the rangtong shentong distinction in Mipham Rinpoches thought

[RigdzinTrinley]

I think you got it right yes

 

because one cannot conceive of emptiness, without having a basis of emptiness = an appearance as an object of investigation, what follows is that both are dependently designated - mere labels and not the absolute truth beyond mind

 

appearance is dependendly designated based on parts, dimension, form etc

 

emptiness is dependently designated based on the appearance

 

both are objects of mind, or not the true abiding nature of reality, that is only "seen" by "non-seeing" primordial wisdom or jnana

Edited April 27, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

Thank you - similarly, as I mentioned elsewhere, in working with emptiness on the cushion using Dzogchen methods, we still need to work with appearance to approach a (non) experience of space. The mind does not know how to approach space in the absence of form. It's interesting to see the parallels between the classroom and the cushion. I think that is one of the points Mipham eventually makes but that's getting ahead.

 Looking forward to more of this discussion...

[RigdzinTrinley]

I just cherry pick here - on one hand I know what you mean, and it is true while we ascertain the view, we approach emptiness through appearance we could say, otherwise we couldn't know it, yet I just post this answer because I want to quote longchenpa....

 

there is no space/emptiness/openess other then appearance itself - it is that non dual. Our inner/outer experience is what is space (emptiness)

 

I guess on the cushion one can approach it through appearance, but then at one point having gained confidence in the view - one can just rest in the certainty that what is happening right now is empty

 

like longchenpa said: if there would be an emptiness apart from appearance, this emptiness would not be possible in either of the two truths, it could not be an object of realisation, nor would it work as an antidote for the afflictions

 

f.e.: if one encounters an enemey, it doesn't help to recollect the emptiness of space, but we need to know the very appearance of the enemy itself to be emptiness in order that the afflictions can be pacified - or selfliberated in its own place.

 

Now I talk big, I don't actually know what that means - just ask my partner about my realisation of emptiness and the resulting freedom from grasping at form, sound, or mental stories I tell myself...

 

then I like to talk, so what to do?

Edited April 27, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

I just cherry pick here - on one hand I know what you mean, and it is true while we ascertain the view, we approach emptiness through appearance we could say, otherwise we couldn't know it, yet I just post this answer because I want to quote longchenpa....

 

there is no space/emptiness/openess other then appearance itself - it is that non dual. Our inner/outer experience is what is space (emptiness)

 

I guess on the cushion one can approach it through appearance, but then at one point having gained confidence in the view - one can just rest in the certainty that what is happening right now is empty

 

like longchenpa said: if there would be an emptiness apart from appearance, this emptiness would not be possible in either of the two truths, it could not be an object of realisation, nor would it work as an antidote for the afflictions

 

f.e.: if one encounters an enemey, it doesn't help to recollect the emptiness of space, but we need to know the very appearance of the enemy itself to be emptiness in order that the afflictions can be pacified - or selfliberated in its own place.

 

Now I talk big, I don't actually know what that means - just ask my partner about my realisation of emptiness and the resulting freedom from grasping at form, sound, or mental stories I tell myself...

 

then I like to talk, so what to do?

 

A very important point for sure, emptiness and appearance are not separate.

And yet we are very familiar with appearance and very unfamiliar with emptiness so we tend to need to use appearance as a door to the emptiness, just as the sutric approach uses thought to transcend thought.

Sitting on the cushion "in the certainty that what is happening right now is empty" we need to be careful that this certainty is not merely a formation of thought. Even that certainty is empty, no?

I like to talk sometimes but I'm not that skillful with words and concepts and sometimes they trip me up...

[RigdzinTrinley]

A very important point for sure, emptiness and appearance are not separate.

And yet we are very familiar with appearance and very unfamiliar with emptiness so we tend to need to use appearance as a door to the emptiness, just as the sutric approach uses thought to transcend thought.

Sitting on the cushion "in the certainty that what is happening right now is empty" we need to be careful that this certainty is not merely a formation of thought. Even that certainty is empty, no?

