[Sunya]

Parinirvana means non-returning to the rounds of rebirth, absolute cessation. Not sure where you get the idea that it means one has reached the highest wisdom. Who is this 'one who reaches highest wisdom?'

 

This seems more like hinayana view, rather than mahayana. In mahayana it isn't understood that the mindstream ceases completely, ever, but that may be a goal in hinayana. Certainly is not a goal in mahayana, at least based on what I've read and heard

 

 

Who is this 'one who reaches highest wisdom?'

 

From Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught: "If there is no Self, no Atman, who realizes Nirvana? Before we go on to Nirvana, let us ask the question: Who thinks now, if there is no Self? We have seen earlier that it is the thought that thinks, that there is no thinker behind the thought. In the same way, it is wisdom (panna), realization, that realizes. There is no other self behind the realization."

Edited May 8, 2014 by Sunya

[asunthatneversets]

From Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught: "If there is no Self, no Atman, who realizes Nirvana? Before we go on to Nirvana, let us ask the question: Who thinks now, if there is no Self? We have seen earlier that it is the thought that thinks, that there is no thinker behind the thought. In the same way, it is wisdom (panna), realization, that realizes. There is no other self behind the realization."

Interestingly, the dzogchen tantras say precisely the same thing (per Malcolm):

 

"Prajñā is the realizer and the cause of the realization is vidyā."

- rig pa rang shar

[Tibetan_Ice]

One day at vajracakra.. When the true essence of the forum appeared..

 

 

 

 

My way or the highway...

 

Edited May 8, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[asunthatneversets]

Having interacted with many of the individuals who replied on that thread for some years now I can vouch for the fact that they are level headed and reasonable people. It is quite rare to see them advise to be cautious about a teacher, so I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they have good reason for saying what they said.

 

Did you try inquiring further via private message?

[doc benway]

From Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught: "If there is no Self, no Atman, who realizes Nirvana? Before we go on to Nirvana, let us ask the question: Who thinks now, if there is no Self? We have seen earlier that it is the thought that thinks, that there is no thinker behind the thought. In the same way, it is wisdom (panna), realization, that realizes. There is no other self behind the realization."

That could have come right out of a Krishnamurti talk…

[C T]

This seems more like hinayana view, rather than mahayana. In mahayana it isn't understood that the mindstream ceases completely, ever, but that may be a goal in hinayana. Certainly is not a goal in mahayana, at least based on what I've read and heard

 

 

 

From Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught: "If there is no Self, no Atman, who realizes Nirvana? Before we go on to Nirvana, let us ask the question: Who thinks now, if there is no Self? We have seen earlier that it is the thought that thinks, that there is no thinker behind the thought. In the same way, it is wisdom (panna), realization, that realizes. There is no other self behind the realization."

Hi Sunya,

 

Nice to get your input, thank you. Hope you are keeping well...

 

Parinirvana is inferred in all the vehicles, and its not just limited to the 'blowing out' of an individual's mindstream. It has much wider connotations than that, getting more refined as more layers are shed.

 

Wisdom is the means to go beyond. It is the raft, and not the boatman. When the boatman finally realizes he is already on the other shore, he leaves the raft aside. Leaving the raft aside completely, the boatman becomes unyoked of the burden associated to the term, 'boatman'. The conventional designations 'Boatman' and 'raft' arise and cease simultaneously, and yet independently they do not really exist.

 

HH Sakya Trizin commented that ultimate wisdom is beyond words, beyond description, beyond any attempt to say it exists or does not exist. In your view, what is HH pointing to? To me, HH's explanation is crystal clear.

 

This is also what i have been saying. However, it appears that Asunthatneversets is saying the opposite, that wisdom is indeed a palpable state, which can be experienced. And im arguing that if it can be experienced, described and neatly explained, then, by virtue of that, it cannot be ultimate wisdom.

[asunthatneversets]

Its also a means to sustain one's self-importance, especially in those who place a lot of emphasis on correct cognition of the natural state. Equipoise is the exact opposite of such fixated views.

A veridical cognition of one's nature is not a fixated view, in fact it is quite the opposite being that it ensues from a definitive collapse of the fabricated reference point of mind. It is not an inferential view by any means, but rather is precisely the effortless and definitive view [lta ba] of uncontrived equipoise [mnyam bzhag] i.e. contemplation [skt. samādhi, tib. ting nge dzin].

 

Great masters of the past said that with wisdom from hearing, one recognizes disturbing emotions. Through the wisdom that comes from reflection, one gradually learns to overcome these disturbing emotions temporarily. Finally, thru the wisdom that comes from meditation, such disturbing emotions are completely extinguished. When disturbing emotions are fully eradicated without even the slightest lingering doubts, they call this the dawning of the 'inexpressible dharmakaya'. It is not something which arises in a self...

