Also see:

A Compilation of Some of Kyle Dixon (Krodha)'s Wonderful Postings Part 4


A Compilation of Some of Kyle Dixon (Krodha)'s Wonderful Reddit Postings (part 1)


Note: When the text is in larger font and formatted as a question, it's from someone else. Kyle's responses are in smaller font. However, if there's a long citation from the master's text in large font, that's also Kyle's reply. So, Kyle is replying to people, with his responses typically in small font, except for long citations.



I discovered a wonderful way to pull Reddit posts from someone so that I can upload it into a compilation. Introducing: https://redditcommentsearch.com/


I remember john tan commented a decade ago that kyle’s writings are very insightful, no less insightful than buddhist masters and advised me to take the pointers seriously


Also see this link for another older compilation of Kyle Dixon [Krodha's]'s posts: A Compilation of Some of Kyle Dixon's Wonderful Postings



The compilation of Kyle Dixon/Krodha's postings on Dharmawheel forum can be found here: Table of Contents for Malcolm Dharmawheel Posts + Astus, Krodha (Kyle Dixon), Geoff (Jnana), Meido Moore




Note: if you are unable to see the words below due to formatting, click on this link to read: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRkcjo4JAZc8qKyi1LgyMBbdQ2y1krGKmERyoqskOtQNXuywTwARf87id2H3I9mt6jWUmUMCD2yG2oA/pub


Update: Nafis Rahman informed me some good links/tool to pull posts by Krodha/Kyle without the 9 months limitation!


Nafis: "This website is able to access Reddit’s API much more thoroughly and retrieve all posts/comments without any restrictions:

https://camas.unddit.com/

u/krodha

posts: https://camas.unddit.com/#{%22author%22:%22krodha%22,%22searchFor%22:1,%22resultSize%22:200} 

comments: https://camas.unddit.com/#{%22author%22:%22krodha%22,%22resultSize%22:100000}  

"




Kyle is Krodha https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/

Putting this out for a miracle for my father’s Tibetan Buddhist community


Miracles are nice but in Vajrayāna you have the means to take action. When Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche needed to raise funds for Dzamling Gar on Tenerife the project was also in dire straits. A group of students and Rinpoche did ganapujas essentially around the clock for a period of time to generate merit, and the funds did end up coming through.

Perhaps advise your father’s sangha to do the same.

Can anyone explain about the basis or primordial ground according to dzogchen? Do all sentient beings share one common basis or each one has it's own basis that is exactly the same as all other basises?


Is there a canonical explanation for why each individual mind's dharmatā would necessarily have the exact same characteristics if these dharmatās are discrete and distinct?

Dharmatā is essentially just the emptiness of the mind. The mind's dharmatā is that the mind is ultimately empty, and the mind also has the characteristic of clarity, or being cognizant. Each instance of mind possesses clarity and emptiness, and the nature of the mind is the emptiness of clarity, sometimes described as inseparable clarity and emptiness [stong gsal dbyer med].

Wherever a mind is found, clarity is found, and that clarity is ultimately empty. For that reason the dharmatā of mind is what we would term a generic characteristic [sāmānyalakṣaṇa]. The heat of fire, and the wetness of water are also examples of generic characteristics. Wherever you find water, you find wetness, and wherever you find fire, you find heat. The same goes for emptiness. Wherever you find an object, or a mind, if you recognize the nature [prakrti] of that object you recognize its dharmatā, which is that it is empty. All things are empty in the same way, they lack an essential nature [svabhava], a core entity which possesses characteristics. All minds are empty in the same way, and we describe that dharmatā of mind as non-dual or inseparable clarity and emptiness.

New sentient beings are being born all the time, why should their dharmatās have exactly the same characteristics as those born ages ago?

Because emptiness is always the same, and consciousness as clarity is the same.

I get the logic of saying the dharmatā is beyond distinctions of individual vs. transpersonal, but struggle to get how it could be individual and yet identical across individuals without either positing an inherent nature with positive affirmative characteristics like radiance and compassion and so on

It is the difference between understanding dharmatā as a generic characteristic [sāmānya-lakṣaṇa] versus understanding it as a specific characteristic [sva-lakṣaṇa]. A specific characteristic would be an inherent nature that is transpersonal. A generic characteristic is, in this case, the lack of an inherent nature of a discrete conventional person, place, thing, or mind.

question about inner mind rushen


You’d have to ask Lama Lena. Practice commitments are not always “one size fits all.”

Could someone offer simple explanation of stream-entry and how to achieve it


The simplest explanation is that stream entry is an instance of awakening where it is experientially realized that there has never actually been a self at any point in time.

Like tasting sugar for the first time, after that insight dawns you will have unerring confidence in the dharma because the teachings are no longer just a theory, it becomes a lived and embodied truth.

Can someone explain me the significance of this image ?


Educate yourself.

Can someone explain me the significance of this image ?


That is a depiction of samsara. The bhāvacakra, or wheel of existence. Yāma as the personification of death holds the wheel. The three poisons that tether us to samsara lie at the center, and then the six lōkas or destinations (realms) of rebirth are depicted.

What does Anātta mean? No Self or No Permanent Self?


Does the Buddha want us to believe that there is no permanent essence? Or that there is no essence at all?

No essence at all, in anything.

Or that we are under the illusion that a permanent essence(soul) exists?

We are deluded when we conceive of an essence that is permanent or impermanent.

I'd like to invite you to meet, listen and learn from one of my teachers - Available virtually via zoom. Upcoming teaching on Ngondro/WOMPT -- Nyingma/Dzogchen tradition, student of Namkhai Norbu - Thursdays 5:30pm PDT


I haven’t met Joe yet, but have shared teachers and forums for many years, he seems very sincere, genuine and knowledgeable. Great opportunity for anyone interested.

Buddha Nature and Emptiness


Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda-sūtra:

Bhagavān, the so-called "tathāgatagarbha" is tathāgata's wisdom of emptiness that cannot be seen by śravakas and pratyekabuddhas.

Distinguishing “pure consciousness” from the sixth consciousness perceiving the other five sense doors.


He describes a form of pure, unchanging knowing that underlies the active and changing parts of experience that one can become aware of by, for example, noticing the sound of silence. Even when there is no sound, there remains an objectless state of knowing.

That is technically the khandha of vinnana.

But, there is an unconditioned gnosis. It is not quite separate from the vinnana khandha, it is instead the actual nature of the vinnana khandha.

Are we deviating from the path of Gautam Buddha


Also there have been many tangents and additions to the path throughout the history of Buddhism that had at varying degrees led away from the eightfold path and the practice of meditation to calm the mind and see reality for what it is. But the path is not truly obscured yet, so there is still hope.

The tangential “paths” are things like new age spirituality and so on. No extant Buddhist system, considered an “addition” or not, has deviated from the buddhadharma.

Is it necessary for a Buddhist to take refuge in the Buddha?


Yes it is also the Theravada view.

Dharmakaya vs Nirguna Brahman


What truly is the Dharmakaya?

Dharmakāya is a Buddha’s total realization of emptiness at the time of buddhahood.

Can be a nuanced topic but the gist is outlined by Bhaviveka here:

Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.

Is it necessary for a Buddhist to take refuge in the Buddha?


the buddha was the founder, it would be hard to seperate the two.

Śākyamuni did not found the dharma, he himself said he simply rediscovered a path that existed long before him, set forth by other past Buddhas.

Suttas about anatman?


Pāli texts that discuss anātman would be:

AN 7.49 Dutiyasaññā Sutta, MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta, SN 46.73 Anatta Sutta, Sutta Nipāta 5.15, Mogharājamāṇavapucchā, AN 10.60 Girimānanda Sutta, SN 22.59 Pañcavaggiya Sutta, Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta, AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta.

If Karma is plays a role in determining how our lives are going to be in the next reincarnation. What good does it matter if you don’t carry your identity into the next life?


The identity does not carry over because it is a false construct to begin with, but the mindstream that the identity is based upon persists indefinitely and causal actions that satisfy certain criteria (which are performed from within the confines of whatever current identity “inhabits” said mindstream) create a karmic debt.

If you don’t want so-called “negative” karmic debts to ripen upon your mindstream at a future time, then you guard your current conduct to mitigate the creation of further karmic debt.

This includes actions which cause certain traces which may result in a disadvantageous rebirth. Why shoot yourself in the foot? It is unnecessary.

Prasangikas, do you believe shengtongpas can still realize enlightenment?


So-called rangtong and shentong are both post-equipoise views. Equipoise is identical for both.

Did Nagarjuna deny the transcendental reality or just our reality in his philosophy of Śūnyavāda? Could anyone explain the most key ideas of his philosophical framework as I'm getting contradictory viewpoints from different places.


For Nāgārjuna, the so-called “transcendent reality” is nothing more than an accurate cognition of this so-called mundane reality. We do not see or experience this “reality” correctly due to the fact that our mindstreams are burdened by ignorance. When ignorance is removed, then we see things how they really are. Thus there is an ultimate truth to recognize, but that is just an accurate knowledge of relative truth.

Looking for theoretical resources on wrathful activity


Wrathful activity in Vajrayāna for example, is not really related to anger, rather it is a method to rapidly remove obscurations.

What Path or school, if any yet or ever, have you decided to follow or peaked your interest?


What Path or school, if any yet or ever, have you decided to follow or peaked your interest?

u/laycub the phrase is “piqued your interest,” just for future reference.

Who is this?


One of the foremost protectors of the Dzogchen teachings.

Does Buddhism believe in a divine self? Anatman vs. Atman (Hinduism vs. Buddhism)


so much of advaita was influenced by Buddhism that it shares methods that should create the conditions for stream entry.

Def not.

Care to share?


The two are concomitant, jñāna as a prevailing modality of cognition does not manifest without realizing selflessness.

Care to share?


In dzoggchen no self is not much of a concern since the emphasis is quite different.

No self is actually emphasized quite heavily and explicitly in Ati teachings.

Can anyone explain about the basis or primordial ground according to dzogchen? Do all sentient beings share one common basis or each one has it's own basis that is exactly the same as all other basises?


Each conventional sentient being has a mind, and each mind has a dharmatā or “basis.” Each dharmatā is identical in characteristic, but discrete and distinct, meaning not identical as a single transpersonal nature that all minds share.

if there is no self, then what is suffering?


There is a self. 100%. You exist.

This sentence is what lies at the heart of samsara. The idea that the self “100% exists” is 100% inaccurate and false, and moreover is not what buddhadharma teaches.

if there is no self, then what is suffering?


It isn't that there is no self, it's that there is no fixed self that is unchangeable and can be pointed to and defined specifically.

This might be true for Taoism, which is your main view as you’ve professed, but this is not an accurate description of anātman in buddhadharma.

How do Buddhists understand the phenomenon of Near Death Experiences?


For Buddhists, actual death occurs nearly 3 days after what western cultures consider “death” which is the cessation of the heartbeat, breathing etc. In buddhadharma there is an inner respiratory process of sorts that consciousness is actually bound to. Thus, the separation of consciousness from the body does not occur until that inner process ceases, which takes 3 days typically.

This means this western idea of an NDE is some sort of play of our still embodied consciousness during that time of the outer breath ceasing and so on. Similar to a dream.

The subtle body outside the physical body is surely some sort of state like astral projection where the subtle body is not bound to the physical body for a time. This happens in the bardo eventually as well, but at that point the consciousness has totally separated, and we are said to have a subtle body that persists for some time. The white light is the ālaya aspect of consciousness.

Is this a scam / cult? Should we be careful?


Entheogens can create an opportunity for insight as well

Entheogens can produce profound substantial non-dual states, but they cannot provide insight into anātman proper.

Is this a scam / cult? Should we be careful?


There are no “official endorsements” but Malcolm has said he has no issue with xabir and John Tan’s views or presentation of buddhadharma and he said their views do not run contrary to the buddhadharma.

It is also my opinion that their views are very clear, and I consider them friends.

Gorampa on Establishing Perception-Independent Reality


active contributor to this sub responded saying that there is, indeed, an external world with “actual objects” (nangyul, as opposed to the way they appear perceptually) independent of perception, although that world is, too, dependently arisen and not (ultimately) real (which really, i could argue how absurd this is on pure reason alone, but.) This was recently continued in a new Dzogchen sub.

The nangwa and nangyul distinction is not actually saying there is a noumenon. That topic is very nuanced.

Is Buddhism’s non-self (Anattā) and Hinduism’s belief that the self is pure awareness a meaningful difference or more conceptual/semantic?


This, to me, sounds like two traditions labeling the same thing differently. Am I wrong?

The differences are more substantial than your description suggests, and for that reason the distinction is appropriate.

what do buddhists say instead of "oh my god"?


Just say “oh my god” like a normal person.

Khenchen Namdrol on rigpa in beginners vs in āryas


Nice excerpt.

Does the mind-stream continue after Parinirvana? Or is it dependent on the aggregates and thus wrong to say there is such a thing as a mind-stream?


Does the mind-stream continue after Parinirvana?

Yes, it is unceasing. Nirvana etc., is only the total purification of the mindstream.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Buddhism because of the translation of the word 'Dukkha'.


Life unavoidably contains pain and suffering” would be a more accurate representation.

Everything apart from nirvana is suffering, is more accurate.

Could Gautama be a group or historical projection like the projection of a self?


Buddhas appear real to sentient beings but they ultimately are a projection of sorts. They look like a real, corporeal person because of our karmic perception.

Why we are not told what have happened in our previous lives?


Yes one of the six abhijñās.

The six types of higher knowledges (chalabhiññā) are:

"Higher powers" (iddhi-vidhā), such as walking on water and through walls;

"Divine ear" (dibba-sota), that is, clairaudience;

"Mind-penetrating knowledge" (ceto-pariya-ñāṇa), that is, telepathy;

"Remember one's former abodes" (pubbe-nivāsanussati), causal memory, that is, recalling one's own past lives;

"Divine eye" (dibba-cakkhu), that is, knowing others' karmic destinations; and,

"Extinction of mental intoxicants" (āsavakkhaya), upon which arahantship follows.[7]

Bardo/clear light questions


In the book, the author mentions that practicing lucid dreaming will help you out in the bardo. How does that work?

The bardo is said to be very similar to sleeping and dreaming. The more adept you are at remaining lucid while dreaming, the better chance you will have with staying lucid in the bardo. Also, the process of falling asleep is said to be very similar to the process of dying, and again, it is said if you can remain cognizant of the process of falling asleep while it happens, you will have a better chance of staying cognizant during the process of death. Ordinary people fall unconscious during death and then regain consciousness in the “bardo of becoming,” which means they are unconscious during key moments that they could otherwise utilize for awakening.

For my Vajrayana people: getting real about sex & love, and questions about awakening.


I’m a married man nowadays, so much has changed.

Can a person interested in Buddhism learn more than 1 type of Buddhism Mahayana, Theravada, Tibetan, and Vajrayana Buddhism? Because I’m trying to be a Buddhist and I’m reading book around those types of Buddhism, what would I be?


Vajrayāna is Tibetan Buddhism, which is a form of Mahāyāna called “uncommon Mahāyāna,” as opposed to common Mahāyāna (which is the prajñāpāramitā, Yogācāra, Madhyamaka, pure land, zen, tathāgatagarbha, etc). Thus with Tibetan Buddhism it is Vajrayāna practice with Mahāyāna folded in as a basis in many ways. The majority of key Theravada principles also apply to Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna by default. But the practice of Theravada is not the practice of Vajrayāna for example, they are different “paths” in terms of practice.

For my Vajrayana people: getting real about sex & love, and questions about awakening.


What about your emotions?

I don’t like to talk about myself really but doctrinally you would be referring to the “taming” ('dul ba, damya), which is as my teacher says “the process of obtaining the mental and emotional resilience on a deep level. When one has tamed one's afflictions, even if they are still present in the mind stream, one has reached the level of patience (bzod pa, kṣānti).” This occurs at the 3rd bhūmi, and is characterized by pretty much a total absence of negative emotions like sadness or anger, but with the ability to still feel immense gratitude, joy and happiness in proper contexts.

In my past I would sometimes form healthy attachments to some women and have relationships with them, this is really no issue.

The view of Vajrayāna and ati in general is actually defined as “attachment without clinging” this means we allow our senses to come into contact with their respective objects of sensation without accepting or rejecting. This means that even in the act of sex, the sensations are arising and you are fully with the sensations. If you aren’t in equipoise then you are fully experiencing the sensation, and you can play with how that sensation lacks a subject and object if you understand how that principle is applied in the view. That is the meaning of training in pure vision. Everything is the mandala of the deity, in ati for example, this means everything is innately the mandala of vidyā.

For my Vajrayana people: getting real about sex & love, and questions about awakening.


At age 27 when I encountered the dharma I was practicing regularly individually and also group pūjas and I was sometimes sleeping with multiple women a day and it had no affect on my progress in practice at all. You’ll be fine.

Also sexual attraction does not really dissipate until the later bhūmis.

Can a non-monk wear a robe like this?


Upāsakas [non-monastic practitioners] can wear robes if they took śrāmanera vows but never went full bhikṣu [monastic].

Do you think existence is strange?/ Buddhas accuracy?


Do you think existence is strange?

Unbelievably strange, and just unbelievable in general.

Does terminating AI components (eg. a boss) in computer games affect one’s karma


Say if one plays a computer game like Diablo 3 and terminates a bunch of AI monsters every time he plays, does this act affect his karma?

No, characters in a game do not have mindstreams.

The Illusory Nature of Things


can I ask what you mean by things have never manifested in the first place?

This is called "anutpada" in Sanskrit, or "non-arising." It means that the practitioner realizes that their perception of objects and the self were both byproducts of ignorance [avidya], and when avidya ceases, the misconception that persons, places and things ever originated in the first place is undone and all phenomena are realized to be primordially unconditioned and illusory.

The Illusory Nature of Things


Travelling for me was always about broadening my understanding of the world but that was before I realised that to understand my mind is to understand the world. I don't need to go anywhere to gain understanding.

This is true, but you can also engage in your conventional life. Lucky for us yogis who prioritize comprehension of the mind, the mind goes with us wherever we go, and wherever we are, it is there. Thus, Mexico can also be a place where practice can occur, and you should go enjoy time with your girlfriend.

Besides, the illusory nature of things is not that they are impermanent, but rather that things have never manifested in the first place, if you recognize and begin to integrate this latter insight, then you are likewise free to enjoy life as it unfolds no matter what is appearing, or where you may be.

Do any of you know about the illusion of self, and what is your opinion on it?


The Buddhist view is that there is no actual seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, no feeler of feelings, no knower of known. When this is experientially recognized in a nonconceptual way, that is “awakening.”

Why traditonal buddhism is wrong and why every traditional Buddhist goes into denial when faced with this argument


The author of that thread u/udontknowshitfoo is ill informed, as are 99% of those replying.

is the concept of nondualism universal throughout the dharma?


Nonduality as advāya is found all throughout every system of buddhadharma, even your beloved Pāli Canon, Nicky boy. We as Buddhists only reject substantial, ontological nonduality [advaita].

is the concept of nondualism universal throughout the dharma?


is the concept of nondualism universal throughout the dharma?

Yes, and has various expressions in different systems.

If there is no self, what are we, how are we distinct from others, and what becomes enlightened?


But what is the one in this case? How is there a being that is enlightened if there is no unchanging essence underneath their mind?

There is just a mindstream that is either afflicted by delusion or purified of delusion. Liberation is just the total purification of the mindstream.

If all we are is mental phenomena, then doesn't one cease to exist when they stop being reborn?

Rebirth is just the causal process of affliction that keeps the mind deluded. When delusion is removed from the mindstream then the process of rebirth ceases, but the mindstream does not cease, it is inexhaustible.

How does Buddhism view duality versus non-duality?


Is the phenomenon of mind based in something else than flesh and bone coming together under the right conditions?

Yes and no. Yes, because the mind is immaterial and according to Buddhism cannot have a material cause. The cause of mind is a previous moment of mind in Buddhist teachings, which means the mind is a discrete, causal continuum. Mind is not an epiphenomena of matter according to these teachings, and in fact it can be said that the reverse is true, matter is caused by mind.

For these reasons a provisional substance dualism is suggested between mind and matter, that dualism is called nāma-rūpa. Nāma is consciousness and rūpa is matter, specifically the four material elements which comprise all matter according to Buddhism.

And then no, because the mind is in many ways dependent on a body, and it is said that even between lives when there is a separation of the mind from the body, the mindstream still carries the other aggregates within it.

Astus on dharmawheel.net forums just shared these two relevant excerpts recently.

The Avijjāpaccayasutta:

Mendicant, if you have the view that the mind and the body are the same thing, there is no living of the spiritual life. If you have the view that the mind and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Rebirth is a condition for old age and death.’ ... ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.’"

And, from The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p 756, n 107:

The living of the holy life (brahmacariyavāsa) is the living of the noble path. One who holds the view “the mind and the body are the same” (taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīraṁ) holds that the mind and the body are annihilated together (at death). For one who holds this, the annihilationist view follows, for he holds that “a being is annihilated.” Now this noble path arises to stop and eradicate the round of existence. But on the annihilationist view the round ceases even without the development of the path, and thus the development of the path becomes purposeless. In the second case, one holding the view “the mind is one thing, the body another” (aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīraṁ) holds that the body alone is annihilated here, while the mind goes about freely like a bird released from a cage. This view is eternalism. But if there were even one formation that is permanent, stable, and eternal, the noble path would not be able to bring the round to an end; thus again the development of the path would be purposeless.

Is nirvana a place where your soul can “be” or just a term used for enlightenment?


Nirvana is defined as a total cessation of the cause for the process of cyclical rebirth (samsara).

It essentially means you possess a clear, unobstructed and irreversible knowledge (or gnosis) of the true nature of mind and phenomena.

The Buddha describes his attainment of nirvana here in the Ārya-lalitavistara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

I have obtained the ambrosia of Dharma, profound, peaceful, immaculate, luminous and unconditioned. Even though I explain it, no one will understand, I think I will remain in the forest without speaking. Free from words, untrained by speech, suchness, the nature of Dharma, is like space free from the movements of mind and intellect, supreme, amazing, the sublime knowledge… Always like space, nonconceptual, luminous, the teaching without periphery or center is expressed in this Dharmawheel. Free from existence and nonexistence, beyond self and nonself, the teaching of natural nonarising is expressed in this Dharmawheel.

Is consciousness reborn? or, is there just one universal consciousness.


There are no universals in Buddhism at all really. Only universal generic characteristics like the wetness of liquid or the heat of fire.

If there is no soul or self, then what are hungry "ghosts"?


When, with the arising of a sankhata dhamma, the sankhara on which it depends is seen to be anicca, then that presently arisen dhamma is correctly understood as anatta, which is all that is necessary for release.

This is technically inaccurate. The realization of anatta results from insight into non-arising, not impermanence. Impermanence is just a preliminary characteristic of conditioned phenomena that infers a lack of a stable essence. Everyday deluded sentient beings can perceive impermanence, but only awakened individuals have insight into anatta.

because all views automatically imply self for a being without insight

This is not a problem. Upholding a conventional right view is necessary for experiential realization to occur. As a practitioner of the śravākayāna or common Mahāyāna, if your provisional right view is flawed then you will obstruct your own access to so-called higher insight.

This is why the view "there is no self" leads to confusion

It doesn’t. You are probably just parroting Thanissaro Bikkhu who spreads this misconception and confuses many who are interested in the Pāli Canon.

escape from the effluent of views altogether

Escape from views does not mean you opt for a neutral indeterminate position. If you do not realize selflessness directly then you will never, ever escape from views. The relinquishing of views is a synonym for the realization of emptiness.

And SN 44:10 gives an example of how the view "there is no self" gives rise to confusion

Only for Vacchagotta in that particular instance. The Buddha is attempting to help Vacchagotta avoid adopting an annihilationist view. This does not mean “there is no self” will lead to confusion.

If there is no soul or self, then what are hungry "ghosts"?


The Buddha speaks often in terms of anatta, but he does not say that “there is no self” is a beneficial view.

It is absolutely a beneficial conventional view, for the simple reason that it is an accurate description of the actual nature of phenomena given that the skandhas are completely devoid of a self. You are only liberated in these teachings due to thoroughly realizing that there has never at any time been an actual self.

Thus “sabbe dhamma anatta” - All phenomena are not self/empty of self.

Precisely. Thus there is absolutely no self. Unless you think there is some dhamma that is exempt.

It’s not that “there is no self” is wrong, but if taken on the level of view, it prevents the arising of right view.

If you relate to the view skillfully then it is no problem. The view is just a concept, the reality of anātman is something to be directly realized like tasting sugar. No person of sound mind believes the word “sweet” is the actual taste of sugar, nevertheless it is an accurate description. Just like no person who truly comprehends these teachings thinks the view of selflessness is the actual taste of anātman, nevertheless it is an accurate description.

If there is no soul or self, then what are hungry "ghosts"?


The Buddha gives us some views to cling to, for the arising of right view, but “there is no self” is not one of them (not given in the Pali Suttas)

It is found all throughout the Pāli suttas.

if every empowerment, including common ones such as Medicine Buddha, led to Samaya commitments, all of the Lamas would be sending hundreds of thousands of students to Vajra Hell


u/krodha despite our occasional arguments

My friend, I never interpret our interactions as argumentative. I think you are a sincere practitioner and have a good outlook on things.

The essence boils down to I'm concerned that because of taking a medicine Buddha empowerment when I was a new Buddhist in 2014, and didn't keep samaya not being told about it on the of empowerment (was rhe same day as refuge) and not understanding much, and now that its been over 3 years, that I'm essentially doomed to vajra hell without hope.

Impossible. The only way you would wind up in avīcī or “vajra hell” would be if you completely abandoned bodhicitta and turned your back on the buddhadharma altogether.

I might be screwed regardless.

I think you will be just fine. My advice would also be not to worry.

So by his view, the 3 years doesn't seem to apply; is this more of a Nyingma view and not a Sarma view?

These things can vary from teacher to teacher.

Enlightenment in Zen: Same or different? Including death and rebirth


Nirvana in traditional Buddhism is described as the cessation of greed, hatred, and ignorance, and after death, paranirvana, the 5 Skhandas are dissolved and there is unbinding. Is this idea similar in zen? Or different?

Same for the most part. Some different aspects are emphasized, but the awakening of zen and the awakening of other Buddhist teachings are the same.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


Ah, thanks. In that case, touché.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


In what other ways are the teachings wrong

The teachings aren’t wrong, they are the instructions of Buddhas and awakened āryas. If you think ignorant sentient beings are accurately revising and correcting the teachings then this is a grave error.

How do I get over misanthropy?


Sentient beings and humans especially simply dwell in the three poisons and engage in activity that is often quite harmful in the process. They are simply ignorant, and want to be happy which really is a fool’s errand when pursued within the confines of samsara. You can have compassion for them like a parent does for a child who unintentionally harms themselves or others, you know the child does not know any better, but at the same time you can disapprove of their behavior.

As much as I've come to detest (yes, I know, aversion) the "I killed a bug, wut do?" posts...


So I'd conjured up the thought, over time, that the best course of action was to finish the job as quickly and cleanly as one could, rather than let the process of death be prolonged. And this still jives with me now, mostly, as someone who subscribes to Buddhist beliefs. So, I crushed its head, disposed of it, and prayed over it. What say you, r/Buddhism?

You have a karmic debt now. It will ripen at an unknown future time. Best to avoid creating situations like that your yourself or whatever being will be expressed by your mindstream in the future and resolve to refrain from intentionally taking life.

That bug will be reborn as some other being and it’s karma will ripen again, you did not save it from that ripening, you’ve only succeeded in delaying it (and created an obstacle for yourself in the process).

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


you still haven’t been able to present any evidence for what you’re proposing.

You can study plenty of expositions on buddhadharma which offer many logical arguments based on the three main pramanas, or valid forms of knowledge, in Buddhist teachings.

Need some help with Mulamadhyamakakarika


I would recommend Mabja Jangchub Tsondru's the Ornament of Reason. It is one of the only pre-Gelug commentaries of the MMK available. Jay Garfield, who arguably published one of the more popular MMK translations has said that the “Ornament of Reason” renders his own translation “obsolete.”

To add, diving headfirst into the MMK is a bit ambitious, I might also recommend going slow with the MMK and also supplementing your approach to Nāgārjuna with some other more palatable expositions of his such as the 70 Stanzas on emptiness [Śūnyatāsaptati] and his 60 stanzas of reasoning [Yuktiṣāṣṭika]. The Catuḥstava which consists of four works: Lokātīta-stava (Hymn to transcendence), Niraupamya-stava (to the Peerless), Acintya-stava (to the Inconceivable), and Paramārtha-stava (to Ultimate Truth) is also quite good. Along with his Bodhicittavivaraṇa or exposition on awakened mind.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


According to: until there’s evidence that a long, drawn out, agonising death is better for you than a quick one, it makes no sense assume that it is

It makes no sense to lokayāta annihilationists, but you’re in the Buddhism subreddit.

Self question


No Self does not mean that there is not some sort of entity that is existent as the aggregate of the Five Khandas/Factors and is thus capable of observing the world

It literally does mean that.

Self question


where/what is the presence/awareness/observer which stands behind and notices thoughts,

It is called vijñāna. It is a false construct of ignorance.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


not only is it a superior way of alleviating suffering, it’s the only one out of our 2 propositions that actually does alleviate it.

Only according to uccedavādins, a.k.a., annihilationists.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


Your claim that allowing unnecessary suffering is beneficial for the animal is based on superstition which you have no evidence for as far as I can tell.

The same can be said about the superstition of “mercy killing” that you’ve evidently been culturally conditioned to believe is a superior method of alleviating suffering.

Why do buddhist monks shave their heads while none of the budhas never cut kes(hair)?


Looking for answers from an Indian or Tibetan perspective.

Not all Buddhists or Buddhas have shaved heads. There are lay Tibetan practitioners called ngakpas who take a vow to never cut their hair.

Are their any people who are enlightened in prison?


Tibetans were imprisoned by the PRC around the time of the cultural revolution for decades, there were many realized masters who were in the prison camps, and many had to practice secretly.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


Hypothetical scenario, do you also believe it’s wrong to be heavily drugged when you die because you aren’t feeling the full scope of the dying experience?

Definitely, which is counterintuitive to our western worldview, but according to Buddhist teachings it is actually vital to die with a clear and non-inebriated mind.

If so, do you believe assisted euthanasia is wrong to those with severely painful terminal illnesses, or an old dog that can barely still walk?

Technically yes because these things qualify as killing. They should be avoided if possible. At the same time, we as Buddhists have absolutely no business telling anyone else how to live or die. All we can do is guard our own mind and conduct.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


I guess what's even the point of having compassion for other creatures. What does right compassion look like?

Right compassion in the context of these teachings is actually the compassion we feel for sentient beings knowing that they suffer and continue to suffer due to their ignorance regarding the nature of their mind and the nature of phenomena.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


If it is mercy killed, wouldn’t that imply that we have no evidence of a karmic debt regarding a slow and painful death?

You are intentionally intervening.

The original stepping on and subsequent mercy kill may be the entirety of the karmic debt owed.

The act of killing is an intentional action on your part. The accidental stepping on of the snail was the snail’s karma because it was unintentional on your part.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


This isn’t an answer to the essence of my question, though.

Intervening in the suffering of others in the sense of saving beings from harm or suffering, feeding the hungry, ransoming the life of a being in harms way, and so on, these are acts which generate great positive karma.

Killing a being does not save them from being subject to the karma you think you are sparing them of.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


Because according to Buddhist teachings that suffering is exhausting a karmic debt, a debt that will ripen regardless of whether it ripens now or at a later time.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


If someone is starving, and I delay that karma by giving them some food, surely the same argument applies?

There is a difference between feeding a hungry being and killing them if they are mortally wounded.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


The act of killing has certain karmic consequences for your own personal mindstream. It creates a karmic debt, and that karma will have to ripen at a future time. The idea is to become free of that karma, not compound it by adding to it. This is why we as Buddhists are to guard our conduct and be mindful of the cause and effect related to our actions and intentions.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


So, your comment is extra confusing bc they are ending the current suffering w euthanasia, thus speeding things up, not delaying it?

In the Buddhist worldview, the karma of suffering ripens no matter what, and is usually expressed as pain. Therefore if a being is in pain and suffering then that karma is ripening and that being will exhaust that karmic debt, never having to experience it again. However that karma ripens regardless, whether in this life or the next, and this means that according to Buddhist teachings, if you kill the sentient being then you temporarily interrupt the ripening of that karma which will simply continue again in the next life.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


If they are alive then karma is just playing out. Killing them just delays the karma from playing out, it does not end suffering.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


Because it is soon reborn.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


It is not in the insect’s best interest, only your own. You are actually robbing that sentient being of the process of exhausting that karma. Extremely selfish.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


You are only delaying the misery for your own benefit.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


I don't care if it is negative karma or not I'm ending it's suffering

You are not ending that being’s suffering. You are only postponing it.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


I will gladly accept the consequences of killing in order to end its continued suffering.

This does not end that being’s suffering, you are only delaying it.

If I accidentally injure an insect but don’t kill it is it more compassionate to take it out of its misery or leave it as is?


As a practitioner of buddhadharma you simply never take a life, no matter what. Thus OP should refrain from killing.

Just began reading Bardo Thodol, a translation in Spanish. It mentions 80 deities and I wanted to learn about them all. Is there any video (preferably), website, article, etc… were I can learn about them?


Just began reading Bardo Thodol, a translation in Spanish. It mentions 80 deities and I wanted to learn about them all. Is there any video (preferably), website, article, etc… were I can learn about them?

Typically it is 100 deities. 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful. This is related to zhitro.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhitro

This is the zhitro mandala:

https://tinypic.host/i/nBDkK

Confusion regarding an objects dependency relying on its parts, and how that effects its inherent existence


One of the objects suggested is a blue vase. I understand the idea that the vase's existence is not inherit - it is made up of an opening, a lid, a handle, and then deeper it is made of dye, clay, a finish of some sort, then atoms etc etc.

Regarding this, it is important at some point to acknowledge that these teachings are not actually saying that the vase is composed of parts. But do go slow, I know that book is sort of a gradual approach.

For more on this you can consult Candrakīrti’s sevenfold reasoning of the chariot, here is a brief synopsis:

(i) There is no chariot which is other than its parts

(ii) There is no chariot which is the same as its parts

(iii) There is no chariot which possesses its parts

(iv) There is no chariot which depends on its parts

(v) There is no chariot upon which the parts depend

(vi) There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts

(vii) There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts

If there is no self, what clings to the aggregates?


Terrible advice.

If there is no self, what clings to the aggregates?


However, the Buddha himself was not concerned with anything these two schools are concerned with.

A very strange assertion given that the Buddha taught the Mahāyāna prajñāpāramitā himself.

If there is no self, what clings to the aggregates?


“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes.

Total b.s.

buddhism and psychedelics?


What psychedelics could he be talking about, though?

Probably datura.

Hello, is there a mantra that is suitable against negative spirits? Is the vajrasatva mantra good?


There are different mantras associated with different figures who help to control certain types of beings in the eight classes of sentient beings. Garuda controls nāgas for example. If you have a provocation from a certain being then it generally a good idea to try and discern what type of being you are dealing with. Certain beings wield certain provocations.

Also for general “black magic” type attacks, if you are worried about such things, Simhamukha is good, like u/dharmastudent mentioned. Not sure how much we have to worry about that, but there are areas of the world where things like that are occurring.

Many of Padmasambhava’s emanations control various beings of the eight classes.

Vajrasattva is good for purifying karmic debts. But isn’t so much something that can be used against negative beings. Although it is still good. You only have provocation from certain beings because of karmic connections.

Probably something to consult a teacher about. Or a practitioner of traditional Tibetan medicine or ayurveda.

Cessation of Self


There is a cessation of ignorance [avidyā] and the misconception of a self ceases with it.

Why are there differing views on sense pleasure?


This distinction concerns Śravākayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna views on sensory phenomena.

Śravākayāna and Mahāyāna are paths of renunciation. Vajrayāna is a path of transformation. Vajrayāna uses the senses to awaken.

What advice (personal or from the dharma) can you give to someone with a porn addiction?


Most people who suffer from “porn addiction” typically seem to be merely individuals with strong porn enthusiasm. The two are not the same. Addiction is a disease that leaches out into the addict’s surroundings and affects their personal life in a destructive way despite the addict’s knowledge that their behavior is causing issues. Affecting relationships, their job, sometimes affecting their ability to engage in normal social situations. A genuinely compulsive and uncontrollable, destructive habit.

Porn enthusiasm is just viewing porn frequently in a way that doesn’t spill out into one’s life and cause destruction.

Important to identify which one accurately characterizes your situation. People often throw around the idea of “addiction” too liberally.

Addicts need rehabilitation and therapy. Enthusiasts might need to cut back consumption, maybe not, the motivation in either direction is something to examine.

Can serial killers and rapists be forgiven?


With enough time in hell or the lower realms, they can get out of that as they burn off their negative karma.

Or if they eliminate that karmic debt in this lifetime.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


They can't say things that was not said by Buddha himself.

In Mahayana, the Buddha is not a person.

And he clearly did not say such things. He explained narakaloka as actual, physical world.

You can uphold any view you want to in your personal life, I'm merely clarifying that there are large portions of the buddhadharma that assert otherwise.

Well, Is it?. Samsara is the core belief that the Buddha peach Buddhism from. Without that is it still Buddhism or another religion.

Samsara appears to deluded beings. But it is not ultimately real.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


Where did learn this from?

Vasubandhu and other prominent Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna figures.

Samsara chakra is a actual thing that happens. you can't say that it doesn't exist.

Perhaps these are just differences between Mahāyāna and the Pali teachings. To each their own.

Did buddha do yoga?


"Yoga" in buddhism does not mean the same thing as it does in Hinduism.

The meaning of the term "yoga" in buddhist contexts means to possess a first hand, experiential knowledge of the nature of our mind, which is the real condition of the individual.

For example, "yoga" in Tibetan is naldjor. "Nal" means your real condition, the luminous nature of your mind in its natural condition. "Jor" means to possess direct knowledge. Thus "naldjor" is to have that knowledge and be in that state. The awakened state of a buddha or arya bodhisattva.

In buddhist teachings there are physical yogas that help us to discover that state and integrate with that knowledge. But there are also non-physical yogas, the meditative practices of buddhadharma are also a form of yoga, because they too are a means to establish a direct knowledge of that state and integrate with it.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


You said that hell and heaven is 'state of mind'.

The narakaloka is like a projection of mind, yes, but it appears very real to the individual concerned.

Are you now saying that what happened was Buddha entered this state of mind, right?

Yes, buddhas can appear to your mind in various ways.

Why would he come down from sky then?. Why would that happen?

You'd have to cite an example of what you're referring to.

And, samsara doesn't exist?

Not ultimately, no.

Well. So, is in Theravada. You can't know the words of other Buddhas since either they have not come to this world yet or their time is over. Only way to that is if the current buddha says those things.

Right, so as I said, in Mahayana and Vajrayana there is a more liberal definition of "buddhavacana."

bodhisattvas can't preach dhamma can't they since bodhisattvas could be anybody.

In Mahayana, many bodhisattvas expound teachings.

Buddhism is a lot more than just sūtras, śāstras and tantras.

Sure, but here we are discussing a doctrinal position. That position is the case no matter where you are located on the globe.

Did buddha do yoga?


There are both physical yogas and yogas of the mind in the buddhadharma.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


how can he go to heaven if it doesn't exist?.

Buddhas can emanate anywhere in the three realms. Samsara technically does not exist either, nevertheless, the tathāgata appears to sentient beings.

How so?.

In Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, buddhavacana is anything “well said” meaning anything that accords with karma, rebirth, dependent origination, bodhicitta and so on. As opposed to the words of a person or single Buddha. For us there are countless Buddhas and bodhisattvas.

It isn't irrelevant. It matters a lot.

It doesn’t matter at all. The sūtras, śāstras, tantras all say what they say no matter where you are located geographically.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


Well, I don't follow Mahāyāna or Vajrayāna.

Then we can just agree to disagree on this topic.

And, he was born a 1000 years after Buddha.

Indeed.

Is this Buddhism or Vasubandhu-ism.

Buddhadharma. Buddhavacana or “the word of the Buddha” is defined differently in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna.

Why did you not answer my question?

Because where you live does not qualify as a license for being correct, and given that is the case, the question is irrelevant to this conversation.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


I don't think what Vasubandhu argues is true

Ok, well his abhidharma is the basis for all abhidharma in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. Thus I will have to defer to his authority on this matter.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


I have to use a desktop computer for that so I’m unable to access that messaging feature at the moment, but can later.

In the meantime, here is an excerpt from Dan Lusthaus' page on Vasubandhu, under his review of The Twenty Verses:

In an intriguing example, Vasubandhu argues that the torturing guards in hell are not real beings but communal projections by hell denizens with which they torture themselves, since it is illogical that one would be born into hell unless one deserved it based on one's previous actions, and if so, then one would not be immune to hell's tortures--but the guards don't suffer, they mete out suffering. The implication of his argument is that hell itself is merely a paranoid projection. If one wished to make a similar point about intersubjective grouping of interpretations, one could use a common, if scatological example: the difference in the ways humans and flies respond to excrement. Flies flock to it, while humans revile it as filthy and disgusting. Each views excrement according to the life condition, the sort of genetic programming and communal attitude collectively adhered to by its own species. Each takes its interpretation to accurately reference the intrinsic nature and qualities of the thing itself, rather than recognizing that the horizons of such interpretations are karmically conditioned.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


No. It absolutely is a real place according what I have been taught all my life.

You were taught wrong then.

I don't know where you learned that it wasn't a real place but It's impossible otherwise.

As I mentioned, Vasubandhu and other adepts are very clear on this subject.

Being born as a animal is form of hell,

The animal lōka and the narakalōka are two different things.

This is illogical nonsense

Well that is what is taught in the sūtras, śāstras, tantras etc., you can follow suit or not.

why should karma should be exhausted by you being chopped into pieces and boiled alive and other horrific acts?

Because all pain is the ripening of karmic debts in the body.

There is no other answer than being punished for the crimes you did.

There is clearly another answer, you are just being stubborn. But that is your error, you’re welcome to it.

This is shown in countless stories where the thing that happened to you in hell is directly related to the sins you did in your mortal life.

Yes, the causal incurring of a karmic debt, completely divorced of any inkling of the concept of “punishment.”

But, I'm from a Buddhist country and has been deeply following Buddhism all my life.

That is great but this does not mean you were taught correctly.

I'm pretty sure I know enough about these principals and don't need you to teach me.

Yes, it is quite evident that you feel that way. And you’re welcome to believe whatever you like, it has no bearing on my practice. But you will be corrected by people in this subreddit if you make inaccurate assertions, if not for the benefit of yourself, for the benefit of offering clarity to others who may be reading.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


Are you hearing what you say?. Why would you go to hell if not to be punished for the sins you committed?

The naraka realm is not a real place per Vasubandhu and other luminaries, it is essentially equivalent to an extremely negative mental state which manifests an apparent environment and so on. Naraka is simply the result of compounded karmic debts that must be exhausted, hence why one’s experience in the naraka realm concludes after said karmic debt is eliminated.

The Naraka IS about punishment.

Absolutely not. It is about the exhaustion of so-called negative karma.

Have you even read a single Buddhist story?. It seems you haven't.

Have you? Because it seems you know little to nothing about these principles.

Does Buddhism believe in demons and evil spirits?


The naraka or “hell” realm has zero to do with “punishment.” Karmic causality is simply cause and effect.

'Special Techniques' of Tibetan Buddhism?


What kinds of techniques would this be referring to-- tools, meditation, etc.?

Yes, tools, breathing patterns, visualizations, gazes, postures.

The “spiritual energy” is just what is referred to as the inner air element in the body, called “vāyu.” Consciousness in the form of the subjective mind is inseparable from the vāyu, and circulates through the body. The forumla goes, if you can manipulate the body through specific postures, gazes and breathing, then you can manipulate the vāyu, which in turn manipulates the mind. Ergo, in these Tibetan systems there is an advantage over other Buddhist systems which only aim to establish samādhi via meditation alone. The Tibetan yogas, not meaning strictly physical yogas, but these systems used to explore the nature of consciousness in general, are capable of establishing deep meditative states very rapidly.

Buddhism and the nature of Consciousness (Philosophy of Mind)


Svasamvedana, or “rang rig” in this context means "intrinsic" or "innate" knowing. It is intended to contradict the view that the mind's cognition arises in dependence on an object and ceases in the absence of said object.

It just means that minds are conscious by their very nature, and that quality of clarity is an intrinsic characteristic.

For example Śāntarakṣita's definition of svasamvedana is as follows:

The nature of intrinsic clarity that does not depend on another clarifier is the intrinsic knowing [rang rig] of consciousness.

And Kamalaśīla's:

The concise meaning is that the function of intrinsic knowing [rang rig] is only to be the opposite of inert substances such as chariots, walls and so on. It is a convention for a clarity that does not depend on anything.

Affliction and gnosis depend upon whether that mind recognizes the nature of its own clarity or of appearances.

This means that the mind has a conscious capacity, a jñā, which is either expressed as jñāna or vijñāna based on the presence of vidyā, or the absence of vidyā, i.e., ignorance [avidyā].

Tagging u/jigdrol for continuity, since you were summoned.

Death and Nirvana


I am aware that the Buddha, although reached enlightenment, he stayed in samsara in order to help other reach enlightenment.

Buddhas do not stay in samsara. Samsara and nirvana are something like states of mind to put it coarsely. We perceive a Buddha as a person who is in samsara, because we are in samsara, but from a Buddhas point of view, they are completely liberated and have totally conquered samsara.

Buddhism and the nature of Consciousness (Philosophy of Mind)


To add, the arising of consciousness is dependent upon sense organs & sense objects; therefore there is no independent mind.

Some Mahāyāna systems clarify that vijñāna as a dualistic consciousness is dependent on contact with an object, but that the mind is actually innately conscious in and of itself independent of contact, the concept is called “svasamvedana,” translated as “intrinsic knowing.”

Is Buddhism closer to science than to religion?


So a friend said this to me yesterday: "Buddhism is not a religion but an empirical science of the mind, everything that is said in Buddhism has been tested through experimentation, verification and adaptive refinement". And although I can see why he says it, to me, it just sounds really weird to compare the act of looking upon one's own mind with something like the empirical sciences. Also, even if we did, does that mean it is not a religion?

It is both.

Is there no faith in Buddhism?

There is “faith” in the same way that if someone has been to a certain city before and points to a path and gives you directions on how to get there, you have a certain degree of trust and confidence in their experience and instructions. Confidence that you will use as a basis for your own journey, utilizing the directions, to go and see for yourself.

One of the three pramanas, or forms of authoritative knowledge, is “śabda” or the “testimony of reliable persons.” You place confidence and “faith” in the testimony of someone who has direct knowledge of the result you are aiming to achieve.

Different pronunciations?


Benza or benzara is a Tibetan “corruption” of the Sanskrit term “vajra.”

Just like “dröllo” is somehow a corruption of “krodha lokottara.”

Do Buddhists Believe in God?


This is the wrong conclusion of the fourteen unanswered questions." Tell that to literally every Lama, monk and nun I've ever talked to

Gladly.

The Mahā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra explains the logic behind the unanswered questions:

To reply to the fourteen difficult questions would be to commit a fault. If you ask what type is the size or the physique of a son of a barren woman and an eunuch, that would not deserve an answer, for such a son does not exist.

What is the nature of consciousness when dreamlessly sleeping?


If consciousness has receded into the center of the body, how can contact and sensation arise?

Consciousness permeates the entire body, via the vāyu. When we are asleep it recedes into the center of the body because it is not actively accessing the eyes, ears and so on. But the individual is not deceased, consciousness is still present in the body, and is still circulating throughout the body, any loud noise or being shaken etc., will cause consciousness to immediately re-engage in the major sensory faculties.

Do Buddhists Believe in God?


Buddhism does not work if there is some sort of monolithic deity. Our view is cause and effect, full stop. As such this is vitally important for all Buddhists to understand and is one of the most important things to comprehend about Buddhist practice.

People who are under the false impression that these sorts of issues are “irrelevant” are not really grasping the import of these teachings.

What is the nature of consciousness when dreamlessly sleeping?


They aren’t dead.

Do Buddhists Believe in God?


It has no time to speculate on the nature of an alleged omnipotent being.

This is the wrong conclusion of the fourteen unanswered questions.

Do Buddhists Believe in God?


It can be easily disproved and Buddhism rejects it.

Do Buddhists Believe in God?


So, Buddhism takes an agnostic position on the existence of God?

No, god is outright negated and rejected. There is no such thing according to buddhadharma.

What is the nature of consciousness when dreamlessly sleeping?


Consciousness resides in the center of the body in what is called the anahatabindu. When we are awake consciousness accesses the sensory faculties, however when we are in deep dreamless sleep consciousness recedes into the anahatabindu and is essentially dormant. Dreaming occurs when consciousness begins to emerge from the anahatabindu but does not access the sensory organs. Instead consciousness starts entering the nadis near the bindu and activates latent karmic traces which generate appearances, this is why we often dream of things that we encounter in our daily lives which leave impressions on us. Sometimes we can access latent karmic traces from previous lifetimes.

Does enlightened person feel physical pain?


Fully awakened beings do not feel pain. All pain is the ripening of karma in the body. If karma has been totally exhausted, then there is no cause for pain.

Identification with any pain that is experienced is only an indication the adept has not yet completely exhausted their karma so that phenomena remain in their basic nature, as Dudjom Lingpa says here:

Still, you might protest that it is unreasonable to hold that the body and the rest of the world have never existed as anything other than mere sensory appearances, since those who understand the empty nature of their bodies still feel pain when touched by fire or water or when struck by arrows, spears, clubs and so forth. The answer to this is the fact that as long as you have not arrived at the state of basic space in which phenomena resolve within their true nature, dualistic appearances do not subside, and as long as they have not subsided, beneficial and harmful appearances occur without interruption. In actuality though, even the fires of hell do not burn.

There are other stories of yogins who had taken their realization to the fullest extent so that they no longer experienced suffering the same as you or I, for example these stories about Sabchu Tulku and a siddha by the name of Lama Tenje:

Here is another story about the previous Sabchu Tulku - not the child who lives nowadays in Swayambhu, but in one of his former lives. The first Sabchu was a disciple of Situ Pema Nyingje, Jamgön Kongtrül and Jamyang Khyentse. Before he died, a horrible disease struck him; his stomach became one big open sore. It started with one sore and slowly it became bigger and bigger. Finally all his intestines were lying out in his lap. The pus, liquids and blood ran out onto the floor, all the way out to the door. There were definitely bodily sensations, and he wanted to scratch it all the time, so he asked to have his hands tied. They were tied with a white scarf to stop him from scratching the wound. His disciple asked, "Oh Rinpoche! This must be so difficult, it must be really painful for you." He said, "I'm not sick at all, there is nothing wrong with me." They said, "How terrible, all the pus and blood is flowing down the floor." He answered, "There is an old monk sitting on this bed, he seems to be moving around, quite uncomfortably. He wants to scratch his belly, but for me there is nothing wrong at all. I am not sick at all. However there is someone who looks like me sitting right here. He seems to be suffering quite a bit, but I am fine." If you are stable in practice, it is like that: there is no fixation at all.

There was another lama, in Kham, by the name of Tenje, a siddha who contracted the same sickness where all his intestines were hanging out. People asked him, "How are you feeling today?" He said, "I'm fine, nothing wrong at all." They said, "But Rinpoche, look down, you have all these sores and open wounds." He replied, "Yes, it looks like there is something wrong here, but I am quite fine. I am not sick at all." The people asked, "We think you will die soon, so will you please tell us where you will be reborn so we can find the tulku?" He said, "Yes, I can take care of that. Call my disciple Tendar." The lama then told his disciple, "Carry me seven steps to the west." While Tendar was carrying his master those seven steps, the master snapped his fingers and said, "May my realization take birth in your stream of being." Afterwards, he said, while pointing at the student, "This is my tulku, even before I pass away. Will he be okay for this monastery? Tomorrow morning at dawn, I will enact the drama of dying. I am going home to the dharmadhātu buddhafield of Akanishtha." The next morning he died while the sun was rising. His disciple Tendar later said that from the moment when the lama snapped his fingers onwards, he was totally undistracted; he never wandered from the state of rigpa. This disciple later was known as Tendar Tulku, and he had the same realization as his master - no difference whatsoever.

I smoke marijuana


Buddhadharma defines these principles. Study the two truths, conventional and ultimate truths, if you have any interest.

I smoke marijuana


Frame it however you want, you’re free to be pedantic, as long as you comprehend the meaning.

I smoke marijuana


Of course there is. Conventions are designations which accurately describe something which functions consistently and reliably in a certain way. You most likely have a name, and an identity based on certain characteristics and dynamics related to relationships of various kinds. That is your “conventional” identity.

To state something has a conventional identity or is a conventional individual just means it can be designated accurately and the appearance functions efficiently. Like the conventional truth that there is one moon, water is wet, fire is hot, and so on.

This is the Buddhism subreddit. Conventions are an inextricable aspect of these teachings.

Conventions are not ultimately real, but within their own context and application, they are accurate. You are a conventional individual, I am a conventional individual. This is a non-controversial part of these teachings.

I smoke marijuana


Well there never has been, yet nevertheless, deception occurs, and as a conventional individual, you are deceiving yourself.

I smoke marijuana


No you misunderstand you're talking to someone who has already achieved the complete enlightenment state of perfect clarity so I see direct reality when what you refer to are just some spiritual thoughts.

You are deceiving yourself.

I smoke marijuana


There is no way. As an avid practitioner of these teachings for over a decade who has recently tried cannabis for the first time in the past year or so, it is absolutely counterproductive to practice, and if I am able to establish a strong samādhi while high it is clearly influenced by the cannabis.

Don’t get me wrong, cannabis and psychedelics are great in and of themselves, they have some degree of relative value along the lines of the qualities you list, but those are not helping you awaken. It may “enlighten” you in the sense that it makes you a more “enlightened” person in the everyday use of that term, like more in tune with yourself and your relationships and emotions etc., but none of that has anything to do with the meaning of bodhi or awakening in the context of the buddhadharma.

In the buddhadharma we are taming our minds through disciplined equipoise so that we can access what is called a yogapratyaksa, or a yogic direct perception that reveals the true nature of mind and phenomena. No substance can produce that, in any way. Not even psychedelics. The states that can be established via psychedelics are coarse absorption states, which are mere experiences that do not cut through ignorance [avidyā].

Again, not that they lack some sort of relative value, they indeed have value. But they are not a catalyst for actual awakening as defined in Buddhism.

I smoke marijuana


The import of the precept is essentially that if you are high all the time you’re going to have a difficult time remaining diligent in practice and that will make it harder to tame your mind. It isn’t that the precept is a law and some big bad god is saying “thou shalt not attain buddhahood because you smoked weed!” Cannabis just has characteristics and properties that can be unconducive to progress on the path, same with any other mind altering substance.

You can consume cannabis if you want but perhaps just pay attention to how it affects your mind. Do some investigating, see what your mind is like in practice without it, and what your mind is like with it, and you may begin to see how it can cause issues with practice.

Is ngondro the practice I should find a guru to be initiated into to learn the Buddhist chakras


Some teachers may require ngöndro, others may not, it just depends on the teacher.

Re cākras, what you actually looking to learn about are the generation and completion stages of anuttarayogatantra. Generation stage is kyerim and completion stage is dzogrim. The cākras are relevant in both of these stages.

The bulk of Vajrayāna practice consists of these two stages, which result in buddhahood.

As an aside, the cākras as understood in Buddhist teachings are actually physical locations in the body where the venous, arterial and nervous networks coalesce around vital organs.

Can someone please explain the idea of emptiness?


How do I incorporate the idea of emptiness into who I am?

Emptiness is something we are meant to recognize about ourselves and the phenomena around us. Śūnyatā or emptiness means that persons, places and things lack an inherent nature, meaning they lack a core self, to put it simply. We as people ultimately lack a substantial, core self, and external objects also lack a core entityhood.

Emptiness is a refutation of the idea that persons and things have a core essence or nature that lies at the heart of themselves. The Buddha taught this by explaining the five aggregates, and said that the five aggregates constitute the body and mind that we identify as ourselves, without there actually being a self that lies at the center. In objects, such as a table, emptiness is addressing the idea that there is a core entity called “table” which possesses its qualities and characteristics. We think the table is made of wood, or the table has four legs, a top and is brown, but emptiness is challenging the idea that there is a core “table” as a findable entity which possesses those parts and pieces. Instead, the table is only those characteristics, and the “table” is just an imputation, there is no table that can actually be found at all. Moreover, the perceived “characteristics” cannot be found apart from the perception of them. Meaning the idea that your consciousness begins in one place and the appearances that allegedly constitute the table begin in another place is a total delusion. There is only the activity of knowing the appearances and the appearances are precisely the activity of perception, to put it simply.

Obviously this is a nuanced topic but that is the gist of it.

Emptiness means everything is equivalent to something like images in a dream, they are illusory appearances that have never originated or have been born etc.

When you experientially recognize this about yourself and phenomena around you, then you are “awakened.” And that is the start of the path of unraveling the predicament of samsara that Buddhism aims to resolve.

How does one remove Kilesa exactly?


The prajñā of meditation, also called the prajñā of realization, burns away kleśas.

Prajñā is a species of direct, experiential realization or omniscience (wisdom) that dawns in the individual's mindstream upon awakening. It arises as a profound insight into the nature of phenomena and by sheer force it has the power to burn away afflictive karmic traces that give rise to afflictive emotions [kleśa].

The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra states:

Affecting the mind, kleśa and vāsanā can be destroyed only by a wisdom [prajñā], a certain form of omniscience [sarvajñatā].

There is a lesser form of prajñā that is able to eradicate the kleśas, and then a superior form of prajñā that destroys vāsanās. Only buddhas possess the superior form and have therefore dispelled both the kleśas and vāsanās. Effectively freeing themselves from negative karma.

The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra continues:

There is no difference between the different destructions of the conflicting emotions [kleśaprahāna]. However, the Tathāgatas, arhats and samyaksaṃbuddhas have entirely and definitively cut all the conflicting emotions [kleśa] and the traces that result from them [vāsanānusaṃdhi]. The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas themselves have not yet definitively cut vāsanānusaṃdhi... these vāsanās are not really kleśas. After having cut the kleśas, the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas still retain a small part of them: semblances of love (attachment) [rāga], hate (aversion) [dveṣa] and ignorance [moha] still function in their body [kāya], speech [vāc] and mind [manas]: this is what is called vāsanānusaṃdhi. In foolish worldly people [bālapṛthagjana], the vāsanās call forth disadvantages [anartha], whereas among the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas they do not. The Buddhas do not have these vāsanānusaṃdhi.

I'm God or whatever here are my videos be free


Naw.

If there is 'no self' but just a stream of conciousness than 'Who' decides to know self to attain 'whose' nirvana? And that stream of consciousness which decided to practice meditation hasn't it already flowed ahead?


Nirvana is free from ideas and concepts,

Same goes for all phenomena. It is called being “ineffable” and just means that the imputed word you describe the phenomenon with does not actually truly describe the appearance. Like “red ball” does not actually contain or produce the image of a red ball. As such this status of ineffability for nirvana is not all that profound, it is just a pointer to say the experiential realization cannot actually be apprehended with the intellect. Nevertheless, “red ball” is an accurate conventional description of a red ball, and so too, selfless and unconditioned and pure, etc., are accurate conventional descriptions of nirvana.

is any form of Buddhism actually 'closer' to original Buddhism? or is it just lost?


is any form of Buddhism actually 'closer' to original Buddhism? or is it just lost?

There were countless Buddhas that pre-dated Śākyamuni, the idea of some sort of “original” buddhism is really a fool’s errand, no offense. The original Buddhism is the dharma that you are meant to experientially realize through applying the various methods of the buddhadharma, the 84,000 dharma doors. Those “doors” are the entryway to what all Buddhas have realized. Therein lies the only aspect of these teachings that is truly original, the original mind [ādyacitta].

are there any close students of Lama Lena here who can give me some advice?


According to Ati teachings, your root guru is the guru who through their instruction was the catalyst responsible for your recognition of the nature of mind.

Therefore even if you’ve received numerous empowerments, direct introductions and so on, if these have not resulted in recognition of your nature then the lama who imparted these abhisekas may be your guru, but they are not your “root guru.”

Do you think belief in metaphysical is required of a Buddhist?


Can one reach enlightenment if they do not believe in the spirit realms, demons, metaphysical, etc., in a literal way?

You only perceive physicality in general because your mindstream is completely corrupted by ignorance. This allegedly physical consensus reality is the actual altered state of consciousness. Accessing so-called “metaphysical” aspects of your experience is the beginning of seeing things clearly.

Buddhist Monks and Psychic Powers


My Drikung Kagyu teacher and his teacher are both clairvoyant and would make it known in subtle ways. It is definitely real. Also another Tibetan lama I received teachings from was able to influence the minds of those who attended the teachings one time just by singing a yogic song.

beautiful song of realization from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche that elucidates the Karma Kagyu Shentong perspective


Thanks. I still don’t get it, seems like these shentongpas exist in some sort of bubble where they rail against mischaracterizations of other views and then try to justify their ideas by evoking the three turnings which I also don’t put an ounce of investment in.

They claim they are the solution to the danger of nihilism in prasanga but this logic can be easily inverted and applied in the other direction with eternalism. As I’ve mentioned before the idea that Nāgārjuna ever advocated for some sort of inert emptiness is a massive misconception.

If you subtract all the posturing and unnecessary justifications then honestly the above exposition sounds like a completely normal Vajrayāna view. The whole shentong versus rangtong thing is so extraneous.

If we approach the above excerpt on simply the view of Vajrayāna then it is a very typical description of things, again minus all the extra posturing.

If reality is empty, why should one be kind?


But if you think about Vajrayana being the fruitional path, doesn't that imply taking the result as the basis?

Taking the result as the path in Vajrayāna is related to viewing yourself as the deity and your environment as the deities mandala. It does not mean we actually dispense with the path or basis etc.

Whether you call it the kayas or the base, we're both in agreement that primordial wisdom, of the nature of emptiness-luminosity, effectively is covered over until one recognizes it, so why does it matter whether one approach emphasizes the already enlightened Buddha Nature of that pristine awareness, and the other just uses different terminology?

In atiyoga we have to ripen the three jñānas of the basis into the three kāyas.

We're both ultimately saying that all beings have Buddha Nature (not a substantial or eternal "self" but the inherent potential to realize infinite wisdom and compassion and centerless awareness beyond concepts.)

Yeah we are definitely both saying that. In ati the system is just very careful to differentiate the basis, path and result because if you think the qualities of the result are present at the time of the basis then you can feasibly delude yourself into thinking that dualistic mind is jñāna.

If reality is empty, why should one be kind?


Doesn't matter whether one calls it the kayas or the base.

It matters in Dzogchen because we have to differentiate the basis from the result.

If reality is empty, why should one be kind?


Why does an extremely subtle difference in words matter whatsoever for something utterly beyond concepts?

The taste of salt and sugar are equally ineffable and therefore beyond concepts, and what’s more, they look very similar in appearance, nevertheless the ineffable taste of each one is radically different than the other. And hence the conventional distinctions of “sweet” and “salty” are accurate in describing those tastes that are beyond concepts.

If reality is empty, why should one be kind?


Thus rje is the compassion aspect of the basis in atiyoga, which is my actual heart dharma. We just do not hold that qualities are ultimately real and we do not state that they are established from the beginning as the three kāyas.

What made you choose Buddhism over Christianity?


What other cosmological model is there?

What made you choose Buddhism over Christianity?


Not on hand but it is a central principle in all Buddhist cosmology that spans every system in every canon.

What made you choose Buddhism over Christianity?


In buddhadharma there is an expanding and contracting model, the “Big Bang” would only be the onset of the latest expansion.

Where was conciousness before big bang happened and how after big bang matter became 'Concious'?


We are in the Buddhism subreddit, in the buddhadharma we uphold the big bounce view that universes expand and contract. The time in between universes is called the pralāya.

The root of all suffering


Hes talking about the throat Chakra here.

I am not.

Where was conciousness before big bang happened and how after big bang matter became 'Concious'?


Before this current mahākalpa, if it did begin with a Big Bang, the time in between is called the pralāya.

What made you choose Buddhism over Christianity?


Perhaps, but we cannot draw this conclusion with any certainty.

If you say so buddy.

Where are the r/buddhism monks at?


Where my upāsakas at?

Do you agree that any teacher who charges money is not a real teacher?


Tibetan monasteries did have feudal arrangements with the local peasantry who were often able to receive teachings in exchange for corvee labor. Was not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination.

The “guru’s fee” [skt. gurudakṣiṇa, tib. bla ma'i yon] was an accepted aspect of the Tibetan culture. Many Vajrayāna tantras speak of it.

At least in term of Vajrayāna and Mahāyāna as traditionally taught in the Indo-Tibetan region, it was not generally free, and the idea that dharma should always be free is a predominantly western idea.

Again, there are exceptions though and even today most Vajrayāna teachers will not turn people away for lack of funds.

Do you agree that any teacher who charges money is not a real teacher?


In places like Tibet empowerments were sometimes large public affairs and were free, but other teachings were never free, unless you had some sort of personal sponsor or the teaching was sponsored. Usually there was a fee and if you didn’t pay you were unable to receive the teachings.

Even here in the West, organizing dharma teachings has inherent costs, if you aren’t paying then someone is paying. That said my root teacher never charged me a dime in the decade that I received teachings from him, but his organization still had inherent costs and some events did have fees due to the production and organizational aspects surrounding the events.

The root of all suffering


I’ve read that attachment is the root of all suffering, and that desire is the root of all suffering.

The true root of suffering is ignorance [avidyā] in the form of a knowledge obscuration. All attachment and desire result from that knowledge obscuration and Buddhas are Buddhas because they have eliminated that knowledge obscuration.

If reality is empty, why should one be kind?


If reality is empty, why should one be kind?

Compassion is actually an innate property of the nature of your mind. Awakened individuals are compassionate by default, and the aspect of compassion that is innate to the awakened mind engages in altruistic deeds for the benefit of all beings by its very nature.

When you cultivate loving kindness and compassion in your relative condition you are aligning with the intent of ultimate bodhicitta.

Actions which bring harm are the epitome of delusion. And saying that because phenomena are ultimately empty you have license to act and do whatever is called “nihilism” in these teachings. Nihilism is a misunderstanding of emptiness.

Is it possible to reach enlightenment in this life time as a solo practitioner?


If you receive Vajrayāna teachings from a qualified teacher and dedicate your life to them then yes, you can attain samyaksambuddhahood in this very life.

No need to ordain or anything like that, but dedicated stretches of solitary retreat will be necessary.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


I think it is great you are skeptical. This is a serious matter. Jigme Lingpa for example says mistakes about these points can derail one’s entire path.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


But relying on the transmission of the teacher and recalling it, everything is naturally liberated

Phenomena are indeed naturally liberated, like the prajñāpāramitā states, phenomena are in a state of nirvana from the very beginning, but unfortunately for us, this is meaningless until we remove the avidyā which obscures that natural liberation. The entire path of the buddhadharma in general revolves around solving this problem of avidyā, Dzogchen is no different.

how can you say that, resting with that transmission jnana, that phenomena are not perfected?

The dharmatā of phenomena is self-perfected, but our delusion obstructs a clear cognition of that.

Like yes, when unenlightened phenomena present themselves with delusion, but that is outside of the context of the Great Perfection meditation.

How so?

Avidya is only an obscuration when you’re not resting with jnana

Right and jñāna as a modality of cognition is not active until emptiness is realized. Hence Patrul Rinpoche’s statement that such things are only known to āryas. For us this means we can only know jñāna as a prevailing modality once trekchö is realized or the third vision is actualized.

Sorry man I’m really not trying to antagonize you

I don’t think you’re being antagonistic, it is too bad more people don’t ask questions about these things.

but I hope we can reach an agreement on this

Maybe we can, maybe not, it is all good either way, you have a teacher and you should follow their advice. I follow the advice of my teachers.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


Inside meditation on the transmission what is there to give up?

Āvidya, which is not completely uprooted until buddhahood.

Everything is naturally liberated, which is my point.

But avidyā obscures this. We do not perceive phenomena as naturally liberated unless we have realized emptiness.

If that mode of meditation was afflicted how would it naturally perfect itself?

Because the view that you employ, trekchö, is the means to “thoroughly cut” through dualistic vision.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


The tantra says that when vidya is introduced to its own primal nature, jnana manifests and self liberation happens.

Yes. And conversely when vidyā fails to recognize its own primal nature, vijñāna manifests and dependent origination happens.

So if the teacher’s introduction is introducing the nature of the mind or jnana as rigpa then how is that modality afflicted?

Because your clarity is expressed as vijñāna, that is where you start. Dualistic perception is completely embedded in your current cognition, you have to begin to train that unripened vidyā to access jñāna. Like Longchenpa says:

The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a jñāna to be attained.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


how is that baby rigpa vijnana like you said?

The tantra I cited said this, but this is the case because as a sentient being you have dualistic vision. You feel like you are behind your eyes looking out at objects that are situated at a distance from you, that is vijñāna in a nutshell.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


There are different types of direct introduction, 21 in some systems, but the main types center around these two:

The first is what we’ve discussed so far which is (i) introduction to vidyā as clarity (which is the example jñāna) in the form of ma bcos pa'i shes pa skad cig ma or “a moment of unfabricated consciousness.” That is the “baby rigpa.”

The second is (ii) a special type of direct perception (which is an example of the visions, and is itself jñāna appearing in the field), in the form of rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs which is “confirming vidyā in a direct perception,” also called “the direct perception of dharmatā” [chos nyid mngon gsum].

This latter principle is something to ask your teacher about.

Where does the idea of non duality in Buddhism comes from?


I don't think it's really a thing in Theravada.

It definitely is not emphasized, however the same “nonduality” described in Mahāyāna (as a freedom from extremes) is arguably stated here in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta:

Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


how does it lead to inevitable liberation?

The inevitable liberation part is really connected with the type of direct introduction that is based on a direct perception of dharmatā. That is something your teacher would have to show to you.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


How can genuine jnana be afflicted? That doesn’t make sense to me.

Jñāna becomes obscured when vidyā is deluded by mixing with the karmavāyus. This causes dualistic consciousness [vijñāna]. When vidyā recognizes its own state then vijñāna ceases and jñāna is revealed, becoming the prevailing modality of cognition (so to speak).

Longchenpa describes delusion affecting vidyā here:

General delusion is caused by the stain of vidyā not recognizing the manifest basis, through which vidyā itself becomes polluted with delusion. Though vidyā itself is without the stains of cognition, it becomes endowed with stains, and through its becoming enveloped in the seal of mind, the vidyā of the ever pure essence is polluted by conceptualization. Chained by the sixfold manas, it is covered with the net of the body of partless atoms, and the luminosity becomes latent.

The Sun that Illuminates the Meaning discusses how vidyā appears as vijñāna in sentient beings:

The vidyā of migrating beings itself appears as the mental consciousness [vijñāna] in terms of apprehending subjects and apprehended objects. When vidyā manifests its own primal nature, the mental consciousness [vijñāna] manifests as self-originated jñāna, and then the pure basis of the mental consciousness (free from the root of an apprehending subject and apprehended objects) brings samsara to an end.

This means that our unripened vidyā that we are introduced to in the beginning is really just vijñāna, hence why it is an example jñāna and not yet expressed as genuine jñāna.

Wasn’t it Dudjom Rinpoche who said that once we encounter these teachings it’s impossible not to attain freedom? I believe even Malcolm has that on his website.

Definitely. If you do not attain liberation in this lifetime, it is said just by being introduced to vidyā, you are guaranteed liberation nevertheless.

Since affliction is self perpetuating, how can it simultaneously be perpetuating, but also have encountered genuine jnana? That doesn’t make sense to me.

Not sure what you mean. Even if you have glimpsed genuine jñāna that equipoise will not be non-regressive. You will lapse back into mind in post-equipoise.

Where does the idea of non duality in Buddhism comes from?


However it is not that Buddhism denies there is skilfulness vs unskilfulness, ignorance vs wisdom, ill will vs good will etc.. right?

These things have conventional validity. Meaning they appear to us in our relative condition and since there is a consensus amongst sentient beings that they are reliable and have whatever relevant efficacy, they are considered valid conventions. Such as there being one moon rather than two and so on. It is okay to accept these conventions, like Candrakīrti states:

Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees, houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things that common people designate dependent on their parts, accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!

Ultimately however, these conventions cannot withstand scrutiny and are therefore ultimately unfounded, because they are empty, meaning unrstablished, insubstantial, and so on.

I mean what you are talking here is the Unborn, Unconditioned etc.. which supersedes the existence and non existence.

The so-called “unborn” in these teachings is simply that these dualities are ultimately unfindable and are themselves unborn. There is no separate unborn or unconditioned nature.

Nāgārjuna:

Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established, the conditioned is not established; since the conditioned is never established, how can the unconditioned be established?

and Candrakīrti again:

At the level of the unborn, there is no distinction of attaining nirvāṇa or not attaining nirvāṇa. The unborn nature itself is also not there, because there is no thing which is unborn. There is no relative and no absolute. There are no buddhas and no sentient beings.

Where does the idea of non duality in Buddhism comes from?


Non-duality in buddhadharma is related to the nature of emptiness [śūnyatā]. Emptiness in Buddhism means a freedom from the four extremes of existence, non-existence and any combinations of those two dualities. Hence “non-dual.”

The Kaumudī states:

Because of the absence of inherent existence, the nondual essence of all phenomena is emptiness.

The Vajrasattvamāyājālaguhyasarvādarśa-nāma-tantra:

One's knowledge of the non-duality of all phenomena is bodhicitta.

And from the Tarkajvālā:

When that yogin dwells in the experience of nonconceptual discerning wisdom [prajñā] and experiences nonduality, at that time, ultimately, the entire reality of objects are as follows, of the same characteristics, like space, appearing in the manner of a nonappearance since their characteristics are nonexistent, therefore, there isn’t even the slightest thing that is not empty, so where could there be emptiness? Since there are no mental discriminations, there is no conceptual clinging of mutual dependence.

Is Buddhism dualistic or monistic?


Doesn't it seems like a bit absurd to have called dependently originated something that is non-arisen?

The idea is that if you gain insight into the meaning of dependent origination, then you are realizing emptiness, i.e., non-arising. For us sentient beings, phenomena seem to originate and seem to exist, but dependent origination means we recognize that these alleged entities only appeared to origination concomitantly with our ignorance, and once our ignorance is uprooted, the false perception of origination in entities is also uprooted, and then we are awakened.

The Āryāṣṭadaśasahasrika-prajñāpāramitā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

Dependent origination should be known as emptiness.

And the Ārya-mahāvajrameruśikharakūṭāgāra-dhāraṇī:

Due to being imputed, imputation is also empty. Due to arising from causes and conditions, dependent origination is also empty. Due to being generated by adventitious causes and conditions, production is empty of self. In that respect, dependent origination is empty of intrinsic characteristics. Whatever is empty of intrinsic characteristics is characteristicless. Whatever is characteristicless, that is suchness. Whatever is suchness, that is unmistaken suchness. Whatever is unmistaken suchness, that is isn't anything other than suchness. Whatever isn't anything other than suchness, that is samadhi. Whatever is samadhi, that is realization. Whatever is realization, that is emptiness. Whatever is emptiness, that is sublime insight. Whatever is sublime insight, that is calm-abiding. Whatever is calm-abiding, that is complete freedom [vimokṣa]. Whatever is complete freedom, that is the middle way. Whatever is the middle way, that is without a first limit and without a second limit, cannot be apprehended, is not an apprehender, is not annihilated, is not permanent, does not arise, does not cease, is without thought, is without concept, is not independent, is not dependent, does not come, does not go, is without total affliction, without purification, does not cohere, does not separate, that is sublime insight. Whatever is sublime insight, that is without aggregates, without elements [dhātus], without sense organs, without sense gates [āyatanas], without objects, is not designated as an object, is without karma, without the result of karma — whatever is without karma and without the result of karma, that is unsurpassed perfect awakening.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


If you receive an “example jnana” from your teacher that is genuine jnana then you are knowing genuine rigpa as it is, are you not?

The vidyā of direct introduction is “genuine vidyā” it is just a diminished and afflicted modality of vidyā. As you progress on the path, that same continuum of vidyā will be gradually refined, and when vidyā reaches its full measure then that will be the true “natural state” of your vidyā, in encumbered by delusion.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


for example, what is “symbolic pristine wisdom”?

An example jñāna [dpe'i ye shes], like that of the third empowerment.

In direct introduction you are typically introduced to vidyā as a dpe'i ye shes, an example jñāna, it is not yet expressed as the actual rig pa’i ye shes encountered in awakened equipoise. That is then used as a foundation for practice.

you are saying that this is only in the context of being an Arya, where there is “actual” unaltered, unchanging wisdom of pure awareness.

Vidyā as the gnas gyu shes pa or knower of stillness and movement is also one’s “own present awareness, left as it is, in natural ease, beyond qualities and flaws to be added or removed, accepted or rejected,” as this is just describing the clarity of your mind, which we call “vidyā” for beginners, left in its unmodified condition.

And for accessing the result… the Prayer of Kuntuzangpo even says: “All that appears and exists, samsara and nirvana, has one ground, two paths, and two forms of fruition, the magical displays of awareness and unawareness.”

This just means there is one basis, that is either recognized which is the path to nirvana, or unrecognized which is the path of samsara.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


They’re both in the Dzogchen sense, he just means the latter is the real meaning of vidyā in Dzogchen.

When you begin your vidyā is just the knower of stillness and movement as he mentioned, just the clarity of mind being called “vidyā” because it has a knowing capacity.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


The Patrul Rinpoche text is titled Clear Elucidation of True Nature: An Esoteric Instruction on the Sublime Approach of Ati which is featured in a book by the Khenpo Brothers called The Nature of Mind: The Dzogchen Instructions of Aro Yeshe Jungne by Patrul Rinpoche, Khenpo Palden Sherab, and Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche and his son, Tsoknyi Rinpoche also make this distinction between the vidyā of direct introduction and the vidyā that is the awakened “rang byung rig pa.”

Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:

In the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.

Tsoknyi Rinpoche:

This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing awareness [rang byung rig pa].

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


The point is that I’ve never seen a teacher say that there is a sort of faux-rigpa that beginners find themselves in that is not the natural state.

Patrul Rinpoche:

Moreover, the phrase “to see the essence of mind” refers to merely the general seeing of symbolic pristine wisdom that is skillfully introduced. Other than that, the authentic essence of totally nonconceptual pristine wisdom of natural intrinsic awareness is realized only by those who have attained the level of noble ones [āryas].

The “symbolic” natural state is just resting in guruyoga below the path of seeing. It is like the example jñāna of the four abhisekas in anuttarayogatantra. Then, the actual natural state is known exclusively by those at the path of seeing and above.

but rigpa directly accesses the result

At the time of buddhahood, yes.

Confusion about these points is why the two basis model was introduced in Nyinthig teachings, separating the ālaya and dharmakāya.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


I’m sure there’s some subtle distinction between what I’m presenting and what you’re presenting but as we’ve seen I think both are crucial points. For example, I would say that the state of rigpa means all phenomena are naturally released (this is the third statement of Garab Dorje).

In the excerpt you cite, Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro is referring to the awakened modality of vidyā, that is a synonym for prajñā. That is the vidyā of trekchö or the vidyā of third vision, the actual antithesis of avidyā.

I think in post meditation this is not

Yes definitely not. In post-equipoise the practitioner lapses back into mind.

so one reenters rigpa until its strength cannot be overcome by delusion, at which point one is a Buddha (if I’m not mistaken).

Yes until the transcendent state [dgongs pa] is established, which is the fusion of equipoise and post-equipoise, meaning the individual is established non-regressively in vidyā 24-7-365.

Like you’re saying, it begs the question, if everything is freed naturally then why is there any necessity of practice.

Because everything is not freed naturally if you aren’t in the equipoise of an ārya. You have to practice diligently to even approach the point of awakening where you first get a glimpse that things are originally pure, and then you have to cultivate that equipoise by returning to it again and again.

But “practicing” or “exerting effort” is only ever used outside of the context of resting in the nature of the mind

Right, so unless you’re in the samādhi infused with prajñā that characterizes the actual natural state, then you have to practice and perfect the view. People do not really understand what “effort” is referring to when it is said the practice is effortless. That is referring to the nature of thögal. But, still a tremendous amount of effort is required.

because that idea begs the question “what effort is there to put out?”.

Lots of effort. “Effortlessness” is referring to sitting still in the postures.

it’s a conceptual, relative marker (which I think is skillful means) for what happens in rigpa which is that the result which is already present dawns more and more, as TUR and DR say in your respective quotes. As CHNN says, there’s one continuum of Rigpa that goes from the beginning until the end, and in it is found the Trikaya.

There is a basis, path and result in these teachings. We cannot say the result is already present, buddhahood is not present for us right now. You have Buddha nature, the sugatagarbha, but you have to extract the result. The tathāgatagarbha is the dharmakāya encased in affliction, the path removes the affliction and ripens the qualities.

Opposing abortions personally and on a state level?


The act certainly gets increasingly more and more gruesome as the pregnancy progresses.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


Ie, the basis is the uncontrived nature of the mind which is what is already there, the path is gaining faith that that nature which is already there is naturally freed, and the fruition is already present, as CHNN says…

It would be nice if the fruition was already present, but it isn’t. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche describes these differences in the basis, path and result here:

A seeming confusion obscures the recognition of the basis [gzhi]. Fortunately, this seeming delusion is temporary. This failure to recognize the basis is similar to dreaming. Dreaming is not primordial; it is temporary, it can be purified. Purification happens through training on the path. We have strayed from the basis and become sentient beings. To free the basis from what obscures it, we have to train. Right now, we are on the path and have not yet attained the result. When we are freed from obscuration, then the result - dharmakāya - appears. The liberated basis, path and result are all perfected in the realm of the single essence, the continuity of rig pa [vidyā].

In fact, there is no difference whatsoever between the basis and result. In the state of the basis the enlightened qualities are not acknowledged, but they are manifest at the time of the result. These are not new qualities that suddenly appear, but are like the qualities of a flower that are inherent in the seed. Within the seed are the characteristics of the flower itself. The seed holds the potential for the flower's color, smell, bud and leaves. However, can we say that the seed is the result of the flower? No, we cannot, because the flower has not fully bloomed. Like this analogy, the qualities of the result are contained in the state of the basis; yet, they are not evident or manifest. That is the difference between the basis and the result. At the time of the path, if we do not apply effort, the result will not appear.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


Huh, my own teacher and every other Dzogchen teacher I’ve read including mipham, Patrul Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse and by extension Shechen Gyaltsap, the Dalai Lama etc., have said that the rigpa attained in the first looking is the same as it is when buddhahood is attained.

It is the same continuum of vidyā, but it is refined and vidyā is therefore qualitatively different between direct introduction and the result. For example, Dudjom Rinpoche describes a difference in quality:

Similarly: first, the rigpa [vidyā] of having had the introduction is like the first part of the early dawn; in the middle, the rigpa of having gained assurance, free from equipoise and post-attainment is like the daybreak; and finally the rigpa of having gained liberation from extremes is like the sun shining.

Also stating:

The mere recognition of vidyā will not liberate you.

Vidyā has to be ripened and “trained” on the path, Mipham Rinpoche states:

The training of rigpa comes in three steps: recognition, training and finalization.

From Dudjom Lingpa:

Having simply identified vidyā, some people, who lack even a trace of any meditation, claim they have experienced the extinction into dharmatā and there is nothing more to spiritual awakening than this. That is an enormous mistake! The qualities of realization mature through the power of gradual practice. This is how you must reach the state of liberation.

Is Buddhism dualistic or monistic?


Is 'dependent origination' in conflict with what u/krodha is saying?

No dependent origination is correct view, I was merely pointing out that dependent origination and interdependence mean two different things in Buddhism.

Is Buddhism dualistic or monistic?


Also to unpack this more completely... I posted this the other day on the topic, might as well put it here too:

Existence [bhāva] and dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda] are mutually exclusive. For something to actually "exist" it must do so independently of causes and conditions, but as luminaries such as Nāgārjuna point out, that is impossible.

Many people conflate dependent existence [parabhāva], which is something existing with assistance from another, with dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda]. The two are radically different principles. Regarding Nāgārjuna's classification of "existence" [bhāva], he asserts rather damningly:

Whoever has a view of inherent existence [svabhāva], dependent existence [parabhāva], existence [bhāva] and non-existence [abhāva] do not see the truth of the Buddha's teaching.

Yet Nāgārjuna was one of the most major proponents of clarifying the inner workings of dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda], and states that there can be no existence established independently of inherent existence or dependent existence in the following inquiry:

Where is there an existent not included in inherent existence and dependent existence? If inherent existence and dependent existence are established, existence will be established.

This means that dependent existence [parabhāva] is actually a guise for inherent existence [svabhāva], and therefore is in direct contradiction to dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda]. Further, since we cannot extract any form of existence [bhāva] as separate from dependent existence [parabhāva] or inherent existence [svabhāva], existence in any form is contradictory to dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].

Buddhapālita comments on Nāgārjuna's damning assertion above:

Someone like that, who [has a] view of inherent existence, dependent existence, existence or non-existence does not see the truth in the profound and supreme teaching of the Buddha. Because we, in the correct way, see the nonexistence of the inherent existence of things which appear because of the sun of dependent origination arose, because of that, because we see the truth, liberation can be accepted only for us.

Nāgārjuna is stating that all views of existence contradict dependent origination.

In order for something to exist, it must be independently originated, and conversely, for something to be independently originated it would have to be unconditioned, independent and uncaused, but as mentioned above, this is considered an impossibility in the eyes of the buddhadharma. The correct conventional view for emptiness is dependent origination, and so we see that in order to have objects, persons, places, things and so on, they must be possessed of causes and conditions. Meaning they cannot be found apart from those causes and conditions. If the conditions are removed, the object cannot remain.

Regarding this, Nāgārjuna states the following:

That which comes into being from a cause, and does not endure without conditions, it disappears as well when conditions are absent - how can this be understood to exist?

Going on to say:

Since it comes to and end when ignorance ceases; why does it not become clear then that it was conjured by ignorance?

And so here we get to the actual meaning, and the heart of dependent origination, which is nonarising [anutpāda]. For an object to inherently exist it must exist outright, independent of causes and conditions, independent of attributes, characteristics and constituent parts. However, we cannot find an inherent object independent of these factors, and the implications of this fact is that we likewise cannot find an inherent object within those factors either.

The object itself, as the core entity which possesses characteristics, is ultimately unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces, which do not in fact create any discrete object. In the absence of an object the pieces are likewise rendered as incapable of being "pieces" or "parts" and therefore they are also nothing more than arbitrary designations that amount to nothing more than inferences.

This means that all entities, selves, and so on are merely useful conventional designations, their provisional validity is only measured by their efficacy, and apart from that conventional imputation, there is no underlying object that can be ascertained or found.

Dependent origination is the apparent origination of entities that seem to manifest in dependence on causes and conditions. But as Nāgārjuna states above, those causes and conditions are actually the ignorance which afflicts the mindstream, and the conditions of grasping, mine-making and I-making which are the drivers of karmic activity that serve to reify the delusion of a self, or a self in objects, and so on.

This is why many adepts are explicitly clear that dependent origination is synonymous with a lack of origination [anutpāda], because phenomena that originate in dependence on ignorance as a cause, never actually originate at all, for example, Candrakīrti states:

The perfectly awakened buddhas proclaimed, "What is dependently originated is non-arisen.

Or Mañjuśrī:

Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise.

Nāgārjuna once again:

What originates dependently is non-arisen!

Thus dependent origination is incapable of producing existence of any sort, because dependent origination is incapable of producing entities. Entities and existence only appear because of the ignorance which afflicts your mind. When that ignorance is removed, all perceptions of existence are removed, all perceptions of selves are removed and all perceptions of origination are removed.

Opposing abortions personally and on a state level?


Let’s say a Buddhist personally opposes abortion because it violates the Buddhist law against killing but at the same time he thinks that the state shouldn't outlaw abortions because it is the womans choice and outlawing it would create a black market and make things worse

This is basically the correct attitude we as Buddhists should have towards this issue.

So if this Buddhist thinks it’s good that a state outlaws abortions up until the moment of birth without the mothers life being at risk

The other issue is that the precepts are for us to follow personally, because we are guarding our own conduct. We have zero business telling others how to act or what to do, all you can do is guard your own mind. Of course if you have a child for example you have an obligation to nurture them and teach them, that is an exception and even then we should be gentle not to condition our children to stringently... but apart from that exception, we have no business trying to condition others.

Is Buddhism dualistic or monistic?


Nāgārjuna says that interdependence [parabhāva] is things existing with assistance from other things, thus those constituents end up being established and this is just another form of inherent existence [svabhāva].

Interdependence [parabhāva] and dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda] are two different things.

indescribable luminosity


This text is a great exposition by Maitreyanātha. The above is the Dharmachakra translation, it is also translated by Thrangu Rinpoche as Distingishing Dharma and Dharmatā.

Is Buddhism dualistic or monistic?


Monism would be a substantial and reductive nonduality, and dualism is honored in Buddhism conventionally, but ultimately we posit an insubstantial and nonreductive nonduality, which is emptiness free from extremes.

Is Buddhism dualistic or monistic?


Buddhism posits interdepence.

We technically do not posit interdependence. Interdependence according to Nāgārjuna is a limited view that is just a guise for inherent existence.

He even goes as far as to say, s/he who upholds a view of inherent existence, interdependent existence, existence in general or nonexistence, fail to see the truth of the Buddha’s teaching.

An Honest Look - ChNN


He was an extraordinary guru.

And even that is an understatement. Truly one of the most profound and unparalleled masters of recent times.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


In Dzogchen the basis is the result, is it not?

Indeed. The basis is the unrecognized three jñānas. The path is the recognized [ngo shes] three jñānas, and the result is the full realization [rtogs pa] of those jñānas as the three kāyas. This process means there are qualitative differences in the basis, path and result for the practitioner, meaning vidyā goes from being mere vijñāna, to totally unobscured jñāna at the time of dharmakāya, hence why the dharmakāya is also called the jñānakāya.

Doesn’t mean that the resultant qualities aren’t already there all the time.

In Dzogchen it does mean the resultant qualities are not present at the time of the basis, as Mipham stated in the cited excerpt yesterday. If the qualities of the result were present at the time of the basis, then the path would be unnecessary. Like Śri Singha says, there is no such thing as a “primordial buddhahood” in Dzogchen.

The kāyas being fully formed at the time of the basis is a shentong view.

But again, what is your motivation here? If someone is resting in the natural state all the time, they are a Buddha

True. We practitioners of atiyoga do not even see the actual natural state until the third vision. And then it is not totally stable as dgongs pa, the transcendent state, until the time of buddhahood. Our so-called “natural state” as beginners is just like an example jñāna, it is only a nominal “natural state.”

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


10) Within this state of pure presence (rig-pa), the three Aspects (chos gsum) of the State of Samantabhadra (kun-bzang dgongs-pa) are wholly present. These three are termed the Essence, the Nature, and the Energy. (He goes one to explain these as the Trikaya)

Essence, nature and energy are the three jñānas of the basis (which are the kāyas of the basis): ka dag, lhun grub and thugs rje. These jñānas ripen into the kāyas of the result. Sort of like an acorn ripens or grows into an oak tree, but still the oak tree is just a potential, if the conditions for ripening are absent, then the potential remains latent.

Since this natural statue of initial instantaneous awareness (skad-cig-ma ti shes-pa rnal-ma) encounters as its own Mother the real condition of existence (chos-nyid ma dang ‘phrad-pas), we can say that, in truth, it is the Dharmakaya.

Your vidyā is in truth the dharmakāya, but that nature is currently obscured.

From the dgongs pa zang thal explanatory tantra:

Since vidyā recognized itself [rang ngo shes], there was no grasping to clarity. Since wisdom [prajñā] arose to vidyā, it naturally formed as dharmakāya.

The prajñā [shes rab] of realization [rtogs pa] is actually what “ripens” vidyā into the dharmakāya.

but we simply remain present and this quality of the Nature of the Mind is called Rigpa. Rigpa means this state of presence. This Rigpa is also lhun-grub, that is to say, spontaneously self-perfected in all its qualities right from the very beginning. It is not a question of acquiring something we do not now possess. Rather, when we find ourselves in a state of presence, this state manifests all its inherent qualities spontaneously and this is what is meant by lhun-grub.

Again like a seed has all the qualities of a flower within it already, it is not acquiring something new, only manifesting it’s own latent qualities with the assistance of secondary causes.

How can we remember past lives if we didn't have a brain in other realms?


Depends on the system. In the Vajrayāna system I practice even in the so-called formless realms there is a body comprised of the inner elements.

Reality is unreal vs common sense


Many of these students seem to have a teacher, Malcom Smith, who teaches prasangika in this way, which is slightly different than the general Nyingma approach to Dzogchen.

That is Longchenpa’s presentation of Dzogchen who along with Jigme Lingpa and Rongzom is the definitive Nyingma Dzogchen luminary.

EDIT: Malcolm also learned Dzogchen from Kunzang Dechen Lingpa (Nyingma), Taklung Tsetrul Rinpoche (former head of Nyingma), Khenpo Namdrol (Nyingma) and Norbu Rinpoche who was non-sectarian.

How can I learn Buddhist terms and names easily? I find them very difficult. Does learning Sanskrit help?


Getting a decent handle on key terms and principles can take many years, five years, ten years. Be patient with yourself and with encountering the terms continually whether in study or online interaction, even personal practice (all are interrelated), their meaning will become gradually clearer as time goes on.

I spent a few years in the wtf is this, wtf is that, who are they, what does this mean, etc., phase. Just keep at it and do your best.

The First Noble Truth is reassuring, actually


Can you explain how Vipassana practice is different than "deliberate mindfulness?"

Traditionally vipaśyanā is not a practice but a type of awakened seeing, the term means “clear seeing” or “clear insight.”

Defined in the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa as such:

The consciousness that perceives the entry into reality is called "vipaśyanā." So-called vipaśyanā is perceiving phenomena correctly, perceiving phenomena as they are, perceiving phenomena truly, and perceiving phenomena as not otherwise, perceiving phenomena as empty, without characteristics, without aspiration, perceiving phenomena to be unformed, likewise, nonarisen, unproduced, insubstantial, just as they are, pure, and as isolated. It is perceiving phenomena as unmoving, inactive, without self, wholly without grasping, inseparable, one taste, as the nature of space, and nirvana by nature.

This means that the real meaning of vipaśyanā is an awakened equipoise a synonym for realizing emptiness [śūnyatā].

The so-called practice of “vipassana” as in the vipassana movement is sort of a glorified śamatha. It is more of just a nice moniker, but it is not actual vipassana [vipaśyanā].

What separates vipaśyanā proper from deliberate mindfulness would be the fact that vipaśyanā is infused with gnosis [jñāna] whereas mindfulness is a sustained attention that is performed from within the confines of one’s everyday dualistic consciousness.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


isn’t only one of those five modalities the one referenced in Dzogchen practice?

They are all relevant to ones practice.

Like for example, the appearances may change but the looking does not.

The looking does indeed change though. Right now it seems like there is a stable looker who abides as thoughts arise and pass, etc., but this too is a total delusion.

CHNN actually says this too in The Cycle of Day and Night… he roughly says that rigpa itself does not change from the moment you enter it to the moment of Buddhahood.

The vidyā of a first bhūmi ārya and the vidyā of a Buddha are identical, the former is just fragmented while the latter is not.

The First Noble Truth is reassuring, actually


TIL that the Supreme Patriarch of BUddhists in a country with 64 million BUddhists, is really an "outlier."

If his views are discordant with the buddhadharma then he may be. I know nothing about him, and don’t really care what he has to say to be honest. My personal focus is primarily on Indian and Tibetan traditions, I have a little interest in Zen, but not really any southeast Asian traditions.

I guess that if a Zen master says "Don't shoot me!" he's also engaging in coded meaning?

Zazen proper is like an awakened equipoise that is free of dualistic mind, thus when these adepts are advising not to cultivate an intentional mindfulness, they are giving instructions on how to leave the mind in a natural condition so that awakened equipoise, or a samādhi infused with prajñā, can manifest. The zen “path” actually begins when that insight dawns, and then that is carefully cultivated. As such, those who are engaging in a deliberate mindfulness are not quite there yet, and if they mistake that mindfulness for the real meaning of zazen, then they’re deceiving themselves.

The First Noble Truth is reassuring, actually


So it is laughable to refer to the BUddhism in Thailand as some sort of "syncretic offshoot of various traditions."

Clearly I was referring to the Chinese individual i mentioned. In any case I’m not sure why we are discussing this Thai patriarch? Thai Buddhism is often saddled with its own issues, such as unjustified eternalist views seeping into their teachings, one has to be careful to vet the teacher and teaching for this reason, no matter their title.

This isn’t as much of an issue in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist systems due to their historical proximity to the polemic environment of the Indo-Tibetan region. Their expositions are pretty air tight and refute any basis for error because the area was such a melting pot. It was vital to have explicit clarity.

So what you term "Buddhist view," is not what everyone who self-identifies as Buddhists considers "Buddhist view."

Yes, there are outliers like I said.

Take care, and stop being mindful!

This has a coded meaning, which is normal in zen teachings.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


But when you designate something as “little rigpa” … what the hell does that even mean?

It is a reference to the unripened form of vidyā that we use as a foundation for practice.

Bear in mind that Vimalamitra for example, describes five different modalities of vidyā, to describe different characteristics and aspects of vidyā as a beginner, as things progress and so on. He closes by saying they are all part of a single continuum of vidyā, but that is not the point. The point is that the Dzogchen path is the process of refining and ripening our vidyā. Our vidyā as a beginner is not the same in quality as vidyā at the time of the result. This is all “little and big” vidyā are referencing.

This is not a novel idea, for instance Tsoknyi Rinpoche even coins “baby rigpa” stating:

There is immediate recognition, which Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Mingyur Rinpoche’s brother, calls “baby rigpa.” It’s a baby, and that baby needs to be nurtured – not in a conceptual way, by adding something to it, but it needs to be trained, developed, and strengthened. It is abrupt, but it’s unstable. Not unstable in itself, but unstable with respect to one’s ability to remain there. We would all like to believe that we are proceeding directly, Dzogchen style, but most of us in fact are proceeding in a gradual way.

How can we remember past lives if we didn't have a brain in other realms?


Sentient beings possess all five aggregates in every realm, even if the rūpaskandha is in a subtle form, the aggregates are all complete. This means that there technically is no such thing as a disembodied consciousness in these teachings, even as a gandharva in the intermediate state between lives, there is always a subtle type body, and the mind is present.

How can we remember past lives if we didn't have a brain in other realms?


The mind and brain are two different things according to these teachings. In Buddhism the brain just coordinates the sensory faculties and so on, it does not generate or store the mind. The mind actually permeates the entire body according to Buddhist teachings, and is located in the center of the body.

Reality is unreal vs common sense


Thanks. So they are just misapprehended rtsal that seem solid and existent in our delusion? The reason they are not projections of the basis is because they are deluded and empty in the first place and hence can't be "from" anything?

Yes the basis only displays the five lights.

rather than thinking, "This is this and that is that". Does that follow?

Yes all of these things are empty from the standpoint of bodhicitta. rTsal is like the dynamism of bodhicitta. When we have an accurate knowledge of rtsal, that is vidyā. When we are ignorant of rtsal, then that avidyā arises as rol pa. Therefore rol pa can never be equivalent to bodhicitta, and Longchenpa states this to be the case.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


but what book is the Mipham quote from? I think I’m missing a lot of context that would allow me to understand what he’s saying here.

His Original mind text, it has been translated in a book called “Fundamental mind.”

Differences in the Middle Way of Indian and East Asian Buddhism


Yeah, for Gorampa and so on, conventions are just nominal inferences, just names that seem to refer to things.

Reality is unreal vs common sense


Since outer objects are rolpa, which is connected to the emptiness of the basis, does this mean that outer objects are really ultimately just misapprehended rtsal, which means that they don't really exist and are just projections of the basis?

Yes and no. Yes because rol pa is just misapprehended rtsal, and no because objects are total delusions that cannot be equivalent to anything. That is where the bodhicitta aspect comes in, that is the emptiness aspect.

Reality is unreal vs common sense


For Dzogchen, all appearances are the rtsal of vidyā. We just differ from Yogācāra because we make a distinction between mind [sems] and jñāna. Appearances for us are the dynamism of jñāna, and not the mind, the mind is a secondary formation that manifests as a failure to accurately apprehend the appearance of jñāna. For Yogācāra, appearances are mental factors and are thus appearances of mind.

Differences in the Middle Way of Indian and East Asian Buddhism


Posted this elsewhere the other day:

The usual point of contention with the Gelug view (in contrast to Gorampa) is that Tsongkhapa makes a hard distinction between existence and inherent existence, and states that the inherent existence of an object is negated while the conventional existence is not (this means the Gelug define emptiness as the non-existence of inherent existence — all while subtly reifying conventional entities). For the general trödral criticism of Tsongkhapa’s view that Nyingmapa’s and other non-Gelug sarma schools would follow one can look to Gorampa’s criticisms of Tsongkhapa’s expositions.

Differences in the Middle Way of Indian and East Asian Buddhism


Yes, his view is based on Indian Madhyamaka, Nāgārjuna, Candrakīrti, Āryadeva etc., also based on Sapan.

The whole debate is based on these differing interpretations of Indian Madhyamaka.

The First Noble Truth is reassuring, actually


So was the 18th Patriarch awakened in your eyes?

You mean this guy Zhang Tianran who founded some sort of syncretic offshoot of various traditions? I would instead advise looking to traditional Buddhist teachers.

What makes a person awakened?

Awakening or bodhi is defined in Buddhism as an experiential insight into the actual nature of phenomena.

The Vedic tradition holds that when one appreciates When I say ’’I’’ that's the Self. There's a quality that is so pervasive about the Self that I'm quite sure that the ‘‘I’’ is the same ‘‘I’’ as everyone else's ‘‘I.’’ Not in terms of what follows right after. I am tall, I am short, I am fat, I am this, I am that. But the ‘‘I’’ part. The ‘‘I am’’ part is the same ‘‘I am’’ for you and me, one starts to appreciate Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam — world is family. How does one appreciate that "The ‘‘I am’’ part is the same ‘‘I am’’ for you and me," if there is no "me" in the first place?

The vedas are sanatanadharma. Non-Buddhist, tīrthika dharmas.

Complete empathy is the appreciation that "you" and "I" are fundamentally the same person.

Not a Buddhist view.

The First Noble Truth is reassuring, actually


Well, the second paper refers to the first, but I don't see any evidence that they are written by the same person.

The point is that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is the source of this idea. Sure he attempts to substantiate his assertions with his own interpretation of doctrine, but like I said, dubious.

And you single out 31 words out of 1200 in your response, while avoiding any other point I made.

