Simple_Jack

I just stated at the outset that the conditioned and the unconditioned are not mutually exclusive. The unconditioned and the conditioned, as I have already stated, are neither the same nor different. The nature of the conditioned is non-arising. Whatever does not arise is unconditioned. Non-arising, unconditioned, suchness, [emptiness, unborn,] etc., are all synonyms. This is why Manjushri says "Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise." The core of the conditioned is unconditioned. Dependent origination is exactly the meaning of non-arising -- Manjushri states in PP sutras "Whatever arises dependently, just that does not arise in truth." It is only through dependent origination that we can come to an unerring understanding of emptiness, [non-arising, dharmata,] etc. ~ Loppon Namdrol General theory of dependent origination: "When this exists, that exists; With the arising of this, that arises; When this does not exist, that does not exist; With the cessation of this, that ceases" Specific theory of dependent origination/12 nidanas: "And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." Chandrakirti's Sevenfold Reasoning [on the selflessness of the individual]: There is no chariot which is other than its parts There is no chariot which is the same as its parts There is no chariot which possesses its parts There is no chariot which depends on its parts There is no chariot upon which the parts depend There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states: "An existent does not arise from an existent; neither does an existent arise from a non-existent. A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent; neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." translated by Kalupahana Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky: Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction." -Candrakirti "Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views." -Candrakirti "the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated." -Candrakirti "Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things." -Candrakirti "Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world." -Candrakirti Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since I have no position, I am not at fault at all." Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence, nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time." "I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness." -Candrakirti Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states: "Not from themselves, not from something other, Not from both, and not without a cause- At any place and any time, All entities lack arising." Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika): "Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators]. Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments: "If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it, Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames And everything could arise from everything, Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]." Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other." Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states: "If an entity in itself does not exist, An entity other [than it] does not exist either." Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]." Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states: "If some nonarisen entity Existed somewhere, It might arise. However, since such does not exist, what would arise?" Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states: "If something that lacks arising could arise, Just about anything could arise in this way."

Did you know that the "view" of the Buddhist teachings are meant to be meditated on? That's the purpose of buddhavacana: a means of continually refining and familiarizing oneself with the "view" until the moment of non-conceptual realization upon reaching the 'path of seeing.'

