Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[RongzomFan]

Nobody can answer: What IS IT

 

 

The definition of buddha nature is the potential of a human to become a Buddha, just like milk has the potential to become curd.

Edited May 8, 2010 by alwayson

[tyler zambori]

The definition of buddha nature is the potential of a human to become a Buddha, just like milk has the potential to become curd.

 

This answer is simple avoidance.

[Pero]

 

Nobody can answer: What IS IT, so you resort to insults.

Doesn't seem very sound to me.

 

It is the potential we have to become Buddhas. Of course this hasn't been mentioned in this thread several times. Not at all.

[~jK~]

I recently discovered this article by philosopher David Loy that beautifully describes how Advaita and Buddhism lead to the same path. I know the difference and inferiority of the one over the other is a topic of much debate here, so I present for all how multiple paths are actually ONE path:

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita

 

I thought about Buddhism for awhile and eventually figured that if The Buddha found his enlightenment in meditation, then why not follow the same path rather than what was being written. Don't get me wrong though - I like the philosophy very much.

 

I've been meditating now for well over 20 years, have had several mildly enlightening experiences and one that was a real ball buster that came with blindingdly bright light as well as a vision (of nature). When will the experiences end? Honestly, I hope they never do.

The actual experience is not the key to it as it is largely a re-aligning of some of the perspectives that we were born with.

 

The 3 jewels? Body, Breath & Meditation.

[xabir2005]

Self: an inherently existing (hence not empty), actual nature.

 

Buddha-nature: not an actual nature, but a potential to be Buddha

Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

[xabir2005]

I thought about Buddhism for awhile and eventually figured that if The Buddha found his enlightenment in meditation, then why not follow the same path rather than what was being written. Don't get me wrong though - I like the philosophy very much.

The Buddha cultivated for 3 aeons before attaining Buddhahood (You do not need to wait so long however, if you follow his instructions: you can attain liberation in this life, either as an arhant, or as a bodhisattva.), as Buddhahood takes much longer to attain than Bodhisattvahood or Arhatship. This is not the first life he practiced.

 

Also, before his enlightenment, after he cultivated fruitlessly for 6 long years through the wrong practices (ascetism, or entering trance states or mastering the 7th and 8th samatha jhanas which did not lead to enlightenment, etc) and wrong views, he remembered the 'long forgotten truth' of Dependent Origination (which he learnt from his past lives from other Buddhas), and through contemplating in that he gained enlightenment. Therefore to learn the right view, and the right practices, is very important.

 

You don't want to waste your time like Buddha wasting time in the first six years and not finding the end of suffering, enlightenment, liberation (if, that is what you are seeking).

 

My advice: go for time tested techniques and teachings and learn from those who have done it, practice what they taught, and you will gain enlightenment as well. Of course this does not mean becoming scholar of all their written teachings, it just means learning enough to support our own practice.

I've been meditating now for well over 20 years, have had several mildly enlightening experiences and one that was a real ball buster that came with blindingdly bright light as well as a vision (of nature). When will the experiences end? Honestly, I hope they never do.

The actual experience is not the key to it as it is largely a re-aligning of some of the perspectives that we were born with.

You are experiencing A&Ps, aka Arising and Passing Away event, aka 4th nana, aka 2nd Vipassana Jhana. I had many of those as wells, sometimes meditating, sometimes even in lucid dreams, and maybe other times as well. It is not enlightenment or nirvana, though it has fooled some into thinking so: A&Ps are also known as 'pseudonirvana'.

 

What follows A&Ps like thunder follows lightning is the Dark Nights, dukkha nanas, which can cause suffering and problems. The advice would be to practice as much as possible, go on retreats if possible, and get Stream Entry. Then you overcome the problems or they do not become such a big deal.

 

I highly recommend reading Daniel M. Ingram's Mastering the Core Teachings of Buddha, written by a Mahasi Sayadaw lineage teacher who has done it, attained Arhatship (full liberation and enlightenment in Hinayana path), and detailed the stages of the path and how to cross each territory, the instructions, great advices, etc. One of the most practical dharma books ever.

