Nirvana is...

[doc benway]

So if you like think about the merely again and what it means in the context of

 

"nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error"

 

There is a pith instruction there like you said

 

I'm not quite certain what you're aiming at.

My best interpretation of 'merely' is along the lines of 'simply.'

I think it implies the lack of action and intention - effortlessness. 

Certainly, there are more accurate and deeper levels of understanding and I look forward to your, and others', thoughts.

[RigdzinTrinley]

About the relationship between dzogchen (specially kadak treckchod) and the prajnaparamita I would like to share this quote by sakya pandita

 

 

"If there was a view higher then the prajnaparamita, that view would be conceptual"

 

(Khenchen Namdrol Rinpoche uses that one a lot in his teachings on ju miphams beacon of certainty - that's where I got it from)

 

There are many ways how dzogchen is different (superior we could say) from the prajnaparamita but when it comes down to the freedom of all conceptual elaboration then well if it would be a "higher" view then the prajnaparamita it would become something other then the freedom of all conceptual elaboration (great emptiness) -> something conceptual (needles to say that that's not the enlightened intend of garab dorje etc.)

 

Sakya pandita is pretty amazing isn't he

 

The main difference lies in certain other aspects of the view and also how it explains the subject realizing the dharmadatu - conventionally speaking; its a non dual gnosis(jnana) and not like somebody sees something

 

(maybe another time we could discuss ju miphams beacon of certainty in some greater detail, for now its impossible but maybe later this year, we'll see - this text is constantly blowing my mind )

 

The dharmadatu is the dharmadatu - no difference between madhyamika and dzogchen (freedom of all conceptual elaboration)

 

But the wisdom realizing this is introduced differently and explained differently - more direct I guess

 

Also dzogchen has superior methods and teaches a more radical form of nondualism you could say - and because of that is also harder to digest properly and much easier to misunderstand

 

My teachers like to make the point again and again that you need good grounding in madhyamika to digest tantra and dzogchen otherwise it might backfire (which I learned the hard way)

[RigdzinTrinley]

I'm not quite certain what you're aiming at.

My best interpretation of 'merely' is along the lines of 'simply.'

I think it implies the lack of action and intention - effortlessness.

Certainly, there are more accurate and deeper levels of understanding and I look forward to your, and others', thoughts.

Hi there Steve,

 

My question would be "is there a nirvana other then the exhaustion of error"

 

Thats how I would try to understand the "merely"

[ilumairen]

But still so far no one answered this question clearly: "what is there once you're out of your box? Is there something or not?"

"Nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error"

 

That's because it's a trick question. Any answer given will, by the very nature of words, be conceptual. If a story is shared to answer the question it is conceptual. The ideas of thing and no-thing are the same. There can be no answer - save experience itself.

 

So I don't really understand what it is you want someone to type...

[RigdzinTrinley]

Well then if you like share with us how

 

1)nirvana if it would be a thing can't be nirvana

 

2)And if it would be a nothing can't be nirvana either

 

Which I guess is what you're saying

 

..............

 

Also the whole point is to spend time thinking and discussing the dharma (which is a wholesome activity in ones post meditation)

 

We can of course just say "its beyond words" or "sit on the cushion and kill body/mind" and go practice - which is probably better

 

But then I like talking about dharma with people, so its important to know that I don't want a specific answer

 

And I if I can I'll keep bugging you with questions

[ilumairen]

How about we say Nirvana is a state of mind/body awareness and openness that enables responsiveness (as opposed to reaction) within whatever momentarily manifests/presents/arises.

 

It's still conceptual, but words are what we have to work with here.

 

(and I've no desire to kill body/mind - they're useful )

[RigdzinTrinley]

We propably all do guess work, excuse me if I offended any realized beings that dwell on TDB, so that's what I'm doing as well - specially with regard to Nirvana

 

But ilumairen, I would call that a healthy and functional human being

 

Something worth aspiring to, but I'm not sure if it is the same as non-abiding Nirvana or Buddhahood, full enlightenment?

