Simple_Jack

Your remarks in this thread are the reason why there can't be any honest discussions about the insights of different traditions on the TTB's.

At least this can be said of Greg Goode.

Just give up the sophistry already.

This is how I can deduce that neither of you are practitioners of buddhadharma.

I'm basing it mostly off of these remarks:

I think it's safe to conclude that the same cannot be said of you and yabyum24.

Well, he's an advocate of buddhadharma. He actually practices buddhadharma.

It means he's a practitioner of buddhadharma. He's also a Gelugpa.

Nope. I can find more posts of his from http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/ talking about Madhyamaka.

It can't be denied that Greg Goode follows Madhyamaka.

Proof of it here: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15368&p=212112&hilit=greg+goode#p212112 Greg Goode wrote about this not too long ago: "Nagarjuna argues that the faculty of vision cannot ultimately exist. And then neither can a seer or visual objects. Then generalizes to other senses. Even the first two verses deserve lots of contemplation: 3.1. "Vision, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and the inner sense (manas or the mind) are the six faculties; the visible and so on are their fields." (This is the doctrine, and it is held that they exist inherently. This latter claim is what Nagarjuna will refute.) 3.2. "In no way does vision see itself. If vision does not see itself, how will it see what is other?" Verse 3.2 seems odd, because we would normally think that vision is not SUPPOSED to see itself. It is only SUPPOSED to see something other than itself, right? Verse 3.2.a is a version of the non-reflexivity principle. The eye cannot see itself, the knife cannot cut itself. Verse 3.2.b seems like a non-sequitur. Here is what the Indian commentaries said about it. There are at least several ways to look at this: -1- Think of being seen as a property or attribute, something that pervades a substance. It is like the scent of jasmine pervades the jasmine flower before pervading the air around it. If the flower is not pervaded by its own scent, then neither can the air be pervaded by it. So in this way, is vision itself pervaded by the property or essence of being seen? Clearly not. So, like the example of the flower, the property of being seen cannot pervade anything else. So nothing is pervaded by the property of being seen, and the visible is not established. Vision is also not established. -2- If seeing is the inherent, intrinsic property of vision, then it must see all by itself, regardless of whether there is an object present. If vision depended on an object in order for seeing to work, then vision would not be ultimately, inherently existent. Seeing would not be an inherent property of vision. But vision does not see by itself. So it isn't an inherently existent element, and can't inherently see anything. -3- Another way to look at vision is by the objects it sees. Vision either sees the presently visible, or the presently invisible, or both, or neither. Vision doesn't see objects that are presently visible, because they are already being seen. Because they are already being seen, they do not need vision to see them. So this vision is not what is seeing them. Vision doesn't see objects that are presently invisible. Invisible objects have the property of not being seen, so nothing can see them. Vision doesn't see objects that are both visible and invisible because of a combination of the first two reasons above. Vision doesn't see objects that are NEITHER visible nor invisible because we can REVERSE the first two reasons above. Therefore vision doesn't see. If it doesn't see, then seeingness is not its intrinsic nature. Then it makes no sense to think that vision exists in the ultimate way that it appears to. If vision doesn't exist, then how can visible objects exist?" ... "Vision doesn't see itself. It is not reflexive. Vision is not pervaded by the property of being seen. So if it can't even pervade itself with a property it is supposed to have inherently, then how can it ever spread out and pervade other things? So therefore, the analogy with the flower fails. Vision is more like a knife that can't cut itself than it is like a flower that pervades itself with its own scent. If it is the intrinsic nature of something to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (as it's not necessary), and non-vision doesn't see it (as it's not possible).. If it is the intrinsic nature of something not to be seen, then vision doesn't see it (or then it would be seen and not unseen), and non-vision doesn't see it (because non-vision cannot see). A visual object is either seen by vision or not seen by vision. If vision doesn't see it (because vision is superfluous), then it is not a visual object. If it is not seen by vision because its own nature is to be unseen, then it is also not a visual object. Therefore there are no visual objects. The key to getting this logic is that the assumption of inherent properties make any relationships either impossible or superfluous."

I'm basing it mostly off of these remarks.

