Nirvana is...

[RigdzinTrinley]

Continuing from my post #67, we now proceed to Trump I: The Magus.

 

 

 

Many authors associate with this card the Creator of the Abrahamic religions. But the Magus is just as much the beginning of creation itself - the first manifestation out of the Nothing. The Word or initial sound that is reverberating throughout the Universe. The Hebrew letter attributed to him is Beth, the first audible letter, whereas the Fool carries Aleph, an unpronounced letter, in keeping with his nature as pure potential.

 

On the microcosmic scale, the Magus is the creator/creation of an individual's personal universe, that is laid out according to the conceptions and neat definitions of the mind. It makes sense therefore that the Magus is linked to the planet Mercury whose astro-psychological functions include measurement and categorization.

 

Thus we see some kind of coordinate grid behind the Magus. But any measuring scale is based on the di-vision of a whole, as every line drawn creates two sides.

 

While it is inevitable for the individual at some stage to define its world and itself, by focussing on a part of the whole, it separates itself from it, and the unacknowledged part becomes unconscious.

 

More on this in my next post, but feel free to comment any time...

 

but dear sir,

 

I rather listen!!!

 

also based on your, nungali and others posts in the tarot bum section (read everything already, why is it so silent in there?) - anyway based on your posts  I decided to get me a toth deck when I come back to europe this summer and do the meditations as described in liber T is that the name, I got the ebook from your blog?? (I might write you messages with questions in the process if you are ok with that or just start asking here on TDB to get different answers and so more viewpoints) 

 

anyway one question I would have, based on what you wrote: would you say that the fool is like nirvana that is merely the exhaustion of error if yes then why, if no then why not? or would nirvana not be the last trump -  "the universe" (is that the name of the card)? 

 

and how would you explain the pick of whichever major arcana as a symbol for "nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error"

 

 

[RigdzinTrinley]

The whole division of mind is interesting. In Vedanta, you have the five koshas: physical, pranic, lower mental, higher mental, and bliss. The lower mental, or manomaya kosha, is usually glossed as either the bare sensory mind or memory. The higher mental, or vijnanamaya kosha involves division and mental categories. Citta or cit can refer to mind-stuff as in the Yoga Sutras (as in thoughts are whirlpools or vrittis in citta), or as the highest form of awareness as in the sat-cit-ananda formulation of Advaita. Intelligence would be buddhi, which is the root from which Buddha comes.

 

The early suttas more or less lump citta, manas, and vijnana together into a mass and often use the terms as synonyms, but the divisions are still found at least in the Vissudhimagga literature.

 

In the Vissudhimagga literature, there is a parable about a child, an adult, and a money changer seeing a pile of gold. The child just sees it as it is, akin to perception (samjna); the adult overlays concepts on it, akin to consciousness (vijnana), while the money changer, as an expert, sees its actual value, representing prajna.

Dear f.o.e and apech,

 

I asked one of my dharma brothers about the differences of blo, sems, rnam shes - he said they all mean the same

 

And this one studied in shedra for 5years at sherab ling, the seat of H.E. Tai Situ Rinpoche, and was very very good at it also, second best in his class; the best of his class became one of the debate partners of H.H. 17th karmapa

 

Many times when I don't get a certain term or concept I just ask him

 

So looks like blo, sems, rnam shes are "don chik ming gi rnam grangs" - synonyms for the same meaning

 

Just used in different lists, like apech mentioned the 8 consciousness model of the cittamatrins (longchenpa uses that one too)

 

The usual 6 of the abidharma:

Eye-con. Ear-con. Nose-con. Tongue-con. Body-con. (Mind-con. Tibetan: "yid rnam shes")

 

Plus the famous and mostly misunderstood:

The Alaya-con. (All-ground consciousness Tibetan: kun gzhi rnam shes)

 

And the afflicted mind? Klesha mind (Don't remember the good way to translate it right now...)

 

 

So there they use rnam shes

 

Then when talking about analysis they use blo when talking about mind and nature of mind they use sems and sems nyid respectivly etc.

 

They essentially mean the same:

A subjectiv "mind" grasping an object

Edited January 26, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Brian]

RT, I've also called people named Brian brains, and they seem to take it in stride.... 

Flashback to my 4th birthday...

 

A warm Spring afternoon in Miami, family and friends gather for an outdoors party.

 

A car pulls up and delivers a Carvel ice cream cake.

 

Everyone gathers around as the slowly melting cake is unboxed. It reads:

 

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BRAIN!!!

 

 

<sigh>

 

Story of my life.

