to lead to a certainty in the emptiness of the basis of emptiness itself. In short the pillar itself needs to be seen as empty of true nature, or as utterly insubstantial it is not enough to realise that the pillar is empty of something other then the pillar, for example a specific object of negation such as "true existence", I think why and how that doesn't work I explained already above and here one more time from another angle... I hope that it is clear enough for now then we can move on into shentong

I feel like writing a little exclaimer First of all I try to stick with Mipham Rinpoches view as well as I can, not so much because I feel his interpretation of madhyamika is the highest best and unquestionable - basically I don't have the faculties to question it. Same with the positions that he is refuting f.e.: "the pillar is not empty of being a pilalr but it is empty of true establishment" etc. lets say I meet a master who knows this reasoning insight and out and worked 40+ years on uderstanding it and meditating on it - after one hour probably I will be his student lets say I meet dolpopa, chat with him about the nature of reality - I can see how I would leave this conversation becoming a shentongpa or lets say I meet longchenpa - I have little doubt that something similar will happen to me. what that means for me is - I have karma with the nyinghtik lineage that comes from garab dorje through vimalamitra and guru rinpoche, longchenpa, jigme lingpa and mipham rinpoche. That does not proof this is the only valid lineage of transmission and explanation of the inexpressible whereas other views are inferior etc. I have no power to judge that myself because of lack of scholarship and practice experience. thats one thing I felt adding here and the second thing is concerning Mipham Rinpoches approach in general - these refutations and later the establishing of his own view, all of that is done with a specific target, on the highest level that is establishing beings in the utterly pure and unmistaken vision of reality as it is, on a more well for me graspable level he is developing his view of the "ekayana" or single vehicle. how is it that you can explain sutra madhyamika, tantric pure vision and dzogchen as one harmonious enlightened intend? Which kind of views would hinder such an explanation or limit it? Now if he succeeds in establishing the ekayana or single vehicle, and for me he does second only to longchenpa, then what can happen in the students mind? a lot of misunderstandings, doubts, intellectual hang-ups etc just disappear into clarity and certainty into the teachings. In this sense also I feel that spending some time with his precious beacon of certainty is not a waste of time and can help clarify many points of the dharma that seem contradictory on first glance. knowing the dharma on a mere interllectual level with certainty can be of great benefit for meditation don't know if our little discussion can do that (I doubt it actually), but maybe at least inspire people to go get more in depths teachings on the beacon of certainty or do some self study on this text because Dzogchen is not just yogic methods and visions of light rays shooting around, it is immensly deep and rich tradition with many multi-coloured facettes this treatise being one of them

double post

not trying to be a stick in the grass, but well I guess I am I agree with what you say if you have that kind of insight into non duality for sure its true...if not then it is a nice idea but what actually happens is something like that: trying not to follow delusional thought patterns, getting carried away, trying to not follow delusional thought pattern, getting carried away.... (meditation) simply follow delusional thought patterns (post meditation - or day to day life)

it wasn't posted correctly the whole thing should read: ......there is no inner nature, and that you can call your inner nature (backspace) I am confused and go eat breakfast now Edit: didn't do the backspace again

from the buddhist point of view there is no inner nature - if you like you can call this then your inner nature I am confused and go eat breakfast now