 

Would you say that a being on the bodhisattva grounds perceives or clings to body/mind while in meditative equipoise?

 

Also I guess the zen people use this line about killing body/mind or dropping body/mind to show that realisation is not to be found in either the body nor the mind (the body and the mind get liberated)

 

But that actual liberating insight goes beyond apprehension of body/mind

 

Doesn't nullify them sure, they'll still appear like dream characters but without any ordinary grasping that is still there in ordinary dreams

 

More like an old man watching children's play

[ilumairen]

We are coming from different places. I'm in the process of return. I've spent much of my life placing others above myself - able to (largely) respond instead of react to that which others would most likely find unbearable. There has been soo little 'me' in the last decade that I am simply not interested in further negation. It could serve no more beneficial purpose.

[Michael Sternbach]

First answer: There seems to be (not sure if "being" is adequate here though) implicit nothingness as well as explicit nothingness. You could liken these two to the states "before" manifestation has occurred, and after. The former is self-explanatory (well, is it?), the latter results from the manifest forces cancelling each other out overall (pushing electromagnetism and pulling gravitation, matter and anti-matter, apples and pears, yin and yang) - so the net result is 0.

[Michael Sternbach]

Second answer:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RigdzinTrinley]

We are coming from different places. I'm in the process of return. I've spent much of my life placing others above myself - able to (largely) respond instead of react to that which others would most likely find unbearable. There has been soo little 'me' in the last decade that I am simply not interested in further negation. It could serve no more beneficial purpose.

Dear ilumairen

Sure, take and leave what ever you like from my scribbles - I don't think I have anything to tell you beyond what you know already.

 

Just one thing, negating "I,me,mine" can be done correctly and incorrectly

 

One leading to denial, nihilism etc.

 

One leading to deeper and deeper liberating insights that bring joy, feelings of interconnectedness -> freedom of expression

 

Just to defend my dear dear via negativa here!!!!! Waaaaaaahhhh don't take it away, don't challenge it waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!! (OK I'm done, you can take it now...)

 

That's why the teacher becomes more important the deeper one digs.

in the three inner tantric yanas of mahayoga,anuyoga,atiyoga the guru becomes of primary importance because the teachings of non duality and the conclusions of that become more radical in these yogas with their respective teachings on view meditation action

 

Its sort of understood that you did the negating business properly and to a degree that is workable in tantra, so the disciple doesn't end up - how shall we say it? Weeeeiiirrrddd, yes that'll do

 

The greater the teaching the bigger the Maras

Edited January 25, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

First answer: There seems to be (not sure if "being" is adequate here though) implicit nothingness as well as explicit nothingness. You could liken these two to the states "before" manifestation has occurred, and after. The former is self-explanatory (well, is it?), the latter results from the manifest forces cancelling each other out overall (pushing electromagnetism and pulling gravitation, matter and anti-matter, apples and pears, yin and yang) - so the net result is 0.

Wowsers,

you mentioned implicit and explicit nothingness

 

Can you flash out what you mean by those in relation to nirvana being a thing or a nothing?

 

Pretty please

 

Not sure you ever heard of extrinsic and intrinsic emptiness but those are important points in the Indo Tibetan tradition as well - but a bit different then what you wrote there (but please elaborate so I can be sure)

 

And actually

 

"Nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error" has a lot to do with the extrinsic vs intrinsic emptiness debate (rangtong vs shentong)

 

Because you could explain this sentence using either approach

 

- that ties in nicely with Nirvana a thing? A nothing? An absence? A presence?

 

Michael I say your intuition is pretty amazing;)

Edited January 25, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[already]

 

 

Also dzogchen doesn't talk from the point of view of the primordial wisdom of the example (what is introduced by the fourth empowerment or by the guru during dzogchen upadesha - unless the disciple reaaaaallly gets it and attains one of the bodhisattva grounds)

 

But the actual primordial wisdom of an arya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise - (how that looks is explained in the second half of the heart sutra)

Sometime your sentences don't make sense.

