Simple_Jack

So then, how come you think dependent origination is a fallacy?

.

.

Precisely. Thank you for the clarification So, that means that the totality of each of our experiences are dependently originated, hence 'empty,' free from all extremes. AHHH!!NAMASTE!!AHHHHHH!!

Also anatta does not mean "non-existence." It is not establishing any extremes, since there is no "self/Self " within, apart from or seperate from the 5 aggregates for there to be established as "existent" or "non-existent." Sorry, I couldn't resist lol. I...CAN'T...HELP...IT...

.

I agree. However we conduct ourselves now will give rise to a future result. Therefore taking the example from the Laio Fan PDF: We should always be examining/reflecting on our own behaviour, always striving for virtuous conduct, since prior action will always dictate future outcomes. Also virtuous conduct starts from within, as our mental state will reflect on how we respond to the world. This also goes for the saints and sages as well. A quote from Padmasambhava, a Buddha of Tibetan vajrayana, illustrates this well: "Although my view is higher than the sky, my conduct is finer than flour." Too bad, I fail everytime when it concerns things like this. Yay for me!

Well, you should have an idea by now of how I'm going to explain this. Since this is a discussion board, I felt like killing some time to respond to some things: So, I'm not asking anyone to accept anything I type. I'm not going to get too into this, since this isn't the Buddhist sub-forum: Cause and effect of past action is never disregarded, though the seeds of prior action keep rolling on; yet they can totally be 'seen through:' Even in the midst of experiencing the ripened effect of past actions of body, speech and mind. So, there's no denial of cause and effect here. Though being that these seeds are 'empty,' having arisen due to the result of prior action: The whole twelve-fold chain of interdependence ceases - In terms of being re-expressed as ignorance. This reminded me of a quote when typing this response. It's from The Five houses of Zen by Thomas Cleary: Yang-shan asked, "As a temporary event, where do I focus my action?" Kuei-shan said, "I just want your perception to be correct; I don't tell you how to act." Morality, in 'relative' and 'absolute' terms, doesn't really apply when looked at from the POV of cause and effect. The notion of 'free will' is also a moot point, since the continuum of experience, is the unfolding of prior causes. Of course, this doesn't mean that you can't change the way this unfolds. This also means you can 'plant new seeds' which can alter the trajectory of events. Since, most people don't have 'clear perception' like the example from Cleary's book: This is where things like a code of conduct/disciplining our behaviour (so as not to further engender negative habit patterns) and merit accumulation comes in. When combined with meditation, these engender the causes for clearing away the 'mental effluents' to reveal what's already there. Lol, writing the above: I'm reminded just how much of a horrible person and cultivator I am. I'm definitely not the person to be commenting about 'morality' on this board. I'm the perfect example of how not to be like .

At one point, I would've agreed with both of you. That's in the past though. Anyway's, of course, I'm talking of making it irrelevant. Why should I divide my experience into an imagined "relative" and an imagined "absolute?" If I don't believe in making the former any less "real," than the latter: Why would I accept the dichotomy in the first place? Sorry, I don't buy into that whole shit, . I don't bother to discriminate between a "relative" and "absolute" realities. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I'm mentioning this*: Ch'an/zen, dzogchen, and mahamudra, don't bother with the whole "two truths" model. Even in orthodox Buddhism: The "ultimate truth," is that there is no "ultimate truth." With the "relative" state of flux in itself, being the "ultimate." Why would I bother with this whole distinction anyways? *I apologize to everyone for polluting this thread with the talk of Buddhism.