 

Link to book: http://www.interactivebuddha.com/mctb.shtml

 

About A&Ps: http://www.interactivebuddha.com/faq.shtml

 

Q: I had this amazing experience (involving lights, visions, powers, energy, Kundalini, vibrations, meditating while dreaming, vortices, powerful bliss, spontaneus movements, deep releases, sexual feelings, profound "emptiness", non-duality, unity, cosmic consciousness, etc.) and now I: a) think I may be enlightened, can't find anyone to talk with about it, c) don't know what to make of it, d) my teachers wouldn't tell me what happened, e) am now on a spiritual quest and excited about practice, f) am depressed and freaked out, g) am not sure what to do, h) am confused, etc.

 

A: The vast majority of experiences that really blow peoples minds and cause big changes are something the Theravada calls the Arising and Passing Away (A&P) Event, aka the 4th ñana, aka Knowledge of Deep Insight into the Arising and Passing of Phenomena, aka Udayabbayanupassana in Pali, aka "The Wave" in massage terms, aka awakening the Kundalini in Hindu terms, aka the fourth stage of the first path of the Tibetan 5-path system, aka pseudo-nirvana in Jack Kornfield's clan's terms. In fact, if you are looking around at sites such as this one and a committed spiritual quester, the chances are quite good that at some point you have crossed the A&P. It is marked generally by some combination of profound openings, energetic phenomena, lights/visions, powerful dreams, bliss, rapture, and the like. I describe it in detail in my book, and have written a short essay about it with some of my experiences of it so as to try to add a real-world touch to the theory. It is a life changing and important experience that may repeat again and again. It can occur off retreat and even without meditation training. With each occurrence, it is followed almost invariably by something called The Dark Night, aka the Knowledges of Suffering, aka the Dukkha Ñanas, and other names, which I also describe in my book. This can cause all sorts of complexities. Many people are quite surprised that they could possibly have had a "real", traditional meditation experience. As the A&P contains key features but many of the specifics can vary widely, people may feel it does not perfectly align with stock descriptions and thus be confused. Most meditation teachers at this unfornate juncture in history will not tell people what has happened to them (assuming they even know what it was), and also will not warn them of what happens next, meaning the Dark Night. Thus, my advice is: read my book! This stuff is all in there. If something blew your mind: 98% chance it was the A&P, but look around at the other criteria, and read the warnings and advice. In general terms: go on more retreats, practice more, follow instructions carefully, and get stream entry as soon as possible. In the meantime, be nice to people when you can and try to avoid screwing up your life if possible.

Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

I would not exactly use the word potential - in that way anyway.

 

For "we" already are Buddhas and there is nothing that we can do to change that or to create it, even through great practice - although practice removes that which veils.

 

Om

Edited May 8, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

Xabir,

 

The Buddha by personal example taught and practiced the samatha jhanas with his dying breath as recorded in well recognized doctrine; thus such were also given as a part of his final example and practice of key teachings. And considering that I don't see your implied put-downs of the samatha jhanas as being valid, especially if one accepts well recognized doctrine related to such fundamental and key teachings of the historic Buddha.

 

Om

Edited May 8, 2010 by 3bob

[Cloudhand]

Xabir,

 

The Buddha by personal example taught and practiced the samatha jhanas with his dying breath as recorded in well recognized doctrine; thus such were also given as a part of his final example and practice of key teachings. And considering that I don't see your implied put-downs of the samatha jhanas as being valid, especially if one accepts well recognized doctrine related to such fundamental and key teachings of the historic Buddha.

 

Om

 

 

Oneness is the key, there is no self but the self, we are one with all everything else is not there. Cloud

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

The Buddha by personal example taught and practiced the samatha jhanas with his dying breath as recorded in well recognized doctrine; thus such were also given as a part of his final example and practice of key teachings. And considering that I don't see your implied put-downs of the samatha jhanas as being valid, especially if one accepts well recognized doctrine related to such fundamental and key teachings of the historic Buddha.

 

Om

There is no denial that Buddha attained mastery of shamatha jhanas. Daniel M. Ingram, too, talked about his mastery of shamatha jhanas, his dabbling with psychic powers, etc.

