RigdzinTrinley

you know the two truth solution is much older then chandrakirtis writing, also the older philosophical schools work with the two truths - and yes it is a tool tog et a point across, not the truth in truth there is not even one truth - so why fret about two or even four? says the prajnaparamita but in order to introduce the true nature and the proper relationship of Dharmin (dhrama-possesor/phenomena) and Dharmata (true nature) it is very helpful distinction good tool to have around when dealing with reality I feel but sure when realisation dawns then these mental projection like emptiness and appearance cease

well of course they do, look at nagarjuna - imagine his root verses of the middle way and what kind of uproar they might have caused in certain "buddhist bootcamps" during his time I was very impressed when I first read these verses - when he deconstructs the buddha, nirvana all of it... (and I really want to study this text in the future in some more depths - because so far I never found the time to work with it deeply, just some surface reading) for your reference there is a lot of the literature on pramana/valid cognition devoted to how to proof that the buddha is an omniscient being and undeceiving, and how his teachings are therefor pure - literature I never read and remember from the point of view of the actual prajnaparamita it is already way to much to say that the bodhisattvas realize primordial wisdom - that are just conventionalities in order to establish beings in a state free of conventionalities and terminlogy no form no sound no smell etc ends in no attainment, no non attainment, no primal wisdom in some way to say anything about anything is already too much and will probably lead to some kind of misunderstanding - if the sender and receiver are not already pretty awake that is. What to do? remain silent? maybe best... or keep it simple like the zen people? so yes the great masters spend a lot of time on these points. How to best introduce something beyond mind, and how to guide beings into an unmistaken realisation of that "knowledge". I somehow just wrote it there - I didn't think about it too much, I just wrote what ever came to mind, and I can see how it is dangerous to just say the buddha realised this or that because well thats how it is, and use it to proof something - or the teachings say it is like that, thats the whole point of the beacon of certainty - to find certainty beyond mere faith, so my mistake thing is based on my learning and practice I somehow can see these 3 faults to apply to such a position and have some taste of what primordial wisdom beyond concept might mean and how it relates with these faults - but for someone new to dharma - this whole discussion would be probably a little bewildering and in that context to just say they realize this, so it is like this would be well not the best thing to do.... remember that the beacon of certainty is thought after a lot of sutra studies, as a bridge between sutra-tantra-dzogchen, so usually people wouldn't start their studies there Mipham Rinpoche references many texts, qoutes and you know this text needs some ground work to really "kick in" - when I translated this for one of my teachers, the students who already received teachings on "philosophical tenet systems" and Mipham Rinpoches Madhyamika interpretation - well those students got a lot out of it, whereas newer people where just mostly bewildered. also some masters do not teach this text before the student has completed ngondro - because it can be explained from a pure dzogchen angle as well. So not a text to beginn the journey but I hope that the three faults are still comprehensible in the context of this discussion, and that it made some sense somehow?