Yes, well since there has ultimately never been a self at any point in time, nothing has ever arisen in a self, much less dharmakāya.

 

its a selfless display, i.e. there is no 'one' there to witness the process.

Technically there's no one to witness any process. The illusion of a self is nothing more than a byproduct of karmic patterning and ignorance. And since the reference point of mind which is misconstrued as an abiding entity is absent in the definitive view, clarity is no longer mistaken as belonging to an entity.

 

The lack of 'someone' is a redundant point, the 'someone' has always only been a conventional designation attributed to the intricate interweaving of afflicted processes.

 

The process takes on an energy of its own, and scrapes away at the layers until such time, whats left is simply that: The 'inexpressible dharmakaya', that which is already perfected and can not be improved upon any further.

The process or view "takes on an energy of its own" after a certain level of stabilization has occurred. But initially it is not stable and therefore must be practiced by means of continually resting in the view.

 

The path of Dzogchen is never involved with improving one's nature, which is originally pure and self-perfected. The basis, path and result are merely a conventional way to describe the process of recognizing that nature [basis], and then degrees of stability in one's knowledge [rig pa] of that nature [path] and finally the complete exhaustion of karmic contamination [result]. Dharmakāya is the result.

 

This great recognition wells up and swallows everything. It is not something which arise from the effort of cultivating wisdom and/or eradicating ignorance.

No one has suggested that wisdom is cultivated nor that ignorance is eradicated. The notion of one's nature arising from effort is also nothing that has been suggested at any time in this discussion.

 

One's nature cannot be cultivated or produced, it is primordial and therefore can only be recognized and familiarized with.

 

Its understandable why you seem ruffled by such a radical view, thereby seeking to attack my points, calling them ridiculous, etc.

I would say this is taking my comment out of context, but of you'd like to believe I'm ruffled by your self-proclaimed radical view, you are more than welcome to.

 

I'm addressing your points because there are things I disagree with, just as you are addressing mine because there are things you disagree with. This is fairly straightforward stuff when it comes to human interaction on any platform.

 

What I asserted was "ridiculous" was your movement to surpass the principle of wisdom based on conjectured information regarding levels of realization such as buddhahood and/or rainbow body etc. Which is putting the cart before the horse so to speak.

[asunthatneversets]

HH Sakya Trizin commented that ultimate wisdom is beyond words, beyond description, beyond any attempt to say it exists or does not exist. In your view, what is HH pointing to? To me, HH's explanation is crystal clear.

 

This is also what i have been saying. However, it appears that Asunthatneversets is saying the opposite, that wisdom is indeed a palpable state, which can be experienced. And im arguing that if it can be experienced, described and neatly explained, then, by virtue of that, it cannot be ultimate wisdom.

I'm definitely not saying the opposite, you're just assuming that because wisdom is free from extremes this means that it cannot be recognized.

 

It sort of goes without saying that all conventional descriptions are attempts to conceptualize the non-conceptual. Even a description of the taste of chocolate is ultimately not the non-conceptual taste.

 

There are countless dharma texts, sūtras and tantras which are all describing and explaining wisdom to the best of their ability.

 

Buddhas are buddhas because they have a complete knowledge of wisdom, sentient beings are sentient beings because they are completely ignorant of wisdom. It's an underlying theme found throughout the buddhadharma.

[Anderson]

I'm definitely not saying the opposite, you're just assuming that because wisdom is free from extremes this means that it cannot be recognized.

 

 

Recognition is only possible if you've known wisdom from before.

Since wisdom is a dimension totally unknown to you recognition of it wont be possible but discovery will since discovery implies that a totally new thing comes to light .

However, if one discovers their nature during introduction any future encounter with that nature will elicit recognition or at least give one the chance to recognise it .

[asunthatneversets]

 

Recognition is only possible if you've known wisdom from before.

Since wisdom is a dimension totally unknown to you recognition of it wont be possible but discovery will since discovery implies that a totally new thing comes to light .

However, if one discovers their nature during introduction any future encounter with that nature will elicit recognition or at least give one the chance to recognise it .

Recognition. Discovery. Semantics.

[Anderson]

Recognition. Discovery. Semantics.

 

Semantics makes all the difference since if it isn't explained properly one can get stuck in a mind loop forever.

What to recognise?

There is nothing one can recognise since one is in an unfamiliar territory.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Semantics makes all the difference since if it isn't explained properly one can get stuck in a mind loop forever.

What to recognise?

There is nothing one can recognise since one is in an unfamiliar territory.

Recognize whatever you want to call it; your nature, your state, sound light and rays, the nature of mind, mind-essence, the basis, dharmatā, primordial wisdom, there are many names.

