About the nature of non existence.

[C T]

 

During the past 37 years, I've used Absolute Bodhicitta Atisha aphorims daily,...such as "Between meditations, treat everything as an illusion." I do not consider anything that arises from my 6 senses as either true or reliable. I have zero interest in personal truth.

 

For your love of quotes, here's one for you courtesy of Geshe Tenzin Zopa:

 

Some might think that as one has attended Lam Rim teachings for 30 years,

it is pointless or even embarrassing to attend basic Lam Rim classes. This

is completely wrong thinking.

 

 

 

Its a little humorous though... like, where did all these lengthy exhortations of yours arise from if not from your sense base? I am wondering if you might be shooting yourself in the foot, even a little bit?

 

What is 37 years compared to uncountable lifetimes of conditioned ignorance? (Not implying you are ignorant - more like a question directed at my own lack of wisdom). I was born Buddhist, practiced in a few lineages for over 45 years, yet do not make the kind of arrogant proclamations which often accompany your rebuttals. Its ok if at least you were accurate - most of the time you are so far off the mark that i'd be afraid to further offer counter observations lest you become even more confused.

 

Since you like to speak of the realizations of one who has attained Bodhi so much, i am hoping you are familiar with Ngulchu Thogme? Anyway, observance number 31 in his work The 37 Practices of a Bodhisattva states:

 

Not examining your own confusion, you may act contrary to Dharma

in a practitioner's guise. Therefore, always examining your own confusion,

to discard it is the practice of Bodhisattvas.

Edited January 10, 2012 by C T

[xabir2005]

First,...you are confused or confusing me with "I Am"....a subject you broached in another thread,...from which my response was incorrectly interpreted.

 

As for Nagarjuna,...like "I Am", you are viewing his statements out-of-context. I agree that a condition cannot establish the Unconditional,...just a Divided Light or phenomena doesn't establish Undivided Light or noumena.

 

"Furthermore, real permanence is not a permanent non-thing, which is the mere opposite of impermanence. It is also not the compounded permanence that is a permanence of continuum. It is also not a permanent effective thing, asserted by [non-Buddhist]Forders, that does not occur among objects of knowledge. It is also not a negative permanence that is a mere meaning-generality. It is also not asserted as the likes of a positive self-powered permanence. [Rather] it is devoid of proliferations, the immutable basic element released from the proliferations of impermanent positive effective things and negative permanent non-things. Though it is released from the signs of permanence and released from the proliferations of permanence, it is immutable, and hence is solely-permanent." Taranatha

I completely understand your view and I must say I have been through that phase of realization and view.

 

Taranatha's view is in fact no different from the nonbuddhist view being rejected. The nonbuddhist view of Atman-brahman is also said to be beyond conceptual notions, yet reified as truly existent. In actuality it is just nonconceptual experience of clear light/luminosity falsely reified into an ultimate permanent self due to latent view/framework of inherency and duality.

 

You should read this article http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx

 

So the Upanishadic view is that the really existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition is the âtmà, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankaràcàrya expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century. This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by Śāntarakṣita as a wrong view.

 

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx

 

The Vedàntic Sutras and Sàstra-s are full of statements like:

 

This âtmà is truly existent beyond existence and non-existence.

This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual.

This âtmà is the Great Thing (mahàvastu), which is permanent beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc.

 

It is empty of all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual coginition (cit), and not empty of bliss (ànanda). Sat-cit-ànanda is the nature of this âtmà (or non-dual cognition).

 

If you have understood what I have written above, it is easy to understand why when Ringo Tulku presented the Shentong view in an Indian symposium, all the Hindu Indian scholars happily agreed with it and told him happily, “This is the same view as our Vedanta!.” Also, a few centuries ago, Jonangpa Kunga Drol Chog, a throne holder of the Jonangpa, had visited Muktinàth, where he presented his views to the Hindu yogis present there. These Hindu yogis also called him a genuine Hindu yogi after they heard his Shentong view.

Edited January 11, 2012 by xabir2005

[Taozi]

I got my answers now.

 

Thanks for your post.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[C T]

 

Actually, Vmarco is trying to interpret the teachings of Buddhism from the viewpoint of the "I AM" phase. He is not talking of the "absolute" aspect, but is a proponent of non-Buddhist Eternalism. If he had actually experientially understood the teachings of Buddhism, he would realize that there is no "transcendental" reality or "Consciousness" beyond the 5 skandhas; that there is no need to seek salvation beyond our experience through the 5 skandhas. For instance he would realize that the 5 skandhas in itself is Prajna-Paramita....Just as lay master P'ang Yun said in one of his gathas: "In the Five Aggregates lie true wisdom."

 

Let's compare some sentences from Vmarcos posts in this thread:

 

 

 

Compared to some quotes which I'm taking out of Mahamudra: The Moonlight by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal:

 

The Mulamadhyamaka-karika comments:

 

When one says that no self exists

Except for the rebirth-seeking aggregates,

It means that these aggregates are identical with the self.

Then the self is indeed nonexistent.

 

The same text states:

 

If the aggregates are the self,

Then it too will be subject to birth and death.

 

The separate realities of the self and the aggregates are also refuted in the same text:

 

If the self is a separate entity from the psychophysical aggregates,

The characteristics of these aggregates become invalid.

 

The same text continues:

 

The self is an entity

Separate from the rebirth-seeking aggregates -

This is untenable,

For if objective reality

Without aggregates were possible,

Then cognition would be impossible.

