the rangtong shentong distinction in Mipham Rinpoches thought

[RigdzinTrinley]

dear all,

 

I am busy these days with receiving teachings on and studying Mipham Rinpoche once again, so the other threads I started will have to wait a bit.

 

But I thought why not start discussing what I am studying to remind myself and share some golden wisdom nuggets and brain twisters

 

First a bit about the terms:

rang stong = intrinsic emptiness

gshen stong = extrinsic emptiness

 

Rang tong in short means that a phenomena is empty of itself, or empty of its own nature/essence

Shen tong means in short that a phenomena is empty of something other, or extrinsic to its own essence, while its own essence is non-empty

 

Med dgag = non affimrative negation

Ma yin dgag = affirmative negation

 

a non affirmative negation is in short a negation that does not establish anything after the phenomenon under investigation was negated with an ultimate madhyamika reasoning into its true abiding nature

 

the example is "the cave is empty" or "no one is at home"

 

an affirmative negation is in short a negation that does establish or implicate another phenomena instead of the phenomena that was negated with an ultimate madhyamika reasoning into its true abiding nature

 

the example is "there is no bad-.ghost in this cave" (not sure if there is snake in there?) or "father is not at home" (maybe mother is at home?)

 

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

 

how they are used in either of the two systems of rangtong (non affirmative negation) and shentong (affirmative negation)

 

in rangtong once the basis of emptiness (the phenomena under investigation) is negated with an ultimate reasoning into its true nature nothing whatsoever is established in its stead

 

f.e.: if one examines a pillar with the vajra splinter reasonings - the pillar is seen to be unproduced, it is not produced in any of the four ways of production - from itself, from something other, from both or without a cause

 

so one can say " there is no pillar" - it is empty, not even one atom can withstand such a reasoning and nothing else is left over, no other phenomena is established in its stead. The pillar is shown to empty of itself

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

now in a rather extreme shentong view: they would say Dharmata is not empty of the qualities of the kayas and wisdoms of buddha nature (these are non-empty), what is it empty of? they would say it is empty of the dualistic phenomena of samsara

 

what that means they negate dualistic phenomena like pillars, vases, houses, cars, people etc. but then establish something other then them as the dharmata - true nature of these dharmas/phenomena, usually something like clear light

 

so we could say: those trees, rivers and mountains are shown to be empty deceptive appearances yet what is established in their stead is clear light (that is not empty - hence truly established, because they say it is reality itself, reality itself can't be empty of itself now can it?... or maybe it can?)

 

Okay thats the started for the discussion

 

Mipham Rinpoche will refute one type of intrinsic emptiness(rangtong) that is not suitable to establish the union of emptiness and appearance and also a type of extrinsinc emptiness(shentong) that is not suitable to establish the union of appearance and emptiness

[Jeff]

Thank you for opening this interesting topic.

To dive in (and make it a little interesting), I have always found the starndard rangtong position to be supported by more logical academic types. Those who have a more direct "experiential" approach, start with a basis in "mind", and hence, realize the practical value of the yogacara view, then with combination of the Tathagataghara you have Shentong.

Summed up clearly in The Definitive Explanation of the Compassion of the Tathāgata...

Because the mind is naturally luminous, awakening is naturally luminous. If it is asked for what reason it is naturally luminous, what is natural, that without afflictions, equivalent with space, the nature of space, remains equal with space, is even because it is even with space. That nature is very luminous. Since childish ordinary people do not comprehend natural luminosity, they are afflicted by temporary afflictions. The tathāgatas engage sentient beings with compassion, thinking, "They should comprehend natural luminosity."

Edited April 21, 2016 by Jeff

[Apech]

RT,

 

I'm not sure I accept your definition of Zhentong.  This quote from the Forward of 'The Lamp That Dispels Darkness' - a commentary on Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's Shastra 'Distinguishing Consciousness and Primordial Wisdom':

 

''...Rangjung Dorje, ... shares his colleague's (Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen) vision of buddha-nature as an entirely pure primordial basis inherent in all beings and empty of all incidental, conditioned, relative phenomena."

 

I do not think this is an argument for the existence of individual essences of things but simply a pointing to the dharmakaya as possessing the positive qualities that arise as buddha-nature or the self-luminous mind.

 

This is I think, and these are my words so open to finding fault with, a practitioners view rather than a purist view arising from just an analysis of name and form and so on.  So I would go along with what Jeff is saying.

 

Also its worth mentioning that Brunholtz (Sp?) in Centre of a Sunlit Sky seems to say that Mikyo Dorje thought that Zhentong was nothing other than Yogacara - or rather that Zhentong was a kind of advanced form of Yogacara - which also interesting is a way of yoga and thus a way of practitioners.

[C T]

[C T]

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/shentong.htm

[Jeff]

RT,

 

I'm not sure I accept your definition of Zhentong.  This quote from the Forward of 'The Lamp That Dispels Darkness' - a commentary on Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's Shastra 'Distinguishing Consciousness and Primordial Wisdom':

 

''...Rangjung Dorje, ... shares his colleague's (Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen) vision of buddha-nature as an entirely pure primordial basis inherent in all beings and empty of all incidental, conditioned, relative phenomena."

 

I do not think this is an argument for the existence of individual essences of things but simply a pointing to the dharmakaya as possessing the positive qualities that arise as buddha-nature or the self-luminous mind.

 

This is I think, and these are my words so open to finding fault with, a practitioners view rather than a purist view arising from just an analysis of name and form and so on.  So I would go along with what Jeff is saying.

 

Also its worth mentioning that Brunholtz (Sp?) in Centre of a Sunlit Sky seems to say that Mikyo Dorje thought that Zhentong was nothing other than Yogacara - or rather that Zhentong was a kind of advanced form of Yogacara - which also interesting is a way of yoga and thus a way of practitioners.

 

To add to your point, the sutra of The Manifestation Into the Domain the Method of Of the Sphere of Bodhisattvas states...

 

The mind for unsurpassed true perfect awakening is the mind without afflictions because the turmoil of afflictions has been removed; is the mind of luminosity because it is luminous by nature...

 

Or...

 

Start with a messy mind... clear out the crap... notice the underlying luminosity (light)... and just hang...

[Tibetan_Ice]

...

 

Start with a messy mind... clear out the crap... notice the underlying luminosity (light)... and just hang...

Luminosity is not "light"!

 

From Ju Mipham Namgyal’s Way of the Realized Old Dogs Advice that Points Out The Essence of Mind, Called “A Lamp That Dispels Darkness” By Tony Duff:

 

Luminosity or illumination, Skt. prabhāsvara, Tib. ’od gsal ba: The core of mind has two aspects: an emptiness factor and a knowing factor. The Buddha and many Indian religious teachers used “luminosity” as a metaphor for the knowing quality of the core of mind. If in English we would say “Mind has a knowing quality”, the teachers of ancient India would say, “Mind has an illuminative quality; it is like a source of light which illuminates what it knows”. This term has been translated as “clear light” but that is a mistake that comes from not understanding the etymology of the word. It does not refer to a light that has the quality of clearness (something that makes no sense, actually!) but to the illuminative property which is the nature of the empty mind.

 

Further, your suggestion to "notice" and "hang" is a form of grasping.

[Apech]

To add to your point, the sutra of The Manifestation Into the Domain the Method of Of the Sphere of Bodhisattvas states...

 

The mind for unsurpassed true perfect awakening is the mind without afflictions because the turmoil of afflictions has been removed; is the mind of luminosity because it is luminous by nature...

 

Or...

 

Start with a messy mind... clear out the crap... notice the underlying luminosity (light)... and just hang...

 

 

I realise that in a certain sense you do have to clear out the crap - but in mahamudra even the adventitious phenomena such as thoughts, feelings and memories are the ground of realisation.

[RigdzinTrinley]

I will answer and ellaborate on this a bit later - this will be an interresting discussion I think

[Jeff]

I realise that in a certain sense you do have to clear out the crap - but in mahamudra even the adventitious phenomena such as thoughts, feelings and memories are the ground of realisation.

 

Yes, I was just having fun with the turn of phrase. But, while they may be the "ground", the Play of Noble Mañjūśrī Sūtra clearly states...

 

"Afflictions are temporary, they cannot simultaneous with the realization of emptiness; they cannot simultaneous with the knowledge of the absence of characteristics and the absence of aspiration; they cannot simultaneous with natural luminosity."

 

So the crap must be cleared (dropped), if one wishes to realize the underlying luminosity(clear light)...

 

 

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

 

Start with a messy mind... clear out the crap... notice the underlying luminosity (light)... and just hang.

 

Acintya bheda abheda tattva.

 

...

Edited April 22, 2016 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Apech]

Yes, I was just having fun with the turn of phrase. But, while they may be the "ground", the Play of Noble Mañjūśrī Sūtra clearly states... "Afflictions are temporary, they cannot simultaneous with the realization of emptiness; they cannot simultaneous with the knowledge of the absence of characteristics and the absence of aspiration; they cannot simultaneous with natural luminosity." So the crap must be cleared (dropped), if one wishes to realize the underlying luminosity(clear light)...