 

Since it is the nature of your own mind and cognizance, if your own condition in that respect is unfamiliar to you, then you my friend have far bigger problems to worry about.

[asunthatneversets]

Interestingly, terms such as 'recognition', 'discovery', 'introduction', and so on are attempts to translate a certain Tibetan phrase which Malcolm has referenced elsewhere;

 

"The phrase is 'ngo rang thog du sprad' which means more like 'a direct self-encounter with [one's] state [lit. face]'."

 

So again, semantics... wrapped in translation.

[Anderson]

Recognize whatever you want to call it; your nature, your state, sound light and rays, the nature of mind, mind-essence, the basis, dharmatā, primordial wisdom, there are many names.

 

Since it is the nature of your own mind and cognizance, if your own condition in that respect is unfamiliar to you, then you my friend have far bigger problems to worry about.

What are you saying Kyle ?

People in general , are not aware of the nature of their mind and cognizance and since this is not known ,evident or familiar to them are you suggesting that they are somehow cognitively impaired or damaged ?

It is not healthy to make assumptions about someone's capacity based solely on their familiarity or lack thereof with their nature.On the other hand you cannot assert a necessary relation between a mind and familiarity with its nature.

[doc benway]

Semantics makes all the difference since if it isn't explained properly one can get stuck in a mind loop forever.

What to recognise?

There is nothing one can recognise since one is in an unfamiliar territory.

A good teacher can point to the nature with very clear and familiar language.

Semantics mostly figures into it when we try to 'understand' the nature with thought and words...

The nature is only seems unfamiliar until it is experienced, then you realize that it's always been with you and it feels like coming home after being away for a very long time.

[forestofclarity]

Ironic, isn't it, that Dzogchen terminology can be so confusing and Dzogchen can be the source of so much debate when the fundamental principle is to simply let everything be as it is? It is already naturally perfected and nothing can be added or subtracted.

 

It took me many years of doing before I learned the meaning of non-effort. Some teachings say that it is through expending effort that we discover the futility of effort, I have found this to be true.

[asunthatneversets]

What are you saying Kyle ?

People in general , are not aware of the nature of their mind and cognizance and since this is not known ,evident or familiar to them are you suggesting that they are somehow cognitively impaired or damaged ?

It is not healthy to make assumptions about someone's capacity based solely on their familiarity or lack thereof with their nature.On the other hand you cannot assert a necessary relation between a mind and familiarity with its nature.

Ah no, I'm saying if you are unfamiliar with your own ordinary, everyday mind (or cognizance), then you might have an issue..

 

Your own conscious wakefulness should undoubtably be the most intimate aspect of your experience. And so its nature, when and if that species of insight comes about, will not be insight into unfamiliar territory but rather a revelation about something very intimate.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Having interacted with many of the individuals who replied on that thread for some years now I can vouch for the fact that they are level headed and reasonable people. It is quite rare to see them advise to be cautious about a teacher, so I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they have good reason for saying what they said.

 

Did you try inquiring further via private message?

No, I am not a member. Instead I checked out the younge website and the only thing I could sense that was a reason for shunning might be that it is non-sectarian.

[asunthatneversets]

 

No, I am not a member. Instead I checked out the younge website and the only thing I could sense that was a reason for shunning might be that it is non-sectarian.

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu is non-sectarian as well, so that can't be it.

Edited May 9, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[doc benway]

I stumbled across a very nice and brief discussion that touches on some of the topics we've been discussing here.

It is from Jean-Luc Achard and is in the English section on his Dzogchen forum:

http://forumdzogchen.forumactif.com/t472-intro-question

[Mystique Enigma]

once walked this space .....

 

Mesmerized

 

As I sit & silently ponder
How my life has come to past
Seeking what was never there
Desires of my mind & heart

Unforeseen the moment springs
Some of the greatest life it brings
Caterpillars to Butterflies
Me unto a paradise

Looking at what is not there
Listening to what is not heard
Reflections of a bird in flight
A fish swimming, a beat of a heart

A rose in all its beauty blooms
Neither thorns nor wind, can mar its blush
Radiant in its heavenly glow
Standing still, yet it did grow

A smile that lit a poor mans face
A helping hand, a peaceful place
A look around, as children play
Walking at a slowly pace

Sounds of silence in music flows
At traffic signals, at malls or home
The gap that blossoms whilst moving or still
The eyes that muse in beauty streams

The gentle wind that blows unseen
The river calm, nature serene
Bustling life, so full and free
Who am I, a no body

[doc benway]

So how is this of what you describe different say from being mindfull of thoughts, feelings arising since mindfulness is just that , being present with whatever arises and letting everything be without ever losing oneself or being absorbed in that appearance.