Ahhhh, I'll do it! I swear I'm gonna do eeeeeet! Ahh...Ahhhhh....Ahhhhhhhhh!!! ::Start of pseudo-wise comment, but really just quite retarded:: Metaphorically speaking...Not having any referential point of designation, I wander freely with ease; not pin-pointing anything as "Home," why bother being pinned down in any particular location? Having given up all attachments to any such designations: Everywhere I go is "Home." ::End of pseudo-wise comment, but really just quite retarded::

I think instead of looking at it in a way like "Be a good person because society/religion expects that of you," or "Be a good person or else!" Looking at it in a practical way, it is a means of disciplining the mind in order not be at the whim of your own mental afflictions (as a means to 'tame' the afflicted mind which allows for the generation of merit for further spiritual progress.) Discipline leading to the development of samadhi and samadhi allowing for the development of wisdom. Of course you don't want to be so bound up that you become 'ridgid;' flexibility is needed, especially in today's world. One of the best works to come from China dealing with the subject of this thread is Liao-Fan's Four Lessons My link. Pay particular attention to the dialogue between the scholars and the Chan master. EDIT: Changed 'Confucians to 'scholars;' It was actually stated as scholars not Confucians. Haven't read this in a while, so I got confused with the part talking of Confucius.

Why should we have to exasperate this division of 'relative' and 'absolute' levels of experience? I'm all for demolishing this dichotomy! Who's with me????

Alayavijnana is not some sort of "thing" nor is it some absolutely existing "ground" from which phenomena springs from. There is no "absolute" to deny in Buddhism, since there is no "absolute" state to achieve in Buddhism. The two truths model of Buddhism is that whatever dependently originates is empty (of an independent, concrete, absolute existence,) free from all extremes ~ The ultimate truth is none other than the relativity of dharmas. Vajrahridaya always used to say: "There is no real ultimate state, and that's the ultimate realization." These subtle differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, cannot be understood from an eternalistic framework for experience. They are completely different ways of viewing existence.

All of the teachings that came after Siddartha Gautama's death are basically just an expansion on the original teachings. At the 'heart' of these teachings are the 4 noble truths, 8fold noble path, the three marks of existence/3 dharma seals, and dependent origination/emptiness/the middle way.

Neither "oneness" nor "multiplicity"; choosing one or the other is abiding in extremes: Not abiding in either is the Middle Way. With no sense of "self, " what need is there to talk of "others?" With no sense of division, what need to talk degrees of intimacy? Aren't appearances inseparable from the basis? None other than reflections?

Go tell that to the people over on dharmaoverground (My link) It should be about proving the teachings instead of just accepting them on blind faith (at least that's how I look at it and how I eventually accepted the teachings for myself.) Also, how is the 1st of 4 noble truths not already self-evident? My link The four truths are presented within the Buddha's first discourse, Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dharma (Dharmacakra Pravartana Sūtra). An English translation is as follows:[web 3] "This is the noble truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, illness is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha." "This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." "This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it." "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of dukkha: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. EDIT: There is more than one way to translate "dukkha." 'Dukkha (Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha; Tibetan phonetic: dukngal) is a Buddhist term commonly translated as "suffering", "stress", "anxiety", or "dissatisfaction". Dukkha is identified as the first of the Four Noble Truths' (My link.)

I recommend avoiding TTB's, if you want accurate information on Taoism and Buddhism (especially on the latter.) It's best if you do your research off of this website. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any links on downloadable pdf's of books from Eva Wong, that weren't torrents; if I linked them, I'm worried they would be deleted by the moderators. I found a website with both basic and more advanced stuff to read on the topic of "Taoism" (www.daoistcenter.org;) I think you should start by reading this: My link (Common Misconceptions Concerning Daoism.) As for Buddhism, there are a lot more websites (go figure, huh?) that have pdf's already online; that are provided without worry of copyright laws. I think it would be best to start out with Wapola Rahula's What The Buddha Taught. Here's a link to a pdf of the complete book: My link [An alternate in case that link isn't working My link] It's linked from this website My link (it has a bunch of articles from talks given by different "venerables" of Theravada Buddhism.) This is also a good website where you can stream/download talks from different teachers from retreats spanning back to the 70's: My link. This website I found has (mostly) Buddhist, Confuciast, and Taoist (mostly different translations of the Tao Te Ching) pdf's of books you can read: My link. A good read on the basics of meditation instructions and philosophy of Zen: My link. I also recommend Nan Huai Chin's The Story of Chinese Taoism from meditationexpert.com, if you don't mind shelling out $24 for an e-book. It goes over the history of Taoism and the philosophy of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu among other stuff.

