the rangtong shentong distinction in Mipham Rinpoches thought

[RigdzinTrinley]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Works the same with with a "mind"...

 

I will soon continue with this investigation Jeff, and yes for now I just say, If one doesn't use madhyamika reasoning into reality correctly - then it won't help to cut through mental elaboration and the fabric of samsara.... something that your post shows as well (allthough in more modern terms )

[RigdzinTrinley]

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

 

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

 

Quoted for emphasis (do you spell emphasis like that?)

[Jeff]

I will soon continue with this investigation Jeff, and yes for now I just say, If one doesn't use madhyamika reasoning into reality correctly - then it won't help to cut through mental elaboration and the fabric of samsara.... something that your post shows as well (allthough in more modern terms )

 

I look forward to the continuing discussion. Overall, I do believe that there are very subtle differences between the rangtong and shentong positions, and though it goes against the views of many, I tend to be much more in the Shentong camp. But, my personal views are well summed up by the Śrī-jñānavajrasamuccaya...

 

Whatever arises from luminosity,

that is called “mind,” “intellect" and “consciousness,”

that is the foundation of all phenomena,

the two stages are realized from

affliction and purification…

In order to explain the reality of all phenomena [gnas lugs], whatever arises from luminosity is dharmatā, the dhātu of naturally pure luminosity. Since a nonconceptual knowing awareness arises at the same time as the subtle vāyu, the mind [citta, sems] is the basis of all…

The reality of that inner consciousness,

nonconceptual innate dharmatā,

is the nature of luminosity, empty and not a self…

The reality of luminosity

is an unfabricated mind which arises from it

different from generic consciousness…

luminosity is the ultimate truth…

based on luminosity, the ultimate true state,

the path is traversed rapidly…

luminosity is dharmatā, suchness,

pure like space, great bliss,

unceasing, immaculate, peace,

ultimate, mahāmudra itself.

Mahāmudra of union

is attained from luminosity that is very free from proliferation…

Natural luminosity is totally pure,

immaculate, like the element of space… 

 

At a practical level, it is all about realizing the clear light (luminosity) of mind.

[Apech]

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

They are not the same.

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

Perhaps one could say they share the same essence?

 

 

Thank you for your disagreement and even more for your respect

 

I will attempt to explain why I think what I think.

 

If I give the complete 'verse' from which I quoted it might help.

 

 

NAM TOK NGOWO CHÖ KUR SUNG PA ZHIN 

The essence of thought is dharmakaya, it is taught.

 

CHI YANG MA YIN CHIR YANG CHAR WA LA 

They are nothing whatsoever, and yet they arise.

 

MA NGAK ROLPAR CHAR WAY GOM CHEN LA 

To the meditator who reflects upon the unobstructed play of the mind,

 

KHOR DÉ JER MÉ TOK PAR JIN GYI LOB 

Grant your blessing that the inseparability of samsara and nirvana be realized.

 

I take thoughts to mean mental events.  So what do we mean by the essence of thoughts?  And what distinction do we make between the thought and its essence (or mind and its essence if you like?).  Well, the essence of thoughts is that they are empty of self.  So in fact they have no essence.  If we take a thought, or feeling or mental image and deconstruct it - we will find nothing which is the inner nature of that thought, or which is particular to that thought in the sense that it makes that thought what it is.  In other words rather than being things (as normally understood) they are more like effects.  Like waves on water and not like water - except in of course the waves are water.  But if we just look at the display of the waves we might forget that they are water.  We might even start to say to our selves - look at all those waves I wonder if they have an essence - something that makes waves to be waves?  But as soon as we examine them closely we will see oh! its just water!  

 

If a realised being examines a thought that thought becomes immediately liberated from its own ground.  That is, the mere awareness of the thought liberates it because ... and only because the thought is empty.

 

If we sit in meditation and watch the unceasing play of mind, the arising and ceasing of mental events, then because they are nothing other than the dharmakaya (or buddha-nature) we can realise that the view which is samsara (which includes things as things and thoughts as thoughts) is 'inseparable' that is non-dual with nirvana (which is the the pure liberated self-illuminating mind).

 

So it is not that we have thoughts and so on over here ... and over there the essence of thoughts as being different to thoughts and identical to the dharmakaya - it is that we have both and at once the awareness of thoughts and their perfect liberation in that which they always were and never ceased to be i.e. dharmakaya.  So thoughts are dharmakaya.

 

Feel free to continue disagreeing ... while I wallow in my ignorance

[RigdzinTrinley]

I look forward to the continuing discussion. Overall, I do believe that there are very subtle differences between the rangtong and shentong positions, and though it goes against the views of many, I tend to be much more in the Shentong camp. But, my personal views are well summed up by the Śrī-jñānavajrasamuccaya...Whatever arises from luminosity,that is called “mind,” “intellect" and “consciousness,”that is the foundation of all phenomena,the two stages are realized fromaffliction and purification…In order to explain the reality of all phenomena [gnas lugs], whatever arises from luminosity is dharmatā, the dhātu of naturally pure luminosity. Since a nonconceptual knowing awareness arises at the same time as the subtle vāyu, the mind [citta, sems] is the basis of all…The reality of that inner consciousness,nonconceptual innate dharmatā,is the nature of luminosity, empty and not a self…The reality of luminosityis an unfabricated mind which arises from itdifferent from generic consciousness…luminosity is the ultimate truth…based on luminosity, the ultimate true state,the path is traversed rapidly…luminosity is dharmatā, suchness,pure like space, great bliss,unceasing, immaculate, peace,ultimate, mahāmudra itself.Mahāmudra of unionis attained from luminosity that is very free from proliferation…Natural luminosity is totally pure,immaculate, like the element of space…  At a practical level, it is all about realizing the clear light (luminosity) of mind.

