What is wisdom in Dzogchen ?

[doc benway]

I wouldn't give answers or insight which isn't based on my own experience. I don't like to talk about my experience (because there is a very thin line where pride and grasping can step in), but I will always talk from my experience. I would never ever speak or write about something I don't have experience of, for the very reason that it would be unfair to people who may read it and would be a lie.

I, for one, believe you.

[asunthatneversets]

Simple Jack's comments on the previous page are excellent.

 

I'm not sure why there is such contention towards a term such as 'non-arising', it is a perfect term to describe that species of insight in my eyes.

 

Non-arising entails recognizing that appearance does not actually create anything, it is suddenly apparent there is no identity or entity within or behind appearance, like a reflection, no arising in apparent arising, that is non-arising. It is a direct non-conceptual cognition, just like seeing the color blue, or tasting an apple. Just as you see an object you see that nothing is truly 'there'. No core or essence, no linking qualities which extend that appearance in time or space. It feels like you are seeing something correctly for the very first time, directly perceiving the actuality of phenomena. No longer beguiled by taking things to be real, like waking up from a dream, and you know intimately that nothing is real. The recognition is so immediate and intimate, carrying a doubtlessness about it, requiring no evaluation or outside confirmation like you wouldn't need someone to confirm that you had just been stung by a bee.

 

This is me trying to put it in words for you, since you feel so put off that I don't speak about my experience, but how to actually capture that? Seeing appearances yet knowing without any doubt or uncertainty that there is nothing 'there', and never has been, it really cannot be communicated. It is beautiful.

[gatito]

I love how you phrased this.

I wonder what leads to these sorts of experiences?

I'm not sure that it correlates with any particular activity or practice.

I have a friend who had this experience as a young child.

Can you imagine the impact something like that would have on a child?

She has devoted her life to the spiritual path and helping others.

 

Perhaps the only adequate word is Grace - but it implies a non-existent cause and effect. However, I can assure you that you and I and the very fabric of the universe are woven from that Grace.

 

To qualify for Grace (which is freely available to everyone and therefore requires nothing) all that's required is a sincere and all-consuming desire for the Truth, although again it implies a non-existent cause and effect. Perhaps that's best explained by considering that a desire for the Truth is itself a gift of Grace from the Truth to herself and although that desire seems personal, it is not.

 

Post-glimpse can be very difficult and having a full or a partial glimpse without preparation, especially as a child in this culture may have been very difficult. Finding someone who is grounded and stabilised in that Grace would be invaluable. It would be unusual to complete the sadhana without that help. I recently met someone who seems to have had a full glimpse about twenty years ago and who has made up some stories in an attempt to reconcile what he saw with waking life. It has not been sucessful.

[Simple_Jack]

What the hell is non-arisen?

 

I just stated at the outset that the conditioned and the unconditioned are not mutually exclusive.

 

The unconditioned and the conditioned, as I have already stated, are neither the same nor different.

 

The nature of the conditioned is non-arising. Whatever does not arise is unconditioned. Non-arising, unconditioned, suchness, [emptiness, unborn,] etc., are all synonyms.

 

This is why Manjushri says "Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise."

 

The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.

 

Dependent origination is exactly the meaning of non-arising -- Manjushri states in PP sutras "Whatever arises dependently, just that does not arise in truth."

 

It is only through dependent origination that we can come to an unerring understanding of emptiness, [non-arising, dharmata,] etc.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

 

General theory of dependent origination: "When this exists, that exists; With the arising of this, that arises; When this does not exist, that does not exist; With the cessation of this, that ceases"

 

Specific theory of dependent origination/12 nidanas: "And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

 

Chandrakirti's Sevenfold Reasoning [on the selflessness of the individual]:

1. There is no chariot which is other than its parts
2. There is no chariot which is the same as its parts
3. There is no chariot which possesses its parts
4. There is no chariot which depends on its parts
5. There is no chariot upon which the parts depend
6. There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts
7. There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." translated by Kalupahana

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."