 

In the Madhyamakavatara, it is said:

 

For all these reasons

The self does not exist

Apart from the aggregates

Except for these aggregates

No perceiver exists.

 

The Madhyamakavatara states:

 

Because there is no actor, there is no action,

For there can be no self of a person who is nonexistent.

Therefore, the seeker of truth who conceives

The emptiness of the "I" and the "mine"

Will achieve perfect liberation.

 

The following is s summary of the meditation upon the nonselfhood of personality, as stated in the first Bhavanakrama:

 

There is no personality to be perceived apart from the aggregates , elements, and sense faculties. The self is not the essence of the aggregates, etc., because they are essentially transient and composite, whereas personality has been defined by others [such as those of the Brahmanic tradition] as an eternal and independent essence. This self or another undefinable self cannot possibly exist as a substantial entities, since there is no reality of substance. Establish all that is conceived as "I" and "mine" in the transient world as a total delusion!

 

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

 

Because Vmarco conceives of a "transcendent consciousness" or "reality" beyond the 5 skandhas, he therefore does not experientially understand these quotes from Mahamudra: The Moonlight:

 

...the Lodro Mizepey Tenpa (Aksayamatinirdesa) states:

 

The understanding of the mind's defilement is enlightenment [bodhi,] because the intrinsic nature of defilement is also the intrinsic nature of enlightenment.

 

The Lodro Gyatsho Zhupa (Sagaramatipariprccha) comments:

 

Sagaramati: O Supreme Illuminated Conqueror [buddha,] this tranquil absorption is indeed difficult to attain!

 

Supreme Illuminated Conqueror: This is because consciousness and awareness are to be realized as being an even state.

 

This text continues:

 

[buddha:] By realizing the evennes of all things one attains enlightenment. Therefore, Bodhisattvas, do not consider enlightenment to be far away.

 

The Chothamche Jungwa Meypar Tanpa (Sarvadharmapravrttinirdesa-sutra) comments:

 

Desire is proclaimed to be nirvana;

So are hatred and ignorance,

Because enlightenment is inherent in them.

 

Again this sutra says:

Enlightenment and desire do not have two separate natures.

 

The Hevajra-tantra teaches:

 

Between the state of pure awareness

And the discriminating mind of cyclic existence

There exists not the slightest distinction.

 

It continues:

 

What is designated as samsara is also nirvana

 

Again it explains:

 

Hatred and the afflictions of cyclic existence are in reality nirvana.

 

The Samputa affirms:

 

Samsara and nirvana

Do not exist as two realities;

Understanding the intrinsic nature of samsara

Is designated as nirvana

 

Saraha comments:

 

Through its pure light a sunlike awareness liiuminates ignorance,

This supreme awareness transforms every experience into sublime bliss,

The way alchemy changes [base metal] into gold.

 

Nagarjuna teaches:

 

There is not the slightest distinction

Between samsara and nirvana.

Nirvana is not different from samsara,

Not even to the slightest degree.

 

Virupa explains:

 

If one realizes the intrinsic purity of mind

As revealed by the guru,

Diverse forms of consciousness pacify themselves

Into all-embracing reality.

 

Tilopa observes:

 

All aggregates, elements, and sense faculties

Arise from [the mind's] innate nature that is Mahamudra

And pacify themselves into it.

 

The Tsikdu of Naropa and Maitripa states:

 

Intrinsic in defilements is great awareness

It helps a meditator to consume them,

Like a conflagration that consumes a forest.

 

The Great Master [Milarepa] sang:

 

This mental consciousness - the inner movement -

Is the source of karma and mental defilements;

It remains ignorant as long as it lacks any understanding,

Yet, when understanding dawns, it becomes self-comprehending awareness

And the source of all virtues.

 

So it is as VJ said about Vmarco months ago: Vmarco is an Eternalist.

 

 

This is all well and good, but too much head work involved.

 

I have noticed that Dharma teachers who are able to translate such profound views into chewable, relatable portions are always the ones who are well-liked. Your realizations are akin to someone who has had a few long retreats under his/her belt, and those who may be thinking of Dharma practice for the just reason of easing their mental agonies, or perhaps as a means to learn how to end the torments of habitual negative tendencies, may well find your wisdom (which i appreciate very much) beyond their grasp.

 

I dont know, maybe yours is the right approach, and i am blind to it. Back in the days when i was an active sangha member i have met a handful of people who have just completed long-term, closed retreats where they study and practice Vajrayana Buddhism and tantric meditation from 4am to about 9pm every day for the full year (of course with breaks for meals and a walkabout in the closed-off garden, a bit like a prison routine ) yet when they have completed the retreat, they tend to want to relate with others, especially newer students, from the perspective of everyday experiences. I guess thats where the real challenge lies, to share the Dharma in ways that do not require deep deciphering.

 

Just some thoughts...

[Vmarco]

Edited January 14, 2012 by Vmarco

[xabir2005]

For those who cling to Buddha's first two Turnings of the Wheel alone, Direct Experience of Buddhism is improbable.

 

V

Those who misunderstand the first two turnings and seek only to understand luminosity, wind up as non-Buddhists, Hindus. Or a Hindu in Buddhist drag.

 

As Thusness said before - there is no need at all for Buddha to teach if he is just about the luminosity aspect - since the old Vedas and Upanishads already covered it well but reified it into a Self.