 

well yes shentong / rangtong is different, yet certain masters and I feel Mipham Rinpoche is one of them have a certain way to explain all sorts of different approaches, views and yanas in accord and as a harmonious whole. Longchnepa and him are unique as far as my understanding goes - they are synthesising or just marveling at the unitary nature of the sky while many other masters and scholars like to discuss certain aspects of the sky

 

I will come back to discussion of "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, but empty of true establishment" tomorrow and then slowly we can move into a discussion why a certain interpretation of shentong can be nothing more then a mental elaboration, an exeggaration of basic fundamental (empty) reality

 

but first we explore some more rangtong I suggest (while the dzogchen/mahamudra discussion does its own thing and goes its own way I suppose)

 

empty yet appearing, appearing yet empty it goes on and on and on without obstruction

[C T]

Nice explanation sir, but waves are not water per se, but water conditioned by other factors, hence waves. It would not be wrong to call wave, water, nor right to call water, wave. Discriminating awareness wisdom, remember? 

[Apech]

Nice explanation sir, but waves are not water per se, but water conditioned by other factors, hence waves. It would not be wrong to call wave, water, nor right to call water, wave. Discriminating awareness wisdom, remember? 

 

 

Discriminating wisdom means the wisdom of knowing all phenomena are pure (thus empty) beyond elaboration.  So what 'other factors' condition the mind to make thoughts do you think?

[C T]

Discriminating wisdom means the wisdom of knowing all phenomena are pure (thus empty) beyond elaboration.  So what 'other factors' condition the mind to make thoughts do you think?

Does your question imply that thoughts arise without cause? 

[steve]

Thank you for your disagreement and even more for your respect

 

I will attempt to explain why I think what I think.

 

If I give the complete 'verse' from which I quoted it might help.

 

 

 

I take thoughts to mean mental events.  So what do we mean by the essence of thoughts?  And what distinction do we make between the thought and its essence (or mind and its essence if you like?).  Well, the essence of thoughts is that they are empty of self.  So in fact they have no essence.

I think we need to be careful here in equating "empty of self" (rangtong) and "no essence" - is that slipping toward nihilism?

 

 

 If we take a thought, or feeling or mental image and deconstruct it - we will find nothing which is the inner nature of that thought, or which is particular to that thought in the sense that it makes that thought what it is.  In other words rather than being things (as normally understood) they are more like effects.  Like waves on water and not like water - except in of course the waves are water.  But if we just look at the display of the waves we might forget that they are water.  We might even start to say to our selves - look at all those waves I wonder if they have an essence - something that makes waves to be waves?  But as soon as we examine them closely we will see oh! its just water!  

 

If a realised being examines a thought that thought becomes immediately liberated from its own ground.  That is, the mere awareness of the thought liberates it because ... and only because the thought is empty.

 

If we sit in meditation and watch the unceasing play of mind, the arising and ceasing of mental events, then because they are nothing other than the dharmakaya (or buddha-nature) we can realise that the view which is samsara (which includes things as things and thoughts as thoughts) is 'inseparable' that is non-dual with nirvana (which is the the pure liberated self-illuminating mind).

 

So it is not that we have thoughts and so on over here ... and over there the essence of thoughts as being different to thoughts and identical to the dharmakaya - it is that we have both and at once the awareness of thoughts and their perfect liberation in that which they always were and never ceased to be i.e. dharmakaya.  So thoughts are dharmakaya.

 

Feel free to continue disagreeing ... while I wallow in my ignorance

 

Well, here is another question, does thought arise in the absence of a thinker?

We've been talking quite a bit about thought but the thinker is an important part of the equation, I think. 

edit - I can see that I've really just paraphrased CT's question above and his is stated better..

Edited April 22, 2016 by steve

[Apech]

Does your question imply that thoughts arise without cause? 

 

LOL you could've just answered my question without asking another one.

[Apech]

I think we need to be careful here in equating "empty of self" (rangtong) and "no essence" - is that slipping toward nihilism?

 

 

 

Well, here is another question, does thought arise in the absence of a thinker?

We've been talking quite a bit about thought but the thinker is an important part of the equation, I think. 

edit - I can see that I've really just paraphrased CT's question above and his is stated better..

 

 

I'm not suggesting a fall into nihilism by suggesting no essence because I think that the crux of the Zhentong view answers this - as buddha-nature is the essence of everything.  I think the Rangtong view contains a much stronger likelihood of nihilism (as an error) - which is why many modern commentators actually place citta-matra as the more developed view! 

 

I also feel that the thought-thinking-thinker question is the three spheres which is usually addressed in the paramitas in terms of generosity and the gift, giving and giver.  So thoughts, thinking and thinkers could be seen as dependently originating on each other as causes.  However I do not understand the Buddhist idea of 'cause' as the same as the usual idea of causation as in one thing definitely seen as creating another - its more the original Buddha saying 'evam sat idam hoti' - 'it being thus, this comes about.'

 

Anyway- as ever these are my thoughts only and have no status here or anywhere except being that.  And I don't want to distract from RT's thread with my ramblings.

[steve]

I like your ramblings - they're well informed and I often learn something from them.

And they help to kill the time while waiting for more from RT!

 

PS - for anyone interested in Mipham's writings, Anyen Rinpoche's book Journey to Certainty is brilliant. Mipham's writings are very tough for me to digest alone but Anyen's book makes his points quite clear. Now having RT to work through them with us is an absolute delight! 

Edited April 22, 2016 by steve

[RigdzinTrinley]

"the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true establishment"

 

when mipham rinpoche is investigating this sentence to see if you can formulate a view that can express the union of the two truth, he would find it to be a bit problematic

 

because if the pillar is not empty of being a pillar (on the conventional level), but that it is empty of true establishment (on the ultimate level)

 

then that would mean after you use a prasangika madhyamika reasoning into the true nature of the pillar (the basis of emptiness, later more on what that means) - then what you find is an appearance of the pillar on one hand and a non affirmative negation of its true establishment on the other hand

 

so the relative appearance of the pillar is non empty - while it is empty of true establishment on the ultimate level

 

does that make any sense?

 

Mipham Rinpoche would ask - so what is it actually you negate with ultimate analysis (means prasangika analysis - because thats what they say they do - reasoning into the pillars true abiding nature)

 

whats your object of negation?

 

is it the appearance of the pillar itself? or is it something other then the pillar?

 

back to their statement: the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true establishment

 

it really does look like they don't negate the actual pillar, but the pillars "true establishment" that is their target or object of negation, so somehow in order to not fall into the trap of a nihilistic view

 

(like apech said about the danger that with a rangtong view you can fall into the trap of nihilism more easier then with a shentong view - well with a shentong view it is easier to fall into the trap of eternalism dear sir, just to be unbiased here )

 

but that has a lot of unwanted consequences as we will see slowly.

 

so for arguments sake lets continue with mipahm rinpoches investigation of their line of reasoning (again I remind you they don't just use mere words, but their target is to establish emptiness that is free from all conceptual elaboration in a flawless way)

 

he would ask them at one point in your statement that the pillar is not empty of being a pillar but that is is empty of true establishment or true existence if you like,

 

is the pillars true existence and the pillar essentially 1)one thing or are they 2)two seperate enteties?

 

possibility no.1)

if they are one then well when you refute the true existence of the pillar the pillar itself is refuted - means the first part of their reasoning makes not much sense

 

"the pillar is not empty of being a pillar" - no it is empty of being a pillar then. the line should go "The pillar is empty of being pillar" and thats that - because the pillar and its true establishment are one.

 

now this is not what they say in their reasoning, for fear of denegrating the relative appearnce of phenomena - also because chandrakirti said that his view is in accord with ordinary beings (a side note - he said that based on leaving deceptive phenomena unanalysed, a very important point actually)

 

so they say if you tell an ordinary being "there is no pillar" they won't accept that and also you would end up claiming that relative phenomena are utterly baseless and non-existent like the horns of a rabbit.

 

so it couldn't be that they accept that you should refute the appearnce of the pillar itself, just its true existence - because this is what we cling to, that is what binds us in samsara. that we think of things and events as solid and that they happen to us

 

so no need to refute the relative appearnce of the pillar!

 

sounds very reasonable to me, but anyway mipham rinpoche says - well are we talking from the point of view of the relative truth or the ultimate truth here? Do we use a prasangika reasoning into the true abiding nature of the pillar or not?

 

well yes we do, thats what this is all about to establish the emptiness of phenomena! that they are empty yet they appear, while they appear they are empty

 

so lets look at the second possibility 2) that the appearance of the pillar and its true establishment are different things

 

well mipham rinpoche would say in this context, if you use an ultiamte reasoning into the true nature of the pillar and somehow there is a left over appearance of a pillar then you have many faults in your view.

 

because if you say the pillar is not empty of being a pillar - well then what is it empty of exactly? if the pillar is not empty itself?

 

the specific object of negation "true establishment"

 

that means you have a mere emptiness of true establishment on one hand and a non empty appearance on the other hand. why non empty? because if you use an ultimate reasoning into reality and you find something... even if it is just an atom - that atom becomes truly established, real, substantial

 

here it seems they found that the deceptive appearance of pillar itself is left over after analysis - because "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar..."

 

so either your meditation was incorrect, or you used a wrong reasoning

 

if this statement "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, but empty of true establishment" really means that there is something left over after the analysis then three faults will irrevocably arise

 

1) that relative phenomena become immune to ultimate analysis

based on that ->

2) they become actually produced on the ultimate level

3) and the meditative equipoise of arya bodhisattvas would destroy phenomena

 

these three faults glorious Chandrakirti used to show inconsistencies in the svatantrika madhyamika view. I'll explain them in short

 

1) deceptive phenomena become immune to ultimate analysis

 

again if a practicioner uses an ultimate reasoning into the true nature of a phenomena or analyses into the Dharmata of a specific Dharmin - and finds something then whatever it is becomes truly established

 

that means also deceptive phenomena become - non deceiving phenoman, because they are immune to analysis - or non-empty phenomena

 

2) deceptive phenomena become produced on the ultimate level

 

based on this first fault, that deceptive phenomena (vases, hauses, trees, people) are immune to analysis this second fault arises

 

so if they are immune to ultimate analysis into their true nature that would mean that they are produced on the ultimate level - they had some kind of production: either from themselves, or another entity or from both or without any cause

 

so they would have not only a true existence relatively but even ultimately they would be produced -> based on that many many faults would arise - like eternally unchanging chairs, people being born without a cause just manifesting from emtpy space, people being immortal, a visual consciousness of a thing being re-produced infinitely - an endless consciousness loop etc.

 

but well that would happen if you end up with non empty things.... no problem as things are primordially, from the beginningless beginning empty or primordialy pure then these strange things don't happen (as far as I know, please proof me wrong)

 

and the third fault comes from both of the first faults:

 

3) the meditative equipoise of an arya bodhisattva would destroy phenomena

 

well if things are non empty relatively speaking and also ulitimately speaking they are produced then what that means is that the meditative equpoise of a bodhisattva on the bhumis will destroy phenomena - because these bodhisattvas having attained the actual primordial wisdom beyond dualistic mind that is free of all elaboration - then from this state where are there any phenomena?

 

there is no distinction of relative and ultimate truth, no elaboration of this is empiness, this is appearance - this is real this is unreal. this is luminosity this is ordinary concept. It is beyond all elaboration

 

like it says int he heart sutra in the perfection fo wisdom there is no form no sound etc

 

now many great masters attained the bodhisattva grounds, the buddha appeared and manifested complete enlightenment under the bodhi-tree still there are phenomena

 

because phenomena being primordial purity - great emptiness from the beginningless beginning that is always this beginningless moment they can't be destroyed through being seen nakedly

 

if they would have an essence and the meditative equpoise of an enlightened being would make this essence into a non-essence or transform substance into no-substance then yes after the buddhas enlightenement there should be nothing appearing anymore

 

because the buddha truly realized the empty nature of phenomena

 

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

 

I go take a nap myself, if you read this far - you deserve at least an icecream for your efforts!!!

Edited April 23, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[steve]

"the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true establishment"

 

when mipham rinpoche is investigating this sentence to see if you can formulate a view that can express the union of the two truth, he would find it to be a bit problematic

 

because if the pillar is not empty of being a pillar (on the conventional level), but that it is empty of true establishment (on the ultimate level)

 

then that would mean after you use a prasangika madhyamika reasoning into the true nature of the pillar (the basis of emptiness, later more on what that means) - then what you find is an appearance of the pillar on one hand and a non affirmative negation of its true establishment on the other hand

 

so the relative appearance of the pillar is non empty - while it is empty of true establishment on the ultimate level

 

does that make any sense?

 

Mipham Rinpoche would ask - so what is it actually you negate with ultimate analysis (means prasangika analysis - because thats what they say they do - reasoning into the pillars true abiding nature)

 

whats your object of negation?

 

is it the appearance of the pillar itself? or is it something other then the pillar?

 

back to their statement: the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true establishment

 

it really does look like they don't negate the actual pillar, but the pillars "true establishment" that is their target or object of negation, so somehow in order to not fall into the trap of a nihilistic view

 

(like apech said about the danger that with a rangtong view you can fall into the trap of nihilism more easier then with a shentong view - well with a shentong view it is easier to fall into the trap of eternalism dear sir, just to be unbiased here )

 

but that has a lot of unwanted consequences as we will see slowly.

 

so for arguments sake lets continue with mipahm rinpoches investigation of their line of reasoning (again I remind you they don't just use mere words, but their target is to establish emptiness that is free from all conceptual elaboration in a flawless way)

 

he would ask them at one point in your statement that the pillar is not empty of being a pillar but that is is empty of true establishment or true existence if you like,

 

is the pillars true existence and the pillar essentially 1)one thing or are they 2)two seperate enteties?

 

possibility no.1)

if they are one then well when you refute the true existence of the pillar the pillar itself is refuted - means the first part of their reasoning makes not much sense

 

"the pillar is not empty of being a pillar" - no it is empty of being a pillar then. the line should go "The pillar is empty of being pillar" and thats that - because the pillar and its true establishment are one.

 

now this is not what they say in their reasoning, for fear of denegrating the relative appearnce of phenomena - also because chandrakirti said that his view is in accord with ordinary beings (a side note - he said that based on leaving deceptive phenomena unanalysed, a very important point actually)

 

so they say if you tell an ordinary being "there is no pillar" they won't accept that and also you would end up claiming that relative phenomena are utterly baseless and non-existent like the horns of a rabbit.

 

so it couldn't be that they accept that you should refute the appearnce of the pillar itself, just its true existence - because this is what we cling to, that is what binds us in samsara. that we think of things and events as solid and that they happen to us

 

so no need to refute the relative appearnce of the pillar!

 

sounds very reasonable to me, but anyway mipham rinpoche says - well are we talking from the point of view of the relative truth or the ultimate truth here? Do we use a prasangika reasoning into the true abiding nature of the pillar or not?

 

well yes we do, thats what this is all about to establish the emptiness of phenomena! that they are empty yet they appear, while they appear they are empty

 

so lets look at the second possibility 2) that the appearance of the pillar and its true establishment are different things

 

well mipham rinpoche would say in this context, if you use an ultiamte reasoning into the true nature of the pillar and somehow there is a left over appearance of a pillar then you have many faults in your view.

 

because if you say the pillar is not empty of being a pillar - well then what is it empty of exactly? if the pillar is not empty itself?

 

the specific object of negation "true establishment"

 

that means you have a mere emptiness of true establishment on one hand and a non empty appearance on the other hand. why non empty? because if you use an ultimate reasoning into reality and you find something... even if it is just an atom - that atom becomes truly established, real, substantial

 

here it seems they found that the deceptive appearance of pillar itself is left over after analysis - because "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar..."

 

so either your meditation was incorrect, or you used a wrong reasoning

 

if this statement "the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, but empty of true establishment" really means that there is something left over after the analysis then three faults will irrevocably arise

 

1) that relative phenomena become immune to ultimate analysis

based on that ->

2) they become actually produced on the ultimate level

3) and the meditative equipoise of arya bodhisattvas would destroy phenomena

 

these three faults glorious Chandrakirti used to show inconsistencies in the svatantrika madhyamika view. I'll explain them in short

 

1) deceptive phenomena become immune to ultimate analysis

 

again if a practicioner uses an ultimate reasoning into the true nature of a phenomena or analyses into the Dharmata of a specific Dharmin - and finds something then whatever it is becomes truly established

 

that means also deceptive phenomena become - non deceiving phenoman, because they are immune to analysis - or non-empty phenomena

 

2) deceptive phenomena become produced on the ultimate level

 

based on this first fault, that deceptive phenomena (vases, hauses, trees, people) are immune to analysis this second fault arises

 

so if they are immune to ultimate analysis into their true nature that would mean that they are produced on the ultimate level - they had some kind of production: either from themselves, or another entity or from both or without any cause

 

so they would have not only a true existence relatively but even ultimately they would be produced -> based on that many many faults would arise - like eternally unchanging chairs, people being born without a cause just manifesting from emtpy space, people being immortal, a visual consciousness of a thing being re-produced infinitely - an endless consciousness loop etc.

 

but well that would happen if you end up with non empty things.... no problem as things are primordially, from the beginningless beginning empty or primordialy pure then these strange things don't happen (as far as I know, please proof me wrong)

 

and the third fault comes from both of the first faults:

 

3) the meditative equipoise of an arya bodhisattva would destroy phenomena

 

well if things are non empty relatively speaking and also ulitimately speaking they are produced then what that means is that the meditative equpoise of a bodhisattva on the bhumis will destroy phenomena - because these bodhisattvas having attained the actual primordial wisdom beyond dualistic mind that is free of all elaboration - then from this state where are there any phenomena?

 

there is no distinction of relative and ultimate truth, no elaboration of this is empiness, this is appearance - this is real this is unreal. this is luminosity this is ordinary concept. It is beyond all elaboration

 

like it says int he heart sutra in the perfection fo wisdom there is no form no sound etc

 

now many great masters attained the bodhisattva grounds, the buddha appeared and manifested complete enlightenment under the bodhi-tree still there are phenomena

 

because phenomena being primordial purity - great emptiness from the beginningless beginning that is always this beginningless moment they can't be destroyed through being seen nakedly

 

if they would have an essence and the meditative equpoise of an enlightened being would make this essence into a non-essence or transform substance into no-substance then yes after the buddhas enlightenement there should be nothing appearing anymore

 

because the buddha truly realized the empty nature of phenomena

 

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

 

I go take a nap myself, if you read this far - you deserve at least an icecream for your efforts!!!

 

Great and clear post, RT!

One question - at the risk of sounding heretical, do the scholars ever question the assertions that I highlighted above?

It seems that certain conclusive proofs often depend on these "facts."

[Kongming]

I prefer Dolpopa's take on these issues, which I know isn't the most popular position. Here's a quote I've seen floating around on the internet by him that agrees with my sentiment:

 

 

Therefore, the ultimate [reality] in all profound sutras and tantras which finely present thusness, and so forth, is empty of other, never empty of self-nature.

It is absolute, never relative.

It is the true nature, never the phenomena.

It is the middle, never the extreme.

It is nirvana, never samsara.

It is gnosis, never consciousness.

It is pure, never impure.

It is a sublime self, never a nothingness.

It is great bliss, never suffering.

It is permanent and stable, never impermanent.

It is self-arisen, never arisen due to another.

It is the fully established, never the imagined.

It is natural, never fabricated.

It is primordial, never incidental.

It is Buddha, never a sentient being.

It is the essence, never the husk.

It is definitive in meaning, never provisional in meaning.

It is ultimate, never transient.

It is the ground and result, never the Truth of the Path.

It is the ground of purification, never the object of purification.

It is the mode of reality, never the mode of delusion.

It is the sublime other, never the outer and inner.

It is true, never false.

It is perfect, never perverse.

It is the ground of emptiness, never just empty.

It is the ground of separation, never just a separation.

It is the ground of absence, never just an absence.

It is an established phenomenon, never an absolute negation.

It is virtue, never nonvirtue.

It is authentic, never inauthentic.

It is correct, never incorrect.

It is immaculate, never stain.

[Jeff]

Great and clear post, RT!

One question - at the risk of sounding heretical, do the scholars ever question the assertions that I highlighted above?

It seems that certain conclusive proofs often depend on these "facts."

 

I would agree. Such a statement is a logic trap. Once you have such base statement to a "framework", you could easily argue that it is itself only an intermediate view.

[steve]

PS - I believe in fact, that they do. I think Mipham may even address those points. I think it's useful to interject into the discussion

[Apech]

"the pillar is not empty of being a pillar, it is empty of true establishment"

 

......

 

 

(like apech said about the danger that with a rangtong view you can fall into the trap of nihilism more easier then with a shentong view - well with a shentong view it is easier to fall into the trap of eternalism dear sir, just to be unbiased here )

 

......

 

Thank you for your post RT.  I was disinclined to add my ramblings but you mentioned me by name and so I am drawn in

 

Just to be clear again my thoughts have no status at all because I am not qualified to speak on these things and are more or less off the top of my head anyway.

 

Was it Chadrakirti who introduced the 'two truths' solution?  If so I think he introduced a red herring.  Or even a rabbit with horns - and I believe Tsongkhapa took the whole enterprise further.  There are not and cannot be 'two truths' about reality - what we are dealing with is simply the implications of perceptual confidence.  I see a pillar, and thus I go and kick the pillar and so refute anyone who says there is no pillar - thus there must be a sense in which the pillar is not empty of being a pillar.  But of course I then apply analysis to what actually is this pillar - and it all falls apart.  Same thing happens in physics, things 'disappear' when we look to closely. 

 

It's ok of course to say, in an everyday sense 'oh look at that pillar' and not be called a liar and a fool - and mankind has come so far as to wish to establish security in this kind of perception - we want this to be fundamentally reliable - but annoyingly it doesn't stand analysis.  But it is actually a kind of dream or magic show.  There isn't anything other than the continuum of the mind stream.  All forms appearing to rise and cease from it - even when nothing whatsoever does arise or cease.  But that does not stop the strength of the mental formulations and habitual perceptions - just as rain and wind form a landscape - forming a stable projected continuum or sensorium.

 

The pillar is empty of self.  That's it.  

 

The thing is with the arya bodhisattvas and buddhas - they are not disappearing into some never-never land of beyond.  They are realising in their mind streams the continuity of the process which includes the pillar.  Why not?  Why would the pillar disappear unless all the causes and conditions which allowed the pillar have collapsed.  Emptiness is not nothing and not not nothing either.  The ultimate or absolutely real is not an abstract.

 

So I feel happy with the pillar and hope the pillar is happy with me.

 

You are right - the pitfall of Shentong is converting buddha-nature into an eternal god/soul/entity - this is of course because both views are just intellectual views and not realised awakenings.  I don't think you can have a formal view which does not have pitfalls.  Otherwise Buddhism would just be a philosophy.

 

Since Jeff and others are around, and I know they love quotes - let me quote the great and peerless Milarepa so that I too can tip toe round the error of authority:

 

Do not see consciousness: see primordial wisdom.

Do not see sentient beings: see buddhas.

Do not see dharmas: see dharmata.

By the power of compassion from that,

The powers, fearlessnesses, dharanis and so forth

That constitute the qualities of a buddha

Will arise like a wish-fulfilling jewel.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Apech

[RigdzinTrinley]

Great and clear post, RT!

One question - at the risk of sounding heretical, do the scholars ever question the assertions that I highlighted above?

It seems that certain conclusive proofs often depend on these "facts."

 

well of course they do, look at nagarjuna - imagine his root verses of the middle way and what kind of uproar they might have caused in certain "buddhist bootcamps" during his time

 

I was very impressed when I first read these verses - when he deconstructs the buddha, nirvana all of it... (and I really want to study this text in the future in some more depths - because so far I never found the time to work with it deeply, just some surface reading)

 

for your reference there is a lot of the literature on pramana/valid cognition devoted to how to proof that the buddha is an omniscient being and undeceiving, and how his teachings are therefor pure - literature I never read

 

and remember from the point of view of the actual prajnaparamita it is already way to much to say that the bodhisattvas realize primordial wisdom - that are just conventionalities in order to establish beings in a state free of conventionalities and terminlogy

 

no form no sound no smell etc ends in no attainment, no non attainment, no primal wisdom

 

in some way to say anything about anything is already too much and will probably lead to some kind of misunderstanding - if the sender and receiver are not already pretty awake that is. What to do? remain silent? maybe best... or keep it simple like the zen people?

 

so yes the great masters spend a lot of time on these points. How to best introduce something beyond mind, and how to guide beings into an unmistaken realisation of that "knowledge". I somehow just wrote it there - I didn't think about it too much, I just wrote what ever came to mind, and I can see how it is dangerous to just say the buddha realised this or that because well thats how it is, and use it to proof something - or the teachings say it is like that, thats the whole point of the beacon of certainty - to find certainty beyond mere faith, so my mistake

 

thing is based on my learning and practice I somehow can see these 3 faults to apply to such a position and have some taste of what primordial wisdom beyond concept might mean and how it relates with these faults - but for someone new to dharma - this whole discussion would be probably a little bewildering

 

and in that context to just say they realize this, so it is like this would be well not the best thing to do....

 

remember that the beacon of certainty is thought after a lot of sutra studies, as a bridge between sutra-tantra-dzogchen, so usually people wouldn't start their studies there

 

Mipham Rinpoche references many texts, qoutes and you know this text needs some ground work to really "kick in" - when I translated this for one of my teachers, the students who already received teachings on "philosophical tenet systems" and Mipham Rinpoches Madhyamika interpretation - well those students got a lot out of it, whereas newer people where just mostly bewildered.

 

also some masters do not teach this text before the student has completed ngondro - because it can be explained from a pure dzogchen angle as well. So not a text to beginn the journey

 

but I hope that the three faults are still comprehensible in the context of this discussion, and that it made some sense somehow?

[steve]

Yes - very helpful and clear for me.

thanks

[RigdzinTrinley]

Thank you for your post RT.  I was disinclined to add my ramblings but you mentioned me by name and so I am drawn in

 

Just to be clear again my thoughts have no status at all because I am not qualified to speak on these things and are more or less off the top of my head anyway.

 

Was it Chadrakirti who introduced the 'two truths' solution?  If so I think he introduced a red herring.  Or even a rabbit with horns - and I believe Tsongkhapa took the whole enterprise further.  There are not and cannot be 'two truths' about reality - what we are dealing with is simply the implications of perceptual confidence.  I see a pillar, and thus I go and kick the pillar and so refute anyone who says there is no pillar - thus there must be a sense in which the pillar is not empty of being a pillar.  But of course I then apply analysis to what actually is this pillar - and it all falls apart.  Same thing happens in physics, things 'disappear' when we look to closely. 

 

It's ok of course to say, in an everyday sense 'oh look at that pillar' and not be called a liar and a fool - and mankind has come so far as to wish to establish security in this kind of perception - we want this to be fundamentally reliable - but annoyingly it doesn't stand analysis.  But it is actually a kind of dream or magic show.  There isn't anything other than the continuum of the mind stream.  All forms appearing to rise and cease from it - even when nothing whatsoever does arise or cease.  But that does not stop the strength of the mental formulations and habitual perceptions - just as rain and wind form a landscape - forming a stable projected continuum or sensorium.

 

The pillar is empty of self.  That's it.  

 

The thing is with the arya bodhisattvas and buddhas - they are not disappearing into some never-never land of beyond.  They are realising in their mind streams the continuity of the process which includes the pillar.  Why not?  Why would the pillar disappear unless all the causes and conditions which allowed the pillar have collapsed.  Emptiness is not nothing and not not nothing either.  The ultimate or absolutely real is not an abstract.

 

So I feel happy with the pillar and hope the pillar is happy with me.

 

You are right - the pitfall of Shentong is converting buddha-nature into an eternal god/soul/entity - this is of course because both views are just intellectual views and not realised awakenings.  I don't think you can have a formal view which does not have pitfalls.  Otherwise Buddhism would just be a philosophy.

 

Since Jeff and others are around, and I know they love quotes - let me quote the great and peerless Milarepa so that I too can tip toe round the error of authority:

 

Do not see consciousness: see primordial wisdom.

Do not see sentient beings: see buddhas.

Do not see dharmas: see dharmata.

By the power of compassion from that,

The powers, fearlessnesses, dharanis and so forth

That constitute the qualities of a buddha

Will arise like a wish-fulfilling jewel.

 

you know the two truth solution is much older then chandrakirtis writing, also the older philosophical schools work with the two truths - and yes it is a tool tog et a point across, not the truth

 

in truth there is not even one truth - so why fret about two or even four? says the prajnaparamita

 

but in order to introduce the true nature and the proper relationship of Dharmin (dhrama-possesor/phenomena) and Dharmata (true nature) it is very helpful distinction

 

good tool to have around when dealing with reality I feel but sure when realisation dawns then these mental projection like emptiness and appearance cease

 

 

[RigdzinTrinley]

double post

Edited April 24, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

I feel like writing a little exclaimer

 

First of all I try to stick with Mipham Rinpoches view as well as I can, not so much because I feel his interpretation of madhyamika is the highest best and unquestionable - basically I don't have the faculties to question it. Same with the positions that he is refuting f.e.: "the pillar is not empty of being a pilalr but it is empty of true establishment" etc. lets say I meet a master who knows this reasoning insight and out and worked 40+ years on uderstanding it and meditating on it - after one hour probably I will be his student

 

lets say I meet dolpopa, chat with him about the nature of reality - I can see how I would leave this conversation becoming a shentongpa

 

or lets say I meet longchenpa - I have little doubt that something similar will happen to me.

 

what that means for me is - I have karma with the nyinghtik lineage that comes from garab dorje through vimalamitra and guru rinpoche, longchenpa, jigme lingpa and mipham rinpoche. That does not proof this is the only valid lineage of transmission and explanation of the inexpressible whereas other views are inferior etc. I have no power to judge that myself because of lack of scholarship and practice experience.

 

thats one thing I felt adding here and the second thing is concerning Mipham Rinpoches approach in general - these refutations and later the establishing of his own view, all of that is done with a specific target, on the highest level that is establishing beings in the utterly pure and unmistaken vision of reality as it is, on a more well for me graspable level he is developing his view of the "ekayana" or single vehicle.

 

how is it that you can explain sutra madhyamika, tantric pure vision and dzogchen as one harmonious enlightened intend? Which kind of views would hinder such an explanation or limit it?

 

Now if he succeeds in establishing the ekayana or single vehicle, and for me he does second only to longchenpa, then what can happen in the students mind? a lot of misunderstandings, doubts, intellectual hang-ups etc just disappear into clarity and certainty into the teachings. In this sense also I feel that spending some time with his precious beacon of certainty is not a waste of time and can help clarify many points of the dharma that seem contradictory on first glance.

 

knowing the dharma on a mere interllectual level with certainty can be of great benefit for meditation

 

don't know if our little discussion can do that (I doubt it actually), but maybe at least inspire people to go get more in depths teachings on the beacon of certainty or do some self study on this text

 

because Dzogchen is not just yogic methods and visions of light rays shooting around, it is immensly deep and rich tradition with many multi-coloured facettes this treatise being one of them

Edited April 24, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[RigdzinTrinley]

I know not excuses for laziness - but but but, yesterday I was pretty burned out after all them study!!! and no coffee could help that - I was not the only one suffering from dharma overload yesterday, also other students took a break from anything and everybody after the teachings yesterday morning.

 

so anyway today I feel a bit more on top of things and I thought maybe I do a short summary of the main point of this discussion so far and then we can go straight for the shentong biscuits next

 

(tomorrow mayhabs?)

 

also I think we should introduce the term Basis of emptiness

 

1)basis of emptiness - wylie: stong gzhi

 

1) basis of emptiness, this term is used when establishing the emptiness/Dharmata-true nature of a given Phenomena, or Dharma-possesor (dharmin)

 

also it becomes apparent very fast when we talk about a basis of emptiness that without an appearance there is no emptiness, and without emptiness an appearance could not arise either (but that is another can of worms, that I won't open now)

 

so for example the good old "Pillar" without the appearance of the pillar itself as the basis of emptiness we could not conceive of emptiness at all

 

remember Pillar stands for all phenomena contained within samsara and nirvana from the from aggregate up to and including the omniscient mind of the Buddha

 

anyway after using an ultimate reasoning into the dharamta-true nature of the pillar nothing is found whatsoever - so appearance on one hand and emptiness on the other are both merely designated - or dependently designated phenomena. From Pov of primordial wisdom or Jnana (Gnosis) of a sublime Bodhisattva on the Bhumis, neither is apprehended, both being merely objects of an other-excluding mind, or a mind that apprehends meaning generalities of things (mental images or ideas)

 

if you want to know more about other-excluding mind and why it is always incorrect (deceptive, relative truth), then its time for some pramana. Most don't have time for that (me included) so just a short intro:

 

an other-excluding mind points to an ordinary mind, that can only conceive of one thing at a given time - now how does our mind conceive of only one thing at a given time? by excluding all other meaning generalities of things. that is why they use this term of other-excluding mind

 

if I say think of a vase - then well mind being limited it can only ever think of the meaning generality "vase" and not simultaniously of houses, trees and flowers

 

one thought at a time

 

I talk about thought not visualisation, you can form a mental picture of many different things at once sure, like a painting - but other excluding mind is labeling mind, thinking mind - conceptual activity (so visualisation is of course somehow part of this mind, but can be used to expand and at one point transcend this mind completely - see ceratin tantric methods of visualisation that boggle your mind so much that you just let go. One famous example is visualizing guru rinpoche as big as the universe residing in his copper coloured mountain - that is as big as a sesame seed, both fitting perfectly without guru rinpoche getting smaller nor copper coloured mountain getting bigger)

 

so appearance and emptiness is established in the lower madhyamika teachings gradually, by recognizing the basis of emptiness f.e.: the dharmin "pillar" one will then investigate into its Dharmata-true nature and find there is nothing substantial - nothing non-empty whatsoever

 

now this emptiness is dependently designated based on this basis of emptiness (here to remind you "pillar")

 

this we can see is still the realm of mind - on one hand the basis of emptiness (appearance) and on the other the emptiness of that appearance that is ascertained after a flawless reasoning into its true nature

 

this and the actual state of jnana of a sublime being is like the difference of earth and sky. Yet many great masters explain that ascertaining this meaning generality of emptiness without fault is a very important first step to enter actual jnana or primordial wisdom beyond conceptual elaboration

 

because this mental image, or mental understanding of emptiness will be like a second piece of wood that one can rub against a first piece piece of wood; this first piece of wood being our ordinary grasping at phenomena as solid and real

 

if one rubs these two stick against each other long enough - fire will emerge and consume these two stick without anything remaining, this fire examplifies non connceptual jnana

 

so with this in mind, when we approach jnana in a step by step fashion (not in the sense of the precious word empowerment, or dzogchen/mahamudra teachings), then it should obvious that in order to realize this jnana that sees the union of emptiness and appearance beyond any mental fabrication, the reasoning we use needs to lead to a certainty in the emptiness of the basis of emptiness itself.

 

In short the pillar itself needs to be seen as empty of true nature, or as utterly insubstantial

 

it is not enough to realise that the pillar is empty of something other then the pillar, for example a specific object of negation such as "true existence", I think why and how that doesn't work I explained already above and here one more time from another angle... I hope that it is clear enough for now

 

then we can move on into shentong

Edited April 26, 2016 by RigdzinTrinley

[steve]

Thank you RT - can you clarify what is meant by "so appearance on one hand and emptiness on the other are both merely designated"?

Do you mean that they are simply labeled? Or does "designated" have a more specific connotation here?