It's just the fact that there are unsound and inexperienced comments coming from non-practitioners of buddhadharma in this thread.

I'm sorry guys, but for anyone who's actually practiced vipassana according to the Pali traditions, or received empowerment and instructions from a Lama, I'm unable to fathom them taking any of these comments seriously.

This "irrelevancy" forms the entire foundation of Buddhist epistemology. From Hinayana on through to Mahayana. The advantages of Vajrayana lies in its methods. If the above is unnecessarily superfluous, it's only because the paths of the 2 stages, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra are nongradual. Although, these paths dispense with the seemingly complex epistemology of sutrayana, thereby making them swifter paths, this can be deceptive. Why? Because, in the case of Dzogchen for example, not everyone is a cig car ba i.e. an instantaneous type. The majority of practitioners, fall in the category of the average and dull capacities for realization, continually refining vidya and making a graduated progression on the path.

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=3943&hilit=external+approach Prior to analyzing phenomena as mind-only, mind and matter are conventionally regarded as a dualism even in Yogacara. Why, because the imputed nature is exactly the conventional world. Also in standard Madhyamaka, on the conventional level mind and matter are regarded as distinct. While the annutarayoga tantras move in the direction of dissolving the distinction between mind and matter, the substance dualism in Buddhism is only satisfactorily resolved in Dzogchen (but not by regarding all phenomena as mind-- which is a point of view rejected by Longchenpa incoherent). In Dzogchen, mind and matter are regarded as seamlessly welded, not that mind has primacy over matter. Dzogchen texts even go so far as to reject the formless realm as truly formless. This is why for example the Khandro Nyinthig states very clearly "Sometimes we say "citta", sometimes "vāyu",but the meaning is the same."Vāyu is just the element of air i.e. motility present in matter. This also accounts for rebirth. In the Guhyasamaja, for example, the ālayavijñāna is wedded to the mahāprāṇavāyu -- this union allows rebirth to happen. ... In Dzogchen, mind and matter exist because of avidya. When there is no more avidyā, for you there is neither mind nor matter. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3979&start=60 You cannot separate the pure sadhadhatu (wisdom and five lights) from the impure sadadhātu (consciousness and five elements). The difference is only vidyā or avidyā. The sadadhātu are a model that is capable of encompassing any state of matter or mind, no matter how subtle or gross, macro, micro, nano, subatomic, etc.... The medicine tantra states: "No formation without earth, no cohesion without water, no maturation without fire, no development without air, and no room for development without space." http://www.misterdanger.net/books/Buddhism%20Books/Religion%20medicine%20%26%20human%20embryo%20Tibet.pdf - Religion, Medicine, and the Human Embryo in Tibet

Actually, the whole point of the non-affirming negations in Madhymaka, is just that, to "drop the whole shebang". In this case, it's views stemming from "is" or "is not", especially if someone is trained in a non-buddhist tenet system.

That's besides the point. The point is that ontological views such as the above is what Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Prajnaparamita seek to put an end to.

You said you didn't like ontology, positing an undifferentiated "awareness" is an ontology, so is positing an actual state free from dualities a la Advaita Vedanta or Kashmiri Shaivism. All ontological views stem from grasping onto imputations of an entity or non-entity into sensate experience. This is what Madhyamaka seeks to cut with its expositions of the 2-truths.

In Madhyamaka, on a conventional level, consciousness arises only if there is a meeting of a sense organ and sense object. Expositions of the "two truths" are for deluded sentient beings. Technically, Mahamudra can be included, right? If you don't like ontology, then you should have no problem, with the basic premise of Madhyamaka. Anyways, I think I can safely conclude that you're a realist (Buddhist definition).