-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

-Candrakirti

 

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."

-Candrakirti

 

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

 

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

 

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

 

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

 

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

 

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

 

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

 

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

 

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

Edited June 10, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Apech]

I think the objection to terms like 'non-arisen' is not based in the idea that they are somehow inaccurate but that they are not particularly user friendly in day to day English. If the task in hand is to discuss Buddhadharma between Buddhists then detailed long quotes like those of Simple Jack are ok but if the task is to convey as directly as possible experience then its off putting and overly intellectual. Tell the person in the street that everything is non-arisen then they will think you are talking about unleven bread or something it has no intuitively graspable or contextual meaning.

[asunthatneversets]

I think the objection to terms like 'non-arisen' is not based in the idea that they are somehow inaccurate but that they are not particularly user friendly in day to day English. If the task in hand is to discuss Buddhadharma between Buddhists then detailed long quotes like those of Simple Jack are ok but if the task is to convey as directly as possible experience then its off putting and overly intellectual. Tell the person in the street that everything is non-arisen then they will think you are talking about unleven bread or something it has no intuitively graspable or contextual meaning.

That is why you would not tell a person in the street that everything is non-arisen.

[Apech]

That is why you would not tell a person in the street that everything is non-arisen.

 

Yes but you need to be able to communicate with ordinary people and non-Buddhists.

[rex]

Yes but you need to be able to communicate with ordinary people and non-Buddhists.

Ordinary people, non-Buddhists and beginners usually do get simplified explanations such as 'Buddha nature' and metaphors like the film projector or the mirror. Abstruse technical terms are usually given to scholar/practitioners and then these only make sense based on the training and oral instructions received from the lineage.

 

Edit: tpyos

Edited June 10, 2014 by rex

[Jetsun]

In my view it is a big test of your realisation to be able to express it creatively and spontaneously fresh from the moment and to be able to communicate it to those who are listening. One of the strengths of the Zen approach is that it is big on that sort of expression, so if you have the realisation show it to us from your own lips or actions, don't repeat borrowed dead words from someone elses mouth or another moment, or intellectualise it into something that is already decayed by the time your mind has formulated it. The only problem with that is that sometimes the Zen guys end up doing things like randomly shouting or hitting you with a stick to express what is most appropriate.

[Yascra]

The only problem with that is that sometimes the Zen guys end up doing things like randomly shouting or hitting you with a stick to express what is most appropriate.

 

Well, the real problem of it is that most of the Zen guys adopting this "crazy" and "harmful" behaviour are really just latent psychos who haven't done all necessary purification, and really don't apply those harmful methods because it is the most appropriate for his one particular student, and then once in a lifetime .. but just because they are religious people who believe that copying a master makes them a master, and who mainly really suffer from imbalances in their own being, acting out evil or aggressive tendencies within their own personality.

 

It's a general problem people have in religion. Having people bow to monks will make the monks the most proud and arrogant people around; having people look up to persons who act out of rage will make people who want to be teachers of those folks succumb to their own aggression and sociopathic behavioral patterns.

 

Nothing against a real Zen master using a stick. But, as far as I'm concerned, such a real master would not need this method more than half a dozen times in his whole life for the "right" purposes.

The rest of what's seen and happening in those lineages tends to be cultivating bad behaviour.

[Jetsun]

Well, the real problem of it is that most of the Zen guys adopting this "crazy" and "harmful" behaviour are really just latent psychos who haven't done all necessary purification, and really don't apply those harmful methods because it is the most appropriate for his one particular student, and then once in a lifetime .. but just because they are religious people who believe that copying a master makes them a master, and who mainly really suffer from imbalances in their own being, acting out evil or aggressive tendencies within their own personality.

 

It's a general problem people have in religion. Having people bow to monks will make the monks the most proud and arrogant people around; having people look up to persons who act out of rage will make people who want to be teachers of those folks succumb to their own aggression and sociopathic behavioral patterns.