 

Did you mean to say that "dzogchen doesn't talk from the point of view of the primordial wisdom of the example but the actual primordial wisdom of an arya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise ".

As a sentence this would make more sense.

[rex]

Nirvana is a mental construct. As the saying goes, 'The mind creates both samsara and nirvana'. It reminds me of those old Zen tales of being in heaven or hell, where someones's happness and peace of mind (heaven) can be robbed by an insult and they turn angry, aggressive and vengeful (hell). The 'trick', for want of a better word, is to move beyond both samsara and nirvana.

 

(ref: https://ru-ru.facebook.com/DudjomTersarPolska/posts/801529389912994)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Apech]

OK I think I’ve finally understood the question about nirvana.

 

Just as a kind of side topic I think one of the problems with Western Buddhism is that the Buddha when alive and teaching addressed his audience in terms of the then prevalent Vedic world view - which included the idea that we are all on the roller coaster of the great wheel of Samsara and the idea was to find a way to get off.  According to Vedic cosmology the ataman underwent a vast number of cycles before its eventual release into union with God.  The wheel of Samsara was real, part of the cosmos.

 

Buddha took this view and subverted it - by saying actually you generate what you experience through desire or craving - one of the three poisons (desire, ignorance, hatred) which originally he called the three fires.  He called them three fires in analogy to the three fires that the Vedic householders were required to keep burning as sacrament to their gods (Agni and so on) - so again the buddha was taking something familiar to the Vedic householder and saying those fires? its just your own confused mental activity.  If you extinguish the fire(s) then you exhaust the energy which drives the Samsaric wheel and the result is … Nirvana = perfect peace.

 

This is the model presented by the Four Noble Truths and the first turning of the wheel.  And while it is designed as a remedy for our dis-ease it was never meant as an ontological model of the universe - but in some ways this was inescapable because of how people think.  So the Samsaric wheel became slightly reified - leading to a dualistic view - here is Samsara and over here is Nirvana - one is trouble the other is peace - and the journey is from one to the other.

 

The problem with this model is that the Buddha taught.  He interacted with the world and so there has then to be some kind of relationship between Samsara and Nirvana (since the Buddhas mind was Nirvana or Nirvanic) - otherwise why would he bother to teach.  His compassion made his teach but that means he perceived the suffering of sentient beings and thus Samsara.

 

The ‘answer’ to this is that Nirvana is not some completely other place than Samsara that they are actually inseparable:

 

‘to the meditator who sees the unceasing play of mind, may I quickly realise the inseparability of Samsara and Nirvana’  Kagyu Prayer

 

… so through the ideas of Emptiness and Primordial Wisdom (which is Mind) the idea that Samsara and Nirvana are two sides of the same coin arises.  Look at it this way and it’s a wheel of suffering, look at it the other way it is pure and perfect peace.

 

Just some thoughts - forgive me if they are poorly expressed or my own misunderstanding.  

[RigdzinTrinley]

Sometime your sentences don't make sense.

 

Did you mean to say that "dzogchen doesn't talk from the point of view of the primordial wisdom of the example but the actual primordial wisdom of an arya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise ".

As a sentence this would make more sense.

Yes that exactamundo sir! Thanks for making sense of my nonsense

[RigdzinTrinley]

OK I think I’ve finally understood the question about nirvana.

 

Just as a kind of side topic I think one of the problems with Western Buddhism is that the Buddha when alive and teaching addressed his audience in terms of the then prevalent Vedic world view - which included the idea that we are all on the roller coaster of the great wheel of Samsara and the idea was to find a way to get off. According to Vedic cosmology the ataman underwent a vast number of cycles before its eventual release into union with God. The wheel of Samsara was real, part of the cosmos.