To answer the OP: As I pointed, all of this language concerning "the basis" comes from a passage in the Guhyasamaja uttaratantra. The continuum of the basis, since this is the reference, refers to the nature of the mind, which when recognized leads to buddhahood and when not, leads to samsara. People get so hung up on the use of the word mind, consciousness and so on. Well, just look at these words: shes pa (jñā), rnam shes (vijñāna), shes rab (prajñā) and ye shes (jñāna). What do they all have in common? "shes". "Shes" just means "to know". If you say the basis is ye shes, that wisdom is a knower. In any case, the commentary of the sgra thal 'gyur clearly maintains that ye shes is encompassed by a shes pa, and that shes pa exists individually in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere knower (shes tsam). We can conclude from this then that the basis (which really is strictly a man ngag sde term) is just a name for the continuum of the nature of the mind. The extent to which it is unconditioned is the extent to which no one made the mind "clear and empty", the mind has been clear and empty from the very start. Thus the resting in the unfabricated mind, the unconditioned mind, is resting in that nature of the mind (inseparable clarity and emptiness) which cannot be altered or modified in anyway at all no matter what appears in it/to it(hence the mirror metaphor). You can't make it better, you can't make it worse. We say that the nature of the mind in this sense is unconditioned because no one made it, it does not have a beginning, it cannot be altered or changed. You cannot take the clarity of the mind and make it unclear. You cannot take the emptiness of the mind and make the mind substantial. The mind can have various experiences, suffering, happiness, affliction, purification, thus we can also say that the mind is conditioned. It is also momentary, its continuity is not substantial, it is a continuum of moments, thus it is conditioned. Once again, we have a conditioned entity, dharmin, the mind, that has an unconditioned nature, dharmatā, the inseparability of clarity and emptiness. The mind is not merely clear, for then it would be only conditioned. It is not merely empty, since then it would be non-existent. The unconditioned nature of the mind is the inseparability of clarity and emptiness. There is no teaching in Buddhism about the mind and the nature of the mind that goes beyond this. When we understand the principles above, we understand the union of the two truths, we understand the continuum of the basis, Dzogchen, etc. When it comes to Dzogchen teachings, it is crucial to understand that the differences between wisdom, shes pa and rnam shes, for example, are all based on the anatomy of the human body, and the modalities of our consciousness as embodied beings. If we say that wisdom, for example, is beyond mind, does that mean that wisdom is inert, like a rock or a statue? No, it just means that wisdom transcends the operations of the restricted consciousness of ordinary beings, wisdom is a consciousness that has less restrictions. What is the basis for the freedom of wisdom? The pure clarity and emptiness of the mind, of course. We do not have a refined vocabulary in English for discussing consciousness and its different modalities. But indeed, that is what Dzogchen as well Buddhist texts in general are talking about, i.e., consciousness and its various modalities, unawakened and awakened. ... The "natural condition" as you call it, isn't something real; it is baseless. It isn't out there, like "atoms", "stars" and "galaxies"; it isn't inside like "blood cells", "mitochondria", etc. This "natural" condition is just the nature of your own mind. It is not an objective condition— there is no "objective condition" because there is no "subjective condition". There is no "natural" condition because there is no "unnatural condition". There is no wisdom apart from the mind and there is no consciousness apart from the mind, there is no buddhahood apart from the mind, there is no delusion apart from the mind, there is no samsara apart from the mind, no nirvana apart from the mind. Apart from the mind, nothing else needs to be recognized. The mind is not real because it cannot be established, it is not unreal because one cannot deny that one is feeling, thinking and so on, therefore we say it has "no reality" i.e. there is no state of being that pertains to the mind, since the mind is beyond any extreme, it's nature is sheer clarity and emptiness inseparable. You won't find the mind by resting your attention on a rock, you won't find it by resting your attention on a thought, you won't find even if you rest your attention on the mind's own sheer clarity. You won't find it even if you ascertain sheer clarity is empty. You won't find in nāḍīs, vāyus and bindus, deities, mandalas, etc. However, that being said, if you do not have a proper method, your afflictions will not cease, you will not gather the twin stores of merit and wisdom, you will not expand your mind to the point of omniscience and you will not realize buddhahood. ... I would say that kadag, lundrup and thugje are a generic context, just like "red" is a generic context for all cows that are red. The Dzogchen tantras are not inventing a brand new theory of Buddhism, they are just riffing on Tantric Buddhism as it already exists. That being the case, Dzogchen tantras, just like all other Buddhist tantras, do not deny conventional doctrines such as mind streams (citta saṃtana) and so on, that are necessary for receiving impressions or traces (vasana, bag chags) etc. In other words, Dzogchen tantras exist in a continuum with other texts upon which later Dzogchen tantras like the sgra thal 'gyur (which are clearly influenced by the gsar ma tantras) are based. You want to define the basis as ye shes. The sgra thal 'gyur defines wisdom as encompassed by shes pa, and its commentary indicates that the shes pa that encompass wisdom, whether in Buddhas or sentient beings, is individual and unique to each buddha and sentient being. So what this basically boils down to is a discussion of how individual sentient beings are liberated. I don't really care about what meta discussion we can have about "what it means". I am interested in what the texts themselves say so that we can understand their intention. Therefore, since the discussion of the basis is premised on the concept of the three continuums, and since that continuum is just the continuum of an individual sentient beings consciousness, it is pretty meaningless to me to try and insist that the Dzogchen tantras should be saying something other than what they clearly all say, i.e., sentient beings become deluded, and sentient beings become Buddhas. ~ Loppon Namdrol

What does 'phenomena' pertain to in buddhadharma? The [5] skandhas, [12] ayatanas (think of "4 foundations of mindfulness/satipatthana"), and [18] dhatus, which comprise the specific theory of dependent origination aka. the 12 links of dependent origination: The String of Pearls Tantra [<----- Dzogchen Tantra, tr. by Malcolm]: As such, the three realms are the five aggregates, the five sense organs, the five limbs, the five functional organs, the five objects, the five afflictions, the five thoughts, the five minds, the five concepts, the apprehended objects and apprehending subjects established as samsara [… ] Caught in the aggregates, sense gates and the sense elements, the apprehended object and apprehending subject, samara itself persists for a long while. One is placed in the dungeon of name and matter in the castle of the three realms, tortured with the barbs of ignorance and so on, oppressed by the thick darkness of samsara, attached to the salty taste of desire, bound by the neck with the noose of confusion, burned with the hot fire of hatred, head covered with pride, setting a rendezvous with the mistress of jealousy, surrounded by the army of enmity... tied by the neck with the noose of subject and object, [29b] stuck in the mud of successive traces and handcuffed with the ripening of karma. Having been joined with the ripening of karma, one takes bodies good and bad, one after another like a water wheel, born into each individual class. Having crossed at the ford of self-grasping, one sinks into the ocean of suffering and one is caught by the heart on the hook of the three lowers realms. One is bound by oneself; the afflictions are the enemy. The body of a hell being appears as fire or water. Pretas are frightened and intimidated. There is a fog-like appearance for animals. The aggregates, sense gates and sense elements of humans appear as the five elements, and also happiness, suffering and indifference. They appear as armor and weapons to asuras and desirable qualities for devas. Such dualistic appearances, for example, are like a quickly moving wheel spinning continuously for a long while. As such, diverse appearances are like seeing a snake from a rope; that [rope] is not [a snake] but is apprehended as a [snake]; forming as both the outer universe and inhabitants. If that is investigated, it is a rope. The universe and inhabitants have always been empty, the ultimate endowed with the form of the relative.