 

Nothing against a real Zen master using a stick. But, as far as I'm concerned, such a real master would not need this method more than half a dozen times in his whole life for the "right" purposes.

The rest of what's seen and happening in those lineages tends to be cultivating bad behaviour.

 

I don't think it happens much any more, I expect these days if a master did that they might get a lawsuit or get punched back, yet some of the great traditional teachers such as Master Lin Chi says that some of the greatest teachings he received was being hit by his masters stick.

[Yascra]

I don't think it happens much any more, I expect these days if a master did that they might get a lawsuit or get punched back, yet some of the great traditional teachers such as Master Lin Chi says that some of the greatest teachings he received was being hit by his masters stick.

 

Hm, I've had contact to at least one person who has had a master who would attack, attack, attack all the times.. If you have students who believe in the authenticity of someone, and generally under religious coverings, it's sometimes hard to believe what people accept to have done to themselves without even thinking about that this might not be okay.

It is "skillful means", by definition, if a "holy person" uses violence. How would a master commit a crime anyway .. and what karma would it be to bring someone who is an enlightened master, or considered one, to the courtyard, just because you "fail to recognize the wisdom of his or her actions".

[doc benway]

I think the objection to terms like 'non-arisen' is not based in the idea that they are somehow inaccurate but that they are not particularly user friendly in day to day English.

How better to communicate that particular experience then?

 

 

Tell the person in the street that everything is non-arisen then they will think you are talking about unleven bread or something it has no intuitively graspable or contextual meaning.

Why tell the person in the street that everything is non-arisen?

 

 

Yes but you need to be able to communicate with ordinary people and non-Buddhists.

Yes, but not about your deepest experiences of the nature of being...

To do that, you need very specific vocabulary and a willing and active participant.

Not only will the terminology be off-putting, but the other folks will have no frame of reference for understanding regardless of what words are used.

[Apech]

How better to communicate that particular experience then?

I don't know. I am trying to harmonise with the OP which was about yeshe = wisdom.

 

Why tell the person in the street that everything is non-arisen?

 

To explain how you see how things are. Without some effort to do so you are just developing a kind of exclusive club with its own special language which only the members understand. Not sure the overall aim of Buddhism is to become this. I might be wrong of course.

 

Yes, but not about your deepest experiences of the nature of being...

To do that, you need very specific vocabulary and a willing and active participant.

Not only will the terminology be off-putting, but the other folks will have no frame of reference for understanding regardless of what words are used.

 

I think probably what you need is a strong personal relationship between the communicator and communicatee (if that is a word LOL) ... I think specific language is for philosophy but for spirituality often simplicity is the essence. I am not discounting the intellectual though ... its important and often useful ... but not really the key. More important is where the heart is.

[Simple_Jack]

Tell the person in the street that everything is non-arisen then they will think you are talking about unleven bread or something it has no intuitively graspable or contextual meaning.

 

Likewise, tell the average person in any setting that things are empty, dependently originated, not-self, unsatisfactory, etc., and I guarantee you will receive a puzzled look (that is if they don't already interpret it from an eternalistic framework or bill it as nihilism). It is many times easier for the average person to understand eternalist doctrines (e.g. Advaita Vedanta, Gnosticism, etc.) than it is to understand dependent origination/non-arising on any level; which is why there are so many neo-Advaitan teachers giving satsangs out there in the world. Why do you think Buddha scolded Ananda for saying dependent origination was easy to understand?

 

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.htm

"How amazing! Never before has it occurred to me, Lord. This principle of Dependent Origination, although so profound and hard to see, yet appears to me to be so simple!"

"Say not so, Ananda, say not so. This principle of Dependent Origination is a profound teaching, hard to see. It is through not knowing, not understanding and not thoroughly realizing this teaching that beings are confused like a tangled thread, thrown together like bundles of threads, caught as in a net, and cannot escape hell, the nether worlds and the wheel of samsara." [s.II.92]

Ordinary people, non-Buddhists and beginners usually do get simplified explanations such as 'Buddha nature' and metaphors like the film projector or the mirror. Abstruse technical terms are usually given to scholar/practitioners and then these only make sense based on the training and oral instructions received from the lineage.