 

Buddha is here not just to talk about luminosity. He is here to teach the teachings of no-self in contrast to Self (of the atman-brahman), impermanence instead of Permanence (of the atman-brahman), dependent origination instead of a Source (the atman-brahman).

 

Luminosity and emptiness is inseparable, and the inseparability is known in Vajrayana traditions as 'buddha-nature'.

Edited January 14, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

Those who misunderstand the first two turnings and seek only to understand luminosity, wind up as non-Buddhists, Hindus. Or a Hindu in Buddhist drag.

 

As Thusness said before - there is no need at all for Buddha to teach if he is just about the luminosity aspect - since the old Vedas and Upanishads already covered it well but reified it into a Self.

 

Buddha is here not just to talk about luminosity. He is here to teach the teachings of no-self in contrast to Self (of the atman-brahman), impermanence instead of Permanence (of the atman-brahman), dependent origination instead of a Source (the atman-brahman).

 

Luminosity and emptiness is inseparable, and the inseparability is known in Vajrayana traditions as 'buddha-nature'.

 

Those who cling only to the first and/or second Turning remain attached to the phenomenal self,...whereas through all Turnings, the potential to realize "other" is uncovered.

 

Luminosity is only perceived within phenomena, and all phenomena is empty,...thus, luminosity and the emptiness of phenomena is inseparable. The inseparability (and impermanence) of Luminosity and Emptiness is not Buddha Mind,...Buddha Mind is the understanding of the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness.

 

Undivided Light is neither luminous nor empty, in the sense that Form is Empty and Empty is Form. Undivided Light, like Noumena, is empty of form, and thus empty of the emptiness of form.

 

As Undivided Light, Sakyamuni, the Tathagata, has not moved a single centimeter in all eternity. Form and the emptiness of Form is always in motion. All motion is within time. Buddha Mind pivots upon a ground that is not of time. There is no Present in time.

 

There are two Buddhisms,...a Buddhism of scripturual belief and indoctrination,...and a Buddhism of what the scriptures point to. What Buddhism points to cannot be directly experienced through belief or indoctrination. The first two Turnings were for the most ignorant of sentient beings,...anyone who has comprehended the Mahaparanirvana will have realized that.

 

There is no permanent "thinking self", nor an Brahman Self,...they are aspects of phenomena. However, popping the alaya of luminousity, unfolds a direct experience with the Buddha Mind that is aware of the inseparability of things.

 

Atisha said, and with important reason, to find the consciousness one had before they were born,...one's Unborn Awareness. Find that awareness,...not scriptural quotes to make your beliefs more palatable.

 

Experience born of beliefs can only be experienced through the conditions of those beliefs. Buddha Mind cannot be understood through conditions. As Avalokitesvara said, the entire illusion was never really there,...and although at first there is luminousity, this is unreal as well.

 

Avalokitesvara's Dharma Gate, as detailed in the Shurangama sutra, which Buddha agreed was the best way (among those discussed in the Shurangama)) to awaken, is quite simple,...it only takes the understanding of one sense, for all the senses to collapse, and Full Spectrum Consciousness to be uncovered. Of course, Full Spectrum Consciousness is not Full Buddha Mind,...but without Full Spectrum Consciousness, which includes the direct understanding that Form is Empty and Empty is Form,...compassion, and nirvana, is impossible.

 

Avalokitesvara correctly stated that everything that happens is just like a dream. And that (Shurangama sutra) as soon as one sense-organ returns to, or is in alignment with Source, all the six are liberated. That cannot be realized by those seeking Brahman or Luminosity.

 

Avalokitesvara correctly states (in the Shurangama) that the truly eternal is entirely beyond arising and ceasing. That which is aware of entirely beyond arising and ceasing is called a Tathagata.

 

V

[xabir2005]

....

I too have realized the I AM after questioning myself 'Before Birth, Who am I?' for almost two years. But that is really not the end of the path and far from the totality of Buddha's realization.

 

At some point if you are open to investigating further, you will realize the distinction of Noumenon/Phenomenon is arbitrary and delusional.

 

Anyway what you have described is really no different from Brahman. Brahman is also known as the Noumenon behind all phenomenon.

 

'No arising and ceasing' of the sutras should be understood in terms of emptiness, that arising and ceasing are false concepts due to the empty nature, not eternalism. There is actually no 'Beyond'.

 

Master Sheng Yen:

...By the practise of Ch’an one can eliminate the ‘I’; not only the selfish, small ‘I’, but also the large ‘I’, which in philosophy is called ‘Truth’ or ‘the Essence’. Only then is there absolute freedom...

 

...When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the ‘I’ does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognise that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena...

 

... One who has entered Ch’an does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth...

Edited January 15, 2012 by xabir2005

[Vmarco]

Edited January 15, 2012 by Vmarco

[Vmarco]

[xabir2005]

No. I read that article a long time ago. The person you quoted from, Bill Bodri, does not understand Hinduims. He himself is only at the One Mind stage, the Brahman level of realization. And he is caught up in words trying to distinguish himself from hinduism not understanding that hinduism is talking about the same thing as him.

 

What you realized is just the I AM. It is not yet the realization of no self or anatta. All the Upanishads and Hindu texts talk about it.

[Vmarco]

[Seth Ananda]

Shakyamuni said,

The storehouse consciousness [alaya] is very profound and subtle;

All its seeds are like a torrential flow.