C'mon now, there's no need to create any arbitrary dichotomies when discussing core principles common to Mahayana (using this as an umbrella term); even Zen talks about non-arising. Quote time!: Dependent origination is exactly the meaning of non-arising -- Manjushri states in PP sutras "Whatever arises dependently, just that does not arise in truth." The nature of the conditioned is non-arising. Whatever does not arise is unconditioned. Non-arising, unconditioned, suchness, [emptiness, unborn,] etc., are all synonyms. This is why Manjushri says "Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise." The core of the conditioned is unconditioned. It means simply that when you examine dependently originated phenomena you cannot ascertain that they ever arose. Emptiness, in Mahāyāna, specifically refers to the absence of the four extremes in phenomena...Since phenomena cannot be found by any of the four extremes, they are illusory, and ultimately nonarisen. A Buddhas omniscience is predicated on the fact that all objects of knowledge, including buddhahood itself, are completely illusory. This is also the view of Dzogchen i.e. everything, including buddhahood, etc., is completely equivalent to an illusion; not "like an illusion", as some people in Mahāyāna with a poor understanding hedge -- completely equivalent. ...it is in fact the intent of Madhyamaka to point out that there is no reality, per se. Saying there is "no reality" [gnas lugs med pa] is quite different than saying reality does not exist. In fact it is basic "Heart Sutra" and is non-controversial. ... I never claimed reality existed, therefore I am free of the fault of claiming it does not exist. When someone points out your bank account is empty, is it their fault that you have no money? Have they destroyed money you thought you had? Of course not. It is the same when stating "there is no reality". This is merely pointing out the conclusion of freedom from all extremes. Āryānantamukhapariśodhananirdeśaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states: The Sugata said "existence" and "nonexistence" are extremes; whatever does not exist in the extremes, that also does not exist in the middle. Ārya-varmavyūhanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra Since this vehicle is without extremes, also the extreme of the middle does not exist. Ārya-kāśyapaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra: Kāśyapa, "permanence" is one extreme; impermanence is the second extreme. Whatever is the middle of those two extremes, that also cannot be examined. Sampuṭanāma mahātantra: There is nothing empty, not empty, and nothing to perceive in the middle. The Meditation on Bodhicitta: The nonexistence dependent on existence does not exist, also that nonexistence does not exist. Because the extremes do not exist, the middle does not exist, also do not rest in the middle. The sgra thal gyur: Because of being free from extremes, do not abide in the middle. So we can clearly see that sutra and tantra agree on one point, i.e. there is no reality in the extremes, and there is no reality beyond the extremes. Ergo, there is no reality, since reality would have to be either existence or non-existence and so on. ... But the mind is not a series of "discrete" mental moments in the way in which you are positing it. If you follow Nāgārjuna's reasoning, the mind is series of moments that are neither the same as nor different from each other. In the case of a person with āryan insight, there is no possibility of any disturbance between one moment of mind and the next because the mind stream has now been purified of causes for the arising of afflictions. Āryan insight does not transform a relative mind into ultimate mind; it is relative mind that has the capacity to take the ultimate as an "object". The Gelugpa use the useful example of subjective clear light and objective clear light, subjective clear light is the mind that apprehends objective clear light. ... As the sgra thal gyur tantra states: Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness. The commentary merely notes that this line confirms the quality of the non-existence of one's mind. And further it states: Due to being free from extremes, the middle does not exist. The commentary describes this as the Great Perfection view that is totally complete freedom from extremes: The so-called intimate instruction of the view of the totally complete space of the great freedom from activities is the view of the totally complete freedom from extremes. Since that is free from the extreme of existence, it does not fall into the position of substantiality. Since it is free from the extreme of nonexistence, it exhausts grasping to emptiness. Since it is free from both existence and non-existence, it is free from apprehending the intrinsic nature of the apprehender, since it is free from the extreme of neither existence nor nonexistence, there is also no concept of mere non-existence. Moreover, since it is free from the extreme of emptiness, it possesses the meaning of an intrinsically clear core. Since it is free from the extreme of being non-empty, the extreme of grasping to substantiality is avoided. Since it is free from a basis [gzhi], it is not conceived as being either "clear" or "empty", since it is free from both, there is nothing to prove nor negate. In the same way, combine [the above reasoning] for all such as the extreme of appearance and so on. Further because it is free from extremes it is not established as many. Because it is totally complete, it is not established as one. Since that is free form one and many, it is the inexpressible dharmatā that is free from falling into extremes. Now then, if it is said "That is not Dzogchen because it begins to abandon extremes", since it is totally complete as existence, it means there is nothing to seek. Since it is totally complete as non-existence, it means there is nothing to abandon. Since