 

Right, like for example the beginning, intermediate, and advanced courses that FPMT offers its students, it does take a certain period of time to understand even basic Buddhist principles, but buddhadharma is not rocket science. I'm not sure how you're using 'scholar' in this context (few people in the Dharma scene can fit this description), because people on here like to throw this term around, when someone demonstrates that they have a proficient understanding of buddhadharma or if there's a sense they "know too much".

 

In my view it is a big test of your realisation to be able to express it creatively and spontaneously fresh from the moment and to be able to communicate it to those who are listening. One of the strengths of the Zen approach is that it is big on that sort of expression, so if you have the realisation show it to us from your own lips or actions, don't repeat borrowed dead words from someone elses mouth or another moment, or intellectualise it into something that is already decayed by the time your mind has formulated it....

 

Zen talks about non-arising all the time (even using exact terms e.g. non-arising, suchness, empty, dharmata, dharmadhatu, etc.). Here's an excerpt from Dogen's Genjokoan:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Zen%20Master%20Dogen?updated-max=2011-03-13T19:52:00%2B08:00&max-results=20&start=7&by-date=false

 

Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

 

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

 

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

...

 

Admittedly, this is somewhat of a unique way of explaining non-arising, but I swear that the bit about the 'firewood' and 'ash' was influenced by some sentences from the Shurangama Sutra (don't quote me on that though).

Edited June 10, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

To explain how you see how things are. Without some effort to do so you are just developing a kind of exclusive club with its own special language which only the members understand. Not sure the overall aim of Buddhism is to become this. I might be wrong of course.

 

People just need to read the Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra, and the Vimalakirti Sutra (w/ commentaries!), then all this will begin to fall into place.

 

I think specific language is for philosophy but for spirituality often simplicity is the essence. I am not discounting the intellectual though ... its important and often useful ... but not really the key. More important is where the heart is.

 

Why do you guys love to create unnecessary dichotomies where none exist (particularly when it comes to Dharma discussion)? I remember people constantly insisted Vajrarhidaya and xabir2005 to explain things from their experience i.e. "the heart", and wrote it off as "oh, this is just intellectual". You guys say the same shit when I post stuff from Daniel Ingram, Alex Weith, Thusness, etc. They're all 'empty words', 'fingers pointing at the moon', right?

Edited June 10, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I just stated at the outset that the conditioned and the unconditioned are not mutually exclusive.

 

The unconditioned and the conditioned, as I have already stated, are neither the same nor different.

 

The nature of the conditioned is non-arising. Whatever does not arise is unconditioned. Non-arising, unconditioned, suchness, [emptiness, unborn,] etc., are all synonyms.

 

This is why Manjushri says "Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise."

 

The core of the conditioned is unconditioned.

 

Dependent origination is exactly the meaning of non-arising -- Manjushri states in PP sutras "Whatever arises dependently, just that does not arise in truth."

 

It is only through dependent origination that we can come to an unerring understanding of emptiness, [non-arising, dharmata,] etc.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

 

General theory of dependent origination: "When this exists, that exists; With the arising of this, that arises; When this does not exist, that does not exist; With the cessation of this, that ceases"

 

Specific theory of dependent origination/12 nidanas: "And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

 

Chandrakirti's Sevenfold Reasoning [on the selflessness of the individual]:

1. There is no chariot which is other than its parts
2. There is no chariot which is the same as its parts
3. There is no chariot which possesses its parts
4. There is no chariot which depends on its parts
5. There is no chariot upon which the parts depend
6. There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts
7. There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent." translated by Kalupahana

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."

-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

-Candrakirti

 

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."

-Candrakirti

 

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

 

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

 

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

 

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

 

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

 

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

 

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

 

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

 

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

 

Bump.