I like to talk sometimes but I'm not that skillful with words and concepts and sometimes they trip me up...

agreed! "certainty" as miphamn rinpoche understands it is Vipassana, it is reached after a long period of listening to teachings on madhyamika and dzogchen etc. plus a long time of reflecting on these teachings and using madhyamika analysis into the unreality of reality

 

so yes this line up there "the certainty that this experience right now is empty" could be just a thought - like sitting down and saying repeatatly "this does not exist" or "all that appears is great equality" or to remind oneself again and again "leave it uncontrived, don't change experience" etc.

 

for sure its easy to see that this is only mind having a nice conversation with itself

 

anyway the certainty that mipham rinpoche talks about can be understood to mean penetrating insight, or vipassana. And again it would come from years of work with these teachings on many levels....

 

it probably starts with a concpetual target that is in accord with reality, the famous nominal ultimate truth, or the even better translation "conceptual ultimate truth" (dougles duckworth uses this term, and me likes!!!) and that is an important step towards jnana (see the long discussion I had with apech in a previous thread)

 

first one forms a pretty sophisticated meaning generality of emptiness (not just "its empty, the Dalai Lama said so") - that then is used as a still conceptual - target for meditation, that will slowly wear away grasping at appearances as real and substantial... remember the two stick analogy?

 

yet to think the conceptual ultimate = the actual or non-conceptual ultimate would be well a big mistake

 

or to think that above mentioned meditation on a meaning generality of emptiness is actual jnana etc.

 

I would just say what links both the conceptual and non-conceptual ultimate or what links vijnana (knowing) with jnana(gnosis) is this precious certainty that mipham rinpoche praises and illuminates in his great masterpiece

 

but all this strange meditation stuff is going to be explained more in the next topics of the text - like you already mentioned. Specially topic 3-4 that deal with meditation. As it is an organic whole to jump in front and then back again is allright I guess

 

I am still afraid to open the shentong can of worms - but as soon as I feel some confidence I will

 

promise

Edited April 28, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

I am still afraid to open the shentong can of worms - but as soon as I feel some confidence I will

 

promise

Or can of words...

I admire your courage and fortitude to do so!

Looking forward to it

[RigdzinTrinley]

Okay lets open the word-can

 

as an Intro:

 

First I would like to remind on the prajnaparamita and how it estasblishes all phenomena contained within samsara and nirvana as emptiness - that means that not only impure samsaric phenomena (the karmic vision of the 6-classes of beings) are empty of their own essence but also that the pure nirvanic phenomena, such as the kayas and wisdoms are essentially empty

 

so from the form skandha up to and including the omniscient mind of the buddha everything is empty and illusionlike - nothing to grasp, no ground to stand on - no views to formalize that could ever grasp the ungraspable

 

now the great Sakya Pandita made an incredible observation:

 

"There is no higher view then the prajnaparamita, for if there was - then that view would be conceptual"

 

thats one sentence to spend some time with, and it will help to show how longchenpa and mipham rinpoche establish the ekayana and how they show that nagarjuna and maitreya-asanga are not contradicting each other even slightly. In Mipham Rinpoches words: they are like Honey and Molasses mixed together

 

Okay if we have that in mind then perhabs Miphams Rinpoches refutation of "certain" shentong interpretations will become clear - now I want to say that Mipham Rinpoche is not denegrating the teachings of the third turning of the wheel of dharma. I think only certain Nyigma and Kagyu Masters manage to explain the 2nd and 3rd turnings to be non-contradictory and he was one of them. Thats why many great contemporary Kagyu Masters took Mipham Rinpoches writing into their shedra (Buddhist-University type situation) curriculum.

