Simple_Jack

Relative appearances which appear to a deluded cognition are not validated in buddhadharma.

Spare me your e-prime. Jigme Lingpa, as translated by Erik Kunsang, page 417 of Wellsprings of the Great Perfection: Beliefs in biased "is" and "isn't" fully crumble

Buddhadharma does not equate to the worldview of scientism: http://thetaobums.com/topic/33010-nondual-in-buddhadharma/?p=507136 Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself. But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not".... "Is" leads to the view of eternalism. "Is not" leads to the view of annihilation. Nāgārjuna states: ‘Is’ is holding to permanence, ‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view. Because of that, is and is not are not made into a basis by the wise. - Loppon Namdrol

Buddhadharma escapes that assertion: Jigme Lingpa, as translated by Erik Kunsang, page 417 of Wellsprings of the Great Perfection: Beliefs in biased "is" and "isn't" fully crumble

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: [<---- Dzogchen upadesha tantra] Because of being free from extremes, do not abide in the middle. Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness. 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. ... “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 upadesha 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 ~ trans. by Loppon Namdrol

@ Ralis Yes, but not in the way you have inaccurately portrayed, and it's a different type of fanaticism in comparison to perennialists: http://www.religioperennis.org/documents/Fabbri/Perennialism.pdf "...They claim that the historically separated traditions share not only the same divine origin but are based on the same metaphysical principles, sometimes called philosophia perennis."

Vajrayana claims: If one who possesses the three vows understands the profound points of the two stages, it is said that in this life, the bardo or within sixteen lifetimes, that one will accomplish perfect buddhahood. ~ Sakya Pandita

I said contrary not limited. Sir, I don't appreciate your inaccurate portrayal of fanatical Buddhists. I've reported you to the mods.

I said contrary not limited. Excuse me sir, I didn't find it very nice or ethical, when you painted fanatical Buddhists with an inaccurate absolute judgement on behalf of their views, mmmkay? I'm reporting you to the mods.

This is a more accurate representation of fanatical Buddhists.

Fixed it.

Good luck entering into Amitabha's Pureland at the time of death. If you train diligently enough you could manifest sharira like this posters deceased grandma: http://thetaobums.com/topic/27071-difference-between-being-in-pure-land-and-clear-light/?p=413433 http://thetaobums.com/topic/27071-difference-between-being-in-pure-land-and-clear-light/?p=412598 http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/07/how-luminosity-clarity-and-clear-light.html (differentiation between "clarity" and "luminosity" in buddhadharma).

Reading that book for just its translations of passages from the Yogacarabhumishastra is alone worth it.

Because, there's a lot of great Zen teachings in his books, which haven't been translated into English. That quote for instance is influenced by the Yogacarabhumishastra. It's pretty self-explanatory, so Nan Huaijins commentary doesn't interpolate any meaning, that can't already be discerned by someone familiar with the subject matter.

http://thetaobums.com/topic/17068-the-chan-bums/?p=555187 From Nan Huaijin's "To Realize Enlightenment" trans. by Thomas Cleary: (pg. 217) ....These realms of delusion are even simpler to understand if we express them in a saying of the Zen School:"Giving rise to mind and setting thoughts in motion is the deva delusive demon. Not giving rise to mind or setting thoughts in motion is the delusive demon of the skandhas. Giving rise [to mind] and yet not giving rise [to mind] is the delusive demon of affliction." If you cannot act the master, any thought whatsoever is a deva delusive demon. If your mind is sunk in oblivion all day long, this is the delusive demon of the skandhas.

Periodically things like this need to be reposted: http://thetaobums.com/topic/17068-the-chan-bums/?p=531262 There are a bunch of blind shavepates who, having stuffed themselves with food, sit down to meditate and practice contemplation. Arresting the flow of thought they don't let it rise; they hate noise and seek stillness. This is the method of heretics. A patriarch said, 'If you stop the mind to look at stillness, arouse the mind to illumine outside, control the mind to clarify inside, concentrate the mind to enter samadhi -- all such [practices] as these are artificial striving. ~ Chan Master Linji http://thetaobums.com/topic/17068-the-chan-bums/?p=531286 The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch [Dunhuang cave edition] trans. by Philip Yampolsky: "No-thought means not to be defiled by external objects. It is to free thought from external objects and not to arouse thoughts about dharmas. But do not stop thinking about things, nor eliminate all thoughts. [if you do so] as soon as a single thought stops you will be reborn in other realms. Take heed of this! Do not cease objective things nor subjective mind." http://thetaobums.com/topic/31033-resting-the-mind-in-its-natural-state/?p=481390 Dudjom Rinpoche points out the difference between the two: "When the mind starts to rest, a slight diminishment of movement and thoughts constitutes a false semblance of stillness. When deep certainty arises that stillness is unborn and movement unceasing, and that stillness and movement are an equal taste, you have begun to meditate correctly." Here's Mipham Rinpoche discussing the difference between śamatha and rigpa... essentially warning not to mistake calm abiding śamatha for the natural state: "When you rest your attention in naturalness without thinking anything whatsoever and maintain constant mindfulness in that state, you may experience a vacant and blank state of mind which is neutral and indifferent. If no vipaśyanā of decisive knowing is present, this is exactly what the masters call 'ignorance'. It is also called 'undecided' from the point of being unable to express any means of identification, such as 'It is like this!' or 'This is it!' Being unable to say what you are remaining in or thinking of, this state is labelled 'ordinary indifference'. But actually, it is just an ordinary and nonspecific abiding in the state of the all-basis [skt. ālaya, tib. kun gzhi]. Although nonconceptual wakefulness has to be developed through this method of resting meditation, to lack the wisdom that sees your own nature is not the main part of meditation practice. This is what the 'Aspiration of Samantabhadra' says: 'The vacant state of not thinking anything Is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion.' ...."

Thinking about it, it's common to come across various persons describing their experiences along the line of Jax's video, in the "spiritual market" or on spiritually oriented discussion forums. Unfortunately, many people end up grasping to the mere clarity of mind, halting any further progression, thereby being bound by their own limitations...

http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/?p=568213 That is a belief. http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/?p=568218 Pulling the belief card is a slippery, slippery slope. http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/?p=568231 For whom? http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/?p=568243 For everyone participating in 'spiritual discussion' on TTB's. It's also a cop-out. ... I don't know if you personally ascribe to it, but from reading threads in the other sub-forums, I'm familiar with Michael Lomax's views (Higher Level Self, Being of Light, etc.) It could be a matter of Daoism resonating more strongly with your personal interests at this point in time, or you have stronger karmic connections with Daoist teachings, which is not a slight against Daoism itself, seeing as how Buddhism heavily influenced the developmental history of Chinese culture after its introduction into Chinese society.

The point is that a system of teachings (e.g. Dzogchen) provides the means for an individual to assess their development by indicating certain signposts along the path. The oral instructions, sutras, tantras, and their commentaries set out to guide one towards buddhahood. See this post here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/page-25#entry567737 Right, because if I were to throw that back at you in regards to Stillness-Movement, you wouldn't disagree....

Yeah, I can verify my capacity. See this post: http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/?p=567676 I don't care about your capacity. I'm unable to comprehend the Buddha's capacity. The point is not everyone shares the same conception of liberation and not everyone shares the same aspirations. See this post here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/35599-why-do-only-very-few-dzogchen-practitioners-attain-rainbow-body/?p=567737 For everyone participating in 'spiritual discussion' on TTB's. It's also a cop-out.

Gautama Buddha was a supreme nirmanakaya and if you read the accounts of his past lives spread throughout the sutras or the Jakarta/Jataka tales he had embarked on the career of a bodhisattva 3 incalculable (asamkyeya) eons (kalpa) ago where he features in many lives as a rishi, ascetic, monk, etc. In comparison the bodhi of a pratykabuddha, which is nothing to scoff at, takes only a hundred kalpas in order to gather the merit and wisdom in order to engender insight into the 12 links of dependent origination, in a period where the buddhadharma has not been dispensed by a samyaksambuddha [http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Pratyekabuddha]. The point I'm trying to get across is, the capacity of ordinary individuals such as ourselves, does not compare to the capacity i.e. the aspiration, the diligence, etc. of an example such as the Buddha.

That could very well be the case, but in a way, the Buddhist sub-forum is the most egalitarian of TTB's in the sense that you're able to post just about whatever you want, as long as nobody reports your posts. Do the same against Hindu Tantra in the Hindu sub-forum, and I'm pretty sure dwai or someone would've reported your posts.

You guys are fortunate you have the opportunity to air out your disdain of hierarchical structures, ritual practice, and religious devotion in the Buddhist sub-forum; if you were to do the same in the other sub-forums you'd be reported by now.

By "more direct training exercise" do you mean shamatha sans an object of meditation?

Bump.