[RigdzinTrinley]

Dear brian,

 

Tibetans call me usually Mr.Bean

 

Or when "real" funny they say the second trulku in the sublime rosary of the Mr.Bean incarnation lineage

 

(When ever they find a freakin Mr bean poster they send me a message with a picture of it + a text like "what are you doing in chennai RT?"

 

Tibetan dudes are the masters of pulling your leg for sure

[Apech]

@RT  thanks - that's useful information.  

[RigdzinTrinley]

@RT thanks - that's useful information.

I hope you won't start calling me Mr.Bean

[Apech]

I hope you won't start calling me Mr.Bean

 

I promise not to.  Maybe Mr. Sentient Bean ... ?

[RigdzinTrinley]

Buddha bean or sentient bean depends on the purity of your perception

 

Are you using your vijnana to see the bean

 

Or jnana to see the bean

 

(Would jnana see a bean or not? And if not how could it benefit beans? But on the other hand if it sees a bean how could it be nonconceptual gnosis?)

[Apech]

Buddha bean or sentient bean depends on the purity of your perception

 

Are you using your vijnana to see the bean

 

Or jnana to see the bean

 

(Would jnana see a bean or not? And if not how could it benefit beans? But on the other hand if it sees a bean how could it be nonconceptual gnosis?)

 

 

You ask them 'You bean happy lately?'

 

To which they reply 'Eh!  jnana banana, you know how it goes.'

[RigdzinTrinley]

[doc benway]

I promise not to.  Maybe Mr. Sentient Bean ... ?

 

Perhaps Mr. Coffee Bean?

[3bob]

are you talking dirty RT    (that will be 6 more lower realm and 12 middle realm incarnations along with the possibility of sudden enlightenment at any time if you get all your beans in order)

[Michael Sternbach]

but dear sir,

 

I rather listen!!!

 

Oh, that's fine. I just want you to feel home.

 

also based on your, nungali and others posts in the tarot bum section (read everything already, why is it so silent in there?) - anyway based on your posts  I decided to get me a toth deck when I come back to europe this summer and do the meditations as described in liber T is that the name, I got the ebook from your blog??

 

That's excellent.

 

(I might write you messages with questions in the process if you are ok with that or just start asking here on TDB to get different answers and so more viewpoints) 

 

You are welcome to do either or both. If you have a suitable topic, I might well write an article about it on my blog.

 

anyway one question I would have, based on what you wrote: would you say that the fool is like nirvana that is merely the exhaustion of error if yes then why, if no then why not? or would nirvana not be the last trump -  "the universe" (is that the name of the card)? 

 

and how would you explain the pick of whichever major arcana as a symbol for "nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error"

 

The Fool is a beginning and stands for the innocence of a child, which may be thought of as the innocence of unknowing or ignorance. The Universe is an end and represents the enlightenment that leads us back to our original innocence. So you see, the Major Arcana form a circle in which the end leads to a new beginning.

 

Now, what usually happens is that at the end of a circle or cycle, there is some karma left over, some data that hasn't been processed successfully yet, things stuck and solidified. Even this energy and information will be released and enter the next cycle as a "genetic code", and that is what Trump XX represents, called The Aeon in the Thoth deck, and Judgement in most others.

 

 

This same principle holds true whether we are considering the cycles of death and rebirth of individual human beings, cultures, or the whole Universe. It is reproduced on a microcosmic level by the Alchemist in their laboratory.

[RigdzinTrinley]

@Micheal

 

Yes I'll be in correspondence with you once I get the meditations started - also I'll need basic understanding of astrology, an understanding that works well with the G.D. tarot model, any suggestions on that?

 

OK back to the topic, I'm not content yet

I think you followed our little Buddhist scribbles here and we in some way established that nirvana doesn't exist as a separate entity, a goal or whatever else distinct from samsara

 

Let me summarize and elaborate on some points we raised and agreed upon (the ones active in the discussion at least seem to agree)

 

The conception of liberation comes from the dualistic mind that is weaving samsara (the error "rnam shes" or vijnana - dualistic perception, when exhausted is nirvanic peace but not something new is gained - some entity called a nirvanic mind or an enlightened mind or jnana, just the error is exhausted -> what is left? Inexpressible, unthinkable beyond mind Ah La La Ho!)

 

Now we could argue well then "Nirvana" is just another illusion, and all illusion needs to be overcome - so if there's ultimately no goal, what's the point of working for sentient beings welfare? why even contemplate and meditate on emptiness? - its all just a conceptual trap, just more dualistic mind sewage!!!

 

but here shantideva tells us that "there is only one illusion permissible for the bodhisattva, that there is a goal"

 

And also here:

 

75.

“if beings,” you will say, “have no existence,

Who will be the object of compassion?”

Those whom ignorance imputes and vows to save,

Intending thus to gain the lofty goal.

 

76.

“Since beings are no more,” you ask, “who gains the fruit?”

It’s true! The aspiration’s made in ignorance.

But for the total vanquishing of sorrow,

The goal, which ignorance conceives, should not be spurned.

 

Shantideva is incredible, 2verses and there is so much in here...

 

I try to explain and share my understanding:

So ultimately to think there is nirvana to be gained through abandoning samsara is confusion

 

Even to think that there are suffering beings is ultimately speaking confusion - hallucination

 

Relatively we shouldn't stop striving to attain the goal and work to liberate all sentient beings

 

beings who grasp at a self - suffer through this ignorance, and it makes a lot of sense to give them the highest protection and the best medicine against suffering, namely a correct understanding of reality and tools how to actualize this understanding

 

(Of course first things first, means: without attaining realisation its impossible to really help sentient beings, but a life of total seclusion and total non engagement with the world till full buddhahood is attained is not for everybody)

 

So relatively speaking there is something to do, there is a goal

 

Important to know is that the goal is merely the exhaustion of error

 

this mind made aspiration or wish to attain peace will lead to the exhaustion of error - we could say its a good dualistic mind, something to cultivate till we reach full buddhahood

 

The traditional example that is in line with apech and my discussion on vijnana and jnana (rnam shes ye she) helps to illustrate this:

 

The idea of appearance (stick no1 vijnana) and emptiness (stick no2 vijnana) are rubbed together and the resulting fire (jnana) will consume them both

 

Once all vijnana is exhausted one is called a Buddha

 

The exhaustion of error or vijnana (mind you not to think jnana is a somebody or something or the Buddha is somebody or something ultimately speaking - from the form skandha till the omniscient mind of the Buddha everything is illusion, emptiness)

 

to come back again to "nirvana is the exhaustion of error" but in other words:

One such error is the idea of a Nirvana other then samsara or a samsara apart from Nirvana

 

Or even the Union of samsara/nirvana

 

Both bondage and liberation are created by the magician that is our dualistic mind (vijnana)

 

Once that erroneous mind is exhausted there is peace (non abiding nirvana)

 

Peace means freedom from all conceptual elaborations - the dharmakaya

 

Dear Micheal in light of our conversation and my little summary of key points could you try to explain this with the symbolism of the major arcana, to fulfill RT completely? I think its possible and would be very interesting for me and maybe also others

Edited January 28, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[3bob]

RT, so are you beating around bush and implying the First Noble Truth is illusion?

 

a pool or well spring of water does not become nor is it exhausted, it just becomes still and clear,  then we know. 

[Apech]

RT, so are you beating around bush and implying the First Noble Truth is illusion?

 

a pool or well spring of water does not become nor is it exhausted, it just becomes still and clear,  then we know. 

 

 

I think the statement that our experience of life is, or at least includes dukkha - is just a fact - it does.  It is not an ontological statement but an empirical one.

[C T]

I think the statement that our experience of life is, or at least includes dukkha - is just a fact - it does.  It is not an ontological statement but an empirical one.

If seen from the view of change, then yes, your statement is correct.

 

Although its seldom seen as such (change) due to self-identification, hence dukkha becomes a sort of permutation and extension of self-suffering, giving rise to the chain of interdependent causation and the rest you know anyway (karma etc). It is likened to a chain due simply to its connective nature between past, present and future, again something the kleshic mind is bound to due to its nature of continuous colour-blindness (remember the story of the jaundiced person looking out at things but cannot avoid the tinted yellowness of it all?)

 

Very interesting thread indeed. Coming back from a short retreat, its a welcome treat to get back into the flow of TDB

 

Thank you, all contributors and silent reflectors! 

[RigdzinTrinley]

Good question 3bob

 

From a madhyamika standpoint if you can posit something that withstands reasoning into reality its called ultimate truth, there is btw nothing that can withstand madhyamika reasoning, not even buddhanature (ultimately there is no ultimate or relative) - here mipham and other Indian and Tibetan masters distinguish the nominal ultimate and the actual ultimate

 

The nominal ultimate is a conceptual idea - a don phyi (meaning generality, or mental image/representation) of actual ultimate truth, that's an important step in the process of realisation btw.