it is complete as both, it means it is beyond accepting and rejecting. Since it complete as neither, everything becomes dharmatā. Likewise, since empty, not empty and so on are totally complete, therefore, "Great Perfection" means not falling into hope and fear or extremes. Moreover, because it is one, proliferation is severed, because it is many, there is not need to abandon anything. Further, because there are extremes, the middle is eliminated, because there is a middle, likewise, the extremes are eliminated. As such, if it is wondered why, it is because since it is free from extremes the middle does not exist. Because the extremes are negated, it is empty of a middle; since the middle is negated, likewise, there is no perception of extremes. Therefore: "Because it is totally complete, there is nothing to dedicate." And: Since there is nothing more, there are no parts. In case someone still doubts whether the basis is just referring to one's own mind, Vajrasattvamāyājālaguhyasarvādarśa-nāma-tantra states: The rootless mind itself is the root of all phenomena. A passage from Bhavya's Madhyamakaratnapradīpa reinforces our understanding of this passage: Just as from the root of the lotus leaves and so on are continually produced, likewise, though the mind is insubstantial it exists as the essence of all phenomena. This is the meaning of that: just as the root of the lotus is not connected with anything else, exists in water, and though that root does not penetrate anything, it is able to fill a great pond with leaves, flowers, and so on. Likewise, though the mind itself is insubstantial, it exists as the nature of all external and internal phenomena in the relative. Just as shoots of rice in a terrace spread everywhere without roots, also the rootless mind itself pervades the furthest reaches of space. Here, the meaning of this is: in ponds and terraces, the plants called "rice" are interlinked, they grow on the surface of a terrace with a yellow flower, their roots do not penetrate. In the same way, while the mind is rootless, it spreads throughout all space, existing as the nature of all phenomena. ... Who said tathatā was supposed to be interesting? Not the Buddha: “Hey, hey, apparent yet nonexistent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.” -- Unwritten Tantra [<--- Dzogchen Tantra] “Venerable Śariputra, if one sees it like so, all phenomena are empty, without characteristics, non-arising, unceasing, without stains, and not free from stains; not decreasing, not increasing. “Śariputra, in emptiness there is no matter, no sensation, no ideation, no formations, no consciousness, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no contact. There is no eye element up to no mental element, and also nothing up to the element of mental consciousness. There is no ignorance; there is no end of ignorance; up to there is no aging and death and no end of aging and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, cause, cessation and path. There is no wisdom, nothing to obtain, and also nothing not to obtain. -- The "Heart" Sutra ~ Malcolm aka. Loppon Namdrol ... Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states: "An existent does not arise from an existent; neither does an existent arise from a non-existent. A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent; neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." translated by Kalupahana Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky: Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction." -Candrakirti "Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views." -Candrakirti "the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated." -Candrakirti "Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things." -Candrakirti "Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world." -Candrakirti Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since I have no position, I am not at fault at all." Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence, nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time." "I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness." -Candrakirti Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states: "Not from themselves, not from something other, Not from both, and not without a cause- At any place and any time, All entities lack arising." Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika): "Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators]. Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments: "If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it, Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames And everything could arise from everything, Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]." Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other." Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states: "If an entity in itself does not exist, An entity other [than it] does not exist either." Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments: "Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]." Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states: "If some nonarisen entity Existed somewhere, It might arise. However, since such does not exist, what would arise?" Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states: "If something that lacks arising could arise, Just about anything could arise in this way." We should not continue to ignore such principles such as non-arising, etc, otherwise Westerners will continue to interpret buddhadharma in the light of Christian theology, Idealism, etc. There is an epistemic context in which this language developed from, and thankfully competent translators are increasingly finding better ways to translate these concepts into native Western languages, which will pave the way for future generations in the coming decades. To sufficiently understand the context of non-arising just read some of the Prajnaparamita Sutras.