 

Buddha took this view and subverted it - by saying actually you generate what you experience through desire or craving - one of the three poisons (desire, ignorance, hatred) which originally he called the three fires. He called them three fires in analogy to the three fires that the Vedic householders were required to keep burning as sacrament to their gods (Agni and so on) - so again the buddha was taking something familiar to the Vedic householder and saying those fires? its just your own confused mental activity. If you extinguish the fire(s) then you exhaust the energy which drives the Samsaric wheel and the result is … Nirvana = perfect peace.

 

This is the model presented by the Four Noble Truths and the first turning of the wheel. And while it is designed as a remedy for our dis-ease it was never meant as an ontological model of the universe - but in some ways this was inescapable because of how people think. So the Samsaric wheel became slightly reified - leading to a dualistic view - here is Samsara and over here is Nirvana - one is trouble the other is peace - and the journey is from one to the other.

 

The problem with this model is that the Buddha taught. He interacted with the world and so there has then to be some kind of relationship between Samsara and Nirvana (since the Buddhas mind was Nirvana or Nirvanic) - otherwise why would he bother to teach. His compassion made his teach but that means he perceived the suffering of sentient beings and thus Samsara.

 

The ‘answer’ to this is that Nirvana is not some completely other place than Samsara that they are actually inseparable:

 

‘to the meditator who sees the unceasing play of mind, may I quickly realise the inseparability of Samsara and Nirvana’ Kagyu Prayer

 

… so through the ideas of Emptiness and Primordial Wisdom (which is Mind) the idea that Samsara and Nirvana are two sides of the same coin arises. Look at it this way and it’s a wheel of suffering, look at it the other way it is pure and perfect peace.

 

Just some thoughts - forgive me if they are poorly expressed or my own misunderstanding.

Dear apech sir,

 

This became longer then intended but I couldn't stop myself sorry

 

This is not a side note, I think it fits perfectly into the little discussion

 

If you allow me to summarize (why do ask in such a hypocritical manner? I'll do it anyway MUAHAHAHAA!)

 

I think what you talk about is a very good understanding of the matter (in my view... Which is not perfect)

 

Once a meditator starts discovering the emptiness of appearance then that meditator starts to discover the union of the two truths or the union of samsara/nirvana

 

You said that primordial wisdom is mind which is a bit difficult to maintain but if you like to then please explain what you mean by that and then maybe its correct after all

 

............................

 

Back to my ramblings based on what you wrote apech:

 

Say there is phenomena X if you use the different madhyamika reasonings into the true nature of that phenomena you discover the lack of substance - no phenomena is actually really there

 

Which is most probably still conceptual because one uses a "non affirmative negation" (this equals if done correctly to a rangtong view, another topic maybe in the future)

 

Anyway this is a taste of this union of the two truth

 

Form is emptiness (negating true existence - that's where you start, you negate the appearances substantial existence)

 

Emptiness is form (negating its total non existence -> meditating on the union of emptiness/dependent origination)

 

Form is not other then emptiness (negating both existence and non existence -> deepening that insight)

 

Emptiness is not other the form (negating neither -> perfecting the insight)

 

When the mind is utterly purified of the four conceptual extremes (we can say when dualistic mind "exhausts" - which is the exhaustion of error) then one will attain the first bodhisattva ground. Here the meaning of "nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error" and "nirvana is not gained by abandoning samsara" will be as clear as I see the form of my smartphone right now.

 

OK coming back to what an ordinary RT like myself can do - using the conceptual ultimate (or the meaning generality of emptiness) as my object of meditation - what happens is a slow purification of "wrong views" these are all views including a view of emptiness that is a conceptual target for the dualistic mind (form is emptiness - refuting true existence, refuting the first option of the catuskoti only)

 

This slow purification of mind through meditating on emptiness will stop the reification of thought, and one feels more and more free and "tuned in" to what's actually happening without so much projections, hope and fear etc... Still its not even close to actual meditation which is inexpressible, unthinkable and beyond mind (if I would know what actual meditation in the sense of jigme lingpa, longchenpa, milarepa etc. means I would share that... I just don't have a clue unfortunately)