Just read the Prajnaparamita Sutras if you don't want to bother with expositions of the "two truths".

http://middleland.org/services/88-buddhas-repentance-ceremony/ 88 Buddhas Repentance Ceremony In the 88 Buddhas Repentance Ceremony, participants repent by chanting the names of 88 buddhas, which is an excellent way to clear our karmic obstacles and draw out our inner wisdom. 　　The sources of the names of the 88 buddhas were not recorded in the repentance liturgy and remained unknown until Dao Pai, a Qing Dynasty Dharma Master, decided to look them up. Master Dao Pei was ordained as a monk at a young age. The very first time he chanted the 88 buddhas’ names, he experienced a cool serenity never felt before. Even when he became an old man, he would experience the same pure joy each time he chanted the buddhas’ names, so he set out to look for the sources of the names in the sutra collections. He discovered that the first 53 buddhas’ names came from the Sutra of Visualizing the Two Bodhisattvas, the King of Medicine and the Superior Physician, and the last 35 buddhas’ names came from the Maharatnakuta Sutra. Fearing that without this knowledge, future readers of the liturgy might not treat it with the proper respect and veneration, he added this documentation in the preface to the liturgy with the aim of strengthening the faith and earnestness of the practitioners as they chanted the names of the buddhas. 　　The power of chanting the buddhas’ names is documented in the past life story of Shakyamuni Buddha at the time of the Buddha Suryarasmi. One day, Shakyamuni Buddha, a practicing monk, heard the chanting of the 53 buddhas’ names and immediately sensed an indescribable joy, which he felt must be shared with all beings. He had the message passed along to 3,000 people, who followed his example and chanted the 53 buddhas’ names with deep respect and remembered each buddha’s name by heart. These people subsequently attained buddhahood in three different time periods, or kalpas. 　　Shakyamuni Buddha also felt the suffering of beings who had to carry with them heavy karmic obstacles, so he taught them to repent by chanting the 35 buddhas’ names. 　　Chanting the 88 buddhas’ names is a practice that allows us to pay respect to all the buddhas who have already attained enlightenment and the buddha-to-be in each of us. Reflecting on and repenting the bad habits that keep us from enlightenment will reduce our false pride and clear new paths for us in our lives. http://kongmu.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/88-buddhas/ "If you contemplate your mind, you will find no mind, except the mind that comes from mis-conceptions. The mind with such conceptions arises from delusion. Like the wind in the sky, it has no grounding. Such a character of things neither appears nor disappears. What is sin? What is virtue? As the thought of self is itself empty, neither sin nor virtue is our master. In this way, all things are neither permanent nor destroyed. If one repents like this, meditating on one’s mind, one finds no mind. Things also do not dwell in things. All things are liberated, show the truth of extinction, and are calm and tranquil. Such a thing is called great repentance, sublime repentance, repentance without sin, the destruction of the self-referential mind. People who practice this repentance are pure in body and mind, like flowing water, not attached to things." ——————– "The whole ocean of hindrances from past actions arises from illusion. If you want to repent, you should sit upright and reflect on the true nature of things. All evils are like frost and dew. The sun of wisdom can dissipate them." http://kongmu.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/eighty-eight-buddhas-repentance.pdf - 88 Buddhas Repentance PDF trans. by Ven. Hui feng

That's okay if you ascribe to realism (Buddhist definition), as long as you recognize that you carry this view, but as long you carry this view: then you won't be able to appreciate the explication of 2-fold emptiness in Mahayana. You will also be bound by this view, unable to drop the limitations of "early Buddhism", therefore hampering your progression towards realization of emptiness in the long haul.

I can safely conclude, that the author of this article, is a realist (Buddhist definition). Which is why he's unable to look beyond the limitations of 'early Buddhism'.

There's Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning or you can check out Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso's Stars of Wisdom: Analytical Meditation, Songs of Yogic Joy, And Prayers of Aspiration -- http://books.google.com/books?id=vJVDCUcwirgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. There's always Sutra Mahamudra -- http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/ The context of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka was to correct the crypto-realism of the abhidharma-kosha. If someone doesn't want the "two truths", to muddy up the presentation of prajnaparamita, then they can always read the Prajnaparamita Sutras as translated by Edward Conze. Although, if that someone is a realist (Buddhist definition), then there's a good chance they will scream "Nihilism!" Hopefully, you're not advocating going to the other extreme of anti-intellectualism, by posting this. There should be a middle ground where theory and practice meets. Believe it or not, it's your choice, this is feasible in actuality.