By 'stir shit up', I mean sectarian degradation as a means of 'getting off'.

No other reason than to stir shit up and maybe even learn something in the process (which I have by the way). Thanks for the info!

Wow, yeah, went back and reread that sutta more carefully.

I don't know, but if it's limited it to the Taisho Tripitaka, that's still a vast amount of material to make any sort of generalizations about without having read it myself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taish%C5%8D_Tripi%E1%B9%ADaka). If I had to make a guess, I would say stuff dealing with tantric anatomy, astrology, and medicine (Religion, Medicine, and the Human Embryo in Tibet [http://www.misterdanger.net/books/Buddhism%20Books/Religion%20medicine%20%26%20human%20embryo%20Tibet.pdf]) would be found in the Buddhist Tantras. The book was written by a sociologist, and the citation was from a Japanese professor affiliated with the "Society for the Research of Daoism" in Japan (http://en.daoinfo.org/wiki/Research_of_Daoism_in_Japan), so I don't think it was motivated by "religious polemics". The Japanese contributed a great deal to East Asian studies before and after WW2 (they are still among the top departments in the world). Stephen Bokenkamp, among a number of other scholars, cites Ofuchi Ninji's research.

That means you practice hua tou? Or the 'silent illumination' of the Caodong school? Another possibility could be that the group of 30 monks (http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/accesstoinsight/html/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.009.than.html) were predisposed towards this kind of behavior, but maybe this sutta should be treated as a cautionary tale, since the practice of asubhabhavana is to develop disenchantment not aversion (e.g. as an antidote to the hindrance of sensory desire (kammacchanda) to enter the rupajhanas). We must have come across two entirely different descriptions of Nisargadatta's experiences from his books because what he describes falls in line with what's described here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.than.html "Monks, whatever contemplatives or brahmans who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? ... "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. Nisargadatta was all about his experience of "nothingness" which would very likely be the jhana of nothingness in Buddhism. The "I AM" (self-inquiry) was merely a stepping stone at the start of the journey.

'Mindfulness' has been adapted for use in military deployment in the form of Mindfulness Based Mind Fitness Training [http://www.mind-fitness-training.org/research.html] (MMFT); which is why 'mindfulness' in the context of Buddhist practice, should be qualified with the 37 factors of awakening.

Embodying the role of saintly heretic, revealing the hypocricies of man, meshed in throes of hypocrisy; not bound, not free, no worry: night plum blossoms spreading under a branch between her thighs narcissus revolves smell it? she'd play with it almost anywhere day and night touch it with the deepest part of herself a beautiful woman's hot vagina's full of love I've given up trying to put out the fire of my body a butterfly hovers in front of her face how long will she sleep http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ikky%C5%AB: Eight inches strong, it is my favourite thing; If I'm alone at night, I embrace it fully - A beautiful woman hasn't touched it for ages. Within my fundoshi there is an entire universe! My Hovel trans. by John Stevens The world before my eyes is wan and wasted just like me. The earth is decrepit, the sky stormy, all the grass withered. No spring breeze even at this late date, Just winter clouds swallowing up my tiny reed hut. Crazy Cloud is a demon in Daito’s line But he hates the hellish bickering. What good are old koans and faded traditions? No use complaining any more, I’ll just rely on my inner treasures. My real dwelling Has no pillars And no roof either So rain cannot soak it And wind cannot blow it down Every day priests minutely examine the Dharma And endlessly chant complicated sutras. Before doing that, though, they should learn How to read the love letters sent by the wind and rain, the snow and moon. Crow With No Mouth versions by Stephen Berg Hearing a crow with no mouth Cry in the deep Darkness of the night I feel a longing for My father before he was born ~ trans. by Soiku Shigematsu Void In Form When, just as they are, White dewdrops gather On scarlet maple leaves Regard the scarlet beads! Form In Void The tree is stripped, All color, fragrance gone, Yet already on the bough, Uncaring spring! mirror facing a mirror nowhere else the mind is exactly this tree that grass without thought or feeling both disappear not two not one either and the unpainted breeze in the ink painting feels cool nobody before me nobody after writing it nobody knows shit nobody lives anywhere hello dust! pine needles inches deep hug the ground no one lives here all koans just lead you on but not the delicious pussy of the young girls I go down on thirsty you dream of water cold you want fire not me I want the firm warm breasts and wetness of a woman a crazy lecher shuttling between whorehouse and bar this past master paints south north east west with his cock ten years of whorehouse joy I'm alone now in the mountains the pines are like a jail the wind scratches my skin the crow's caw was ok but one night with a lovely whore opened a wisdom deeper than what that bird said ...Among those who came to him for guidance was Murata Shuko, the most eminent tea ceremony master of the day. Visiting Ikkyu, he was asked what he thought of Master Joshu's well known reference to tea drinking (in spite of their different responses, Joshu invariably said to three monks training under him "Have a cup of tea"). Shuko remained silent, and at last Ikkyu served him a cup of tea. As Shuko lifted the cup to his lips, Ikkyu let out with a Zen shout and smashed the cup with his iron nyoi (Buddhist implement). Shuko made a deep bow. "What are you like" Ikkyu said, "when you've no intention of taking tea?" Without answering, Shuko got up and moved toward the door, "Stop," Ikkyu replied. "What are you like when you've taken tea?" "The willow is green," Shuko said, "the rose is red." Ikkyu, approving of Shuko's grasp of Zen, smiled broadly. ... http://sweepingzen.com/ikkyu-bio/ - A short bio. Keep note, that "Red Thread Zen" is not an actual Zen lineage and that he had a daughter, not a son. http://www.whitepine.org/wildways.pdf - Preview of "Wild Ways" by John Stevens http://thegreenleaf.co.uk/hp/Ikkyu/00ikkyu.htm - Selected poems by John Stevens and Stephen Berg