[Simple_Jack]

What the hell is non-arisen?

I never claimed reality existed, therefore I am free of the fault of claiming it does not exist. When someone points out your bank account is empty, is it their fault that you have no money? Have they destroyed money you thought you had? Of course not. It is the same when stating "there is no reality". This is merely pointing out the conclusion of freedom from all extremes.

 

Āryānantamukhapariśodhananirdeśaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

The Sugata said "existence" and "nonexistence" are extremes; whatever does not exist in the extremes, that also does not exist in the middle.

 

Ārya-varmavyūhanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

Since this vehicle is without extremes,

also the extreme of the middle does not exist.

 

Ārya-kāśyapaparivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

 

Kāśyapa, "permanence" is one extreme; impermanence is the second extreme. Whatever is the middle of those two extremes, that also cannot be examined.

 

Sampuṭanāma mahātantra:

 

There is nothing empty, not empty,

and nothing to perceive in the middle.

 

The Meditation on Bodhicitta:

 

The nonexistence dependent on existence does not exist, also that nonexistence does not exist. Because the extremes do not exist, the middle does not exist, also do not rest in the middle.

 

The sgra thal gyur: [<---- Dzogchen tantra]

 

Because of being free from extremes, do not abide in the middle.

 

So we can clearly see that sutra and tantra agree on one point, i.e. there is no reality in the extremes, and there is no reality beyond the extremes. Ergo, there is no reality, since reality would have to be either existence or non-existence and so on.

...

 

Āryan insight does not transform a relative mind into ultimate mind; it is relative mind that has the capacity to take the ultimate as an "object". The Gelugpa use the useful example of subjective clear light and objective clear light, subjective clear light is the mind that apprehends objective clear light.

...

 

As the sgra thal gyur tantra states:

 

Since there is no basis or foundation, dwell in emptiness.

 

The commentary merely notes that this line confirms the quality of the non-existence of one's mind.

 

And further it states:

 

Due to being free from extremes, the middle does not exist.

 

The commentary describes this as the Great Perfection view that is totally complete freedom from extremes:

 

The so-called intimate instruction of the view of the totally complete space of the great freedom from activities is the view of the totally complete freedom from extremes. Since that is free from the extreme of existence, it does not fall into the position of substantiality. Since it is free from the extreme of nonexistence, it exhausts grasping to emptiness. Since it is free from both existence and non-existence, it is free from apprehending the intrinsic nature of the apprehender, since it is free from the extreme of neither existence nor nonexistence, there is also no concept of mere non-existence.

...

 

Who said tathatā was supposed to be interesting? Not the Buddha:

 

“Hey, hey, apparent yet nonexistent retinue: listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.”

 

-- Unwritten Tantra [<--- Dzogchen Tantra]

 

“Venerable Śariputra, if one sees it like so, all phenomena are empty, without characteristics, non-arising, unceasing, without stains, and not free from stains; not decreasing, not increasing.

“Śariputra, in emptiness there is no matter, no sensation, no ideation, no formations, no consciousness, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no contact. There is no eye element up to no mental element, and also nothing up to the element of mental consciousness.

There is no ignorance; there is no end of ignorance; up to there is no aging and death and no end of aging and death.

Likewise, there is no suffering, cause, cessation and path.

There is no wisdom, nothing to obtain, and also nothing not to obtain.

 

-- The "Heart" Sutra

 

~ Malcolm aka. Loppon Namdrol

...

 

We should not continue to ignore such principles such as non-arising, etc, otherwise Westerners will continue to interpret buddhadharma in the light of Christian theology, Idealism, etc.

To answer the OP:

 

As I pointed, all of this language concerning "the basis" comes from a passage in the Guhyasamaja uttaratantra. The continuum of the basis, since this is the reference, refers to the nature of the mind, which when recognized leads to buddhahood and when not, leads to samsara.