.

.

.

.

I remembered the thread on Dharmawheel titled 'Turiya vs. Dzogchen' My link mr.marigpa [i think this sn is pretty funny, lol] Turiya or Turya: The fourth state of consciousness beyond the states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep and stringing together all the states; the Metaphysical Consciousness distinct from the psychological or empirical self; the Saksi or witnessing consciousness; the transcendental Self. "The fourth (i.e. Turiya) is NOT a state. It is the background on which dream and wake arises and disappears. Turiya is just another term to describe pure awareness. It is also called the Nirvikalpa." From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turiya 1. How does Dzoghcen account for Turiya? 2. How is Turiya different from Dharmakaya and Rigpa? 3. If a practitioner manages to sleep in Turiya, how is this different from clear light sleep in Dzogchen? Malcolm [formerly Namdrol:] mr.marigpa wrote: 1. How does Dzoghcen account for Turiya? Turiya is equivalent to the ālaya, a state of ignorance. 2. How is Turiya different from Dharmakaya and Rigpa? The ālaya is not the dharmakāya: the nature of dharmakāya is rigpa, the nature of the ālaya is marigpa. 3. If a practitioner manages to sleep in Turiya, how is this different from clear light sleep in Dzogchen? The former is resting the ālaya; the latter in dharmakāya. 4. There are Transcendental Meditation practitioners who claim to be aware in dreamless sleep....is this not a case of sleeping in the clear light? No. mr.marigpa wrote:How is the alaya described in Dzogchen teachings? The all basis is described in various ways, but fundamentally it is consciousness. Isn't emptiness the nature of the dharmakaya? Yes, that too. If we are not resting in rigpa, then are we resting in the alaya? Yes. Some TM practitioners claim a stable witnessing in waking, dream, and dreamless sleep. According to Dzogchen, is this just good mindfulness? How is this witnessing capacity (that includes ability to not be distracted by daytime activity and dreams) different from rigpa? If there is a subject and object, it is mind, not rigpa. N asunthatneversets: The state or position of being firmly established in "the witness" is merely being stabilized in the ālaya(kun gzhi). The term "witnessing" in and of itself suggests observing phenomena from a particular standpoint. Stable witnessing is a state of detachment, In being firmly established in the "witness" phenomena appear as they normally do except there's no feeling of it being "me" or "I". The "me"(or 'that' which witnesses) is posited to be something other. So in witnessing, the body and other phenomena appear detached from the "knower". And 'that'(pure knowingness) which is disconnected is then posited to be beyond anything "knowable" because it is that which knows. 'That' which knows(pure knowingness/awareness) is considered to be a substantiated and localized substratum(even though it is considered to be formless) and for that reason it is the ālaya. To describe this state, an analogy of a movie patron viewing images on a theater screen is sometimes used. The witnessing state is equivalent to stabilized śamatha (shiné), once śamatha is stabilized one is essentially proficient in "really good dualistic mindfulness" (as you said). After stabilized shiné, next step is released shiné and once released shiné is achieved and stabilized, one is said to be officially practicing dzogchen. "When you have achieved released shiné and remain in the continuation of this state, you have finally become a dzogchen practitioner." - Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Malcolm: The dharmakāya is endowed with light in conformity with it’s essence, emptiness and it’s nature, clarity. mzaur: I think it would be very useful if you defined emptiness.... I take you do not mean a thought-free state of mind as emptiness is sometimes used. Malcolm: Here emptiness refers to freedom from extremes. asunthatneversets wrote: Rigpa(vidyā) is of a different flavor, in rigpa the localized substratum(or abiding background) is empty and for this reason it(rigpa) is primordially unstained by any distinctive notions or characteristics. Though rigpa(vidyā) can't be accurately described (for purposes of allowing one to get an idea of it's nature) it is sometimes said to be akin to space itself. mzaur wrote: Abiding background is pure awareness separate from phenomena, right? Brahman or Self. Could you clarify what the bold means? Advaita defines Brahman as empty of attributes, but I surmise you are using empty in a different way. I think I know what you mean. It's just that I bet some people read these forums and think empty means something different, like how Advaita uses it. asunthatneversets: The abiding background can either be (i)awareness separate from phenomena