I do not explain it to the ignorant,

For fear they will cling to it and consider it a self.

 

I agree with Chögyam Trungpa who suggested that "Shakyamuni gave very few teachings on the alaya consciousness in order not to provide people with another false source of fixation of something as the ultimate. He didn’t want to talk extensively about something that sentient beings, lacking wisdom, might take as a higher Self or final Reality. In particular, he worried that beings might take the alaya as a big Self, or true atman. In fact, the Hindu sages who were able to reach to the alaya body of consciousness before him all made this very mistake, taking the alaya as the Great Self (Brahman) when it is only the essence of consciousness. They would reach this stage of cultivation and claim, “I am He, I am He” or “I am Brahman, I am Shiva.” Similarly, “All this is Brahman,” “I know the Supreme Brahman; there is nothing higher than that (Prasna Upanishad VI.7),” “All this Universe is Brahman. The Self is Brahman. (Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 2).”

 

Contrast this with Buddha’s discourse in the Diamond Sutra where he says that there is no such real thing as a world system or agglomeration of world systems, for if such a thing existed in reality it would be the oneness of all phenomena. Neither any components nor the whole should be regarded as real. No stage of attainment should be regarded as real either. If one even considers themselves an ego, identity, being or real self, they are not correct either. No stage of attainment is really existing or ever really attained.

 

Many in history have reached the stage where they were able to claim “I and the Father are one,” but this was also only reaching the alaya -- if that far -- without fully transforming it or overturning its basis. And many of those sages were killed by people who did not understand what they were saying. To overturn the alaya and produce a revolution in its basis, turning all its seeds into wisdoms – that’s the stage of true enlightenment taught by Shakyamuni Buddha. Many masters since then have been able to reach to the alaya by cultivating the seventh consciousness to the stage where they silenced the sixth and first five consciousnesses by turning away from the senses and phenomena. Many yoga concentration techniques will help you do this. But many of these also made the mistake of holding on to the alaya as the object of the seventh consciousness and clinging to it as a Self. In Zen a master would have to break up someone’s stage of realization in order to get them to perceive this (awaken) and go beyond.

 

In the Brahmanism and other religious streams that were created by the Vedas and which predated Shakyamuni, Vedic philosophy originally held that a great being named Brahman was the creator of all beings, including man. Brahman was revered as the lord of all creation, but was not apart from ourselves. In Vedic literature, it was asserted that there was no difference, no duality between the true self of human beings, called the “atman,” and the true self of Brahman. Brahman is “One Without a Second” and fully present in each and every individual being.

 

This is similar to a common religious theme that God and man share the same essence, or the idea that “Heaven and man are one” found in Confucianism. But Brahman, in this case, is considered beyond form, and the universe and all the beings within it are considered forms or phenomena that are transformations of Brahman the great one Self. The Triple Realm is thus considered one great unified whole that is Brahman’s very being. In Vedic philosophy, the highest ideal is to return to the state where Brahman and the individual soul, or atman, become one. Hence, the cultivation methods espoused in Hinduism involve the purifying effects of meditation and other elevating and refining cultivation techniques that return the small self of the individual person to the great self of Brahman. As “atman” is a word that originally meant “breath” or “vital principle,” it is not surprising that the majority of these methods involved breathing practices to cultivate one’s chi, or prana.

Atman is Spirit,...it does not exist outside of things.

 

If one is ignorant about the proper path, the seventh consciousness will take the alaya and hold to it as a self. If one is not ignorant, they will refrain from clinging to the alaya or taking it as something real, and by continuing to shine the empty awareness of prajna without clinging, let mind be born without abiding in any of its states. The highest reality is approachable only by prajna transcendental wisdom, and this is always and ever the correct path of cultivation.

 

If one is not careful and posits Brahman as the ultimate Source, then when consciousness is the only object then the seventh consciousness will take the “purity” of the alaya as an object; it will take hold of the alaya as Brahman the Great Self. If one correctly cultivates prajna, they can overturn the alaya and reach true and perfect enlightenment that is beyond consciousness and the Three Realms.

 

With thoughts ever arising, with all its seeds always in the process of transformation, the alaya is the source of all creation and transmigration. But one can mistake the alaya as the pure truth or ultimate essence where there is neither subject nor object, positive nor negative, good or bad - just as Vedic works cite – because that is the nature of the alaya seen in its aspect of purity. Like Brahman, the alaya is the master of transmigration and transformation because of the constant stirring of its seeds (elements) until and unless it has been overturned by voidness meditation so that one detaches from it as an object and thus transcends it.

 

One should not even consider the alaya as being Real, but let it be without attachment or fixation. It can be transcended only by emptiness meditation, which means the “cultivation of prajna wisdom.” When you can let go of the alaya as an object, so that it returns to its original inherent identity as the ground state of Suchness, you can “experience a revolution in its basis” and the seeds of the alaya (the components of consciousness) can all become clear wisdoms. Then one can become the ultimate master of consciousness as well as birth and death, because consciousness is the source of transmigration. This is how one ultimately becomes free of the stream of incarnations and one learns how to master their mind. The mind can no longer cheat you because you always see through it. When the alaya becomes transformed, it is called “immaculate consciousness” that is pure without clinging.