 

Actual ultimate is what a being will "see" the moment they enter the path of seeing and become a first bhumi Bodhisattva (its unthinkable, ineffable and beyond mind)

 

If it can't withstand reasoning its relative truth: vases, pillars etc. - within relative truth there is also correct and incorrect relative truth anyway...

 

Both are called truth right

 

They are both true, in that light: the noble truth of suffering is relative truth not ultimate truth, but it is true on the relative or appearing level

 

If it would be ultimately true then we couldn't attain liberation or buddhahood

 

If one would say that means there is "no suffering" on the relative level then thats a wrong understanding and nihilism, same with bondage and liberation, benefit and harm etc. On the relative level they apply - are relatively real and true

 

Ultimately there are no sentient beings, no suffering, no bondage and no liberation

 

And only an arya bodhisattva can see the union of the two truths directly

 

The ordinary mind can't fully comprehend the union of the two truths so naturally my little scribbles are not satisfactory, because there is no realisation behind them

[Apech]

If seen from the view of change, then yes, your statement is correct.

 

Although its seldom seen as such (change) due to self-identification, hence dukkha becomes a sort of permutation and extension of self-suffering, giving rise to the chain of interdependent causation and the rest you know anyway (karma etc). It is likened to a chain due simply to its connective nature between past, present and future, again something the kleshic mind is bound to due to its nature of continuous colour-blindness (remember the story of the jaundiced person looking out at things but cannot avoid the tinted yellowness of it all?)

 

Very interesting thread indeed. Coming back from a short retreat, its a welcome treat to get back into the flow of TDB

 

Thank you, all contributors and silent reflectors! 

 

Dukkha - I understand as including change = impermanence . threefold dukkha is pain/discomfort or temporary nature of things or conditionality.

 

I should have said and/or for each of these.

[Apech]

@ RT

 

Always had a problem with the term 'two truths' - I guess I am quibbling at the use of the word truth here.  In English 'truth' is something quite definite - it's true or it's not.  I realise this is an unsubtle way of looking at things but that's how I see it.  There's Truth and there's convention - and convention is just how you take things for practical purposes it's not truth really.  

[RigdzinTrinley]

If seen from the view of change, then yes, your statement is correct.

 

Although its seldom seen as such (change) due to self-identification, hence dukkha becomes a sort of permutation and extension of self-suffering, giving rise to the chain of interdependent causation and the rest you know anyway (karma etc). It is likened to a chain due simply to its connective nature between past, present and future, again something the kleshic mind is bound to due to its nature of continuous colour-blindness (remember the story of the jaundiced person looking out at things but cannot avoid the tinted yellowness of it all?)

 

Very interesting thread indeed. Coming back from a short retreat, its a welcome treat to get back into the flow of TDB

 

Thank you, all contributors and silent reflectors!

Nice to have you back sir,

 

I hope you'll give us a short explanation of

 

"Nirvana is merely the exhaustion of error" as well

[RigdzinTrinley]

@ RT

 

Always had a problem with the term 'two truths' - I guess I am quibbling at the use of the word truth here. In English 'truth' is something quite definite - it's true or it's not. I realise this is an unsubtle way of looking at things but that's how I see it. There's Truth and there's convention - and convention is just how you take things for practical purposes it's not truth really.

True that - thats also why its important to know your terms very well and what they mean

 

I feel even in tibetan there are terms that are impossible to grasp on first glance - you need explanations, teachings, contemplation and meditative experience to really understand those terms without making up your own thing...

[doc benway]

@ RT

 

Always had a problem with the term 'two truths' - I guess I am quibbling at the use of the word truth here.  In English 'truth' is something quite definite - it's true or it's not.  I realise this is an unsubtle way of looking at things but that's how I see it.  There's Truth and there's convention - and convention is just how you take things for practical purposes it's not truth really.  

 

I think that even in English, most of what we think of as truth is relative and conditional. 

[Apech]

I think that even in English, most of what we think of as truth is relative and conditional. 

 

 

Of course yes, ordinarily, we use the word casually. But philosophically it takes on a different status. 

[doc benway]

That seems to apply when talking about truth in dharma also.

There's relative truth associated with everyday experience.

There is then the philosophical level that engages, for instance, madhyamika reasoning.

Then there is absolute truth which is beyond conceptual.

Is it experiential?  (not really as there is no experience/experiencer)

Is it theoretical?   (not really as it transcends concepts)

It seems to be more akin to religious experience in the West. 

There doesn't seem to be an equivalent in Western philosophy that I am aware of but I will admit that I have very little knowledge of Western philosophy.