 

So in fact when starting to meditate on emptiness correctly samsara and nirvana start to reveal their primordial unity (if the reasoning is done correctly - and the view is refined enough)

 

This will give rise to wonder and gratitude and for me a heightened sense of devotion towards the lineage masters of India and Tibet (they don't need to teach or write these books... Its pure kindness that they do)

 

Also as Samsara/nirvana was never seperate its a discovering or uncovering rather then a fabricating

 

Its an exhaustion of misperception or error without positing a discrete attainable entity called Nirvana in place of Samsara (like the carrot in front of the donkey)

 

Freedom in illusion

Or

"Resting in illusion" like longchenpa termed one of his most enlightening works

 

Chillin out in Maya

Edited January 25, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Apech]

Dear apech sir,

 

This became longer then intended but I couldn't stop myself sorry

 

This is not a side note, I think it fits perfectly into the little discussion

 

If you allow me to summarize (why do ask in such a hypocritical manner? I'll do it anyway MUAHAHAHAA!)

 

I think what you talk about is a very good understanding of the matter (in my view... Which is not perfect)

 

Once a meditator starts discovering the emptiness of appearance then that meditator starts to discover the union of the two truths or the union of samsara/nirvana

 

You said that primordial wisdom is mind which is a bit difficult to maintain but if you like to then please explain what you mean by that and then maybe its correct after all

 

............................

 

snip...

 

I've been reading the Namshe Yeshe the Zhentong work by the 3rd Karmapa - so maybe saying Primordial Wisdom is Mind is Zhentong!  Perhaps I'm not sure.

 

There is a definitional issue here to do with the word 'Mind'.  It goes back to which word we are actually translating ie. citta, vijnana , manas ??? and so on ... and also if we are taking a positive view of the mind having positive qualities or only empty.

 

Here's a quote from Milarepa:

 

Do not see consciousness: see primordial wisdom.

Do not see sentient beings: see Buddhas.

Do not see dharmas: see dharmata.

By the powers, fearlessness, dharanis and so forth

That constitute the qualities of a buddha

Will arise like a wish fulfilling jewel.

[already]

Yes that exactamundo sir! Thanks for making sense of my nonsense

Good.

Now that we established what you wanted to say, let's see if this makes sense from the dzogcgen perspective.

First, what is the primordial wisdom of the example ?

 

Second, this expression "the primordial widsom of an arya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise" is a bit vague.

What exactly do you mean by it ?

[ilumairen]

Nirvana is a mental construct. As the saying goes, 'The mind creates both samsara and nirvana'. It reminds me of those old Zen tales of being in heaven or hell, where someones's happness and peace of mind (heaven) can be robbed by an insult and they turn angry, aggressive and vengeful (hell). The 'trick', for want of a better word, is to move beyond both samsara and nirvana.

 

(ref: https://ru-ru.facebook.com/DudjomTersarPolska/posts/801529389912994)

 

I live with someone who seems to enjoy that aggressive sort of hell. I like apple juice.

[RigdzinTrinley]

I've been reading the Namshe Yeshe the Zhentong work by the 3rd Karmapa - so maybe saying Primordial Wisdom is Mind is Zhentong! Perhaps I'm not sure.

 

There is a definitional issue here to do with the word 'Mind'. It goes back to which word we are actually translating ie. citta, vijnana , manas ??? and so on ... and also if we are taking a positive view of the mind having positive qualities or only empty.

 

Here's a quote from Milarepa:

 

Do not see consciousness: see primordial wisdom.

Do not see sentient beings: see Buddhas.

Do not see dharmas: see dharmata.

By the powers, fearlessness, dharanis and so forth

That constitute the qualities of a buddha

Will arise like a wish fulfilling jewel.

I don't know if mind = primordial wisdom is a shentong view or not...