TM is not related to buddhadharma. Anātman is a dharma seal that is only experientially knowable by either stream entrants [srotapannis] or first bhūmi āryas. It is essentially the realization of emptiness as related to the mind. People who practice TM are not accessing that type of awakened equipoise.

Again, you distort things to fulfill your agenda of attempting to portray YOUR interpretation of anatta as the only mainstream Buddhist interpretation.

I can only go by what the teachings state. I do not introduce my own interpretation, unlike Thanissaro.

The other interpretation, is nicely encapsulated by this quote by a TMer in the beginning stages of enlightenment as understood by the monastic tradition TM comes from:

This has nothing to do with anātman.

That you don't see that both Buddhism and Yoga have been distorted is also inevitable. Very few peole want to acknowledge that not only have THEY been doing meditation "wrong" but that the lineage they come from has also been doing it wrong for many many centuries

A living lineage is only such because it produces awakened individuals, the lineage is the rosary of mindstreams that actualize results, thus these lineages are potent and accurate by definition.

Differences in the Middle Way of Indian and East Asian Buddhism


Maybe I need to get on to Tsongkhapa at some point.

Or perhaps just the Tsongkhapa and Gorampa debate for some balance.

The First Noble Truth is reassuring, actually


Well, I'm constantly getting bombarded with links to essays and papers with titles like:

Two papers authored by none other than Thanissaro Bikkhu, who is the source of this novel view.

The First Noble Truth is reassuring, actually


It's a debate that has raged amongst scholars for a very long time,

There have been a few outliers who attempt to establish a hard disparity between “no self” and “not self,” but the evidence for this distinction is dubious.

Does Dzogchen have anything to do with the experience of remembering that there is something rather than nothing?


Namkhai Norbu says (iirc) in The Cycle of Day and Night that when we look at the mind directly we are accessing the three kayas right there, directly. This business about “little rigpa” sounds fishy to me because I’ve never ever heard any teacher assert that the rigpa of pointing out is anything less than a direct introduction to the three kayas.

It can be argued you are introduced to the three kāyas of the basis, but per Mipham, those are not the actual kāyas:

From the perspective of the mode of appearance, the basis itself never ripens as the result, and since that non-ripening is not the actual dharmakāya, since this present basis is not the buddhahood that manifest the ten powers from the mere cause of the dharmakāya, it may be considered that “dharmakāya of the basis” is not "the actual one.”

Going on to say that not even 10th bhūmi bodhisattvas can see the actual dharmakāya:

Therefore, though the qualities of nirvana such as the ten powers and so on that do not exist in the basis exist as a primordial endowment, other than those who have reached the ultimate realization, buddhas, when even the bodhisattvas of the tenth bhumi cannot see the manifestation of all qualities, what need is there to mention ordinary sentient beings [being able to see them]?

The kāyas of the basis are referring to the three jñānas of the basis which must be ripened on the path.

Practicing Buddhism and Hinduism at the same time ?


Still, it is religious imperialism disguised as some sort of lazy attempt at syncretism.

Practicing Buddhism and Hinduism at the same time ?


Well many Hindus consider Buddha to be an avatar of Vishnu I think.

No Buddhist endorses this idea.

Is dungeons and dragons a skillful hobby to have?


I haven't played in some time but I was going through my things and found my dice and a book and I was just wondering if it is good to play. There's violence in it but you can get around it if your smart.

D&D and games of that sort do not qualify as akuśala, the violence is not real. The only thing you would have to be mindful of is whether the competitive aspect of the game is causing unwholesome reactions, like anger and so on. If so, then it might be wise to maybe pump the brakes a bit and analyze that.

Reality is unreal vs common sense


but the inner perception is still going to be dependent upon the senses encountering the external object.

Yeah the alleged construct of an apparent referent will be contingent on the threefold structure of vijñāna, which means the mind conceives of an sense object, sensory faculty and sense function. But it is possibly immediate, like mistaking a rope in a dark room to be a snake, just a misperception of the immediate appearance that causes an apparent division that isn’t actually there.

Reality is unreal vs common sense


Right, I’m not sure that the object and the perception of the object are truly aspects of the snang ba and snang yul distinction. It may actually just be categorizing inner and outer phenomena, without suggesting there is something external filtered by the senses.

Reality is unreal vs common sense


The object and the perception of the object are precisely what’s being distinguished here.

Possibly. Longchenpa also clarifies that snang ba and snang yul are differentiating subjective and objective phenomena conventionally. Subjective meaning thoughts, emotions etc., objective meaning outer apparent objects.

But not that there is an object filtered through the senses like phenomena and noumena.

How exactly does the mind/consciousness transfer to a new body during rebirth


From Ācārya Malcolm:

The Buddha taught rebirth without making recourse to a self that undergoes rebirth.

There are a variety of ways of explaining this, but in essence, the most profound way of understanding this is that the habit of I-making appropriates a new series of aggregates at death, and so it goes on and on until one eradicates the knowledge obscuration that creates this habit of I-making. In the meantime, due to this habit of I-making, one continues to accumulate affliction and karma which results in suffering for infinite lifetimes, just as one has taken rebirth in samsara without a beginning.

But no soul-concept has been introduced in this thread, not at all. The sentient being I was in a past life is not identical with me in this life, even though I suffer and enjoy the results of the negative and positive actions that sentient being and all the other sentient beings engaged in who make up the serial chain of the continuum which I now enjoy. But when I die, all trace of my identity will cease since my identification with my five aggregates as "me" and "mine" is a delusion, and that identity, self, soul, etc., exists merely as a convention and not as an ultimate truth. When the habit of I-making that drives my continuum in samsara takes a new series of aggregates in the next life, it is unlikely I will have any memory of this lifetime, and my habit of I-making will generate a new identity based on the cause and conditions it encounters in the next life.

[The] delusion of 'I' is an agent, capable acting and receiving the results of action, even though it does not exist.

It is important to understand that this "I" generated by the habit of I-making does not exist and is fundamentally a delusion. But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.

An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.

And some excerpts from Nāgārjuna on the topic, starting with his Pratītyadsamutpādakarika:

Empty (insubstantial and essenceless) dharmas (phenomena) are entirely produced from dharmas strictly empty; dharmas without a self and [not] of a self. Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals, fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes. Although the aggregates are serially connected, the wise are to comprehend nothing has transferred. Someone, having conceived of annihilation, even in extremely subtle existents, he is not wise, and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’.

and In his Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana, Nāgārjuna states in reply to a question:

Question: "Nevertheless, who is the lord of all, creating sentient beings, who is their creator?"
Nāgārjuna replies: "All living beings are causes and results."

And in the same text:

Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

How exactly does the mind/consciousness transfer to a new body during rebirth


The ālayavijñāna coupled with what is called the mahāpranavāyu, contain the five aggregates within them and move through the intermediate state. This is according to Vajrayāna.

No entity actually transfers as mentioned elsewhere in the replies, but the mindstream driven by karma does retain imprints and subtle information.

Is the soul bound by time when passing from one incarnation to the next?


Yes, samsaric consciousness takes rebirth in linear time.

The Universe as made of infinite consciousness?


Sorry not true.

100% true without question. A principle made explicitly clear in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna teachings.

My friend (also Buddhist) told me not to venerate or give offerings to the folk deities and spirits because he said they could be demons/mara who want me to stray from the Dharma.


There is a right way to do it, and if done the correct way it is perfectly ok. If you have a teacher you can ask them.

What does Buddhism say about free will and determinism


Determinism would require truly established causes giving rise to established effects in a unilateral manner, thus based on that buddhadharma is not deterministic. Causes are only conventional, and cause and effect are bilateral dependencies. Like Āryadeva says, we might think the father is the cause of the child, but the child is also the cause of the father.

Re free will, we Buddhists acknowledge volition [cetana] but only conventionally. Free will is actually a monotheist principle used to reconcile sin with a creator deity. Thus free will proper is not a thing in Buddhism. Further, free will requires a rational agent which buddhadharma does not uphold. And actually we negate such a thing. As such we have conventional volition but are still subject to karma.

The Universe as made of infinite consciousness?


Although rūpa is a product of nāma in Buddhism.

The Universe as made of infinite consciousness?


Consciousness is fundamental in Buddhism. Matter is an epiphenomena of mind, but we do not state that the universe is “made” of consciousness because the universe is a misconception.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


The danger in simply saying ‘there is no self’ is to tacitly hold on to it as a view, which implies having the very sense of self involved and this would be one of the wrong view that the Buddha mentioned:

Only if the person is a fool who fails to understand that a mere view is not the truth of the principle they are conventionally utilizing.

This naïve view is dangerous because it may mislead one to hold onto the attitude that there is no problem to be solved

Again the person would have to be pretty dumb. And this is why a relationship with a teacher is absolutely necessary. In order to make sure practitioners do not err into such naive and stupid mistakes.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


It is not that its existence contradicts dependent origination but that its existence is precisely because of it (dependent on holding/grasping the five aggregates as self).

Existence [bhāva] and dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda] are mutually exclusive. For something to actually "exist" it must do so independently of causes and conditions, but as luminaries such as Nāgārjuna point out, that is impossible.

Many people conflate dependent existence [parabhāva], which is something existing with assistance from another, with dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda]. The two are radically different principles. Regarding Nāgārjuna's classification of "existence" [bhāva], he asserts rather damningly:

Whoever has a view of inherent existence [svabhāva], dependent existence [parabhāva], existence [bhāva] and non-existence [abhāva] do not see the truth of the Buddha's teaching.

Yet Nāgārjuna was one of the most major proponents of clarifying the inner workings of dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda], and states that there can be no existence established independently of inherent existence or dependent existence in the following inquiry:

Where is there an existent not included in inherent existence and dependent existence? If inherent existence and dependent existence are established, existence will be established.

This means that dependent existence [parabhāva] is actually a guise for inherent existence [svabhāva], and therefore is in direct contradiction to dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda]. Further, since we cannot extract any form of existence [bhāva] as separate from dependent existence [parabhāva] or inherent existence [svabhāva], existence in any form is contradictory to dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].

Buddhapālita comments on Nāgārjuna's damning assertion above:

Someone like that, who [has a] view of inherent existence, dependent existence, existence or non-existence does not see the truth in the profound and supreme teaching of the Buddha. Because we, in the correct way, see the nonexistence of the inherent existence of things which appear because of the sun of dependent origination arose, because of that, because we see the truth, liberation can be accepted only for us.

Nāgārjuna is stating that all views of existence contradict dependent origination.

In order for something to exist, it must be independently originated, and conversely, for something to be independently originated it would have to be unconditioned, independent and uncaused, but as mentioned above, this is considered an impossibility in the eyes of the buddhadharma. The correct conventional view for emptiness is dependent origination, and so we see that in order to have objects, persons, places, things and so on, they must be possessed of causes and conditions. Meaning they cannot be found apart from those causes and conditions. If the conditions are removed, the object cannot remain.

Regarding this, Nāgārjuna states the following:

That which comes into being from a cause, and does not endure without conditions, it disappears as well when conditions are absent - how can this be understood to exist?

Going on to say:

Since it comes to and end when ignorance ceases; why does it not become clear then that it was conjured by ignorance?

And so here we get to the actual meaning, and the heart of dependent origination. For an object to inherently exist it must exist outright, independent of causes and conditions, independent of attributes, characteristics and constituent parts. However, we cannot find an inherent object independent of these factors, and the implications of this fact is that we likewise cannot find an inherent object within those factors either.

The object itself, as the core entity which possesses characteristics, is ultimately unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces, which do not in fact create any discrete object. In the absence of an object the pieces are likewise rendered as incapable of being "pieces" or "parts" and therefore they are also nothing more than arbitrary designations that amount to nothing more than inferences.

This means that all entities, selves, and so on are merely useful conventional designations, their provisional validity is only measured by their efficacy, and apart from that conventional imputation, there is no underlying object that can be ascertained or found.

Dependent origination is the apparent origination of entities that seem to manifest in dependence on causes and conditions. But as Nāgārjuna states above, those causes and conditions are actually the ignorance which afflicts the mindstream, and the conditions of grasping, mine-making and I-making which are the drivers of karmic activity that serve to reify the delusion of a self, or a self in objects, and so on.

This is why many adepts are explicitly clear that dependent origination is synonymous with a lack of origination [anutpāda], because phenomena that originate in dependence on ignorance as a cause, never actually originate at all, for example, Candrakīrti states:

The perfectly awakened buddhas proclaimed, "What is dependently originated is non-arisen.

Or Mañjuśrī:

Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise.

Nāgārjuna once again:

What originates dependently is non-arisen!

Thus dependent origination is incapable of producing existence of any sort, because dependent origination is incapable of producing entities. Entities and existence only appear because of the ignorance which afflicts your mind. When that ignorance is removed, all perceptions of existence are removed, all perceptions of selves are removed and all perceptions of origination are removed.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


And as I have explained following the sentence you quoted, the Buddha was referring to dependent origination of suffering which is taken as ‘self’.

Obviously. And this still means there is ultimately no self to be found anywhere.

Practically speaking, the self exists for you and that is why you suffer

It appears, and seems to exist. It certainly does not actually “exist,” if it did, this would contradict dependent origination.

confusion: If there are beings alive who have attained Buddhahood, why is only Shakyamuni considered the Buddha of this age?


Śākyamuni Buddha was a uttamanirmāṇakāya. There cannot be two uttamanirmāṇakāya Buddhas at the same time after a Buddha like Śākyamuni has turned the wheel. However samyaksambuddhahood is still attainable for sentient beings, and those who attain buddhahood are considered janmanirmāṇakāya Buddhas. There can be countless janmanirmāṇakāya Buddhas.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


Right, thank you for elaborating on his position, but if you'll pardon my hot take, I don't really see the difference between undermining self and selflessness and saying that there is neither a self nor no self.

Saying there is neither self nor no self is just an indeterminate, neutral position. But the undermining that the absence of characteristics results in is just the furthest extent of selflessness. Meaning that because there are no selves anywhere, there are not even entities that could lack a self, thus it essentially doubles down on selflessness.

If there were no conscious self, there would be no interaction between the form of my body and the form of perceived reality, and yet there is interaction between the body and perceived reality

There is a conventional interaction. But ultimately no body or perceived reality can be found.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


It is entirely to be experienced

Indeed. Only srotapannis and/or first bhūmi ārya bodhisattvas have experiential insight into anātman.

Nevertheless, a correct inferential view is necessary for most.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


There is not a self to be found in the five aggregates, and the aggregate-landscape is where we attempt to find the self.

Right, we are to abandon the misconception that there is a self in the skandhas, the Ratnakuta states:

Right view is the abandonment of the view of that the aggregates are a self [satkāyadṛṣti].

And per Vasubandhu:

There is neither direct perception nor inference of a self [ātman] independent of the skandhas. We know then that a real self does not exist.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


I don’t mean to come off as rude, so please forgive me. But, I am aware of what the self is

I have no way of knowing that.

when I never expressed any interest in asking, or needing answered, the question myself. I’m hoping this is just a miscommunication.

This is just an open forum, many people read this, if it isn’t helpful to you then it may be helpful for someone else.

your overly convoluted language is, unfortunately, a wasted effort — And I’m sure you don’t mean it to be, but comes across as rather aggressive.

I’ve been involved in dharma forums for over a decade and my conduct is rarely interpreted in the way you are characterizing it. But to each their own, you’re welcome to your opinion of my contributions.

If you want to help people understand, I’d suggest using more accessible language

The language is fine and describes the dynamics of the principle accurately. I have no plan to nerf my presentation.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


No, it means all phenomena are selfless, without a self, lack a self, and so on.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


Arguments like this are why I prefer Nāgārjuna's interpretation of anattā as "neither self nor no self".

Nāgārjuna’s view is not “neither self nor no self.” His view is the absence of characteristics that undermines both self and selflessness by virtue of the logic he expounds in the Mulamadhyamakakarika, where he states the following in the form of an inquiry:

If there were something non-empty, then there would be something to be empty, but since there is nothing that isn’t empty, what is there to be empty?

This is the logic that the absence of characteristics is based upon, which undermines emptiness as a substantial nature.

The same logic can be applied to anātman, which is how both self and selflessness are ultimately undermined. The rendition would go as follows:

If there were some phenomeon that didn’t lack a self, then there would be a phenomenon to lack a self, but since there is no phenomena which does not lack a self, what phenomena is there to lack a self?

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


I was referring to the constant questioning on what the self actually is.

The teachings are clear that the self is an inputed inference that is predicated on a conglomerate of afflictive causal factors which form a nexus of delusion that results in the compelling appearance and feeling of an internal, subjective reference point that is the owner of characteristics and the agent of activities and actions. That is the self.

That process is fueled by the reification of afflictive I-making and mine-making.

Thus a self appears, but it is a total delusion. If the nexus is keenly scrutinized then the mind can awaken to realize that there is no “self” at the core of this elaborate deception, and then the house of cards begins to collapse. Which is how samsara is uprooted.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


I also think everyone’s getting hung up on finding an answer without recognising that the question is rather pointless.

Which question is pointless? These teachings are very clear on this point.

Typically this topic is an uphill battle for many in this subreddit due to people either parroting Thanissaro Bikkhu, or misunderstanding the absence of characteristics in the context of Mahāyāna, which if mishandled results in some sort of neutral, indeterminate view. Both ideas only serve to endlessly obfuscate the meaning of anātman, precisely because both iterations of this error hinge upon some sort of unjustified ambiguity.

will everyone eventually escape samsara? if so, is there any rush?


If everything is impermanent, this would imply the cycle of rebirth will eventually end and we will all escape samsara correct?

Only if they remove their obscurations through practicing buddhadharma.

Certain systems do say that all beings will be liberated at the end of the mahākalpa, but not without attaining liberation through the dharma, it does not just happen automatically.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


Indeed.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes.

“There is no self” is not a fake Buddhist quote. The Buddha said it repeatedly, over and over and over in his expositions.

Not only did the Buddha frequently state sabbe dhamma anatta all phenomena lack a self, but this means literally all phenomena, both conditioned and unconditioned completely lack a self.

I have no idea where people get this strange and completely unfounded idea that “the Buddha never said there’s no self” it is absurd. Thanissaro Bikkhu seems to be the only source of this confusion.

If the self is an illusion in the first place, who is being continuously reincarnated?


All selves are illusory, no need to qualify it with “separate.” Moreover, all phenomena are illusory according to these teachings.

Who gets affected by my karma, if the notion of "myself" is only an invention of my mind?


Karma is actions performed on the basis of the delusion of a self, and those actions reify the delusion of a self. The mindstream can be purified of the misconception of a self via exhausting delusion and karma.

prayers to remove worldly obstacles: are they too focused on samsara gain?


Hard to focus on your practice if you are inundated with worldly obstacles.

Best French translators ?


Best French translators ?

Jean-Luc Achard.

just an observation, this subreddit had about double the subscribers that the Christianity subreddit has


It's been 3 hours since you responded brother, I feel sorry that you're still thinking about it.

Not who you are replying to but important to bear in mind that sometimes people are busy and actually cannot respond for 3 hours.

Dolpopa was an enlightened being who is unfairly criticized.


He puts it so simply. And putting it simply highlights the folly of holding too tightly to dualistic, language-based ways of looking at the nature of experience.

The issue is that one’s view can inform their experiential realization, and experientially there can be subtle structures of consciousness involved which seem profound but still contain obstructions. Also consciousness is quite dynamic in terms of how it begins to intuit and realize dharmatā. For instance emptiness can be realized in the sense gates without being realized in the mind, which can give the illusion of a stable ultimate “knower.” In addition, there can be coarse nondual states that are just a fusion of subject and object which make the continuum seem substantial.

As such, this really is an issue related to experience (rather than just language) and then the language-based ways of describing various types of equipoise are secondary symptoms. Some types of equipoise are inferior in nature, but can be deceiving if the practitioner mistakes them for something definitive. It would be nice if all realizations were identical and this disparity in presentation was just a semantic issue, but realizations are manifold, and disparities in description are often just describing disparities in the quality of experience.

Not saying this to insinuate anything about Dolbupa or gzhan stong etc., just merely commenting on the language versus experience issue and saying things may be more complex than we think.

Can I recite or chant mantras inside unclean places like bathrooms?


Can I recite or chant mantras inside unclean places like bathrooms?

If you are a Vajrayāna practitioner, then you train in pure vision. All places whether “clean” or “unclean” are the maṇḍala of the deity.

AMA with Meido Moore Roshi, Abbot of Korinji, Rinzai Zen Monastery | Friday 7/15


Meido Moore is the real deal. Highly recommend his teachings for anyone interested in Zen.

Are there any Dzogchen/Mahamudra (or any Mahayana) texts that deconstruct the illusion of concrete "distance"?


The ultimate negation of entities means there are ultimately no discrete objects anywhere. Thus there cannot be objects that reside at a distance. Also, since there is ultimately no reference point in the mind, ultimately no self as an entity in our subjective experience, one is forced to inquire: an alleged object would be at a distance from what?

In terms of Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā, Dzogchen Nyinthig states that time and space manifest as the consequence of inaccurately apprehending ka dag and lhun grub, which are two of the jñānas that characterize the nature of mind.

Anatman


I felt ok with it until i encountered this excerpt on Wikipedia about Anatta: "While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing everything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence."

This is what Thanissaro Bikkhu’s followers believe.

In actuality, anātman is definitely defined as denying the existence of a self [ātman] in the form of a substantial inherent nature or entity [svabhāva]. The Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā defines anātman in the following way:

Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature [svabhāva]. The non-existence of that is selflessness [anātman].

Then if one goes deeper into the logic, we approach the absence of characteristics, which states that even selflessness itself is not actually possible or established, precisely because the referent to lack a self cannot be found, thus there is not even an entity to lack a self.

Is there an idea of purity or impurity in Buddhism?


Whoever skillfully realizes all phenomena as pure, that is the natural luminosity of the mind. Because the mind is naturally luminous, therefore it is never afflicted.
— Ārya-gaganagañjaparipṛcchā-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

This concept of purity or “luminosity” is really the cornerstone of all Buddhist teachings.

Collection of Quotes from Mipham on Buddha Nature


The three turnings as contemporaneously presented are also not entirely legitimate. Due to historically different hierarchies and presentations. Like the Hevajra tantra for example, where Nāgārjuna-esque Madhyamaka is held to be above tathāgatagarbha by virtue of its necessity in undermining substantialism according to the Buddha in that instance.

Collection of Quotes from Mipham on Buddha Nature


Then there is the stage of basically undercutting existence, but here there is still a conceptual orientation towards non-existence. Then, the full orientation of the mind towards non-existence is also overcome and one finds a sort of natural rest in suchness, in which there is absolutely no denigration or orientation towards a pole of emptiness or clarity and the root of mundane cognition is cut. This is also related to emptiness endowed with all attributes.

The second and third are exactly the same, one cannot have any genuine insight into emptiness without both characteristics of these proposed “second” and “third” stages occurring in tandem.

The idea that the second ever occurs in the absence of the alleged third is a polemical strawman. The big bad inert emptiness that no one has ever advocated for.

Proper understanding of emptiness is the same thing as proper realization of suchness, which also relates to how the full intent of the 2nd and 3rd turnings are the same.

Tathāta is just a synonym for śūnyatā per the Buddha. Suchness [tathāta] simply means “to see the way things really are.” That insight is prevalent in all Buddhist teachings.

Collection of Quotes from Mipham on Buddha Nature


I can’t really verify your assertions

I would think one can easily verify that every other system of Madhyamaka is considered “rangtong” by shentongpas.

Another way to verify this, is whether you spend any time around directly shentong or shentong-adjacent individuals. If you interact with them then the concept of rangtong is suddenly quite prevalent and is mentioned with noticeable frequency. If you don’t hang out around shentongpas then you never hear “rangtong” mentioned, precisely because no so-called “rangtongpa” calls themselves a rangtongpa.

Collection of Quotes from Mipham on Buddha Nature


Rangtonpas btfo?

Rangtong isn’t a real thing, it is just shentongpas projecting their alleged antithesis onto the rest of the buddhadharma.

One of my mentors once said that a so-called rangtongpa would never think of themselves as a “rangtongpa.” The moniker is just something shentongpas project onto traditional non-shentong views.

curious what those who endorse Prasangika think of later Buddha-Nature/Yogacara teachings of Asanga and Vasubhandu?


Edit to my response: when I say mind, I don't mean the egoic, dualistic mind, I mean pure awareness, Dharmakaya

There is only one mindstream or continuum of mind (per sentient being) that expresses itself in different ways. Buddhas experience their mindstreams as dharmakāya, we sentient beings experience our mindstreams as dualistic consciousness. It is just the same mindstream afflicted or purified of affliction.

With the version of "Shentong" (saying that because Karma Kagyu Shentong is not eternalistic like Jonang) that I've been taught, it just means mind is empty, yet has qualities of primordial awareness and wisdom

Sure, but again, even sūtrayāna teachings state the mind has qualities, as does most of Vajrayāna qua Mahāmudrā, Dzogchen, etc., so we can’t really mean that when we say “shentong” because that view pre-dates shentong in sūtra, and is also found in every other non-shentong Mahāmudrā type teaching.

curious what those who endorse Prasangika think of later Buddha-Nature/Yogacara teachings of Asanga and Vasubhandu?


The union of emptiness and luminosity inseparable. That to me basically sounds like the view of the great Nyingma scholars and yogis, right?

Sure, but that isn’t what makes shentong what it is. The fact that the mind is inexhaustible and merely expresses itself in deluded or liberated modalities is pretty fundamental to all buddhadharma, we find mention of this even in the Pāli Canon.

curious what those who endorse Prasangika think of later Buddha-Nature/Yogacara teachings of Asanga and Vasubhandu?


Asanga came up with an entirely new framework that definitely contradicts Prasangika (Yogacara) and said the mind did inherently exist, am I wrong?

That Yogācāra is sort of a species of non-dual realism in certain respects has to do with the consequence of their three nature view, where the perfected nature is in essence, the absence of the imputed nature in the dependent nature. This means the three natures work like a soiled cloth. The cloth soiled is the dependent nature, the dirt is the imputed nature, and the cloth once clean is the perfected nature. Thus the paratāntra or dependent nature is actually established. Did the Yogācārins intend for this to be the case? That I can’t say.

Shentong differs in that they posit a perfected nature that is completely separate from the other two natures.

In prasangika, the view is somewhat different I’ll give you that, but the utter negation of entities does not mean appearances are negated, and it does not mean that jñāna is deprived of a conventional status, it is all just illusory. The big bad non-affirming negation that the shentongpas fear is just misunderstood.

What do you think about putting statue of Christian figure/saint on home Buddhist altar?


The quasi-Christian perennialists of this sub will drool with approval.

Are there any schools within Tibetan Buddhism, or books exploring, that focus on Pire Land practices?


There are numerous pure and impure buddhafields (purelands) in Vajrayāna. Buddha Amitābha is known as Amitāyus in Vajrayāna. Padmasambhava’s buddhafield is Zangdok Palri. There are many, many practices related to these sambhogakāya a.k.a., “natural nirmanakāya” buddhafields.

Eastern Traditions & The Pursuit Of The Universal Truth.


/u/krodha am I getting this right?

Yes, that is the gist of it. The mind has seven times more clarity in the bardo, Buddha Vajrasattva states in the Victor’s Speech Tantra:

After that, in the bardo of rebirth the present unobstructed awareness with complete sense organs has seven times more clarity.

Hate as a poison. Why?


Hate is a strong reification of subject-object dualism, and any actions performed on that basis of the emotion and deluded dualistic view will incur karma.

curious what those who endorse Prasangika think of later Buddha-Nature/Yogacara teachings of Asanga and Vasubhandu?


The usual point of contention with the Gelug view is that Tsongkhapa makes a hard distinction between existence and inherent existence, and states that the inherent existence of an object is negated while the conventional existence is not (this means the Gelug define emptiness as the non-existence of inherent existence — all while subtly reifying conventional entities). For the general trödral criticism of Tsongkhapa’s view that Nyingmapa’s and other non-Gelug sarma schools would follow one can look to Gorampa’s criticisms of Tsongkhapa’s expositions.

curious what those who endorse Prasangika think of later Buddha-Nature/Yogacara teachings of Asanga and Vasubhandu?


The difference between Dolpopa's Shentong and the rangtong view, if I'm not mistaken, was that he suggested quite straightforwardly that mind had ultimate existence and ultimately existing qualities,

Also that the kāyas of the result are fully formed from the beginning, at the time of the basis. And that the perfected nature is the only ultimate truth that stands separate from the other two natures, imputed and dependent, meaning there is a hard demarcation between relative and ultimate truth. The other schools really took Dolbupa to task for these novel views.

curious what those who endorse Prasangika think of later Buddha-Nature/Yogacara teachings of Asanga and Vasubhandu?


That Minds nature is not only empty, but luminous and self-cognizant, full of primordial Buddha qualities. It differs from Yogacara in that the mind is still seen as emptiness, but more in the sense of limitless, inconceivable, nonconceptual awareness beyond existence, non-existence, both or neither, beyond words, time, space, etc. And is the basis for all appearances of samsara and Nirvana.

If you investigate the sūtras and śāstras that accompany the prasanga corpus you will find that they are replete with explanations of gnosis and luminosity. Clearly the import of views like prasangika are much more nuanced and elaborate. The shentong straw man that prasanga advocates for an inert emptiness is just a convenient polemic tool.

Since Prasangika tends to view Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka as definitive, do you believe Asanga and Vadubandhu were just heretics, that they had wisdom but also misunderstanding, or something entirely different?

It is all the same view in essence.

being a traditionally more meditative/yogic tradition.

They are all meditative/yogic traditions. This is another shentong straw man. But nevertheless, as Sapan pointed out, the pandita is actually at an advantage when compared to the kusali, because the pandita possesses all three prajñās. Whereas the kusali only cultivates one of them.

Prasangika is well-suited for the more analytical Gelug and Sakya

The prasanga import of trödral is the heart of many Kagyu and Nyingma systems as well. For example, Nyingma atiyoga is rooted in trödral and has nothing to do with shentong.

how prasanikas reconcile some of these later teachings, whether they're totally rejected or integrated somehow. I don't have much knowledge beyond the Kagyu/Mahamudra traditions

It is al integrated all the way up and down. Only shentongpas struggle with these reconciliations. It is a symptom of their view.

curious what those who endorse Prasangika think of later Buddha-Nature/Yogacara teachings of Asanga and Vasubhandu?


According to this view, the third and final turning was on Buddha-Nature, and focused on correcting any "over-negation" that may have occurred with meditations on the previous turning.

Back when the turnings were inverted, and tathāgatagarbha was second turning, Nāgārjuna’s teachings (treated as third turning) were likewise utilized as a means to mitigate “over-affirming” that may have occurred with meditations on the previous turning. The Hevajra Tantra uses this hierarchy, for example.

what does Alan watts mean when he says "agent's" are an illusion?


Despite this subreddit’s distaste for Watts, what he is saying here regarding an agent is true in terms of Buddhist teachings. Rational agents, meaning discrete separate selves which are the author of an action, the doer of what is done, mover of the moved, knower of the known, is a total illusory construct.

AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

what does Alan watts mean when he says "agent's" are an illusion?


But what he is saying regarding agents is accurate for Buddhist teachings.

Is it true that the Mahayana teaches that all beings will eventually be liberated? If this is true, in a way aren’t they already if whatever that is is outside of time and duality? What happens next if samsara is over?


If this is true, in a way aren’t they already if whatever that is is outside of time and duality?

Their minds are burdened with ignorance, which obscures the fact that liberation is innate. The entire buddhist path is nothing more than the process of removing that obscuring ignorance.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


It seems like you have confused Tsen Kawoche with Yumo Mikyo Dorje. Tsen Kawoche's gzhan stong was based on a meditative tradition of the Ratnagotravibhaga. Yumo Mikyo Dorje's gzhan stong was based on the Kalacakra sadangayoga (and Dzogchen). Kawoche is part of the sutra lineage of the Jonang, not the tantric Kalacakra lineage. Maybe this explains why you believe that gzhan stong is based on the sutras, because Kawoche got his inspiration from the Ratnagotravibhaga?

Yes, thanks, I did confuse the two. But that conflation was not the basis for categorizing gzhan stong as a sūtrayāna view. The actual basis for that assertion is the lack of abhiṣeka.

Gzhan stong is also not really a reinterpretation.

The gzhan stong treatment of the yogācāra three natures is certainly novel. Only the pariniṣpanna or perfected nature is considered ultimate truth, which deviates from the traditional presentation.

Early commentaries on the sadangayoga like the Laghutantratika talk about how the emptiness of empty forms is not a "nihilistic emptiness."

Sure, but no proper view of emptiness is ever nihilistic.

Emptiness in the Kalacakra is not some sort of non-implicative negation or philosophical tool, but is something that has a perceivable non-conceptual form and that is animate and dynamic.

Yes, this is true from every view of emptiness. Emptiness is traditionally, even in prasaṅga for example, always a non-conceptual "animate and dynamic" realization.

You have it backwards, it's an anuttarayogatantra view

Again, impossible in the absence of abhiṣeka, which is what actually differentiates sūtrayāna and vajrayāna. Otherwise, if gzhan stong is simply a synonym for the luminosity of mind, then this is found in many sūtra systems, there is nothing unique about that. Luminosity is not an exclusively vajrayāna view.

Gzhan stong isn't the standard understanding of the three natures, but its understanding is clearly found in canonical texts

...according to gzhan stong pas. Hence the novel reinterpretation of Maitreyanātha's treatises to substantiate the claim.

And unsympathetic lamas will make opposing claims then, no?

Of course.

A straw man is an argument that nobody actually believes but that people offer only to debunk.

A straw man in this case, is a faux position projected onto a given party by another. Like group A claiming they are the "purple team" and then stating that all other groups are "non-purples" by default, but the other groups are not non-purples, they are oranges, and blues and greens, reds, and so on. The blanketed projected opposite is just a default moniker attributed to contrasting groups by the purple group.

Same goes for gzhan stong and rang stong. Rang stong is just normal madhyamaka in its varieties. Just because gzhan stong came along and claimed their view and rendered every other madhyamaka view as "rang stong" does not mean rang stong is actually something real. It is just something shentongpas say. If you're a shentongpa then sure there's a lot of rangtongpas out there. But if you're not a shentongpa then you'd never consider yourself a rangtongpa.

Rang stong clearly is not a straw man seeing how many people rush to defend it.

No so-called rangtongpa is defending some sort of rangtongpa view. This is again just something shentongpas say. It isn't real.

Dolpopa was clear that rang stong applies to samsara and gzhan stong applies to nirvana.

A strange view.

So all shentongpas accept the rangtong view of samsara, the fault that makes one a rangtongpa is misapplying intrinsic emptiness to nirvana.

Nirvana is a cessation by definition. Defined as analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) specifically.

So if rang stong was a mere straw man, it seems odd that Dolpopa would accept it as a valid description of samsara.

Again, a strange view.

Homosexuality and becoming a monk


I saw that one of the prerequisites to be trained and be ordained as a monk, is heterosexuality.

Where?

I'd like to ask some questions regarding the "self"


There is also the unanswered/undeclared questions that the Buddha had refused to answer. One of them being, "Is there a self? Is there no self?".

“Is there a self” and “is there no self” are not featured in the fourteen unanswered questions.

Hi, Jew interested in Conversion here.


Vajrayāna is nice because it is based on non-conceptual abhisekas or “empowerments” which give insight into experiential aspects of your mind and so on that are used as a basis for practice. Of course there is a rich conceptual doctrine associated, but the main takeaway is that you can really hold all types of conceptual views and they will not detract from your practice because your practice is based on the non-conceptual example wisdom introduced by the teacher. You can remain culturally Jewish and it will have no bearing on your dharma practice.

Theravāda is also great though. You should investigate as many systems as you can and find out what speaks to you. You will have a karmic connection to one or more teachings.

Can I do anything?


If you trust tradition, then the Buddha spoke it.

Avalokitesvara, technically.

Can I do anything?


That, I feel is real. Perhaps the only thing that is real.

Not according to Buddhism at least.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


I wouldn't be surprised to hear these views from a Gelugpa, but it's surprising to see them from a Nyingma Dzogchen practitioner.

I did not assert any view of that nature, just for the record.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


I was under the impression the entire Vajrayana view was encapsulated by everything is, right now, fundamentally pure, as it is, and ignorance simply obscures that.

Indeed. That is the actual meaning of luminosity.

Is mindfulness of the Buddha a samatha or vipasyana practice?


Real vipaśyāna is the dimension of realization, important to differentiate from the vipassana movement, which is sort of a glorified form of śamatha.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Then a “sutrayana view” used in tantric methods becomes a tantrayana view

This is like myself as a Dzogchenpa, referencing prasangika. The reference does not make prasangika suddenly a tantric view. It is not.

I’m not quite clear on what this distinction between a sutra view and a tantra view is supposed to accomplish

It is important to distinguish sutra and tantra views. Tantra is rooted in abhiseka, sutra teachings are not. You can adopt sutra views in the context of your tantric practice, because it does not matter, tantra is rooted in abhiseka, non-conceptual empowerment to the example jnana. It is not an intellectual view. Shentong does not have abhiseka, it is a conceptual view adopted in post-meditation [rjes thob].

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


I don't see this comment as addressing my points, nor do I know why we should invoke unnamed "adherents" or Dudjom R when we have word from Dolpopa himself

Well, the point is just that even someone like Dudjom Rinpoche understood that gzhan stong is categorized as sūtrayāna.

Dolpopa himself, who originated the very gzhan stong concept, that it has its origination and basis in tantra. Its entire premise is not what you claimed (the integration of three natures and two truths), but to elucidate the Kalacakra.

The origin of gzhan stong itself is not in tantra, the idea of it came from a master by the name of Tsan Kawoche who received teachings on the six limb yoga of Kalācākra, and specifically based this view on a reinterpretation of the pratyahāra part of the six limbs which featured some sort of empty forms, or śūnyatābimba. However this instruction came from a teacher by the name of Somanatha, who apparently utilized a translator who did not understand Sanskrit very well, and somehow this interpretation came about from the instruction, even though this view is not actually found in the Kalācākra tantra itself or any of its commentaries. Regardless, this view was created and the lineage of instructions eventually came down to Dolbupa who ran with it and used the Yogācāra three natures in relation to Tathāgatagarbha, Maitreyanatha's five treatises, and the Madhyamaka two truths to elaborate on this idea. Dolbupa's presentation is logically rooted in sūtrayāna.

or Dolpopa, the fact that gzhan stong illuminates and integrates sutra and tantra is simply further proof that it is the Buddha's definitive teaching

If you are a shentongpa and want to believe that it is the buddha's definitive teaching you can. For others, they will consider their own heart dharma the buddha's definitive teaching. "Definitive" in realation to the teachings is whatever works best for you, there is no objective trademark "definitive" teaching. For myself, the definitive buddhist teaching is Dzogchen mennagde, but that is my view. I would never in my wildest dreams try to tell anyone else that mennagde is actually some sort of objective definitive teaching, even though for me, it is.

is free from internal contradiction

The internal contradiction comes from how the three natures are synthesized with the two truths. The shentong reinterpretation deviates from the standard understanding in Yogācāra, but nevertheless shentong claims it has the actual understanding.

To claim the fact that gzhan stong interfaces with sutras means that it's not a view for and from highest yoga tantra is to misunderstand Dolpopa's project and hermeneutic strategy.

Gzhan stong is not anuttarayogatantra, there is no abhiseka involved in its teachings at all. It is just a sūtrayāna view that is referenced from within the framework of anuttarayogatantra, just like us Dzogchenpas reference prasangika even though prasangika is likewise sūtrayāna.

or someone outside the Jonang, you can read Khenpo Tsultrim's teachings in Shenpen Hookham's The Buddha Within.

I'm not interested but thanks.

There is a section called "Tantric Shentong" that may be of interest, along with comments throughout the book on why, without tantric initiation and secret oral instruction, you simply will not understand what gzhan stong means

Yes, I mean different shentong sympathetic lamas are going to make all sorts of claims of this nature.

is not about reconciling sutra views, and is about the tantric sadangayoga practice.

Shentong literally is about reconciling sūtrayāna views. It is the three natures synthesized with the two truths through a novel understanding of Maitreyanātha's five treatises.

I posted this more so for onlookers that they may have the facts about gzhan stong rather than to convince rangtongpas.

Sure, I am doing the same. To add, rang stong is a false title. It is a shentong straw man. Rangtong does not exist. There is just normal mahdyamaka and then shentong. Just because shentongpas call non-shentong madhyamaka "rangtong" does not mean non-shentong madhyamaka is rangtong.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Ask Ācārya Malcolm, this is an anecdote of his based on a personal debate with Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


and he explicitly stated that gzhan stong was derived from the Kalacakra tantra

Shentong is a known sūtrayāna view, it is even presented in the sūtra section of Dudjom Rinpoche’s big red book, this is really a non-controversial point. Shentong is not anuttarayogatantra, not Vajrayāna since there is no abhiseka, it is a sūtra view.

On top of that shentong is substantiated by its adherents through a novel reinterpretation of Maitreyanātha’s five treatises, sūtra texts. This does not invalidate shentong in any way, but shentong is not a mantrayāna view.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Because it's not realized.

Right, this is the definition of the basis in these teachings, “something not yet realized.” The result is the total and complete knowledge of that which is unrecognized in the basis, thus, how can the result exist at the same time as the basis as Dolbupa asserts? It is nonsensical.

Kagyu/Nyingma practitioners especially: thoughts on Advaita Vedanta and Ramana Maharshi?


The Rigpa Rangshar rejects Advaita Vedanta even mentioning Ādi Śaṅkarācārya by name, so it is important to understand why.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Dzogchens view is basically identical to Mahamudra's man.

Sort of. In essence yes for the most part, but the paths are quite different. For example the four yogas and four ting nge 'dzins appear very similar at first glance, but there are subtle differences such as the four yogas being progressive and the tingdzins being immediate. Also no thögal in mahāmudrā, which is essentially the cornerstone of atiyoga which sets it apart form the other inner yogas, and so on. These are differences in the path or method, the basis and result are the same.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Shentong still holds mind is empty.

Most contemporary shentong, yes. Dolbupa's shentong though? He is quite clear that the perfected nature is established.

When pressed, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche actually admitted that there is not much difference between Dolbupa's shentong and Advaita Vedanta. For whatever that is worth.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


I think you're still not getting that there are multiple different "Shentongs" out there.

I'm thoroughly aware. I get that there is the original Jonang shentong of Dolbupa and Taranatha. Then it begins to be slightly more subtle in Mikyo Dorje's expositions, Shakya Chogden, Jamgon Kongtrul, etc.

Now it's very much similar to Ju Mipham's view.

Mipham's view is Dzogpachenpo.

When I see what you're writing your view is, I recognize it as my view but worded just very very slightly differently. I eaally don't think these tiny differences matter when it's about going beyond all intellectual concepts and views together. Sure, it's important to understand the view, but the degree of nitpicking (which I'm doing too so I'm not blaming you) seems to accomplish nothing. It I'd interesting and intellectually stimulating, except when I get angry and respond with aggression I'm creating bad karma.

Ok, well I think we can still discuss. If you don't want to however then that is okay too.

Are the Prajnaparamitas a good place to start reading?


I started early with the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra) it was of great benefit. Even if the subject matter seems difficult at first, it is good to be exposed to it and start to learn about it.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Your views don't agree with Ju Miphams or any contemporary Nyingma master.

Which aspect of my views are discordant with Ju Mipham?

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


There are just nuances to these views which characterize them. Shentong is not simply this idea that emptiness and luminosity are inseparable, if it were it wouldn't be any different than other sūtrayāna views such as yogācāra or tathāgatagarbha. What makes shentong "shentong" are those nuanced aspects.

Beyond that, I think these conversations are always good, it makes everyone think and consider different viewpoints. When can only bring clarity and benefit.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


Are you also saying Dudjom Dorje Rinpoche, a great Nyingma masters, was bastardizing Yogacara and Madhyamaka?

Dudjom Rinpoche's personal affinity for shentong was his own, the Nyingma kyabjé's who preceded and followed did not necessarily have this same view. Does not mean it is wrong, it just means when you read this, you are reading Dudjom Rinpoche's view, which is great, but it is his own, and if you follow the Dudjom Tersar then perhaps you then adopt this view, if not, then really it boils down to a personal view.

you'll see a poster quoted him as referring to Prasangika as "outer Madhyamaka" and that "inner Madhyamaka"

Yes, this is just a shentong strawman, again, not actually rooted in any doctrinal basis.

refers to Great Madhyamaka

The joke of mahāmadhyamaka is that at one time in history, every single madhyamaka system has claimed to be "mahāmadhyamaka," thus the title really means nothing more than the type of madhyamaka the particular lama prefers. Shentong does not have a "trademark" on it, as my teacher once said.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


I don't know how you would get that from solely the Prajnaparamita sutras.

The prajñāpāramitā sūtras are the first place we really encounter the idea of phenomena being in a state of cessation from the very beginning, but this is not known due to our delusion. The tathāgatagarbha is an extension of this which covers the innate embodiment of buddhahood in a coarse manner.

That's why you never see Nagarjuna talking about the luminosity aspect of mind's nature

Yes, Ārya Nāgārjuna does not generally discuss luminosity, the Siddha Nāgārjuna does though.

Buddha Nature is a teaching of the Third Turning

According to the Tibetan trope yes, but this was never a view in India. And even in early Tibet, these "turnings" were never truly set in stone. We sometimes see them inverted. The contemporary "three turning" model is not really based on any extant Indian literature, meaning it has no true doctrinal basis. Which is fine, but the main takeaway is that the rigid idea that somehow tathāgatagarbha is a higher view than madhyamaka and so on, is a personal opinion.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Ultimate and relative truth are inseparable and I've never heard it say otherwise.

In most systems, yes, the ultimate is a generic characteristic of the relative. However in shentong, the perfected nature, pariniṣpanna, is completely set apart from the other two, dependent and imputed natures, by virtue of shentong's novel reinterpretation of the two truths. As a result, there is an internal contradiction in the form of a hard demarcation between these natures, and one has to wonder how does a conditioned nature even relate to a completely separate unconditioned nature?

If you say they're not there from the very beginning, and that the Dharmakaya hasn't primordially always been free

In most systems, dharmakāya is the result and is not present at all times. If dharmakāya were present at all times then we would always possess the jñāna of a buddha free from the two obscurations, but alas we do not yet possess that. For example, in common Yogacara the ālayavijñāna is transformed into the ādarśajñāna or dharmakāya by virtue of the exhaustion of its karmic bījas or seeds. In a teaching like Dzogchen, dharmakāya is actually not present in the basis or result, it is a path dharma. The ngo bo aspect of the basis ripens into dharmakāya on the path, and then all the kāyas are exhausted in the result.

Shentong stands apart in asserting that dharmakāya is fully formed at the time of the basis and is then merely revealed by the removal of afflictions, and then is still fully formed at the time of the result. This is a unique view, and many question why, if the dharmakāya is fully formed in the basis would the path be necessary at all?

also, isn't the view that all beings are enlightened in essence from the very start the entire basis of the fruition, Vajrayana path

No, not quite. The Vajrayāna trope of "taking the result as the path" signifies the generation stage, where the practitioner visualizes themselves as the yidam, and his/her environment as the deity’s maṇḍala.

the seeing of promordial wisdom and clarity as having always been there but not known due to ignorance?

Yes the dharmatā of mind is always present and is merely revealed as the two obscurations are removed, however, that dharmatā ripens into the dharmakāya. Sure, there are different dharmakāyas in some contexts, the dharmakāya of the basis for example is ka dag, but this is not the actual dharmakāya. The actual dharmakāya does not dawn even for 10th stage bodhisattvas. Only a buddha can know dharmakāya.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


If that alone makes it sutrayana, what’s to stop us from saying prasangika madhyamaka is also a sutrayana view, as it’s based off of the Prajñaparamita sutras?

All Madhyamaka is categorized as sūtrayāna.

You could even then come up with the paradoxical statement that the vajrayana is a sutrayana view,

Vajrayāna is set apart by abhiseka. Sūtrayāna does not have abhiseka of any sort.

as is is a unique interpretation of the Buddha-nature sutras synthesized with the two truths of madhyamaka.

Indeed, but a completely different methodology which sets it apart from sūtra.

consciousness is not self?


please kindly avoid troubling me with your pointless replies in the future

Quite rude.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Khenpo Samdup Rinpoche says the emptiness of Jigten Sumgon is the Shentong view

My Drikung Kagyu lama, Drüpon Gongpo Dorje would adamantly disagree. Just depends on the lama and his/her direct lineage.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


You mentioned Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, but he says Shentong Madhyamaka, not Prasangika, is the highest view.

Some people have that opinion.

Most Kagyu teachers call themselves Shentong, not Prasangika these days

Depends on the Kagyu sect. Karma Kagyu is heavy leaning shentong, but a sect like Drikung Kagyu is more prasanga leaning.

Ultimately I realize that at some point arguing about rhe exact nature of emptiness-luminosity in words is pointless, at least for me, since the reality of the matter goes beyond concepts, completely beyond words

Any and everything is ineffable (beyond words). The issue with shentong is that their view harbors certain irreconcilable positions, for example, shentong asserts a hard demarcation between relative and ultimate truth, stating that ultimate truth is completely separate from the relative. Shentong also states that Buddha qualities are fully formed from the beginning, meaning the kāyas of the result are fully formed at the time of the basis, both of these positions contradict Dzogchen teachings for example.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


In Vajrayana there are some views that are not present in Sutrayana, eg. All beings already being promordially pure and enlightened from the start.

The tathāgatagarbha and prajñāpāramitā sūtras are really the locus classcus for “All beings already being promordially pure and enlightened from the start.”

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


Gzhan stong is absolutely a sūtrayāna view, the entire premise of its view is a unique interpretation of the three natures of Yogācāra synthesized with the two truths of Madhyamaka.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


I have often seen Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa referred to as Pransangika Madhyamaka adherents. Do you know if they spoke to this directly?

Longchenpa states that Prasangika Madhyamaka, meaning Nāgārjuna’s expositions (even though Nāgārjuna was obviously pre-prasanga) are the definitive sūtrayāna view, while the tathāgatagarbha sūtras are the definitive sūtra texts.

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra


I complied this some years ago, I can try to track down the sources for you though.

consciousness is not self?


its best to not reply to a Theravada matter with a Mahayana answer.

These priniples and their implications are not Theravada specific. They are prevalent in every system and tradition. The so-called “Mahāyāna” reply I offered is directly applicable to Theravada. One who would think otherwise is simply failing to understood the universal nature of these topics within the scope of the Buddha’s teachings.

In Theravada, the Path is "conditioned" (MN 44) and every type of consciousness is conditioned (SN 22,59). Only Nibbana is unconditioned (MN 115; Ud 8.1,etc).

Yes, the same is true in Mahāyāna.

As a Theravadin who follows the Pāli Canon, you too aim to cultivate gnosis:

Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis (nana) only after a long stretch." — Ud 5.5

and,

Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis (nana) is all at once. Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice." -MN 70

consciousness is not self?


The species of “consciousness” which dwells in nirvana is gnosis [jñāna]. A Buddha’s mind is dharmakāya, i.e., jñānakāya, thus there is no contradiction.

This is a standard Buddhist view, whether Ajahn Sumedho promotes it or not, I don’t follow his teachings personally. But the principle is buddhadharma.

consciousness is not self?


He says all the time that consciousness is the unconditioned, unborn, deathless

This just means that consciousness always has an unconditioned nature, a dharmatā. For example, the dharmatā of consciousness [vijñāna] is gnosis [jñāna]. The purpose of these teachings is to recognize that jñāna. We are currently ignorant and suffer because we have no direct knowledge of it.