 

People get so hung up on the use of the word mind, consciousness and so on. Well, just look at these words: shes pa (jñā), rnam shes (vijñāna), shes rab (prajñā) and ye shes (jñāna). What do they all have in common? "shes". "Shes" just means "to know". If you say the basis is ye shes, that wisdom is a knower.

 

In any case, the commentary of the sgra thal 'gyur clearly maintains that ye shes is encompassed by a shes pa, and that shes pa exists individually in all buddhas and sentient beings as a mere knower (shes tsam).

 

We can conclude from this then that the basis (which really is strictly a man ngag sde term) is just a name for the continuum of the nature of the mind.

 

The extent to which it is unconditioned is the extent to which no one made the mind "clear and empty", the mind has been clear and empty from the very start. Thus the resting in the unfabricated mind, the unconditioned mind, is resting in that nature of the mind (inseparable clarity and emptiness) which cannot be altered or modified in anyway at all no matter what appears in it/to it(hence the mirror metaphor). You can't make it better, you can't make it worse.

 

We say that the nature of the mind in this sense is unconditioned because no one made it, it does not have a beginning, it cannot be altered or changed. You cannot take the clarity of the mind and make it unclear. You cannot take the emptiness of the mind and make the mind substantial.

 

The mind can have various experiences, suffering, happiness, affliction, purification, thus we can also say that the mind is conditioned. It is also momentary, its continuity is not substantial, it is a continuum of moments, thus it is conditioned.

 

Once again, we have a conditioned entity, dharmin, the mind, that has an unconditioned nature, dharmatā, the inseparability of clarity and emptiness.

 

The mind is not merely clear, for then it would be only conditioned. It is not merely empty, since then it would be non-existent. The unconditioned nature of the mind is the inseparability of clarity and emptiness. There is no teaching in Buddhism about the mind and the nature of the mind that goes beyond this.

 

When we understand the principles above, we understand the union of the two truths, we understand the continuum of the basis, Dzogchen, etc.

 

When it comes to Dzogchen teachings, it is crucial to understand that the differences between wisdom, shes pa and rnam shes, for example, are all based on the anatomy of the human body, and the modalities of our consciousness as embodied beings.

 

If we say that wisdom, for example, is beyond mind, does that mean that wisdom is inert, like a rock or a statue? No, it just means that wisdom transcends the operations of the restricted consciousness of ordinary beings, wisdom is a consciousness that has less restrictions. What is the basis for the freedom of wisdom? The pure clarity and emptiness of the mind, of course.

 

We do not have a refined vocabulary in English for discussing consciousness and its different modalities. But indeed, that is what Dzogchen as well Buddhist texts in general are talking about, i.e., consciousness and its various modalities, unawakened and awakened.

...

 

The "natural condition" as you call it, isn't something real; it is baseless. It isn't out there, like "atoms", "stars" and "galaxies"; it isn't inside like "blood cells", "mitochondria", etc. This "natural" condition is just the nature of your own mind. It is not an objective condition— there is no "objective condition" because there is no "subjective condition". There is no "natural" condition because there is no "unnatural condition".

 

There is no wisdom apart from the mind and there is no consciousness apart from the mind, there is no buddhahood apart from the mind, there is no delusion apart from the mind, there is no samsara apart from the mind, no nirvana apart from the mind. Apart from the mind, nothing else needs to be recognized.

 

The mind is not real because it cannot be established, it is not unreal because one cannot deny that one is feeling, thinking and so on, therefore we say it has "no reality" i.e. there is no state of being that pertains to the mind, since the mind is beyond any extreme, it's nature is sheer clarity and emptiness inseparable. You won't find the mind by resting your attention on a rock, you won't find it by resting your attention on a thought, you won't find even if you rest your attention on the mind's own sheer clarity. You won't find it even if you ascertain sheer clarity is empty. You won't find in nāḍīs, vāyus and bindus, deities, mandalas, etc.

 

However, that being said, if you do not have a proper method, your afflictions will not cease, you will not gather the twin stores of merit and wisdom, you will not expand your mind to the point of omniscience and you will not realize buddhahood.

...

 

I would say that kadag, lundrup and thugje are a generic context, just like "red" is a generic context for all cows that are red.

 

The Dzogchen tantras are not inventing a brand new theory of Buddhism, they are just riffing on Tantric Buddhism as it already exists. That being the case, Dzogchen tantras, just like all other Buddhist tantras, do not deny conventional doctrines such as mind streams (citta saṃtana) and so on, that are necessary for receiving impressions or traces (vasana, bag chags) etc.

 

In other words, Dzogchen tantras exist in a continuum with other texts upon which later Dzogchen tantras like the sgra thal 'gyur (which are clearly influenced by the gsar ma tantras) are based. You want to define the basis as ye shes. The sgra thal 'gyur defines wisdom as encompassed by shes pa, and its commentary indicates that the shes pa that encompass wisdom, whether in Buddhas or sentient beings, is individual and unique to each buddha and sentient being. So what this basically boils down to is a discussion of how individual sentient beings are liberated.

 

I don't really care about what meta discussion we can have about "what it means". I am interested in what the texts themselves say so that we can understand their intention.

 

Therefore, since the discussion of the basis is premised on the concept of the three continuums, and since that continuum is just the continuum of an individual sentient beings consciousness, it is pretty meaningless to me to try and insist that the Dzogchen tantras should be saying something other than what they clearly all say, i.e., sentient beings become deluded, and sentient beings become Buddhas.

 

~ Loppon Namdrol

 

Bump.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Apech]

People just need to read the Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra, and the Vimalakirti Sutra (w/ commentaries!), then all this will begin to fall into place.

 

 

Why do you guys love to create unnecessary dichotomies where none exist (particularly when it comes to Dharma discussion)? I remember people constantly insisted Vajrarhidaya and xabir2005 to explain things from their experience i.e. "the heart", and wrote it off as "oh, this is just intellectual". You guys say the same shit when I post stuff from Daniel Ingram, Alex Weith, Thusness, etc. They're all 'empty words', 'fingers pointing at the moon', right?

 

 

You lost me here. You also lost me on those posts of yours which are about 20 quotes long. Sorry but what you are communicating is just a fuzz.

[doc benway]

I don't know.

Fair enough

 

To explain how you see how things are. Without some effort to do so you are just developing a kind of exclusive club with its own special language which only the members understand. Not sure the overall aim of Buddhism is to become this. I might be wrong of course.

I generally don't explain how I see things to the average person in the street. That is prosthelization and also not the overall aim of Buddhism. It would also probably cause them to run the other way and possibly have me arrested or burned at the stake, depending on where I am in the States...

 

I don't see Buddhism at all as an exclusive club. It is inclusive of anyone who comes looking for answers. it is fairly specialized, however, and with that specialization comes a need for accurate terminology. Shall we do away with terms like bodhicitta, dependent origination, and emptiness also? What about rigpa? That's a good one! Truth be told, the reason we're having this discussion is because the OP was struggling with the meaning of wisdom, should we drop that one too? The issue as I see it is that there are certain experiences and concepts that are challenging and that we don't all have or understand. We do want and need to communicate about them to our teachers, students, and fellow practitioners and it's tough for everyone to come together because of our different backgrounds, biases, and aptitudes.

 

 

I think specific language is for philosophy but for spirituality often simplicity is the essence. I am not discounting the intellectual though ... its important and often useful ... but not really the key. More important is where the heart is.

I agree with your advocacy of simplicity and importance of the heart. I think you know that. I used to be ignorant of the value of scholarship. Now I see its role more clearly but not at the expense of practice. I don't agree, however, with "getting rid of phrases" simply because we are unable to relate to them or don't prefer them. If they work for other practitioners, they have value. The key is for each of us to find what works for us based on our aptitude and where we are on our path.