 

This is where the true enlightenment first introduced by Buddhism surpassed the Hindu and Vedic sages who reached the realm of Brahman, or the alaya, and took it as a fixed Supreme Self. It is easy to mistake it as the highest Self just as Shakyamuni said, so he rarely spoke of it. It’s hard enough just getting people to attain a state of dhayan-samadhi, let alone reach this far. Few people attain to this in their cultivation, and of those who can, Shakyamuni didn’t want people to grasp onto the alaya as anything real. If you do, you cannot go beyond it. In his many years of teaching, Shakyamuni Buddha often refused to go into deep explanations of the real nature of nirvana, called the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, until he had been teaching for quite a while and his disciples had “grown up” with spiritual attainments and prajna wisdom. The nirvana of Buddhism is to overturn the alaya whereas in the previous sects and schools, it was to reach to the alaya, or simply to reach some stage of dhyana and the lower heavens with their appropriate gods and goddesses. This is what you find in most worldly religions.

 

Initially in his teaching career, Shakyamuni considered most of his disciples as children of limited capacities who could only "digest" the simple and basic spiritual fare of "suffering, impermanence and non-Self." So he set up the path as something that put an end to suffering, and stressed the analysis of the mind and mental formations to discover that there is no such thing as an ego. Once his students had progressed upon the spiritual path with the cultivation attainments of samadhi, gong-fu and prajna wisdom, only then were they ready to be introduced to the culminational teachings of the Tathagatagarbha or Buddhanature, as revealed in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, which deal with bliss, permanence and true Self. But this is a different, higher set than the sat-chit-ananda (existence, consciousness, bliss) of Hinduism because it goes BEYOND the alaya whereas the Vedic sat-chit-ananda stops at the alaya and mistakes it as the ultimate, calling it Brahman. As Buddha said, the true sat-chit-ananda is the achievement of the nirvana without remainder beyond the realm or function of the alaya. One achieves this by cultivating prajna wisdom to let go of the alaya, and the even bigger secret is that prajna wisdom is also considered a guest or surrogate, rather than the ultimate host, which is how one continues to cultivate to a higher and higher attainment without any effort at all.

 

Without remainder suggests a Wholeness beyond the sum of opposites.

 

Many practitioners tend to mistakenly identify the stilling of the sixth consciousness when all thoughts cease - a time when the alaya is alone in the meditation - as pure consciousness and the Higher Self or ultimate attainment. Properly speaking, we can call this “cultivating the seventh consciousness” rather than the eighth because you don’t go beyond the eighth but take it as your object of meditation. This is the source of all the deep philosophical mistakes in Hinduism, and the reason is from meditation (cultivation) that did not go high enough or far enough. The great Confucian Wang Yang Ming also made this mistake, as have many others since Shakyamuni’s time. It is truly difficult to reach the alaya, and even more difficult to find a great and skillful teacher who can help you crush your experiential realm and toss all away so that you abide nowhere at all.

 

If the alaya is the object of concentration without movement of the sixth or seventh consciousness (the mind), we can describe it as formless, pure, unchanging, formless, timeless, undifferentiated, all-pervading, self-illuminating, absolute, without attributes, beginning or end. It’s easy for you to find such quotes in various religious texts, and to add to this list. This is where most people, as high stage Arhats, stop in their cultivation, and indeed in the Upanishads and other cultivation texts we find reference to these descriptions.

Shakyamuni could find no teacher in his day who had reached the stage of totally and completely overturning the alaya, nor could he find this dharma taught anywhere. However, upon reaching perfect and complete enlightenment, through the help of the dakini Sujata, he could see the other Buddhas who had achieved this feat and who had surmounted the Three Realms. He could also see and perfectly understand all the beings who had attained a stage of incomplete enlightenment, a fractional nirvana or Bodhisattva bhumi, because they had not yet freed themselves totally from the alaya (base of consciousness) and purified it. Surpassing it, he can easily see through them and understand all their levels and stages of meditation, their karma, transformations, mental faults and so forth. Now you can understand why the various Buddhist scriptures say things like this, for now it becomes a science you can understand rather than just flowery religious overblown wording. A “Buddha” doesn’t mean Buddhism. It means a completely enlightened being, from any place within the Triple Realm, who has overturned the alaya and escaped the Three Realms, and who can thus survey the Three Realms clearly from without and know all such things within.

 

When one holds the alaya (pure consciousness) as the object of meditation and their stage of cultivation is not stable, it is easy for the alaya to be moved by the sixth consciousness, after which creation (and thus transmigration) seems to appear. Transcending the alaya is true non-production, no-birth, no-origination. A re-membering of Unborn Awareness.

 

At the stage of cultivating the alaya when the sixth ("thinking") consciousness is still, it may appear to be a realm of non-production, no-birth, no-origination, unborn non-moving non-duality where we say it is changeless, formless and so forth, but this is because the mind is momentarily still but the alaya has not been transcended and overturned. Only the true overturning of complete and perfect enlightenment produces a revolution in the seeds of consciousness. Otherwise one is just holding the alaya as an object of consciousness and enjoying its purity.

 

When the sixth consciousness once again stirs, worldly things will once again appear which is the changeable maya of Brahman. Creation is then a vibration in pure consciousness. Everything we see thus depends on movements of the mind and when the movements cease, the mind is thoughtless and returns to its source. As Ramana Maharshi said, “There is no creation in the state of realization. When one sees the Self, the world is not seen. So see the Self and realize that there has been no creation.” He also said, “The creation is said to have an origin. How? Like a tree and the seed from which it has grown. How was the seed produced? From a similar tree. Where is the end to the series of questions? Therefore, one must know one’s Self before the world is known.” Thus we have the cultivation school of Yogacara called Consciousness-Only, or Mind-Only, which leads one back to the alaya and urges prajna wisdom cultivation for complete and perfect enlightenment.