Jñāna is also selfless, because it is technically the emptiness of vijñāna. Neither vijñāna or jñāna are substantially established in any way.

12 links of dependent origination.


Nāgārjuna breaks the 12 links down into three phases: (i) affliction, (ii) action, (iii) suffering. Affliction drives the links: affliction—>action—>suffering—>affliction—>action—>suffering repeat.

He writes:

The first, eighth and ninth are affliction; the second and the tenth are action. Also the remaining seven are suffering. Twelve dharmas are gathered into three. Two arise from three. Seven are produced from two, that is the wheel of existence, it is turned again and again.

The twelve links take place over a period of three lifetimes. Rebirth happens at the link of consciousness and the link of birth. Links 3 through 10 are the links of this current life.

Which publishing house is the best/most authoritative for English translations of original buddhist texts.


It is Mabja Jangchub Tsondru's the Ornament of Reason. One of the only pre-Gelug commentaries of the MMK available. Jay Garfield, who arguably published one of the more popular MMK translations has said that the “Ornament of Reason” renders his own translation “obsolete.”

I am having a look at /u/krodha and there are heated discussions

Definitely not, I consider squizzlebizzle a friend and Vajra brother.

When the world ends


During the prālaya or period between universes, beings take rebirth in more subtle deva type realms until things begin again.

Practicing the Dharma in Sexual Relationships


The question was regarding the scope of your presentation, including bodhicitta presented in the context of sex and sexual partners, and whether that is something Vajrayāna teaches, and the answer is sort of. The bodhicitta part, sure. The treatment of a partner in sex, kinda. The two together, not really. And then cultivating conditioned virtue can be a distraction for some Vajrayānis.

is breathing or breathing methods mentioned in any Buddhist texts?


There is a rich system of pranayama in some Indian and Tibetan teachings.

With all the discussion around abortion lately, can someone point me toward specific Suttas that speak to life/rebirth occurring at the point of conception?


If the embryo forms when a heavenly being decides to take up residence in the fertile conditions of the womb

Not a heavenly being. There are different uses of gandhabba. “Gandhabba” in this context is a term used to denote the series of aggregates in the intermediate state between lives.

do you think nibbana is non duality?


Nondual in Buddhism really means a freedom from extremes. Thus the Kaccānagotta sutta and others do teach of Buddhist nonduality [advāya].

do you think nibbana is non duality?


Any psychophysical activity that is based upon, and also reifies, a subject-object division.

do you think nibbana is non duality?


The essence of mind is the samsara of dualistic grasping. The essence of vidyā is nondual nirvana.
— Longchenpa

Practicing the Dharma in Sexual Relationships


It means he thinks I am speaking false Dharma

This is a bit extreme. I think the post has value. Do the Vajrayāna tantras teach something like this explicitly? Not exactly. But if the takeaway is bodhicitta then that is a multi-layered topic, and sure, this is your personal, lived experience of applying aspirational and engaged bodhicitta.

It is obviously good to be virtuous in the context of our relative condition. In some Vajrayāna settings we have to be mindful and walk a fine line with “virtuous” conduct, as we are meant to be somewhat more free without the need for it, but as there is also no need for misdeeds, there is no problem.

Practicing the Dharma in Sexual Relationships


The squizzlebizzleyāna does.

So what's the deal with GoldenSwastika?


I like the premise, seems like a cool sub, I somehow hadn’t heard of it til today.

Buddhism vs Hindusim


Saying one ripped off the other is simplistic and child like.

Although the Advaita luminary, Gaudapāda admitted he adopted Madhyamaka dialectics in order to refute Dvaitins or dualist Vedantins.

What’s the point of liberation?


There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes.

This really isn’t true, and is an idea that is exclusively peddled by Thanissaro Bikkhu.

Moreover, not only does the Buddha explicitly state there is no self in any phenomena [sabbe dhamma anatta], he goes as far as he to be certain that it is understood there is no self or svabhāva in any dharma both conditioned or unconditioned.

The definition of anātman, or selflessness is very clear in texts such as the Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā which defines it as such:

Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness [anātman].

The misconception of a self is what lies at the heart of samsara, and in realizing anātman it is directly known that such a self never existed at any point in time. The self is nothing more than a stable deception that depends on certain afflictive conditions. When those causes and conditions are exhausted, then the misconception of the self is exhausted, and that is liberation.

Question for my Dzogchen people & Pure-Landers about mantras & dream yoga (Crazy nightmare experience)


The Dzogchen opinion:

When vidyā is practiced, since hells do not exist, the one who designates hells has been taken by Māra. When vidyā reaches its full measure, it is shown that neither buddhas nor hell beings were ever established. Therefore, it is shown that there is not the slightest difference between Buddha Samantabhadra and the King of Hell, Dharmarāja.
— Vimalamitra

This dovetails with buddhafields or “purelands.” There can be pure and impure buddhafields, but ultimately no matter if the buddhafield you perceive is relatively pure or impure, all buddhafields are ultimately pure. This Sahalōka is Akaniṣṭha-ghanavyūha even now, you just cannot see it.

Below the path of seeing we treat our vidyā like a mirror. Whatever is reflected in a mirror does not affect the mirror, nor does the mirror accept or reject.

But, lofty words, nightmares can be terrifying, as Norbu Rinpoche always said: “just do your best.”

The concept of Emptiness


I may be wrong about what i think i have understood from yours and others comments here but it seems like the idea is that if we can break something down further suggests that its not real or true somehow? Is this right?

I think this idea is prevalent and I’m sure others may have asserted this in this thread, but that is not what I was saying. Breaking objects down into constituent pieces or parts is not what I was getting at. What I am saying is the intention in understanding emptiness should center around challenging the validity of the object that can possess parts and pieces from the very beginning.

A good example of this would be the “chariot” line of logical reasoning used most notably by Candrakīrti in his Madhyamakāvatāra in order to establish the lack of a fundamental, core identity (self) in phenomena. Candrakīrti argues that the identity of a given person, place, thing, etc., is merely an inferential, conventional designation that does not ultimately correlate to the basis of imputation that the alleged 'thing' itself is falsely predicated upon. Meaning: the alleged object that the designation infers (the existence of) cannot be found when sought due to the fact that the alleged object itself cannot bear keen analysis.

(i) There is no chariot which is other than its parts

(ii) There is no chariot which is the same as its parts

(iii) There is no chariot which possesses its parts

(iv) There is no chariot which depends on its parts

(v) There is no chariot upon which the parts depend

(vi) There is no chariot which is the collection of its parts

(vii) There is no chariot which is the shape of its parts

Here, Candrakīrti is calling into question the credibility of the entity in its entirety. Not even asserting that there is an entity which possesses characteristics such as wheels, axels, a wooden frame etc., that can be further broken down into parts and pieces. The point is not to break the object down to show it is unreal, but rather investigate the mistaken notion that it is possible to locate the object in the first place.

The concept of Emptiness


Elsewhere in describing Dharmakaya, you describe it as a generic characteristic.

Yes, dharmakāya is the “nature of mind” [citta dharmatā]. As the dharmatā of the dharmin called “mind” it is a generic characteristic [samanyalakṣana].

Could this be a case of two different terms translating into the same English term

Yes, these teachings will differentiate between generic characteristics [samanyalakṣana] and specific characteristics [svalakṣana]. When it is said that there are no characteristics in an ultimate sense, this is referring to specific characteristics [svalakṣana]. A svalakṣana is a specific characteristic of a relative entity. Like a fire hydrant being short and red. Short and red are examples of specific characteristics. A relative example of a generic characteristic on the other hand would be the wetness of water, or the heat of a flame. Heat and wetness are generic characteristics because they are identical in expression in every discrete instance of fire or water. So too, the dharmakāya is identical in expression in every instance of mind, but dharmakāya is just a generic characteristic which signifies the emptiness of mind (or inseparable emptiness and clarity). It is not some sort of singular monolithic nature like a substratum that is established in some way unto itself. Dharmakāya is just something about your own mind that is realized. It is the ultimate truth of the alleged relative entity called “mind.” Just as the Buddha clarifies in the Samdhinirmocana sūtra when he states that the ultimate is the generic characteristic [samanyalakṣana] of the relative.

Or perhaps the Dharmakaya consists precisely in that fact that there are no such characteristics?

Dharmakāya reveals that there are no specific characteristics [svalakṣana] because dharmakāya is by definition the complete and total realization of emptiness [śūnyatā]. A synonym for emptiness is an absence of characteristics. There are no characteristics because in realizing emptiness, we discover that there are no entities to bear said characteristics.

As for the importance of an absence of characteristics, here is something I wrote before on that topic, dovetailing absence of characteristics with the abandonment of views:

The absence of characteristics [alakṣaṇa] is revealed in the realization of emptiness [śūnyatā]. The Āryākṣayamatinirdeśaṭīkā describes the interrelation of these aspects of awakened insight:

The descriptions from the element of self [atmadhātu] up to the element of all phenomena [sarvadharmadhātu] are the nature of one taste in the ultimate dharmadhātu, emptiness. Since individual characteristics do not exist, all phenomena said to be "equivalent" since they are undifferentiated.

Therefore to actualize the “abandonment of views” one must realize emptiness, and through realizing emptiness, the absence of characteristics is directly known due to the absence of a would be inherent nature or “svabhāva” to possesses said characteristics. At that time, because entities are realized to be non-arisen, the basis of imputation which was previously mistaken to be an object endowed with specific characteristics is recognized to be a heterogeneous array of appearances that do not actually constitute or create the entity they were previously misconstrued to characterize. In the absence of an entity, existence and non-existence, having no substantial referent, are undone and as a result all views (and characteristics) are exhausted.

In his Mūlamadhyamakakārika, Nāgārjuna clarifies that the pacification of views is contingent upon insight into emptiness whereby existent entities that are capable of existing and/or lacking existence are recognized to be unfounded. He likewise chastises those of “little intelligence” who assert otherwise:

Some of small intelligence, see existents in terms of “is” or “is not”; they do not perceive the pacification of views, or peace.

“Peace” here again is intended to illustrate an absence of characteristics, the Ārya-tathāgatācintyaguhyanirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

"Nirvana is peace" denotes actualizing the absence of characteristics.

Candrakīrti concurs in his Madhyamakāvatāra:

The absence of all characteristics is peace.

We can understand “peace” and “pacification” in general to be the import of such statements. The pacification of characteristics and therefore the pacification of views, resulting from an awakened and experiential knowledge of the nature of phenomena, emptiness free from extremes, the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā sūtra states:

What is called "knowledge of all things" is the result of knowing one thing: the true nature of phenomena, which has the attribute of peace.

One may ask, how is such an insight possible? It is possible because all phenomena are innately empty and devoid of a svabhāva that possesses characteristics, however ignorance and affliction obscure that fact. The purpose of applying the dharma is to discover that hidden nature of phenomena that is always already the case, but is concealed by our delusion. The Ārya-kāśyapa-parivarta-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra is clear that emptiness and an absence of characteristics are innate attributes which only need be recognized:

Kāśyapa, moreover, the true discernment into dharmas of the middle way is not making dharmas empty with emptiness, dharmas themselves are empty; it is not making dharmas without characteristics with the absence of characteristics; dharmas themselves lack characteristics.

It is only our affliction which causes us to perceive entities that are endowed with characteristics, when in actuality no such entities have ever originated in the first place. The realization of emptiness is simultaneously the antidote to those afflictions, and the means by which the absence of characteristics is ascertained. The Play of Noble Mañjūśrī Sūtra states:

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

Nāgārjuna states in his Lokātītastava:

You [the tathāgata] taught that those who do not realize that characteristics do not exist are not liberated.

And in closing it is important to bear in mind that because the referent to lack characteristics is exhausted, even the absence of characteristics is ultimately absent as a characteristic.

The Ananta­mukhapariśo­dhana­nirdeśaparivarta states:

Although the teachings conventionally refer to “the essence and nature of all phenomena,” phenomena are actually devoid of an inherent essence or a nature. The inherent nature of things is that they are empty and lack an essence. All that is empty and devoid of an essence has a single [generic] characteristic: since phenomena are devoid of [specific] characteristics, their [generic] characteristic is complete purity, and thus by definition there is nothing to label as empty or essenceless. Since by definition there is nothing to label as empty or essenceless, no phenomena can, by definition, be labeled.

Brahman (Capital B) in Buddhism? Is Nirvana a state of mind or an unconditioned reality?


There is no interest in Brahman. There is interest in Ariya-Magga (Noble-Path).

Yet it is important to understand precisely what the ārya-marga (path of the āryas) is. If the aspirant does not comprehend the difference between (i) the sthāna-marga-phala or basis, path and result of the buddhadharma and (ii) the basis, path and result of relevant tīrthika systems, then this can cause issues. As Āryadeva said, realization is based on view. If the view is unclear, then this can potentially disrupt progress on the ārya marga, or even compromise entry to the ārya marga itself.

In any case, not trying to dominate the thread. Just trying to advocate for a healthy relationship with Buddhist metaphysics, because often there can be a trend to suppress such things, in an anti-intellectual way, which is a western invention. Traditional Buddhism has never shied away from study and even debate in post-equipoise activities, which is what reddit discussions qualify as.

Brahman (Capital B) in Buddhism? Is Nirvana a state of mind or an unconditioned reality?


Whenever I ask a monk a question that is about Buddhist metaphysics, like your question, they always advice me to focus more on 4 noble truths and 8 food for path.

Not every bhikṣu may be fully aware of the depths of Buddhist metaphysics (meaning a Theravāda bhikṣu will most likely not be classically trained in something like Śāntarakṣita‘s refutation of Advaita Vedanta in his Tattvasaṃgraha), it is important to bear in mind what system or tradition they belong to. Clearly metaphysics are discussed in depth in the abhidhamma, and these specific issues regarding differences between buddhadharma and sanatanadharma are elaborated upon heavily in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna expositions.

I can see the logic behind a bhikṣu advising that you focus on fundamentals, but Buddhist scriptures are also very dense with metaphysical topics and comparisons, because it is important to understand such things, especially if it helps the practitioner to remove doubts... which is the sole purpose of such writings.

Brahman (Capital B) in Buddhism? Is Nirvana a state of mind or an unconditioned reality?


In comparing Buddhist principles such as nirvāna, or dharmakāya with something like the Brahman of Vedanta, there are distinct differences. Brahman on the one hand is a transpersonal, ontological, truly established ultimate. Whereas dharmakāya is a buddha’s realization of śūnyatā, emptiness, brought to its full measure at the time of buddhahood, which results from the cultivation of jñāna, or a direct non-conceptual, yogic perception of emptiness. Dharmakāya is the nature of a personal continuum of mind, is epistemic in nature, and is not a truly established ultimate nature.

The great Buddhist adept Bhāviveka, who lived during a time in India where there were many polemical debates and interactions between different traditions, addresses the distinctions in many of his expositions. This excerpt from his Tarkajvālā is especially pertinent:

If it is asked what is difference between this dharmakāya and the paramātma [bdag pa dam pa] (synonymous with Brahman) asserted in such ways as nonconceptual, permanent and unchanging, that [paramātma] they explain as subtle because it possesses the quality of subtlety, is explained as gross because it possesses the quality of grossness, as unique because it possess the quality of uniqueness and as pervading near and far because it goes everywhere. The dharmakāya on the other hand is neither subtle nor gross, is not unique, is not near and is not far because it is not a possessor of said qualities and because it does not exist in a place.

Thus we see that that dharmakāya is not an entity-like "possessor" of qualities. Conversely, brahman which is an ontological entity, does possess characteristics and qualities.

Dharmakāya is not an entity at all, but rather a generic characteristic [samanyalakṣana]. As the Buddha says in the Samdhinirmocana, the ultimate in Buddhism is the general characteristic of the relative. The dharmakāya, as emptiness, is the conventional, generic characteristic of the mind, as it is the mind’s dharmatā of emptiness, it’s actual nature that is to be recognized. Liberation results from the release of the fetters that result from an ignorance of the nature of phenomena, and this is how dharmakāya is a non-reductive and insubstantial nature.

The differentiation of brahman as an entity versus dharmakāya as a generic characteristic is enough to demonstrate the salient contrasting aspects of these principles. Dharmakāya is an epistemological discovery about the nature of phenomena, that phenomena lack an essential nature or svabhāva. Alternatively, brahman is an ultimate ontological nature unto itself. Dharmakāya means we realize that entities such as brahman are impossibilities, as Sthiramati explains, entities in general are untenable:

The Buddha is the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is emptiness, because there are not only no imputable personal entities in emptiness, there are also no imputable phenomenal entities, there are therefore no entities at all.

Lastly, another succinct and pertinent excerpt from the Tarkajvālā, regarding the difference between the view of the buddhadharma and tīrthika (non-Buddhist) systems:

Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.

The concept of Emptiness


We just have to strive to purify our minds of the species of ignorance which makes tables and so on appear to be real entities. The issue is in the mind, not in phenomena. Phenomena have always been unconditioned and pure from the very beginning, but we fail to recognize this. This teaching is the method to bring about that recognition so that truth can be fully integrated. When that recognition is completely integrated and brought to its full measure, that is buddhahood.

The concept of Emptiness


u/shooptube27 “Inter-being” is sort of a coarse interpretation of dependent origination [pratityasamutpada], but the idea of inter-being actually aligns more closely with dependent existence [parabhāva] which is refuted by Nāgārjuna as a guise for inherent existence [svabhāva].

Meaning dependent origination in its actual intention, as a synonym for emptiness, is not actually a way to describe things depending on one another.

Thich Nhat Hahn would sometimes introduce these concepts so they are more easily digestible from the standpoint of a westerner. Thus “inter-being” is okay but does not actually capture the true meaning of emptiness i.e., non-arising.

The concept of Emptiness


Emptiness means when you truly scrutinize an object or entity you cannot find that entity. It is a difficult principle to understand.

Even in this very thread when monkey_sage writes:

Example: A table disappears under analysis. There are four legs, a flat top, a purpose, a name (table), qualities of hardness, height, length, width, an apparent origin (when the table was "made"), an apparent end (when the table breaks or otherwise stops being able to be used as a table). If you were to spend any time looking for what makes the table a table, you will never find it. It has no inherent essence. It is only a table because of all these factors (and more) coming together in a particular way for a particular duration under a particular observation and cognitive apprehension.

This is a nice explanation but it is not entirely accurate. The idea that there is a table that comes together because of certain objective factors is not even true (Candrakīrti refutes this idea). The table is a complete inference, there is no table entity there at all. The basis of designation, which in its distilled form is more subtle than a table-top, four-legs and so on, is actually just sensory phenomena, shades of color, shapes (again colors bordering one another), tactile sensation, and so on. There is no entity behind the color or shape, no entity that possesses those colors and shapes as characteristics. There are in fact no characteristics anywhere in an ultimate sense. Phenomena are in an innate state of cessation, having never arisen at any point in time. We as sentient beings are afflicted by an error in cognition that causes us to objectify appearances and reify them as entities in a habitual way. This dharma is a means to cut through those fortifying factors so that we can see the way things really are, as unborn, unconditioned, pure and naturally perfected.

Tsultrim Allione on Christ and Madonna and Tara


people may encounter the nature of the mind and call it God if they find themselves in the right circumstances.

Maybe. There is also the difference between types of gnoses to consider. For example the gnosis of Vedanta or Samkhya is not the same as Buddhist gnosis. They are both profound, but as Buddhists we generally hold that only our equipoise is truly liberating because the gnosis of tirthika systems still retains a basis for identification, and thus those seeds of dependent origination are not uprooted so to speak.

Like Āryadeva said, realization is dependent on view. Thus if you have a tirthika type view, that will inform your realization in a manner that produces tirthika leaning gnosis. Even in Vajrayāna, the “view” is contained in the four abhisekas, which in something like Dzogchen is the fourth abhiseka distilled to its essence. These empowerments set the stage for the reversal of the afflictive dependent origination that is the cause of samsara. And while I respect other contemplative traditions and feel they have value to certain degrees, the buddhadharma is truly unique in these regards because no other dharma expounds dependent origination.

Tsultrim Allione on Christ and Madonna and Tara


Even in esoteric Christian thought, such as Paul Tillich who is oft mentioned as an example, his positing of a ground of being immediately sets up an irreconcilable difference. Again, something closer to Advaita Vedanta.

The problem is that I don’t think people understand these subtle distinctions and their implications. Esoteric Christianity is absolutely a contemplative tradition, which accesses the species of gnosis they champion, but that type of gnosis is not like the jñāna of buddhadharma.

To add, esoteric Christianity as a complete system is no longer a thing, it has been systematically suppressed and intentionally compromised by the church for centuries. If it were a complete and living soteriological system I could understand the comparison, but if in the off chance, those Christian lineages are alive anywhere, they are certainly scattered to the wind and the idea of them being unbroken is wishful thinking. Why spend time on an incomplete picture or map rife with degradation when there are actual, unbroken lineages available with soteriological potency in the buddhadharma? Something to ponder.

What would a Buddhist say to a Christian Apologist who is questioning his worldview?


Buddhism doesn't need you to take anything on faith and there is nothing to defend.

We do start with a certain degree of faith. However only in the sense of the same sort of faith you would have that a master martial artist has the ability to properly train you. You have faith in their abilities even though you have not yet developed those qualities yourself. Then later when you practice and your qualities develop, faith is just the confidence that the process works.

The problem with something like Christianity is that it is essentially a total belief system that hinges on faith beginning to end. Which is something quite different. Buddhist faith is meant to transform into direct perception.

Tsultrim Allione on Christ and Madonna and Tara


I would argue that there are self-secret teachings there, and even that Jesus in the New Testament was saying things much like you are here. He was basically railing against a corrupt and overly worldly religious bureaucracy that is completely disconnected from the ultimate meaning of what it is to be with God.

Sure, but there are so many glaring principles that are so completely at odds with the buddhadharma. Creation ex nihilo, divine provenance. free will, the soul, original sin, none of these ideas correspond to buddhadharma. What reconciliation can there be?

I honestly have no idea how this trend of Christianity and Buddhism being alike has gained so much favor in this subreddit. Never in over a decade of any other buddhadharma forum has this trend been so prevalent. It is beyond strange to say the least.

Esoteric Christianity is just a mystical system supported by an inferior worldview. Different basis, path and result.

But I think the woke dharma is really aiming towards the esoteric, which I think features more prominently as a mysterious and easily misinterpret-able force in other doctrines

Advaita Vedanta would be a better choice for arguing similarities. I have no idea where this Christian thing comes from. Seem like it is just a few reddiors here that push it.

Tsultrim Allione on Christ and Madonna and Tara


Fair enough but still don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that true contemplative traditions exist where there is otherwise *a lack of dharma.

They do indeed exist. However, just as I was discussing with squizzlebizzle elsewhere, there are contexts that must be explored. My comments about Christianity above are leveled at modern, contemporary christianity, which apart from inklings of views such as the father, son, Holy Spirit and so on, have totally lost their esoteric or gnostic roots. One may take these surface level concepts and attempt to graft them onto another esoteric tradition, claiming they are the same, but it is speculative.

There is (i) modern, exoteric christianity, (ii) ancient esoteric christian gnosticism, and then (iii) other ontological leaning contemplative traditions that are esoteric in nature, and then (iv) buddhadharma.

My distaste is really directed towards the first. The prominent dualities featured in exoteric monotheism are absolutely destructive and have an insidious effect on the cultural psyche in so many ways. The implications are vast, and much of the issues in our modern world stem from the conditioning that comes from these assumptions or views that accompany exoteric monotheism.

And then beyond that, how the four listed above relate to one another is a whole other topic.

It is sort of a "woke dharma" trend to be very accepting of these apparent syncretic similarities, even on an experiential level, between these various traditions. My views on the matter are not rooted in ideology, or dogmatism. There are palpable differences in the quality of realizations and so on that must be considered.

Tsultrim Allione on Christ and Madonna and Tara


Yeah. Not a fan.

Tsultrim Allione on Christ and Madonna and Tara


And then of course, maybe you or /u/krodha or /u/squizzlebizzle have experienced this (sorry for tagging, you are the only people I know on this site that really seem to want to talk about practice like this). but it seems like as you sit, things just kind of … detach and dissolve. i think im a fairly calcified person so maybe this manifests differently for you all, but you know there are these things which appear to be solid but arent, they have many sides to them. At first thet are very large, they appear very large in the mind or body. but over time they kind of … “burn off” and become freed.

If you really have a handle on the "view," and you understand how to apply that, then when you are utilizing that method everything that appears will become fuel for your practice and will enhance the potency of your practice.

That said, I personally think Jesus and Christianity, barbarian dharmas of whatever nature, are a plague on this earth.

What is the chant Teyata Gate Gate Paragate Parasam Gate Bodhi Soha for?


"Svaha" means something like "let it be so" or "it is so."

Tsultrim Allione on Christ and Madonna and Tara


No, equating Buddha with Jesus is the New Age-y thing to do. "All religions are one" is the hippy dippy 'spiritual' attitude.

It is called “perennialism.”

Tsultrim Allione on Christ and Madonna and Tara


What Jesus taught is incompatible with what the Buddha taught, and grossly inferior to it. Equating the two is an insult to the Buddha

Yes, equating the two is definitely misguided and has the potential to mislead people.

Should we donate our organs, after we die?


Yes, usually 1 to 3 days after breathing has ceased.

if I take the three Buddhist refuges, would it be consistent to "unsubscribe" from the Catholic Church?


He said that it's the same, just different culture

Not quite. He said how it is possible to see remnants of something deeper and mystical in the catholic religion, but that it has been corrupted and lost.

Should we donate our organs, after we die?


I heard of saying of 8 hours (some say 24 hours) when one is declared death, that it is not advisable to move the body as the 7th and the 8th senses have yet departed, this belief has caused a dilemma to some Buddhists.

It is up to 3 days actually. It takes three days for the inner vāyu to cease after the physical breath has stopped. Consciousness remains in the body until the inner vāyu ceases, thus the western view of “clinical death” is somewhat premature in timing.

This is the reason why some Buddhist cultures do not move or disturb the body for a few days after the outer breath has stopped. Two drops of blood and mucus will come out of the nostrils when the inner vāyu finally ceases, and that is the sign that it is okay to move the body.

How can one think that a fetus is a human being, yet at the same time be pro choice?


I don’t think so, although the other day at the bookstore I encouraged a guy who was looking for the Alan Watts section by telling him Watts is a good introduction for understanding eastern philosophy in general.

Apart from instances of that nature no one ever knows that I am a practitioner of buddhadharma, and I do not try to condition others. If they have an Internet in buddhadharma then sure I would encourage them to investigate it, but they would have to make that known, I do not bring up Buddhism to strangers, or even friends or family in general.

How can one think that a fetus is a human being, yet at the same time be pro choice?


Would that make "pro-choice" also rooted in Judeo Christian beliefs?

Pro-choice is just the antithesis of pro-life. It is actually a straw man, a pseudo polarity of the “pro-life” campaign engendered by these zealots. I’m not a “pro-choicer” I simply have no urge to condition others with views rooted in religion. That means I am “pro-choice” by default, because I have no desire to control others based on personal views, but such an expression of the ethos that embodies “pro-choice” in this form is not an agenda, it is the absence of agenda at heart. There is no agenda behind simply allowing people to govern themselves in terms of their own body.

the only way out of it would be through rationalizing that abortion is not killing, cos its not a human being but just bunch of cells.

Obviously an equally misguided position, clearly rooted in materialistic views as you mentioned. This type of view can also breed dogmatic identification.

Could possibly killing be moral, if it creates less suffering than not killing?

Killing simply and invariably incurs a karmic debt. But it is not my job to enforce others to not engage in akusala activity that incurs karma. That is their own choice to make.

Do we use karma as a baseline for our morality, or do we use compassion for suffering of others?

The Buddha explains in the Ārya-āyuṣman-nanda-garbhāvakrānti-nirdeśa:

Then, the Bhagavan said this to Āyusman Nanda, “Nanda, when a sentient being wishes to enter the womb, if causes and conditions are perfect, a body will appropriated. However, if [the causes and conditions] are not perfect, a body will not be appropriated.

According to these teachings, if pregnancy occurs it is because the causes and conditions were “perfect.” Which means the intentional termination of the pregnancy is an act of killing a sentient being, one’s own child at that. What suffering justifies that action? How is it compassionate? But, like I said, at the same time that is my own view, related to a the guarding of my own conduct, it is not something I should attempt to condition others with.

How can one think that a fetus is a human being, yet at the same time be pro choice?


How can one think that a fetus is a human being, yet at the same time be pro choice?

As a practitioner of the buddhadharma my only “job” in relation to the precepts is to guard my own conduct. I really have no business telling other people how to conduct themselves, much less establishing laws of that sort, especially when the objection to abortion is rooted in ones personal religious interests and background.

Besides, “pro-life” is in actuality, a political position. Rooted in Judeo Christian ideals, and as such I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

Why is Desire the root of all suffering?


Avidyā or ignorance in the form of a certain type of knowledge obscuration is the actual root of all suffering in the buddhadharma.

Buddhist Monk leaving body at will. How is this possible ?


The actual practice that is related to this phenomenon is called “phowa,” in Tibetan systems.

Serious question, would this woman be expected to spend a long time in the lower realms the same as a violent suicide?


That os one hell of a dirty attempt of rationalisation

You’re in the Buddhism subreddit. The view of the buddhadharma is that karma is going to ripen at some point regardless of euthanasia. Mercy killing is only postponing that suffering.

What's the difference between a Buddha and an Arhat?


That is interesting. I’ve personally never been able to identify with Tsongkhapa at all. There have been Gelug leaning Atiyoga practitioners, but most align with the trödral view that Gorampa embodies. As Tibetan Buddhists we really choose between trödral, gelug or shentong as basic views for the most part.

What's the difference between a Buddha and an Arhat?


Gorampa says the main difference is that arhats realize the selflessness of the person imputed onto the aggregates, but not the selflessness of the aggregates themselves. Buddhas fully realize the selflessness of the self imputed onto the aggregates, and the aggregates themselves.

Now then, if it is thought that one will be able to give up the grasping true existence of grasping the true existence in the aggregates with the unimpeded path of the śrāvakas, since apprehending the non-existence of true existence of the aggregates is not the main point, but apprehending the non-existence of the true existence of the person is the main point, there is no error...

Because apprehending the freedom from proliferation of the four extremes with the unimpeded path of the path of seeing of Mahāyāna is the main point, that is the point of being able to give up all knowledge obscurations.

...In brief, primary object of realization of śrāvakas is the selflessness of the person but that realization grasps true existence in the aggregates. It is necessary to reject [such grasping to true existence] because grasping true existence of grasping the true existence in the aggregates has the unimpeded power to cause the actual grasping to the self of persons.

Is it possible to overcome sexual attraction?


Āryabodhisattvas on the higher bhūmis overcome sexual interests. Below that you will still experience sexual urges and attraction.

What does Bodhisattva truly mean?


Sort of true but the issue is somewhat more nuanced than that.

What do you think about early buddhism and EBT?


Every response in this thread so far is great (Hot4Scooter, bodhiquest, BuddhistFirst and NickPIQ).

What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?


What's interesting is if you read the Sutta that Thanissaro Bhikkhu references, although it's true the Buddha doesn't give a point blank answer to the question, his discussion with Ananda afterwards suggests that the Buddha was much more concerned with how the lay person would react to a direct answer to the question.

The Buddha states in the sutta that his intention by refraining to answer was to avoid Vaccagotta from adopting an annihilationist view.

If there is no "self", how do you explain astral projections, out if body experiences?


There is a “subtle body” comprised of the inner elements.

What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?


Sectarian_af is the new bbballs incarnation?

For my Vajrayana people: How do we view "intrinsic awareness" without a self?


When your awareness is deluded, it takes on the expression of being an internal observer of observed external phenomena. This predicament creates many misconceptions and misperceptions, even the small inclination that there could feasibly be a self behind awareness or that awareness is a reference point that could have anything behind it at all.

All of these spatial distinctions, temporal occurrences, these all emerge as a result of ignorance. The self is just a delusional aggregation of various causal conditions that manifest what seems like a monolithic entity, including assumptions of distance and the seeming flow of consecutive thoughts that appear to reference one another. The self is a truly incredible illusion, and it creates many issues. Luckily the mindstream can be purified of these limitations. And the buddhadharma is the means to accomplish this.

What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?


Maybe “cronies” was the triggering remark? I don’t know. Thanissaro really does have a bunch of followers who have read his expositions purely by virtue of their availability and then it is like an echo chamber with everyone just repeating taglines. It is like a little Thanissaro army, I didn’t really intend to be offensive by describing them as “cronies.”

What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?


Bhikkhu Bodhi is not within the Thai Forest Tradition.

Ok, well then as an authority on the Pāli suttas, he disagrees with Thanissaro’s views at times, and people should be aware that there are differing takes on certain concepts and topics. It is the healthy way to learn about these teachings.

What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?


Thanks.

What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?


I genuinely feel that while Thanissaro Bikkhu’s contributions to dharma are great in terms of his translations, that he does a great disservice to people trying to understand this profound dharma by promulgating this “not-self” apophatic misinterpretation of anātman. The parroting of this view is so prevalent nowadays, I do indeed feel it is necessary to object when I see it expressed. Especially in the lazy way it is usually demonstrated in brief tag line comments with no unpacking of the alleged logic behind the claim, such as, “the Buddha never said there is no self,” or “anatta doesn’t mean no self.”

To me this is an expression of this degenerate yūga and is a poisoning of buddhadharma. So while sure, I can be more gentle and polite about it if we are concerned about the tone, I very much take issue with these views, and while I am being assertive rather then hostile, I’ll concede and find a better way to communicate my utter disagreement with said views if that is deemed necessary.

It feels like every time the user to whom you are replying expresses a perspective of theirs, even when they have done so without the slightest hint of hostility, you go on the offensive in a way that feels hostile.

Also to be clear I have no idea who this user is and do not recall ever interacting with them, so it is not personal, it is a purely information based transaction in terms of communication.

I’m not a hostile person, I’m merely being outspoken with my own opinions and views. Like I said I can check my tone if the perception it gives off is that of hostility, but I have no ill will, aggravation or irritation towards this user, or anyone in this subreddit for the most part. If I do then I will plainly state my issue as constructively as possible and then move along.

What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?


What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?

It means there is a mindstream that either expresses itself in an afflicted or pure form. When the mindstream is afflicted by ignorance (avidyā) then there is a samsaric sentient being who is reborn. When that same mindstream is purified of avidyā, then there is buddhahood.

The process of nirvana is simply the process of removing obscurations.

For example, from Ācārya Malcolm:

Buddhahood is a subtractive process; it means removing, gradually, obscurations of affliction and obscurations of knowledge. Since wisdom burns these obscurations away, in the end they have no causes for returning.

What does it mean for "one" to attain nirvana if the self does not exist (Anatta)?


Anātman does mean no self or selflessness, it is just Thanissaro Bikkhu and his little cronies who claim otherwise. Even other Thai Forest teachers like Bhante Sujato and Bikkhu Bodhi question Thanissaro’s apophatic reinterpretation.

Did Nagarjuna have a "Divine Revelation?"


It means the Buddha’s disseminated the teaching, and it was then stored in the nāgā realm until Nāgārjuna rediscovered/recovered them. And then he disseminated them to the human realm.

Did Nagarjuna have a "Divine Revelation?"


I have heard that some of "lineages" of Mahayana originate from the divine, either a bodhisattva or celestial Buddha.

In a way, Nāgārjuna essentially had one of the first treasure (terma) teachings.

Why are plant not considered alive?


Plants are alive because they have pranavāyu. But they do not have a mindstream, and thus are not classified as “sentient beings.”

Paths of Buddhism without renunciation (especially Vajrayana)


Remember that the ultimate goal of the Vajrayana is Buddhahood, which involves clearing away the fetters. The Vajrayana just takes a more direct approach and clears them away by enforcing the realization that they were never even an issue in the first place.

Vajrayāna’s position is the real fetters to be corrected are only our concepts about phenomena, not phenomena themselves. Thus Vajrayāna is not a renunciant path, because pure vision is the method and no phenomena are abandoned. This is why it is said Vajrayāna is the path of “transformation” rather than renunciation.

Yeshe Tsogyal


Also there are many texts which consist of Padmasambhava teaching Yeshe Tsogyal:

The Life and Liberation of Padmasambhava, 1978

The Lotus-Born: The Life Story of Padmasambhava, 1999

Treasures from Juniper Ridge: The Profound Instructions of Padmasambhava to the Dakini Yeshe Tsogyal, 2008

From the Depths of the Heart: Advice from Padmasambhava, 2004

“Dakini teachings” mentioned above is also in this format.

Yeshe Tsogyal


Dakini Teachings, Sky Dancer, Life and Visions of Yeshe Tsogyal, Lady of the Lotus Born.

Is there any Buddhist meditation technique focusing on sound?


I have health problems, is there any Buddhist technique that focuses attention on sound, bells, etc?

Yes you can just use sound in general as an object of meditation.

Why do I unconsciously stop breathing when I meditate deeply/try for shamatha?


And I am not being disrespectful, if you are offended and angered, you should speak with your teacher before engaging in emotionally fueled protest.

I am so unbelievably angry and offended, I can barely hold myself back from engaging in an emotionally fueled protest.

Why do I unconsciously stop breathing when I meditate deeply/try for shamatha?


Also some advice from a Lion’s Roar article:

The path to entering the jhanas begins with what is called access concentration: being fully with the object of meditation and not becoming distracted even if there are wispy background thoughts. If your practice is anapanasati—mindfulness of breathing—you may recognize access concentration when the breath becomes very subtle; instead of a normal breath, you notice your breath has become very shallow. It may even seem that you’ve stopped breathing altogether. These are signs that you’ve likely arrived at access concentration. If the breath gets very shallow, and particularly if it feels like you’ve stopped breathing, the natural thing to do is to take a nice deep breath and get it going again. Wrong! This will tend to weaken your concentration. By taking that nice deep breath, you decrease the strength of your concentration. Just stay with that shallow breathing. It’s okay. You don’t need a lot of oxygen when you are very quiet both physically and mentally.

https://www.lionsroar.com/entering-the-jhanas/amp/

Am I on the right track believing the concepts of emptiness and impermanence are connected?


It’s just my opinion that it is this person’s opinion.

My personal opinion is that sentient beings are very familiar with impermanence, and it is no guarantee that they will awaken because they understand impermanence. Further as Nāgārjuna and others clarify, it is a delusion. That said, the antithesis of emptiness is svabhāva or inherent existence, if things existed inherently then they would be permanent, thus things must lack svabhāva by nature, but that does not mean one will realize the true meaning of that lack.

Am I on the right track believing the concepts of emptiness and impermanence are connected?


then why do some say impermanence is a doorway to emptiness? You say they’re wrong?

I don’t have doctrinal support for this claim, only a statement from an author Jen Chun in a book called Great Bodhi Mind:

As practitioners, we must understand impermanence. Impermanence is the gateway to emptiness. Thus to understand emptiness, we must start with an understanding of impermanence. Emptiness, in turn, is the gateway to non-birth. By understanding emptiness, you will not be attached to life. In other words, you will transcend the two extremes and all dualities. In this way, you will be able to enter non-birth. Non-birth is the gateway to Buddhahood.

Am I on the right track believing the concepts of emptiness and impermanence are connected?


Am I on the right track believing the concepts of emptiness and impermanence are connected?

They are sort of related, but not really. Some say impermanence is a doorway to emptiness.

Impermanence is a perception of arising and cessation, which is an impure, deluded cognition according to these teachings. Realizing emptiness is a yogapratyaksa, or yogic direct perception of non-arising, which means the entities previously thought to arise and cease are realized to have been unreal and non-arisen from the very beginning.

For example, Nāgārjuna states that the perception of impermanence results from delusion:

If you maintained that arising and dissolution of existents are indeed seen, arising and dissolution are only seen because of delusion.

Why do I unconsciously stop breathing when I meditate deeply/try for shamatha?


when I do enter what feels like that description, it will be a few moments before I realize I have stopped breathing and then I have to come out of this meditative state in order to "be attached" to breathing again.

This happens in one or more of the dhyāna (jhana) stages.

Edit: 4th dhyāna specifically:

Samyutta Nikaya 36:11 (Alone) "Then, monk, I have also taught the step-by-step stilling of fabrications. When one has attained the first jhana, speech has been stilled. When one has attained the second jhana, directed thought and evaluation have been stilled. When one has attained the third jhana, rapture has been stilled. When one has attained the fourth jhana, in-and-out breathing has been stilled. When one has attained the dimension of the infinitude of space, the perception of forms has been stilled. When one has attained the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space has been stilled. When one has attained the dimension of nothingness, the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness has been stilled. When one has attained the dimension of neither-perception nor non-perception, the perception of the dimension of nothingness has been stilled. When one has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have been stilled. When a monk's effluents have ended, passion has been stilled, aversion has been stilled, delusion has been stilled.

Bikkhu Sunyo states that according to Ajahn Brahm: ”the perception of the breath ceases before nimittas. The breath itself is still happening, but you don't notice it. According to the sutta the breath itself stops in the fourth jhana, not just the perception of it.”

What were the Buddha’s arguments against annihilationist theories of consciousness?


The arguments against the annihilationist, physicalist view of consciousness is that mind is immaterial and cannot have a material cause. The validity of rebirth is inferred based on that logic. The cause of mind is the previous moment of mind, and this rosary of causal moments of mind is uninterrupted and inexhaustible.

This is Dharmakirti's reasoning set forth in the Pramanasiddhi chapter of the Pramanvarttikas. Many even in this thread are saying rebirth is argued based on śabda, the testimony of the Buddha, but Dharmakirti argues rebirth can be logically argued for based on inference [anumaṇa]. Once rūpa or matter is ruled out as a cause for mind, citta and caittas, then rebirth is the logical consequence, that, or causeless arising.

Does consciousness exist according to Buddha?


Modern science doesn’t know shit about consciousness.

Why'd You Choose the Tradition You Chose?


And other reason for initially picking Theravada was because I wanted to get as close as possible to the Early Buddhism and original words of the Buddha himself. Just makes more sense to me to go directly to the source when learning.

This a common misconception, both Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna also have teachings directly from Buddha Śākyamuni.

But I see in your last paragraph that maybe you are recognizing this.

How do you burn off negative Karma?


Only prajñā burns away negative karma.

Prajñā is a species of direct, experiential realization or omniscience (wisdom) that dawns in the individual's mindstream upon awakening. It arises as a profound insight into the nature of phenomena and by sheer force it has the power to burn away afflictive karmic traces that give rise to afflictive emotions [kleśa].

The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra states:

Affecting the mind, kleśa and vāsanā can be destroyed only by a wisdom [prajñā], a certain form of omniscience [sarvajñatā].

There is a lesser form of prajñā that is able to eradicate the kleśas, and then a superior form of prajñā that destroys vāsanās. Only buddhas possess the superior form and have therefore dispelled both the kleśas and vāsanās. Effectively freeing themselves from negative karma.

The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra continues:

There is no difference between the different destructions of the conflicting emotions [kleśaprahāna]. However, the Tathāgatas, arhats and samyaksaṃbuddhas have entirely and definitively cut all the conflicting emotions [kleśa] and the traces that result from them [vāsanānusaṃdhi]. The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas themselves have not yet definitively cut vāsanānusaṃdhi... these vāsanās are not really kleśas. After having cut the kleśas, the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas still retain a small part of them: semblances of love (attachment) [rāga], hate (aversion) [dveṣa] and ignorance [moha] still function in their body [kāya], speech [vāc] and mind [manas]: this is what is called vāsanānusaṃdhi. In foolish worldly people [bālapṛthagjana], the vāsanās call forth disadvantages [anartha], whereas among the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas they do not. The Buddhas do not have these vāsanānusaṃdhi.

[deleted by user]


What is that last “five rules of leadership” square? Source?

I’m being polite asking for a source but would love to be surprised with an actual reference from the sūtras.

Otherwise that has no place here.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


Yeah, same as Madhyamaka being lumped in with prajñāpāramitā for the second turning.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


Śravākayāna teachings, prajñāpāramitā and then tathāgatagarbha.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


As an aside, for myself, the most interesting aspect of the Samdhinirmocana is that it is one of the original teachings on how dharmins and dharmatā relate to one another.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


A lot of the Shentong stuff just seems like Yogacara with extra steps.

It is just a bastardization of Yogācāra and Madhyamaka which corrupts an attempted synthesis of the two truths and three nature model.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


The turnings presented in the Samdhinirmocana are not referring to the contemporary three turning model. Fans of the contemporary model just try and use the Samdhinirmocana as the locus classicus to substantiate their allegiance to the three turnings.

Honestly it is really just shentong fans that engage in all this. The rest of us have no need for it.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


Mahāmadhyamaka is a meaningless title that has been attributed to every form of Madhyamaka at one time. No system has a real claim to it.

All samaya belongs to Vajrayāna, and none of these sūtrayāna classifications such as the turnings or shentong have any bearing on Vajrayāna view since it (Vajrayāna) is rooted in abhiseka.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


The Aksayamatinirdesa classifies Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha as provisional teachings.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


Maybe I need to revise the Samdinirmocana

The turnings in the Samdhinirmocana have nothing to do with the contemporary three turning model.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


The three turnings in general have no basis in any extant sūtra. The three turnings as we know them is a Tibetan invention that became a staple in their presentation of sūtrayāna teachings.

The whole model is quite extraneous as it is. Shentong is a sūtra view so the validity of this model is important to them, but for Vajrayānis it has no application (even though some Vajrayāna teachers with an affinity for shentong bring it up), and most applied Tibetan Buddhism is Vajrayāna.

Really if you understand emptiness properly then this division of turnings becomes superfluous. On top of that the contemporary turnings are sort of rooted in this polemical argument directed at so-called rangtong Madhyamaka, which is another straw man that shentongpas invented.

The main takeaway is that in terms of sūtrayāna, you can be properly educated on how prajñāpāramitā and tathāgatagarbha (and Madhyamaka and Yogācāra) can be complimentary without ever deviating into this three turning model. And the alleged hierarchy that these turnings suggest is a total farce. Especially given that at one point in time in Tibetan historical doxography, the second and third turnings were inverted. The Hevajra corpus actually references that prior arrangement when it says that in terms of study, Madhyamaka should come after Yogācāra and tathāgatagarbha so the aspirant removes any inkling of substantialism that those teachings appear to advocate for.

In the end it becomes an indicator of personal preference and interest more than anything else.

Confused as to how Tsongkhapa views the third turning


You know when the Samdhinirmocana talks about the three turnings it never discusses Tathagatagarbha texts so I’m not sure why Tibetan scholars like to include them under that category.

Because the contemporary “three turning” schema is just made up. It is a fixation of Tibetan shentongpas for whatever reason.

what are the buddhist arguments against 'necassery' unconditioned reality?


what are the buddhist arguments against 'necassery' unconditioned reality?

Buddhadharma is nominalistic in nature, which means we consider ultimate truth to be that phenomena ultimately lack an essence. That epistemic insight into the nature of phenomena does not require another ultimate reality, it only requires this apparent reality, either accurately or inaccurately known.

and is Jnana unconditioned reality?

Jñāna is a gnosis or consciousness that accurately knows the nature of phenomena. Jñāna is considered unconditioned in Buddhist teachings, for example the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras state:

The original nature of the mind [ādyacitta or citta dharmatā] is luminosity [prabhāsvara].

The Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra states very simply:

Luminosity [prabhāsvara] is gnosis [jñāna].

In Bhavyakīrti's commentary on Aryādeva's Clear Lamp he states:

”Freedom from arising and ceasing" is luminosity [prabhāsvara], because it is unconditioned.

Here we see that luminosity (prabhāsvara) and jñāna synonyms which are terms for the nature of mind.

Jñāna is not an unconditioned reality, but it is a gnosis that is itself unconditioned and knows the unconditioned nature of phenomena, emptiness free from extremes.

I heard there is a Dzogchen creation story based on some literal interpretations based on the text,

This so-called Dzogchen “creation story” is just an explanation regarding the causes of the mind falling into delusion. The process that is described in that “story” did not happen eons ago, it is constantly happening in every moment. Dzogchen teachings provide the means to reverse that afflicted dependent origination that occurs as a result of that described error. In addition, this explanation does not violate infinite regress.

and what are the basic and strongest mahayana/vajrayana arguments against a creator God?

Vasubandhu’s critiques are good. These teachings are based on the mind becoming influenced by affliction and the means to purify the mind, along with the implications that follow both of those “states.”


What happened to u/BBBalls?


The user in question is neither fundamentalist nor traditionalist

The user in question only adheres to the Pāli canon under the Thai Forest specifically, and attacks every other school and system stating they are false. It is pretty disgusting actually. He is the definition of a fundamentalist.

What happened to u/BBBalls?


Yeah, he is a Thanissaro Bikkhuist.

What happened to u/BBBalls?


I always appreciated their no-frills answers to questions and found them a valuable asset to this sub and r/theravada. They seemed to have a knack for making something clear without using too many words. It was the right kind of no-nonsense discussion that would motivate me and set me straight when I needed it.

You’ll be happy that the ideological fundamentalism of the BBBalls account lives on in its new incarnation as breakingthechain.

Assuming they're real, I'm curious what these beings would be called in various Buddhist cultures. Yakshas?


There are eight classes of beings.

[deleted by user]


Integrate sensory experience so it fuels your dhyana.

Black metal and Buddhism


This question has been tormenting for a long time, is it correct for a Buddhist to listen to Black Metal? Are there Buddhists here who listen to black metal? Black metallers sing mostly about Satan and cruelty, while Buddhists are about kindness and stuff like that

It’s perfectly fine.

Everyone is different but if you are accepting and rejecting types of sound and categorizing one type of sound as pure versus one that is impure, and so on, this is really an indication that samādhi and equanimity are missing from your practice.

It is actually good practice to integrate with such things, listen to beautiful music and then something like the most gruesome goregrind metal. A sensory perception is a sensory perception, in the beginning be like a mirror, no matter the reflection that manifests, the surface of the mirror is unscathed and unaffected. Investigate the meaning of that, and you are well on your way.

What sect should I be?


Keep investigating sects, schools and systems until you find one that feels right.

[deleted by user]


Blocking people is certainly antithetical to certain systems of buddhadharma.

Is there "group karma?"


There is collective karma in the sense that if you go to war and condone the killing of enemies, even if you do not kill anyone yourself, by virtue of your participation in war and supporting killing you will incur a karmic debt.

In Tibetan Buddhism there are sort of generational family curses called ye sri, but it is not related to karma and rather is what Tibetans call a gdon or “don.”

If there is no "I", then why should I be upset if someone hits me? Just trying to understand this logic in Buddhism.


For the record the Buddha never says there is no self. When asked point blank if there is a self he actually would not even answer.

This is actually a misconception that is spread around the Internet.

teaching children meditation


It is best not to condition children. Let them flourish with their own interests, and form their own healthy and balanced identity, which is crucial for a “successful” samsaric life. If they express interest in dharma then by all means nurture that interest. If not, nurture their other interests.

Some beings will have the karma for buddhadharma, most will not, the idea as dharma practitioners that our children will somehow be fall into that section of people with karmic inclinations for buddhadharma is probably wishful thinking. Temper your expectations there.

Just aim to raise a happy child and do everything in your power to not add to their afflictions.

Buddhism and Brain


In Buddhist teachings consciousness is not in the brain, the brain only helps to coordinate the sensory faculties.

[deleted by user]


To be frank, for a while I’ve been getting a strange, almost cultish vibe from his online followers.

They definitely are a bit too enthusiastic at times.

I made a depiction of the Chönyd Bardo, also known as the the Bardo of the Experiencing of Reality (not working from any representational tradition).


not working from any representational tradition).

