The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

[themiddleway]

 

I have only received teachings from my Dzogchen lama. Aside from Guru yoga I employ support practices like Trul Kor, mantra, pranayama and other seated meditative methods. I practice Dzogchen because I have a strong connection with my Lama and it works for me, I don't like Dzogchen exceptionalism. I'm not convinced about the Historicity of Dzogchen, I prefer to think of it as a off shoot from the Maha siddha movement in India. For example Trul Kor was transmitted buy the Siddha Humkara, My lama also teaches Chod which came from Machig Labdron etc

Padmasambava supposedly learnt Tantric methods from a lot of different Gurus including the mythic Garab Dorje.

The point I'm trying to make is we know virtually nothing about the early founders of Vajrayana so clinging too tightly to namers like Dzogchen Mahamudra belies the unsubstantiated origins of Vajrayana. I believe it began as a revelatory movement in ossified monastic institutions, in fact you could argue that all of Buddhism was revelatory, since it's questionable whether shakyamuni existed.

We tend to ignore a lot of the above when wrestling with semantics-that's not to say that debate is'nt useful - but it should not supplant practice. The only thing that really matters is finding a proper Guru and applying their teachings. Some people aren't very interllectaul, I'm not so good at debate, I would prefer my yoga mat over words any day.

[gatito]

<Snip>

 

........in fact you could argue that all of Buddhism was revelatory, since it's questionable whether shakyamuni existed.

We tend to ignore a lot of the above when wrestling with semantics-that's not to say that debate is'nt useful - but it should not supplant practice. The only thing that really matters is finding a proper Guru and applying their teachings. <snip>

 

QFT! (again )

 

(This is turning out to be a nice thread after all )

[rex]

The irony is that the (predominately Christian and right wing) members were far more supportive, cooperative, generous, and caring for each other there than the "Buddhists" and "Daoists" are here - and it was quite sincere.

Those folks would get nothing but scorn here, simply for their perceived religious and political beliefs, and yet they were much more open and accepting than most of the "spiritual" folks are here.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh or bitter, I'm really not feeling that way, just making a curious observation.

I haven't figured it out yet… but I've come to accept it, more or less.

I've experienced something similar. I remember attending a teaching and the (Buddhist) teacher said something along the lines of 'Beware of spiritual people, especially Buddhists. The Dharma can attract some terrible people. Far better to hang out with simple country folk. Sure they are bit conservative but they can be relied upon.'

[steve]

Steve, what are you talking about? There's a whole sub-forum where people discuss Bible passages and Christian mysticism.

I've seen quite a lot of negative talk towards folks here based on religious and political beliefs. Certainly not everyone, not even the majority. Just a vocal minority. There seems to be quite a bit of spiritual elitism around, some may even feel that I am guilty of that. It's not easy to get to know folks well through digital communication...

 

Steve, in case you're wondering: I don't have any animosity or scorn against the Bonpo.

I wasn't wondering. I generally take all available information into consideration and reach my own conclusions. Thank you for the additional information.

 

What's wrong with the debate and so on? It's an excellent way to refine one's understanding of the teachings on a relative level, which if done skillfully will aid in direct experiential recognition in the ultimate sense.

 

This is why right view is first and foremost on the eightfold path.

 

All I see is Buddhist values here.

Debate is an excellent tool and very useful in developing and refining the view.

And at some point, one has a pretty good handle on the view and can let go of constant debate and work more on practice and integration...

I see more (?less) than Buddhist values here quite frequently but that's OK, we're all working on improving ourselves, hopefully.

 

Do you think Buddha had direct transmission?

.?.

The Bönpo offer a very interesting take on the history and transmission of Dzogchen, In their version, all of the Buddhas received transmission in turn, starting from beyond this plane of existence. They trace the tradition back directly to Kuntuzangpo (Samantabhadra).

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=78&t=9879

 

The guru is integral to the path of Dzogchen.

We can certainly agree on this. Although I do believe that there are those who are fortunate enough to come into contact with the Natural State without the benefit of a living guru. The key is what they then do with that, how to find context for it and express it in ones daily life. "Understanding" it, learning to stabilize, and then integrate it, are very challenging, even WITH the benefit of a guru.

 

I've experienced something similar. I remember attending a teaching and the (Buddhist) teacher said something along the lines of 'Beware of spiritual people, especially Buddhists. The Dharma can attract some terrible people. Far better to hang out with simple country folk. Sure they are bit conservative but they can be relied upon.'

My opinion and observation is that religious and spiritual organizations tend to attract people who are wrestling with demons and looking for help and relief. Certainly not everyone, but enough to be significant. There is a reason why we see horrifying crimes like pedophilia among the clergy (in all faiths)... So yes, religious and spiritual gatherings are not necessarily filled with loving and mutually supportive people. However, with proper guidance and atmosphere I do think that such environments can be conducive to favorable growth. Like Apech, I've always hoped something like that would evolve here but it hasn't by and large. That said, I have met a few loving folks here that have become friends. It is mostly a good place for intellectual debate, not spiritual sharing and growth. And that in and of itself is a wonderful thing - there are not many opportunities to have such debate in the West, especially from the comfort of one's home. I'm not sure that an open and public internet forum is really an appropriate venue for spiritual sharing and growth. At least, I've not seen it. I think we really need personal, face to face interaction for that to manifest. On the other hand, I do think that we always have the choice to communicate in a loving, collaborative, and supportive way. And the more we do that, the more this forum will evolve... Just my $.02.

[Simple_Jack]

I've seen quite a lot of negative talk towards folks here based on religious and political beliefs. Certainly not everyone, not even the majority. Just a vocal minority. There seems to be quite a bit of spiritual elitism around, some may even feel that I am guilty of that. It's not easy to get to know folks well through digital communication...

 

Each of us are interacting with each others neuroticism, at some point, there will eventually be flare ups.

 

I see more (?less) than Buddhist values here quite frequently but that's OK, we're all working on improving ourselves, hopefully.

 

It's not a mystery why most threads in the Buddhist sub-forum devolve into a shit show.

 

I'm not sure that an open and public internet forum is really an appropriate venue for spiritual sharing and growth. At least, I've not seen it. I think we really need personal, face to face interaction for that to manifest.

 

It seems to work fine for the folks over at the dharmaoverground forums.

[steve]

It seems to work fine for the folks over at the dharmaoverground forums.

Thanks for sharing that - I'm not familiar with it but will check it out.

I rarely read posts on Dharmawheel, generally only as the result of a websearch or link, occasionally on Vajracackra which is not very active, and intermittently participate here - that's about it.

My drive to participate fluctuates pretty dramatically.

[Simple_Jack]

@Buddhist reasoning and debate - vigorous debate and challenge is important I think, but I would like to see it done with a spirit of mutual help and support. Quite often on here it seems more like a simple argument.

 

Collectively we're all guilty of lacking the exercise of the paramita of [moral] discipline (sila). Sila ---> Samadhi ---> Prajna.

[Paul]

Avidya is the contingent cause of the the 12-links. Vidya is the contingent cause of their cessation. Ignorance and Knowledge. That's it. There is no such thing as a pervasive state of consciousness. There is no absence of one either. Pervasiveness is not a factor of enlightenment. Dzogchen masters who talk about the whole universe being rigpa are just saying the whole universe is non-arising. The five wisdoms arise in dependent connection with students. How do we know this? Because otherwise they have no use... Buddha has no use for useless faculties. Buddha's faculties are all geared toward liberating those who suffer. Who sees Buddha? Sentient beings and Arya sangha. Buddha doesn't see anything.

[Apech]

Avidya is the contingent cause of the the 12-links. Vidya is the contingent cause of their cessation. Ignorance and Knowledge. That's it. There is no such thing as a pervasive state of consciousness. There is no absence of one either. Pervasiveness is not a factor of enlightenment. Dzogchen masters who talk about the whole universe being rigpa are just saying the whole universe is non-arising. The five wisdoms arise in dependent connection with students. How do we know this? Because otherwise they have no use... Buddha has no use for useless faculties. Buddha's faculties are all geared toward liberating those who suffer. Who sees Buddha? Sentient beings and Arya sangha. Buddha doesn't see anything.

 

 

I liked that till the last line.

[Paul]

Coming from Diamond Sutra. Buddha does not see any sentient beings. From the Mahamudra songs, seeing nothing is true seeing the Dharmakaya.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Paul

[Apech]

Coming from Diamond Sutra. Buddha does not see any sentient beings. From the Mahamudra songs, seeing nothing is true seeing the Dharmakaya.

 

 

Seeing emptiness is not the same as seeing nothing.

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

Seeing emptiness is not the same as seeing nothing.

It is sometimes parsed that way. 'Seeing nothing is the supreme seeing' as Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche says.

[Apech]

It is sometimes parsed that way. 'Seeing nothing is the supreme seeing' as Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche says.

 

 

Got a link for that quote?

[asunthatneversets]

 

 

Got a link for that quote?

From "As It Is Vol. 2":

 

"The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

[Apech]

From "As It Is Vol. 2":

 

"The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

 

Well I would make distinction between 'seeing no thing' and 'seeing nothing' ... but thanks for the quote it makes more sense now.

[Tibetan_Ice]

From "As It Is Vol. 2":

 

"The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

Hi NeverSets,

 

That is a pretty good book. Thanks for the title.

 

Here is another longer explanation from that book about "no thing"

 

“Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.” When looking at objects you don’t see mind, but they are all experienced by mind. It is mind that sees objects. When it comes to recognizing the empty essence of mind, there is no need to chase after it as if it was an object, because it is mind which experiences objects. At that moment of recognizing, objects are of no consequence; they do not affect the essence. Objects themselves don’t experience. Earth doesn’t see water, water doesn’t see fire, fire doesn’t see wind, and so on. Only mind can experience. While being empty, it is not stuck here; any experience can unfold.

 

There is no need to hold onto being the experiencer of a particular experience. The moment you leave everything wide open, free from clinging and fixation, you discover that the concepts of perceiver and perceived naturally subside. The fuel of further samsara is exactly these dualistic concepts. When the perceiver and perceived naturally vanish, what is there to keep samsara alive? Train in this. It is like crossing a hundred rivers over one bridge! It is like cutting a tree’s eighty-four thousand branches and leaves by a single slash to its main root; all eighty-four thousand branches will wither simultaneously. If you cut the root of just this dualistic mind, you simultaneously cut through the eighty-four thousand kinds of disturbing emotions. This is what to train in, just this. Can you trust this? Can you feel confident in this now?

 

Urgyen Rinpoche, Tulku (2013-12-01). As It Is, Volume II: 2 (Kindle Locations 1145-1156). Rangjung Yeshe Publications. Kindle Edition.

 

 

 

 

[C T]

Like a Knot That is Untied ~ Tsoknyi Rinpoche

There is only one mind; it is not that there are two minds, one recognizing the other. In the very moment of recognizing, it is like a knot that is untied. We don’t have to do anything further than that, leave it untied. In the moment of looking, it is already seen. It is not that later on we come to see. Why? Because mind and mind essence are very close. The second reason is that it is not that mind essence is something that we have to get our sights on; it’s not like that. It is not that we need to hold the awareness on it for a while, like one or two minutes and slowly it will appear within our experience. Since there is only one mind, the moment you recognize, it is simply a matter of letting go. The thinker or knower of that moment is just like a new knot, like a new thought. The moment you abandon it, it unties. We are already arrived at where we need to arrive at, we are already in the nature of mind.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2014 by C T

[Jeff]

Like a Knot That is Untied ~ Tsoknyi Rinpoche

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you. Simply said. Not two minds (or more), just shared or universal mind.

 

It is nice to see that he is willing to explain/teach with a two-fold emptiness structure. Much simpler for the mind to conceive.

[Simple_Jack]

From "As It Is Vol. 2":

 

"The recognition of emptiness is accomplished the moment you look. 'Seeing no thing is the supreme sight.'... When śamatha is destroyed or disintegrates, then there is true emptiness, an uncultivated emptiness, a natural emptiness. This primordial emptiness is dharmakāya indivisible from saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

 

The same insights are discussed by Thrangu Rinpoche and Lama Gendun Rinpoche in their books:

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/?p=515852

 

"...If we look for a perceiver, we won’t find one. We do think, but if we look into the thinker, trying to find that which thinks, we do not find it. Yet, at the same time, we do see and we do think. The reality is that seeing occurs without a seer and thinking without a thinker. This is just how it is; this is the nature of the mind...."

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/?p=515862

 

"....Yes, we do have a sense of a watcher. That watcher is namtok, or discursive thought. And if we look very closely into it, where is it? It isn't really there...There is a story in a sutra in which the Buddha explained that we have a sense of a looker and of something looked at, but that is like rubbing two sticks together to make fire. When fire starts, it burns both the sticks up. It is like that in your meditation. If you go along in stages, the two of them will become nonexistent, like the sticks burning up...."

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/?p=515881

 

"...So in the absence of these fixations, when in contrast to those fixations you experience the display of emptiness as it is, as a spontaneous presence that is not substantial entities, is not a self, then rather than this causing suffering, this produces great bliss..."

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/?p=520999

 

"...If we wish to arrive at true understanding, we must let go of all personal desire. We should search for the thinker who wants to understand and control. Then we will see that we cannot find them, since they do not exist as such. If there is no thinker, then it is only natural that there is no understanding thought processes and the mind.

Thinker and thoughts are empty, without true existence. This fundamental emptiness is the truth body. The luminosity, or dynamics, of this empty mind, its capacity to create thoughts, is the enjoyment body. The manifold expression of the mind, its capacity to assume a myriad of forms in continual change, is the emanation body..."

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Like a Knot That is Untied ~ Tsoknyi Rinpoche

 

 

Tenzin Namdak said that there is not "one mind" because if it were so, then when Buddha got enlightened we would have all gotten enlightened. There is more to all this than what was posted.

 

Perhaps it has something to do with the three kinds of rigpa...

From Wonders of the Natural Mind Tenzin Wangyal..

Three Kinds of Rigpa

There are three different kinds of awareness (rig pa): pervading awareness (chab rig); consciousness or moving-mind awareness (bsam rig); and primordial awareness (ye rig). Pervading awareness (chab rig) is inseparable from the kunzhi base and is omnipresent in all material existence. Moving-mind awareness is the son rigpa found only in the mind of sentient beings, in whom distraction can interrupt the continuity of awareness. When we are distracted, we cannot remain in the state of contemplation. Primordial awareness is the mother rigpa, the awareness that is always present whether we practice or not. This is the awareness that the moving-mind awareness is trying to comprehend.

 

 

?

[gatito]

[Apech]

 

 

LOL love the gif.

[Simple_Jack]

"One mind", in Tsoknyi Rinpoche's usage, seems to be referring to the nature of mind [sems nyid] not being separate from mind [sems]. The only distinction between the two is vidya vs. avidya.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[gatito]

 

Bump

[gatito]

Nearly every thread in the Buddhist sub-forum continues to be hijacked by the incessant posting of quotes from other fora (almost inevitably Dharma Wheel, which was destroyed by the constant petty internicine squabbles and bullying - i.e. talking over those who disagreed and eventually banning them) and/or by appeals to so-called authority (i.e. someone from the Tibetan Buddhist priesthood who has hijacked the Dharma themselves for profit and who cannot actually explain their pionts in plain and simple english).

I'd also point out that if anyone actually wants to promote obscure points of untranslatable Tibetan "Buddhist" dogma, there's nothing to stop them from starting their own thread to go round and round in ciircles either arguing about or agreeing with whatever this point or these point may be.

So, is there anybody who cares to discuss the level of "Buddhist" "debate" and "reasoning" and the violence inherent in the author's apparent assumptions in writing this book, rather than trying to hijack this thread in order to attemopt to promote their own agenda/dogma?