 

Let me explain why I said its hard to maintain

 

But for example citta I think is blo in tibetan, vijnana is definitely rnam shes and manas is sems

 

All those are really more or less the same as they are used in Tibetan (more contextually differenr then that they mean completely different things essentially)

 

Let's pick vijnana "rnam shes" - usually translated as consiousness (rnam = aspect, shes = knowing, cognizing, consciousness as in the skandha of consciousness, rnam shes phung po) - also as you read rnam shes ye she by the 3rd karmapa that makes all the more sense

 

So rnam shes literally means something like the subjective cognition of an aspect, or a consciousness apprehending its aspect

 

Like eye consciousness apprehending form

 

Mind consciousness apprehending thought etc.

 

That's vijnana right

 

Now you say vijnana = jnana

 

Or rnam shes = yeshe

 

Consciousness = primordial wisdom

 

Which is difficult to maintain but not totally incorrect because (now you'll see why I used these terms as example and why the Indian and Tibetan Masters were incredibly skilled in their use of terms)

 

... Because vijnana and jnana have both jnana in there right?

 

Rnam shes and ye shes both have shes in there right?

 

So the clear and cognizing aspect is the same

 

The difference is in how pure it is - did it return to its natural primordial purity? (ye points to that in ye shes)

 

means rnam shes/vijnana always apprehends its object ...this or that thing (form, smell...thought) that's why we might say its encumbered or impure

 

But ye shes apprehends what? No conceptual aspects that's for sure

 

Conventionally speaking it apprehends the dharmadatu (freedom of the four conceptual extremes, how could you conceive of seeing the dharmadatu?)

 

Its a nondual gnosis, not subject seeing object like with vijnana or rnam shes

 

That's why ye shes is light, unencumbered and pure

 

I hope you know what I meant by "hard to maintain" mind = primordial wisdom

 

Yet on the other hand its true also that they are one nature but different aspects

 

Also where there is vijnana there is no jnana

 

And where there is an instant of jnana there is no vijnana

 

Where there is darkness there is no light and the other way around

 

EDIT: the exhaustion of rnam shes is Nirvana or once all rnam shes became ye shes you are called a Buddha - yet did you get something new or isn't that merely the exhaustion of error

Edited January 25, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[forestofclarity]

I like to see how everyone gets something different out of this quote. What strikes me first is that nirvana is not something to be built or created. It is not a matter of "adding to" but "subtracting from". 

[RigdzinTrinley]

Good.

Now that we established what you wanted to say, let's see if this makes sense from the dzogcgen perspective.

First, what is the primordial wisdom of the example ?

 

Second, this expression "the primordial widsom of an arya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise" is a bit vague.

What exactly do you mean by it ?

Dpe ye shes = primordial wisdom of the example

 

Don ye shes = actual primordial wisdom

 

This terms are very important in tantra and dzogchen and not vague at all, my reply to apech has to do with that as well

 

Maybe read again and see if you can figure out what actual primordial wisdom of an arya bodhisattva in meditative equipoise could mean

 

(Not that we could put it in words, but we can try)

 

Also I refer you to the last part of the forth topic of mipham rinpoches "beacon of certainty" that shows how this jnana can be used as the path also by an ordinary being (someone who didn't attain the bodhisattva grounds)

 

Here miphams says:

 

The primordial wisdom of the example, the actual primordial wisdom and the primordial wisdom of union are like the drawing of the moon, the reflection of the moon in water and the actual moon respectively

 

(Mipham in accordance with Jigme lingpas yonten dzod - "precious treasury of qualities" makes this threefold division which is a bit unusual)

[Apech]

@ RT

 

Through extreme laziness instead of typing out I'm attaching a scan of a page from the book I'm reading ... it has the status or translators commentary and not root text of course ...

 

IMG_20160125_0001.pdf

 

it talks about the meaning of vijnana ... which is quite different to what we would normally think of as consciousness.

 

More later when I get my thoughts together.

[RigdzinTrinley]

Says what I said about vijnana if you ask me...

 

Its what creates our dualistic perception (our world)

 

I guess or no?