This only comes from one specific subsection of one specific tradition. Which isn’t a bad thing, but it does mean you are working from a single representational tradition.

Need clarity: Modern Vipassana actually an interpretation of Anapanasati as described in Anapanasati Sutta — Distinctions between historical teachings and the modern Vipassana movement


Historical vipassana and the vipassana movement are arguably two different definitions of vipassana. The former is an ārya’s clear seeing or insight into the nature of phenomena, and the latter is sort of an iteration of śamatha which uses analysis to various degrees.

Living in Samsara sucks


Living in Samsara sucks

This insight is really what lies at the heart of one’s refuge in the triple gem. Which is to say it is great insight to have.

Does the fifth precept mean no alcohol ever?


But hey, see you at the bar.

Honestly apart from dipping a finger in wine at tsok so I can have a drop, I’ve never drank alcohol in my life.

Does the fifth precept mean no alcohol ever?


Alcohol is consumed in many Tibetan Buddhist pūjas. Vajrayāna is not as strict as the śravākayāna. There are many śravākayāna adherents in this subreddit, they will say “it’s never skillful,” but whether or that applies to you depends on the system you practice.

Does the fifth precept mean no alcohol ever?


No alcohol ever.

There is a fair amount of alcohol at tsok for we who practice Tibetan Buddhism.

No alcohol ever is a śravāka thing.

Advice on starting the Canon and other texts


Which canon? There’s three of them.

Is Idolizing the Buddha against Buddhist theology of "Not Self"


The Buddha is the dharmakāya, the nature of your own mind. The Buddha is idolized and venerated because the three jewels, Buddha, dharma and sangha are the means by which you personally can actualize buddhahood and realize the true meaning of what it means to be a Buddha yourself.

The the prajñāpāramitā exegesis, the Buddha himself states that he is not to be actually idolized as name and form, he says the Buddha is not the rūpakāya, not the personage, not the historical character, the Buddha is the dharmakāya, and the dharmakāya is the nature of your own mind.

How do you actualize the citadel of the dharmakāya? By exhausting the two obscurations. How is that accomplished? By realizing the luminosity of mind and phenomena via the experiential realization of selflessness [anatta].

The Ārya-aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states:

Those who are attached to the tathāgata as a form or a name are childish and have corrupted discerning wisdom [prajñā], the tathāgatas are not to be seen as the rūpakāya; the tathāgatās are to be seen as the dharmakāya.

Tibetan & Pure Land Buddhism


What is Tibetan Buddhism's views on Amitabah and Pure Land scriptures?

Tibetan traditions have so-called “pure land” teachings as well. Although the root term kṣetras or zhing kham is better translated as “buddhafield” because there are both pure and impure buddhafields. Amitabha or Amitayus is included in many Tibetan teachings.

For my Vajrayana people: question about dhyana & strange things


I've noticed that, now that I've started meditating again, I'll have instances where I have a very vivid thought about an old friend I haven't seen or thought about in YEARS, then suddenly, I'll see that same exact person in the same day...one time it happened in a matter of 5 minutes. And This ONLY happens when I'm consistent with dhyana. Any other time, it doesnt happen when I'm in the discursive state. Similar instances happen with other kinds of things.

These synchronicities tend to occur when you are practicing diligently and correctly. I won’t pretend to know why, but happens to me as well.

What are Buddhist ideas on why the cycle of Samara exists in the first place?


I have not stumbled on any ideas of why the cycle exists, or for what purpose it exists at all.

Sravakayana and Mahayana do not really explain where samsara comes from, only that it has no first cause. In Vajrayana there are explanations regarding how samsara arises, because there are some practices that revolve around reversing that process, and therefore the onset of the process is explained.

Can budhists eat eggs?


I probably eat between 20 and 30 eggs a week. Also scrambled eggs in a tortilla with a little cheese... highly recommend.

Are there any alternative ways to exhausting your accrued karma?


But if one is hell-bent on escaping Samsara, is non-participation i.e. avoiding accumulating karma either positive or negative, the only way?

The prajñā of awakened equipoise burns away negative karma. If you are able to access that equipoise, the more you dwell in it, the more karmic obscurations will be removed.

If you are unable to access awakened equipoise like most people, then you will have to opt for purification practices, confession practices and guarding your conduct.

Question on no self


After the Buddha taught the five skandhas are "not-self", "self" still exists but conventionally (i.e., the existence of "self" is conventional truth). But ultimately (i.e. in ultimate truth) after fivefold analysis we cannot identify what is "self". So "no-self" is ultimate truth. Do I currently understand correctly?

Yes that is accurate. There are some other minor nuances, but that is the general accurate understanding.

Question on no self


These are technical nuances, but in the end the gist of these teachings does concern purifying consciousness of the afflictions of self and so on, so while the self isn't awareness, I'm not saying your assessment is completely mistaken. It would just need some fine tuning in order to understand in a buddhist context.

In any case, we all have lots to learn, including me, and you're well on your way.

Question on no self


the self is pure awareness.

Awareness is just a skandha in Buddhism, the self is an imputation.

Question on no self


Buddha ultimately decided not to answer the question or whether or not there is a self.

This is wrong. The Buddha was explicitly clear there is no self to be found in any dharma. His repeated statement sabbe dhamma anatta is a very exact phrase with no nuance in meaning. No dharmas, conditioned or unconditioned, contain, possess or create a self.

It's a common misconception that Buddha said something like "there is no self." What he said are things like the mind and the material world are not the self.

He said the five skandhas do not contain nor produce a self. There is no other basis for a self apart from the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus. This is very clear.

What is the mind and the pathway of rebirth?


Now, my first question is, how would your mind know which body to inhibit based on your karma (is it somewhat omniscient, because how would it know to inhibit a body that will experience x, y and z because you did 1, 2 and 3 in your previous lives or life)?

It is said the intermediate state being is directed towards their next destination automatically based on the ripening of their karma.

Is the mind some form of energy?

The mind is not an energy, but the mind “rides” a type of energy called vāyu while both embodied and disembodied.

Is it related to consciousness (or different)?

Mind [citta] and consciousness [vijñāna] are essentially synonymous.

What path does the mind take upon death?

The mind goes through an intermediate state. Vijñāna paired with the mahāpranavāyu is sustained in a subtle body.

An atheist wants to become a Buddhist


I also came into Buddhism as an atheist - and still am, in the sense that I don't believe in the Biblical God or any other all-powerful creator being. Many Buddhists are.

We all are. One cannot be a legitimate practitioner of buddhadharma if they believe in a higher power.

The Self in Buddhism


The point is that Thanissaro’s aphophatic interpretation of anatta is completely novel.

The Self in Buddhism


"Not self" as a gloss is not the issue, you can translate anatta as "not self" that is no problem. It is the assertion that somehow there is a disparity between the meaning of "not self" and "no self" that becomes an issue.

There is only one meaning of anatta. The claimed distinction between the translations of "not self" and "no self" is false.

The Self in Buddhism


the Sabbasava Sutta

What is it that you believe this sutta says regarding this topic?

The alleged disparity you bring up does not actually exist outside the mind of Thanissaro Bikkhu.

The Self in Buddhism


Annihilationism only comes into play when someone asserts that a previously existent entity ceases and hence becomes non-existent. No definition of selflessness qualifies as annihilationism [uccedavāda].

The Self in Buddhism


This includes a faulty grasped view of there being no self.

This sūtra is addressing intellectual views. It is not stating that anātman is some sort of faulty principle to be overcome in any way.

If as the OP states, they understand intellectually that there is no actual self to be found anywhere, but this conceptual view is treated as a provisional stepping stone pointing them in the right direction to actually realize anātman experientially and non-conceptually, then that is “right view.”

How is nirvana unconditioned when it cannot exist without samsara?


Nirvana is just the cessation of samsara. Cessations are classified as unconditioned dharmas in Buddhist teachings.

[deleted by user]


If you’ve received transmission for your tummo practice from a qualified lineage teacher, then you shouldn’t be discussing it on reddit. And if you haven’t received transmission then you should obtain it in order to effectively practice tummo.

Is ignorance of The Four Noble Truths suffering?


Avidyā would be associated with the second noble truth, pertaining to the cause of suffering, as it is the root cause of samsara.

No self but Self?


You might enjoy teachings by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramana Maharshi, who are practitioners of Hindu dharmas rather than Buddhism, but their views are essentially identical to what you describe above. Another guy named Ramesh Balsekar unpacks a lot of Nisargadatta’s teachings and makes them more understandable for a beginner.

Buddhism has the view of emptiness which means all phenomena are ultimately equal and non-dual due to lacking an essential nature, but this is not the same as a single self that actually pervades all phenomena. It is a subtle but important distinction that really differentiates the two systems.

Is ignorance suffering?


Ignorance [avidyā] is the root cause of samsara.

Are there modern day monks who practice alone in the forest?


Vajrayāna yogis, who can be either upāsaka or bhikṣu, will do solitary retreats in the wilderness, but their retreat territory will usually have borders, unless they are wandering. If it is a sort of instituted retreat there will be a designated area that food will be dropped off at certain days/times so that the practitioner can avoid having to interact with anyone.

how would buddhism explain paranormal activities?


Traditional Buddhist teachings include all sorts of unseen beings, psychic abilities and magical powers.

Yoga and how it works as a practise for buddhism


I don't know of any true Buddhist yoga practices.

Trul khor [yantra yoga] is genuine and legitimately “true” Buddhist pranayama [rtsa rlung] with physical asanas and so forth.

Yoga and how it works as a practise for buddhism


are there any true buddhist yoga practises to follow out there for the whole body?

Yes, for physical yogas you can look into Tibetan trul khor or yantra yoga. These are primarily pranayama practices which manipulate the body and breath to control the vayu, which in turn controls the mind. Yantra yoga is actually the basis for Hatha yoga, which has been popularized in the West.

Look up Fabio Andrico, he is a master of yantra yoga classically trained by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu.

Buddhadharma also has non-physical yogas, which is just the methods of realizing the nature of mind and integrating with that knowledge in order to actualize liberation.

How does Mind-Body dualism ‘work’ in Buddhism? Did the Buddha accept mind-body dualism as relative truth?


The Buddha taught the Mahāyāna prajñāpāramitā sūtras directly. And in Vajrayāna, the Guhyasamāja and Kalākākra tantras.

How does Mind-Body dualism ‘work’ in Buddhism? Did the Buddha accept mind-body dualism as relative truth?


True, sravaka abhidhamma is a wildcard in that respect. But ok will do.

How does Mind-Body dualism ‘work’ in Buddhism? Did the Buddha accept mind-body dualism as relative truth?


Mind-body dualism in buddhadharma is called nama rūpa, or name and form. Form is the material aggregate, and nāma is the mind and it’s relevant aggregates. This division is conventionally valid, but not ultimately.

How does Mind-Body dualism ‘work’ in Buddhism? Did the Buddha accept mind-body dualism as relative truth?


Therefore, 'non-duality' is not some type of standard or benchmark to judge the Buddhist teachings with.

In Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna, which the Buddha himself also taught, non-duality is an inextricable characteristic of emptiness, which is a cornerstone of those vehicles.

What are the “original texts” of Buddhism?


The Tibetan and Chinese canons also have texts attributed to the historical Buddha, and Buddhas that came before him.

What does the lute represent?


The lute usually represents peaceful or pleasant sound in the context of the five sensory faculties and their respective objects.

Does Svabhava = Existence and Emptiness = Non-Existence?


The complete negation of everything does leave something to be desired.

It is not quite like that. Āryas still dwell in prajñā. Buddhas have still actualized the dharmakāya. All that is abandoned are the twin obscurations.

Does Svabhava = Existence and Emptiness = Non-Existence?


The svabhāva is like the core entity which possesses characteristics. Like a telephone pole possesses the characteristic of being tall, cylindrical, made of wood, brown in color and so on. Perceiving svabhāva is perceiving the telephone pole to be an entity, something that owns these characteristics.

Realizing emptiness is the experiential recognition that there is no entity that possesses these characteristics, there is only the characteristics, and without the entity at the core, those characteristics cease to be characteristics. There is no entity there, no object which sits at a distance or in a location.

Emptiness is indeed the non-existence of svabhāva, but it is not a true non-existence like that mentioned as the second position in the catuskoti tetralemma. It is the realization that there has never at any point been an entity from the very beginning.

Is it non-existence? Sort of, as there is no existent entity to be found, and the entity was always a fallacy. But how can something that never arose in the first place actually lack existence? This is how the freedom from extremes is established.

This line helped me understand the concept of “when you‘ve found the Buddha, kill the Buddha”


Kill the Buddha just means don’t even cling to the Buddha. In an esoteric sense could mean don’t cling to awakened equipoise.

Buddhist Monk - Clairvoyant / Visonary


Most likely the Nechung Oracle.

[deleted by user]


True but also if you practice enough you can get to a point where the “brightness” of your consciousness increases and for some reason will nourish the eyes in a way so that you can comfortably keep your eyes open for extended periods of time without having to blink, and no dryness occurs.

Abortion and Samsara


That is a personal issue because it pertains to the mother's own body, and her own life circumstances.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


I am more curious of experiences from your own meditation practice. If you have realized/ experienced/ glimpsed/ been/ erased all others and left with Atman and Anatta, do you see it as same truth or different tools/ ground of being that work at different stages.

Modern yogins who have actualized both realizations, invariably state that the realization of anatman is a refinement of the oceanic brahman type states that characterize Hindu and Trika systems.

Abortion and Samsara


though the being inside the womb is no less of a being

No less of a being, but, you have the owner of the womb to take into consideration.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


The Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra states:

When one who is aware of the correct teachings has judgmental thoughts, the mara of permanence does not make them an obstacle. Finding the differences and refuting the assertions of others is a characteristic of full maturity that cannot be taken away.

and,

The Commentary on the 14 Root Downfalls states:

If, with the intention of identifying and teaching higher and lower views, other precepts are deprecated, this is not transgression, but greatly increases merit.

Abortion and Samsara


for some reason you are holding the killing of human life in the womb as different as killing of human life outside the womb. at some point there is no difference.

The man murdered on the street is not occupying the womb of another human being.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


If multiple people have blocked you or are declining to respond to your posts

Monkey_sage blocked me, the only person who has blocked me in 7 years on reddit to my knowledge, they seem to be a very sensitive person and I'm not too worried about it.

or are declining to respond to your posts

Only u/En_Lighten was opting for that today, for what reason I'm not sure. He is usually quite verbose in his contributions to this subreddit.

you must have some inkling that how you communicate here is not appropriate.

My manner of communication is completely acceptable and I've never had any issues whatsoever with moderation etc..

The Dhamma is not something to be argued about

The dharma is debated quite often, as such activities sharpen the prajna of reflection. Debate and discussion are actually used as methods in monastic settings to help refine and clarify the view. It is a totally normal and acceptable activity. Encouraged in fact.

it is not a game in which one proves oneself more knowledgeable than another.

It is in monastic settings. Not a game, but a methodology. Clarifying right view is a cornerstone of these teachings, refuting wrong views is a cornerstone of these teachings. You are in the wrong place if you think otherwise.

There is a severe karma for acting in this way.

Debating doctrine is not classified as akusala.

One who has advanced in the Dhamma, and who has progressed, will have that teaching in the heart, softening them, purifying them, making their words pleasant to the hearing.

Not always. There have been plenty of wrathful type siddhas who were quite rough around the edges.

It is understandable if you are a beginner in the practice

?

We are creating karma by the way we speak on this forum, and that karma is even weightier when we speak about Dhamma.

I have not violated any of my own samaya, and I don't really appreciate the assertion that I have.

My best wishes to you. May you have peace. May you be well.

Thanks but your concern is unnecessary.

Abortion and Samsara


it may be more complex, however laws should exist for the same reason that murder related laws should exist.

Laws banning abortion should exist?

the being here did not exist prior to the actions of the person. few people suggest there should be law to limit intervention at every point. just as there are few people that suggest there should be no intervention at any point. the question in the US is. a. what level of government should this be handled b. at what point does the state have a compelling interest to protect life.

I agree that some sort of legislature banning late term abortion is probably wise, but laws banning all abortion is definitely problematic. And moreover the important point is that as buddhists, even though we find abortion to be unskillful, we should not impose our views on other people in that regard.

I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice, and am against the pro-life movement.

the end of row v wade does not suddenly end abortion

Sure, but it allows predominantly right-wing conservative states to make laws at the state level banning abortion.

so we as buddhists if active in the political process, if we vote, if we take an action to what should guide that action. how should we as buddhists participate if we do at all.

I don't think we should be attempting to condition others when it comes to abortion. It is a personal matter, and should be allowed to be at the mother's discretion.

it seems clear that there is little basis for anything other than advocating for life. all beings are worthy of love and compassion, and unless there is a real direct conflict where the birth would result in death, that we should do what we can to support birth

Yes, again, you can be anti-abortion, but do not need to establish laws to prevent others from making choices they feel are appropriate.

The pro-life movement is about Christian ideological supremacy, these unborn fetuses are just leverage in their agenda.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


I didn't say anything about nazism. I also didn't coin the term Christofascist, and that form of fascism does not indicate nazism. Fascism comes in many forms. Nazis were indeed fascists, but all fascists are not nazis.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


Christians and Christian extremists/fundamentalists are two different things. The vast majority of Christians are wonderful people I’m sure, but there is a problematic faction of them which would have no issue instating their own version of law that conforms to Christian ideology.

Abortion and Samsara


We have laws against murder. I am sure we agree that murder is prohibition on taking like. Why are we parsing the issue here?

I mean, can you imagine how insanely chaotic society would be if people were allowed to engage in murder at their own discretion? It would be an unlivable place. It seems perfectly acceptable to have laws in our conventional world to prevent people from killing each other at the slightest whim.

Abortion is obviously somewhat more of a complex issue, with many other variables to take into consideration.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


Many aspects are true, but they failed to connect many of the dots they discussed to confirm a true conspiracy.

Its not about the integrity of the conspiracy, or that particular conspiracy. It is more so simply about the fact that the attitude demonstrated in that documentary or docuseries or whatever it is, is very much real, and much of the pro-life movement is funded and rooted in that world.

Perhaps you’re also trying to connect dots without sufficient evidence.

I'm not attempting to connect any dots.

Abortion and Samsara


It certainly would be the mother's karma to be faced with the choice, and then it is up to her to make the decision she feels is right for her.

Abortion and Samsara


As practitioners of the buddhadharma we are all against killing, and an embryo is stated in buddhist teachings to be endowed with consciousness and is therefore a sentient being. Abortion is therefore killing and has karmic consequences. This should be understood as the Buddhist view, that aligns with the Buddhist teachings and doctrine.

That said, as Buddhists our path is our own. And these precepts, or guidelines, and so on, are not moral weapons we are supposed to wield against others, whether they be buddhist or non-buddhist. They are guidelines that are meant to aid us, personally, in mitigating karmic debts, which will further obstruct our development on our own soteriological path. They are 100% intended to be guidelines for our personal conduct.

None of us as buddhists, have any business telling anyone how to live or whether to keep a pregnancy, or abort a fetus, or anything. It is not our business.

Further, supporting the prohibition of abortion as a law that prevents other people from making their own choices is also unacceptable.

The is not a monotheistic dogma like Christianity. We are not attempting to bolster the validity of our belief system by projecting it outwardly.

Our "job" is to guard our own conduct, in order to diminish factors that will become obstacles on our path. We accomplish this by either dwelling directly in prajna, or if we are unable to do that, by following the precepts, samayas, and so on.

Thus should you avoid abortions as a buddhist if possible? Sure. But at the same time that is someone's personal choice. If someone wants to make that choice then they will inherit the karmic consequences, that is their issue to work out, and the issue of their future incarnations. Likewise there may be karmic factors that prevent the fetus from coming to term, or not. There is no way to know the inner workings of such things and there is no need to speculate.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


Anti-abortion and pro-life means the same thing.

They appear to mean the same thing, but the latter is co-opted as an agenda with the conservative religious right, and is deeply rooted in Christian fundamentalism.

I see that as a form of politically othering that both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of. It’s become especially prevalent in the last few years and only causes more division and hate within in the US. It seems very much like a “You’re either with us, or against us” mentality to paint anyone using the term pro-life as a religious extremist and right wing “nut.”

The issue might also be that on the surface level optics of the division, pro-life just seems like the natural antithesis of pro-choice, but if analyzed, there is this grimy underbelly where the bulk of the fight for pro-life is inextricably rooted in this Christian zealotry.

As an aside, if you have Netflix, there is a docuseries called The Family which is about the influence of Christian fundamentalism on the American government. Might be worth a watch as it does portray the secretive and insidious nature of their agenda... which is relevant to this topic.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


I think calling it simply a palliative principle is a bit of an undersell.

That is what the tathagatagarbha sutras state, the same sutras that Longchenpa cites. But whatever the case, Longchenpa is expounding my own heart dharma, and I comprehend his view fairly well. He also states that the definitive sutra view is Prasangika, and at the same time holds the definitive set of sutras to be the tathagatagarbha. Thus the synthesis of sutrayana understanding is alive and well in his expositions.

As an aside, as I've mentioned various times in the past, it is vital to bear in mind that these three turnings are sutra classifications, and while they can be referenced for clarity, this three turning schema, even if it has the conventional validity that is extended to it culturally, is not really truly applicable to mantra or Dzogchen. Nevertheless some argue that it can help bring clarity, and that is fine, but it is a sutrayana classification, that concerns groupings of sutras, mainly the Pali Canon sutras, the prajnaparamita, and the tathagatagarbha. To add, as I've mentioned this three turning schema also was not always presented in the manner it is culturally accepted today, we historically see the present third and second turnings inverted, which is represented in the Hevajra corpus, amongst other places, so this is a good indication that we should utilize the wisdom of the three turnings lightly and try to align ourselves with the meaning, rather than the framework, which I'm sure we all try to do and surely that goes without saying.

I said I wouldn't respond to you again on this thread

Yeah, you should stop doing that. It is counterproductive and comes off as a bit pretentious. Your contributions to this subreddit while very nice, do not entitle you to dismiss mine or anyone else's critiques or criticisms of your view. Your views and opinions, including interpretations of passages you cite and so on, are not authoritative by any stretch of the imagination. You are fair game in terms of scrutiny and analysis, as am I, so I would politely advise you to refrain from the hit-and-run "I'm not going to respond any further in this thread" narrative. You have not earned that. While I'm nobody, I only reserve that action when the thrust of the discussion has been completely exhausted, and I've allowed the interlocutor sufficient time to completely explore the extent of their concerns and views and so on, no matter the history. Wheeling that solution out in your first reply is incredibly condescending. You aren't special, neither am I. I would never in my wildest dreams cut a discussion off short by declaring "I'm not going to discuss this any further in this thread" I would be out of my fucking mind to say that to you or anyone else. Your views have their flaws and dark corners just as mine do, bring them out and subject them to the same discussion that everyone else does.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


u/mahl-py

I have a harder time with the implication that some Hindu lineages uphold the authentic realization of anātman and are therefore capable of guiding beings to awakening in the Buddhist sense.

Right, this is an absurd assertion.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


Edit: you’re the one that conflates anyone pro-life with Christian extremists.

It is not a conflation my friend. It is just the insidious underbelly that this issue is rooted in.

I don’t think those extremists would agree considering they hate atheists.

These atheists are just anti-abortion, which is fine, most of us as buddhists are also anti-abortion, that is all well and good. Pro-life however is not just an anti-abortion stance. Pro-life is about establishing Christian ideals as law.

For example, I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice, and against pro-life.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


you dont believe that the murder of innocent by others need to be something your advocate against, so should someone else disagree, and seek to protect life, it should have no impact on you.

The basis of so-called buddhist morality, ethics, precepts, etc., is ultimately to guard your own conduct so that you avoid incurring karmic debts that further fortify the already present obscurations that prevent you from actualizing liberation.

It is a completely personal issue, meant to be applied to your own situation, and your own path as a buddhist. None of us as buddhists have any right whatsoever to push that onto other people, and certainly have no right whatsoever to make laws that condition other people based on any sort of religious framework.

As Theravādins, we have a wealth of explanations at our disposal, dozens and dozens of books, millennia of tradition, I rather go with that in most cases - Authenticity of Texts


Theravada is a pretty modern revisionist movement. This idea that it is the oldest school or somehow more accurately represents the buddhas teachings is just a nice story that Theravadins tell themselves.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


We have discussed this topic at length repeatedly

Right, and you still present these quotes the same way. The salient issue is that these are not phases, but have to do with an absence of characteristics. We go over this every time you present these quotes as sort of contradicting each other in a chronological or consecutive development, that is not what the quotes are saying.

I get that you are giving the appearance of taking the high road by refusing to engage beyond a certain point, but this only serves to reify what appears to be a fairly problematic misunderstanding of this theme.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


TNH has suggested the concept of collective Karma on a number of occasions, and it would seem that if we as Buddhists are aware of suffering that we have an obligation to be engaged, as long as we do so from a skillful place that seeks no credit or reward.

There is no abdhidharma that substantiates a collective karma. All karma is personal to the individuals own mindstream.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


u/En_Lighten

Also, you are still misinterpreting these quotations:

It may be worth noting there are quotes like the following as well. From Nagarjuna: The Buddhas impute a "self", Teach "selflessness", And teach that there is neither Self nor selflessness. From Aryadeva: In the beginning one reverses nonvirtue. In the middle one reverses the view of a self. In the end one reverses all views. Those who know this way are wise.

These are not indicating phases that sort of reverse each other. It is actually quite the opposite. The last sentences that undermine views and selflessness are actually only reifying the truth of selflessness in the context of a total absence of characteristics. Which is also what the so-called reversal of "views" is about, again, the absence of characteristics. The sister synonym of emptiness free form extremes.

This is the same principle of the emptiness of emptiness, and so on. This does not mean that the truth of emptiness is undone, it just means like Nagarjuna states, since everything is completely empty, what entities are there to be empty, how is emptiness then possible? Likewise, since all entities lack a self or svabhava, what entities are there to lack a self? When this is fully realized, what entities are there to lack a self? How can selflessness then be possible? It is a pure and utter negation, quite unforgiving in nature. It is doubling down on the "second phase" as you coin it, and is not walking it back in any fashion.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


u/En_Lighten

I cannot respond to your comments in the monkey_sage thread because s/he has me blocked, but Longchenpa was not fencewalking to the degree you seem to insinuate.

Longchenpa is using "self" figuratively, like Bhavya uses it. Longchenpa is not advocating that tathagatagarbha is anything that remotely resembles a self.

Longchenpa actually states, regarding tathagatagarbha:

[Tathagatagarbha] bears no similarity to the self of the Hindu heretics [tirthikas] because these people in their ignorance speak of a "self" that does not actually exist.

About no-self, Self (Atman), and Buddha nature.


Now I find myself being able to take on this view better because so far it is verifiable with my meditation experiences. But then I learn about Mahayana and Buddha nature sounds suddenly a bit like Atman.

Buddha nature or tathagatagarbha is sort of a palliative principle for people to approach the idea of emptiness, if the idea of emptiness makes them uncomfortable. Tathagatagarbha is the luminosity, or purity of our consciousness. Why is the dharmata of consciousness luminous or pure? Precisely because it is empty, unconditioned and lacks a self.

Thus tathagatagarbha is this dharmata, or nature of mind that is concealed by obscurations, that you are intended to discover through your buddhist practice. When you have a complete knowledge of tathagatagarbha, totally divorced from concealing obscurations, then that is what is called "dharmakaya."

And according to the suttas the Buddha when asked directly if there is a self or not. He didn’t give a straight answer only saying that this is not a skillful question.

Only in one instance to one certain individual.

Might the no-self be only against ego or permanent soul and not contradictory to something non-dual as Atman?

Anatman completely negates any sort of atman.

There are thinkers that say Atman and anatta are two sides of the same coin and can be compatible.

They would be incorrect.

On the other hand there exists also the opinion that one is more advanced level of realization than the other. And from my experience because I encounter more Buddhists mostly saying that no-self is more advanced than Atman. And that achieving Atman and Brahman while blissful and is a step in the right direction is still not true liberation due to its conditionality and impermanent nature.

Indeed. Because the realization of an atman that is equivalent to brahman and so on, still does not remove the basis for the proliferation of identification.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


living in a society primarily composed of so-called “Judeo-Christian values” like the US is also supporting those same extremists.

Merely living in a society and instituting laws to control that society based on your religious interests are two completely different things.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


The problem is that they are unknowingly fortifying the agenda of Christian extremists.

They would do better by being against abortion, and helping to educate others about their views in a pro-choice setting.

Again as Buddhists we have absolutely no business conditioning or influencing others in this way.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


Being against abortion and being “pro-life” are two different things. The latter is an ideological religious campaign that attempts to conceal itself in the former.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


we as Buddhists believe in the sacred nature of life. while there are many circumstances that serve as exceptions

We also believe that each and every sentient being is supposed to govern their own conduct. That means that the causal consequences of our own actions, rooted in our own volition, are ours alone.

the rule for which there are exceptions is that all life is valuable and we should limit any knowing and willful destruction.

If you are a practitioner of the buddhadharma then it is your own responsibility to mitigate the destruction of life, in order to guard your own karma. It is not up to us to condition the actions of others.

we would be most skillful to protect life as a primary position.

Yes, for yourself. You should follow that in your own life. You have no business whatsoever telling others how to live their lives or how others should conduct themselves, it is none of your business.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


“Pro-life” in the context of abortion law, whether you are aware of it or not, is an ideological religious movement that is rooted in Christian fundamentalism. It is a symptom of Christian colonialism and Christian imperialism and we should take every measure to oppose it. If we don’t, these Christians will continue to insidiously institute laws in order to establish their own form of what is equivalent to Sharia law.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


It is also stated that sentient beings are those that possess perception and consciousness.

Perception is a dormant skandha that is held within the consciousness skandha. The five skandhas are always complete at all times, and are only “dormant” in the case of a fetus because the sensory faculties are still forming. It is like being asleep, your skandhas are still complete while asleep even if perception and consciousness are not in active modes.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


The words you wrote already 100% align you with them.

No, they do not. I have no right to tell anyone else what to do with their bodies or their pregnancies.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


It’s a living being - though not sentient (in my opinion) until later in their gestation.

A “sentient being” in Buddhism is any being endowed with a mindstream and the skandhas. The mindstream and the skandhas, some in a dormant form, are all present at the moment of conception according to Buddhist teachings. For this reason “living being” and “sentient being” are synonymous, even if you are defining sentience itself as an activity that occurs later in gestation. The activity of sentience and the status as a sentient being are two different things and the former does not dictate the status of the latter.

Why do Buddhists consider abortion killing?


It seems Buddhists generally have a negative view on abortion. From the moment of conception, it is considered killing, and therefore breaking the precept. Why is this?

According to buddhadharma, conception only occurs because the sperm, egg and consciousness of the intermediate state being are present together in favorable conditions. Consciousness is said to descend into the womb at that time and the mindstream of that being is then present, making the embryo a sentient being. If the pregnancy is terminated, then the consciousness is separated from the body of the fetus, and that is death, which means abortion qualifies as an act of taking life and has the associated karmic consequences for those involved.

Also, while this may be a negative view of abortion, we as Buddhists have zero business aligning with the Christofascist right-wing fundamentalist movement known as “pro-life.”

Anatta is not a mere takedown of Hinduism


That is along the same lines of his statement that Madhyamaka adherents do not make claims of non-existence, they instead merely refute claims for existing existents.

Anatta is not a mere takedown of Hinduism


This is a matter of debate between Buddhist schools.

It is not a debate at all. The meaning of anātman is uniform throughout every Buddhist system.

Sunyata could be said to be the sub-stratum of reality, or in Yogacara, citta itself.

Śūnyatā is not defined the way you are describing in Yogācāra.

Some hold the view that there is no reality at all, such a view could be mistaken for annihilationism.

Annihilationism [uccedavāda] in buddhadharma is specifically the view or assertion that a previously existent entity has become non-existent. No one who properly understands śūnyatā or anātman would state such a thing.

Anatta is not a mere takedown of Hinduism


Because the point is not to renounce a belief in the Vedic concept of Jiva-Atma, but to see that all things are impersonal and transient, and to stop identifying with them.

Transience is still a characteristic of the same ignorance that conceives of a self. The point of anātman is to recognize that the self and allegedly transient phenomena have been unoriginated from the very beginning.

If we perceive transient phenomena then we are still conceiving of an unmoving reference point that transience is measured against, that reference point is the delusional substratum that the self is attributed to. The realization of anātman removes the delusion of a substratum.

Seeking consensus on a Buddist-inspired tattoo


In tattoo culture, neck and hand tattoos are usually reserved for when you’ve run out of real estate elsewhere.

Any good scary/supernatural movies with Buddhist themes?


The Golden Child, even though it is not really accurate and has Satan in it or something that really has nothing to do with Buddhism.

If there is no self, who is doing the thinking, who is doing the hurting?


The sole and entire import of the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus is to establish that there is no entity at the core of our psychophysical experience. That, coupled with the glaring statement “sabbe dhamma anatta” or all dharmas both conditioned and unconditioned are devoid of a self is quite clear despite the attempts of some scholar-monks to muddy the waters.

This idea that the Buddha did not make this assertion, or that the burden of proof belongs to those who understand that there is no self or essence in any phenomena, is frankly a bit insane. These people are degrading the Buddha’s teaching which is again, explicitly clear that the perception of a self is false, leads to suffering, and those who desire liberation must recognize selflessness and familiarize themselves with that dimension of realization.

Everyone who challenges the absence of self is misreading the suttas and is conflating contexts.

If there is no self, who is doing the thinking, who is doing the hurting?


The six types of views are intellectual conclusions. Rooted in inference because they are conceptual. They are not non-conceptual realization:

As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self arises in him as true & established.

These are relative views that are held.

This is not the only place the Buddha cautions against holding the view 'I have no self'.

He is addressing the view, grasping to the mere idea.

Your interpretation appears to be a secular one

You’ve seen my contributions in this subreddit, thus you know labeling me as secular is horse shit.

"by not holding to fixed views, the pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision

Yes, which is my entire point. Holding to fixed views and mistaking that conceptual conclusion to be the truth in the absence of direct, experiential, non-conceptual realization is not the point. The point is the direct, experiential, non-conceptual realization, i.e., “clarity of vision” as the cited excerpt coins it.

In any case, we’ve had the conversation before and I suspect we will continue to have it.

If there is no self, who is doing the thinking, who is doing the hurting?


For your edification, there are references in my link to the Buddha's suttas where he cautions against the view 'I have no self'. I can provide more if you need.

The Buddha only cautioned against clinging to the inferential conceptual conclusion “I have no self.”

Please post a reference to the Buddha's suttas where you think he says what you contend.

Just read the Buddha’s words without the stupid Thanissaro logic influencing you.

If there is no self, who is doing the thinking, who is doing the hurting?


The Buddha never said there is no self.

Yes, he did. Quite frequently.

Actually, I'm a atheist, but interested in temple or buddhism related things.


There is just no reason to deify devas, is the crux of the issue.

Actually, I'm a atheist, but interested in temple or buddhism related things.


Devas are just deluded sentient beings like us.

If there is no self, who is doing the thinking, who is doing the hurting?


If there is no self, if our actions are conditioned by dependent origination, then where does ethical conduct come in?

It is true that ultimately there are no entities, a personal self included, however relatively from the standpoint of our ignorance, a self and other beings do appear. From that standpoint suffering appears very real for us as selves, and other apparent beings also misconceive of a self and suffer. Thus there are these two truths in a way, which ends up being an important aspect of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

True compassion in Buddhism is the acknowledgment and recognition that sentient beings suffer because they are ignorant of the ultimate truth of mind and phenomena.

It is important to uphold conventionally ethical conduct because we should respect other beings, even if those beings are not ultimately real, they do not recognize that, and unless you are dwelling in the awakened equipoise of an ārya, you experience a self and experience other beings, there is no reason to deny that you are experiencing this. Even if āryas in equipoise and Buddhas do not experience such things.

Actually, I'm a atheist, but interested in temple or buddhism related things.


There are devas, which is a class of sentient being. They are not really gods. Deva is often glossed as “god” in English translations, but devas are just subtle beings with long lifespans. They are samsaric.

Actually, I'm a atheist, but interested in temple or buddhism related things.


It does not depend on what I mean by “god.” There is no such thing in any Buddhist system, by any definition.

Is it wrong to masturbate?


There’s no way to know if it was “predatorily produced.” I’m personally not into all the puritan porn bashing.

Actually, I'm a atheist, but interested in temple or buddhism related things.


Ancestor worship is more of a cultural thing.

Actually, I'm a atheist, but interested in temple or buddhism related things.


but surely they don't deny god's existence

Buddhists definitely deny god’s existence. There is no god.

How does the citta fit into the broader scheme of the five khandhas?


Nāma is a term for all mental phenomena pertaining to consciousness and so on, so yes the immaterial aspects of our psychophysical makeup. Citta would be categorized under nāma.

Is it wrong to masturbate?


Right, these are issues within the production side of the industry. I can’t really argue against the glaring fact that the production side of porn is a breeding ground for predatory activity. It is surely an occupational hazard. But I was inquiring about the consumption side of it... I’m skeptical of the personal consumption side of it being inherently harmful.

How does the citta fit into the broader scheme of the five khandhas?


Vasubandhu’s kośa.

How does the citta fit into the broader scheme of the five khandhas?


In Mahāyāna, manas, citta and vijñāna are synonyms. The only distinction is that manas apprehends a past object, vijñāna a present object and citta a future object... but they are all just ways of discussing the vijñāna skandha.

The East Asian trope of putting citta on some sort of pedestal is not shared by Indian or Tibetan Buddhism.

Is it wrong to masturbate?


I agree but to play devil's advocate I think the consumption of pornography may be harmful

People bandy this narrative around the Internet quite freely but I can’t tell if is really based on anything more than antiquated puritan Judeo-Christian type conditioning.

Is it wrong to masturbate?


unfortunately, 99% of porn is unethical. id even argue the full 100%

Why?

Is Buddhism solipsism?


The philosophical tradition itself is not technically absolute metaphysical idealism, or the claim that reality is fundamentally mind either. It develops from epistemological concerns first, or claims about what is known and not the content of knowledge. In practice, it is more appropriate to say all that we can know is our mind and not that all that exists is our mind.

Buddhadharma and Yogācāra thought does not feature this phenomena-noumena duality.

For Yogācāra, especially false aspectarian Yogācāra, all apparent phenomenal entities are strictly mental factors and there are no extramental entities or extramental phenomena at all.

Solipsism, another western philosophical notion, is avoided by Yogācāra because the apparent phenomenal universe is a collective construct of countless conventional mindstreams.

Is it Possible to Practice Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism at the same time?


They are crystal clear that there are shared elements, and that just as the prajñāpāramitā perfects the pāramitās, so too are the principles of the eightfold path perfected by those who dwell in more refined realization.

Is it Possible to Practice Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism at the same time?


No doubt with the four noble truths but the eightfold path is for śravākas. Obviously some elements are shared elsewhere. And in the path of meditation etc., those qualities are perfected.

Taking refuge in the triple gem.


Could someone advise on how I could do this as authentically as possible.

Formal ceremonies are nice but authentic refuge is simply the inner conviction that the buddhadharma is the only means to achieve liberation from samsara.

Is masturbation a sin in buddhism?


Is masturbation a sin in buddhism?

For lay practitioners it is okay. Monastics are not supposed to.

Do you believe Gotama Buddha had the 32 marks of a great man?


If you google major and minor marks sambhogakaya there is actually quite a bit.

somebody asked me if Buddhists believe that there is a God. I didn't know how to answer


Tillich’s vision of god is still completely antithetical to buddhadharma.

Do you believe Gotama Buddha had the 32 marks of a great man?


The major and minor marks are the sambhogakāya. Which is imperceptible to normal sentient beings.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


Ok, I am not going to press you because I do not want to create obstacles, but perhaps consider learning about why the sūtras say certain things, rather than just impulsively rejecting the word of the Buddha.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


The prajñāpāramitā sūtras are not a “representation” of the Buddha’s teachings, they literally are the Buddha’s teaching. Also the prajñāpāramitā is not a nihilist [ucceda] doctrine. To assert they are is actually quite concerning.

The entire scope of the prajñāpāramitā is a careful exposition on avoiding the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. Illusion, which is something that appears, has conventional validity, yet ultimately lacks an essence, is a perfect example of avoiding nihilism and eternalism.

What’s more, nirvana is a species of cessation. Cessations are not substantial entities, thus there should be no issue whatsoever in establishing nirvana as illusory.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


You don’t subscribe to Mahāyāna because you think there are aspects of your reality that are actually real?

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


The Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā:

Nirvāṇa is an illusion. Even if there is anything greater than nirvāṇa that too will only be an illusion.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


You created the sectarianism by trotting it out.

I haven’t mentioned any sects, systems or schools. Apart from taoism which isn’t Buddhist.

If your ego wasn't in control of your thoughts and actions you would recall Theravada is less interested in expedient means than Mayayana.

Everyone’s ego is in control of all thought and action. Again, unless you are an ārya in equipoise or a Buddha who dwells in göngpa.

You are more interested in exercising your ego by showing off book knowledge than offering compassion to those in turmoil. Relax your anal sphincter. Study less, practice more.

The more you make these assertions the more I suspect it is just projection. Not that I care.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


If you are Theravada your opinion is of no concern to me.

I’m not but there is also no need for this type of sectarianism.

If you Mayayana you should know better and understand more.

Mahayana* and again you are appealing to this false premise you habitually trot out when you are challenged. I get that it would be convenient for you if I was a mere intellectual but unfortunately that is a dead end for you.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


The problem isn't substantiality.

Substantiality is indeed the problem. We perceive the material aggregate as solid as a direct result of our delusion. Likewise we perceive the self to be solid as a direct result of our delusion.

Illusion means misperception.

Illusion means something lacks substance. Mirages, echoes, reflections, dreams, hallucinations, apparitions, and so on. These things appear, yet have no concrete substance. Sure, they can be misperceived as substantial, but the nature of the illusion is something that appears to be substantial but isn’t.

Identity is assumption of ownership, it's one of the upadanas. They're categorically different. That's why he never said identity is illusion.

This is just eel wriggling. All phenomena including identity, including upadanas, everything across the board is illusory and inextricably associated with the illusory aggregates.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


What "I like to spread",is true then for us regular people.

For deluded people who dwell in ignorance, yes. Certainly not the truth that the buddhadharma aims to impart.

I get the feeling you are a blind follower of texts and like to lord your blind following over others who observe directly.

Yes, you usually resort to these types of insults, in every interaction it is the ace up your sleeve you attempt to brandish.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


Even in entertaining your dodge here, the imputation of identity upon illusory aggregates makes it clear that identity is even more so insubstantial.

The Buddha states that awakened beings who are well on their way to liberation acquaint themselves with the truth of selflessness which eliminates the afflictions if I-making and mine-making. These afflictions could not be abandoned if identity was anything other than illusion. Why? Because the opposite of illusion is something concrete and substantial.

But regardless, the Buddha uses “illusion” to describe phenomena frequently. The basis of identity is the skandhas. Identity is not exempt of the same status of the aggregates which cradle it.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


Not by the Buddha.

I’m not sure who told you that. The Buddha states clearly in the Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta SN 22.95:

Form is like a lump of foam; feeling is like a bubble; perception seems like a mirage; choices like a banana tree; and consciousness like a magic trick: so taught the Kinsman of the Sun. However you contemplate them, examining them carefully, they’re void and hollow when you look at them closely. Concerning this body, he of vast wisdom has taught that when three things are given up, you’ll see this form discarded. Vitality, warmth, and consciousness: when they leave the body, it lies there tossed aside, food for others, mindless. Such is this process, this illusion, cooed over by fools. It’s said to be a killer, for no substance is found here.

And Udānavarga 2.18:

He who has perceived that this body is (empty) as a vase, and who knows that all things (dharma) are as an illusion, does thus destroy the chief of Māra's flowers, and will no more be seen by the king of death. He who has perceived that this world is like froth, and who knows that all things are as an illusion, does thus destroy the chief of Māra's flowers, and will no more be seen by the king of death. He who has perceived that this body is like froth, and who knows that all things are as an illusion, does thus destroy the chief of Māra's flowers, and will no more be seen by the king of death.

And SA 265:

Monks, it is just as if a master magician or the disciple of a master magician at a crossroads creates the magical illusion of an elephant troop, a horse troop, a chariot troop, and an infantry troop, and a clear-sighted person carefully examines, attends to, and analyses it. At the time of carefully examining, attending to, and analysing it, he finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in a magical illusion.

And then obviously Śākyamuni is even more liberal with the use of “illusion” in describing the nature of phenomena in the prajñāpāramitā and the Vajrayāna tantras, namely the Guhyasamāja and Kalācākra which are his teachings.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


Illusion isn't the right word

Illusion is absolutely the right word, and in fact is a word used frequently in teachings on this topic.

How is identity an illusion if there’s plenty of science to prove that it is a necessary part of the human experience?


"No self" does not mean "non-existent sense of self".

For āryas in equipoise there is absolutely no existent sense of self. Buddhas are in constant equipoise and have no sense of self whatsoever.

For sentient beings who dwell in ignorance, a sense of self is present.

Selfhood is a total delusion, and it obscures the unconditioned and unborn luminosity of mind. It is an affliction to be completely abandoned. Unfortunately it is also a useful tool, but it causes suffering when it is mistaken as real and this error is what the buddhadharma sets out to correct.

I get that you like to spread your taoist syncretic made up view on this subreddit, but you are deceiving people. And you’re incorrect.

The Ārya-laṅkāvatāra-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

Just as when the surface of gold is polished, one sees the gold color, the brilliant shine and the pure surface, in just that way is the sentient being in the aggregates. The supreme ones have always shown the inexhaustible wisdom of the Buddha to be peace, without a person, without the aggregates. The natural luminosity of the mind endowed with the affliction of mind and so on along with [the affliction of] self possesses temporary afflictions from the start, natural luminosity can be purified of the affliction of self, just like a [stained] cloth. Just as the flaws of either cloth or gold can be cleansed because they are [intrinsically] stainless...

Why do some people struggle to understand rebirth?


This topic cannot be understood without understanding that matter is an epiphenomena of mind, according to the buddhadharma. The mindstream is an aggregated, causal series of discrete instances that is inexhaustible. It persists indefinitely. Thus, rebirth is merely the persistence of that continuum of mind that is incessant and the above excerpt from Acarya Malcolm is addressing how the misconception of a self or an entity in general appears to manifest in accordance with that underlying factor of a mindstream.

Malcolm's post is not about how the "I" is a construction, although that is an integral factor. The post is intended to communicate how the delusion of a self arises due to these conditions that are present, how that misconception of a self is extraneous and is lost between lifetimes, and so on.

What can help me grasp the idea of non-self in Buddhism?


would you mind explaining how this avoids negating dependent arising? i was of the understanding that by virtue of the mutual dependence between, for example, wholes and parts, they are both void or non-arisen.

This topic can get somewhat detailed but I think an important distinction to make is between what Nagarjuna called dependent existence [parabhava] and dependent origination [pratityasamutpada]. Nowadays, these two principles are often conflated, but if we consult Nagarjuna's writings on this topic, we find that he makes a firm distinction and that distinction is important.

Parabhava, or "dependent existence" as it is sometimes glossed, describes precisely this idea of things depending upon each other and arising in mutual dependence. Nagarjuna actually criticizes this idea and says that this view of existence is merely a guise for svabhava or inherent existence. By virtue of parabhava, the principle of svabhava sort of covertly sneaks into the fold and if it is not recognized, the individual may simply replace the misconception of svabhava with a view of parabhava.

Dependent origination [pratityasamutpada] is not actually things arising in mutual dependence, not necessarily. In dependent origination proper the idea of origination or arising should ideally but understood as being cradled in what these teachings call avidya, or ignorance. In Nagarjuna's Yukisastikakarika he states:

When the perfect gnosis sees that things come from ignorance as condition, nothing will be objectified, either in terms of arising or destruction.

Going on to state:

Since the Buddhas have stated that the world is conditioned by ignorance, why is it not reasonable [to assert] that this world is [a result of] conceptualization? Since it (the world) comes to an end when ignorance ceases; why does it not become clear that it was conjured by ignorance?

As such, phenomena appear to originate due to the presence of ignorance influencing the mindstream, polluting the mindstream, so that things are not seen accurately. Once ignorance is removed from the mindstream, then phenomena are seen to be primordially unoriginated, or non-arisen.

In this way the real meaning of "dependent origination" is that phenomena appear to originate in dependence upon the presence of ignorance. Apparent entities are dependently originated with ignorance. However in actuality there has never really been origination at any point in time, only the misconception of origination.

This correlation is made explicit in quite a few places. Manjusri states:

Whatever is dependently originated does not truly arise.

Nagarjuna:

What originates dependently is unoriginated!

Candrakirti:

The perfectly enlightened buddhas proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated [non-arisen]."

Why do some people struggle to understand rebirth?


Regarding the process of I-making in relation to rebirth, Ācārya Malcolm explains this point:

The Buddha taught rebirth without making recourse to a self that undergoes rebirth.

There are a variety of ways of explaining this, but in essence, the most profound way of understanding this is that the habit of I-making appropriates a new series of aggregates at death, and so it goes on and on until one eradicates the knowledge obscuration that creates this habit of I-making. In the meantime, due to this habit of I-making, one continues to accumulate affliction and karma which results in suffering for infinite lifetimes, just as one has taken rebirth in samsara without a beginning.

But no soul-concept [is] introduced in [the Buddhist view of rebirth], not at all. The sentient being I was in a past life is not identical with me in this life, even though I suffer and enjoy the results of the negative and positive actions that sentient being and all the other sentient beings engaged in who make up the serial chain of the continuum which I now enjoy. But when I die, all trace of my identity will cease since my identification with my five aggregates as "me" and "mine" is a delusion, and that identity, self, soul, etc., exists merely as a convention and not as an ultimate truth. When the habit of I-making that drives my continuum in samsara takes a new series of aggregates in the next life, it is unlikely I will have any memory of this lifetime, and my habit of I-making will generate a new identity based on the cause and conditions it encounters in the next life.

[The] delusion of 'I' is an agent, capable acting and receiving the results of action, even though it does not exist.

It is important to understand that this "I" generated by the habit of I-making does not exist and is fundamentally a delusion. But it is a useful delusion, just like the delusion of a car allows us to use one.

An analogy is using the last candle to light the next candle. One cannot say that two flames are different, nor can one say they are identical, but they do exist in a continuum, a discrete series.

Regarding consciousness transferring from body to body, The Vajramāla Tantra explains that ālayavijñāna inseparable from mahāprāṇavāyu is what transfers in the bardo between bodies.

eating meat


I don't have to cite this one. It's simply a matter of 'the earth is round even if you believe the earth is flat'

You think so, but in actual fact eating meat in itself, is not an action that incurs a karmic debt. Karmic debt in this context is generated from the action of killing, and there are certain criteria that must be met in order for that karma to be incurred. Criteria that I admit is indeed generally fulfilled just by virtue of the act of killing, however the caveat here is that the activity of eating meat does not necessarily involve the direct action of taking life and may not even occur in close proximity to killing. Thus one would be hard pressed to effectively argue that the mere consumption of meat incurs a karmic debt. It does not.

Meat that conforms to certain criteria is considered to be perfectly okay to consume and is not a breach of conduct nor an action that involves any sort of karmic liability.

As such, do provide a citation which states clearly that eating meat generates negative karma, I am interested to see what you are basing your claim on.

If your claim is true then why would this statement be made in the Vinaya pitaka?:

Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you.

eating meat


Yes eating meat affects your karma, even for non Buddhists.

Citation?

eating meat


Buying dead animals, I think there is clear intent there. Your intent is to eat something that was killed.