 

However, shamatha jhanas do not *in itself* lead to enlightenment. If you practice shamatha jhana everyday till you become a jhana bliss junkie, you're no closer to enlightenment, unless you start practicing Vipassana as well.

[3bob]

There is no denial that Buddha attained mastery of shamatha jhanas. Daniel M. Ingram, too, talked about his mastery of shamatha jhanas, his dabbling with psychic powers, etc.

 

However, shamatha jhanas do not *in itself* lead to enlightenment. If you practice shamatha jhana everyday till you become a jhana bliss junkie, you're no closer to enlightenment, unless you start practicing Vipassana as well.

 

Does that mean you are back-tracking on your previous implied put downs?

[xabir2005]

Does that mean you are back-tracking on your previous implied put downs?

I don't remember putting down shamatha jhana.

 

I remember putting shamatha jhanas into perspective: that they serve only as a foundation for insight practice, but in itself does not lead to enlightenment.

[3bob]

Surely you remember from around 10:30am this morning?

 

Apparently we are now rationalizing about implied put-downs...

 

Om

[xabir2005]

Surely you remember from around 10:30am this morning?

 

Apparently we are now rationalizing about implied put-downs...

 

Om

Your post shows as 9.35am. What about 10:30am?

[xabir2005]

"...But that does mean that there is no self. What is the self? If something is true, is real, is constant, is a foundation of a nature that is unchanging, this can be called the self. For the sake of sentient beings, in all the truths I have taught, there is such a self. This, monks, is for you to cultivate.”

 

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha191.htm

 

Interestingly, modern Buddhologists are not alone in their puzzle about the question of whether the 'tathagatagarbha' represents a kind of Upanishadic 'atman'. Bodhisattva 'Mahamati' in the 'Lankavatarasutra' raised a question concerning this issue. He said to the Buddha:

 

- Now the Blessed one makes mention of the 'tathagatagarbha' in the sutras, and it is described by you as by nature bright and pure, as primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every being like a gem of great value ... it is described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious and unchangeable. Is not this 'tathagatagarbha' taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the philosophers (tirthikas)? (12).

 

In this passage, the Buddha clearly identified the 'tathagatagarbha' with emptiness, markless, 'tathata', etc., meaning that the 'tathagatagarbha' is without any substantial entity. Then the question arises: -- if the 'tathagatagarbha' is empty by nature , why the Buddhas teach a 'tathagatagarbha' possessing all positive attributes, such as eternal (nitya), self ('atman'), bliss (sukha) and pure (subha)? The Buddha goes on to answer this question:

- The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. It is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour ... that the 'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancend-ental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an egosubstance. Therefore , 'Mahamati', in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.(13)

 

---------------------

 

This is what the Lanka-avatara sutra says:

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters.

 

As such, because of that, Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, as such, the Tathaagatas will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha by demonstrating tathaagatagarbha in order to guide those grasping to Non-Buddhist assertions of the self.

 

- Namdrol

It is how Chandrakirti understands the citation. And the sutra itself states:

"Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words, emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless, etc. as tathaagatagarbha; for the purpose of the childish complete forsaking perishable realms, demonstrate the sphere of activity of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha. "

Tathagatagarbha is therefore just a synonym of emptiness.

 

N

 

- Namdrol

Sakya Pandita's approach to the issue is best: tathagatagarbha is a provisional teaching, not a definitive one.

 

- Namdrol

 

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/contratman.htm

Buddha's Refutes the Notion that Tathagatagarbha is the Upanishadic Atman, or that the Buddhist Nirvana is the same as Upanishadic Moksha, from the Lankavatara Sutra

Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One: In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathagatahood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination. We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, auspicious. It is not this which is born of the Womb of Tathagatahood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers? The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, imperishable. It there, or is there not a difference?

The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers. What i teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort. The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathagatahood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of egolessness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness. The religious teaching of the Tathagatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rob, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathagatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold egolessness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realisation of Noble Wisdom. The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosphers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightement. All such notions as causation, succesion, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereing God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the Tathagata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.

 

later

 

[buddha] They ("philosophers") imagine that Nirvana consists (of) ... the absorption of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all return; (...)

... clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening, and they consider Nirvana to consist in the fact that there is no awakening.

Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I would not exactly use the word potential - in that way anyway.

 

For "we" already are Buddhas and there is nothing that we can do to change that or to create it, even through great practice - although practice removes that which veils.

 

Om

Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

 

That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened (Buddhas) at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”. (Namdrol)

 

Another translation:

 

- Good son, there are three ways of having: first, to have in the future, Secondly, to have at present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All sentient beings will have in future ages the most perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha nature. All sentient beings have at present bonds of defilements, and do not now possess the thirty-two marks and eighty noble characteristics of the Buddha. All sentient beings had in past ages deeds leading to the elimination of defilements and so can now perceive the Buddha nature as their future goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)

Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[voidisyinyang]

[xabir2005]

Here's a competing nondualism debate.

 

http://www.realitysandwich.com/nonduality_buddhism_and_judaism

 

Good luck grasshoppers.

Actually this is saying the same thing as the article by David Loy posted by TS. Except that it tries to include Judaism into the picture. In fact he even quoted from David Loy in that article.

 

My 'criticism' of David Loy's article applies to his as well.

[3bob]

Your post shows as 9.35am. What about 10:30am?

 

Your post (among others) shows 10:33am.

[3bob]

Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

 

That is called Buddha-nature because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened (Buddhas) at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist. (Namdrol)

 

Another translation:

 

- Good son, there are three ways of having: first, to have in the future, Secondly, to have at present, and thirdly, to have in the past. All sentient beings will have in future ages the most perfect enlightenment, i.e., the Buddha nature. All sentient beings have at present bonds of defilements, and do not now possess the thirty-two marks and eighty noble characteristics of the Buddha. All sentient beings had in past ages deeds leading to the elimination of defilements and so can now perceive the Buddha nature as their future goal. For such reasons, I always proclaim that all sentient beings have the Buddha nature.(31)

 

It sounds to me like you have mis-interpreted my implied meaning through your particular quotes...? For if one thinks that they can or will attain Buddha-nature at some "future time" then they misunderstand the meaning of that nature; Buddha nature is only and forever now; (which is wonderful!) for any future time is only apparent and within time and space limits. For instance:

 

"At the moment of awakening the Buddha exclaimed: "Wonder of wonders! All living beings are truly enlightened and shine with wisdom and virtue. But because their minds have become deluded and turned inward to the self, they fail to understand this." Kegon Sutra

 

Om

Edited May 8, 2010 by 3bob

[Sunya]

I would not exactly use the word potential - in that way anyway.

 

For "we" already are Buddhas and there is nothing that we can do to change that or to create it, even through great practice - although practice removes that which veils.

 

Om

 

Buddha means awake, you are not awake therefore you are not a Buddha. A sleeping man always has the potential to wake up, but that doesn't mean that the sleeping man and the awake man are equivalent.

 

If you believe that you're already awakened then you won't do any work, you'll just do whatever you want because everything is enlightened activity. Nargarjuna responded to such a deluded view by showing that the conventional, relative, reality is equally as valid as the ultimate reality. Ultimately everyone is a Buddha because there is no self, therefore no suffering. But relatively there is a self, and suffering, because view creates experience and a deluded experience is still very much real for those who suffer. It's extremely problematic to say everyone is already enlightened, suffering is an illusion. That's not realistic. Suffering is very real, just like a mirage is very real when you're hungry in a desert and your eyes play tricks on you. Doesn't mean that the mirage is actually there. The mind is very very powerful. Anyway, if you ignore the relative perception of suffering and delusion then Buddhism basically becomes nihilistic, but since the relative deluded reality is very real, we have to develop ourselves to awaken and remove the sheaths of wrong view.

 

The moon is always right there? So the potential to fly to the moon is always there, in every moment, but since you lack the means you won't realistically get there. Kind of a crude example but it illustrates the point quite well that a potential isn't actual unless the conditions are there.

Edited May 8, 2010 by mikaelz

[3bob]

Buddha means awake, you are not awake therefore you are not a Buddha. A sleeping man always has the potential to wake up, but that doesn't mean that the sleeping man and the awake man are equivalent.