 

I don't know that sutra - but the translation you offer does not make grammatical sense in English.  However on googling it I found it in a Dharmawheel conversation in the same form so I guess that's where you got it from.

 

The same conversation has this:

 

 

 

The Pratyutpanna Sūtra states:

 

• Because all these phenomena are naturally luminous, they are equivalent with nirvana.

 

In Mahamudra specifically (and not in Dzogchen as far as I am aware ) you have the statement 'all thoughts are the dharmakaya' - which is saying the same thing.

 

The standard Mahayana interpretation would talk about purifying or cleaning the mind - and we all engage in this at some time in order to free ourselves from the confused states in which we find ourselves - but there is a more direct way of seeing where you realise that the adventitious accumulated 'obstructions' are in essence not different to the ultimate nature of the mind and are at base illusory int he sense that they are empty of self.  So to talk about underlying luminosity is a just a relative way of speaking.  This goes to the heart of the Zhentong view of the relationship between Buddha-nature and what we now perceive to be.

[C T]

In Mahamudra specifically (and not in Dzogchen as far as I am aware ) you have the statement 'all thoughts are the dharmakaya' - which is saying the same thing.

Dzogchen reminds practitioners that thoughts are filled with the essence of liberation. Those who recognise this recognises the Dharmakaya and will no longer be subject to distractive and destructive habitual patterns caused by not recognising mind essence. Have not come across any literature, even in Mahamudra, that says thoughts are Dharmakaya. Would be interesting to read some Mahamudra texts which point to this. 

[RigdzinTrinley]

RT,

 

I'm not sure I accept your definition of Zhentong. This quote from the Forward of 'The Lamp That Dispels Darkness' - a commentary on Karmapa Rangjung Dorje's Shastra 'Distinguishing Consciousness and Primordial Wisdom':

 

''...Rangjung Dorje, ... shares his colleague's (Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen) vision of buddha-nature as an entirely pure primordial basis inherent in all beings and empty of all incidental, conditioned, relative phenomena."

 

I do not think this is an argument for the existence of individual essences of things but simply a pointing to the dharmakaya as possessing the positive qualities that arise as buddha-nature or the self-luminous mind.

 

This is I think, and these are my words so open to finding fault with, a practitioners view rather than a purist view arising from just an analysis of name and form and so on. So I would go along with what Jeff is saying.

 

Also its worth mentioning that Brunholtz (Sp?) in Centre of a Sunlit Sky seems to say that Mikyo Dorje thought that Zhentong was nothing other than Yogacara - or rather that Zhentong was a kind of advanced form of Yogacara - which also interesting is a way of yoga and thus a way of practitioners.

So a more detailes explanation, I would just say if you give me more time to set forth Ju Mipham Rinpoches own view - you and Jeff would agree with his interpretation.

 

What I mean to say is in the text I study atm - Beacon of certainty (which I study since some months) he first in good old madhyamika fashion explains positions that are unreasonable in his understanding and realisation and then later puts forths his own position

 

so I just started to give a working definition of rangtong and shentong and as far as I can see it is not different from what the Karmapa is positing

 

you have a pure nirvana (buddha nature) that is free of impure phenomena, or obscurations - or how would you understand the quote you posted? sounds more or less like that no?

 

well then its the same understanding.

 

If you use a non affirmative negation into the true nature of reality - then you will find it is free of dualistic-samsaric phenomena but itself is posited as clear light or luminousity

 

now if you posit this clear light as non-empty of essence then it gets a bit tricky - but again if you give me some more space for my ramblings, then I think that I can unpack Mipham Rinpoches thought more or less accurately.

 

also it is said that tantric teachings are more in tune with the shentong view, but I do feel if you have a correct shentong view - or a correct rangtong view then they are not contradictory but can both express the union of emptiness and appearances, which is the basis for understanding the Tantras and Mahamudra, Dzogchen correctly

 

if you give me some more time I will slowly unpack Miphams thought - because it is a bit to hard to say it in an accurate way with just a few words and sentences.

 

later today I will write more

 

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

 

and I would just say that thoughts are dharmakaya only if you see the true nature of the thought to be empty/appearance otherwise thoughts are the basic stuff samsara is made off no?

 

otherwise ordinary beings wouldn't need to enter a path - because they are thinking so much and solidify those thought, based on that those thoughts will proliferate as well - so because of that they must all be abiding in the pristine awareness of dharmakaya? doesn't make much sense to me

Edited April 22, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

I was lying - no details no explanation just begging for more time!!!