"the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true establishment" when mipham rinpoche is investigating this sentence to see if you can formulate a view that can express the union of the two truth, he would find it to be a bit problematic because if the pillar is not empty of being a pillar (on the conventional level), but that it is empty of true establishment (on the ultimate level) then that would mean after you use a prasangika madhyamika reasoning into the true nature of the pillar (the basis of emptiness, later more on what that means) - then what you find is an appearance of the pillar on one hand and a non affirmative negation of its true establishment on the other hand so the relative appearance of the pillar is non empty - while it is empty of true establishment on the ultimate level does that make any sense? Mipham Rinpoche would ask - so what is it actually you negate with ultimate analysis (means prasangika analysis - because thats what they say they do - reasoning into the pillars true abiding nature) whats your object of negation? is it the appearance of the pillar itself? or is it something other then the pillar? back to their statement: the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true establishment it really does look like they don't negate the actual pillar, but the pillars "true establishment" that is their target or object of negation, so somehow in order to not fall into the trap of a nihilistic view (like apech said about the danger that with a rangtong view you can fall into the trap of nihilism more easier then with a shentong view - well with a shentong view it is easier to fall into the trap of eternalism dear sir, just to be unbiased here ) but that has a lot of unwanted consequences as we will see slowly. so for arguments sake lets continue with mipahm rinpoches investigation of their line of reasoning (again I remind you they don't just use mere words, but their target is to establish emptiness that is free from all conceptual elaboration in a flawless way) he would ask them at one point in your statement that the pillar is not empty of being a pillar but that is is empty of true establishment or true existence if you like, is the pillars true existence and the pillar essentially 1)one thing or are they 2)two seperate enteties? possibility no.1) if they are one then well when you refute the true existence of the pillar the pillar itself is refuted - means the first part of their reasoning makes not much sense "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar" - no it is empty of being a pillar then. the line should go "The pillar is empty of being pillar" and thats that - because the pillar and its true establishment are one. now this is not what they say in their reasoning, for fear of denegrating the relative appearnce of phenomena - also because chandrakirti said that his view is in accord with ordinary beings (a side note - he said that based on leaving deceptive phenomena unanalysed, a very important point actually) so they say if you tell an ordinary being "there is no pillar" they won't accept that and also you would end up claiming that relative phenomena are utterly baseless and non-existent like the horns of a rabbit. so it couldn't be that they accept that you should refute the appearnce of the pillar itself, just its true existence - because this is what we cling to, that is what binds us in samsara. that we think of things and events as solid and that they happen to us so no need to refute the relative appearnce of the pillar! sounds very reasonable to me, but anyway mipham rinpoche says - well are we talking from the point of view of the relative truth or the ultimate truth here? Do we use a prasangika reasoning into the true abiding nature of the pillar or not? well yes we do, thats what this is all about to establish the emptiness of phenomena! that they are empty yet they appear, while they appear they are empty so lets look at the second possibility 2) that the appearance of the pillar and its true establishment are different things well mipham rinpoche would say in this context, if you use an ultiamte reasoning into the true nature of the pillar and somehow there is a left over appearance of a pillar then you have many faults in your view. because if you say the pillar is not empty of being a pillar - well then what is it empty of exactly? if the pillar is not empty itself? the specific object of negation "true establishment" that means you have a mere emptiness of true establishment on one hand and a non empty appearance on the other hand. why non empty? because if you use an ultimate reasoning into reality and you find something... even if it is just an atom - that atom becomes truly established, real, substantial here it seems they found that the deceptive appearance of pillar itself is left over after analysis - because "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar..." so either your meditation was incorrect, or you used a wrong reasoning if this statement "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, but empty of true establishment" really means that there is something left over after the analysis then three faults will irrevocably arise 1) that relative phenomena become immune to ultimate analysis based on that -> 2) they become actually produced on the ultimate level 3) and the meditative equipoise of arya bodhisattvas would destroy phenomena these three faults glorious Chandrakirti used to show inconsistencies in the svatantrika madhyamika view. I'll explain them in short 1) deceptive phenomena become immune to ultimate analysis again if a practicioner uses an ultimate reasoning into the true nature of a phenomena or analyses into the Dharmata of a specific Dharmin - and finds something then whatever it is becomes truly established that means also deceptive phenomena become - non deceiving phenoman, because they are immune to analysis - or non-empty phenomena 2) deceptive phenomena become produced on the ultimate level based on this first fault, that deceptive phenomena (vases, hauses, trees, people) are immune to analysis this second fault arises so if they are immune to ultimate analysis into their true nature that would mean that they are produced on the ultimate level - they had some kind of production: either from themselves, or another entity or from both or without any cause so they would have not only a true existence relatively but even ultimately they would be produced -> based on that many many faults would arise - like eternally unchanging chairs, people being born without a cause just manifesting from emtpy space, people being immortal, a visual consciousness of a thing being re-produced infinitely - an endless consciousness loop etc. but well that would happen if you end up with non empty things.... no problem as things are primordially, from the beginningless beginning empty or primordialy pure then these strange things don't happen (as far as I know, please proof me wrong) and the third fault comes from both of the first faults: 3) the meditative equipoise of an arya bodhisattva would destroy phenomena well if things are non empty relatively speaking and also ulitimately speaking they are produced then what that means is that the meditative equpoise of a bodhisattva on the bhumis will destroy phenomena - because these bodhisattvas having attained the actual primordial wisdom beyond dualistic mind that is free of all elaboration - then from this state where are there any phenomena? there is no distinction of relative and ultimate truth, no elaboration of this is empiness, this is appearance - this is real this is unreal. this is luminosity this is ordinary concept. It is beyond all elaboration like it says int he heart sutra in the perfection fo wisdom there is no form no sound etc now many great masters attained the bodhisattva grounds, the buddha appeared and manifested complete enlightenment under the bodhi-tree still there are phenomena because phenomena being primordial purity - great emptiness from the beginningless beginning that is always this beginningless moment they can't be destroyed through being seen nakedly if they would have an essence and the meditative equpoise of an enlightened being would make this essence into a non-essence or transform substance into no-substance then yes after the buddhas enlightenement there should be nothing appearing anymore because the buddha truly realized the empty nature of phenomena ------------------ I go take a nap myself, if you read this far - you deserve at least an icecream for your efforts!!!

scholar/yogi thats the way to go for me for sure the investigation into the teachings help me clarify doubts - the less doubts I have about the view, the easier I can rest in it without wondering if I rest it correctly or not - or is this or is more like that? but all the study without putting it into practice would a waste of precious time don't you think? the main part bit is to rest in meditative equpoise on the true nature of reality, and in order to get there you chant the heart sutra, study the scriptures and try it out on the cushion, I feel if one part is missing it will likely be more difficult. no just meditation could do the trick if you have good guidance and alot of natural faith - if not some study will help to get the faith in the teachings and teacher something like that comes to mind

well yes shentong / rangtong is different, yet certain masters and I feel Mipham Rinpoche is one of them have a certain way to explain all sorts of different approaches, views and yanas in accord and as a harmonious whole. Longchnepa and him are unique as far as my understanding goes - they are synthesising or just marveling at the unitary nature of the sky while many other masters and scholars like to discuss certain aspects of the sky I will come back to discussion of "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, but empty of true establishment" tomorrow and then slowly we can move into a discussion why a certain interpretation of shentong can be nothing more then a mental elaboration, an exeggaration of basic fundamental (empty) reality but first we explore some more rangtong I suggest (while the dzogchen/mahamudra discussion does its own thing and goes its own way I suppose) empty yet appearing, appearing yet empty it goes on and on and on without obstruction

Quoted for emphasis (do you spell emphasis like that?)

I will soon continue with this investigation Jeff, and yes for now I just say, If one doesn't use madhyamika reasoning into reality correctly - then it won't help to cut through mental elaboration and the fabric of samsara.... something that your post shows as well (allthough in more modern terms )

I think apech, C T, steve and myself share the exact same view on this topic - as far as my reading of the responses goes so far. essence of thought = dharmakaya thought is empty/appearance - if not realized that the essence is empty then well we find ourselves trapped in the net of delusion if seen or realized that the thought = union of emptiness/appearance or having found excellent certainty in this, then the thought has no other way but to self-liberate, like drawing letters on a water surface now also till that happens simultaniously (arising/self liberation) takes for most years and years of practice and investigation/study into the true nature of reality. F.e.: see the examples of the snake untiing, writing on water, a thief entering an empty house in teachings on cutting through to primal purity if the thought is just seen as solid and real - then nope I don't agree that it is the dharmakaya (as a hidden potential mayhabs), otherwise sentient beings are buddhas, there is no need for a path, delusion becomes illumination etc etc .......... that discussion is important for the overall understanding of the rangtong shentong distinction and potental harmony of these systems - but also it is much more connected with practical application then theory, and regarding practical application, or refining ones view of the base - well the root guru is there for that maybe we slowly go back to rangtong/shentong and split some intellectual hairs?

Okay maybe lets start with an unreasonable way to posit intrinsic emptiness or rangtong - because on one hand this is how the beacon of certainty is arranged, and on the other hand I feel the shentong discussion will be more intense I like intense! my lamas don't like to use names of scholars or traditions when teaching us - because we might create wrong views towards other tradiitons and systems - forgetting not to rely on the words but to rely on the meaning, and not to rely on the meaning but on wisdom anyhow some masters and scholars when they posit the ultimate view of madhyamika to be intrinsic emptiness - and that one needs to use a non affirmative negation into the true nature of reality use a rather interessting way of reasoning. we use a "pillar" to represent all phenomena from form upto and including the omniscient mind of a buddha, so all pure and impure phenomena of samsara and nirvana are represented by "pillar" (they love to talk about pillars, vases and horns of rabbits, I dont know how many times I translated these terms during madhyamika teachings... as many times as emptiness probably) so they would say "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true existence" they feel positing it in this way then there is no chance that ordinary beings will fall into an extreme view of nihilism while working with madhyamika reasoning, because as we can see the relative appearance of the "pillar" is not empty of being a pillar, it is left alone - the only thing they negate is the pillars true existence (the basis for our grasping at things as solid/real - and also the cause for sentient beings suffering) now mipham rinpoche will investigate this statement if it can express the union of emptiness and appearance or not - and if it is an accurate way and in line with the final view of the great madhyamika that is freedom from all conceptual elaboration so far for now - I need to go back to my own studies

I was lying - no details no explanation just begging for more time!!!

So a more detailes explanation, I would just say if you give me more time to set forth Ju Mipham Rinpoches own view - you and Jeff would agree with his interpretation. What I mean to say is in the text I study atm - Beacon of certainty (which I study since some months) he first in good old madhyamika fashion explains positions that are unreasonable in his understanding and realisation and then later puts forths his own position so I just started to give a working definition of rangtong and shentong and as far as I can see it is not different from what the Karmapa is positing you have a pure nirvana (buddha nature) that is free of impure phenomena, or obscurations - or how would you understand the quote you posted? sounds more or less like that no? well then its the same understanding. If you use a non affirmative negation into the true nature of reality - then you will find it is free of dualistic-samsaric phenomena but itself is posited as clear light or luminousity now if you posit this clear light as non-empty of essence then it gets a bit tricky - but again if you give me some more space for my ramblings, then I think that I can unpack Mipham Rinpoches thought more or less accurately. also it is said that tantric teachings are more in tune with the shentong view, but I do feel if you have a correct shentong view - or a correct rangtong view then they are not contradictory but can both express the union of emptiness and appearances, which is the basis for understanding the Tantras and Mahamudra, Dzogchen correctly if you give me some more time I will slowly unpack Miphams thought - because it is a bit to hard to say it in an accurate way with just a few words and sentences. later today I will write more ........................... and I would just say that thoughts are dharmakaya only if you see the true nature of the thought to be empty/appearance otherwise thoughts are the basic stuff samsara is made off no? otherwise ordinary beings wouldn't need to enter a path - because they are thinking so much and solidify those thought, based on that those thoughts will proliferate as well - so because of that they must all be abiding in the pristine awareness of dharmakaya? doesn't make much sense to me

I will answer and ellaborate on this a bit later - this will be an interresting discussion I think

I do hope there will be more imput in this thread - I myself am toitally clueless so, I just hope the discussion will continue

dear you, as you can see with my name I joined the tibetan cult also I didn't read the other posts except the OP, out of lazyness - also I need to say I have zero experience with daoism, I have experience with Hindu Tantra and Buddhist Tantra and a little bit of western psycho therapy models. So it makes no sense to compare buddhism and daoism for me - what I would like to share is a concept you find in the "rime" movement of tibetan buddhism (ri me - short for "ri su ma chad pa" that means in short not to fall into any extreme or partiality) the rime movement is connected with great enlightened masters of different buddhist lineages within tibet - but in exile this idea of unbiased impartiality is becoming much more all inclusive. F.e.: H.H. the Dalai Lama is seen as a rime - master, and his idea of rime or impartiality is very vast and includes all traditions in short in the this no-tradition tradition what the old masters said is: based on the karma, charackter, aspriation and faculties of the disciples all these different views and practices and lineages emerged in tibet - and one should not be mistaken about the fact that all of them are the enlightened activity of the buddha so that idea expanded and now H.H. f.e.: teaches the unity of many spiritual paths - because all true spiritual paths are there to benefit sentient beings, they are based on love and compassion in that light it makes no much sense to be biased towrds one or the other tradition - but just to follow ones own karma, aspirations, charackter etc. and the path will self-manifest now one other important aspect of the rime movement is that the masters where mainly lineage holders of one particular lineage - like the nyigma lineage or kagyud lineage, they would master this system, and then move on to embrace other systems and lineages it is very important they said to be steadfast in one lineage before you move to other lineages and traditions - because otherwise you never make it beyond step one never a master of one thing but a professional dabbler of 40 so impartiality doesn't mean coca cola buddhism or coca cola daoism, it means you "hold the lineage" one lineage - and then you start exploring other lineages and traditions - otherwise many brain knots will make your inner system sick did that help the discussion or did I just repeat what anyway was said before? I don't know?

impure perception becoming pure enlightened perception (natural perception) or like you said karmic vision becomes buddha vision the senses becoming buddhafied

dear sir stosh sir, it is based on a teaching that you can find in Khenpo Ngawang Palsangs "A guide to thw words of my perfect teacher" (the original words of my perfect teacher was written by dza patrul rinpoche) there it is written simply sun but- he uses sometimes the more poetic nyima'i nyingpo (essence or heart of the sun) from Longchenpas Chod byings dzod precious treasury of the dharmadatu) I think it is a very old quote from the buddhist lineage - it also can be found in a similar way in lord maitreyas Uttaratantra-shastra now some scholars dont like this way of explaining reality at all but thats another discussion

short answer: different masters of different lineages explain it differently what I think about it? many things, I give you a favourite example that my main teacher uses: your true nature is like the heart of the sun, how could there be any darkness? now not knowing this dharmata nature of your mind - gives rise to conceptual thought patterns that are like clouds in the sky, these clouds are in no way part of the sun nor could they ever intermingle with the heart of the sun or obscure it yet they seem to obscure the sun for the moment so what we need is some wind - when the wind of the two accumulations of conceptual merit and non-conceptual wisdom blows the clouds scatter and there is a chance to recognize the essence of the sun as it is - free of darkness from the beginningless beginning and that beginningless beginning is always already the case now certain masters don't like that kind of explanation, that enlightenement has a cause or has no cause both or neither, certain masters also prefer to not pay any attention to either clouds nor wind to get rid of the clouds, they prefer pointing to the essence of the sun and thats it for me personally this example can explain all of tibetan buddhist dharma - and one could speak endlessly about the implications of it from many angles... so I like it and use it to move me onwards inwards outwards your a nice fellow too brother

that being said, why we don't have a good cup of tea now?

a bubble a bubble it is a bubble!!! soap bubble iridescent and beautifully flickering light on it's surface - yet you try to grasp the flickering lights and its already gone

I am just going to butcher shantidevas incredible verse from the bodhicharyavatara, sorry to both the master and the masters enlightened words... I can't recall the exact way how it is translated, neither do I find it online - nor did I bring my text with me on this journey, anyway I remember the meaning of the verse and it is something like that: The bodhisattva is allowed one ignorance: that there is a result of the path now with this one I can sit for several lifetimes and be still awstruck by the depth of meaning you can convey with so little words... my mind blown and my heart opened - now I can go eat rice and dhal

I am in a cult I won't recover anymore

From the teachings I have received in the buddhist tantric tradition and from my little tiny life experience I would say that to set goals is not just neccessary but we can't help it, it is part of having an oridnary mind that works with reality in a dualistic way and also works with the concept of time and place now relatively speaking all of this can't be denied and it would be fatal and even dangerous to do so - I think ones life can really go down hill, I met some people in india who answered my questions "where do you stay here in this town" with "I stay in the eternal now" which is all sorts of cute if ou ask me - I usually move on to people who have something more to say then that - not because there is no truth in it but because mostly it is just BS see for someone who is really dedicated to a yogic lifestyle, I mean whose life is nothing but practicing and studying the scriptures - then Okay temporary goals for this life don't matter, if they would then something is a bit wrong there. Now these beings are incredibly rare - so far I met only a couple of tibetan and indian yogis who are still in their old age living in mountain retreat - incredible human beings, incredible that being said - if I feel I should adobt such a view of life and belief somehow that I am like jetsun Milarepa - then within couple of months Iam either in the lemon factory eating haldol for breakfast lunch and dinner, or in some other not so great place (because at a certain time I did think I can be like jetsun mila and yes that was the overall direction I was heading - until one of my lamas met me and just said "you look fried - what happened" I told her I was doing retreat up in the caves of tso pema, and she asked me who told me tto do that - I said no one I just did it on my own, I got a biiiig scolding after that) this kind of life and approach to life is not for everybody - and for some it might be important to explore this for some months in retreat - but a life without taking relative time and space into account ever is just for a few humans as far as I can tell, now I met hundreds of westerners who think of themselves as yogis and yoginis destined for this life (me included, I am getting over it ) but I have to say - mere words no substance Love and respect to you and hope my POV added to your understanding a little

I had that version of the chöying dzö - a friend of mine gave it to me after I received the tri-lung from one of my lamas, a year later I gave it to ramgiri a direct disciple of neem karoli baba for reasons still not known to me its a beautiful version, in fact so beautiful that I always just put it on my shrine and never used it for reflection, I always ended up using a horribly bound version where the tibetan was on facing pages one of the greatest works of longchenpa for sure

I would like to start a discussion fo the four thoughts, and their importance in the tantric and dzogchen systems of view, meditation, action Primarely to remind myself what they are, following my teachers advice I do chant the ngondro liturgy everyday so I have them memorized, but I didn't contemplate them for some time - whoever would like to join the Contemplation - welcome the first thought is the preciousness of human life and this body that we have this body is very precious in itself for sure, and most humans treasure their body more then anything else in the world - but this first thought (of the four thoughts that turn the mind from samsara) has not much to do with this kind of preciousness and self-cherishing attitude. This ordinary cherishing of our body and the rather strange idea that we could be content through providing this body with all the matter it wants is what is ruining our planet (if you ask me) in the buddhist teachings, our body is only precious if we use it to advance spiritually for the sake of all life - it is not precious in and of itself in and of itself it is just a heap of bones, blood and other impure substances (from a hinayana and partly mahayan POV - the vajrayana and dzogchen POV can be discussed somewhere else) the human body that is not used for spiritual evolution (lets just say the essential evolution in the 21th century) is called "merely a human body" or "ordinary human body" etc. - again nothing fancy in itself thats the intro now for the particulars: there are 8 freedoms and 10 riches as wella s 16 circumstantial obstructions (as thought by longchenpa) the 8 freedoms are: not being born either a 1) hell being or 2) a hungry ghost or 3) animal or 4) long-lifed god (these first four have to do with non human bodies that we are "free" of) as well as not being born a 5) barbarian (later more) or 6) someone with wrong views or 7) in a place where no buddha appeared 8) or with impaired senses and intellctual faculties that make it impossible to study and practice dharma (these later 4 are connected with circumstances that obstruct dharma practice even though we attained a human rebirth) lets stay with these eight for now, if somebody has time and inspiration to comment and explore those 8 states that are not fit for dharma practice that would be greatly appreciated.

Aurobindo f.e. said that the buddhas idea of nihil is in accord with what the vedantic seers of old intended - read his divine life, it is very interesting, he devotes one chapter to this This is as far as I can go - because I did not spend much time reading and pondering this, I just know this view exists also note what atisha said with regards to hindu philosophical systems and buddhist systems (it is in either words of my perfect teacher or the guide to the words of my perfect teacher by khenpo ngawang pelsang). Also I was on teachings with dzongsar khyentse and he remarked that post shankaracharya it is very hard to tell the difference between the views ultimate position... so from there it is not soooo difficult to think about how the buddha might be a vedantist on some level he is and was the buddha of course, not saying he was a hindu, but beeing the buddha he probably was a great hindu, christian etc Something else that might be of interesst I was and am looking into the intersection of buddhist tantra, the nath sampradaya and certain esoteric sufi lineages like the baul sampradaya because all teach very similar things, and it is believed that during the old golden days when tantra was just emerging on this plane of existence the yogis of all those lineages intermingled and exchanged ideas and empowerments, if you want to go deeper you could start by googling "taranatha and buddhaguptanatha" and then go from there also researching the charyagiti and other old tantric transmission I found similarities in language and even lineage masters come up in different paths but that for another time and thread?