http://artsandsciences.fsu.edu/In-the-News/Religion-professor-adds-Guggenheim-to-earlier-NEH-fellowship "Cuevas, the John F. Priest Professor of Religion in the Department of Religion, will use the grant money provided by his NEH Fellowship for University Teachers, as well as the funds that accompany the Guggenheim fellowship in humanities, to translate from Tibetan into English the biography of one of Tibet’s most controversial Buddhist saints, Ra Lotsawa Dorje Drak (often referred to simply as Ralo)...“Among the most illustrious Buddhist saints of Tibet, Ralo stands tall as one of the most notorious figures in the history of Tibetan Buddhist culture, equal in celebrity to Tibet’s beloved poet Milarepa (1040-1123 A.D.),” Cuevas said. “But whereas Milarepa is viewed as Tibet’s ideal Buddhist contemplative yogin(a master of yoga), who in a single lifetime transformed himself from great sinner to great saint, Ralo is his shadow double.” Was Ralo, who was born in 1016 and died around 1100 A.D., an enlightened saint or a murderous villain? Nearly 1,000 years later, the answer to that question is still somewhat ambiguous. According to legend, he killed more than a dozen Tibetan lamas, or Buddhist high priests — many of them famous and with large numbers of followers of their own. But according to texts of the Yamāntaka and Vajrabhairava traditions of Buddhist practice that he brought from India and Nepal, translated and then popularized in Tibet, Ralo was compelled to “liberate” those who were on the wrong path so that they could eventually reach a state of enlightenment. Faithful supporters viewed Ralo’s actions as heroically virtuous, both because they served to promulgate a “truer” Buddhism and to subjugate his enemies. “He is the paradigmatic sinister yogin, Tibetan Buddhist antihero and wonder-worker, who deployed his magical abilities to defeat his competitors and to gain abundant riches, worldly power and spiritual influence,” Cuevas said. “His achievements, however, were not confined to the promotion of hostile practices in defense of Buddhism but included translations from Sanskrit of major Indian Tantric Buddhist scriptures — hence the name ‘Lotsawa,’ the Tibetan term for ‘translator,’ which was reserved for only the most learned of Buddhist linguistic scholars.” Cuevas says his translation of “The All-Pervading Melodious Drumbeat” will challenge popular and overly romantic conceptions of Buddhism as a thoroughly pacifist and non-violent religion. “The topic of Buddhist violence has been attracting a growing audience in recent years, and a few excellent books on the topic have now appeared,” he said. “To date, however, there have been no sustained scholarly studies on the history of Buddhist sorcery and ritual magic. Buddhist sorcery has been a legitimate expression of religious and political action throughout Buddhist history. In Tibet, magic and spiritual warfare have been inextricably tied to conventional Buddhist forms of ritual action and deeply embedded in Tibetan religious ideology.” Readers of Ralo’s translated biography, Cuevas said, will discover “extravagant accounts of Ralo’s magical exploits, as well as the more conventional episodes in the life of a Buddhist saint — wondrous birth, remarkable childhood, quest for the guru, enlightenment, meritorious works and expansive preaching career.”

Does he comment in any of his books about this: http://books.google.com/books?id=2HS1DOZ35EgC&pg=PA280&dq=Taoism+copy+of+buddhism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=THYeUay1BLOt0AH2o4DoDQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=Taoism%20copy%20of%20buddhism&f=false "...In the early 500s in the south, a canon of Taoist scriptures was formulated, an imitation of Buddhist sutras which came close to plagiarism (Ofuchi, 1979:267)".