Right but you have not been directly involved with the act of killing.

To work in a slaughter house considered wrong livelihood

Sure, because you are either killing or are in direct proximity.

Would we be ok with buying human products that we didn’t necessarily intend for them to be killed but stumbled upon it at a market? Honestly Curious. I personally would not.

There is a list of types of meat that Buddhist practitioners are essentially forbidden to consume and human meat falls under that category.

eating meat


I don’t buy that argument personally. How is it that a supermarket blocks out karma from consumers? It doesn’t! Everything is connected an so are our consumer choices.

To incur a karmic debt there must be specific criteria that is satisfied, which purchasing meat at a market fails to satisfy.

EDIT: An older post I made on said criteria:

In the context of your practice and view, killing [lit. cutting life or 'taking life'] is considered to be the worst of the ten non-virtues. One should do one's best to avoid taking the life of other beings, however the Buddha stated that if the intention to kill is not present and a sentient being dies (or is killed) accidentally, then there is no karma created by that action.

For karma to be created the four branches must be present: (i) basis or basic factor which is the subject to be killed, (ii) the recognition or factor of thought which is the intention to kill, (iii) the factor of motive or preparing the conditions for the killing, (iv) final step or ultimate factor i.e. the result of actually killing the sentient being... and the delusion or satisfaction with the action is what seals the deal.

There has to be a clear cognition of a sentient being and the intention to kill it for the action to be akusala karma or an unskillful action. The Buddha stated that intent to harm or kill is not present if one cannot see or cognize the being which is killed.

eating meat


The being was not killed for you specifically. The meat you encounter in a supermarket is from a long dead sentient being that you have no karmic connection to.

eating meat


You can eat as much meat as you want as long as it adheres to certain criteria. It is not meat that is the issue, but rather the act of taking life. You should never intentionally harm or kill another sentient being.

Meat that is pure in three ways is considered perfectly acceptable. You should not make use of meat from a sentient being you kill yourself, you request to be killed for you, or that you suspect is killed for you, or that you witness killed.

From the Vinaya pitaka:

Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you.

What can help me grasp the idea of non-self in Buddhism?


It consists of parts. These parts being put together in a certain way make it a phone, and not an expensive coaster.

I get that you’re trying to make this idea digestible, but Candrakīrti challenges this idea in his Madhyamakāvatāra.

Candrakīrti would say:

(i) There is no phone which is other than its parts

(ii) There is no phone which is the same as its parts

(iii) There is no phone which possesses its parts

(iv) There is no phone which depends on its parts

(v) There is no phone upon which the parts depend

(vi) There is no phone which is the collection of its parts

(vii) There is no phone which is the shape of its parts

Can a Buddhist pray to the Christian God (Jesus included) out of respect and because one was raised Christian or family was Christian


In some systems this is accounted for by countless prior lifetimes interacting with buddhas etc., covered in the Jataka tales. His own awakening instigated by interacting with a couple human teachers prior to actualizing buddhahood.

In other systems Śākyamuni is already a Buddha and merely displays the act of awakening for the benefit of beings.

Can a Buddhist pray to the Christian God (Jesus included) out of respect and because one was raised Christian or family was Christian


There aren’t even any sūtras, śastras, tantras, termas etc., which say liberation is possible via tirthika paths, that is why they are called tirthikas, or “forders,” because they attempt to cross the river of samsara and reach the other shore, but they cannot.

Lamas make mistakes sometimes, and that is okay, but whoever told you that is directly contradicting the teachings.

Can a Buddhist pray to the Christian God (Jesus included) out of respect and because one was raised Christian or family was Christian


No Tibetan lama says this.

Can a Buddhist pray to the Christian God (Jesus included) out of respect and because one was raised Christian or family was Christian


False.

Can a Buddhist pray to the Christian God (Jesus included) out of respect and because one was raised Christian or family was Christian


Dharma, truth, god, universe Same same same same Get over identifications, and clinging, you all

This type of view is called perennialism. Which essentially corrupts the value of each and every principle that is illegitimately claimed to be equal. It is comfortable for some to pretend that all of these things are the same, but they aren’t.

Can a Buddhist pray to the Christian God (Jesus included) out of respect and because one was raised Christian or family was Christian


If you feel the urge deep down to actually pray to Jesus then you’ve effectively abandoned the triple gem.

Can a Buddhist pray to the Christian God (Jesus included) out of respect and because one was raised Christian or family was Christian


people are going along to Churches and engaging with family, which brings happiness and harmony to their family.

Going to church with family and going along with church customs as a superficial formality to blend in is one thing... praying to a Christian god is an entirely different thing.

How often throughout history has someone reached rainbow body?


Bodies shrinking isn’t necessarily rainbow body. The actual rainbow body is something that is imperceptible to others. It means the practitioner has completely reverted their five elements into the five lights of jñāna. This cannot be seen by beings like us with afflicted karmic vision. The person who has attained rainbow body, will appear to us, as just a normal person with a normal body.

Can a Buddhist pray to the Christian God (Jesus included) out of respect and because one was raised Christian or family was Christian


It symbolizes taking refuge in some sort of other higher power. Which runs contrary to buddhadharma.

People would have to be honest with themselves and figure out what their true motivation would be for doing something like that.

meditating with eyes open...what do you see?


But generally there is no point in having your eyes open during meditation.

In some practices you leave the sense gates open so you can integrate your sensory experience with your practice. If you are using those methods, leaving your senses completely open, unobstructed and relaxed is actually quite important.

How do you know that there is no you?


It is not me you are repeatedly taking issue with in your comments. It is the words of the Buddha.

You mean your own personal interpretation of the Buddha's words.

This should give you pause to consider that what you think you have understood and comprehended may not actually be so.

I say the same to you.

I mean no offense by my words. If you have attained some level of understanding, my words here will be of no offense to you, and simply worthy of your due consideration.

This is deviating into a red herring. No one in this conversation, as far as I can tell, has claimed nor even insinuated they are offended.

Is a strong intellect a hindrance to enlightenment ?


Sapan said the intelligent with a clear intellectual understanding are closer to buddhahood than those who lack these qualities.

Karma by proxy?


I'm pretty sure I'm remembering that example correctly.

Apparently even as a civilian if you take sides on a war and delight in the eradication of an enemy army and so on, this also has karmic implications.

[deleted by user]


Not sure that throat singing is as prevalent in Tibetan Buddhism as pop-culture leads on. That said it is a culturally Tibetan, Mongolian phenomenon and we see groups like the Gyuto monks using it.

poem from Ryokan


Clearly some symbolic language being used here, but I won't pretend to suggest I understand it.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


What I am getting from this is that the conventional is all that really exists

Conventional truth is sort of like an agreement amongst participants. Things are designated based on their appearance or function, and these things appear to abide within those guidelines, hence they are deemed so-called conventional truths. However, this does not mean those alleged entities are exempt from scrutiny, or that they somehow are genuine. They aren't.

since it is by upholding the conventional that we avoid nihilism.

Yes, nominally there is no reason to negate conventions within the context of conventional application. For example, we can designate a car as a car, there is no reason to deny the validity of this convention in that relative application. If we were to say "there is no car" in a relative sense, that would make no sense given that we can utilize a car, drive a car, etc., there is just no reason to deny or negate the appearance of the car as a conventional entity.

owever, the point of the dharma, as I understand it, is to establish the nonreality of all conventional selves and dharmas

Yes, ultimately.

what we thought was real is in fact not real. This means we are left with nothing, nothing at all.

Well we are left with the basis of designation that is then accurately apprehended or accurately known.

Would you say the following paragraphs are mistaken?

There is a lot to unpack there.

However, I would also add that "what is not capable of being verbally described [thusness]"

Thusness is just a synonym for emptiness [sunyata].

I was looking into Tathata and came across this definition on Wikipedia: "Tathatā in the East Asian Mahayana tradition is seen as representing the base reality and can be used to terminate the use of words." So basically, my understanding is that Tathata is what is left after all dualisms, selves and dharmas have been discarded. It is non-describable.

This is not really how tathata is defined in Indo-Tibetan systems.

How do you know that there is no you?


He doesn't use the words identity or selfhood. He uses the term sakkaya-ditthi - literally 'existing-body view'.

Satkāyadṛṣṭi is again, literally defined as misconceiving a self within the skandhas, or falsely attributing selfhood to the five skandhas.

though ultimately liberation is attained through the elimination of ignorance.

Precisely because the misconception of a self is eliminated.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

What I mean is you are railing against the prospect of taking up superficial intellectual positions of an atman or anatman. But the those concepts are pointing to visceral experiences, not merely views that are clung to and identified with. Thus your entire argument falls apart. Again, because you do not understand the nature of what it means to have a "self-view." It is ultimately not an idea that you attach to, it is your lived experience of being a self inside a body and so on.

Thus, perceptions of self or selflessness that arise are themselves conditional and impermanent.

The species of cognition that conceives of a self, vijñāna, is afflicted and impermanent. The gnosis that realizes selflessness, jñāna, is not impermanent and is unafflicted.

How do you know that there is no you?


As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self arises in him as true & established.

These are relative views that are held. What you fail to understand is that the perception of a self and the realization of selflessness are not relative views.

And then the sutta concludes by stating that the fetter of identity is overcome through seeing, which means selfhood is exhausted through realization. Liberation is obtained through eliminating the fetter of selfhood.

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful, eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.
— Sutta Nipāta 5.15, Mogharājamāṇavapucchā

How do you know that there is no you?


However, he also taught that we should not hold the view 'I have no self', just as we should not hold the view 'I have a self'.

What he advised is to hold views skillfully and to avoid mistaking the view for the end goal.

You already have self-view, you already perceive a self because you are an afflicted sentient being. Now you aim to realize selflessness, and if you don’t you’ll never be liberated.

This half baked indeterminate view you litter this subreddit with will never benefit anyone. Certainly will not benefit you. But that is your karma.

How do you know that there is no you?


You might benefit from revisiting some abhidharma. Imputations are nominal, the self is merely nominal, it is not impermanent or permanent.

How do you know that there is no you?


The truth is the thing is impermanent,

Imputations cannot be impermanent.

How do you know that there is no you?


It's not that there is no you. This is not what the Buddha taught.

Literally what the Buddha taught and the entire import behind the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


You are probably done speaking to me

Done speaking? I'm not sure what you mean.

What do you mean by "not substantial"?

Insubstantial would mean apparent but not established as a concrete entity, like an illusion, a mirage, a dream, a reflection, and so on. Buddhadharma lists eight examples to illustrate this.

Do you mean that the phenomena have no other substance besides mind

Phenomena have no substance, and likewise mind has no substantial nature. Some systems such as Mahamudra will sort of use this line of compartmentalization, phenomena are mind, mind is empty, etc., to convey this point. But other systems will simply assert that mind and phenomena are equally empty and are without basis.

that they lack a self-nature and are dependently originated?

Yes, this also. Dependent origination when understood accurately, really means that phenomena appear to originate dependent upon delusion. When delusion is uprooted, the misconception of phenomena is uprooted, as the two are dependent upon one another for their seeming validity.

Similarly, what do you mean by "false appearance of a reality"? If reality is no different from mind, how can it be false?

Because mind is also ultimately empty. Most systems in the buddhadharma are not reductionist in asserting that all is mind. Even many Yogacara adherents have attempted to avoid this reductionist view in the past. It is not considered effective or skillful to engage in reductionism of that nature.

If reality is different from mind, isn't that creating a duality?

Reality is only different from mind in a conventional sense. For instance we would not say the tree or the car are your mind. Ultimately however, trees, cars, and minds cannot be found or established. As such, a conventional status is merely a nominal one.

Or by reality do you mean "external realm," as in a "realm that a self exists in?" Or is that mind also does not exist?

In Yogacara, Vajrayana, Dzogchen and so on, there is an external container universe that manifests based on the collective projection of the infinite sentient beings who, sort of unwittingly participate in that activity. Yet again, this environment is not actually real.

But yes, mind is not exempt from these implications. Which is why in mahamudra, Dzogchen, etc., you will encounter such a strong emphasis being placed on the inseparability of clarity and emptiness.

Internal and external objects, in my understanding, are not real in the sense that no internal or external object exists. What we perceive as external and internal objects is really just mind

This is what western philosophy asserts is the noumena versus phenomena problem. This division is not really part of buddhist thought. According to buddhadharma we would indeed state that there is no internal/external objects in an ultimate sense, because entities endowed with an inherent nature or svabhava, cannot be found or established. And furthermore, if such entities are perceived, they are unable to withstand analysis.

Therefore, objects are neither real nor unreal.

Ultimately yes, phenomena are without characteristics, and as a minor technical point we would not say that phenomena are actually unreal, because what phenomena are there to be unreal? But, for the purposes of eliminating delusion from the mindstream, we as sentient beings do experience phenomena as real, and in order to be liberated, we must realize that phenomena are unreal.

They are not real as objects, they are real as mind. Reality is not real as external reality, reality is real as mind. Do you not agree with this?

I would not agree with that assertion because it is reifying mind.

If reality is not real in any sense, than the mind also cannot be real

Right, the mind is also ultimately illusory. Not something established as real. This is known by awakened aryas.

Dualism implies the existence of separately existing, distinct entities, which Buddhism denies as a possibility.

Buddhadharma denies the validity of ultimately established dualisms. But conventionally, allows for all sorts of divisions, dualities, diversities.

If neither mind or reality is real, than Nirvana/Thusness/Bodhi cannot be real.

Right. Nirvana even as early as the prajnaparamita sutras is stated clearly to be a total illusion, not anything established as real. But this is okay, because nirvana is a species of cessation. Cessations are not something real anyway, and yet they manifest, and have soteriological implications. We see in the sutras, tantras, shastras, over and over that buddhahood is also not established.

If there is no mind, what can be liberated? What can be deluded?

The conventional sentient being is liberated and/or deluded. The conventional mind is either afflicted with delusions and obscurations, or it is freed from said obscurations/delusions. All of this occurs on the level of convention. It does not occur ultimately.

In this way, shouldn't Nirvana, Thusness, Bodhi, Reality and Mind all be synonyms? If not, how does this not create a fundamental dualism?

Dualisms and divisions are laid out conventionally. Again, like stating that the car is not the tree and so on.

And if, fundamentally there is nothing, not even mind, what is the purpose of the Buddhist path?

There is still a conventional continuum present that is either afflicted in the case of sentient beings, or purified in the case of buddhas.

It cannot be to "lead to the realization of emptiness" because there is no mind in which realization can take place.

Again the realization of emptiness occurs on the level of convention, and applies to a conventional mindstream.

We uphold convention, as this is not total nihilism. Yet at the same time convention only goes so far, and the limit of convention is to ensure that we do not err into eternalism/substantialism.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


I was aware that the Vajrayana school did not accept the Yogacara theory as definitive before we even engaged in this debate.

I can’t really tell what you think the Yogācāra view is. Vajrayāna incorporates most of Yogācāra and then simply refines it in subtle ways which prevent the pitfalls that the Yogācāra three nature model implies.

And I accept your opinion, though you have not convinced me that it is objective fact.

I’m not sure that you are aware of the nuances involved in these views. Or what is being addressed in refinements etc.

Due to my Zen influence, "experience over words and scriptures" is sort of fundamental to my way of thinking.

This theme is not a “zen” thing. It is a part of every Buddhist system.

In other words, because I value awakening over intellectual debate

As does everyone. There is no need to keep repeating this. It is a given and assumed. Stating it over and over is just redundant at this point. We are in a forum, having a conversation, thus we are forced to use our intellect to communicate. The straw man that anyone is valuing intellect over experiential realization is unnecessary.

but that your premise "there is no reality" is untenable as ultimate truth.

It is not my own premise.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


If the Yogacara posit that there "really was something which could be said to 'exist'," then calling them nondual realists isn't so much an "accusation" as much as it is a description. I don't really buy the idea that the notion that there is "something which could be said to exist," is a pitfall as I'm sure you don't believe that "there is no reality" is itself a pitfall (I do).

Nondual realism is just a consequence of the Yogācāra view in the treatment of their three nature model.

The Yogacara, to me, avoids the "pitfalls" of the Madhyamika, Theravada, Sautrantika and Sarvastivadin schools- offering a "middle way" between nihilism and realism.

Depends. Also Madhyamaka understood accurately is a perfect view, which is why many Vajrayānis consider it to be the definitive sūtrayāna view. None really consider Yogācāra to be definitive, but they do borrow some Yogācāra principles.

Any shying away from this "middle way" by the Vajrayana, Mahamudra ect. would seem to me to be a regression, not an improvement.

It’s a large improvement.

Words are not identical to enlightenment anyway

Again with this theme.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


Anyway, your view seems in line with the Madhyamika school of thought and mine with the Yogacara.

My view in general is a synthesis of the two, within the context of Vajrayana.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


Perhaps, and this is why other systems sometimes accuse Yogacara of being non-dual realists.

Vajrayana, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, offer a synthesis of Madhyamaka and Yogacara which avoid that pitfall.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


But if there is no reality, if that is the fundamental truth, than there can be no conventional beings or Buddhas either.

So-called relative truth is simply an erroneous cognition, per Candrakirti's definition of the two truths as respective modalities of cognition. Thus conventional beings are delusions, just as Mipham describes them when he asserts that so-called "sentient beings" are merely delusions self-arising from the dhatu of luminosity.

Why should I seek to end delusion if there is no reality for delusion to exist in?

Because under the influence of your avidya, you perceive a reality, and suffer.

There are no discrete phenomena within reality.

Ultimately there is no reality either. Reality is not some sort of container that is immune to the consequences of a freedom from extremes.

What good is the goddess Prajnaparamita?

A symbol, a method, etc. In realizing emptiness you know the goddess prajnaparamita directly.

Is it that nothing exists, or is it that language is inadequate to the task of describing ultimate Truth?

Things appear to exist from the standpoint of avidya. Language does an okay job at describing ultimate truth. There are volumes of writings about the subject, and they are quite elaborate and communicate the meaning of ultimate truth. Are those writings themselves the so-called ultimate truth? No. The writings are the enumerated ultimate truth, which point to the unenumerated ultimate truth.

Nevertheless, the writings are accurate in their description. They do not say that ultimate truth is a large furry, dangerous mammal that is sometimes a quadraped and sometimes a biped. That would be a bear. Instead they say ultimate truth is emptiness free from extremes, as non-arising, as a lack of inherent existence, as a lack of an essence, an absence of characteristics, and so on.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


Buddhism isn't nihilism.

Gnas lugs med pa is not a nihilistic assertion, it is simply the consequence of a freedom from the four extremes.

Also "there is no reality" is a verbal statement, a metaphor, and does not touch Truth.

Marginalizing verbal statements and concepts is unnecessary in these teachings. I am quite certain we all agree that the word "sweet" is not the taste of sugar, and while I appreciate you pointing this out, frequently, I am not sure it is really necessary.

The moon, in this metaphor, is beyond such distinctions of "being" and "nonbeing."

Right, the difference is that in these teachings, we do not posit something that is beyond these extremes. We simply assert that nothing can be found that accords with these extremes. Nothing in the extremes, nothing in the middle.

If there is no reality, then there is no point to the Dharma.

The dharma is a medicine to cure you of the delusion that there is a reality to phenomena. A reality in general. You perceive one presently due to ignorance, but this ignorance can be exhausted, and with it the misconceptions that accompany it.

There would be no sentient beings to liberate, no suffering to end and no nirvana to attain- neither in an ultimate sense or a conventional sense.

And we see statements of this nature routinely in the teachings. There are ultimately no sentient beings, no buddhas, no path, no result, etc., these things appear to a deluded being who is striving to purify their continuum of ignorance. That is what the entire path consists of. We agree that sentient beings and buddhas, the path, and so on have a conventional status, but that conventional status is ultimately dubious. Conventional truth or samvrtisatya is more accurately translated as a concealing truth, or an obstructing truth, a deceitful truth, a deceiving lie. But, that is our condition and we work with those circumstances.

There would be no "thusness", no "emptiness," and no "truth" - in either an ultimate or conventional sense.

Ultimately these things are not established. Conventionally, they are mere names.

And this is the rub, if "God" is equivalent to these things that are unestablished and insubstantial, ultimately unreal, etc., what good is that God? These conventions are absences, the three doors: (i) emptiness (absence of essence), (ii) absence of characteristics, (iii) absence of aspiration. They are cures to a present predicament that are abandoned once that error is rectified. I suppose if you are willing to throw God out the window at the end of the day then alright.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


God for me is just reality as it is.

In buddhadharma, there is no reality [gnas lugs med pa].

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


Incidentally I did some light digging and it was a conversation about Thanissaro Bikkhu and apophaticism relating to some sort of self that monkey_sage believes is impervious to the principle of anatta. I obviously debated that topic a bit enthusiastically.

But yes, maybe better to block than have strife. I don't block people and don't really understand it but that is just me and I respect other people's decisions.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


I'm not really sure to be honest. It seemed like we were having a fairly normal discussion and then s/he got very defensive and everything just deteriorated from there, eventually resulting in monkey_sage blocking me for a reason I can't really discern. Although an action apparently justified according to them.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


Monkey sage is quite sensitive.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


Would you or someone be willing to elaborate on what is meant by this?

Apophatic theology is essentially an exercise of approaching an understanding of something that cannot really be directly known, by describing via negation what that alleged "thing" is not. Sort of like chipping away at a block of stone to eventually reveal the shape of a statue, in a way. Apophaticism is saying there is indeed something there but it cannot be known directly and so by virtue of negating anything knowable we begin to approach that "X" that is beyond the pale of whatever means of measurement we might use to know it. Advaita Vedanta uses this methodology with their neti neti exercise. It is "not this" and "not that" and so on. Everything knowable is negated until you reach as Alan Watts puts it, "the which that which there is no whicher." Fundamentally because of tat tvam asi or the principle that "you are precisely it," and so on.

I've seen one khenpo use it (in contrast with cataphatic) to describe debates surrounding the describability of emptiness. And Wikipedia seems to characterize the mere act of negation in Buddhism as a kind of apophaticism.

If emptiness were some sort of entity then this might make sense, but emptiness is just the fact that phenomena lack an essence or an essential nature. That phenomena are actually unfindable when sought. For this reason aphophaticism is not really appropriate because we are not saying there is an essential nature that requires knowing, we simply say there is an essential nature for pedagogical reasons in order to convey that there is no nature. A nature less nature, or essenceless essence.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


The way I understand it is that "dharmakaya" is a concept, and therefore has a fundamentally illusory existence.

Dharmakāya is indeed a concept but that is not really the reason why it is illusory.

I would be surprised if the Buddha had any interest in refuting every possible definition of "God" that could exist in any human culture throughout space and time.

I'm sure there are myriad abstract definitions of "God" but in the end the view of the buddhadharma is not positing anything that resembles them. Buddhism is a completely different soteriological paradigm predicated on understanding phenomenology via epistemology, rather than a soteriology that revolves around ontological claims.

If we broaden the definition, we have to accept that Buddhism is not anti-theist because its cosmology includes numerous "devas" or "Gods."

Devas are just other sentient beings, ethereal and possessing longer life spans than humans, but they are just sentient beings like humans. They are not deities etc.

no one calls these traditions "anti-Theist."

Buddhadharma is atheist because we negate a creator deity which has divine provenance and we also negate a higher power of any sort.

Obviously most concepts of God posit that God is ultimately beyond the ability of language to describe- as is emptiness.

We can accurately describe emptiness. The ineffability of these principles really does not have any more of a special status than the ineffability of a red ball. A red ball is also ineffable, but nevertheless we can describe it accurately using conventional language. And within the confines of convention we all agree that a red ball isn't "blue" or "square" etc. Still, the label "red ball" does not capture the reality of the red ball as apprehended experientially, but no concept does, and that is okay. This does not detract from the accuracy of convention.

Which is to say, despite dharmakāya and "God" being conceptual imputations, they still are conflicting principles as defined conventionally.

if I was to try to explain the doctrine of emptiness to someone I may certainly very well use the phrase "a constantly changing and flowing process of being."

This would actually be an inaccurate definition of emptiness.

Chinese Buddhist monk scholar Hsuan-tsang, of the seventh century, wrote "[...] all sentient beings possess a fundamental consciousness that is homogenous, continuous and contains seeds [of all dharmas]."

Sure, but this dharmatā of mind is a discrete nature of an individual continuum in buddhist teachings, not a transpersonal or ontological nature.

According to at least the Yogacara school of thought (of which Hsuan-tsang belonged), there is nothing outside or external to fundamental consciousness

In Yogācāra teachings, what is considered the ultimate nature of consciousness or the "perfected nature" [paranispanna] is simply our present consciousness divorced from afflictive obscurations that prevent us from seeing the nature of mind and phenomena clearly.

Taken all together, these remarks indicate that the fundamental reality behind our sense of being is a consciousness that is

The perfected nature is not a "fundamental reality behind our sense of being." The perfected nature is just this present consciousness cleansed of the karmic seeds which cause dualistic perception.

A homogenous, unending, timeless, consciousness undergoing ceaseless transformation and that is the creative source of our entire reality

The nature of consciousness in these teachings is only "homogenous" in the sense that the nature of mind is identical in every discrete instance of expression. Which is different that homogeneity in the sense of Advaita Vedanta's purusa which is like a single nature which pervades everything. The nature of mind is also "unending" because it is inexhaustible due to being a causal continuum comprised of instances of mind moments that act as cause and effect for one another. "Timeless" because our perception of time is, as argued by Nāgārjuna, based on our perception of objects, and in the realization of emptiness conditioned objects no longer appear. Or at least the basis of designation that objects are imputed upon are known to not be entities.

is the creative source of our entire reality

Yes, mind is considered to be fundamental and all other phenomena are indeed epiphenomena of mind according to buddhist teachings, but, the catch is that according to teachings like Yogācāra, specifically false-aspectarian, and Vajrayāna, Dzogchen etc., our "entire reality" is essentially a misconception. Thus, while mind sort of produces a reality by virtue of its own ignorance regarding its own dynamic display, it really is not creating anything substantial, and no reality is truly created at any time, just the false appearance of a reality that is exhausted once emptiness is fully realized.

For me, God is what is there when I still my thoughts and am aware of what exists in the present moment.

For Buddhist teachings, what "is there" when you "still your thoughts" and so on is really just avidyā or ignorance. If "God" is avidyā then God really is an undesirable problem to be eliminated.

For me, God is being itself; God is thusness.

Thusness or tathatā is not a synonym for "being itself." Thusness or suchness is a synonym for emptiness, but more accurately represents the experiential act of "seeing the way things actually are." That is the classical definition of tathatā.

I am aware that every word I used to describe reality (consciousness, flux, being etc.) are just metaphors for what is ultimately indescribable (emptiness/sunyata/void).

Again, all things are technically indescribable. The red ball is technically indescribable. If the red ball was actually describable then when you said red ball to a person blind since birth they would be able to ascertain the specific characteristics of the sensory experience of that alleged object. Or for example, you could put the taste of sugar in someone's mouth simply by describing it. Obviously that is impossible and we all function on the undeniable premise that concepts fall short of apprehending so-called sensory data.

to add a response to another commenter who wrote "What is gained, in terms of understanding, by conceiving of "nibbana" as "God"?" I don't know. Both words are empty, expedient means which cannot contain Truth.

Nirvana is a total cessation of cause for the arising of the cyclical process of rebirth in the three realms as defined in buddhist teachings. God of any description does not resemble such a definition.

Buddhism and God: Apophatic Theology, Process Theism, and the Dharmakaya


Now that we have defined what I am referring to by God and have cleared up the misconception that the concept of God inherently is in opposition to Buddhist Doctrines

Your definition of God is still inherently diametrically opposed to Buddhist doctrines.

The concept that I am referring to is the Dharmakaya, the ultimate reality from which all Phenomenon arises.

This is not what dharmakaya is. Dharmakaya is simply a buddha's complete realization of emptiness at the time of buddhahood. Nothing more.

The very ground of existence itself.

This is not a characteristic of dharmakaya, and further, dharmakaya undermines and negates all forms of existence.

This concept is mostly found in Mystical Vajrayana among the Dzogchen Tradition

Absolutely not.

The Dharmakaya is essentially identical to the Process Panentheistic Apophatic idea of God.

This is also inaccurate and indicates a misunderstanding of dharmakaya. To add, apophaticism of any flavor is completely at odds with buddhadharma, Dzogchen included.

there is said to be nothing that defines the Dharmakaya. It is beyond all recognition of our consciousness, it is pure non-being and pure being. Absolutely nothing can be said about Dharmakaya for it is not anything identifiable in our world but rather it is entirely beyond as well as within it, it is Ultimate Reality in its purest sense, you could even say that the Dharmakaya is Nirvana, as the Buddha's only real nature, the state of non-nature.

Your description here more accurately characterizes something like the brahman of Advaita Vedanta.

this is reason enough to believe that the concept of God can easily be synthesized with Buddhism by viewing God as an Impermanent Entity.

Dharmakaya is not an impermanent entity. It is neither impermanent nor an entity.

Does the "Middle way" apply to all cases of duality?


The "Middle Way" refers to a single compromise only: between "hedonism" and "asceticism".

For śravākas. For the rest of us, all dualities.

What distinguishes the aggregate of perceptions from the aggregate of sense consciousness?


Perception is the label you give it of “car”.

Prior to imputation, “perception” also involves the act of attributing characteristics to perceived entities, along with distinguishing entities from one another, including demarcations such as separating oneself from others/objects. Then labeling or imputation further fortifies these distinctions.

Why was buddha nature obscured in the first place?


The entirety of Dzogchen cosmology centers around Buddha nature becoming obscured. How, why, etc. The reversal of this is all that the Dzogchen path is, and arguably what all paths of the buddhadharma are concerned with.

Using white noise to block outside noise


It is best not to block any noise but rather let the sound arise and pass. Integration is the goal, not suppression.

Taken on it's own statement, ignoring all other teachings, how does this teaching of Ramana Maharshi on the relation between mind and soul compare to the Buddhist position? In other words, If advaita vedanta never existed, would this view be correct from a Buddhist point of view on its own.


Ramana Maharshi practiced in accordance with the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali. He did not practice Advaita Vedanta.

Advaita and the Yoga Sūtras have their own respective views that lead to their own respective results. Their views are “correct” in their own specific context.

Buddhadharma has its own respective views leading to its own result. Our views are correct in our context.

These systems are like formulas. X, y and z have a certain result. A, b and c have a certain result. Not all views and results are equal. You definitely cannot practice xyz and understand abc and vice versa.

Do mushrooms have Buddha Nature?


Probably depends on the type of Mahāyāna. In Indotibetan systems, the four elements are not considered to possess buddha nature.

Anyone know what this is? It looks like it could be a bundle of sense organs? What significance does it hold?


There is also a peaceful offering of the five senses, which features objects such as a lute, silk, flowers, etc.

But yes, above is the wrathful offering of the five senses, with the organs extracted from the head and placed in a skull cup filled with blood.

anatta, not-self: the absence of any intrinsic essence


By the way, these are talking about superficial conceptual positions that are clung to and identified with. It is not saying selflessness is a wrong view.

anatta, not-self: the absence of any intrinsic essence


The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā) PART 2

The purpose of correctly engaging in the contemplation of selflessness is stated in AN 7.49 Dutiyasaññā Sutta:

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?

Monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated.

If, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is not rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has not transcended conceit, is not at peace, and is not well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have not developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is no stepwise distinction in me, I have not obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there. But if, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is stepwise distinction in me, I have obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there.

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. And in reference to this it was said.

Here we get to the heart of the matter, which is one of the most subtle aspects of the Buddhadhamma. Simply stated: when ignorance ceases, belief in self simultaneously ceases. And when there is no self to be found, then there is no self to die or take birth. This right here is “death-free.” And it is precisely this that the Buddha is declaring when he says to Mogharāja:

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,
Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.

When one completely abandons the underlying tendencies which give rise to mistaken apprehensions of a self — any and all notions of “I am” — then there is no self to die. This stilling of the “currents of conceiving” over one’s imagined self, and the resulting peace that is empty of birth, aging, and death, is straightforwardly presented in MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’ Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?

Monk, “I am” is a conceiving. “I am this” is a conceiving. “I shall be” is a conceiving. “I shall not be” ... “I shall be possessed of form” ... “I shall be formless” ... “I shall be percipient” ... “I shall be non-percipient” ... “I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient” is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a cancer, conceiving is an arrow. By going beyond all conceiving, monk, he is said to be a sage at peace.

Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die. He is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?

So it was in reference to this that it was said, ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’

Truly, “a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.” In this way, when ignorance ceases, the entire complex of conditioned arising bound up with dissatisfaction also ceases. When all traces of “I-making” and “mine-making” are abandoned through the fully integrated threefold training of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment, just this is dispassion (virāga). Just this is cessation (nirodha). Just this is extinguishment (nibbāna). Just this is without outflows (anāsava). Just this is not-born (ajāta), not-become (abhūta), not-made (akata), not-fabricated (asaṅkhata), endless (ananta), indestructible (apalokita), and yes, death-free (amata). It is freedom (mutti).

The Recognition of Selflessness and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā):

Sustained, dedicated practice of the recognition of selflessness will gradually create the optimal conditions for the arising of all seven factors of awakening. SN 46.73 Anatta Sutta (abridged):

Here monks, a monk develops the awakening factor of mindfulness accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of dhamma-investigation accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of energy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of joy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of tranquility accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of meditative composure accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of equanimity accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go.

It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that one of two fruits is to be expected: either final gnosis in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of nonreturning. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great good. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great security from bondage. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to a great sense of urgency. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to dwelling in great comfort.

anatta, not-self: the absence of any intrinsic essence


Anātman should be understood as follows:

The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā) PART 1

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,
Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.
— Sutta Nipāta 5.15, Mogharājamāṇavapucchā

The contemplation of selflessness is given in AN 10.60 Girimānanda Sutta:

Now what, Ānanda, is the recognition of selflessness? Here, Ānanda, a monk, gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty place, discriminates thus: ‘The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, odors are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactual objects are not-self; the mind is not-self, phenomena are not-self.’ Thus he abides contemplating selflessness with regard to the six internal and external sensory spheres. This, Ānanda, is called the recognition of selflessness.

In practice, we need to be able to recognize this absence of self in our immediate experience: When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness. When hearing, there is the coming together of sound, the ear, and auditory consciousness. When touching, there is the coming together of tactual sensation, the body, and tactile consciousness. When thinking, there is the thought, the mind, and mental consciousness. These processes arise simply through ‘contact.’ When a sense faculty and a sensory object make contact, the corresponding sensory consciousness arises. This entire process occurs through specific conditionality (idappaccayatā). There is no independent, fully autonomous agent or self controlling any of this.

An independent, autonomous self would, by definition, be:

1. permanent
2. satisfactory
3. not prone to dis-ease
4. fully self-determining (be in complete autonomous control of itself)

Thus, what is being negated is a permanent, satisfactory self which is not prone to old age, sickness, and death. As SN 22.59 Pañcavaggiya Sutta (abridged) states:

Monks, form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness are not-self. Were form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness self, then this form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness would not lead to dis-ease.

This criterion of dis-ease is the context for the following statement that:

None can have it of form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness: ‘Let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be thus, let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be not thus.’

By engaging in sustained, dedicated contemplation we find only impermanent processes, conditionally arisen, and not fully self-determining. First we clearly see that all conditioned phenomena of body and mind are impermanent. Next we come to see that whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory in that it can provide no lasting happiness. Then we realize that all impermanent, unsatisfactory phenomena of body and mind are not-self — they can’t be the basis for a self, which by definition would be permanent and (one would hope) satisfactory. This relationship between the recognition of impermanence, the recognition of unsatisfactoriness, and the recognition of selflessness is illustrated in the following diagram.

With the recognition of selflessness there is an emptying out of both the “subject” and “object” aspects of experience. We come to understand that “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to the mind and body as well as all external representations is deluded. When the recognition of selflessness is fully developed there is no longer any reification of substantial referents to be experienced in relation to subjective grasping. Whatever is seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). Whatever is heard or sensed is merely the heard (sutamatta) and merely the sensed (mutamatta). Whatever is known is merely the known (viññātamatta). This is explained in Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

When there is no self to be found one’s experience becomes very simple, direct, and uncluttered. When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness, that’s all. There is no separate “seer.” The seer is entirely dependent upon the seen. There can be no seer independent of the seen. There is no separate, independent subject or self.

This is also the case for the sensory object. The “seen” is entirely dependent upon the eye faculty and visual consciousness. There can be no object seen independent of the eye faculty and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory objects. There is no separate, independent sensory object.

The same holds true for sensory consciousness as well. “Seeing” is entirely dependent upon the eye and visible form. There can be no seeing independent of the eye and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory cognitions. There is no separate, independent sensory consciousness.

It’s important to understand this experientially. Let’s take the straightforward empirical experience of you looking at this screen right now as an example. Conventionally speaking, you could describe the experience as “I see the computer screen.” Another way of describing this is that there’s a “seer” who “sees” the “seen.” But look at the screen: are there really three independent and separate parts to your experience? Or are “seer,” “sees,” and “seen,” just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three parts are entirely interdependent?

The “seer,” “seen,” and “seeing” are all empty and insubstantial. The eye faculty, visible form, and visual consciousness are all interdependent aspects of the same experience. You can’t peel one away and still have a sensory experience — there is no separation. AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

Sensory consciousness can’t be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the designations that we apply to these various phenomena are entirely conventional, dependent designations. But this doesn’t mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic oneness or unity consciousness or whatever one may want to call it. That's just another empty, dependent label isn’t it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all referents, and thereby stop constructing and defining a “self.”

How do you overcome a sense of self in Buddhism?


but it’s not that there is a truly existent thing which is annihilated exactly.

This is sort of a pedantic straw man given that no one claimed this. Nevertheless, the afflictive obscuration is the sense of self that lies at the root of samsara. Samsara will persist as long as a sense of self persists, they are one and the same. The substratum that the internal reference point the self is based upon completely collapses in awakened equipoise. It is a construct of delusion.

How do you overcome a sense of self in Buddhism?


The sense of self we do need is a dependent, multiple-parted, impermanent one.

Sort of. Buddhas do not have either type of self. They just use conventional language.

How do you overcome a sense of self in Buddhism?


You don’t have to. Where do people keep getting this “kill the self” or “ego death” stuff from? I’m honestly curious where you got it. Buddhism doesn’t teach that

Buddhism does quite literally teach that. Since your flare is Mahāyāna, the sense of self is what Mahāyāna teachings call the “afflictive obscuration” and it must be exhausted for liberation to occur. Buddhas are free of the two obscurations.

Sure, the self is a conventional truth, but only because it appears consistent when uninvestigated. When scrutinized however, it is seen that the convention is a mere imputation, not a real entity.

So the end goal in Buddhism is liberation, correct? is this non-existence? to stop being reborn?


Existence is a misconception, according to Buddhist teachings. The purification of this misconception does not mean annihilation.

[deleted by user]


Wouldn’t touch all that with a 10 foot pole.

What Makes the Rainbow Body Possible?


so this would mean that buddhas know the body-form isn't ultimately solid, but buddhas still choose to present a "solid"-seeming form out of compassion?

No we just see a solid form and say that is the Buddha’s body.

The Sarvabuddhaviṣayāvatārajñānālokālaṃkāra Sūtra:

Mañjuśrī, there is no Tathāgata. However, the designation “Tathāgata” comes about in the world because of the voice of Dharma. It is exclusively due to the maturation of sentient beings’ previous wholesome karma that they perceive the voice of the Tathāgata. That voice emerges in order to produce happiness for all sentient beings and to prompt those who are careless. Mañjuśrī, as those sentient beings hear that sound, they form the concept of a tathāgata, thinking, “This is the Tathāgata’s body.”

What Makes the Rainbow Body Possible?


In their own “pure” perception they appear less solid, but to us they appear solid because of our afflicted perception.

Like this account of Kunzang Dechen Lingpa:

Later when Rinpoche was relaxing in a lawn chair, he said to a few students gathered around him: "You don't realize this, but I am actually Guru Rinpoche and you are his twenty-five disciples. I have reached the stage of exhaustion of phenomena (cho nyi zepa). In truth there is for me no form, no sensation, no perception, no karmic formation, no consciousness, no form, no smell, no sense consciousness or object of sense consciousness and so forth; there is no self or other and no distinction of 'Buddhas' and 'sentient beings'; everything remains in the naturally perfect state of pure equality. From the depths of my heart I wish there were some way you could all be made to understand the truth in this, but you do not see it."

Then Rinpoche went silent and tears fell from his eyes.

http://tibetanaltar.blogspot.com/2009/10/terton-kunzang-dechen-lingpa-moving.html?m=1

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


This is a fact. You are not owed a conversation with me,

Again you are savaging a straw man since I never once made such a claim.

you do not get to demand a conversation with me, you do not get to tell me I must converse with you.

These are likewise straw men. You seem to be confused as to the nature of my comments regarding your conduct. They are not petitions for my benefit.

I may choose to converse with you but I can, at any time, refuse to and there is nothing you can do about it. You do not own me, I am not your property.

More straw men. And this is bordering on weird. This isn’t a college party where some drunk guy is getting too handsy with you.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


That is a straw man.

What Makes the Rainbow Body Possible?


What Makes the Rainbow Body Possible?

The physical elements of the body fully revert into what are called the five lights of jñāna, which is their original form.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


You’re therefore just allowed to make unchallenged claims with impunity?

Seems like a great tactic. Perhaps I could make assertions and then when challenged, refuse to explain myself because I don’t like how people address me. Makes for a convenient way to dodge all accountability and responsibility. Also would provide a consistent means to avoid refining or analyzing my own opinions.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


You already said:

Yes. That is quite literally what the Buddha taught.

I’m simply asking what is “that” which is “quite literally what the Buddha taught”?

Your answer wasn’t clear because you didn’t quote the section you were replying to and it is unclear what you’re referencing.

Secondly, this isn’t a game or a trick. We all interact on here together daily. You’re endorsing Thanissaro’s views. I’m simply curious as to what that purportedly entails, according to you.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


That was never in question, but I repeat my question, are you claiming that the Buddha’s dharma is apophatic in nature? Just speak plainly and clarify your view.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


You are asserting that the Buddha taught apophaticism?

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


No, this is not an apophatic exercise. It is a dharma seal. Anything short of that is a failure.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


To be fair, "mind-stream" isn't "self" either, it's just a good metaphor for something that can't be captured by concepts or the words we use to describe them.

Nothing at all can be captured by concepts or the words we use. Not even a red ball.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


Still, that does not stop a certain crowd from insisting "there is no self".

How could there be a self? Where is it?

Thanissaro’s novel views on this matter are admittedly an attempt to avoid confusing newcomers. A confused attempt in its own right, in far from humble opinion. As we see fools bandy about this skillful means as if it is law.

It does damage to the understanding of the dharma, and is ultimately indefensible despite all of Thanissaro’s attempts to bolster its appeal. Every instance of this narrative comes directly from him, solely. Other Ajahns have disagreed, as they should. Yet people glom onto such baseless claims, for what reason I can’t rightly discern. Perhaps fear? Who is to know.

How do you as a buddhist see psychedelics? Or maybe any of you who has used psychedelics want to share your perspectives here?


Yes, well, again, not the point.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


the buddha explains how taking the aggregates as self is untenable...

And given that there is no other tenable basis for a self, this means the self is only nominal in nature. Aka a mere concept with no actual referent.

7 Things the Buddha Never Said


It’s not accurate. It’s just Thanissaro Bhikku being Thanissaro Bhikku.

[deleted by user]


No, there are no transpersonal principles in buddhadharma. But this doesn’t mean the personal is ultimately valid. It is a nuanced topic, but when understood correctly the distinctions are clear.

I’m open to discussing if you want.

How do you as a buddhist see psychedelics? Or maybe any of you who has used psychedelics want to share your perspectives here?


That isn’t the point.

[deleted by user]


What about them?

Feeling a strong pull to live a wandering yogin's life for Dzogchen...but I'm conflicted


I feel that if you understand the meaning of something like Dzogchen, then there is really no difference in being at home or wandering. The external conditions are not really the point.

My advice would be to stay put and find a flexible profession that allows you to do some solitary retreat a few times a year, while still having some financial stability and so on.

[deleted by user]


Advaita Vedanta is a realist and reductive tradition that posits a truly established, transpersonal, ultimate consciousness. There is nothing like this in Buddhism.

[deleted by user]


Also, Buddha never actually taught a reality of "no self". As this article points out,

That is just nonsense that Thanissaro Bikkhu peddles.

How do you as a buddhist see psychedelics? Or maybe any of you who has used psychedelics want to share your perspectives here?


If you’ve ever tried mushrooms or DMT for example, the fact that these things are found in nature, and have this sort of symbiotic relationship with consciousness in terms of the profound states they cause, is quite incredible. It amazes me.

How do you as a buddhist see psychedelics? Or maybe any of you who has used psychedelics want to share your perspectives here?


Psychedelics are medicinal in nature. They cannot harm you if you take them responsibly and properly. Most of them are natural compounds, they come from nature, they are part of the natural order, and their relationship and effect on the consciousness of sentient beings is no coincidence or anomaly. It is your birthright as a sentient being to explore such things, responsibly and with care. They can provide insights into your consciousness, and this world, but they cannot help you with dharma practice.

Dharma requires a state of consciousness unaltered by entheogens. But there is no harm putting aside time to explore entheogens. Just refrain from conflating the altered states of consciousness that entheogens provide with dharma practice.

I was looking through tags, and saw “Christian Buddhist”. What is that and how can you be both?


And that may be true

No need to qualify this statement with “may.” There is no ambiguity.

I was looking through tags, and saw “Christian Buddhist”. What is that and how can you be both?


Yes, yes.

Buddha's Advice on Dealing with Chronic Pain?


For Buddhists, all pain is so-called negative karma ripening in the body. In this way, pain is actually eliminating vast stores of karma that would otherwise land you in a lower rebirth. I once heard a teacher state that even a headache is saving you from lengthy amounts of time in a hell realm. Thus, not to be sadistic, but pain can be seen as a great blessing.

I suffer from sciatica issues myself and the try to relate to my pain in this way.

[deleted by user]


My good friend has prolonged anxiety attacks that are very similar in nature.

[deleted by user]


Provisional in the sense that one’s sense of self isn’t definitive, sure.

[deleted by user]


How should I refer to myself? For example, should I say, there was a thought in my mind, or, the mind had a thought?

You can just speak normally, using your example: “there was a thought in my mind.”

There is no need to reject personal pronouns of whatever sort. “I, mine, hers, his, he, she, they, them,” this is just conventional language.

The difference between Buddhists and others, is that Buddhists use conventional language and understand it is not actually pointing to anything real or findable.

Normal people use conventional language and treat it as referring to actual things. For Buddhists, conventional language is sort of an inferential tool for communication, but all conventional inferences are merely nominal in nature. Just concepts.

Even the Buddha used conventional language. Asanga describes it here:

The Tathāgata, on the other hand, has attained the supreme perfection of the selflessness of all phenomena through the wisdom that is in accord with just how things truly are, and though there is no self according to how he sees things, he asserts a self all the time because he is never deceived by the characteristic of a self that does not exist. Making the selfless into a self is like saying "abiding through the mode of nonabiding.”

Tibetan Lunar New Year Message from HH Thaye Dorje, one of the Karmapa title bearers.


My teacher said “water tiger” years bring upheaval, which we are already seeing.

[deleted by user]


There actually is precedence in the Vajrayāna tantras for a guru’s fee for a teaching or empowerment. That said, most will still try to accommodate everyone.

Bay Area/ SF/Oakland Hardcore Band/project: Buddhist themed


I grew up in the Bay Area/Oakland/SF hardcore scene. Was a positive influence on me in my formative years and forged strong friendships that I still have to this day.

[deleted by user]


It is a controversial story as far as Buddhist teachings go, but Virupa was an unconventional character. Downvotes are to be expected.

[deleted by user]


How should a Buddhist approach a possible nuclear war?

One time the great Mahāsiddha Virupa heard of a village that was sacrificing hundreds of goats a day as an offering to Shiva, and he set off to kill the men responsible. I believe he also intended to kill Shiva. Taking the life of a few to spare the lives of countless hundreds. In the story, Shiva eventually appears to Virupa and pleads his forgiveness.

We aren’t Mahāsiddhas, but if we were, perhaps a visit to Putin would be in order.

Life is full of suffering. But why, for example, withdraw from being attached to someone or something you hold dear so you won’t be hurt later on? It seems extreme to me.


Who suggested that?

TIL of Phra Khantipalo a senior Theravadin monk & Pali scholar, disrobed to pursue Dzogchen school of Tibetan Buddhism


Dzogchen is like the non-conceptual nature that is recognized, and the ninth yāna, “atiyoga” is the method, this is how Sri Singha describes it. Dzogchen is the like the heart, and the nine yānas are like limbs.

If there is no self, then why I am I only conscious of this body?


In the doctrine of anatta I see no reason for why there should exist more than one illusory I in the world. Why are there some beings that are only conscious of their body, and others that are only conscious of theirs? What separates them?

Conventionally individual mindstreams. Anātman is really addressing the misconception of being an internal, subjective point of reference which resides at a distance from an external and objective world. Anātman is not completely negating the mind, just negating the mind mistaken as a self in subject-object dualism.

Additionally, if there is no self, then what is it that undergoes rebirth?

Also the mindstream.

Whatever this thing is, does it mean that "I" will remain conscious after death?

It is said there are both unconscious and conscious states after death.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


Ok, we can agree to disagree on these points. Thanks for the discussion.

There is no self but is there still an individual?


A conventional individual because mindstreams are individual.

TIL of Phra Khantipalo a senior Theravadin monk & Pali scholar, disrobed to pursue Dzogchen school of Tibetan Buddhism


Chögyal Namkhai Norbu:

A monk, without giving up his vows, can perfectly well practice Dzogchen, as can a Catholic priest, a clerk, a workman, and so on, without having to abandon their role in society, because Dzogchen does not change people from the outside.

And,

Dzogchen is not a school or sect, or a religious system. It is simply a state of knowledge which masters have transmitted beyond any limits of sect or monastic tradition.

Can someone explain the Buddhist perspective of what consciousness/awareness is? And how it is not the self?


So idk what Buddhists think anymore

Yes, mind is primary in Buddhist teachings.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


Conventional truth is one of only Two Truths you may hear about. Relative Truth and Absolute Truth. Both truths are valid, and as you pointed out neither one is true independently without validating the other. They can only be true if it is understood they are true at the same time.

Relative “truth” or samvrtisatya is only true in a very specific context. Terms that more accurately gloss “samvrti” are concealing, obscuring, etc., and this is because so-called relative truth is a false cognition, again as defined by Candrakīrti. Relative truth is the scope of reliably apparent deluded cognition. Thus it is not equally true when compared to ultimate truth, and in fact, ultimate truth is nothing more than the realization of the emptiness of that which is allegedly relative. That is the true meaning of the complementary nature of the two truths. Ultimate truth is the lack of essence in so-called relative truth.

here is a contradiction in this example which illustrates my point. The characteristics of the rope are the basis of designation here. This basis of designation is sufficient for the mind to designate the rope as being a snake (object of designation) . And it will continue being a designated as a snake (appearing to possess the qualities of a snake) until that false knowledge is dropped.

The rope is not exempt from the same logic which renders the snake an inaccurate inference. Ergo, the basis of designation does not consist of characteristics that are possessed by an entity called a rope. The basis of designation is just the appearance, colors, shapes, shades, tactile sensation, etc., that alone is the basis of designation. Those alleged characteristics do not belong to a snake or a rope.