 

Thus we have the Great Mirror Wisdom, Action Performing Wisdom, Wisdom of Equality and so forth that are the transformations of consciousness when prajna wisdom causes a revolution in its basis. The Mind clearly knows all the thoughts and functions within consciousness, but is not deceived by them. Operating outside the alaya and not subject to transmigration but seeing through it, this is why Zen masters can freely exercise their “great functioning” and the “sharp point of potential,” for they are not bound by consciousness and can take advantage of any circumstances to help people awaken.

 

One functions in the world while transcending it. In fact, one transcends the entire Triple Realm for it is all entirely bound with consciousness because it is created of consciousness. No gong-fu is supreme other than the accomplishment of enlightenment past the Triple Realm. It is as the Taoist-Zen immortal Chang Tzu-yang said, “Even if you have a halo crowning your head, it is still a mirage; even if clouds arise under your feet, you are not immortal.” What achievement is worthy when bound within the Three Realms?

 

Of course the modern Advaita Vedanta teachers have also now been able to achieve this enlightenment of Shakyamuni by transcending Brahman, and have tried to lift Hinduism up with the appropriate teachings and understanding of non-duality, non-clinging and thus the over-turning of the alaya. But if one simply relies on the old Veda, Upanishads and other scriptures, it is easy to remain caught in the net. Of course, you're so talented if you even get that far to realize the skandha of consciousness, the alaya, Brahman. You can be a great Theist, because you have not transcended the god delusion

 

The key point is that to attain perfect and pure enlightenment you must forget any notions of the Self and cultivate prajna to go beyond the alaya and drop attachments to consciousness, for the Higher Self, or the alaya, or universe as a whole (the entire Triple Realm) are the obstacle of the voidness of Reality. The basis of the yoga cultivation and meditation methods in Vedic culture are not wrong. It’s just that practitioners do not go far enough for there is farther to go. Shakyamuni simply took what was the best of what was in use and added an understanding and practice of prajna wisdom so that one could proceed faster and attain farther than what was previously available. This is what enlightened Buddhas teach – how to become ultimately free and liberated, which why the beings of all directions and states in the Triple Realm come to them for teachings. In this way by attaining to the basis of (transcending) consciousness, one surmounts all of creation (the Triple Realm) and attains the Tathagatagarbha or Matrix of Reality.

 

If one does not transcend the alaya then one does not understand the fundamental, one does align with Source. As high as your attainment is, this lack of comprehension is still called “Ignorance,” and thus the sages before Shakyamuni were technically still in the realm of ignorance. Colloquially we can say that “they had the Tao,” but the measure of their Tao was not complete. Knowing that, we can also say “they did not have the Tao.” To overturn the alaya is to destroy the root of ignorance. To attain the alaya or rest in the alaya or take it as the ultimate object of one’s efforts is to remain in ignorance, bound in ignorance. The difference is not insignificant.

 

When you don’t know something we call it “ignorance,” so not knowing the source, we are all bound to Ignorance. One might comprehend a portion of the alaya, but without perfect and clear penetration one only can achieve “nirvana with a remainder.” The dhyana, on the other hand, are a type of common phenomenon that can be cultivated by anyone, and which can serve as a stepping stone or practice station to help you lay a foundation for the ultimate attainment. They are not the monopoly of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism or any other school and are feely cultivated throughout the universe including the various human religions. They are the birth mother of sages and sages, initiates, adepts, gurus and great ones. But the real “great ones” are those with perfect and complete enlightenment wherein the entire alaya has been transformed.

 

There’s a story in the Buddhist scriptures of a talented monk who wanted to find out the answer to the question, “Where do the four elements cease without remainder?” Through meditation he reached the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, who did not know the answer. Next he went to the thirty three gods in a higher Desire Realm heaven, but none of these rulers knew either. He then asked King Sakka (Indra), the king of these gods, but Sakka did not know the answer. Up and up he went asking all sorts of gods at each and every higher level. Finally he came to Great Brahma, the Creator, Uncreated, Knower of All.

 

When the monk finally achieved an audience with Great Brahma, Brahma appeared in all his majesty and glory announcing, "I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be." The monk then humbly and respectfully asked his question, but all Great Brahma did was repeat, "I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be."

 

The monk eventually got frustrated and said, “I know you are "Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be," but I asked you a question about where the four elements cease without remainder. The Great Brahma replied, “Listen little monk, don’t embarrass me. All these other gods are listening and think I know everything. If you want to know the answer to a question like that, don’t ask me. I don’t know the answer. For a question like that, you have to go ask the Buddha.”

 

The monk then returned to the world and told Shakyamuni Buddha the story. Shakyamuni and the monk both laughed and then the Buddha told him, “When sailors are searching for land they let go of pigeons from their ship. If the pigeons don’t return it means they’ve found land nearby. If they do return, it’s because there is no land in sight. You’re just like a pigeon who has returned back to me because none of the gods could not give you the answer.” Then he told the monk that nirvana is where the four elements cease without remainder. But now you know that this nirvana is a purification, revolution, seeing through or overturning of the alaya consciousness, and not a resting or cultivation of the alaya which would be a fractional enlightenment, or nirvana with remainder. The higher gods did not know this because they had not achieved it. And so it is with Jehovah or Christianity’s Father “God, with Indra, Odin, Allah, Ahura Mazda, and so forth.

