Breath Meditation Experience

[Creation]

Hi Creation

Thanks for that. I did some research on Malcolm.

Seems like a fairly intelligent individual..

 

Yes indeed. The stuff in those links is very much related to his view that nadis, cakras, prana are purely physical. Here is a very learned and intelligent person whose mind is trying to fit together all these things like sutra, tantra, dzogchen, and aryurveda. And I am sympathetic to his train of thought, e.g. throwing out mind-body dualism. It's simply a matter of accounting for what my qigong teacher calls "higher level energy experiences" that leads me to disagree with a purely physiological basis for subtle energy. Yet while I disagree with him on this, I acknowledge that his qualifications are impeccable.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Creation

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Pero]

He was also asked once to be a dzogchen teacher by ChNN, but declined for personal reasons.

That was Kunzang Dechen Lingpa Rinpoche.

 

And the more relevant issue is, is alwayson qualified to understand him?

[Creation]

Which by extension means that you disagree with Tibetan Medicine and Dzogchen, since those form the basis for his understanding (especially the former.)

OK.

 

It looks like to me that you (also Jeff and TI) reify "subtle energy*" into some sort of separate entity from the coarse manifestation of the vayus...stemming from the perception of a difference/separation of both the dense energetic and subtle energetic planes of existence, due to dualistic and inherent views (of a self/Self.)

This made me smile. Apparently making distinctions is reification and hence un-Buddhist? No one told Vasubandhu I guess. Not to mention Shakyamuni.

 

From the POV of Buddhism, the individuals experience of this body through the 5 senses, any sort of 'mystical,' (astral travel, siddhis, etc. etc.) or yogic experiences of higher dimensions are all just the dependently originated phenomena of Mind (since consciousness is in actuality non-localized, hence not restricted to linearity.)

But if mind is vayu, it follows that vayu is non-localized and therefore cannot be entirely physical because the physical is localized.

 

Now, if you want to argue that the physical is not actually localized (say, due to quantum entanglement), then that redefines physical to mean something other than our mundane experience of physical matter, but this would indeed allow one to dispense with postulating non-local subtle physical dimension. This is only semantically different than my POV.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Creation

[Tibetan_Ice]

It looks like to me that you (also Jeff and TI) reify "subtle energy*" into some sort of separate entity from the coarse manifestation of the vayus.

 

Hi Simple Jack.

The way I interpret your statement, is that I am somehow "reifying" subtle energy. Where did you jump to that conclusion? Isn't that kind of an insult? I mean, to reify means to grant a form some kind of intrinsic identity separate from mind.

 

And putting me in the same group as Jeff? Thanks a lot! (no ego here.. lol) Reminds me of the show "The Thing" where they are all tied down in chairs, sitting next to each other, and suddenly, one discovers that the person they are sitting next to is really the alien.

 

Perhaps you should examine the topic a little closer.

 

This is the link where I learned that Malcolm has nonconventional (counter to new-age thinking about prana) views about prana vayu. I mean, he says things like prana vayu only comes from the air. This is not what new-age, nor even Taoist thinking says about chi/prana/energy. The Tibetan medical idea is that the finer vayus are transmuted by the body into more refined levels. Now, I'm not debating this idea. Lately, I'm of the opinion that the five lights of knowledge in the heart manifest our reality, and what happens after that is anyone's guess.

 

Anyway, here is the link to the discussion about vayus with Malcolm. You will see that the new age view is contrary to the Tibetan medicine view.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3979&hilit=namdrol%2C+vayu

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

I find if I can't focus on my breath then I shift my focus to nothing. Then my mind calms down and I can go back to concentrating on the breath.

Hi Malikshreds

 

Thanks for your comment. If you mind is too excited, then you should seek a remedy. This is what Alan Wallace suggests:

 

http://www.mandalamagazine.org/tag/b-alan-wallace/

 

More generally, the cultivation of shamatha leads to freedom from the five obscurations of (1) laxity and dullness, (2) uncertainty, (3) malice, (4) excitation and guilt, and (5) sensual craving. The Buddha declared, “So long as these five obscurations are not abandoned one considers himself as indebted, sick, in bonds, enslaved and lost in a desert track.”^[2] Indian Buddhist contemplatives discovered that these five obscurations are counteracted by the five factors of meditative stabilization. Specifically, (1) coarse examination counteracts laxity and dullness, (2) precise investigation counteracts uncertainty, (3) well-being counteracts malice, (4) bliss counteracts excitation and guilt, and (5) single-pointed attention counteracts sensual craving. It is fascinating to note that such non-discursive practice can be effective in overcoming sensual craving and malice, thereby serving as a basis for developing renunciation and compassion.

 

So, the remedy for excitation is bliss.

 

Have you ever gotten to the point in breath meditation where you merge into the counterpart sign (star) and go into a jhanic state?

 

With all due respect, the experience that I talk about on this post is precisely that, having finally succeeded...

 

Good luck with your meditations.

 

TI

Edited December 30, 2012 by Tibetan_Ice

[C T]

When meditation arise with ease, rest in that.

 

When it becomes hard, rest in that too.

 

After a while of training in this way, with the constant awareness aroused to see the tendencies which give rise to identification (what is good, what is not good, what is desirable, what is not desirable in one's practice), then gradually, whatever anxieties that normally follow as one begins formal meditation will subside, effortlessly. Then, let go of even the bliss arising out of this subsiding, thus see what remains after.

[Simple_Jack]

But if mind is vayu, it follows that vayu is non-localized and therefore cannot be entirely physical because the physical is localized.

 

From the sutric POV, the elements (which comprise matter, which is categorized as the rupaskandha) arise from Mind.

 

http://www.dharmawhe...php?f=48&t=3943

 

Malcolm: Prior to analyzing phenomena as mind-only, mind and matter are conventionally regarded as a dualism even in Yogacara. Why, because the imputed nature is exactly the conventional world.

 

Also in standard Madhyamaka, on the conventional level mind and matter are regarded as distinct.

 

While the annutarayoga tantras move in the direction of dissolving the distinction between mind and matter, the substance dualism in Buddhism is only satisfactorily resolved in Dzogchen (but not by regarding all phenomena as mind-- which is a point of view rejected by Longchenpa incoherent).

 

In Dzogchen, mind and matter are regarded as seamlessly welded, not that mind has primacy over matter. Dzogchen texts even go so far as to reject the formless realm as truly formless*.

 

This is why for example the Khandro Nyinthig states very clearly "Sometimes we say "citta", sometimes "vāyu",but the meaning is the same."Vāyu is just the element of air i.e. motility present in matter. This also accounts for rebirth. In the Guhyasamaja, for example, the ālayavijñāna is wedded to the mahāprāṇavāyu -- this union allows rebirth to happen.

 

Mind and matter are inseparable from a tantric point of view.

 

 

http://www.dharmawhe...t=8616&start=40

 

Malcolm: As we have seen, for Dzogchen it is because the differentiation between mind and vāyu is merely nominal (different names for the same thing in a body), and thus, all sentient beings must have a physical body, even if it is very subtle, including formless realm beings. Vāyu of course is the name of the air element, and means that. Vāyu, air (Tibetan: rlung) is given the name "prāṇa" (Tibetan: srog) soley because it gives life. Furthere, each of the five elements contains the potentiality of the other four elements within it.

 

http://www.dharmawhe...t=3943&start=20

 

Malcolm: In Dzogchen, mind and matter exist because of avidya. When there is no more avidyā,for you there is niether mind nor matter...But to get back to the main point -- for example we talk about "subtle minds". What are subtle minds, what makes them subtle? The reduced frequency of spanda, pulsation, movement of the vāyu in the body. When the vāyu moves, concepts arise -- no movement, no concepts. No concepts, nothing really we can call mind at all. When the vāyu moves very little, then we call that "a subtle mind"....In sutra methods, the movements of mind are always coarse -- apart from that fact that as a bodhisattva moves through the paths and stages the physical body they appropriate becomes ever more refined and thus the movement of vāyu becomes ever more subtle and unobstructed, especially after the eighth bhumi....

 

 

*Concerning formless realm beings, this is what Malcolm says:

 

http://www.dharmawhe...=8616&start=180

 

Malcolm: As I said, according to the [abhidharma-] Kosha, beings in the ārupyadhātu do not possess physical sense organs; they possess a mental faculty, a consciousness and single mental object (the concentration which propells their rebirth). They likewise possess only three faculties (indriya)-- the mental faculty, the life faculty, and the faculty of equanimity.

 

You argument was about self-awareness. Formless realm beings have none

 

http://www.dharmawhe...t=3746&start=60

 

Malcolm: In early Theravada, it is asserted that formless realm beings have a very subtle form.

 

Also, in Dzogchen it is asserted that formless realm beings actually have subtle form.

 

http://www.dharmawhe...=5678&start=460

 

gregkavarnos: I remember you saying in another thread that consciousness is composed of the mahabhuta of air, from which yana does this teaching come from, and if it is true (across all yana) then does this then not mean that even formless realm beings have a (subtle) physical basis (I was going to say body, but then reminded myself of name and form [Nama-Rupa])?

 

Malcolm: This is the point of view of Dzogchen, not sutra.

 

gregkavarnos: So there are no formless realms in Dzogchen?

 

Malcolm: The class exists, but here "formless" means "very little form", similar with Theravada Abhidhamma understanding of formless realms. It is kind if like saying that you are broke, even though you can afford a cup of coffee.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

But if mind is vayu, it follows that vayu is non-localized and therefore cannot be entirely physical because the physical is localized.

 

As you know, according to Dzogchen: Each new universe is created due to the latent afflictions of the basis [the 'basis' referring to a time between universes] where as explained here:

 

http://www.dharmawhe...php?f=48&t=8429

 

trevor wrote: So all those beings that have not achieved budhahood through the Dzogche doctrine will have to cycle in samsara again at the end of the dark eon?

 

Malcolm: Not exactly. What happens is, the best I understand is, is that while their consciousnesses are liberated, they have not completely eradicated all traces from the elements, and therefore, this unresolved contamination causes the latent awareness in the basis to arise from the movement of vāyu in the basis. When this neutral awareness recognizes its own state, it becomes prajñā, when it does not, it becomes ignorance. Just to be clear, this latent awareness of the basis is not a unified field, it is relative and differentiated. Thus, even though all sentient beings acheive liberation, sentient beings are not somehow newly created.

 

Sentient beings are just nexus of affliction, nothing more.

 

 

http://www.dharmawhe...delusion#p89967

 

Malcolm: Sentient beings are deluded about the display of the basis. When they cease to be so deluded, they are buddhas.

 

The basis never displays as anything other than the five lights.

 

Further, The Luminous Space states:

• 
  That mind is produced out of the dualistic grasping
  to the six objects of the manifestation of wisdom.
  

How can that [mind] be produced? Since [the mind] is produced from that ignorance that does not recognize the intrinsic manifestation of wisdom [the mind] is produced.

 

Sentient beings, rocks and trees are assembled by delusion about the basis. But the basis only displays one way. It does not display as both samsara and nirvana.

 

Since that critical point of luminous empty vidyā was not recognized, grasping onto that produced the five elements, and the causal thigle [was produced] from the refined part of those. The body was produced from that [refined part] and energy [rtsal] of wisdom produces the five sense gates in that [body]. Within those [sense gates] the five wisdoms are produced. The five [sense gates] grasping onto those [five wisdoms produce] the five afflictions. After first being created by the energy of wisdom; in the middle, it was not recognized that the body of the refined part of the assembled elements actually is the five wisdoms, since this was not realized through intellectual views, the non-sentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it. Here, it is actually five wisdoms to begin with; in the middle, when the body is formed from assembly of the elements through ignorance grasping onto those [five wisdoms] also, it is actually the five wisdoms. The five aggregates, sense organs, and afflictions also are actually the five wisdoms. In the end, since one transcends accepting, rejecting, proofs, and negations since those are realized to not be real. As such, the sign of non-duality is [the body] disappearing into wisdom without any effluents because the critical point of the non-duality or sameness of the non-sentient and the sentient was understood according to the Guru’s intimate instruction.

 

The basis only is the five wisdom and only displays the five wisdoms -- the rest is delusion. Ignorance [avidyā] is not a display of the basis, it is delusion about the display of the basis. Knowledge is not a display of the basis, it is the absence of delusion about the display of the basis.

 

One basis, two paths, two results.

 

http://www.dharmawhe...t=8536&start=40

 

Malcolm: Ye nas means "has always been...", it contrasts another grammatical phrase rtag tu i.e. "...will always be".

 

Wisdom has no origin, it formed naturally. Hence the metaphor of the peacock feather.

 

The elements form from the non-recognition of of the five lights of connected with the five wisdoms....."Timeless awareness" is a translator's gloss of the term ye shes. You cannot understand Dzogchen without understand the terms and a bit of tibetan grammer. These are the various ways this term has been translated:

 

ye shes - jnana, (exalted, primordial) wisdom, (primal, transcending, original, unitary, authentic, pure, absolute, a priori, genuine, spiritual, ever-fresh, pristine) awareness, wakefulness, pristine cognition, mystic illumination, gnosis, understanding by peak experience, (intuitive, transcending, comprehensive, true) knowledge, SA mched pa'i ye shes, mnyam nyid ye shes, me long ye shes, chos dbyings ye shes, bya sgrub ye shes, sor rtog ye shes, perfect absolute divine wisdom, pristine wisdom, primordial awareness, timeless awareness

 

Since the brain is made of five elements, it too is made of the five wisdoms (ye shes) of vidyā. Therefore, there is no problem with awareness, etc., having a basis in the body. Actually, what we say in Dzogchen is that the wisdom of vidyā is located in the heart, the energy of vidyā is located in the brain, where it governs sense organs and cognitions.....The Khandro Nyinthig states:

• 
  Since that mind arose as automatic manifestation of six mental apprehenders, the five elements are produced. Since those are not recognized as the five wisdoms, the five elements assemble in dependence upon grasping those [five wisdoms]. Since those assemble, the body forms through the action of one [element] assisting the other. With that forms the apprehended and the apprehender.
  

And:

• 
  As such, that basis, the natural reality of things, the great intrinsic energy of wisdom, the dharmakāya, was not recognized, and because of the stains of grasping to it, the elements assemble; the body forms from them, and based on that [body], one wanders in samsara until one ages and dies.
  

And:

• 
  Since the five energies of wisdom are unceasing, the body forms from the five elements. Since two kāyas are integrated with the relative elements, that previous understanding of the intrinsic energy of wisdom is totally forgotten. The ultimate four elements is the dharmakāya, the relative four elements is the sambogakāya. Nirmanakāya is the lack of sameness and difference of the two kāyas.
  

And:

• 
  To sum it all up, ignorant attachment to dualistic appearances assembles the energy of wisdom into the elements, and forms the body in actuality.
  

And:

• 
  Energy is produced unceasingly from that wisdom. Since that energy was not recognized, that apparent and natureless radiant luminosity of wisdom arose as the empty luminosity of the five lights. [430] Within that, since this thinker of thoughts grasps the unceasing energy of wisdom, and since that five colored energy is assembled as the elements, therefore, the body, flesh, blood, warmth, breath, channels and so on are formed from that energy of wisdom. For as long as the mind and the body do not separate, the channels, vāyus, bindus, wisdoms and so on are inseparable. Since that is not recognized as such and the one is grasped as many, like the nameless becoming named, since the five wisdoms, the five afflictions, and so on are divisions in one thing, also those wishing for Buddhahood have aggregates, without contacting the meaning of this even slightly. With this everything is recognized as coming from the energy of wisdom. Since inseparability is recognized, therefore the defiled also comes from the energy of wisdom. Also that self-liberated from the mind, and as the defiled does not appear, Buddhahood is attained in the expanse of wisdom. Therefore, it is inseparable. Others hold them as different, and respond with practice.
  

And:

• 
  ... after the body formed because the energy of initial vidyā was not recognized as wisdom, there is delusion because of the grasping of materiality, and wandering in samsara.
  

And:

• 
  The relative material bindu is the intrinsic radiance of those five wisdoms of the originally pure dharmadhātu externally manifesting as five lights, after which, the elements are produced upon the mere traces of grasping of the mind. Further, the natural reality of that mind (that established in anyway) is space. Whether that is like this or not, the energy of that vivid luminosity arising as the diversity, that is called “vāyu”, it is called “mind”. Though luminosity is called mind, because of movement, it is called “vāyu”. When examined, it is not established in anyway. Also luminosity is not established, also movement is not established, also inseparability is not established.
   
  Since that is not recognized, since that energy that grasps so called “vāyu” produces heat, there is fire. For example, just as when sweat and heat is produced when a person does hard work, [fire] is produced from that grasping onto heat. When the heat of fire touches the ground, water is produced in the form of vapor. Since grasping onto that energy of wisdom arose, the outer five elements are produced, caused one by one. The five elements form matter. Since grasping onto that arose, the five elements assemble, and the body forms through the condition of the five refined parts of those [elements], one by one.
   
  If it is asked why, now then to begin with, the energy of wisdom is vāyu, from that is heat; from that, earth; from that, water: since each assists another, the body develops more i.e. the body actually forms out of the refined part of the five elements. That [body] is pervaded by the refined part of the five elements. The refined parts and that energy of wisdom are given the name “channels, vāyus, and bindu”. The energy of wisdom is the five elements. Since wisdom is present in them, there are five wisdoms. That is given the name material bindu. Wisdom is inseparably present within that material bindu.
  

And:

• 
  Further, to begin with, the body is formed by ignorance of the wisdom of basis. The nature of wisdom in that body is the refined part of the five elements, present in the material bindu as the play of the kāyas and wisdoms. Since their luminous radiance arose as light, it is given the name “three wisdoms”.
  

And:

• 
  Though the body is formed form ignorance of the basis, as soon as that is recognized, it is not beyond wisdom in the beginning, the end and in the middle.
  

Etc. this text just goes on and on in the same vein.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Simple_Jack

[ChiDragon]

I find if I can't focus on my breath then I shift my focus to nothing. Then my mind calms down and I can go back to concentrating on the breath.

 

That's all it takes.......

[Simple_Jack]

I have examined the topic and I personally see no problem with what he's saying. I'm basing it off these posts:

 

Vāyu is part of the rūpa skandha. It is one of the four mahābhutani, great elements. When we breath in, the air we breath is vāyu. In the body, that vāyu that we breath in becomes the ten vāyus depending on how vāyu is functioning in a given part of the body....

There are five elements: earth, water, fire, air and space -- they are material, whether coarse or subtle.

When transmigration happens at the time of death, the mind/wind leaves specific orifices of the body, or channel openings. This would bot be necessary if the wind upon which the mind is mounted was not itself physical and material.

For example, when you have flatulence, this comes from the apana vāyu, the downward-voiding wind. That flatus is apana-vāyu.

Vāyu in the body is coarse or subtle depending upon how much it is moving. But it is still something physical, part of the rūpa skandha.

If you cannot accept this explanation, then you have to invent terms that do not exist in the original Tibetan and Sanskrit texts, such as the Vajramālā tantra that explain things like vāyus and so on.

I prefer to not to interpolate new age ideas onto Vajrayāna. So, I accept that vāyu in the body comes from the breath. If you think about it long enough, you will understand that I am correct. You need to study tantric embryology. When you do, this will make more sense to you....

The five elements are inherent in consciousness; consciousness is inherent in the five elements. There are no levels of subatomic anything which exist outside the sadadhātu, consciousness, space, air, fire, water and earth.

If you want to go further, we could discuss how these gross expressions of the sadadhātu have their corollaries in terms of wisdom and the five lights....

Now you can see that even the subatomic level must have the five elements in order to be material, physical (rūpena)....

Sadadhātu is the teaching of the Buddha....

You are missing the basic point of what I am saying. What I am saying is that if it is mental or material in any sense it is subsumed under the categories outlined by the Buddha. The description of the four elements describe all material states.

Since, I'm already somewhat familiar with the teachings of the skandhas and elements in orthodox Buddhism, his posts weren't hard to accept (or understand.) It seems to me that Creation, Jeff, and you are unfamiliar with these concepts, which is why there are discrepancies in understanding.

For example like what was said in this thread:

 

 

 

http://www.dharmawhe...php?f=48&t=3943

Adinatha: The Buddha never taught a reality outside of phenomena.

Malcolm: Agreed, all phenomena are included in the six elements*.

adinatha: The issue of vayu is the same. There is no wind apart from movement. There is not fire apart from heat. There is no earth apart from solidity or water from wetness.

Malcolm: Agreed -- yet these are the basic constituents of the rūpaskandha, the aggregate of matter.

adinatha: It is how these appear to the senses that makes them elements, not that they are the basic parts of matter.

Malcolm: Disagree. All material things possess these four qualities in some mix. Take notice, I am not arguing for these as ultimate realities.

*Citta or 'mind' comprising the 6th element included with the earth, wind/air, fire, water and space elements.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Tibetan_Ice]

It was based off what you said on the first page against Malcolms assertions of vayu, which is I lumped you with Creation and Jeff. You can take it as an insult if want to.

 

I have examined the topic and I personally see no problem with what he's saying. I'm basing it off these posts:

 

Since, I'm already somewhat familiar with the teachings of the skandhas and elements in orthodox Buddhism, his posts weren't hard to accept (or understand.) It seems to me that Creation, Jeff, and you are unfamiliar with these concepts, which is why there are discrepancies in understanding.

 

For example like what was said in this thread:

 

*Citta or 'mind' comprising the 6th element included with the earth, wind/air, fire, water and space elements.

 

Hi Simple Jack.

 

What is the sadadhatu? The only place using Google that I can find a reference is off the Dharma Wheel. I would prefer to see the meaning from a source other than Malcom, just for comparison.

Is it spelled correctly?

 

Thanks.

TI

[Simple_Jack]

What is the sadadhatu? The only place using Google that I can find a reference is off the Dharma Wheel. I would prefer to see the meaning from a source other than Malcom, just for comparison.

The sadadhatu are the 6 elements of: Earth, fire, water, air, space, consciousness (as Malcolm said in the above quotes.) I couldn't find a source (other than DW,) on the Sanskrit, but could find one for the Tibetan translation (which is khams drug) from rangjung yeshe wiki:

 

http://rywiki.tsadra....php/khams_drug

Khams Drug

 

6 materializing forces (solidification, cohesion, temperature, motility, noetic capacity, spatiality) [JV]

the six elements [iW]

the six elements [sa'i khams - chu'i khams, me'i khams, rlung gikhams, nam mkha'i khams, rnam par shes pa'i khams] [iW]

the six elements. 1] sa 2] chu 3] me 4] rlung 5] nam mkha' space 6] rnam shes consciousness [RY]

 

http://rywiki.tsadra...index.php/rlung

 

rlung

 

1) wind, air [element], breeze; 2) breath, breathing, vital energy, vayu; 3) prana [vital current of energy/ air] four pranayama [cf rtsa lung thig le energy channels, currents and seminal points]; 4) anger [iW]

 

If you can't find it on the internet you could find it in the abhidharma-kosha. Though, being that he's a loppon/acharya there's a reason why people trust the accuracy of his posts (would you prefer I find out from someone other than Malcolm, who can read/translate Sanskrit and Tibetan??? Such as Jnana from DW???)

 

Here's something from the Pali cannon on the dhatu's:

 

 

http://www.accesstoi...n.140.than.html

 

Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties

 

The Blessed One said: "A person has six properties, six media of sensory contact, eighteen considerations, & four determinations. He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace. One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm. This is the summary of the analysis of the six properties........

 

"'...A person has six properties.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property. 'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.....

"'...One should not be negligent of discernment, should guard the truth, be devoted to relinquishment, and train only for calm.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? And how is one not negligent of discernment? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property.

 

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.

 

"And what is the liquid property? The liquid property may be either internal or external. What is the internal liquid property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's liquid, watery, & sustained: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's liquid, watery, & sustained: This is called the internal liquid property. Now both the internal liquid property & the external liquid property are simply liquid property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the liquid property and makes the liquid property fade from the mind.

 

"And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's fire, fiery, & sustained: that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, & consumed with fever; and that by which what is eaten, drunk, consumed & tasted gets properly digested; or anything else internal, within oneself, that's fire, fiery, & sustained: This is called the internal fire property. Now both the internal fire property & the external fire property are simply fire property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the fire property and makes the fire property fade from the mind.

 

"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, & sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the internal wind property & the external wind property are simply wind property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes the wind property fade from the mind.

 

"And what is the space property? The space property may be either internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind.

 

"There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.'

 

"Just as when, from the friction & conjunction of two fire sticks, heat is born and fire appears, and from the separation & disjunction of those very same fire sticks, the concomitant heat ceases, is stilled; in the same way, in dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain... One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling... ceases, is stilled.'

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

But if mind is vayu, it follows that vayu is non-localized and therefore cannot be entirely physical because the physical is localized.

Found another thread from dharmawheel explaining the mind/matter dichotomy in sutrayana:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=8380&start=0

 

Malcolm: If you elevate everything to the ultimate level, even "...matter is unconditioned without anything missing", as it says in the Yum Chenmo, the sutra of Perfect Wisdom in 100,000 lines.

 

But the Buddhist scholastics from Sarvastivada up to Dharmakirti have always maintained a hard division between mind and matter, between nāma on the one hand and rūpa on the other. For example, in the account of the twelve links in the Vibhanga, the Pali Abhidharma compendium, when discussing the twelve nidanas, it even leaves off the rūpa in the nidana of nāmarūpa, running ignorance, formations, consciousness, name, etc.

 

The Yogacara school attempts to supercede this dualism through asserting that everything is fundamentally a projection of the mind -- in fact the 15th century Lamdre Master Khyentse Wangchuk states, there is no dualism of mind and matter because everything is mind.

 

As we know, Madhyamaka adopts the conventional truth either according to the Sautrantika system, or the Yogacara system. But since it's own perspective is grounded in the Prajñāpāramitasūtras, it regards distinctions such as mind and matter to be merely conventional designations that do not have any real basis apart from imputation.

 

But we can see that this division is well preserved in Buddhist tantric literature (as well as Hindu tantric literature) when we find for example that the mind is described as a rider of a horse, vāyu. This is because both forms of tantra, Buddhist as well as Hindu, are concerned with the mechanics of the body for understanding how to gain realization through our embodiment through the practice of various kinds of yoga.

 

Granted, this is sometimes is found in Dzogchen literature as well. But when we examine that actual system of Dzogchen according to the ancient Dzogchen tantras, we find that in fact even consciousness itself is generated phsyiologically in the body by a vāyu. I have yet to find in an original Dzogchen tantra the common Buddhist term khams drug, sadadhātu i.e. earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness. I may yet find it, but at least the Valby KWIC tool does not in fact list it in the 83 or so important Dzogchen tantras that he converted into searchable text files. It also does not list every instance of thod rgal in the Dzogchen tantras as well so its look up routines are not completely infallible. But there are hundreds of references to the five elements ('byung lnga, pañcabhutani).

 

I have been also examining the Mdzod phug lately, Bon "Abhidharma" and cosmology, is largely freed from the constraints of Buddhist conservatism, has very interesting things to say about the five elements and so on, and when is a text clearly influenced by Dzogchen. A kind of Dzogchen Abhidharma. One of the reasons why I started looking into this text is that the Rigpa Rangshar tantra contains a very breif mention of a primordial egg cosmology which accounts for the formation of the world, similar to the Vedas and Bon:

 

Now, to demonstrate the ignorance of the object of delusion: delusion is deluded by the forgoing. The field is prior to the formation of the world; a so called “wish-fulfilling tree” grows, a tree growing from the blessing of the youthful vase body of the buddha, born from warmth and moisture which arose from an egg. The Sahāloka formed from the mind disturbing the so-called self-originated wisdom in that. That is called the ignorance of the field of delusion.

[Tibetan_Ice]

The sadadhatu are the 6 elements of: Earth, fire, water, air, space, consciousness (as Malcolm said in the above quotes.) I couldn't find a source (other than DW,) on the Sanskrit, but could find one for the Tibetan translation (which is khams drug) from rangjung yeshe wiki:

 

 

 

If you can't find it on the internet you could find it in the abhidharma-kosha. Though, being that he's a loppon/acharya there's a reason why people trust the accuracy of his posts (would you prefer I find out from someone other than Malcolm, who can read/translate Sanskrit and Tibetan??? Such as Jnana from DW???)

 

Here's something from the Pali cannon on the dhatu's:

 

 

 

From the POV of Buddhism: When you begin to understand the nature of the air element, internal and external "breath," are undifferentiated.

 

Hi Simple Jack

I liked that link to the Pali. The thing I have been thinking about is this: The elements or six properties must be impermanent. Therefore, does that mean that consciousness (within the context of those writings) is also impermanent?

 

And again, if consciousness is infinite, non-created, unborn, the true reality, how can it be reduced to an impermanent element like air/fire/water/earth/space?

 

In Bon, there are the five lights (not six).

 

I can agree that "wind" is mind, as it is said in other teachings that prana is mind, and when the prana flow stops, there is no mind. But within that context, what remains is something other than mind, and it is often called awareness.

 

But I liked the part when it says:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

 

"There remains only equanimity: pure & bright, pliant, malleable, & luminous. Just as if a skilled goldsmith or goldsmith's apprentice were to prepare a furnace, heat up a crucible, and, taking gold with a pair of tongs, place it in the crucible: He would blow on it time & again, sprinkle water on it time & again, examine it time & again, so that the gold would become refined, well-refined, thoroughly refined, flawless, free from dross, pliant, malleable, & luminous. Then whatever sort of ornament he had in mind — whether a belt, an earring, a necklace, or a gold chain — it would serve his purpose. In the same way, there remains only equanimity: pure & bright, pliant, malleable, & luminous. One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this toward the dimension of the infinitude of space, I would develop the mind along those lines, and thus this equanimity of mine — thus supported, thus sustained — would last for a long time. One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this toward the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, I would develop the mind along those lines, and thus this equanimity of mine — thus supported, thus sustained — would last for a long time.'

 

"One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.' One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

 

 

In my mind, "fabricated" is something you build out of the five elements. So isn't the so-called sixth element the fabricator (when it grasps) and the elements are actually the fabricatees?

 

But again, we are in another realm with slightly different terminology, different usage of the words and terms, so really who knows what anyone is talking about let along compare from Dzogchen to Buddhism..

 

TI

[Tibetan_Ice]

The sadadhatu are the 6 elements of: Earth, fire, water, air, space, consciousness (as Malcolm said in the above quotes.) I couldn't find a source (other than DW,) on the Sanskrit, but could find one for the Tibetan translation (which is khams drug) from rangjung yeshe wiki:

 

 

 

Hi SJ,

It sounds to me like they are distinguishing between conceptual consciousness and that which does not conceive.

 

http://rywiki.tsadra...x.php/rnam_shes

 

consciousness, vijnana; rten 'brel yan lag gsum pa ni/ kun gzhi'i rnam shes kyi steng du las kyi bag chags yongs su bzhag pas rnam shes de nyid yongs su 'gyur ba'i cha yin la/ de la'ang rgyu dus kyi rnam shes dang/ 'bras bu'i dus kyi rnam shes gnyis su yod do the cognitions; consciousness, consciousness principle, primary consciousness, discriminative cognition, [a point which needs to be made clear is the distinction between 'mind' and 'consciousness.' In the Buddhist tradition mind is purely that which perceives. It doesn't require brainwork, it is simple perception, just on the level of the nervous system. This instinctive function is called 'mind.' In Sanskrit 'chitta' means 'heart,' 'essence' that basic essence of mind which contains the faculty of perception. This kind of perception called mind [reacting to opposites and so on] is very direct, simple and subtle at the same time. Consciousness on the other hand, is articulated and intelligent, it contains 'mind' feelings and thought patterns.]; mode of awareness perception; skye gnas su 'khrid par byed pa'i rgyu [RY]

 

 

If you can't find it on the internet you could find it in the abhidharma-kosha. Though, being that he's a loppon/acharya there's a reason why people trust the accuracy of his posts (would you prefer I find out from someone other than Malcolm, who can read/translate Sanskrit and Tibetan??? Such as Jnana from DW???)

 

It's no big deal. I was just curious, that is all.

 

I appreciate all the time it has taken to cut and paste these topics. Thanks. All the best.

TI

Edited January 2, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[Simple_Jack]

And again, if consciousness is infinite, non-created, unborn, the true reality, how can it be reduced to an impermanent element like air/fire/water/earth/space?

"The five elements are inherent in consciousness; consciousness is inherent in the five elements. There are no levels of subatomic anything which exist outside the sadadhātu, consciousness, space, air, fire, water and earth." ~ Malcolm

 

As for the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: Take note that this was spoken to a person who's karmic conditions for awakening were ripe. Also, that the person was adept at meditation, since this is referencing the 4th jhana when 'equanimity' is mentioned. The whole sutta is about realizing the 3 characteristics [anicca, dukkha, anatta,] the cessation of the 12-fold chain and overcoming the conceit of "I AM" to reach arhatship.

 

"This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'...."'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace....."Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."

 

Here's a link to his talk on this sutta by Bhikkhu Bodhi: http://audio.buddhis...m/eng/play/1123

 

And this from Bhikkhu Bodhi ["Transcendental Dependent Arising: A Translation and Exposition of the Upanisa Sutta"] can also be helpful to understand some priniciples of Buddhism: http://www.accesstoi...i/wheel277.html

 

Reading and listening to Dharma, should be followed by reflection and meditation on the meaning (of the teachings.)

 

It sounds to me like they are distinguishing between conceptual consciousness and that which does not conceive.

This is from a person who has translated a bunch of Bon texts:

 

http://yungdrung-rig...s-yid-t348.html

 

Jean-Luc:

 

Dear Lung tha,

 

 

Quote:

What does mean Shes pa?

 

Shes-pa functions both as a verb and as a noun. As a verb it basically means "to know", and given the context you can broaden the field of the translation by choosing "to conceptualize", and also sometimes "to understand", "to cognize", etc. As a noun, it basically means knowledge in the most ordinary sense of the word but, again, given the context, you may adapt the translation to "cognition", "learning", "science", even "recogntion", etc. Sometimes you also have it with the meaning of consciousness.

 

 

Quote:

What does mean Nam shes?

 

rNam-shes means consciousness. It is short for rnam-par shes-pa. It can be a sense consciousness or a mental consciousness.

 

 

Quote:

What does mean Yid?

 

Yid is the mental, like in the mental consciousness (yid kyi rnam par shes pa), characterized by discursiveness and faculty of reasoning, intelligence, etc.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

since Xabir tends to know what he's talking when it comes to things like this

 

How do you figure? Xabir does not know what hes talking about in general.

[RongzomFan]

But wait, you did talk to someone about that at the Dharma Wheel, didn't you? And Tsongkhapa too! I guess that was before you decided to respect the Dalai Lama's wished and shun Tsongkhapa..

 

Why would the Dalai Lama shun Tsongkhapa, when Tsongkhapa founded his entire Gelugpa school?

[Tibetan_Ice]

Why would the Dalai Lama shun Tsongkhapa, when Tsongkhapa founded his entire Gelugpa school?

 

I guess you don't even read threads that you post in...

 

http://thetaobums.co...ama-tsongkhapa/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_Tsongkhapa

 

The Madhyamaka of Tsongkhapa has significant deviations from the other Indian and Tibetan authors, despite claims of following in the tradition of Buddhapalita and Candrakīrti.^[9][10] Tsongkhapa's Madhyamaka was widely condemned to the point that one Tibetan scholar, Gorampa, insinuated that Tsongkhapa was inspired not by Manjushri but by an evil demon.^[11] Karl Brunnhölzl further states:

"First, with a few exceptions, the majority of books or articles on Madhyamaka by Western - particularly North American - scholars is based on the explanations of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. Deliberately or not, many of these Western presentations give the impression that the Gelugpa system is more or less equivalent to Tibetan Buddhism as such and that this school's way of presenting Madhyamaka is the standard or even the only way to explain this system, which has led to the still widely prevailing assumption that this is actually the case. From the perspective of Indian and Tibetan Buddhism in general, nothing could be more wrong. In fact, the peculiar Gelugpa version of Madhaymaka is a minority position in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, since its uncommon features are neither found in any Indian text nor accepted by any of the other Tibetan schools."

 

Edited January 12, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[RongzomFan]

What does Shugden have to do with anything?

 

I'm so lost at this point.

[RongzomFan]

TI,

 

Are you part of the Shugden cult now?

[RongzomFan]

I guess you don't even read threads that you post in...

 

http://thetaobums.co...ama-tsongkhapa/

 

I read it again. And?

[RongzomFan]

Why do I have the feeling you mixed up Tsongkhapa with Kelsang Gyatso (the guy who is shunned for promoting Shugden)?

 

HH Dalai Lama writes from the viewpoint of Tsongkhapa, the founder of the Gelug school.

 

http://books.google....ved=0CDAQuwUwAA

Edited January 13, 2013 by alwayson