[Simple_Jack]

You lost me here. You also lost me on those posts of yours which are about 20 quotes long. Sorry but what you are communicating is just a fuzz.

 

I'll summarize it by saying, if you want to adequately understand Mayahana (even just superficially) just read some of the Prajnaparamita Sutras, and stop making unnecessary dichotomies (or extremes) between 'intellectual' vs. 'experiential' when reading the sutras/shastras/tantras and the pithy instructions from prior masters, because for you the individual, the ignorant practitioner, all of it is equally conceptual until the moment of realization. Until then, regard both extensive and concise instructions (on the view that is to be cultivated and eventually realized) as 'fingers pointing at the moon'.

[Simple_Jack]

You lost me here. You also lost me on those posts of yours which are about 20 quotes long. Sorry but what you are communicating is just a fuzz.

I'll summarize it by saying, if you want to adequately understand Mayahana (even just superficially) just read some of the Prajnaparamita Sutras, and stop making unnecessary dichotomies (or extremes) between 'intellectual' vs. 'experiential' when reading the sutras/shastras/tantras and the pithy instructions from prior masters, because for you the individual, the ignorant practitioner, all of it is equally conceptual until the moment of realization. Until then, regard both extensive and concise instructions (on the view that is to be cultivated and eventually realized) as 'fingers pointing at the moon'.

 

On top of that, persons should preferably have some sort of superficial understanding of what dependent origination is/means (and ideally how that applies to Buddhist practice e.g. four foundations of mindfulness/satipatthana).

[Apech]

I generally don't explain how I see things to the average person in the street. That is prosthelization and also not the overall aim of Buddhism. It would also probably cause them to run the other way and possibly have me arrested or burned at the stake, depending on where I am in the States...

Oh well ... person in the street (ex. man in the street) is just an expression for people generally I wasn't advocating shouting at people in the shopping mall. That would be appalling IMO

I don't see Buddhism at all as an exclusive club. It is inclusive of anyone who comes looking for answers. it is fairly specialized, however, and with that specialization comes a need for accurate terminology. Shall we do away with terms like bodhicitta, dependent origination, and emptiness also? What about rigpa? That's a good one! Truth be told, the reason we're having this discussion is because the OP was struggling with the meaning of wisdom, should we drop that one too? The issue as I see it is that there are certain experiences and concepts that are challenging and that we don't all have or understand. We do want and need to communicate about them to our teachers, students, and fellow practitioners and it's tough for everyone to come together because of our different backgrounds, biases, and aptitudes.

 

I don't see it as an exclusive club either. Its there for those who have or feel a connection to it.

 

I agree with your advocacy of simplicity and importance of the heart. I think you know that. I used to be ignorant of the value of scholarship. Now I see its role more clearly but not at the expense of practice. I don't agree, however, with "getting rid of phrases" simply because we are unable to relate to them or don't prefer them. If they work for other practitioners, they have value. The key is for each of us to find what works for us based on our aptitude and where we are on our path.

 

I didn't see it so much as getting rid of phrases, but perhaps improving them for clarity.

[Apech]

I'll summarize it by saying, if you want to adequately understand Mayahana (even just superficially) just read some of the Prajnaparamita Sutras, and stop making unnecessary dichotomies (or extremes) between 'intellectual' vs. 'experiential' when reading the sutras/shastras/tantras and the pithy instructions from prior masters, because for you the individual, the ignorant practitioner, all of it is equally conceptual until the moment of realization. Until then, regard both extensive and concise instructions (on the view that is to be cultivated and eventually realized) as 'fingers pointing at the moon'.

 

I haven't made any unnecessary dichotomies that I am aware of. I agree we should study and reflect on key texts. I was not attempting to dismiss the conceptual ... if I appeared to do that then it was not intended.

[Apech]

On top of that, persons should preferably have some sort of superficial understanding of what dependent origination is/means (and ideally how that applies to Buddhist practice e.g. four foundations of mindfulness/satipatthana).

 

 

Of course they would benefit from studying dependent origination.