 

If you believe that you're already awakened then you won't do any work, you'll just do whatever you want because everything is enlightened activity. Nargarjuna responded to such a deluded view by showing that the conventional, relative, reality is equally as valid as the ultimate reality. Ultimately everyone is a Buddha because there is no self, therefore no suffering. But relatively there is a self, and suffering, because view creates experience and a deluded experience is still very much real for those who suffer. It's extremely problematic to say everyone is already enlightened, suffering is an illusion. That's not realistic. Suffering is very real, just like a mirage is very real when you're hungry in a desert and your eyes play tricks on you. Doesn't mean that the mirage is actually there. The mind is very very powerful. Anyway, if you ignore the relative perception of suffering and delusion then Buddhism basically becomes nihilistic, but since the relative deluded reality is very real, we have to develop ourselves to awaken and remove the sheaths of wrong view.

 

The moon is always right there? So the potential to fly to the moon is always there, in every moment, but since you lack the means you won't realistically get there. Kind of a crude example but it illustrates the point quite well that a potential isn't actual unless the conditions are there.

 

If one is viewing from the ditch (so to speak) or upside-down then such complications are more or less real as related to that ditch. But in my reading the Buddha reveals that the view from the ditch is not the true view:

 

"At the moment of awakening the Buddha exclaimed: "Wonder of wonders! All living beings are truly enlightened and shine with wisdom and virtue. But because their minds have become deluded and turned inward to the self, they fail to understand this." Kegon Sutra

 

In a way we could say that the sleeping one can not add the awake one to himself and then he to also awakens... for the awake one has always been so and nothing can be added or taken away from that. (if we agree to use such an analogy, which btw could easily be improved upon but I don't have the words for it at the moment )

 

Om

Edited May 8, 2010 by 3bob

[C T]

 

If you believe that you're already awakened then you won't do any work, you'll just do whatever you want because everything is enlightened activity. Nargarjuna responded to such a deluded view by showing that the conventional, relative, reality is equally as valid as the ultimate reality. Ultimately everyone is a Buddha because there is no self, therefore no suffering. But relatively there is a self, and suffering, because view creates experience and a deluded experience is still very much real for those who suffer. It's extremely problematic to say everyone is already enlightened, suffering is an illusion. That's not realistic. Suffering is very real, just like a mirage is very real when you're hungry in a desert and your eyes play tricks on you. Doesn't mean that the mirage is actually there. The mind is very very powerful. Anyway, if you ignore the relative perception of suffering and delusion then Buddhism basically becomes nihilistic, but since the relative deluded reality is very real, we have to develop ourselves to awaken and remove the sheaths of wrong view.

 

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche made similar observations. He says, " There are two types of mindfulness: deliberate and effortless. By starting out with the mindfulness of deliberate attention, the practitioner can make a clear distinction between being distracted or not. Effortless mindfulness is of course possible if you happen to be one of the people of the highest calibre - the instantaneous type of person - who does not really need to go through the path. However, for most other people, especially in the Mahamudra system, the mindfulness of deliberate attention is essential in the beginning. Otherwise, by relying only on effortless mindfulness, you may not even notice whether you are distracted or not. Even worse, you may convince yourself that you are never distracted. Rather than this, it is much better to practice deliberate mindfulness even though it is subtly conceptual, and gradually progress to effortless mindfulness.

 

In the Mahamudra teachings, you often find the phrase 'original innate nature'. This is none other than buddha nature. The training is simply to become used to that, whether you call it Mahamudra, Madhyamika or Dzogchen. These are all different words for the same natural state. But to train, you must first of all be introduced to, and have then recognized the view. In Mahamudra, once the practitioner has recognized the view, he or she takes mindfulness as the path; it is a way of training in that view. If mindfulness is lost, then he/she is led completely astray into the 'black dissipation' of ordinary habitual patterns. Black dissipation means one forgets all thought of practice and simply deviates into ordinary activities. All practice is left behind. So, either we remember the view and sustain it (remain undistracted), or the practice is destroyed. We need to know when we are distracted. Discursive thought is distraction, but once we recognize the essence of the thought, we arrive at non-thought. A quote from The Rain of Wisdom by Jamgon Lodro Thaye says: "Within complexity I discovered dharmakaya; within thought I discovered non-thought."

 

A person of the highest capacity can immediately arrive at effortless mindfulness. This is someone who possesses the continuity of former training from the life before this, who has been reborn with a very strong aptitude for this type of practice. Needless to say, most people do not belong to this category. Most of us are not of the highest capacity, so there is no way around having to remind ourselves of the view by deliberately being mindful.

 

That which goes astray is simply our attention. Our mind becomes distracted, and that which brings us back to the view is called 'deliberate mindfulness'. In the same way, if you want the light to come on in a room, a conscious act is necessary. You must put your finger on the switch and press it; the light does not turn itself on. In the same way again, unless a beginner reminds him/herself determinedly to remember the view, the recognition of mind-essence never occurs. The moment we notice we have been carried away, we think, "I have wandered off". By recognizing the identity of who has been distracted, you automatically arrive back in the view. The reminder is nothing more than that. This moment (of recognition) is like pressing the light-switch. Once the light is on, you do not have to keep pressing the switch. After a while, we may again forget and are carried away. At that point, we must reapply deliberate mindfulness."

 

 

(Apologies for the length of the post. Its all relevant.)

[3bob]

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche made similar observations. He says, " There are two types of mindfulness: deliberate and effortless. By starting out with the mindfulness of deliberate attention, the practitioner can make a clear distinction between being distracted or not. Effortless mindfulness is of course possible if you happen to be one of the people of the highest calibre - the instantaneous type of person - who does not really need to go through the path. However, for most other people, especially in the Mahamudra system, the mindfulness of deliberate attention is essential in the beginning. Otherwise, by relying only on effortless mindfulness, you may not even notice whether you are distracted or not. Even worse, you may convince yourself that you are never distracted. Rather than this, it is much better to practice deliberate mindfulness even though it is subtly conceptual, and gradually progress to effortless mindfulness.

 

In the Mahamudra teachings, you often find the phrase 'original innate nature'. This is none other than buddha nature. The training is simply to become used to that, whether you call it Mahamudra, Madhyamika or Dzogchen. These are all different words for the same natural state. But to train, you must first of all be introduced to, and have then recognized the view. In Mahamudra, once the practitioner has recognized the view, he or she takes mindfulness as the path; it is a way of training in that view. If mindfulness is lost, then he/she is led completely astray into the 'black dissipation' of ordinary habitual patterns. Black dissipation means one forgets all thought of practice and simply deviates into ordinary activities. All practice is left behind. So, either we remember the view and sustain it (remain undistracted), or the practice is destroyed. We need to know when we are distracted. Discursive thought is distraction, but once we recognize the essence of the thought, we arrive at non-thought. A quote from The Rain of Wisdom by Jamgon Lodro Thaye says: "Within complexity I discovered dharmakaya; within thought I discovered non-thought."

 

A person of the highest capacity can immediately arrive at effortless mindfulness. This is someone who possesses the continuity of former training from the life before this, who has been reborn with a very strong aptitude for this type of practice. Needless to say, most people do not belong to this category. Most of us are not of the highest capacity, so there is no way around having to remind ourselves of the view by deliberately being mindful.

 

That which goes astray is simply our attention. Our mind becomes distracted, and that which brings us back to the view is called 'deliberate mindfulness'. In the same way, if you want the light to come on in a room, a conscious act is necessary. You must put your finger on the switch and press it; the light does not turn itself on. In the same way again, unless a beginner reminds him/herself determinedly to remember the view, the recognition of mind-essence never occurs. The moment we notice we have been carried away, we think, "I have wandered off". By recognizing the identity of who has been distracted, you automatically arrive back in the view. The reminder is nothing more than that. This moment (of recognition) is like pressing the light-switch. Once the light is on, you do not have to keep pressing the switch. After a while, we may again forget and are carried away. At that point, we must reapply deliberate mindfulness."

 

 

(Apologies for the length of the post. Its all relevant.)

 

No apologies needed Dude.