As a natural consequence of Buddha's teachings (of dependent origination) "I AM" is a state of delusion: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.wlsh.html "Monks, those recluses and brahmans who regard the self in various ways, do so in terms of the five groups of clinging, or some of them. Which five? "Here, monks, the uninstructed worldling... regards body as the self, the self as having body, body as being in the self, or the self as being in the body. [similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness.'] So this way of regarding arises: it occurs to him to think 'I am.'[1] "Now when it has occurred to him to think 'I am,' the five (sense-) faculties[2] come into play[3] — the faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. "Monks, there is mind,[4] there are mind-objects,[5] there is the element of ignorance.[6] The uninstructed worldling, touched by the feeling[7] born of contact with ignorance, thinks 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'things will be,' 'things will not be,'[8] 'things will be embodied,'[9] 'things will be disembodied,' 'things will be conscious,' 'things will be unconscious,' 'things will be neither conscious-nor-unconscious.'[10] "It is just in this way, monks, that the five (sense-) faculties persist. But here, for the well taught Ariyan disciple, ignorance is abandoned and knowledge arises.[11] With the waning of ignorance and the arising of knowledge, he does not come to think 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'things will be,' 'things will not be,' 'things will be embodied,' 'things will be disembodied,' 'things will be conscious,' 'things will be unconscious,' 'things will be neither conscious-nor-unconscious.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html Then Ven. Khemaka, leaning on his staff, went to the elder monks and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with them. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the elder monks said to him, "Friend Khemaka, this 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do you say, 'I am something other than consciousness''? This 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?" "Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.' "It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?" "No, friend." "Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?" "As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly." ... "Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated. "In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html "Develop the meditation of the perception of inconstancy. For when you are developing the meditation of the perception of inconstancy, the conceit 'I am' will be abandoned." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.001.than.html "And furthermore, monks, when the monk is established in these five qualities, there are four additional qualities he should develop: He should develop [contemplation of] the unattractive so as to abandon lust. He should develop good will so as to abandon ill will. He should develop mindfulness of in-&-out breathing so as to cut off distractive thinking. He should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit, 'I am.' For a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm. One perceiving not-self attains the uprooting of the conceit, 'I am' — Unbinding in the here & now." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html "There are these five clinging-aggregates where a monk should stay, keeping track of arising & passing away (thus): 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' As he stays keeping track of arising & passing away with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, he abandons any conceit that 'I am' with regard to these five clinging-aggregates. This being the case, he discerns, 'I have abandoned any conceit that "I am" with regard to these five clinging-aggregates.' In this way he is alert there." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.than.html "Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns fermentation, the origination of fermentation, the cessation of fermentation, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of fermentation in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am'; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here-&-now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view, one whose view is made straight, who is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma, and who has arrived at this true Dhamma." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.2.01.than.html Blissful is solitude for one who's content, who has heard the Dhamma, who sees. Blissful is non-affliction with regard for the world, restraint for living beings. Blissful is dispassion with regard for the world, the overcoming of sensuality. But the subduing of the conceit "I am" [1] — That is truly the ultimate bliss.

In this case 'faith' was derived from your practice of Buddhist meditation, and the fact that you have continued to practice shamatha-vipashyana confirms that you still have 'faith' (or if it's more favorable for you to view it as 'confidence') in those methods, whether or not you have accepted the buddhadharma's definition of liberation. Not bothering to speculate on which mystical aspects of the Mahayana sutras you've most likely taken too literally, but considering your comments from the previous page and here, it should be kept in mind that the Mahayana narratives are meant to be metaphorical representations by which to convey an ideal, particularly that of the narratives in which the buddhas and bodhisattvas have made the vow to 'liberate all sentient beings'.

Have you checked out "The Dhamma Brothers" [http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/7974/The-Dhamma-Brothers] documentary? An Alabama prison implemented a program modeled after the one in that documentary. Seeing hardened criminals burn through emotional blockages, opening up with feelings of remorse, gaining a sense of respite from the mental anguish of their actions, contented and at peace despite the harsh reality of their environment and the fact that most of them won't ever be able to leave on parole...it's really remarkable. Definitely worth a watch.

Funny you mention this because Malcolm, a Loppon/Acharya in the Sakya lineage, recently clarified 'transmission' according to Tibetan Buddhism on the DW forum: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16286&start=120 Empowerments are not mystical transmissions, they are a very specific method with a precise dependent origination that requires the guru and the disciples' active, simultaneous, cooperative participation... http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=16286&start=160 An empowerment is something that arranges a profound dependent origination between someone's body, speech and mind and the three kāyas of the result. Therefore, it is not so that one does not receive the empowerment if one does not realize the nature of the mind. An empowerment is first of all a method for inducing realization, for example, when Indrabhuti I attained Buddhahood by receiving the Guhyasamaja empowerment. Failing that, we have sadhanas, which is the method connected to the empowerment to produce realization. When we receive an empowerment, we agree to follow various samayas until we attain buddhahood. People who do not receive empowerments do not have those samayas. He summarized what an empowerment basically is in Tibetan Buddhism: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=4386&start=100 Transmission requires two people, a person giving transmission and a person receiving transmission. They must somehow be related to each other through the act of delivering the substance of transmission which is act of communication by a speaker to a hearer via sounds, words and symbols at minimum. In Vajrayāna there is are further experiential transmissions which come about when the teacher deliberately induces specific experiences in a student. But again, it is through sound, words, and symbols. Taste, sight, touch, etc., these experiences are symbols.