 

This is not a propaganda piece to trumpet any supposed “superiority of Buddhism.” Remember we are speaking of enlightenment dharma, not a religion called “Buddhism,” for enlightenment dharma appears in countless realms. Since Shakyamuni’s time, only a handful of individuals have completed the course of full and complete enlightenment in this world, but the last time any completely enlightened ones appeared in this world to fully reveal and teach the full dharma was Shakyamuni, so this is what we go by. In a different world it’s a different name but it’s all about enlightenment. "

Thanks Vmarco, I found this to be a very Interesting post. It was also the easiest post of yours to read and understand that I have read so far. Is Chogyam Trungpas quote just the first paragraph part? If so congratulations on Improving your writing style

 

So to be clear you are saying that, the I AM state is the Alaya Vijnana, {which makes sense to me} but like Nissagardatta says, when you go beyond seeing even consciousness as some real thing to be identified with, you are coming to the real truth, something beyond definitions, beyond opposites, and this is what you call undivided light?

 

 

 

 

The whole Shentong/Rangtong/cittamatra thing is very Interesting.

In the 7 day Longchen Gar retreat I did, Changling Rinpoche described them as useful tools and said that is how most masters have seen them.

He said westerners can get confused, because each set of teachings write as an absolute, even though in many cases the authors know that it is not the whole truth. They do this to help the student have faith in the view they are learning.

 

He said, Asanga created the Chittamatra school and is a Bodhisattva of the 3rd Bhumi.

Nagajuna created the madhyamaka and is a Bodhisattva of the 1st Bhumi.

Don't let there attainments confuse you, Nagajuna created a better school but Asanga was a better Yogi... But Both Great Bodhisattva's...

 

He then said that Most of the great teachers since then, start out as Rangtong, but when they hit a point where they can't go any further with it, they switch to Shentong. His teachers, one being Dilgo Khyentse did this. He said that Rangtong is highly recomended for beginners, as they can too easily misinterpret Shentong teachings and fall into eternalism. Nagajuna for instance, who's works are usually considered Rangtong, went Shentong in the end, and wrote his work 'Praising the Dharmadhatu' which is on Dharmadhata's {a great shentong master} commentary on the Heart Sutra... [if I am reading my notes correctly]

 

Some teachers believe that mind only can be a great vehicle to reach 3rd Bhumi for certain students, but to be dropped in favour of Rangtong at that point, but when Rangtongs developmental steam runs out, to switch to Shentong, as many many of Tibets great masters did...

Edited January 17, 2012 by Seth Ananda

[guruyoga]

Thanks Vmarco, I found this to be a very Interesting post. It was also the easiest post of yours to read and understand that I have read so far. Is Chogyam Trungpas quote just the first paragraph part? If not congratulations on Improving your writing style

 

So to be clear you are saying that, the I AM state is the Alaya Vijnana, {which makes sense to me} but like Nissagardatta says, when you go beyond seeing even consciousness as some real thing to be identified with, you are coming to the real truth, something beyond definitions, beyond opposites, and this is what you call undivided light?

 

 

 

 

The whole Shentong/Rangtong/cittamatra thing is very Interesting.

In the 7 day Longchen Gar retreat I did, Changling Rinpoche described them as useful tools and said that is how most masters have seen them.

He said westerners can get confused, because each set of teachings write as an absolute, even though in many cases the authors know that it is not the whole truth. They do this to help the student have faith in the view they are learning.

 

He said, Asanga created the Chittamatra school and is a Bodhisattva of the 3rd Bhumi.

Nagajuna created the madhyamaka and is a Bodhisattva of the 1st Bhumi.

Don't let there attainments confuse you, Nagajuna created a better school but Asanga was a better Yogi... But Both Great Bodhisattva's...

 

He then said that Most of the great teachers since then, start out as Rangtong, but when they hit a point where they can't go any further with it, they switch to Shentong. His teachers, one being Dilgo Khyentse did this. He said that Rangtong is highly recomended for beginners, as they can too easily misinterpret Shentong teachings and fall into eternalism. Nagajuna for instance, who's works are usually considered Rangtong, went Shentong in the end, and wrote his work 'Praising the Dharmadhatu' which is on Dharmadhata's {a great shentong master} commentary on the Heart Sutra... [if I am reading my notes correctly]

 

Some teachers believe that mind only can be a great vehicle to reach 3rd Bhumi for certain students, but to be dropped in favour of Rangtong at that point, but when Rangtongs developmental steam runs out, to switch to Shentong, as many many of Tibets great masters did...

 

 

+++++

 

Very well-written, Thanks Seth

[xabir2005]

[Vmarco]

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vmarco]

Look friend, I don't have a problem with you personally, but I have a problem with what you post. Everything that you post is laden with misinformation on what Buddhism teaches and is total nonsense.

 

See, you know that you can get away with this on the TTB's and that if you were to try this on dharmawheel or some other Buddhist forum, your posts would be called out on and shut down real quick. You know that you can fool those who don't know any better on this board.

 

I tend to generally ignore your posts, but seriously dude, stop lying to yourself and others on this board when it comes to the teachings of Buddhism and your insight into them. You are still at the level of the "I AM" phase. Stop saying otherwise when you are called out by those who have more experience than you.