[RigdzinTrinley]

Okay maybe lets start with an unreasonable way to posit intrinsic emptiness or rangtong - because on one hand this is how the beacon of certainty is arranged, and on the other hand I feel the shentong discussion will be more intense I like intense!

 

my lamas don't like to use names of scholars or traditions when teaching us - because we might create wrong views towards other tradiitons and systems - forgetting not to rely on the words but to rely on the meaning, and not to rely on the meaning but on wisdom

 

anyhow some masters and scholars when they posit the ultimate view of madhyamika to be intrinsic emptiness - and that one needs to use a non affirmative negation into the true nature of reality use a rather interessting way of reasoning.

 

we use a "pillar" to represent all phenomena from form upto and including the omniscient mind of a buddha, so all pure and impure phenomena of samsara and nirvana are represented by "pillar" (they love to talk about pillars, vases and horns of rabbits, I dont know how many times I translated these terms during madhyamika teachings... as many times as emptiness probably)

 

so they would say "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true existence"

 

they feel positing it in this way then there is no chance that ordinary beings will fall into an extreme view of nihilism while working with madhyamika reasoning, because as we can see the relative appearance of the "pillar" is not empty of being a pillar, it is left alone - the only thing they negate is the pillars true existence (the basis for our grasping at things as solid/real - and also the cause for sentient beings suffering)

 

now mipham rinpoche will investigate this statement if it can express the union of emptiness and appearance or not - and if it is an accurate way and in line with the final view of the great madhyamika that is freedom from all conceptual elaboration

 

so far for now - I need to go back to my own studies

Edited April 22, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[C T]

 

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

 

and I would just say that thoughts are dharmakaya only if you see the true nature of the thought to be empty/appearance otherwise thoughts are the basic stuff samsara is made off no?

 

otherwise ordinary beings wouldn't need to enter a path - because they are thinking so much and solidify those thought, based on that those thoughts will proliferate as well - so because of that they must all be abiding in the pristine awareness of dharmakaya? doesn't make much sense to me

That is 'if' its seen/recognised. Then that very recognition immediately generates a spark of liberative potential. Not seen, would it be right to assume that thoughts naturally releases its karmic impetus to proliferate and generate even more karmic traces and seeds due to latent karmic imprints? I would think so. 

 

sorry for deviating, but this is an important reminder i think, because in order to deconstruct fixations correctly, which is part of the aim of rangtong/shentong debates, this liberative potential empty of a possessor yet imbued with enlightening qualities is definitely worthy of note so as to arrive at a more definitive understanding. 

[Apech]

Dzogchen reminds practitioners that thoughts are filled with the essence of liberation. Those who recognise this recognises the Dharmakaya and will no longer be subject to distractive and destructive habitual patterns caused by not recognising mind essence. Have not come across any literature, even in Mahamudra, that says thoughts are Dharmakaya. Would be interesting to read some Mahamudra texts which point to this. 

 

 

The Short Prayer to Vajradhara (a daily recitation for Kagyu lineage) - to quote:

 

http://www.rinpoche.com/dchng.html

 

 

NAM TOK NGOWO CHÖ KUR SUNG PA ZHIN 

The essence of thought is dharmakaya, it is taught.

 

CHI YANG MA YIN CHIR YANG CHAR WA LA 

They are nothing whatsoever, and yet they arise.

[Jeff]

That is 'if' its seen/recognised. Then that very recognition immediately generates a spark of liberative potential. Not seen, would it be right to assume that thoughts naturally releases its karmic impetus to proliferate and generate even more karmic traces and seeds due to latent karmic imprints? I would think so. 

 

sorry for deviating, but this is an important reminder i think, because in order to deconstruct fixations correctly, which is part of the aim of rangtong/shentong debates, this liberative potential empty of a possessor yet imbued with enlightening qualities is definitely worthy of note so as to arrive at a more definitive understanding. 

 

That "if" being not just being intellectually seen, but actually realized, is to me a very important point. The issue is that most of the karmic "crap" is in the subconscious and hence not directly accessible (or easily found). Without things like the broader tantric components of mind, too often one can "clear a conscious mental space" and declare victory, when in reality they are only swimming in a small pool, rather than the ocean itself.

 

Realizing the underlying clear light - luminosity (of mind) is the key...

[C T]

The Short Prayer to Vajradhara (a daily recitation for Kagyu lineage) - to quote:

 

http://www.rinpoche.com/dchng.html

 

 

NAM TOK NGOWO CHÖ KUR SUNG PA ZHIN 

The essence of thought is dharmakaya, it is taught.