It's funny how my reading often dovetails with online discussion.

 

I just came across this quote from Journey to Certainty by Anyen Rinpoche (a discussion of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty).

The context is that Anyen Rinpoche is discussing Mipham Rinpoche's advice related to our meditative practice:

"Our effort is most usefully focused on mindfulness training, because it is mindfulness that enables us to recognize and abide in the uncontrived view of Dzogchen."

So while mindfulness is clearly not the Dzogchen view or the "nonconceptual nonmeditation [that] is the nature of suchness," to quote Karma Lingpa Rinpoche, it does seem to have a very important role in our meditative practice, especially for beginners, like myself, who are unable to rest with stability for long periods of time in a nonconceptual nongrasping nonmeditation.

 

Edit:

PS - I highly recommend Anyen Rinpoche's book referenced above to anyone interested in the Dzogchen view and practice. Does anyone have a recommendation for a good translation of MIpham's Beacon of Certainty? I'm aware of John Pettit's translation but don't know if there are others.

Edited May 12, 2014 by steve

[Anderson]

 

It's funny how my reading often dovetails with online discussion.

 

I just came across this quote from Journey to Certainty by Anyen Rinpoche (a discussion of Mipham's Beacon of Certainty).

The context is that Anyen Rinpoche is discussing Mipham Rinpoche's advice related to our meditative practice:

"Our effort is most usefully focused on mindfulness training, because it is mindfulness that enables us to recognize and abide in the uncontrived view of Dzogchen."

So while mindfulness is clearly not the Dzogchen view or the "nonconceptual nonmeditation [that] is the nature of suchness," to quote Karma Lingpa Rinpoche, it does seem to have a very important role in our meditative practice, especially for beginners, like myself, who are unable to rest with stability for long periods of time in a nonconceptual nongrasping nonmeditation.

 

Edit:

PS - I highly recommend Anyen Rinpoche's book referenced above to anyone interested in the Dzogchen view and practice. Does anyone have a recommendation for a good translation of MIpham's Beacon of Certainty? I'm aware of John Pettit's translation but don't know if there are others.

 

 

Thanks for the recommendation.

I cant promise that i'll be reading it.

In my life, I have read enough books on the subject.

I came to the conclusion that books can confuse you a great deal since teachers have different ways of teaching and different ways of explaining different types of rigpa.

However, mindfulness and non distraction is important for any future dzogchen practitioner.

Most practitioners can't do rigpa even for a minute, in which case second best is that one tries to be mindful and rest with whatever comes.

But even this second best quite often has been proven to be challenging for most humans.

So what to do ?

At least one has memory, and they can use their memory to remind themselves that they can be mindful.

[doc benway]

Thanks for the recommendation.

I cant promise that i'll be reading it.

In my life, I have read enough books on the subject.

I came to the conclusion that books can confuse you a great deal since teachers have different ways of teaching and different ways of explaining different types of rigpa.

However, mindfulness and non distraction is important for any future dzogchen practitioner.

Most practitioners can't do rigpa even for a minute, in which case second best is that one tries to be mindful and rest with whatever comes.

But even this second best quite often has been proven to be challenging for most humans.

So what to do ?

At least one has memory, and they can use their memory to remind themselves that they can be mindful.

 

I agree with you completely on the point about books and teachers.

That said, I'm getting a great deal out of this book - especially chapter 6 in which Mipham (and Anyen) Rinpoche addresses the question: When abiding in the unborn, ultimate nature, is conceptual grasping present or not?

It seems like a nearly trivial question but Mipham's discussion is full of practical advice for developing certainty in our practice.

Then again, as you alluded to, what works for one does not always work for another...

If you ever do decide to look at it, let me know what you think.

I'll warn everyone that the introduction and first few chapters are a bit dry and rigorously theoretical but well worth the effort, IMO.

[C T]

Hi Steve,

 

Popa Tulku (aka Botrul or Dongak Tenpei Nyima) wrote an important meaning commentary to Mipham's Beacon of Certainty.

 

Trans. Dr. Douglas Duckworth: http://www.amazon.com/Distinguishing-Views-Philosophies-Illuminating-Twentieth-Century/dp/1438434375%3FSubscriptionId%3DAKIAJSM7O2O2IGSBUGZA%26tag%3Dphowafound-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D1438434375

 

Short bio of Popa Tulku: http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/Dongak_Tenpei_Nyima

 

Link to more of Mipham's valuable works: http://blog.shambhala.com/2013/06/19/jamgon-mipham-rinpoche/

 

Dr. D. Duckworth's profile: http://www.cla.temple.edu/religion/faculty/douglas-duckworth/

Edited May 12, 2014 by C T