 

Thank you for the comments,...they are helpful in looking for some cracks or weakness in your ignorance regarding what Buddhism is pointing to.

 

First, allow it to be said again,...the use of "I am" to explain Buddhism was Xibir's,...thus it must be assumed that few have comprehended, or even read my entire posts, but like most, scan them to pick out-of-context bits for critique.

 

Contrary to your misguided argument, that is:

The characteristics of the "I AM" phase primarily has to with the "self-realization" of: The non-locality of consciousness/awareness (as in not just residing in the brain/body,) initial glimpse of seeing through the "ego" and the conceptual layer we put onto reality and of course it's accompanying bliss...Though there is still a subject/object duality, the coming and going of things and the nature of experience still isn't fully understood.

 

True self-realization is simultaneously the realization of the equality of "other"....that is to say, other-realization,...thus a sort of dissolution of subject-object,...however, in reality, subject-object never existed, and therefore don't really dissolve.

 

It is ashame your ego "generally ignore [my] posts"....would very much like to observe the wordage where your "emotional charge" occurs,...that would indicate a viable weakness in your ignorance regarding Buddhism and what Buddhism actually points to,...which is a consciousness beyond Self (One) and Other (Many).

 

Buddha did not point to any oneness,...on the contrary, any identification with Oneness, even of the universe at large, is identity with ego, and thus not real "self-actualization."

 

As for my level? My level can only be understood through your level,...and your level is closed and dogmatic. Your level highlights the problem with self-attachment. "Other" cannot be understood through "self"....which is sort of a Catch-22, although "self" can be uncovered through "other."

 

If you understood the illusory reality of "self", you would simultaneously understand the illusory reality of "other". Until you do understand, your diatribe of "seriously dude, stop lying to yourself and others on this board when it comes to the teachings of Buddhism" is not only ridiculous, but is a sabotage and ruination of yourself.

 

Brahman may be the "Great Selfhood", but such Oneness is delusory. There can be no One without a Many. Buddhism, regardless of your misinformed views, points to a middle way, that is neither One nor Many. A Tathagata exists as if on a still fulcrum upon which all One's and Many's effect their motion. Everything, in nearly all my posts on this TTB, points to Beyond Coming and Going,...although most here don't even have a clue about what is "going and coming."

 

Like most, SimpleJack goes, but does not come. Without going, and simultaneouly coming (understanding the reverse flow of forward moving things) you will, as Shantideva said, wander endlessly in a state of misery.

 

The truth is SimpleJack, to use your words, it is you who are "lying to yourself and others on this board when it comes to the teachings of Buddhism and your insight into them." However, your ego does not want this to known.

 

V

Edited January 19, 2012 by Vmarco

[Taozi]

......

Edited January 20, 2012 by Taozi

[xabir2005]

 

As for Shengtong VS. Rangtong....I actually don't have a problem with either, LOL. In fact I wanted (and still do want to) make a thorough study of the works of Dolpopa. I know that Xabir thinks that Shengtong is totally eternalist, but I've read about it from Miphams works (He also composed his own work called the Lions Roar Exclaiming Extrinsic Emptiness) and I actually don't have a problem with it. Though there can definitely be a problem for individuals to interpret it in "Hindu" terms, if there isn't a proper understanding of the first two turnings of Buddhism.

It depends on who is the interpreter of Shentong. It seems Vmarco's source is strictly from the eternalist POV.

 

I remember Namdrol saying some of the Kagyu's and Shakya's interpretation of Shentong is less prone to eternalism (though maybe still a tinge of it). I have read a little bit on Thrangu Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche's teaching on Shentong, they seem pretty ok to me at least on the surface (have not dwelt more indepth).

 

So it is not just a strict 'eternalist or not' - it really depends on the teacher's interpretation. Some are more prone towards eternalism.

I also bought Nagarjunas In Praise of Dharmadatu and I thought this was composed by himself?

This is a good text but I don't know why you think it has to do with Shentong. Edited January 20, 2012 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Vmarco]

I completely understand what you are saying and this is what I would have said in the I AM phase. It is difficult for me to converse with you further unless you are open to further investigations on your own part. My path has already been laid out - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html

 

Thanks for the link,...it helps me to better understand your vocabulary. And yes, I would agree that your path has been laid out,...my best wishes to you on that.

 

Many here like yourself are desireous to teach and share to pursuade others to join their path. Any sharing that I do is merely as consequence while engaging ignorance. Why people cling to ignorance for their identity is a fascinating subject.

 

"Human kind cannot bear very much reality" T. S. Eliot

[Seth Ananda]

Vmarco posted some really Interesting things with that Bodri article.

 

I would like to not write the Ideas off to quickly without deeper analysis.

 

He is saying [and please correct me if I am wrong Vmarco] that the Alaya Vijnana is the same as the IAM state. That sounds very feasible to me considering the descriptions of both states.

 

Next he is saying is that he has personal experience of the IAM/alaya state.

 

And then, that he has gone beyond the IAM state, and is describing how the new state is different to the IAM state.

 

I think it would be wise to get clear about the specifics.

 

Vmarco if you are willing, would you please give us a detailed description of your experience with the IAM state?

 

If it can be clearly seen that you have a solid footing in your understanding of what the IAM is, [experientially] then your claims to have moved past it, into something deeper will hopefully be taken or looked more seriously...

Edited January 21, 2012 by Seth Ananda