 

but again I will keep with the pattern of Mipham Rinpoches text, and he does once in a while give a taste of his view - but first he works with interpretations of Buddha Nature that he finds unreasonalbe and lacking in establishing a step towards freedom from conceptual elaboration

 

We could actually also say that the 3rd turning of Buddha-Nature is nothing but the union of emptiness and appearance - but it focuses on the appearing aspect more; and within this context it illuminates the enlightened qualities of how things appear in actuality or from the p.o.v of an awakened being

 

And that the 2nd turning that teaches emptiness, is nothing but the union of emptiness and appearance - but that it focuses on how to ascertain emptiness with a flawless ultimate reasoning

 

now some masters say only the second turning is a definitve meaning teaching, some say that only the 3rd turning is a definitive meaning teaching - and some f.e. Longchenpa and Mipham Rinpoche establish that both are definitve meaning teachings and how they can be understood from "within" the vast view of Dzogchen

 

now in order to do so certain interpretations of rangtong and shentong will be refuted, because they fail to explain the 2nd and 3rd turning in harmony - something that Mipham Rinpoches just regards as a very poor understanding of the vast sky of Dharma -> it means for him that either nagarjuna or maitreya got it wrong, and that can't possibly be the case

 

so thats the intro - and then I will try to explain how "certain" shentong views can fall into an extreme and because of that then many different dharma-teachings appear to be contradictory even though they are not

Edited May 1, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

Wonderful introduction, RT.

Can I ask for 2 small clarifications, please?

1. Are you using ekayana as synonymous with Mahayana or are you more referring to Mipham's desire for a single coherent view that is consistent with the 2nd and 3rd turnings? Or something else altogether?

2.  "it means for him that either nagarjuna or maitreya got it wrong, and that can't possibly be the case" - please clarify, forgive my ignorance 

[RigdzinTrinley]

I forgive your ingnorance if you forgive mine too

 

1) ekayana or the final singular vehicle is in short a teaching based on nagarjuna and chandrakirti etc. in short (but I think this is enough to understand):

 

temporarely there are three different yanas:

shravakayana

pratyekabuddhayana

bodhisattvayana

 

they all have their respective goals - such as Arhatship and Buddhahood

 

yet from the point of view of Suchness there is only one place to go right? so when thinking about the final state of realisation where the one taste of dharmadatu & primordial wisdom is fully manifest - then there is only one yana with one goal

 

arhats in this view reach liberation - hang out in the expanse of ceassation and then after 10.000aeons the buddha wakes them up and tells them to work for sentient beings, give birth to Bodhicitta in its two aspects and finally realize buddhahood

 

2) in short meitreya-asanga are more connected with the 3rd turning of the wheel and teachings on buddhanature (lunminous nature) whereas nagarjuna is more connected with the 2nd turning of the wheel that is freedom from charakteristics (empty essence)

 

now if you say either one or the other is a definitive or provisional meaning teaching then what follows is that either Nagarjuna was confused or lord maitreya was confused. But this is unlikely because both of them are regarded as the most important teachers of Sutra after Buddha Shakyamuni had passed into paranirvana

 

both the teachings on buddhanature (the luminous nature) and emptiness beyond conceptual elaboration (empty essence) are in Longchenpas and Mipham Rinpoches view definitive meaning teachings. (how I'll try to explain later)

 

also both nagarjuna and meitreya established the ekayana in similar ways - so in short Mipham Rinpoche just says that nagarjuna and maitreyas teachings are not contradictory if you have the correct view that can establish both as one enlightened intend

Edited May 2, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

and that, as you mentioned in your question, also points to the ekayana, which for longchnepa and mipham rinpoche is of course best expressed in the dzogchen teachings- the dzogchen teachings are seen as the ground from which all other yanas emerged and to which they finally return

 

now I am sure if one studies the teachings of the different karmapas, gorampa or tsongkhapa then they will have very wonderful teachings and ways to explain the ekayana as well - I unfortunately did not study them

Edited May 2, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[doc benway]

and that, as you mentioned in your question, also points to the ekayana, which for longchnepa and mipham rinpoche is of course best expressed in the dzogchen teachings- the dzogchen teachings are seen as the ground from which all other yanas emerged and to which they finally return

 

now I am sure if one studies the teachings of the different karmapas, gorampa or tsongkhapa then they will have very wonderful teachings and ways to explain the ekayana as well - I unfortunately did not study them

I suspect you will someday...

 

Thanks for the clear answers, that helps a lot.

[RigdzinTrinley]

ok back to discussing a incoherent shentong view from Mipham Rinpoches point of view.

 

I will mix the first topic of the text with the third and fourth topic in order to show how a extreme interpretation of shentong can't go beyond conceptual elaboration

 

For this it might be useful to remember the "basis of emptiness" because Mipham Rinpoche will use the same logic to refute this incorrect or incoherent Shentong view like he used to refute the incorrect rangtong interpretation "that the pillar is not empty of being a pillar but empty of true existence"

 

so he would likewise say if you posit the basis of emptiness and that of which it is empty as something extrinsic or other then the basis itself - then what you have is a non-empty phenomena on one side and a mere emptiness on the other side

 

these two he says are like a white and black threat twisted together - they can not express emptiness as a union, like fire and its heat

 

he writes ALAS! if this is not empty of this itself, the basis of emptiness is left over and hence truly existent!

 

so if we keep this reasoning in mind when we examine the more radical shentong interpretations such as "dharmata is not empty of itself, dharmata is empty of dualistic phenomena" we can see again that the basis of emptiness is left-over, that means we have on one side a non-empty Dharmata and on the other side an emptiness that is the freedom of dualistic samsaric appearance. These two can't be said to coalesce or form a Union

 

it like twisting black and white threads together - after twisting them together it looks like one thread, but in actuality the white thread never pervades the black thread nor the other way around - they are different isolates

 

when we talk about the union of emptiness and appearance then we need to know that appearane is utterly pervaded by emptiness and emptiness is utterly pervaded by appearance, just like fire is pervaded by it's heat and the other way around.

 

the side of emptiness is the dharmadatu-the vast expanse of the dharma sphere that is freedom from all conceptual extremes - so as emptiness pervades appearance and appearance pervades emptiness we can establish appearances to be likewise beyond conceptual extremes

 

such as:

existence

non - existence

both existence and non-existence

neither existence nor non-existence

 

in this way great equality can be established - which forms the basis for tantra and dzogchen

 

on the other hand if we posit the ultimate view to be a non-empty dharmata that is empty of dualistic appearances - then we end up having a conceptual target for meditation, how is that?

we will have:

1) a non-empty hence existent Dharmata

2) and an emptiness (non-existence) of dualistic phenomena

 

so this view can not go beyond the four conceptual extremes - to ascertain the final view in such a way falls short of actually expressing the union of emptiness and appearance that is beyond conceptual elaboration

 

if meditation is within the 4 conceptual extremes - then that means meditation has some sort of basis for grasping, well however lofty and sublime a basis it might be even if it is called "buddhanature" or "natural luminosity" - then we are still working with limited or confined perception of ordinary mind. We are not experiencing the non-dual Union of Dharmadatu & Jnana

 

so basically if one reifies buddhanature to be an ultimately existent phenomena then one contradicts the second turning of the wheel of dharma that establishes all pure and impure phenomena of samsara and nirvana as empty of essence

 

from form upto and including the omniscient mind of a Buddha everything is emptiness, insubstantial

 

that is what the prajnaparamita is teaching, and like sakya pandita said "if there would be view higher then the prajnaparamita, then this view would be conceptual"

 

now if one says it is a mere empty expanse, then that would contradict the 3rd turning of the wheel that establishes the luminous nature, or Buddhanature and the sponteniously present qualities of the kayas and jnana

 

and probably all of the tantras would be contradicted as well

 

so Mipham Rinpoches says in order to establish Buddhanature or the luminous nature correctly one needs to establish it in accordance with the second and third turning of the wheel of dharma

 

empty of essence (dharmakaya), endowed with a luminous nature (sambhogakaya) and a natural expression of all-pervading compassion and love (nirmanakaya)

 

now the actual meditation of dzogchen is exactly expressing these three things - also jnana can be understood to be exactly that just from another angle

 

anyway that is another discussion for those who have the guts to stomach it - I just ate a lot of pasta so I rather digest that first

 

we can also see and say that when we understand buddhanature to be the union of emptiness and appearance beyond conceptual extremes then all the higher yanas become a natural sequence of realizing the "appearant" aspect of Buddhanature as more and more pure/divine. I talk about this a little later in this post, first about nirvana that is the utterly pure nature (buddhanature) and nirvana that is the freedom from adventitous stains (the two obscurations)

 

as far as I know the nyigmapas and kagyupas explain enlightenment as a process of eliminating the adventitous stains, the basis never increases or decreases in qualities and purity - it is merely in eliminating the clouds of elaboration that the sun of the true nature can be seen and manifest its compassionate warmth.

It is usually not expressed as a process of cause - effect, as the true nature is not a compounded phenomenon (otherwise you could loose it again), but that does not mean it is not empty of essence... like I just tried to explain

 

space is an uncompounded phenomena that is not created, or produced through causes and conditions - yet it is empty of essence.

 

how? it is dependently designated and a mere label, even the lower philosophical schools realise this. likewise the buddhanature is empty of essence - and this empty aspect is the vast expanse of the dharmadatu that is freedom of conceptual elaboration, yet its natural expression is that of clear light - or luminous non-conceptual primordial wisdom, so it is not a mere absence like space.

 

now to the differences in Yanas:

 

so the different Unions as expressed in the different Yanas have the same basis (Buddhanature) and are merely posited with regards to this apparent aspect and the purity with which it is realised

 

Union of emptiness and appearance - the common mahayana presentation

Union of emptiness and clear light - Mahayoga

Union of emptiness and bliss - Anuyoga

Union of emptiness and pristine awareness (rigpa) - Atiyoga

Edited May 3, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Apech]

RT ... not wishing to hijack your thread but going back to my comments about 'the essence of thoughts is dharmakaya' here is my teacher on same subject .... at about 50 mins in ...

 

https://soundcloud.com/lama-jampa-thaye/teachings-on-the-prayer-to-vajradhara-part-2#t=49:55

[RigdzinTrinley]

Dear Sir, could you write it down for me - I sit in india with an incredible bad internet connection and limited bandwidth...

 

pretty please

 

[Apech]

Dear Sir, could you write it down for me - I sit in india with an incredible bad internet connection and limited bandwidth... pretty please

 

 

Its a bit long to transcribe.  Its only an audio file - can't you get it?

[RigdzinTrinley]

I will try later again

[Tibetan_Ice]

I am currently reading "Mahamudra - The Moonlight" and it sounds a lot like what Apech's guru is saying about the essence of thoughts being the Dharmakaya, albeit somewhat simplified.

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0861712994/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687502&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=8120810740&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=100KQJ6P0VY6R13441FS

 

The venerated Gampopa instructs: Coemergence of the intrinsic mind represents dharmakāya; Coemergence of appearance Represents the illumination of dharmakāya. Coemergence of the intrinsic mind means the mind’s true or actual state, whereas coemergence of appearance means all the recollective and discriminating thoughts. These two kinds of coemergence are indivisible, like the sun and its light or sandalwood and its fragrance.

 

Je Gomchung restates: Coemergence of mind is the real dharmakāya; Coemergence of appearances Is the illumination of dharmakāya; Coemergence of emotional discrimination Is the stream of dharmakāya. [These three as] indivisible coemergence Are the meaning of dharmakāya.

 

[Apech]

I am currently reading "Mahamudra - The Moonlight" and it sounds a lot like what Apech's guru is saying about the essence of thoughts being the Dharmakaya, albeit somewhat simplified.

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0861712994/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687502&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=8120810740&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=100KQJ6P0VY6R13441FS

 

 

 

Yes that's the same but somewhat more complicated

[doc benway]

What a fabulous post!

Thank you RT

_/\_

[RigdzinTrinley]

What a fabulous post!

Thank you RT

_/\_

 

didn't post that or you meant the whole thread

[RigdzinTrinley]

RT ... not wishing to hijack your thread but going back to my comments about 'the essence of thoughts is dharmakaya' here is my teacher on same subject .... at about 50 mins in ...

 

https://soundcloud.com/lama-jampa-thaye/teachings-on-the-prayer-to-vajradhara-part-2#t=49:55

 

yes the essence of thought is dharmakaya

 

and I think I also said to simply say "the thought is dharmakaya" is correct if explained and understood correctly, but could be misunderstood more easier then "the essence of thought is dharmakaya"

 

both are easier to understand then buddhas instructions "to slay ones father and mother, the king and two pure ones etc."

[doc benway]

I meant post #62 which I finally had time to read.

I was on retreat for a bit and before that quite busy with work.

[RigdzinTrinley]

Hi Apech,

 

I liked the explanation and overall feel of your lamas explanation, which made me google the good man (never heard of him - I do not know what is going on in the western Dharmaworld, I just remember the western Lamas I have a conncetion with, f.e.: James Low, and if you have time you should go meet the man, he is active in europe and I think he is residing in england most of the time)

 

your lama looks like a westerner who did it, from beginning till the end and who on top of that knows how to life in accordance with the dharma (not just moving into so called "crazy-wisdom" behaviour, which mostly is just a way of indulging the ego)

 

anyway...

 

what you think about starting a thread about "the essence of thought being dharmakaya" I come to play along for sure

 

would be a good way to bring some life again into the buddhist forum

Edited June 3, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[Apech]

Hi Apech,

 

I liked the explanation and overall feel of your lamas explanation, which made me google the good man (never heard of him - I do not know what is going on in the western Dharmaworld, I just remember the western Lamas I have a conncetion with, f.e.: James Low, and if you have time you should go meet the man, he is active in europe and I think he is residing in england most of the time)

 

your lama looks like a westerner who did it, from beginning till the end and who on top of that knows how to life in accordance with the dharma (not just moving into so called "crazy-wisdom" behaviour, which mostly is just a way of indulging the ego)

 

anyway...

 

what you think about starting a thread about "the essence of thought being dharmakaya" I come to play along for sure

 

would be a good way to bring some life again into the buddhist forum

 

Yes I was lucky enough to meet Lama Jampa (before he was a Lama) when a student at Manchester University.   So established a connection with him then but did not really follow the Buddhist path myself until years later.  He became Dharma Regent for his root guru Karma Thinley Rinpoche and established a centre in Manchester which was very popular with students.  At that time (70's and 80's) many great teachers  such as 16th Karmapa and Kalu Rinpoche visited and gave teachings.  Later an affinity with Sakya Buddhism and H. H: Sakya Trizin developed and Lama Jampa established centres based on Sakya teachings as well in Bristol and London.

 

To me he has become as if he is the living breathing dharma itself.  I don't mean this in the sense of worship or overblown reverence but simply as a fact.  He is someone in whom one can have total confidence that you will receive teachings free of any interference from personality cultism and so on.  He teaches very traditionally with Shedras on specific texts and initiations and so on - and places a lot of emphasis on samaya vows and personal conduct (which is not so popular these days).

 

The reason I like your thread is because his teaching includes quite a strong emphasis on Zhentong Madhyamaka - which I find to be a very powerful and attractive tradition.  I don't know about another thread on 'the essence of thoughts is dharmakaya' ... perhaps some related subject ... I will think on it

[RigdzinTrinley]

Mipham Rinpoche infact wrote a short teaching in defence of shentong madhyamika (didn't read that yet). I feel he is correcting a shentong interpretation that falls into an extreme, I did not really study shentong madhyamika like expressed in the kagyu tradition for example.

 

I focus on the texts and transmissions my teachers are giving - and as they are all nyingthik or heartessence dzogchen lineage holders it is mainly longchnepa, jigme lingpa and mipham rinpoche with related texts.

 

the tibetan tradition is so vast that I feel for a westerner like me to just pick up any book from a book store and flip thorugh it and try to put that kind of "hearing wisdom" into practice will result in wind-disorders and a more thick ego-shell then before.

 

maybe after this part of the training is over I'll look more into the kagyu tradition of mahamudra, as I have a strong connection with some karma kamtsang teachers and also drukpa kagyu masters - also many of my friends are students of mahamudra

 

but for now too busy with the longchenpa and his heart sons

Edited June 3, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley