Nagarjuna and Samkara

[Lucky7Strikes]

.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Mandrake]

uote name='alwayson' date='05 February 2011 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1296926736' post='240447']

I am only 12

 

 

That makes sense.

 

Keep up the learning.

 

 

Mandrake

[三江源]

I am only 12

 

You quite impressive, then.

 

 

Anyone here like to write up their own 'experience' of emptiness, attempt a description of, in retrospect?

 

I like personal accounts of things.

[Lucky7Strikes]

From The Sunya quote, Greg Goode:

Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

Yes, and then one no longer sees entities.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am only 12

Hahahhaha. That's like when I began to seriously masturbate :lol: .

[Sunya]

Hahahhaha. That's like when I began to seriously masturbate :lol: .

 

I remember masturbating when I was 3. Seriously. lol

Anyway.....

[Sunya]

Hi Vaj,

 

I rely on interpretations by learned people like Namdrol, who used to explain Mādhyamaka on the old esangha forum and the Dalai Lama.

 

In every teaching the Dalai Lama has given on Mādhyamaka, he always says discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality. You can confirm this yourself. This is really the whole point of Mādhyamaka!

Citing english translations means absolutely nothing to me.

 

 

And Hi Sunya,

 

I listen to actual Dzogchen teachers, so you can't float your own nonsense that you pass of as Dzogchen.

 

Even the Dalai Lama says to distinguish rigpa and sems. And Jigme Lingpa is absolutely adamant on the issue, calling rigpa nirvanic pure and sems samsaric and impure.

 

You can ask Namdrol on his blog. Don't take my word for anything.

 

And of course in Mādhyamaka samsara=nirvana. I don't disagree with that at all.

 

But please don't combine Dzogchen and Mādhyamaka into some sort of mish mash.

 

They are not the same

 

Ok, since you do like Namdrol (I've given you this link before...)

 

There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."

 

Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.

 

Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.

 

Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:

 

I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,

the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --

not ceasing, not arising

not annihilated, not permanent,

not going, not coming,

not diverse, not single,

was taught as peace

in order to pacify proliferation.

 

 

And distinguishing Rigpa from mind is the beginning practice of Dzogchen, lol. Of course that's not all there is to it.

[Sunya]

Hi Vaj,

 

I rely on interpretations by learned people like Namdrol, who used to explain Mādhyamaka on the old esangha forum and the Dalai Lama.

 

In every teaching the Dalai Lama has given on Mādhyamaka, he always says discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality. You can confirm this yourself. This is really the whole point of Mādhyamaka!

Citing english translations means absolutely nothing to me.

 

 

And Hi Sunya,

 

I listen to actual Dzogchen teachers, so you can't float your own nonsense that you pass of as Dzogchen.

 

Even the Dalai Lama says to distinguish rigpa and sems. And Jigme Lingpa is absolutely adamant on the issue, calling rigpa nirvanic pure and sems samsaric and impure.

 

You can ask Namdrol on his blog. Don't take my word for anything.

 

And of course in Mādhyamaka samsara=nirvana. I don't disagree with that at all.

 

But please don't combine Dzogchen and Mādhyamaka into some sort of mish mash.

 

They are not the same

 

Ok, since you do like Namdrol (I've given you this link before...)

 

There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN (Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."

 

Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.

 

Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.

 

Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:

 

I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,

the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --

not ceasing, not arising

not annihilated, not permanent,

not going, not coming,

not diverse, not single,

was taught as peace

in order to pacify proliferation.

 

 

And distinguishing Rigpa from mind is the beginning practice of Dzogchen, lol. Of course that's not all there is to it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vaj,

 

I rely on interpretations by learned people like Namdrol, who used to explain Mādhyamaka on the old esangha forum and the Dalai Lama.

 

In every teaching the Dalai Lama has given on Mādhyamaka, he always says discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality. You can confirm this yourself. This is really the whole point of Mādhyamaka!

 

Citing english translations means absolutely nothing to me.

 

Just keep learning little brother.

And Hi Sunya,

 

I listen to actual Dzogchen teachers, so you can't float your own nonsense that you pass of as Dzogchen.

 

Even the Dalai Lama says to distinguish rigpa and sems. And Jigme Lingpa is absolutely adamant on the issue, calling rigpa nirvanic pure and sems samsaric and impure.

 

So is Dzogchen a dualistic teaching then? This is merely semde teaching, the analytical dialectic version of Dzogchen... not the experiential.

 

You'll see other meanings jump out at you as you re-read things after more direct mind pointing.

 

 

But please don't combine Dzogchen and Mādhyamaka into some sort of mish mash.

 

They are not the same

 

They are in essence and overall intent, just not necessarily in physical result as rainbow body.

[RongzomFan]

So is Dzogchen a dualistic teaching then? This is merely semde teaching, the analytical dialectic version of Dzogchen... not the experiential.

 

 

Actually this is in the distinguishing feature of the nying thig part of the Menngagde LOL

 

jesus christ dude

 

"Jigmé Lingpa’s differentiation of the two approaches is based on the distinction, particular to the Instruction Series (man ngag sde) of the Great Perfection, between the samsaric, conceptual mind (sems), and nirvanic, non-conceptual awareness (rig pa). The meditation practices of the Instruction Series found in the Longchen Nyingtig proceed on the basis of this distinction, which comes from the earliest Instruction Series scriptures, the Seventeen Tantras.[21] Therefore it is not surprising that Jigmé Lingpa insists upon the importance of the distinction. He argues that, if the meditator attempts to stop conceptual activity without distinguishing between mind (sems) and awareness (rig pa), the result is a blank indeterminacy (lung ma bstan). In awareness, he argues, conceptualisation is neutralised in a state that is “like a crystal ball”, a simile which points to clarity and vividness, rather than indeterminacy and blankness."

 

-Sam van Schaik

[RongzomFan]

Ok, since you do like Namdrol (I've given you this link before...)

 

 

I like how you keep posting the same thing over and over again. I have actually read Namdrol's writings on esangha for years.

 

Rigpa is free from extremes because it is not bound by the dualistic mind. Thats why its view is compatible with Mādhyamaka. So again here it is about distinguishing rigpa from sems.

[Vajrahridaya]

[RongzomFan]

And all I am saying is don't tell me that distinguishing rigpa and sems is a feature of semde, when its not.

 

Along with thogal, it is pretty much the highest teaching in buddhism.

Edited February 5, 2011 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

And all I am saying is don't tell me that distinguishing rigpa and sems is a feature of semde, when its not.

 

Yes.. sure, I forget the distinctive sources for various teachings... they do all kind of blend together into a seamless whole for me.

 

Sorry. I'm not a very good scholar.

[Sunya]

Rigpa is free from extremes because it is not bound by the dualistic mind. Thats why its view is compatible with Mādhyamaka. So again here it is about distinguishing rigpa from sems.

 

That's true, but that has nothing to do with your earlier dualistic interpretation of Rigpa as objective reality and Sem as the thoughtform of Obama. "In every teaching the Dalai Lama has given on Mādhyamaka, he always says discrepancy between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality. You can confirm this yourself. This is really the whole point of Mādhyamaka!" It's not. There is no such dualistic distinction between "appearances" and "objective reality" in any school of Buddhism. Why do you equate nondual and nonconceptual with objective and dualistic with thoughtform and appearances?

Edited February 6, 2011 by Sunya

[RongzomFan]

There is no such dualistic distinction between "appearances" and "objective reality" in any school of Buddhism.

 

 

I actually said there is simply a discrepency between appearances (thoughtforms) and reality. Why don't you try to read something accurately for once in your life?

 

----->CLICK ON THE BELOW LINK<-----

 

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Dalai+lama+discrepency+between+appearancs+and+reality#hl=en&q=Dalai+lama+discrepancy+between+appearances+and+reality&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&fp=6383229191970f24

 

BTW, why are you combining what I say about Dzogchen with what I say about Mādhyamaka??? You are totally clueless dude....

Edited February 6, 2011 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

I remember masturbating when I was 3. Seriously. lol

Anyway.....

 

 

If you had adult style fantasies at that time, it means you had a negative spirit.

Edited February 6, 2011 by alwayson

[Sunya]

If you had adult style fantasies at that time, it means you had a negative spirit.

 

Thanks. If you ask child psychologists, masturbating at 3 is very common.

[Vajrahridaya]

If you had adult style fantasies at that time, it means you had a negative spirit.

 

No fantasies were involved, it's merely the manipulation of energy and opening of the heat channel, thus very natural and has nothing to do with sex in fact but rather more to do with health.

 

I was having full body orgasms at the age of 6... so what? I didn't have a single thought of sex when it came to this arousal and orgasmic climax that filled my body with peace and love (a type of love that had nothing to do with sexual attraction). It had to do with natural stimulation of energetic channels only.

[goldisheavy]

http://www.medhajournal.com/resident-philosopher/1096-nagarjuna-and-samkara-some-comparative-reflections.html

 

Not bad, but it would have been better to avoid the jargon "Turiya" (fourth state of consciousness beyond and underlying waking, dream, deep sleep, as I understand it).

 

Since Turiya is a state, meaning, some people experience and others do not, it's not a good thing to use in discussions about non-duality.

 

Of course he also makes the very same mistake when he discusses things from the Buddhist point of view when he refers to consciousness as pure and objectless. Of course dirty consciousness is every bit as good as pure and object consciousness is every bit as empty as objectless consciousness. So saying that realization is tied to achieving purity and lack of objects is grossly ignorant and misleading.

 

So it's the same mistake occurring twice in a row, first in a Buddhist context and second in the Advaita context. Other than that, it's a pretty intelligent writing, imo.

[dwai]

Not bad, but it would have been better to avoid the jargon "Turiya" (fourth state of consciousness beyond and underlying waking, dream, deep sleep, as I understand it).

 

Since Turiya is a state, meaning, some people experience and others do not, it's not a good thing to use in discussions about non-duality.

 

Actually it is perfectly valid to use Turiya because this is not a state some people experience and others don't, but rather it is a state that every one CAN experience if they follow certain practices. It is critical in the phenomenological inquiry process to be able to access this state. It is jargon for those who are not versed in the paradigm of Advaita and Yoga. The paper was meant for people with background knowledge in at least one of them (and possibly both).

 

 

Of course he also makes the very same mistake when he discusses things from the Buddhist point of view when he refers to consciousness as pure and objectless. Of course dirty consciousness is every bit as good as pure and object consciousness is every bit as empty as objectless consciousness. So saying that realization is tied to achieving purity and lack of objects is grossly ignorant and misleading.

 

So it's the same mistake occurring twice in a row, first in a Buddhist context and second in the Advaita context. Other than that, it's a pretty intelligent writing, imo.

 

I think it is faulty to read a qualitative judgement into the views articulated by Dr. Rama. If you are versed in the philosophical background of the two systems (Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism), which in your case you obviously are, then it is nothing but a re-iteration, summarization of the practicing principles of these systems. The demarcation between Pure objectless Consciousness and Consciousness with Object is essential for two reasons:

 

a) to realize that consciousness exists without objects...in that it is self-existent and not dependent on objects (ie beyond duality)

and

to show that the concept of the two-levels of existence/truth/reality (the relative aka samvritti or vyavaharika satya and absolute or paramartha satya) are validated, re-affirmed via this medium.

 

I see you make the mistake of assuming that by categorizing consciousness in the traditional manner, he somehow qualitatively dismisses the consciousness with objects. That could be (and usually is) a very standard psychological reaction when encountering this system. This psychology leads to misplaced notions of superiority and inferiority. The truth of the matter however is that there is no such thing because they are a continuum and any demarcation between the two is a matter of necessity (to effectively impart the knowledge).

 

It is like night and day being two distinct states...and saying that night is worse than day somehow. The fact is that night and day are part of a continuum of less light and more light (which come with their own implications of course) and any distinction between the two is a phenomenological statement of observation (empirical) as opposed to articulation of any absolute stand or position.

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

I don't know who this Greg guy is, but he doesn't understand emptiness in the Mādhyamaka way.

 

Emptiness in Mādhyamaka is merely a nonimplicative negation. In other words emptiness is just a denial of another philosophy's claim of self. Emptiness itself does not make a claim, therefore has none to defend. Emptiness also relates to the idea that there is discrepancy between every thoughtform and reality.

 

On the other hand emptiness in Dzogchen simply means kadag (primordial purity), one of the three wisdoms of rigpa.

 

 

 

You are absolutely right. All DO does is show that phenomena are devoid of self-existence. It is really that simple...it also states that any attempt to show either extreme of any duality as being absolute will lead to contradiction and confusion (prasanga aka reductio ad absurdum). The difference between the Western concept of Reductio ad absurdum and Prasanga is that the former is employed to dismantle one side of an argument where as in the Madhyamika paradigm it is used to dismantle all sides of any argument/debate.

 

But underlying the obvious implication is the understanding (which rises from intuition or prajna) that that emptiness is the medium and source of all phenomena (and all duality as a result thereof).

 

It is very good that your bring the "thought-form vs reality" concept...I think Dr. Rama's book on Jnana Yoga very succinctly and elegantly demonstrates that. And also, to expand on that, thought-form also has it's place in reality since it exists, since it has a name and form in the time domain. But relative to the existence of something which has name and form in both space and time domains, it is "unreal".

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

But underlying the obvious implication is the understanding (which rises from intuition or prajna) that that emptiness is the medium and source of all phenomena (and all duality as a result thereof).

 

 

Emptiness is not a cosmic source.

[dwai]

Emptiness is not a cosmic source.

 

when it comes to non-duality, the term cosmos, cosmic etc are simply comical.

[Vajrahridaya]

when it comes to non-duality, the term cosmos, cosmic etc are simply comical.

 

 

Basically, things do not arise out of emptiness in the sense that you mean. Your idea of non-duality is conditioned by Vedanta and does not apply to what non-dual means according to the insight of dependent origination/emptiness.

 

You think all things are one giant thing beyond things but are all things at the same time.

 

Sorry... but, this is a mistaken interpretation of a meditative experience. You really should read the suttas in their entirety before you profess to know what the Buddha taught. You should stop reading commentaries by Vedantins on Buddhism, it doesn't work to help clear up your understanding of Buddhism.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Vajrahridaya