To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided. ~ Longchenpa

I've expressed similar sentiments towards the 'McMindfulness' memes: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33965-the-course-in-buddhist-reasoning-and-debate/?p=532280 Sati or 'mindfulness', in itself is not a unique feature of Buddha's teaching, everyone uses some degree of attention in their everyday lives, sati as a mental factor, is utilized as sustained attention on an object. Attention is developed when we can continually sustain it on an object of focus for extended periods of time. Naturally, this is the primary factor that leads to the development of samadhi. In Buddhism, sati only becomes a liberating factor, when it is combined with the 37 factors of awakening, and the Buddha's teaching on the 3 seals of anicca, dukkha, anatta (for Mahayana its 2-fold emptiness). The 3 seals are a very basic component of Buddhism and is particularly emphasized in Hinayana; 'mindfulness' of the arising and passing of the 5 aggregates via the 6 sense doors are taught as the primary means towards stream-entry. All Theravada traditions emphasize this when teaching vipassana whether it's in the style of the Burmese or Thai traditions, Mahasi Sayadaw's and S.N. Goenka's teachings, etc. Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBST), and the related Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), are very effective therapeutical techniques nonetheless.

If you read the records of the Zen masters you'll find that they commonly discuss emptiness, buddha-nature, karma, the 6 realms of samsara, the 6 paramita's of the bodhisattva path, etc.

To even bother engaging Buddhist practice requires the mental factor of faith [skt. shraddha] in the overall schema of the 37 factors of awakening. Otherwise, there's going to be no incentive to carry out the principles for practice. Yet, Zen is not entirely divorced from the buddhadharma, regardless of the rhetoric of "A special transmission outside the scriptures". The archaic and vague sayings used throughout the records of the Zen masters are couched in the meaning and language of the Buddhist sutras. The mythological dissemination of the Zen lineage to Huike involves Bodhidharma handing off the Lankavatara Sutra as a symbol of authenticating the transmission of the 'mind-seal'. The narrative of the 6th patriarch's awakening involves his overhearing an individual reciting verses from the Diamond Sutra before becoming a monk; while the catalyst for his great awakening involves a private dialogue with the 5th patriarch reciting lines from the Diamond Sutra thereby transmitting the 'mind-seal'. Even Huineng recites passages from the Diamond Sutra, Nirvana Sutra, etc. to his audience as attributed in the Platform Sutra. There is also the example of Hanshan (Cold Mountian), who is famous for his poems, but mentioned by Nan Huaijin in his "The Story of Chinese Zen", where it's described he used the Shurangama Sutra as the basis for his meditation while on retreat in the mountains, serving as his authentication of progress towards awakening (translation of the sutra with Hanshans commentary by Charles Luk - http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/shurangamasutralukuanyu.pdf). What he learned from these masters was the jhana of nothingness and the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception (summary of Buddha's life story according to the Pali canon: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html).

Just as when seeds are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & heat, capable of sprouting, well-buried, planted in well-prepared soil, and the rain-god would offer good streams of rain. Those seeds would thus come to growth, increase, & abundance. In the same way, any action performed with greed... performed with aversion... performed with delusion — born of delusion, caused by delusion, originating from delusion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence. A person unknowing: the actions performed by him, born of greed, born of aversion, & born of delusion, whether many or few, are experienced right here: no other ground is found.[1] So a monk, knowing, sheds greed, aversion, & delusion; giving rise to clear knowledge, he sheds all bad destinations.[2] ~ Nidana Sutta

Having a teacher is indispensable for Chan practice: http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewforum.php?f=32.

This is all you have to know about 'rangtong' and 'shengtong': http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9701&start=20 The actual mode of meditation in rang stong and gzhan stong are not different at all. The difference lay primarily in how they conceptualize the view in post-meditation. The basis in gzhan stong is still emptiness, albeit is an emptiness qualified by the presence of ultimate buddha qualities, where samsaric phenomena are considered extraneous. Why? Because these ultimate qualities are only held to appear to exist in post-equipoise, but their appearance of existence disappear when in equipoise. The equipoise in both rang stong and gzhan stong is characterized as an equipoise free from extremes. In the case of commoners, this freedom from extremes is arrived through analysis that negate the four extremes in turn. This is necessary even in gshan stong because attachment to the luminosity described by the PP sutras will result in an extreme view, just as grasping to emptiness results in an extreme view. As I said, the most salient difference between R and S is in their post-equipoise formulation. In terms of how adherents of the so called R and S views actually meditate, there is no ultimate difference. The pitfall of both approaches is the same -- failure to eradicate all extremes results in the former grasping to non-existence as emptiness, and the latter grasping to existence as emptiness. The purpose of Madhyamaka analysis is not to come to some imagined "correct" generic image of the ultimate, but rather to exhaust the mind's capacity to reify phenomena according to any extreme so that one's experience of conventional truth upon reaching the path of seeing in post-equipoise is that all phenomena are seen to be illusions, dreams and so on i.e. unreal and yet apparent due to the force of traces. It is exactly emptiness precisely in the fashion that I described it, even in Dolbuwa's presentation. ~ Loppon Namdrol You could possibly have one-on-one correspondences with a Bonpo Geshe to learn Madhyamaka, if you're really interested in doing that.