 

CHI YANG MA YIN CHIR YANG CHAR WA LA 

They are nothing whatsoever, and yet they arise.

Would you say 'thoughts are dharmakaya' and 'essence of thoughts is dharmakaya' have the same meaning? 

[C T]

That "if" being not just being intellectually seen, but actually realized, is to me a very important point. The issue is that most of the karmic "crap" is in the subconscious and hence not directly accessible (or easily found). Without things like the broader tantric components of mind, too often one can "clear a conscious mental space" and declare victory, when in reality they are only swimming in a small pool, rather than the ocean itself. Realizing the underlying clear light - luminosity (of mind) is the key...

In the study of some aspects of Buddhism, there are actually 121 consciousnesses, so it becomes quite vague to simply assign what is not immediately accessible to be resident in the subconscious. None of the teachers i have studied with have actually made any allusions to the subconscious (as a sort of dismissive and generalised application). Their determinations of the various mind states can be very precise at times. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by C T

[Apech]

Would you say 'thoughts are dharmakaya' and 'essence of thoughts is dharmakaya' have the same meaning? 

 

 

If understood correctly then yes.

[Jeff]

...

we use a "pillar" to represent all phenomena from form upto and including the omniscient mind of a buddha, so all pure and impure phenomena of samsara and nirvana are represented by "pillar" (they love to talk about pillars, vases and horns of rabbits, I dont know how many times I translated these terms during madhyamika teachings... as many times as emptiness probably)

so they would say "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true existence"

 

they feel positing it in this way then there is no chance that ordinary beings will fall into an extreme view of nihilism while working with madhyamika reasoning, because as we can see the relative appearance of the "pillar" is not empty of being a pillar, it is left alone - the only thing they negate is the pillars true existence (the basis for our grasping at things as solid/real - and also the cause for sentient beings suffering)

 

now mipham rinpoche will investigate this statement if it can express the union of emptiness and appearance or not - and if it is an accurate way and in line with the final view of the great madhyamika that is freedom from all conceptual elaboration

so far for now - I need to go back to my own studies

 

The Ornamental Illumination of Pristine Consciousness that Enters the Domain of the Noble Buddhas Sūtra states...

 

Awakening [bodhi] is the natural luminosity of the natural luminosity of the mind. If it is asked why [bodhi] called luminosity, whatever is natural, that is without affliction, equal with space, possessing the nature of space, properly included within space and like space, because it is very luminous by nature.

 

Like with your pillar analogy, rather than to just say that the pillar does not exist, it is more helpful to take increasingly refined views of a pillar so that one realizes the "underlying nature".

 

A pillar is solid to the touch, but look at it with an electron microscope and you will realize that it is not solid, but really just space with the repulsive force of electrons moving around. Look deeper and one realizes that electrons themselves are not even "solid" things revolving around and atom, but actually more like energy in theoretical states at moments of time with no inherent place or existence.

 

Works the same with a "mind"...

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2016 by Jeff

[doc benway]

If understood correctly then yes.

I'll respectfully disagree here - the distinction is similar to the important distinction between mind and the nature (essence) of mind.

They are not the same.

In my unscholarly way, I'd prefer to state that thoughts are a manifestation, or ornament, of the dharmakaya but I would not equate the two.

Perhaps one could say they share the same essence?

[RigdzinTrinley]

I think apech, C T, steve and myself share the exact same view on this topic - as far as my reading of the responses goes so far.

 

essence of thought = dharmakaya

thought is empty/appearance - if not realized that the essence is empty then well we find ourselves trapped in the net of delusion if seen or realized that the thought = union of emptiness/appearance or having found excellent certainty in this, then the thought has no other way but to self-liberate, like drawing letters on a water surface

 

now also till that happens simultaniously (arising/self liberation) takes for most years and years of practice and investigation/study into the true nature of reality. F.e.: see the examples of the snake untiing, writing on water, a thief entering an empty house in teachings on cutting through to primal purity

 

if the thought is just seen as solid and real - then nope I don't agree that it is the dharmakaya (as a hidden potential mayhabs), otherwise sentient beings are buddhas, there is no need for a path, delusion becomes illumination etc etc

 

..........

 

that discussion is important for the overall understanding of the rangtong shentong distinction and potental harmony of these systems - but also it is much more connected with practical application then theory, and regarding practical application, or refining ones view of the base - well the root guru is there for that

 

maybe we slowly go back to rangtong/shentong and split some intellectual hairs?

Edited April 22, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley