xabir2005

I like what goldisheavy has to say about the ego. Ego is not a thing, it is simply a process of clinging and identifying... To make ego an enemy is simply more ego, so to speak. Ken Wilber is not a theist, he is a substantial non-dualist who has true nondual insight. This however is not the same as realizing anatta and shunyata but I digress. I still don't think you get what I meant so I shall quote from dakpo tashi namgyal the famous mahamudra master (and I highly recommend his book, clarifying the natural state, and the commentary 'crystal clear' by thrangu rinpoche): Pointing Out Innate Thinking Second, the meditator should now assume the correct posture in front of (the master, and be told the following): http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Dakpo%20Tashi%20Namgyal?m=0 "Let your mind remain in its natural way. When thoughts have subsided, your mind is an intangible, aware emptiness. Be undistracted and look directly into the identity of this naked state! "At this moment, allow a feisty thought, such as delight, to take form. The very moment it vividly occurs, look directly into its identity from within the state of aware emptiness. "Now, is this thought the intangible and naked state of aware emptiness? Or is it absolutely no different from the identity of innate mind-essence itself? Look!" Let the meditator look for a short while. The meditator may say, "It is the aware emptiness. There seems to be no difference." If so, ask: "Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought from meditation? Or, is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?" If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he had not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days. On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction: "When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya. "Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves.

Enochian wrote: I am an obsessed follower of Mādhyamaka philosophy... Namdrol: Then there is no hope for you at all. Madhyamaka is not to followed, it is to be used to pacify proliferations, including the one called "Madhyamaka".

sorry I know you are probably too tired for discussion but I still have to clarify something. The realization of anatta arises from direct experiential insight and not an inference. It is not an inferred conclusion due to not being able to locate the whereabouts of an agent or perceiver. Similarly the emptiness of objects is not just about being unable to locate where phenomena is, it is the direct realization of dependent origination and the corelessness of all phenomena. Anatta realization is also not inferred conclusion from peak experiences of no-mind which you had. It is the irrefutable seeing that "seeing is just the seen", that the actuality of what "seeing" is is simply the stream, the process of seeing without seer. It is not "I cannot locate where the seer is, therefore I conclude there is no seer", but rather, there is the direct realization that there is no seer, no core to mind, and waking up to the nature of seeing. It is a waking up, like suddenly you realize what you call "wind" is just the entire blowing activity, so too is the luminosity, presence, awareness simply a term collating the self-luminous stream or process. There is no inference involved, and in fact you clearly see that an unchanging mind is infact totally inferred just like an unchanging windness of blowing is inferred out of the "view of inherency"... it is either you realize this or not. If you realize this you can never unsee it... No inference at all. Luminosity cannot be denied, it is only the view of duality, and the view of inherency that must be seen through.

Seth: simply because they do not know that the hindu view is similar to theirs'. Furthermore, for fear that they be called non-buddhist, some shentong replace direct terms like "true self" with other terms like ultimate, independent, unchanging mind or awareness, which actually amounts to the same thing. No buddhist wants to be labelled non-buddhist so they won't admit that their doctrines are similar to the eternalists. Even tho dolpopa (founder of shentong) did himself use direct terms amounting to a true self. I know you probably don't like to read long articles, but if you read archaya's article you should get what I mean.

Faith does not prevent inquiry. Of course the inquiry should be of the right kind - certain things are simply pointless to pursue, such as "how many aliens are there in planet x" - irrelevant questions like these are unlikely to help our lives, and are based on a load of assumptions such as the existence of planet x. We may simply not be able to find out about extraterrestrials planets with our current technology (and certainly not from our direct experience unless you are talking about psychic powers but I digress), or we might, but this is better left for the scientists who are into this field. On our part, speculative questioning is best put aside or at least placed down at the bottom of your "priority list" - there are simply more important things to do in life, including getting enlightened. If you like to inquire, choose the right questions, start with essential ones like "who am I" and one shall attain self-realisation. Also, faith in rebirth does not prevent you to pursue in understanding rebirth. In fact faith in rebirth should spur you into a quest of investigating rebirth and karma. In the same way that faith in enlightenment shall set one on a journey to gain enlightenment himself. It simply is not enough for a sincere seeker to believe that there is a thing called enlightenment: if he has faith in buddha and countless of enlightened practitioners, he would of his own accord walk the path towards enlightenment, towards true insight and experience. But if you do not believe that enlightenment is possible, or you place it in a "doubtful" category of things, why would one spend years seeking enlightenment and inquiring? Therefore know that basic faith is necessary and actually complements true inquiry. In zen there are three criterias for great realisation: great doubt, great faith, and great perserverance. Great doubt is the urge to inquire and resolve issues such as "Who am I?" Great faith is faith in buddha's teachings, faith in the enlightenment of the buddha and masters and faith in one's ability to be enlightened. While great perserverance is great persistence, never give up attitude. All these factors are necessary for enlightenment. P.s. Telling facts as they are is not the same as incalcating fear. Telling a lazy student that they are going to fail their exams if they don't buck up is simply telling him facts in hopes that he can have a sense of urgency. It would be irresponsible if the teacher didn't warn him. Likewise telling us that we will get trapped in samsara if we don't practice is simply telling facts as they are. It would be irresponsible if the Buddha didn't warn and encourage us.

if you could remember all your past lives and the tremendous amount of suffering involved like buddha, you would see the urgency to be liberated from suffering. My home tenants, a couple, were trained in jhanas and could remember countless past lives and its tremendous suffering. Now he and his wife is always going for retreats in hope of liberating from samsara. So get enlightened first as first priority. The others can wait. That is: ideally and logically speaking, on the basis of the endless sufferings we gone through and might go through again in samsara, one should put in great effort in hopes of liberation as your top priority. Unfortunately unless you are trained in absorptions, you have to take this by faith. Practice like your head is on fire is the advice of the Buddha.

no, the buddha did see his wife and son. And they both renounced and became arhants. I think that's the greatest thing the buddha did to his family: liberate them from suffering, afflictions and delusion. And who says monks don't enjoy and experience their life fully. As I see it, a lay life could be more stressful and monks life more enjoyable. That would depend tho. As for hell, well its true there such realms and meditators have reportedly visited these realms, but I don't think buddhism really uses it as a fear tactic unlike some other religions "believe me or you are damned eternally" messsage

Buddhists have no qualms taking the cessation state to be unconditioned and permanent. It simply is not a ground of being or a self.

no. I experience and guide others (as per my ebook) through progressive stages of realization about luminosity and emptiness (and their inseperability). I talk about the luminous awareness that while being the basis of everything, is utterly empty of inherent existence or non-existence, this being the middle way. This accords with the 3rd karmapa's text: http://www.kagyu.org.nz/content/aspirationprayer.html All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever. Examining well, may all doubts about the ground be discerned and cut. Naturally manifesting appearances, that never truly exist, are confused into objects. Spontaneous intelligence, under the power of ignorance, is confused into a self. By the power of this dualistic fixation, beings wander in the realms of samsaric existence. May ignorance, the root of confusion, he discovered and cut. It is not existent--even the Victorious Ones do not see it. It is not nonexistent--it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana. This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity. May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, he realised. If one says, "This is it," there is nothing to show. If one says, "This is not it," there is nothing to deny. The true nature of phenomena, which transcends conceptual understanding, is unconditioned. May conviction he gained in the ultimate, perfect truth. Not realising it, one circles in the ocean of samsara. If it is realised, buddha is not anything other. It is completely devoid of any "This is it," or "This is not it." May this simple secret, this ultimate essence of phenomena, which is the basis of everything, be realised.

I think you did not catch my drift in my earliest post. Shentong and rangtong distinctions are creation of the shentongpas. The shentongpas created this bogeyman distinction of two extreme interpretations of nagarjuna's middle way. Nagarjuna himself rejected both the view of intrinsic emptiness and extrinsic emptiness, rangtong and shentong. If shentong assert an inherent, independent, unchanging and ultimate luminous awareness, that would be the atman view and that would be under scrutiny. See http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx After your realization of anatta, what is your insight and experience about luminous pristine awareness?

the chain begins with ignorance (and not matter) and ignorance is beginningless A person who removed ignorance no longer creates causes for samsaric birth but still have to suffer the effects of old karma. His sense faculties are still functioning. He still experiences pleasant neutral and unpleasant sensations, sickness, death etc. Therein lies the difference between nibbana with residue and nibbana without residue.

Most importantly, if you did have experiential realization of anatta like you indicated, you will be doubtless that there is no real self, be it a personal self or some unchanging overarching self of hinduism. You will also be beyond the view of an unchanging substance. You do not need sutras to confirm your understanding nor can another buddha shake your realization either.

the translator of the sutra has a warped understanding of the sutra. He does not understand emptiness (the twofold emptiness is what is peculiar about buddhism and what leads to liberation) and holds the view of the Hindu atman. As namdrol has said before, some of the biggest fools in buddhism are those who take nirvana sutra and the true self teachings literally (not understanding it in context). Anyway as namdrol has also said, zhentong is eternalism no different essentially with advaita, rangtong is nihilism, both extremes are the creation of the shentongpas. (That said not some kagyu teachers who teach shentong actually teaches a less extreme version of it so I shall not generalize all shentong people as "eternalists" straight on) prasangika madhyamika is true middle way. Dzogchen teachings, for example, as chnnr stated is of the prasangika madhyamika philosophically, with the difference being that the understanding in dzogchen is not derived via intellectual analysis. Also the topic of eternal self in nirvana sutra has already been discussed: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/10981-the-eternal-self-of-the-buddha/page__st__-8 Loppon Namdrol: http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4056&sid=95bbacb894cfe3ff811e0dbcd5ba7af3 "Paradoxically, in Tathāgatagarbha literature, that mind that lacks identity and is empty is being called "self". It is standard Buddhist subversion of Hindu norms, once again. The Tantras do it with Samkhya." "That depends on who you ask. In Tibetan Buddhism, according to the Sakya school, tathāgatagarbha is the union of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. According to the Gelugpa school, it is the potential for sentient beings to awaken since they lack inherent existence; according to the Jonang school, it refers to the innate qualities of the mind which expresses itself in terms of omniscience, etc, when adventitious obscurations are removed. In Nyingma, tathāgatagarbha also generally refers to union of the clarity and emptiness of one's mind. There is only one Indian commentary on this issue -- the Uttaratantra and its commentary by Asanga. In Chinese Buddhism it is interpreted more literally, in texts such as Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, and in some currents of Sino-Japanese Buddhism it is indistinguishable from Advaita. The Chinese had no experience with Hindus, really, and did not guard as well as the Tibetans against eternalism creeping into their Buddhism." "Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following: That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”. Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues: "Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’. Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’." So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about: "Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings. When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists? Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”. The Bhagavan replied: “Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha. Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently. Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort. Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that, Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists. Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?" Thus, the Lanka says: All yaanas are included in five dharmas, three natures, eight consciousnesses, and two selflessnesses It does not add anything about a true self and so on. If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states: Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified. Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves. Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect. And: Although tathaagatagarbha possesses seven consciousnesses; always engaged with dualistic apprehensions [it] will evolve with thorough understanding. If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state: "`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha. `Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya. And: `Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings. Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned. Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here: "Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’. So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states "Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/ and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion. Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings. When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon. "

If mind annihilates at death, there would not be moral consequences for actions, and there would be no point to practice since we all cease at death anyway. Also if you think mind annihilates, then one will fail to understand dependent origination and twelve links.

Even if masters remember their past lives they may not necessarily be willing to talk about them publicly. However, hhdl did share his past life memories including being the 13th and 5th dalai lama, etc. (Note not all dalai lamas are the same incarnation)

Yes. If one held the view that mind disintegrates at death that would be the view of annihalation. Plus the view of afterlife and karma affects our action in life. Rebirth should first be accepted by logical inference and belief, then verified through experience.

Hmm actually what I meant is that holding the view of an afterlife is part of right view according to Buddha.

Rebirth and karma is one of those things in Buddhism that should be taken by faith if one is a Buddhist, until one has direct experience of them. It is part of "right view". Other than Buddha's and countless meditators account of them, scientists like dr ian stevensons have done research and proven hundreds of rebirth cases in children who could still remember their past lives (they generally forget them as they enter adulthood). These case studies are published in well known medical and scientific journal.

Actually, I do understand as I have gone through what you experienced... And I beliebve you will understand what I said in time to come.

and this limitless potential is a real mind? You haven't realized how mind is simply a label collating experiences, that there is no mindness of mind like there is no riverness of river. While there is limitless potentiality, there is nothing in which limitless potentiality issues from. In other words limitless potentiality is not some kind of independent ultimate source like what namdrol refuted. What dependently originates is baseless.

Not only are you still grasping at an agent, you are still attached to personality. You should really contemplate bahiya style.

I'm pretty sure this is not the understanding of Dzogchen. Rigpa and emptiness transcends mind's cognition. There is a recent thread about this. http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4461&start=120 Dzogchen related stuff should be clarified with Namdrol since he is many decades long practitioner and even qualified teacher of dzogchen (asked by a lama to teach dzogchen though refused)