or (ii)awareness merged with phenomena. In either case there is the faculty of awareness which is assumed to be existent. Advaita defines Brahman as being empty of attributes because it is 'that' which knows(the knower). The "knower" is attributeless because through investigation it is unaccounted for in anything perceivable or knowable. In advaita the term neti-neti is implemented (to discover this faculty) which means "not this, not that". So using this negative approach one disavows every conceivable aspect of one's experience until the "knower"(awareness) itself is all that remains. The process is much like; "I am not the body, because I am aware of the body - I am not my thoughts, because I am aware of my thoughts, etc...", so the process retracts into the realm of the formless observer. Since this formless awareness is posited to be unstained by any phenomenal appearance (or designation), it is said to be empty of attributes, unassailable and eternal. Awareness (then still assumed to be embodied) is the ātman, and upon actualizing the differentiation between the ātman and characteristics which allegedly compose the personal self(jīvātman), and external world, the next step is to merge the ātman with the brahman(universal self). anjali wrote: How is this essentially different than thought-free wakefulness as discussed by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche? Paul wrote: The state of rigpa is the recognition of the empty essence, the natural cognisance, and the union of these - the compassionate energy; the total transparency. Resting in a refined state of awareness, as in the first description, is not the same as it does not have the empty nature. It is not completely open. In fact it blocks thoughts and other kinds of experience. It's frozen. This is the defining aspect of the alaya vijnana. Also, the awareness is thought to be something real and ultimate. The notion of 'thought free' in Dzogchen is something that needs to be understood clearly. There can be mental events in rigpa. There are thoughts, but there is no grasping at them at all. They self liberate. Normal, dualistic thoughts are termed namtok, and in rigpa they are absent by definition. Ungrasped, self liberating mental events are nangwa. Nangwa are allowed by rigpa's openness. But they don't become concepts. You can see that the description of turya states that thoughts are not present, and a state of stillness is the aim. It's also somewhat dull and frozen. Also, there is some effort needed. Rigpa is not still or moving - it's also totally open and unfrozen. And it's not reached by effort. asunthatneversets wrote: Yeah the mirror can be mistaken as representing an abiding background which has the capacity to reflect. But that is only if one focuses on the mirror as an object beholding reflections (which I'm sure is a common error but isn't what Rinpoche was suggesting). It's important to carefully investigate how the analogy is presented... it's not the mind is like the mirror, but the nature of mind is like the nature of the mirror, in that, the void nature of mind is empty yet luminous. So the essential quality (or nature) of the mirror is that it reflects, but is that essential quality or characteristic a tangible thing or suchness? Can you roll or bounce the mirror's capacity to reflect? Is that essence or capacity located anywhere? Is it blue or green? Or any color or shape? No, it isn't, it cannot be identified as 'this or that' yet it is known clear as day. And much like the mirror this innate, empty, luminous, natural essence and capacity of mind, reflects yet does not hold and remains unscathed. The reflections are not inherently part of the mirror's nature, but are product of it and inseparable from it... and "it"(the nature) is an indistinguishable quality which cannot be pigeonholed. mazaur wrote: Thanks for your response. Would it be accurate then to say that there is no mirror apart from the arising reflections, that indeed there actually is no mirror at all, only reflections? asunthatneversets wrote: "All that arises is essentially no more real than a reflection, transparently pure and clear, beyond all definition or logical explanation. Yet the seeds of past action, karma, continue to cause further arising. Even so-know all that exists is ultimately void of self-nature utterly non-dual!" - Nirmānakāya Buddha "All dharmas are like reflected images, clear and pure without turbulence, ungraspable, inexpressible, truly arisen from cause and from action." - (Different translation of the above quote) (And when I say indistinguishable quality I don't mean to imply that it's a qualitative suchness or that the quality belongs to an implied connotative suchness, it's not established or unestablished in any way... being primordially unborn it evades even itself).

.

.