If existence of any type were invalid we veer into nihilism and would have no subjective experience

This is simply false. Bhāva nirodha, the cessation of alleged “existence” is a cornerstone of buddhadharma, and is not a nihilistic doctrine. Specifically, because existence [bhāva] carries a specific meaning which should be understood correctly.

This is why Nāgārjuna quips “what sort of existence is not included in inherent existence [svabhāva] and dependent existence [parabhāva]?” He is asking, what alleged type of existence is exempt from being proven a misconception? And then he closes with asserting “those who perceive existence [bhāva], inherent existence [svabhāva], dependent existence [parabhāva] and non-existence [abhāva] have failed to understand the Buddha’s teaching.”

Conventions are empty, actions are empty, and they are still valid because they're the result of causes and conditions.

I have not negated convention. Rather I’ve merely stated that convention consists of unfounded inference. The same goes for existence, it is an unfounded inference, predicated on the perception of svabhāvas, and so on. Buddhas do not perceive existence or existent entities, yet appearance manifests, and they possess gnosis [jñāna], meaning they are not unconscious or inert.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


The Generation & Completion stages of most tantric meditative practices are contingent on a direct perception of the emptiness of phenomena (the object of meditation).

No, they are contingent on the example jñāna that is introduced by the teacher. If they were contingent on a yogic direct perception [yogapratyaksa] of emptiness, then said practices would be impossible.

But a clear conceptual grasp of emptiness is merely primer for a direct realization of emptiness.

In common Mahāyāna this is true. In Vajrayāna a conceptual understanding helps, but is not necessary due to the methodology that is employed.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


It's important to distinct two key ideas here. "The designated object" is the image of the object you see.

The image is the basis of designation. The “object” is the imputed entity which consists of the basis of designation inaccurately apprehended. The image is not a designated object. The object is a misconception.

The image is purely conceptual

Images are direct perceptions [pratyaksa], which are always non-conceptual.

"The basis of designation" is not a collection of appearances

It is indeed.

The designated object, the image we see, is a mental projection over the basis of designation (changing conditions)

I’m not sure who taught you this but it is incorrect. This phenomena-noumena type dichotomy is completely absent from Buddhist teachings.

when in fact, it is a constantly changing set of conditions. This is impermanence of phenomena in a nutshell.

This is also not quite accurate.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


That designation which you hold in your mind certainly does possess those qualities which are then confused and attributed as belonging to the basis of designation, the object itself.

The basis of designation is simply a collection of appearances, rather than the alleged “object itself.” The misconception of an object, or entity, is a byproduct of the imputation attributed to the basis of designation, hence “basis of designation,” the basis for the proliferation of imputation.

The qualities your mind apprehends are true by way of conventional truth.

Perhaps conventionally valid, or conventionally accurate, rather than “true.” No conventions are actually true, given that relative truth is an error in cognition per Candrakīrti and so on. Conventional truth is a misleading title in this way.

That designation is itself is merely a generic idea which possesses all the qualities of a basketball.

This would be akin to seeing a rope lying in a dark room, mistaking it for a snake and then asserting that the false designation of a snake somehow possesses qualities. There must then be an entity which bears qualities and characteristics, but in the absence of an entity one is hard pressed to validate characteristics.

It's existence as a basketball is purely conceptual but it is still existent in a conventional way. How is that possible?

It is not possible, since all conventions are misconceptions. Existence of any sort is ultimately invalid.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


I would caution you here. This view of the apparently illusory nature of phenomena is still very much rooted in the misapprehension that phenomena are not empty.

The dharmatā of phenomena is veiled by obscurations, and therefore despite the fact that phenomena are innately empty, there is a disparity present in the mind. From the standpoint of ignorance or avidyā, we do not perceive the emptiness of phenomena. We instead perceive phenomena to be substantial and established. For this reason we will often hear explanations of the nature or prakrti of phenomena being illusory, the eight similies of illusion, for example. These descriptions are offered because failing to recognize emptiness, that illusory nature is obscured.

The question of why matter is solid will only arise when there is still a very deeply held view that phenomena are not empty.

Matter is solid because of cognitive obscurations.

Karma cannot arise on it's own & cause consciousness to generate appearances in a dream.

It can according to Vajrayāna explanations regarding the nature of dreams.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


The emptiness of phenomena doesn't mean phenomena are non existent, it means the appearance of phenomena is not as it appears. That is to say our mode of perception projects qualities on phenomena which it does not possess from it's own side.

Phenomena do not actually possess any qualities on any alleged side of the equation.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


Sentient beings just have karmic vision, so we reify everything as substantial, when things actually are not that way.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


In a sense, yes. Because beings can influence each other’s perceptions. As such, it is like a collective delusion in some ways.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


Also this makes curious about something else: when someone becomes a buddha, they no longer experience this solidity?

Not like solid objects that are external, no.

If that's the case, does that mean Shakyamuni was simply moving about in a solid body of his own volition?

Buddha’s do not experience themselves having a body. Only sentient beings perceive the Buddha to have a body.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


So if I understand this correctly: Mind literally radiates appearances from itself, like dreams. Because mind can see itself but not automatically recognize itself, then it mistakes its own energy as separate from it (though in truth, it's not separate). So confusion, which is a particular energetic movement of mind, specifically causes a process where phenomena solidify.

Yes, essentially. Although there are countless sentient beings all participating in this process, like a nexus.

But this also makes me curious as to why this current state we're in now is more "solid" than thoughts & dreams. Both thoughts and dreams can create whole worlds that seem infinite, but they are much more responsive to volition more than this current state

Consciousness does not access the shared container universe in dreams. Dreams are just consciousness penetrating the nādis and generating appearances based off karmic imprints. In waking life we are engaging in a shared environment, even though said environment is not ultimately real.

If Phenomena Are Illusions, Where does Solidity Come From? (Specifically in Yogacara)


So I've been wondering about the thought that "everything is empty & illusory" & "everything is mind" in buddhadharma (specifically vajrayana) , but this is hard for me to conceive of since I can run into something & hit it.

Like water which turns to ice, your mind displays appearances and when you mistake them as foreign or external, the activity of grasping to them reifies them and the five material elements are experienced as solid.

Samsara and nirvana are inseparable so you are already free


Samsara and nirvana are inseparable so you are already free

Freedom, or liberation, results from experiential knowledge of the nature of phenomena. Samsara and nirvana may be inseparable, but if you lack realization of the genuine meaning of this, then you dwell in ignorance and are not free.

The parable often cited is that of a vagrant who sleeps on the street using a pillow with gold hidden inside it. The vagrant possesses the gold, and is therefore effectively wealthy, but lacking knowledge of the gold, he dwells in delusion and suffers.

An atheistic religion?


As Buddhists we are atheists. I am a traditional Buddhist with non-secular and very conservative, formal relationship with these teachings, and I am absolutely an atheist.

An atheistic religion?


Buddhism is a weakly defined religion. Unlike strongly defined abhrahamic religions

This is an absurd assertion.

An atheistic religion?


could you also describe it as agnostic? because Buddhism overall isn't concerned with whether or not a God exists

Buddhist teachings outright deny a creator deity, which means agnosticism is inapplicable.

How do I convert from catholic to buddhist? Also is there a buddhist equivalent of the holy Bible?


While we generally do not proselytize as Buddhists, it is without question a misstep to deter someone interested in the teachings from exploring the teachings or taking refuge.

Does conciousness extinct when one achieve nirvana?


Apparently a conventional gnosis is accepted in the Pāli Canon.

Ud 5.5:

Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch.

MN 70:

Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice.

[deleted by user]


Ju Mipham essentially describes the same thing:

In short, all that possesses physical form and is composed of material particles may be broken down to its basis, which is the infinitely small particle. And, according to the logic explained before, for that most subtle particle to be surrounded by particles in the various directions, it must have sides, which means it must have parts, and so on, in an infinite regression.

[deleted by user]


Is dependent origination and infinite regression or is there eventually a place the first "things" come from?

Infinite regression. A first cause is considered impossible in Buddhist teachings.

Do buddhist teachers agree on the question of self, no-self, not-self, etc.?


The actual word does not matter, it is the concept of an essence that is the point.

Essence is also used figuratively in this sense. Tathāgatagarbha really means there is no essence in anything.

The nirvana sūtra states:

If the Buddha nature [tathāgatagarbha] is seen, there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

Essence and nature are interchangeable in this context.

As I said to another earlier, that fact what you said, even needs to be said, means it is not all that clear.

Indeed. The tathāgatagarbha sūtras are known for their indirect language. This is why the Buddha advises in the nirvana sutra:

Mahāmati, bodhisattvas mahāsattvas must rely on the meaning, they must not rely on letters.

Thus we must rely on the meaning, and not the words.

Do buddhist teachers agree on the question of self, no-self, not-self, etc.?


Indeed, ātman is used as a synonym for an essence, a svabhāvata or svarūpa, in the tathāgatagarbha sūtras, but the use of the term is intended to be rhetorical and not literal.

It is sort of a play on words. When you read “ātman” in tathāgatagarbha sūtras, it means emptiness, and if you understand emptiness as the “self” or identity of phenomena, in a figurative sense, then you are in line with the meaning.

Do buddhist teachers agree on the question of self, no-self, not-self, etc.?


“True self” satyātman, is actually a term that never occurs in any tathāgatagarbha sūtra. It is a secondhand gloss employed by translators with arguable agendas.

Do buddhist teachers agree on the question of self, no-self, not-self, etc.?


I have been reading Thanissiro Bhikku, and according to him Buddha taught to put aside the question whether there is a self or not, but used not-self as a strategy to identify that which causes stress is not me, myself, or mine. see here However, most things I read seemed to pretty confidently suggest that there is no self. Or they stressed that there is no separate, independent self; that things interbe, etc. Now I am wondering if I have misinterpret them somehow, or if there is some conflict about this topic?

Thanissaro’s view on this matter is unique and anomalous.

Can an enlightened person eat meat ?


Can an enlightened person eat meat ?


Killing is what Buddhists avoid at all costs. Meat is okay to eat in Buddhist teachings, so long as you don’t kill the sentient being, request or suspect it be killed for you, or if you see it killed.

What exactly is Adi Buddha? How are they perceived in different sects of Buddhism?


The adibuddha is essentially the first Buddha to emerge in any given eon. In our eon it was Buddha Samantabhadra, in nirmanakāya form as a Buddha called Nangwa Dampa.

Samantabhadra states:

I am the first buddha. I tame the six types of beings through emanations.

[deleted by user]


On the other hand, I see a lot of people suggesting that supernatural beliefs are required elements of Buddhist practice

“Supernatural” is a misnomer, and moreover is a materialist straw man fallacy. Not to mention a semi-pejorative term wielded by materialists that is rooted in the concept of “superstition.” In actuality, there is no such thing as the supernatural in Buddhist teachings, only subtle aspects of dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda] that are usually obscured or misunderstood.

There has to be "something" that's permanent, right?


One of these looks to be nirodha (not sure though).

Both of the first two listed “extinctions” are nirodha. Extinction obtained by knowledge is synonymous with nirvana. Also called analytical cessation (Skt. pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha; Tib. སོ་སོར་བརྟགས་པའི་འགོག་པ་, sosor takpé gokpa, Wyl. so sor brtags pa'i 'gog pa).

How does nondualism in Buddhism differ to that of Advaita Vedanta?


And ātman in Sanskrit can also mean essence, not just a personal self. I think /u/krodha has some texts he often cites in this respect, maybe he can share something.

Yes, in tathāgatagarbha and some Yogācāra, ātman is generally a synonym for svarūpa or svabhāvatā.

I have a philosophical question I want to ask.


Any definite/objective affirmative or negative statement about Reality is based on fixed view, which is Wrong View.

Buddhist dialectics primarily center around the abject negation of what is called svabhāva or inherent existence, via demonstrating that svabhāva is impossible. Even Buddhist systems which pride themselves on omitting views aim to reveal that svabhāva is a fallacy which, as a misconception, lies at the heart of the problem of suffering. This is widespread and buddhadharma does not shy away from making these assertions.

So-called “right view” in these teachings is inextricably related to conquering the misconception that there is a self present in the aggregates, and likewise upending the misconception that there is a svabhāva in phenomenal entities.

From the perspective of some realms, we don’t even have bodies.

Technically there are subtle bodies comprised of subtle elements even in so-called formless realms. There is no such thing as a disembodied mind in Buddhist teachings.

I have a philosophical question I want to ask.


Feel free to elaborate.

I have a philosophical question I want to ask.


It is the same logic.

I have a philosophical question I want to ask.


Nevertheless, that is the actual view of these teachings.

Ju Mipham states:

So called "sentient beings" are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

Such is the nature of all phenomena.

I have a philosophical question I want to ask.


Basically I just want the answer to why humans came to be

Essentially, an error in cognition.

Is it Possible to Practice Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism at the same time?


There’s no such thing as converting people in buddhadharma. Karma dictates whatever system you have interest in, and there will be no alignment with any tradition unless the karmic connection is there.

Lastly, noting that exclusion has higher potential to breed fundamentalism is just a fact, it is not a call to rally people in an attempt to condition others.

Is it Possible to Practice Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism at the same time?


Exclusion tends to breed dogmatism and fundamentalism is the point.

Is it Possible to Practice Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism at the same time?


Is it problematic?

The disparity between (i) systems that accept all other systems, and (ii) a system that only accepts itself, often sets the stage for dogmatism... but not always, it just depends on the practitioner.

Is it Possible to Practice Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism at the same time?


The point is that it is only Theravadins who close themselves off. All other systems integrate one another in context.

Is it Possible to Practice Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism at the same time?


The eightfold path proper is the śravāka path. Mahāyāna has the six pāramitās, and Vajrayāna has the two stages. They are all somewhat similar.

Can anyone here give me a complex rundown of the "no self" doctrine


The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā) PART 2

The purpose of correctly engaging in the contemplation of selflessness is stated in AN 7.49 Dutiyasaññā Sutta:

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?

Monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated.

If, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is not rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has not transcended conceit, is not at peace, and is not well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have not developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is no stepwise distinction in me, I have not obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there. But if, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is stepwise distinction in me, I have obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there.

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. And in reference to this it was said.

Here we get to the heart of the matter, which is one of the most subtle aspects of the Buddhadhamma. Simply stated: when ignorance ceases, belief in self simultaneously ceases. And when there is no self to be found, then there is no self to die or take birth. This right here is “death-free.” And it is precisely this that the Buddha is declaring when he says to Mogharāja:

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,
Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.

When one completely abandons the underlying tendencies which give rise to mistaken apprehensions of a self — any and all notions of “I am” — then there is no self to die. This stilling of the “currents of conceiving” over one’s imagined self, and the resulting peace that is empty of birth, aging, and death, is straightforwardly presented in MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’ Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?

Monk, “I am” is a conceiving. “I am this” is a conceiving. “I shall be” is a conceiving. “I shall not be” ... “I shall be possessed of form” ... “I shall be formless” ... “I shall be percipient” ... “I shall be non-percipient” ... “I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient” is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a cancer, conceiving is an arrow. By going beyond all conceiving, monk, he is said to be a sage at peace.

Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die. He is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?

So it was in reference to this that it was said, ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’

Truly, “a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.” In this way, when ignorance ceases, the entire complex of conditioned arising bound up with dissatisfaction also ceases. When all traces of “I-making” and “mine-making” are abandoned through the fully integrated threefold training of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment, just this is dispassion (virāga). Just this is cessation (nirodha). Just this is extinguishment (nibbāna). Just this is without outflows (anāsava). Just this is not-born (ajāta), not-become (abhūta), not-made (akata), not-fabricated (asaṅkhata), endless (ananta), indestructible (apalokita), and yes, death-free (amata). It is freedom (mutti).

The Recognition of Selflessness and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā):

Sustained, dedicated practice of the recognition of selflessness will gradually create the optimal conditions for the arising of all seven factors of awakening. SN 46.73 Anatta Sutta (abridged):

Here monks, a monk develops the awakening factor of mindfulness accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of dhamma-investigation accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of energy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of joy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of tranquility accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of meditative composure accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of equanimity accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go.

It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that one of two fruits is to be expected: either final gnosis in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of nonreturning. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great good. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great security from bondage. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to a great sense of urgency. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to dwelling in great comfort.

Can anyone here give me a complex rundown of the "no self" doctrine


The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā) PART 1

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,
Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.
One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.
— Sutta Nipāta 5.15, Mogharājamāṇavapucchā

The contemplation of selflessness is given in AN 10.60 Girimānanda Sutta:

Now what, Ānanda, is the recognition of selflessness? Here, Ānanda, a monk, gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty place, discriminates thus: ‘The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, odors are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactual objects are not-self; the mind is not-self, phenomena are not-self.’ Thus he abides contemplating selflessness with regard to the six internal and external sensory spheres. This, Ānanda, is called the recognition of selflessness.

In practice, we need to be able to recognize this absence of self in our immediate experience: When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness. When hearing, there is the coming together of sound, the ear, and auditory consciousness. When touching, there is the coming together of tactual sensation, the body, and tactile consciousness. When thinking, there is the thought, the mind, and mental consciousness. These processes arise simply through ‘contact.’ When a sense faculty and a sensory object make contact, the corresponding sensory consciousness arises. This entire process occurs through specific conditionality (idappaccayatā). There is no independent, fully autonomous agent or self controlling any of this.

An independent, autonomous self would, by definition, be:

1. permanent
2. satisfactory
3. not prone to dis-ease
4. fully self-determining (be in complete autonomous control of itself)

Thus, what is being negated is a permanent, satisfactory self which is not prone to old age, sickness, and death. As SN 22.59 Pañcavaggiya Sutta (abridged) states:

Monks, form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness are not-self. Were form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness self, then this form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness would not lead to dis-ease.

This criterion of dis-ease is the context for the following statement that:

None can have it of form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness: ‘Let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be thus, let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be not thus.’

By engaging in sustained, dedicated contemplation we find only impermanent processes, conditionally arisen, and not fully self-determining. First we clearly see that all conditioned phenomena of body and mind are impermanent. Next we come to see that whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory in that it can provide no lasting happiness. Then we realize that all impermanent, unsatisfactory phenomena of body and mind are not-self — they can’t be the basis for a self, which by definition would be permanent and (one would hope) satisfactory. This relationship between the recognition of impermanence, the recognition of unsatisfactoriness, and the recognition of selflessness is illustrated in the following diagram.

With the recognition of selflessness there is an emptying out of both the “subject” and “object” aspects of experience. We come to understand that “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to the mind and body as well as all external representations is deluded. When the recognition of selflessness is fully developed there is no longer any reification of substantial referents to be experienced in relation to subjective grasping. Whatever is seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). Whatever is heard or sensed is merely the heard (sutamatta) and merely the sensed (mutamatta). Whatever is known is merely the known (viññātamatta). This is explained in Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

When there is no self to be found one’s experience becomes very simple, direct, and uncluttered. When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness, that’s all. There is no separate “seer.” The seer is entirely dependent upon the seen. There can be no seer independent of the seen. There is no separate, independent subject or self.

This is also the case for the sensory object. The “seen” is entirely dependent upon the eye faculty and visual consciousness. There can be no object seen independent of the eye faculty and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory objects. There is no separate, independent sensory object.

The same holds true for sensory consciousness as well. “Seeing” is entirely dependent upon the eye and visible form. There can be no seeing independent of the eye and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory cognitions. There is no separate, independent sensory consciousness.

It’s important to understand this experientially. Let’s take the straightforward empirical experience of you looking at this screen right now as an example. Conventionally speaking, you could describe the experience as “I see the computer screen.” Another way of describing this is that there’s a “seer” who “sees” the “seen.” But look at the screen: are there really three independent and separate parts to your experience? Or are “seer,” “sees,” and “seen,” just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three parts are entirely interdependent?

The “seer,” “seen,” and “seeing” are all empty and insubstantial. The eye faculty, visible form, and visual consciousness are all interdependent aspects of the same experience. You can’t peel one away and still have a sensory experience — there is no separation. AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

Sensory consciousness can’t be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the designations that we apply to these various phenomena are entirely conventional, dependent designations. But this doesn’t mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic oneness or unity consciousness or whatever one may want to call it. That's just another empty, dependent label isn’t it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all referents, and thereby stop constructing and defining a “self.”

Is it Possible to Practice Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism at the same time?


every Buddhist tradition follows the Noble Eightfold Path,

Sort of.

First confrontation at the gym


Generally the gym etiquette I use is to let them “work in.” Switch off sets. For example when he first approached to ask how many sets you have you could have offered to let him work in, and oftentimes people will just decline the offer and go do another exercise. But sometimes they will want to work in.

If you take 2 or 3 minute breaks between sets and the other person wants to rest for a shorter amount of time between sets, you can even let the other person do two consecutive sets.

Also: It is best to avoid making enemies if possible. Even when the guy insulted you, instead of matching his energy it may have been better to try and diffuse the situation. Maybe next time you see him you can try and have a friendly interaction, even briefly, and perhaps even consider apologizing for the previous incident. He may apologize too, or not, but at least your willingness to attempt and resolve things might ease any residual tension.

Vajrayana resources on Tara


These stories of Tara helping Garchen Rinpoche throughput his life were posted yesterday:

https://garchen.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/How-Tara-Saved-Me-from-Dangers-Narratives-by-H.E.-Garchen-Rinpoche.pdf

In Dzogchen, How can Mindstreams be both Distinct and Non-dual?


There are stories of this happening, and although anecdotal evidence is what it is, I will say I’ve experienced strange phenomena of this nature around accomplished masters and can attest to its legitimacy.

In Dzogchen, How can Mindstreams be both Distinct and Non-dual?


Now you mentioned different mindstreams can influence one another, but how so & to what degree? Because wouldn't that mean the Buddhas would be able to energetically transfer enlightenment to people?

In Dzogchen teachings, Buddhas can place their awakened cognition in other beings both human and non-human.

How can nibbāna be unconditioned?


Nirvana is unconditioned because it is a total cessation of a specific cause.

In Dzogchen, How can Mindstreams be both Distinct and Non-dual?


So if all these mindstreams are constantly projecting together, is that why unexpected bad karma happens to people, despite praying for good fortune? Because their karma is also intertwined with other streams?

Karma is personal to the individual mindstream and cannot really intertwine. Positive and negative karma just ripens when it ripens.

In Dzogchen, How can Mindstreams be both Distinct and Non-dual?


In Dzogchen, I've heard that mindstreams are distinct from eachother, but at the same time, I'm constantly seeing how everything is supposed to be non-dual, & how mahasiddhas have the ability to directly see people's deepest thoughts & visit people in dreams.

Dzogchen borrows from false aspectarian Yogācāra on this matter and explains that countless individual mindstreams collectively project an external universe. This “universe” is the nexus comprised of the sum total of the continuums of sentient beings projecting an external “container universe” and then failing to recognize that the phenomena they are apprehending are their own consciousness.

Minds can actually influence one another, most people just don’t know how to do this.

The great Dzogchenpa Shabkar for example, uses the example of how a woman who meditated on herself as a tigress terrified a small village in order to show that our own mental projections can generate appearances for others and vice versa:

When a devaputra asked the Buddha: "Who made Meru, the sun and the moon, and so on?" The Buddha said: "There is no other creator here. The attachment of the traces of one’s conceptuality imputes them, grasps them and then they appear in that way. Everything is created by one’s mind." When the devaputra asked the Buddha again: "How can the attachment of my concepts make the hardness and stability of Meru, the sun and moon, and so on?" The Buddha said: "In Varanasi, an old woman meditated her own body as a tiger. Since the villagers saw her as a tiger, they evacuated the village. If one is able to appear like that for a little while, if one cultivates mental traces for beginningless lifetimes, one will be able to appear like this for a year." Therefore, everything is created by the mind.

Phenomena are nondual because they are ultimately empty. Yet conventionally, they are distinct.

Trees and bacteria and other 'non-sentient'


Trees and plants are “alive” because they possess pranavāyu, but they are not sentient because they lack a mindstream [cittasantāna].

Do Buddhists believe others are going to hell?


The lōka or destination/realm that beings are born into is contingent on past karma. The narāka or “hell” realm is a potential destination. As are the other five lōkas. All lōkas are impermanent.

Is Buddhism Dualistic or Non Dualistic?


Buddhism says the nature of phenomena is non-dual [advāya]. But not non-dual [advaita] as described in sanatanadharmic systems.

Advāya is related to the Buddhist principle of emptiness [śūnyatā], whereas nonduality in Advaita Vedanta for example, concerns their view of brahman.

How Tara Saved Me from Great Dangers by Garchen Rinpoche


Great read, thanks for sharing!

Head covering in Buddhism


I think it is all well and good, especially if it builds the feeling of a stronger connection to the teachings, that is a positive thing. But just be careful is my point, and analyze the motive.

Dharma is about discovering the limitations of clinging to identity, and sometimes we can think we are conquering an old identity by putting on a new more spiritual mask, or becoming a more spiritual person, but this is just the other side of the coin so to speak. Just a new iteration of identity, which isn’t bad, but it is not going to the root.

At the same time, maybe our old habits were destructive, perhaps new habits are more constructive. It is not always black or white, it is up to each individual to begin to know themselves intimately and observe these patterns. Because there are patterns that are conducive to cutting through spiritual materialism, and some that will unknowingly breathe life into it.

Head covering in Buddhism


Recently I have been dressing more modestly, stopped wearing makeup etc. as part of accepting my body for what it is and not clinging to my appearance or conflating my appearance with who I am, especially as a young woman. I have seen than many women in other religions cover their heads, and that some of the women monastics in Plum Village appear to cover their heads as well (I’m not sure of the specifics of the rules or practice around that, I have just seen it in some videos they post). I have thought about covering my hair, but I have been nervous to do so and I also heard that it is disrespectful to have one’s head covered when speaking to a monastic.

Buddhadharma changes us on the inside, not the outside necessarily. You can change how you dress and look, but be careful, as this can just be a new form of identity clinging if done in the name of dharma.

Insight into Two Truths Doctrine and Emptiness came to me last night during meditation


Ultimate Truth is also known as Truth at the Numenon Level.

Ultimate truth is also on a phenomenal level, as it is just an accurate, experiential knowledge of phenomena. Buddhism does not actually posit a noumena. The idea of a “noumena” in Buddhism was projected on to it by western philosophers who were attempting to understand the nuances of buddhadharma.

The two truths are just correct and incorrect cognitions of the same appearance.

Candrakīriti states in the Madhyamakāvatāra:

Because all entities can be seen correctly and falsely, entities possess a dual nature [the two truths]; the correct perception of any object is true [ultimate truth]; the false perception is called "realtive [relative truth]."

How to achieve silence of the mind?


Silence of the mind is more of a side effect of practice, but is not the goal. The goal is knowledge [vidyā] of the nature of phenomena.

i was previously a satanist, i am interested in books on buddism where to start?


There is evidence that Anton Lavey dabbled in Vajrayāna Buddhism, perhaps look there for something that resembles your previous interests.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


It is ultimate truth as an epistemic insight versus ultimate reality as an ontological nature.

In Advaita there is an ultimate reality, in buddhadharma there is no ultimate reality because phenomena have no essential nature.

Nāgārjuna:

Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established, the conditioned is not established; since the conditioned is never established, how can the unconditioned be established?

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


Ok, so does "negating ontology without nihilism" mean "negating the ultimate reality of entities without denying the appearances/conventions"?

Yes, appearances are not negated, they are just cognized accurately. And we do not negate convention, we still acknowledge that a conventional entity can serve a function even though the entity is ultimately unfounded. Realized beings can still refer to themselves as “me” or “I” for example, without falling into delusion that there is a real “me” or “I.”

If yes, then does Advaita deny the appearances, affirm the ultimate reality of entities, or both?

Rather than being nihilistic, Advaita is an eternalist doctrine because it reifies a single, universal, ultimate ontological nature. Advaita negates entities in favor of an ultimate, overarching entity, so to speak.

Advaita: Ultimate truth is conventionally heterogenous, ultimately homogenous

I think this may be the case traditionally, however some Advaitans will negate conventional entities.

Buddhadharma: Ultimate truth is conventionally heterogenous, ultimately neither homogenous nor heterogenous

Essentially yes, although I would say relative truth is conventionally heterogeneous and ultimate truth is neither homogenous nor heterogenous, but ultimate truth in enumerated form, meaning the concept, is also a convention. Then, unenumerated ultimate truth is totally non-conceptual, like the taste of sugar.

it necessitates the existence of them prior to Big Bang.

Buddhist cosmogony uses the big bounce theory, expanding and contracting universe. In between cosmic cycles of expansion/contraction, there is a period of no activity called the prālaya, and during that time, the mindstreams of sentient beings dwell in subtle realms. Then the universe expands, and beings are reborn in coarser realms. Eventually the universe contracts and implodes. Prālaya. Repeat cycle.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


But can't nihilism also accept appearances while saying the objects aren't real?

In Buddhist teachings, nihilism means you are either negating appearance or negating conventions. You can experience appearances without reifying an existent entity, an illusion or reflection for example, or dream image, a mirage, and so on. Also you can still uphold conventional distinctions without believing that conventions are truly more than mere nominal designations. An acceptable or valid convention is anything that describes a consistent function, but also cannot ultimately bear analysis. Thus we lend conventions a sort of provisional status, there is one moon, ice is cold, and so on. Even though these things are not ultimately real.

Ok, so then I could understand if one says ultimate nature is beyond the extremes of heterogenous or homogenous. But to affirm it is heterogenous and not homogenous is something I still don't understand

Ultimate truth is conventionally heterogeneous. Because entities that emptiness applies to are distinct and individual in a conventional sense.

or can a Buddhist worldview remain coherent if one says there were no cognizers billions of years ago?

Mindstreams are considered to be inexhaustible continuums. They do not suddenly manifest. If we understand dependent origination then we understand there was never a first cause or first point of origin. These mindstreams were part of more subtle bodies and dwelled in subtle realms, and then as karma became heavier, bodies took birth in coarser realms. And here we are.

How do I skillfully use not-self?


I have been operating from a belief that there is no-self, and then realized that the sutta this came from was not making this conclusion, but rather (I think) offering a strategy to use.

Only Thanissaro Bikkhu asserts this “strategy” view of anātman.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


What does it mean to negate ontology without nihilism? There is still existence, so I don't understand how ontology is negated.

Existence [bhāva] has a specific meaning in Buddhism. And bhāva is negated, but so is non-existence [abhāva]. Emptiness is free from these extremes. In realizing emptiness, existent objects are no longer cognized, however appearances do not cease. This is akin to a tiger in a dream. If you recognize the nature of the tiger as a dream image, the existence of that tiger as an established entity is negated, however the appearance still manifests.

In what way is the ultimate nature identical?

The emptiness of everything is identical as a generic characteristic in that emptiness is always just the absence of an essential nature.

Also, how can we say there are "discrete entities"?

Conventionally a car is different than a tree, and so on.

Isn't the discrimination of reality into "entities" illusory in Buddhism (as "entities" only exist as a product of their causes and aren't divisible "entities" in their own right)?

Ultimately, yes.

Ok, so billions of years ago before there were cognizers, was there no nirvana? Or no samsara?

Billions of years before there were cognizers here, those mindstreams were cognizing in more subtle realms, like tushita, akanishtha, etc.

Anyone else walk away from Christianity


The Ustaše is an example of 20th century European based, Nazi adjacent fascism rooted in Abrahamic religion, Catholicism specifically.

What can you tell me about the apparent zhen this presenter is wearing? (More specific questions in comments)


It is a ngakpa or ngakmo zhen.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


I was in a looser mood the night prior. Weirdo was a bit unnecessary. Still though, the secular comment was a very weird response.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


I don't understand how nirvana/dharmadatu/tathagatagarbha/dharmakaya don't involve ontological claims.

They are only ontological claims in that they negate ontology.

Ontological and epistemic don't sound necessarily mutually exclusive.

They aren’t mutually exclusive. The point however is that one system is liberated via the ontology of their view, while the other system is liberated via epistemic insight alone.

What does this difference mean?

Transpersonal means something is shared collectively, or subsumes every discrete individual into a larger essence, it is not personal.

How is nirvana personal?

It is an occurrence unique to the conventionally individual mindstream that actualizes it. However other conventional mindstreams are not included in it.

Is it accurate to say that Buddhist ultimate nature is heterogeneous when it's not made up of multiple substances?

It is not made up of any substances, not even a single substance. Yet this conventional “lack of essence” that the Buddhist ultimate nature is, is identical in each discrete conventional entity (hence heterogeneous), without those entities needing to be considered a singular homogeneous entity.

But they are separate in some manner, right? Just not "completely separate"?

Only seemingly separated in that one cannot see the ultimate truth of phenomena when afflicted by deluded cognitive obscurations. But ultimate truth is a purified cognition, that is all. Relative and ultimate truths are two modalities of cognition of a single appearance. Thus they are not actually separate at all.

Similarly, maya and Brahman aren't "completely separate" in Advaita.

The main point is that the ultimate truth of buddhadharma, is simply the lack of essence in that which is allegedly relative. Not some other nature which engages with what is relative. In Buddhism, the ultimate is a generic characteristic of the relative, per the Samdhinirmocana sūtra for example.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


I’m not a secular Buddhist. You see me posting here regularly about the teachings in a very traditional and conservative manner, and if you don’t, then try to pay attention to your fellow r/buddhsim forummers. It isn’t hard to do, and you might learn something.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


Well as I said in my initial comment ‘you can remain agnostic as to the existence of self - except you have to use a fabricated sense of self to get on the right path.’

You can remain agnostic, but that isn’t what the Buddha taught. Regarding your fabricated sense of self, that is all you can relate to unless you awaken.

Only a fool or an enlightened one would make any affirmative claims about Nirvana, including whether a self resides there.

The Buddha made affirmative claims. He was not agnostic nor was he ambiguous.

Yet, there MAY be an UNCONVENTIONAL sense of self, one beyond conception, unfabricated…it’s really just a pedantic point.

It is impossible. In addition, such a self being independent of the aggregates, it would be inert and insentient.

because as Thanissaro said, the statement ‘there is no self’ doesn’t contain with it any duties - no duty to understand how deeply true it is, no duty to look and see how often and subtly we are ‘selfing’ all the time. It’s way too easy to fall into the trap of the intellect.

A presumptuous assertion.

Intellectually, emptiness is profound; experientially, emptiness is mundane.

It is the other way around actually.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


Essentially. As Candrakīrti notes in the Madhyamakāvatāra:

Phenomena's lack of inherent existence, is conventionally termed "emptiness" by the wise. That emptiness is also asserted to be empty of an empty entity. That emptiness of so-called emptiness is asserted to be the emptiness of emptiness, taught in order to repel the grasping of thinking emptiness is an entity.

In Advaita Vedanta, brahman is an entity, an established nature which possesses characteristics. Emptiness is not like that.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


So there is really no use squabbling over this not-self/no self paradigm

There is use in discussion and “squabbling” if someone is advocating for ātmavāda via a claim that the buddhadharma and anatta specifically is an apophatic exercise which lends to the possibility of some sort of noumenal unconditioned self.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


The Buddha says ‘There is no self to be found in any PHENOMENA.’ Phenomena being that reality that is accessible through the sense gates, i.e. that reality which is fabricated. Of that which is unfabricated, of a noumenal reality, of Nirvana - the Buddha never said there was no self to be found there.

This is incorrect, and exactly the mistake I’m pointing out that Thanissaro’s adherents fall headlong into. Sabbe dhamma anatta means all dhammas both conditioned and unconditioned are devoid of a self.

The tilakkhaṇa goes:

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā
sabbe dhammā anattā

Which is: all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, all conditioned phenomena are suffering, all phenomena are without a self.

This is very intentional.

The first two lines only address saṅkhārās, or compounded and conditioned phenomena. However the last line changes to say dhamma, and why is that? In Buddhist teachings there are both conditioned and unconditioned dhammas. Therefore this line’s entire purpose is to ensure that the practitioner understands that it is not only saṅkhārās that are selfless, but all phenomena both conditioned and unconditioned. In the Pāli literature there is only one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana. As such the Buddha is stating that not only are all conditioned phenomena devoid of self, but so is nirvana.

This is appropriate because nirvana is not a noumenal principle, but rather it is a species of cessation. The cessation of what? The total cessation of cause for rebirth in the three realms, aka samsara.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


In Advaita all phenomena reduce down to a single universal nature. Everything is actually only brahman and only brahman has been real the entire time, you just could not see this because of your ignorance.

Buddhadharma on the other hand is non-reductive because emptiness is like the cure to a disease that is no longer needed once the disease is cured. Nāgārjuna’s inquiry addresses this non-reductivity:

If there were some thing subtly not empty, there would be some thing to be empty, but as there is no thing that is not empty, where is there some thing to be empty?

Emptiness is an epistemic insight regarding the nature of phenomenal entities. It means the entity lacks an inherent nature, and therefore said entity cannot actually be found. Once the emptiness of the entity is realized, what entity is there to be empty? In this way emptiness is non-reductive and cancels itself out.

Śantarakṣita‘s Madhyamakālaṃkāra also illustrates this:

Therefore, the tathāgatas have said "All phenomena do not arise" because this conforms with the ultimate. This "ultimate" in reality, is free from all proliferation. Because there is no arising and so on, nonarising and so on isn't possible, because its entity has been negated.

In the same way, emptiness is realizing the unreality of a misconception. When you realize the misconceived entity has been unreal from the very beginning, just that release of ignorance is the realization of emptiness, and after the fact there is no entity to be found, and consequentially, what is there to be empty? How can we have emptiness without an entity to be empty? We cannot. Yet the epistemic insight that emptiness offers has already accomplished the action of liberating the mind from its delusion.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


The point is that anātman is not intended to be a sort of apophatic exercise as Thanissaro suggests. Rather it is the lack of a svabhāva or inherent self in the mind. The prevailing issue with Thanissaro’s approach is that you have people who wrongly assert that the Buddha never said there is no self, which is an absurd misconception. The Buddha clearly and routinely says there is no self to be found in any phenomena anywhere.

Now, does this negate the action of “taking out the trash” as you mention, no, because that is a conventional action performed by a conventional self. We as Buddhists, do not negate the validity of conventional activities and entities as these things appear, we simply state that all conventional designations are ultimately only nominal in nature. Nominal, meaning inferential in the sense that the associated imputation suggests the validity of an entity, however if we investigate the basis of said imputation, the entity cannot actually be found because it is merely an abstraction. A useful abstraction, but not actually established or real.

In this way you can be a conventional individual who takes out the trash and performs many activities, but like an image of a tiger in a dream, there is no actual tiger present. The same goes for the appearance of you as a conventional individual taking the trash out, there is not actually an individual there when the imputed self is keenly scrutinized.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


It is inaccurate because it is an upāya that only Thanissaro Bikkhu employs, and as expected you cited Thanissaro Bikkhu to substantiate it because no other Buddhist scholar claims this. It is a “Thanissaroism,” if you will. Bhante Sūjato and Bikkhu Bodhi have been critical of Thanissaro’s apophatic rendition of anatta.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


Advaita Vedanta promulgates an ontological, transpersonal, homogenous, unconditioned and existent ultimate nature. Which means their brahman or purusa is a substantial and reductive. They negate the personal self so that the individual can merge with a larger overarching and monolithic essence which is considered universal and real.

Whereas one's (ultimate) nature in the buddhadharma is epistemic, personal, heterogeneous and free from the extremes of existence and non-existence. This means that one's ultimate nature in buddhadharma is insubstantial and non-reductive. When the mind in Buddhist systems is purified of the fetter of selfhood, the practitioner realizes emptiness and all appearances are known as the illusory display of one’s own mind.

Buddhism differs from Advaita because unlike Advaita, the buddhadharma does not say that there is an established ultimate nature that is completely separate from the so-called relative world. In Buddhism relative and ultimate are two species of cognition related to this apparent world, one that is afflicted and one that is unafflicted. When a Buddhist realizes selflessness [anātman] their dualistic consciousness becomes nondual gnosis [jñāna]. However jñāna is conventionally individual, there is not one single jñāna shared by all beings. In addition, jñāna is not ultimately real.

In many ways the buddhadharma “goes a bit further” than Advaita in its ability to liberate the individual from reference points and referents, even despite the inclusion of conventional individuality, because all conventions are considered to be ultimately, only nominal and not real.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


This is inaccurate.

How is "no-self" different from "all is self"?


according to the buddha in the sutta above, the view "there is no self" is a result of inappropriate attention. it is not what he teaches. according to the buddha, the idea "there is no self" leads, exactly as you have identified for yourself, to annihilationism. it's 'not-self', not 'no self'

Not true. But you post this in every anātman thread.

[deleted by user]


which specifically sidesteps these types of ontological questions?

Buddhadharma is a fairly glaring negation of true ontology.

In that way, Buddha's teachings could be ontologically the same as Advaita Vedanta but different methodologically.

We reject that pādārthas, aka universals, are real [vāstu]. Whereas Advaita Vedanta is entirely predicated on such a position.

What is your take on viññanam adinassanam in regards to this?

Viññanam adinassanam is just a synonym for a Buddha’s jñāna.

[deleted by user]


From what I can tell, the concept of Atman, as explained in this post at least, seems pretty similar to how citta is explained in the Thai Forest tradition

Yes, which is why some Thai ajahns are accused of erring into eternalism.

Whoa...i'm convinced the "spiritual" stuff is real in Buddhism...but How?


But how is this stuff possible? What can I read to help me understand this phenomena better? How was the Buddha able to control it? & How can I use this as a means to realize Enlightenment?

The powers are called siddhi and are related to sustained meditation, or “calm abiding,” practice.

Clairvoyance is possible by virtue of dissolving cognitive obscurations. The Buddha, having eliminated all obscurations, had incredible abilities of clairvoyance.

Iam a Muslim and want to know if worshipping Buddha and having a altar with like buddhism and stuff is a must if I'm converting to buddhism?


Truly being Buddhist means you take refuge in the buddhadharma internally, in your heart and mind, it has nothing to do with external objects like altars or statues.

Can we talk about direct pointing? Questions for Zen and Vajrayana practitioners


Better to think of rigpa like a spectrum in some ways, but in others there is a clear demarcation between rigpa and marigpa. It is a very nuanced topic, and I think if those nuances are not understood, it is easy to get confused.

Can we talk about direct pointing? Questions for Zen and Vajrayana practitioners


Can it work similarly in Dzogchen?

Yes the Dzogchen process is essentially the same, with some minor notable differences.

Can we talk about direct pointing? Questions for Zen and Vajrayana practitioners


This understanding is really conceptual. Dzogchen is not at all about kensho, or something "special" happening before you've "got it."

It is about something “special” happening, but a lack of that is not a barrier to entry.

[deleted by user]


Buddhism is neither a theistic nor atheistic religion; it is agnostic.

Curious as to how you came to this conclusion.

Buddhism just provides a framework to help maintain a regular meditation practice. We hold certain ideas to be sacred, and openly admit that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

No Buddhist system asserts that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. All Buddhist systems outright deny the existence of god. Buddhadharma is not agnostic by any means.

Is clinging to awareness a problem? Meaning of the 5th skandha


Vijñāna is dualistic consciousness; consisting of an internal subject which perceives objective phenomena that are at a distance from said subject. Further, vijñāna is divided into eight faculties and properties which define it, the eight consciousnesses. On the sensory faculty side, themselves divided into three characteristics, sensory faculty, sensory function and sensory object. Ultimately all of these divisions and dualities are false.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


Buddhism discusses conventional truth, and says conventional entities are valid in the context of conventional truth, but does not say either conventional truth or conventional entities are ultimately real. And in fact, ultimate truth is precisely the recognition that conventional entities cannot be found due to being unestablished, that is the realization of emptiness [śūnyatā].

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


There is relative, or conventional truth [samvrtisatya], but it is not a “reality.” In actuality it is a type of afflicted cognition, according to Candrakīrti. Conventional truth just means something appears to function or behave consistently based on a general consensus.

Thic Nhat Hanh has passed away


Surprised his own organization used the terminology “passed away.” Rhetoric of that nature is usually not attributed to teachers of his caliber. Usually it is said he has “entered parinirvana,” but perhaps they are just trying to make the announcement more digestible for westerners.

In any case, although I was not personally familiar with his teachings, he was obviously a bright light who introduced countless people to the buddhadharma. I know he will be missed.

Question for Yogacarins/Dzogchenpos: I'm confused by this Dudjom Lingpa quote..


Probably best to cite the relevant passage from the actual text.

[deleted by user]


He came to be a very rational, logical and wise human being who was able to change people's mind not by magical powers but by using his intelligence and wiseness.

What about Śākyamuni’s consistent demonstration of supranormal powers in the sūtras?

opinion on shrooms?


Not who you are asking, but meditation results in more consistent mental clarity and can produce similar states as psychedelics, yet meditation can also lead to genuine awakening, while psychedelics cannot.

opinion on shrooms?


Agreed.

opinion on shrooms?


Mushrooms can produce relative nondual states, very profound, but cannot result in awakened equipoise.

opinion on shrooms?


Mushrooms are awesome, interesting and are capable of producing profound altered states of consciousness, but they do little to help you on your Buddhist path.

what is the Buddhist stance on cannabis?


With psychedelics, there is a therapeutic angle that is lacking with alcohol. Someday they will be more mainstream, and while still an intoxicant, there will be a medicinal application, just like with cannabis.

These other drugs, like cocaine and heroin that the drug cartels deal in will really never have any medicinal application. Although a century ago they were thought to.

what is the Buddhist stance on cannabis?


A good docuseries on psychedelics, is Hamilton’s Pharmacopoeia on Hulu.

what is the Buddhist stance on cannabis?


Those cartel documentaries are about cannabis and cocaine mostly.

Psychedelics are a different class of intoxicant, and are generally harmless and involve a much friendlier market/consumer base.

what is the Buddhist stance on cannabis?


What documentaries? Out of curiosity.

Are there good arguments against solipsism?


In buddhadharma, the world and other minds are not ultimately real, but neither is one’s own mind.

Struggling deeply with attachment to sexual pleasures and desires.


It's when my mind starts wondering and I have inappropriate thoughts about other women or engage in pornography. Is that considered sexual misconduct?

No. And it’s normal, stop beating yourself up.

[deleted by user]


I really dislike how some equate the concept of impermanence with the word "illusion". It really is missing the point of the doctrine of impermanence.

I don’t think anyone asserts this. Impermanence is not what reveals phenomena to be illusory. Rather it is emptiness, non-arising, that reveals that things are illusory.

We perceive impermanence because we have failed to recognize emptiness [śūnyatā].

[deleted by user]


The karmic implications of killing does not mean other beings are endowed with anything more than a conventional status. Stating that any phenomena is real [vāstu] in Buddhist teachings is problematic.

[deleted by user]


and empty means it ultimately does not exist.

You are right, despite the downvotes.

I’m new and have a question about hunting


On one hand, I do think it's a good idea to get people engaging with the Buddha's teachings, even if they're bad at following the rules.

Yeah, I agree with that.

I’m new and have a question about hunting


Also good for OP to bear in mind that taking life is one of the heaviest transgressions, incurring the most karmic debt. It is best to avoid killing at all costs.

Non-Tibetan/Japanese Mahayana Totally Inaccessible?


It sucks because I've recently been reading Words of My Perfect Teacher, and I'm obsessed with it honestly.

If you feel drawn to Tibetan Buddhism, then it may be worth it to investigate what is possible, and plan to thoroughly vet whatever teachers you encounter. I only say this because of your keen interest in Words of my Perfect Teacher, this interest, or “obsession” as you call it, may indicate a natural karmic connection. And while that does not mean you have any obligation, it also should not be ignored or disregarded. I don’t say this because of my own passion for Tibetan buddhism, if you had hypothetically mentioned any other text from any other system I would have likewise advised to follow your heart in the direction of that school or system.

Non-Tibetan/Japanese Mahayana Totally Inaccessible?


I'm not particularly interested in the Tibetan schools, because my elder sister was a Tibetan practitioner for years on the other side of the country and had some...issues I don't want to get into with her teacher, who is Nepalese/Tibetan and these problems turned her away from Buddhadharma since then.

Tragic to hear. Tibetan Buddhism is intended to have safeguards in place to prevent abuse. There are actually Tibetan doctrinal guidelines, centuries old, which state how a teacher should act and what red flags to watch out for. It also says that the student should cut ties with any teacher if they have exhibited any of the problematic behavior listed. Perhaps your sister was unaware of this.

[deleted by user]


Study dependent origination and eliminate this wrong view. Other beings are real.

Might want to revisit the doctrinal position on this matter (which is not promulgating solipsism, but still undermines the validity of sentient beings).

The Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra for example:

When this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated.

And,

Subhuti, it is just the same when a disciple [bodhisattva] speaks of liberating numberless sentient beings. If they have in mind any arbitrary conception of sentient beings or of definite numbers, then they are unworthy of being called a disciple. Subhuti, my teachings reveal that even such a thing as is called a ‘disciple’ is non-existent. Furthermore, there is really nothing for a disciple to liberate.

And,

Subhuti, a good son or daughter who wants to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: "I must help to lead all beings to the shore of awakening, but, after these beings have become liberated, in truth I know that not even a single being has been liberated."

Am I wrong, and why?


Haribhadra said the path is a total illusion. Nevertheless, illusory liberation occurs, and has soteriological value.

Ritual crown with the five transcendent Buddhas. Tibet, late 14th to early 15th century [4000 x 3002][OS]


This thread has deteriorated into you compulsively spewing your aversion to “shiny objects” by posting numerous colorful remarks, an aversion evidently cradled in the materialist projection of “superstition” might I add. An error derived from an utter failure to understand dependent origination. Next time be quiet.

Ritual crown with the five transcendent Buddhas. Tibet, late 14th to early 15th century [4000 x 3002][OS]


You’re the only one on here crying about Vajrayāna lately.

Have there been many discussions about past lives as extra terrestrials?


Daniel Ingram compiled a list of recollected memories from past lives, all sound fairly extraterrestrial:

As to world-cycles or the like, my past life experiences line up along the following lines, if you believe in such experiences having validity:

1) This life human.

2) Last life some sort of moderately powerful, clearly somewhat debauched male jealous god/sorcerer of some kind that was stabbed in the back with a dagger by a woman who he had wronged in some way, I think.

3) Some sort of mother skunk-like animal that was eaten by a large black dog or wolf.

4) Some sort of mother bat that was killed when the rock it was clinging to at the top of the cave fell to the floor.

5) Some sort of grim, gigantic, armored skeletal titan-like thing that ran tirelessly through space swinging a gigantic sword and doing battle nearly continuously without sleep for hundreds of thousands of years that was killed by something like a dragon.

6) Some gigantic, gelatinous, multi-tentacled, very alien being living in a very dark place for a very long time, probably under water, I think.

Other than some sense that the skunk-thing and the bat-thing were virtuous mothers, I have no sense that there was any profound previous dharmic development at least back that far, and, in fact, have the distinct sense that the previous one was a bit of a cad and not very ethical. Take that all for what you will.

Did the Buddha explicitly reject the notion of universal consciousness?


Ālayavijñāna is like a reservoir of karmic traces for ones continuum of consciousness. It is afflicted, personal, relative and is exhausted at the time of buddhahood because it’s status is contingent on the presence of the karmic seeds or bījas it contains.

The purusa or Brahman of Advaita Vedanta is an eternally existent, universal, transpersonal, ultimate consciousness.

Did the Buddha explicitly reject the notion of universal consciousness?


Nice post but on the point regarding the world according to Yogācāra, granted you could be attempting to be gentle about the topic, but for the sake of the discussion: The consequence of the Yogācāra view is that the external world and other sentient beings are indeed ultimately unreal. For Yogācāra, all phenomena are mental factors that are activated by appropriate karmic traces, and this “world” is the nexus comprised of the sum total of the continuums of sentient beings projecting an external “container universe” and then failing to recognize that the phenomena they are apprehending are their own consciousness.

In this way the ultimate nature of things is not altogether different, and the three natures model employed by Yogācāra explain this well in the sense that the perfected nature is the dependent nature freed of the imputed nature. Which means when the ālayavijñāna [the dependent nature] is divested of the karmic bījas [the imputed nature], phenomena are no longer mistaken to be external entities, and consciousness then rests in its natural state as dharmakāya [the perfected nature]. In this way, the ultimate truth of Yogācāra is actually just accurately apprehending the very appearances which allegedly constitute our so-called relative world.

Did the Buddha explicitly reject the notion of universal consciousness?


What Buddha calls Buddha Nature is Universal Consciousness

Tathāgatagarbha is not universal. The Laṅkāvatāra sūtra:

"Similarly, that tathagatagarbha taught in the sutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings. When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, ayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as 'A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable.'

The Bhagavan replied:

'Mahamati, my teaching of tathagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagata, Arhat, Samyaksambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathagatagarbha. Mahamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahasattvas enlightened in the future or presently. Mahamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort. Mahamati, similarly, although Tathagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajña and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that, Mahamati, the demonstration of Tathagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

Abandoning Of Sensuality Is What Meditation Is


...for śravāka tenet systems.

Did the Buddha explicitly reject the notion of universal consciousness?


Buddhism is just a different approach to liberation. A universal consciousness is deemed unnecessary, and impossible. I used to dabble in Advaita when I was first learning buddhadharma, and this disparity likewise led me to believe that the Buddhist view was somewhat more limited because it involved discrete mindstreams. It felt like Advaita was going further than Buddhism because the negation of discrete entities in its framework was quite simple to understand, and the Buddhist reification of the same conventional entities seemed shortsighted or immature.

Later when I had a better understanding of the philosophical and methodological underpinnings of the buddhadharma, I discovered that the Buddhist view, despite these features, is able to improve upon the Advaitan “singular consciousness” model, and evade the disadvantageous implications of fortifying an ontological principle of that nature.

Which is to say the Buddhist model is in no way limited by virtue of including discrete conventional mindstreams. At the time of the result in Advaita Vedanta the purusa stands alone as true and real, that is an ontological view. Buddhism only lends ontologies a provisional status, and then collapses them with epistemological insight that reveals they were false from the very beginning. Unlike Advaita however, there is no ultimate ontology, instead, the mind is freed from the burden of the misconception of all ontological natures by seeing or knowing the way things really are, as being empty.

This still establishes a non-dual realization and still ultimately negates all entities, but there is no ultimate nature established in the end, because for Buddhism, ultimate truth is nothing more than the lack of substantiality in that which appears to be relative. Thus Advaita reifies a reductive nondual nature via understanding phenomenology via ontology in positing a single overarching universal consciousness, whereas buddhadharma actualizes a non-reductive nondual insight via understanding phenomenology via epistemology in the realization of emptiness and non-arising.

Advaitans like Gaudapāda tried to adopt the Buddhist view of nonarising [anutpāda] in his Ajātivāda, but he still falls into an eternalist trap and fails to accurately actualize nonarising because he still reifies an ultimate purusa. Gaudapāda is saying nonarising is true. In buddhadharma, when nonarising is realized, not even nonarising is established.

Did the Buddha explicitly reject the notion of universal consciousness?


Shentong is just an attempt at synthesizing Yogācāra and Madhyamaka, it does not posit a universal nature.

Even Dolbupa, the originator of shentong clarifies this:

Since the tathāgatagarbha is empty of the two selves, it is not similar to the self of the forders [tirthikas], and because uncompounded dharmatā transcends the momentary, it is permanent, stable, and everlasting. It is not that it, like space, is without any of the qualities, powers, and aspects of a buddha, and it is not like the self of persons that the forders impute to be permanent.

Thus shentong is not positing a universal consciousness like Advaita Vedanta. There is no Buddhist system that asserts universals in that way. We only assert universal generic characteristics, i.e., wetness of water. Not specific characteristics, i.e., entities, like Advaita.

Does consciousness continue during deep sleep, or does it switch off?


Consciousness is inactive during deep sleep for normal sentient beings. It resides in the center of the body.

Buddha Shakyamuni Wrathful Form?


i suspect that once such beings see the nature of impermanence and karma, that anger dissolves

They don’t have anger. Educate yourself.

Buddha Shakyamuni Wrathful Form?


the gautama buddha is the all-conqueror, the unvanquished, all-seer, wielding power - what need is there for wrath in such a being. he has no equal, and fears no other being in the universe. he sees the cause and effect behind all actions - in the context of karma there is no need for wrath or vengeance. the buddha's teaching on anger is worth reading:

You should refrain from addressing topics like this, that you clearly have zero understanding of, and stick to what you know. You’re spreading ignorant misinformation by equating wrathful forms of Buddhas with anger and vengeance.

Can your third eye be permanently blocked?


Third eyes in iconography just represent the yogapratyaksa or yogic direct perception of the nature of phenomena.

Cakras in Vajrayāna are just regions of the body where the arterial and venous networks gather around vital organs.

The two principles are somewhat different despite new age spirituality trying to assert they are the same.

Also, in terms of “blockages,” in Vajrayāna there are areas that must be sort of purified or coordinated, which turns the karmavāyu that maintains avidyā or ignorance into jñānavāyu which is the cause of accessing awakening in certain systems. But those areas are distributed throughout the body and are not necessarily aligned purely with the cākras. It isn’t that you remove a blockage in a certain place like the head and then you’re suddenly awakened. Would be nice if things were that simple, but alas, no.

What are the flames called?


I can try and take a look this evening.

What are the flames called?


I’m sure it has a name. You’d have to consult a text like Robert Beer’s Encyclopedia of Tibetan Symbols and Motifs.

What are the flames called?


The wrathful deities are depicted as in standing in flames. Do the flames hava a name? What's it called?

The flames represent transcendent gnosis [jñāna] which incinerates afflictions and obscurations.

Do Theravada Buddhists accept the notion of 'Buddha Nature'?


I believe all of the schools of Buddhism are agreed that it is not possible for anyone in this world, at this time, to become a Buddha during this lifetime, because the Dharma wheel is already in motion for us.

Other schools state that there cannot be two uttamanirmāṇakāya Buddhas at the same time after such a Buddha has turned the wheel, like Śākyamuni. However samyaksambuddhahood is still attainable for sentient beings, and those who attain buddhahood are considered janmanirmāṇakāya Buddhas. There can be countless janmanirmāṇakāya Buddhas.

Beautiful Buddhist thangka


Blue doesn’t mean bad, the person above who asserted this is fabricating nonsense.

Beautiful Buddhist thangka


Fun fact: in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, the color blue represents the element of space. Buddhas like Vajradhara or Samantabhadra are blue because they represent the unconditioned dharmakāya which has the nature of space.

has anyone noticed a certain harshness in this forum that seems ironic in a bucdhist forum?


The Nalanda debates in India used to deteriorate into violent sorcery... I think we do okay here.

Can you be both Hindu and Buddhist?


To a significant extent I think basically anyone can practice Buddhist teachings to the extent that they deem appropriate for them, regardless of what they call themselves.

Only theoretically with Vajrayāna which is predicated on example jñāna and direct perceptions. For those who aspire to practice the Śravākayāna and common Mahāyāna, their potential realization is entirely dependent on an accurate inferential right view, and then liberation is entirely dependent on that realization, as Āryadeva states clearly. For such practitioners non-Buddhist views prevent realization and consequently, liberation.

souls aren't real according to Buddhism?


Does buddha think souls aren't real?

Indeed. The aggregates are like a nexus. There is no soul or core in the center.

Confused about purpose or lack of purpose during meditation


Like someone told me just meditate and don't have any expectations, just sit there and do it. But then why am I doing it?

It takes time for meditation to develop, but if you are consistent you will begin to understand the benefit.

or change in some positive way after meditating regularly (e.g., become more calm, compassionate, patient, etc)?

These qualities will develop if you are practicing regularly and correctly. Your consciousness will also become brighter, clearer and stronger. Your attention will be easier to maintain. And then there are supramundane states and even abilities that will also develop. Eventually clear insight into the nature of reality will begin to manifest if everything is executed correctly.

What is one's Buddha nature?


Buddha nature is the unconditioned nature of your mind that you have not recognized.

buddhist monists(some hard shentong,amala vijnana believers in mahayana,universal citta believers in theravada etc)what are your arguments against a personal creator deity?


Also this is Ācārya Malcolm’s thoughts on the topic:

I do [question the entire "three turnings" scheme], because there is nothing substantive about it at all in Indian texts. It is only mentioned once in the entire Yogacarabhumi. Other than that, the Yogacarins totally ignore it.

The Indians really did not discuss the issue of the three turnings at all, especially not the Indians you would most expect, namely the Yogacara authors, Maitreya, Asanga, Vasubandhu, etc. Not even the later Yogacara authors bring it up.

The only sustained discussion of the issue is the massive commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana sutra preserved in the bstan 'gyur by the Korean master Wen Tshegs (Wŏnch'ŭk, 613-696).He starts his text saying:

The sovereign of Dharma taught the wheel of Dharma in three aspects. The first of those was turned in the Deer Park in Varanasi for those who were devoted the śravakayāna, and the causes and results of nirvana were fully taught. This is the Dharmawheel of the four noble truths.

The second was the teaching of the Ārya Prajñāpāramita in sixteen gatherings such as Vulture Peak and so on to those who were devoted to the Bodhisattvayāna.

The third, the teachings of the Saṃdhinirmocana sutras and so on in pure buddhafields such as Padmagarbha and so on and impure buddhafields, to those devoted to all yānas, is the Dharmawheel of the Mahāyāna of the definitive meaning. This is to be known as the intention of the teaching of the doctrine of the Tathāgata.

Since there is nothing like this statement by any Indian scholar in any extant text, I must conclude that certain Tibetan scholars (whether they know it or not) rely solely on a 7th century Korean Buddhist discussion of this issue in order to justify their classification of this and that class of sutras as definitive or provisional. But in reality these justifications cannot be made the basis of the extant Indian source texts in both sūtra and śastra. Of course, not having studied this 1000 folio, three volume text in detail, I cannot say whether it presents Indian sources for this idea or not. But I did't see any citations of Indian masters when during the several times I have done close words searches on the text when he discusses the three turnings.

Interestingly this text defines the Avatamsaka and the Prajñāpāramita [under the influence of the Avatamsaka] both as part of the third turning, but it defines the Nirvana Sutra as the second turning. He further states that the second vehicle only removes imputation [vikalpana], whereas the third turning clarifies the three svabhāvas, and so on.

Given that he defines the Nirvana as second turning and provisional and given that he devotes only a single sentence to a discussion of tathāgatagarbha, I think it is safe to conclude that for Wen Tshegs, tathāgatagarbha is part of the provisional second turning. It would be interesting to understand how it is that the ten Tathāgatagarbha sūtras came to be regarded by some Tibetans as the essence of the third turning given this fact, because there is surely no evidence from Indian sources that they are to be treated as such.

See this link about Wen Tsheg's text and how it came to be translated into Tibetan:

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/download/8793/2700

buddhist monists(some hard shentong,amala vijnana believers in mahayana,universal citta believers in theravada etc)what are your arguments against a personal creator deity?


The Samdhinirmocana is the only sūtra that discusses turnings, and the description is really very vague as to what is being referred to.

Here is the only doctrinal appearance of the so-called "three turnings" in Indian literature, and it's nothing like you'd think it would be. From chapter 5 of the Saṃdhinirmocana sutra:

"In the country of Benares at Rsipatana in the Deer Park, the World-honored One first turned the wheel of doctrine, [teaching] the four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful, such as nobody, whether gods or men, had been able to turn in the world before. Nevertheless there were superior teachings, for [this first turning] had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. Then the World-honored One with an underlying intent turned the wheel for the second time for the sake of those setting out in the great vehicle, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning of the wheel was marvelous and wonderful indeed. Nevertheless there were teachings superior to this, for it also had to be interpreted and occasioned controversy. The World-honored One then with an explicit meaning for the third time turned the wheel of doctrine for those setting out in all the vehicles, [teaching] that all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation. This turning was the most marvelous and wonderful that had ever occurred in the world. It had no superior nor did it contain any implicit meaning nor occasion any controversy."

So, to sum up the teachings of the three turnings as described in the Saṃdhinirmocana sūtra:

  • (i) four holy truths for those setting out in the word-hearers' vehicle

  • (ii) all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation

  • (iii) all things have no-essence, no arising, and no passing away, are originally quiescent, and are essentially in cessation

Thus we see the definitions of the second and third turnings are identical... and further there is no outstanding evidence that this excerpt is even referring to Yogācāra or the tathāgatagarbha doctrine when it evokes the "third turning", or that the so-called second turning denotes the prajñāpāramitā and Madhyamaka. The evidence really goes to show that the three turning schema that is so popular today is a later development that did not originate in India.

Can Buddhist steal?


The other day had a friend who told me he stole a trinket from the store we left. I told him, that’s not good. He says you can do whatever you want in Buddhism. You are your own God. Is this true?

Certain actions have karmic consequences. Stealing or “taking what isn’t given” is an action that incurs a karmic debt. You are free to steal all you like but it is a bad idea and will result in karma that will ripen in disadvantageous ways whether in this life or at a future time. Which means if you are smart you will avoid such activity.

buddhist monists(some hard shentong,amala vijnana believers in mahayana,universal citta believers in theravada etc)what are your arguments against a personal creator deity?


These are describing the dharmadhātu and tathāgatagarbha as generic characteristics [samanyalakṣana] meaning they are a similar quality found in discrete instances.

A true universal or monistic view on the other hand is a claim for the validity of a specific characteristic [svalakṣana], stating the ultimate is a specific characteristic of relative entities that all share that characteristic.

Buddhadharma allows for universal generic characteristics, but not universal specific characteristics. The former is referring to a common quality, like the heat of fire, or the wetness of water, these qualities are “universal” in that wherever you find water it bears the quality of being wet, likewise wherever there is a flame there is heat. The quality is the same in every discrete instance, but it is not a shared quality in that wetness is a singular entity that is transpersonal to each instance.

A specific characteristic as a universal on the other hand would be akin to asserting that all instances of water share the same single field of wetness that encompasses them all. Or all fire bears heat that is a singular field of heat that permeates all instances of fire.

Which is to say gzhan stong and tathāgatagarbha are ways of discussing the dharmatā of one’s own mind, and not some universal nature. This is why the excerpt you cited rightly differentiates tathāgatagarbha and the tirthika ātman.

buddhist monists(some hard shentong,amala vijnana believers in mahayana,universal citta believers in theravada etc)what are your arguments against a personal creator deity?


Every now and again teachers say things that do not make sense. My own teachers have never taught that Vajrayāna is the third turning, nor that it is associated with the third turning. Ācārya, as you know, thinks the three turnings are a total farce with no basis in any discernible scripture. Not even the alleged locus classicus of the Samdhinirmocana. Thus, without a firm grounding in anything real, yes, people can just sort of say whatever they want and pass it off as truth. But when you examine the issue, such claims rest on nothing really, they’re just nice ideas.

buddhist monists(some hard shentong,amala vijnana believers in mahayana,universal citta believers in theravada etc)what are your arguments against a personal creator deity?


This is the issue with the three turnings, which have zero doctrinal basis. There is no evidence for the claim that Vajrayāna is somehow part of the “third turning.” There is no sūtra or tantra which states this. The three turnings are the śravākayāna, prajñāpāramitā and tathāgatagarbha, full stop. Historically, prajñāpāramitā and tathāgatagarbha were inverted in some settings as well, where prajñāpāramitā was the so-called “third turning.”

Vajrayāna is completely separate from the three turning schema, which is why it’s main adepts and luminaries considered various sūtrayāna systems to be definitive, and paid no mind to these alleged turnings.

To add, finding out today, that for all this time you’ve been referring to Vajrayāna when mentioning the third turning is very surprising.

buddhist monists(some hard shentong,amala vijnana believers in mahayana,universal citta believers in theravada etc)what are your arguments against a personal creator deity?


And of course Vajrayana in some sense then could be said to be an aspect of the third turning.

Definitely not. The “third turning” is a sūtra classification, referring in its current, popularized version to the tathāgatagarbha sūtras specifically. Vajrayāna has nothing to do with these sūtrayāna categories.

buddhist monists(some hard shentong,amala vijnana believers in mahayana,universal citta believers in theravada etc)what are your arguments against a personal creator deity?


Gzhan stong is not monistic. No Buddhist system accepts universals [pādārthas] as valid, not even conventionally.

Achievement as illusion?


If one accepts the three turnings model as being legitimate,

I don’t, but I know you do.

I think probably the emphasis on this type of rhetoric would be higher in the Prajnaparamita Sutras as a whole than, say, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra or others.

Certainly high in prajñāpāramitā, and even more excessive in Vajrayāna. The tathāgatagarbha sūtras which is all the alleged third turning consists of, also discuss a lack of essences. Nirvana is a cessation, and a cessation of an individual which need attain anything, the cessation of the misconception of an individual who is seeking liberation is liberation itself. That is the meaning of nirvana being non-existent.

Achievement as illusion?


In the 2nd turning related to the Prajnaparamita Sutras, there is a rhetorical device in which basically there will be statements saying things like, "No suffering, no end of suffering, no attainment..." etc.

Permeates all of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna really.

Question- Was Buddha the first enlightened human?


No, Śākyamuni Buddha was not the first enlightened person, by his own admission he states he simply rediscovered a path that was lost, like a trail in the jungle overgrown with foliage. He said there were many Buddhas before him.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


Sure, conventionally. Also, we experience our continuum bifurcated into internal and external dimensions or “yings” as they’re called in Tibetan. So long as we dwell in delusion, these yings remain in tact. Thus there is both linguistic/conceptual and experiential precedent for internal and external dimensions. But are these demarcations truly real? No.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


Again, I think we're hitting a semantic roadblock predicated on my use of the word "real" vis a vis your use of the Pali/Sanskrit. If it helps, I can use "real" vs. "Real" in the sense of conventional vs. ultimate truth.

Ultimate truth is a total lack of anything real, precisely because conventional entities are not real and instead accurate inferences.

nothing is ultimately Real (or, rather, we cannot know if anything is ultimately Real),

You can definitely know that nothing is ultimately real. Knowing that means you are awakened.

but I believe it's imperative that we continue to act as though phenomena are conventionally real.

Things appear concrete and real to deluded beings, yes. But the solidity of relative phenomena is directly proportional to the solidity of one’s delusion. Because it’s all delusion.

I guess I'd love to hear more about your reasoning/motivation

I was originally just pointing out that many teachings advise practitioners to view their experience as dreamlike and not truly real at all. My root teacher stated this often. We have small dreams at night, but this waking reality is also just a big dream.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


believe this might stem from our own semantic differences about what it means for something to be "real." As I understand it, a phenomena can be real while also being illusory and/or empty.

Emptiness [śūnyatā] and illusion are both the antithesis of real [vāstu].

a flower is real (or we may assume it is real) in that I can feel it, smell it, taste it, etc.

These sensory experiences do not qualify “reality” in what is perceived.

This is to say, we can (and should) live life with the awareness that all phenomena are illusory and empty. However, to live life as if the things around us are non-existent or un-real would a) contribute to suffering and b) simply be unskillful and unhelpful as means of existing in the world.

You aren’t understanding the issue clearly if this is the logic that your rebuttal is predicated upon.

I would like to talk to a Buddhist priest.


Yes, I suppose you are right. Out of curiosity, is “priest” a neologism in Japanese, English-speaking lineages?

I would like to talk to a Buddhist priest.


We don’t really have priests. Priests are effectively, mediatory agents between humans and God in religions which have such a dynamic. Priests are also those authorized to conduct rites and so on, and in that sense those with the authority to teach in Buddhism are something like priests in that regard. But overall, the absence of a higher power in Buddhism undermines the true definition of a priest or priestess.

I’m feeling really conflicted about living my life when I have direct family members who are unvaccinated and when my actions could lead to them contracting a severe case of COVID. What is the right practice?


You undermine your own case with this example and end up contradicting the point you are intending to make. Which is good, actually.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


Consciousness is indeed like a magical illusion

All dharmas are taught to be illusory.

but phenomena appear nonetheless, and in that sense they are real - as appearances. Not because they have some concrete existence, or that they arise from some underlying reality, and certainly not because they are perceived by any separate existing entity. Yet still, appearances appear. Do you deny that?

This is why illusion is used to illustrate the nature of phenomena. Because illusions appear, but are not real [vāstu].

If one regards these as unreal ("there is not what is given...") right off the bat, there's no point in virtue, wisdom or concentration.

If causality in buddhadharma is understood correctly, then there is no contradiction between illusion and the grasping to illusion through ignorance that involves karmic consequences.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


I’m just saying even the Pāli suttas state that phenomena are like magical illusion. No Buddhist teachings state that things are truly real. Or even real provisionally.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


If your ultimate goal is to reduce suffering (which is the ultimate goal of Buddhism), then the best practice is to live as though external phenomena are real.

How do you square this with Buddhist instructions to view all external phenomena as illusory, even inferentially? The answer is, you can’t.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


One thing you cannot deny is that your own experience is real (well, you can deny it, but that denial would be real as an experience) - And your own suffering is real.

Even the Pāli suttas deny the reality of such things. Telling people these things are “real” is adharma.

What does buddhism say about solipsism?


I am afraid other people are not real

According to these teachings there is nothing that is ultimately real, but that includes you which is why solipsism is negated. Relatively, we can accept that things have a conventional validity, so this also undermines solipsism.

on metaphysical questions


Yes, I agree friend, we should supply the answers to why they are unanswered. They are more sophisticated than the hand waving dismissal I’ve often seen when the questions come up.

The Mahā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra explains why the fourteen unanswered questions are unanswered:

To reply to the fourteen difficult questions would be to commit a fault. If you ask what type is the size or the physique of a son of a barren woman and an eunuch, that would not deserve an answer, for such a son does not exist.

I’m feeling really conflicted about living my life when I have direct family members who are unvaccinated and when my actions could lead to them contracting a severe case of COVID. What is the right practice?


Do try to be careful, but also bear in mind that they are putting themselves at risk and as grown adults, it isn’t your responsibility to protect them. If they don’t want to protect themselves, then wherever consequences result are their own fault. Obviously you love your family, but they are being careless. For example, if they all drove around without seatbelts on, clearly you would be concerned and wouldn’t want them to get injured, but at the same time they are making stupid choices. It’s not your responsibility. If they want to play stupid games they can win stupid prizes. You can care and love them while still understanding that they are being reckless and in this case, selfish.

Mahamudra meditation + eyes open: glasses or no glasses?


Whatever is comfortable for you is the best option.

Anatta and family dynamic


Yes, they are your children. Anātman is something like an ultimate realization, but we still have our relative lives and the relationships within our relative life. There is no need to relate to ourselves or others any differently than we normally would, apart from trying to be kind and compassionate.

Anātman is something to experientially realize, and when/if you have that realization you will know the real meaning and understand the implications of that in relation to your life. But until then just live your life as you normally would. There is no need to talk differently, no need to dress differently, no need to alter anything external. Enjoy your relationships, and allow yourself to have your usual personality and so on.

I'm interested in buddhism but my beliefs are split between Theravada and Mahayana


This is nonsense. People have karmic connections to certain teachings, and will obviously be attracted to those teachings. There is no other measure for a teaching aspirants will align with. If you have the karma for Mahāyāna then you’ll end up there. Vajrayāna, Theravada, all the same.

You are a śravāka fundamentalist so you have ulterior motives at all times, but it isn’t up to you despite any efforts on your part.

I accidentally got high after eating a cookie with weed in it (it was for my dad but it was chocolate chip and close to the other package of cookeis my grandma made) and I refrain from any drugs, meat, or sex as a part of my journey but im unsure as what to do right now


You are behind it all, friend.

A non-Buddhist view, but okay.

Emphasis on Jhana/Samadhi


Rather teachers from Tibetan tradition say that there is too much risk of ending up in heavenly realms so It's rather a waste of time. Is this true?

Samādhi is also cultivated in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna.

Tibetan traditions just warn about cultivating stillness [gnas pa] in the context of śamatha. If there is an overemphasis on stillness at the expense of movement [gyu ba] and knowing [shes pa], then you can err into formless absorptions [arūpayadhyāna]. Fixation on formless absorption is what Tibetan traditions attempt to avoid. Śamatha should be evenly balanced, stillness-movement-knowing all balanced, and then vipaśyāna will arise.

Also, the dhyānas [jhanas] are important in Tibetan traditions. My teacher has said that there are a lot of Tibetan expositions on cultivating jhana but they just haven’t been translated yet because other topics have taken precedence.

Did the Buddha drink alcohol?


The topic is nuanced, but from the horse’s mouth itself:

...We can understand why vows exist and why people take them. So, for example, the principle for a Dzogchen practitioner is not to take a vow, but relatively, if it is necessary, for example, we must be present and know how our real condition is. So in the time of Buddha Shakyamuni, for most people who followed the teaching of the Buddha, like Hinayana, the basic principle was to take vows. So, it is not a kind of Buddhist system, but it is related with the condition of the individual.

You see, in the time of Buddha Shakyamuni the teaching of Mahayana also developed. It is not always indispensable to take a vow in Mahayana. Of course, many practitioners take vows and apply them. The principle is not the vow, the Mahayana principle is the training. Training means that when you have no capacity, you train and you construct that capacity. Not everybody has the capacity to control themselves. So, if you have the possibility and need to take a vow you can, but it is not necessary. But in most of our traditions, particularly in Buddhist Sutra style, even if they are practicing Mahayana and Vajrayana, they give too much importance to the receiving of vows.

[...]

This is a good example of how people see and think. They think a vow is very important. A vow is important if you have no capacity. First if you discover that you have no capacity, you try to do some training for constructing the Mahayana system. If you do not have even this capacity, then you take vows. In the Hinayana Vinaya system there are many different kinds of vows. For example, we say Nacig Chodpa[1], which means there is only one vow you can take for overcoming one problem. If you cannot stop drinking alcohol, for example you take only this vow. Then Naga Chodpa[2] is different and it means taking more taking than one vow. All people who take this kind of lower vow are called genyen. In Sanskrit it is called upasaka. That means they are taking only a few vows and they are paying respect to these vows and overcoming these kinds of problems. There are these vows Naga Chodpa or Nacig Chodpa, and then there are also superior vows when we become monks and nuns. Of course, there are so many rules, not only one. How did all these rules develop? In the time of the Buddha Shakyamuni, Buddha said there were certain activities not to be done. Then more and more rules arose, one by one; some are heavier and some are less heavy.

Particularly if you read and you study Vinaya, there are many explanations called Drugde[3]. This means there were six monks creating problems. Each time these monks were doing something strange, Shariputra, one of the best students of Buddha Shakyamuni, explained to Buddha and Buddha said, “Oh, they cannot do that.” So, basically when you are taking a vow then you know very well Chomnga[4] – the five rules that are the most important. If you apply these actions, then your vow is completely broken. The second heavier vow is called Lhagma Chusum[5]; there are also thirteen that are very heavy. Even if you did only one of these thirteen actions, you have not completely broken your vow but you should do purification.

Perfect monks should be in a monastery, because in a monastery there is a Sangha of monks and nuns. You should do purification each time there is a full moon and a new moon, two times a month at least. That is called sojong. So means if something is missing then you are adding. Jong means if you did something negative you are purifying that. Some Western monks and nuns are going to the East so they can receive vows of monks and nuns, and then they are returning and living ordinary lives. That is a wrong choice. If you want to be monks and nuns then you should be in the Sangha. Sangha means at least four monks or nuns together; this is called Sangha. Even if there are three monks or nuns, it is not a Sangha.

You should also receive a vow in the Vinaya system from the Sangha. In the Sangha there is one elder one called neten. When you first receive a vow, there are, for example, twenty questions or so. For example they ask, “Do you have some responsibility for your family?” You should say “no.” If you have some responsibility to your family you cannot receive a vow. There are so many of these kinds of questions. The neten, the older one, asks these questions. There are some three other monks, at least, who are listening and have understood; they have understood that this person does not have these conditions and can receive this vow. And when there is something a protagonist needs to ask or say, the older one is doing that. But the older one is not becoming a Vajrayana teacher, he is only the oldest in the Sangha.

The vow is received from the Sangha. Also when you do purification you need at least four monks and nuns and then you can purify, otherwise it is not sufficient. So you see, we can understand that if you are monks and nuns in the Hinayana style you should be in a group of the Sangha. Otherwise it is better that you don’t take this vow, because when you take this vow and you are not doing purification, for example, if you do not purify for one month, two months, three months, etc., these thirteen heavier actions become just like the first five. Then you are automatically breaking your vow. If you do not pay respect to the vow in a precise way, if you have broken it and you have not renounced the vow, it continues to develop and creates problems. If someone has studied Vinaya well, they understand...

http://melong.com/ati-yoga-teaching-retreat/

Did the Buddha drink alcohol?


At a point I don't know that this is actually entirely correct

As a Vajrayāna practitioner, the Vajrayāna samaya precepts trump the pratimokṣa, according to teachers like Norbu Rinpoche at least.

You can observe śravāka precepts but are in no way bound by them. Renunciation contradicts pure vision which is the foundation for all Vajrayāna practice. Also why contemplating the body as a disgusting, decaying sack of flesh is a common meditation in the Śravākayāna but is diametrically opposed to Vajrayāna.

Did the Buddha drink alcohol?


Other awakened beings in the annals of Buddhist history have drank alcohol. The mahāsiddha Virupa for example, a beer enthusiast, stopped the sun and moon so the same day persisted and he didn’t have to pay a bar tab.

Many of these mahāsiddhas could drink large amounts of alcohol without becoming inebriated.

Alcohol in Vajrayāna is commonplace, because apart from renouncing samsara, it isn’t a renunciant system in terms of methodology. The pratimokṣa precepts do not necessarily apply, although they can be followed if the practitioner chooses. Vajrayāna has its own set of precepts, in which alcohol is not forbidden.

Is the Awakening a gradual process or a sudden revelation?


Satori is the beginning of the zen path.

Is the Awakening a gradual process or a sudden revelation?


In every Buddhist system the process of attaining liberation involves a series of sudden epiphanies accompanied by instances of equipoise involving yogapratyaksa, or a yogic direct perception of the nature of phenomena, which in the beginning are short, but gradually increase in duration with integration and stability, until that equipoise is eventually unbroken at the time of buddhahood. As such there is a series of sudden instances of awakening that gradually increase in duration until one no longer regresses from that awakened state. This is how it is both sudden and gradual at the same time.

This is true for Śravākayāna, Mahāyāna, including zen/chan, and Vajrayāna, including Dzogchen.

Also, full buddhahood is possible in one single instant, for those with little dust on their mirror from previous lives of practice. However it is said such beings are more rare than stars in the daytime.

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


A lot of Westerners turn towards Buddhism after being raised in a theistic environment because it is considered to be a rational spiritual path. People are still unpacking a lot of trauma and bias. It’s easy to react to ones religious trauma by picking a new religion that seems to fit ones ideas better and then use that new religion to slam the old one.

This really portrays those who criticize or critique monotheism as extremely superficial and petty. Which is not an accurate depiction. There are deep and influential issues at play, and troubling histories and patterns. To dismiss all of that and pretend as of naysayers are engaging in mere knee-jerk, immature rebellion of prior religious alignments is absurd.

Even in playing devil’s advocate, if there indeed was a percentage of people who did fall under that category of railing against childhood religion, there are many outspoken critics who are exempt due to being born and raised Buddhist, etc. Some in this very thread.

You’re going to have to try harder than that.

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


I think of the monks in the local monasteries of my area, and know that if they saw the speech many people were spreading here, they would say they were not following the Buddha's teachings.

Doctrinal polemics in Buddhism have historically been much more vicious. Look at Vasubandhu’s criticisms of monotheism and ātmavāda in general. Calling them “stupid ignorant” people. And laughing at people worshipping a blood thirsty monotheist deity.

Our criticisms and critiques have been pretty tame in comparison.

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


It is Colonialism to argue there is an uncaused cause?

First causes are explicitly/expressly rejected in Buddhism. Dependent origination renders them impossibilities.

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


Be honest with yourself, was your speech free of divisiveness or abusiveness?

Yes, without question.

What is the practical difference between hating Christianity and strongly disliking it?

Upāya.

Of course, you can think that Christianity has a negative effect on sentient beings, but harbouring such ill will is surely unskillful, no?

Christianity is an ideology. It will not suffer if I dislike it. I have not directly attacked any Christian adherents. All of my comments are directed and the theological ideology and it’s cultural implications. If my Christian friends are not mature enough to have that conversation, that is actually their problem.

is not going to change the minds of any Christians.

I am not out to change anyone.

You are actively pushing people away from Buddhism by displaying such callousness.

All of my comments have centered around a well thought out theme of issues. The fact that you have fixated on one or two incendiary comments of mine featured at the tail end of many other arguments is again, not my problem. There is a conversation to be had. If Christians cannot handle that then perhaps the Internet is not appropriate for them.

If you truly want to stop people from being Christian or sympathizing with the religion, were those really the words that were going to accomplish that task?

I don’t want to stop anyone from doing anything. I’m simply asking people to think, perhaps take notice of some things. What they do ultimately is not my business. Nor my interest.

Your speech is not directed at a person you know

Correct. Religions are not people.

It is likely that someone has read your words and felt worse because of them,

This is because belief systems rest on belief. When criticized constructively or otherwise, there is much to defend, much to doubt, that causes dissonance, it is unsettling, scary. The fear of monotheists is overwhelming, which is why they must objectively solidify their beliefs through proselytization, conquest, cultural cleansing, cultural dominance. These objective actions provide the illusion of stability and confirmation. And now I must protect their feelings, as if any of that matters in the face of all these other aforementioned issues. The environment has been subjugated, animals have been subjugated, races and cultures have been subjugated. Sorry to “hurt their feelings.”

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


This is not Right Speech.

It is semi-constructive rhetoric at least. Tirthikas are called tirthikas for a reason, mind you. Forders, who wade into the river but cannot cross to the other shore. But beyond that classification, there are other integral issues with monotheism that affect sentient beings in other widespread ways.

but on specific hate of Christianity.

I don’t hate Christianity, but I do strongly dislike it. I view such worldviews to be problematic, and that is a conversation that should be had. Compassion is more than just being kind. Sometimes the kindest thing a person can do is to point out issues that have the potential to create strife.

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


Don't forget that Buddhism has also been used to justify some pretty horrible stuff.

Nowhere close to the same scale.

Christianity teaches pacifism and love

Sometimes it is the implications of views that create the monsters via their subconscious imprint on the cultural psyche. Often people don’t even realize how views they harbor due to cultural conditioning derived from Christianity affect the collective attitude towards relationships, be they personal, interspecies, environmental, economic, etc. The influence of Christianity is so deeply engrained that the tie to Christianity even becomes obfuscated, but it is there. And Christian imperialism and colonialism is directly responsible. Really Christianity is one of the greatest and wondrous expressions of human ignorance. Truly delusional and barbaric.

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


It's a tendency among disaffected youth who grew up with strict religious parents and took issue with the religion as they grew to question it

And/or a tendency amongst those who are aware of Christian history and the insidious effect that their views and expansion campaigns, whether syncretic or violent, have had on the world.

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


A hateful judgemental Buddhist is no different from a Christian of the same nature.

Monotheism has been a destructive force in the world, and Christianity is an easy target in that regard, rightfully or wrongfully.,

Im getting a little sick of Christians trying to scare me out of buddhism and into Christianity


Correct me if I’m wrong, but you would say this exact same thing about the human realm we’re experiencing now

Conventionally it is accepted that you are a separate and distinct individuals in the human realm. In the hell realm it is just you and the hell guardians (who are likewise unreal, even conventionally), there are no other actual sentient beings. Only wailing and screaming is heard which makes it seem like there are other sentient beings present.

is tantra only about sex?


when i first heard about tantra, i thought sex was only one aspect of it. i’ve tried to do more research and find books about it, but i can only find information about tantric sex.

I would just look up “Vajrayāna.”

The term “tantra” which is apparently a 20th century anachronism as it is, has been broadly co-opted by many new age spiritual fads, with an overemphasis on sex. Sure, the term is used to refer to Vajrayāna in some legitimate settings, and traditionally refers to a classification of texts, medical and esoteric, but overall in researching “tantra” you’re going to find a lot of nonsense. Therefore, just research Vajrayāna.

There is too much hate towards other religions on this sub


Christofascism, Christian imperialism, Christian colonialism, not to mention how Christian world views have culturally influenced how people treat the environment, other sentient beings and so on.

This subreddit and the intellectualization of the dharma.


Essentially, what I mean to say is that there should be a push towards daily practice and away from scholarly discussions

Scholarly discussion is part of daily practice.

Im getting a little sick of Christians trying to scare me out of buddhism and into Christianity


There are six lōkas, meaning realms or destinations, in samsara. The narāka or “hell” realm is one of them.

Somewhat different than the Christian hell though. Buddhist hell is not actually a literal place, it appears like a literal place to those who experience it, but it is something like an extremely long and negative mental state which involves the projection of a hell environment.

What exactly gets stuck in the cycle of samsara?


If there is no self, then what is "it" what gets stuck in the cycle of samsara?

The mindstream.

Is Buddhism atheistic?


of the language, Buddhist teaching is of madhyama, which necessarily means that it is neither theist or atheist.

While true, this is still arguable as to whether madhyama would disqualify Buddhism from being classified as atheist. The middle way, despite the optics, does involve a strong theme of non-affirming negation when it comes to the ultimate truth of all phenomena. As such we can say there are attributes of Buddhism which appear to contradict atheism on the level of conventional truth, but conventional truth is also held to be ultimately unestablished. Madhyama carries certain implications, but wholesale indeterminacy regarding atheism/theism does not really apply.

Buddhadharma is held to be atheist because dependent origination forbids a creator deity, which means there is no creator god. No divine providence. No higher power. Instead these teachings cover how the mind becomes afflicted and how it can be cured of affliction. Sure, conventionally there are aspects taken on inference and testimony, such as karma, rebirth, other unseen sentient beings, but these are also just aspects of dependent origination. Arguably the consequence of dependent origination.

I find this to be an interesting and multi-faceted topic. Buddhism can be a religion, of course, but still it is an atheist dharma, and that is okay. Despite being an atheist dharma we as Buddhists can still have a rich menagerie of religious aspects on the level of convention. It does not need to be black or white in that regard. And I would argue that is the real means by which madhyama is upheld.

To Establish the Middle Position on One Truth or Two Truths? A Survey Based on the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā and Its Commentaries


Even Nāgārjuna himself proclaims there is really only one truth.

Regarding Anatta, why can't consciousness/awareness be considered a form of self?


The mind is expressed as consciousness, and appears as a self when you are afflicted by ignorance. When you are free of ignorance, you are free of selfhood, and the mind is expressed as gnosis.

What does it mean by "selflessness in objects?"


If this is true then nothing would ever arise at all.

In actuality, there is nothing that has ever arisen. We dwell in samsara because we fail to recognize that.

What does it mean by "selflessness in objects?"


It means realizing emptiness and seeing that objects are illusory.

The Jñānaguhyatantra:

If one knows that everything is like an illusion, a dream, lightening, or a cloud, one wil be liberated.

The Eight Examples of Illusion [sgyu ma'i dpe brgyad] actually illustrate a lack of self in objects perfectly:

(i) Dream: like a dream, objects perceived with the five senses are not there, but they appear through delusion.

(ii) Magical illusion: like a magic illusion, things are made to appear due to the temporary coming together of causes and conditions.

(iii) Hallucination or trompe-l'oeil: like a hallucination, things appear, yet there is nothing there.

(iv) Mirage: like a mirage, things appear, but they are not real.

(v) Echo: like an echo, things can be perceived, but there is nothing there, either inside or outside.

(vi) City of gandharvas [etherial spirits]: like a city of gandharvas, there is neither a dwelling nor anyone to dwell.

(vii) Reflection: like a reflection, things appear, but have no reality of their own.

(viii) Apparition: like an apparition, there are different types of appearances, but they are not really there.

How to control lust


And I laughed as I mused at what I am going to say to a therapist about this issue. So I didn't go, but OP could hopefully phrase it better than I can below. 'Looking at butts makes my willy feel nice?'

A healthy sexual appetite is normal. What the therapist will help with is trying to identify the root of the addiction. If OP truly suffers from a diagnosable addiction, then the addiction is a symptom of something deeper going on.

How to control lust


Addicted. Once I get an urge it feels near impossible to control myself.

Well Buddhism is of course great in many ways and I’m sure it can help you, but have you considered therapy? Or some sort of clinical help such as rehabilitation?

How to control lust


You’re actually addicted? Or you’re just very interested in sex and have a high sex drive? Because those are two different things, and sometimes the term “addicted” is used liberally to describe a keen and enthusiastic interest.

Imperative to be clear on this distinction because that clarity will set the stage for two different conversations.

transcendence


I’m not saying anything about the luminosity of the mind, but to believe there is a mind to be free from birth and death is a belief in self.

The mindstream is not a self, it is an aggregated and causal rosary of discrete instances of cognition. Each instance acting as cause and effect of the antecedent and ensuing moments. Delusion occurs when that conventional continuum is mistaken to be a self via the afflictive processes of serial dependent origination. But there is no self nor anything that resembles a self in actuality. We only experience a self because of ignorance [avidyā].

Despite being a conventionally discrete continuum, the mindstream is not an entity, not an identity, and does not produce any entity or identity. Entityhood and identity are byproducts of ignorance [avidyā]. When that ignorance is present, the mind is expressed as vijñāna, when that ignorance is removed, the mind is expressed in its natural state as jñāna.

Regarding the absence of a self in the proliferation of causal conditions related to the skandhas, the Pratītyadsamutpādakarika states:

Empty (insubstantial and essenceless) dharmas (phenomena) are entirely produced from dharmas strictly empty; dharmas without a self and [not] of a self. Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals, fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes. Although the aggregates are serially connected, the wise are to comprehend nothing has transferred.

There is no self involved in any of these processes at any time.

There is no “You” apart from perceptions and the skandhas

Indeed. There is no you apart from the I-making and mine-making that is imputed onto the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus.

There is no intrinsic, luminous mind which appears to be your belief.

Correct. The luminosity of mind is completely illusory and unreal, yet despite that fact, it appears to awakened āryas and tathāgatas and is described in all Buddhist teachings.

It’s also incredibly, incredibly dishonest to claim this is a Theravadin view. Outright lying.

It is 100% a Theravadin view. Theravada speaks explicitly and clearly about the mind’s luminosity, gnosis, consciousness without surface and the deathless [amaraṇīya] nature that is known to the awakened. To state that these are not integral themes found all throughout Theravadin literature is egregious and completely misrepresents the Pāli Canon.

transcendence


There is no self to be pure from birth and death.

Correct, but the dharmatā of mind is not a self. When one’s mindstream is purified of the affliction of self, it is expressed as natural luminosity [prabhāsvara] i.e., gnosis [jñāna].

The Ārya-laṅkāvatāra-mahāyāna-sūtra states:

Purified of the afflictions, abandoned by meditation and seeing, the mind is naturally luminous, the pure tathāgatagarbha; but the addictions of sentient beings are boundless and endless. Just as when the surface of gold is polished, one sees the gold color, the brilliant shine and the pure surface, in just that way is the sentient being in the aggregates. The supreme ones have always shown the inexhaustible wisdom of the Buddha to be peace, without a person, without the aggregates. The natural luminosity of the mind endowed with the affliction of mind and so on, along with [the affliction of] self possesses temporary afflictions from the start, naturally luminosity can be purified of the affliction of self, just like a [stained] cloth. Just as the flaws of either cloth or gold can be cleansed because they are [intrinsically] stainless, which neither remain nor are destroyed, and likewise have the nature of being flawless.

This the view of every Buddhist system, even the Pāli Canon which discusses the luminosity of mind explicitly.

This might be the view of some obscure Mahayana Sect but is absolutely not the view of Buddhism at large.

It is the view of Śravākayāna, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. The Pāli Canon refers to the exact same luminous nature:

”Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}

This is the same import as the above cited sūtra, this theme permeates all Buddhist teachings.

Gnosis [jñāna] which is a synonym for luminosity [prabhāsvara] is also discussed in the Pāli Canon. For example:

Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch." — Ud 5.5

Gnosis is also discussed in the Chinese and Tibetan canons, and taught in every system. Why? Because the mind of a Buddha is pure gnosis [jñāna].

Too misleading to a newcomer not to be corrected.

Incidentally, you are the one who requires correcting. But your concern is clearly sincere. You just need to study the teachings further.

transcendence


Definitely not a belief in self, and is 100% the view of buddhadharma, without question.

Am I no longer a Buddhist if I can’t stop drinking?


And I am I no longer a Buddhist because I keep getting drunk?

You can still be a Buddhist. You are allowed to be a human with flaws and so on. But keep trying to drink less, as this is advised. Just do your best.

“Buddhism is not a religion”


I think what they're trying to say is that they don't count Buddhism as a religion because it is not true in itself and is just a path to realize ultimate truth. Because ultimate truth is ineffable, no systematized version of it can actually be true.

Norbu Rinpoche is really just trying to convey that the true meaning of the dharma is the awakened gnosis, which is what Śākyamuni discovered, and then provided instruction to others so they could discover that gnosis for themselves.

Śākyamuni states in the Ārya-lalitavistara-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra:

I have obtained the ambrosia of Dharma, profound, peaceful, immaculate, luminous and unconditioned. Even though I explain it, no one will understand, I think I will remain in the forest without speaking. Free from words, untrained by speech, suchness, the nature of Dharma, is like space, free from the movements of mind and intellect, supreme, amazing, the sublime knowledge. Always like space, nonconceptual, luminous, the teaching without periphery or center is expressed in this Dharmawheel. Free from existence and nonexistence, beyond self and nonself, the teaching of natural nonarising is expressed in this Dharmawheel.

That said nature is ineffable is not the point. And this is why I would disagree that no systematized version can be true. The systematized methods can indeed be true, and concepts can be accurate, that is no issue, but the lived, nonconceptual, awakened state is experiential, like tasting sugar. And for that reason it is important to acknowledge that while the systematized approaches with all of their varied imagery and customs can be a religion, the goal of those approaches is not a religion in the sense of being an aspect of a belief system. It is not an idea found in an old book. It is something to experientially know via direct personal intuitive epiphany and discovery. All the Buddha intended to do, was to communicate that living dimension of gnosis. That is what Norbu Rinpoche means.

“Buddhism is not a religion”


My root teacher, Chögyal Namkhai Norbu who was a native Tibetan and had genuine education in Buddhist monasteries (stating this so it is clear he is not advocating for any species of western revisionism) said, regarding the Buddha’s teaching being a religion:

In general, people say, “We are following Dharma,” and speak of it as a kind of religion created by Buddha Shakyamuni. That is not a correct point of view. Buddha never created any kind of school or religion. Buddha was a totally enlightened being, someone beyond our limited point of view. The teaching of the Buddha is to have presence in that knowledge.

Also my current teacher, who is a westerner, but is very traditional and conservative when it comes to accurately representing, translating and teaching buddhadharma (really the furthest from a secular Buddhist possible) has said the following:

Religare, the probable origin of the term religion, means "to bind," which is the opposite of what Dharma intends, which is to free... I personally do not relate to the words "religion" or "spirituality" — I am neither religious nor am I "spiritual." And I am definitely more irreverent than reverent.

Dharma is beyond “spirituality” and “religion.”

The two terms, "religion" and "spirituality," really do not have correlative terms in either Tibetan or Sanskrit. In Tibetan, the term chos [skt. dharma] is the imperative form another term, 'cos, which in one of its meanings, means "to correct." It can also mean a tradition (lugs srol, defined as the continuation of a past custom).

The term "Dharma" in Sanskrit is well defined, but there is nothing in the ten definitions of dharma that corresponds to either terms "religion" or "spirituality."

Dharma simply means in this context, setting things straight. If one wants to be free of suffering, etc., one must get set straight on a few things. I just say I practice Dharma. Whose Dharma? Buddha's Dharma. I don't consider myself to be either a particularly religious or spiritual person.

transcendence


In all Buddhist traditions reality is what it is, but you either recognize that nature and possess an accurate knowledge [vidyā] of it, or you have failed to recognize that nature and dwell in ignorance [avidyā].

Sentient beings all dwell in avidyā. We do not correctly perceive phenomena.

I’m not sure what “older” tradition you are referencing, but the gnosis that accompanies vidyā is cultivated in every system and tradition.

Buddha Śākyamuni says in The Questions of Kāśyapa:

Question: If sentient beings are buddhas by nature, just what is the difference between buddhas and sentient beings?

The Buddha answers: They both differ not in nature, but differ by virtue of realization and non-realization.

transcendence


i saw that it’s connected to many religions so i wanted to ask the buddhists here what the general view on transcendence is

For Buddhists, the true nature of our mind and the universe, is innately pure, perfected, free from birth and death and is completely unconditioned, but, we fail to recognize this due to ignorance and afflictive obscurations which veil said nature of reality. Thus Buddhist practice involves purifying the mind of ignorance and affliction, so we see the way things really are. Through knowledge of the way things are, which is stabilized and increased by virtue of removing the aforementioned obscurations, we actualize a release from our delusion which binds us, and we are liberated.

As such, we aim to transcend our own limitations in the form of ignorance and afflictive obscurations.

Can non-Buddists experience enlightenment or Nirvana?


I agree in one context, but in another context there is also awakening as defined by Hindus, awakening as defined by Sikhs, awakening as defined by Shaivism, etc.

Awakening and liberation expresses itself in different ways according to underlying assumptions and views. This is why Sapan says kusalis, meaning practitioners who only focus on meditation without any underlying inferential view derived from the prajñās of hearing and reflection, are at distinct disadvantage when compared to panditas who possess all three prajñās. Those panditas are “closer to buddhahood,” by virtue of possessing knowledge of right view.

Can non-Buddists experience enlightenment or Nirvana?


I’m surprised with all these no’s… a person can open their spiritual awakening/ awareness without Buddhism. It happened to Eckhart Toelle and others I’ve heard about.

There are different types of spiritual awakening, and liberation is even defined differently in different religions and systems. The point is that liberation as defined by the buddhadharma is only available to those who engage in the methodologies of the buddhadharma in accordance with right view and so on. Principally dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda], which is an exclusively Buddhist view.

Like Buddhapālita states:

Because we [Buddhists], in the correct way, see the nonexistence of the self existence of things which appear because the sun of dependent origination arose, because of that, because we see the truth, liberation can be accepted only for us.

Can non-Buddists experience enlightenment or Nirvana?


In buddhadharma, liberation is only available to those who practice the dharma as taught by the Buddhas. This, however, is quite different than the judgy Christian “you can only go to heaven if you accept Christ” type nonsense. The reason liberation as defined by Buddhism is only available to those who practice the Buddhist path has to do with what is called “right view,” which in beginners, is a type of inferential view that acts as the basis for the path. The path is potent because it is supported by right view.

As such this is quite different than saying you can’t be liberated because you don’t accept Jesus into your heart. And rather has to do with an underlying view of phenomena which is conducive to progress and awakening as defined in Buddhist teachings. Akin to wanting to build a certain muscle and needing to lift weights in a certain way, with certain form, with a certain diet, otherwise there will be no result. It isn’t that the god of the gym is judging you as to whether you succeed or not. It is all about your own execution of the method in accordance with proper knowledge and technique.

Hopefully that makes sense.

A doubt about Soulmates


The following is essentially the Buddhist view of something like soulmates:

Samajivina Sutta: Living in Tune AN 4.55 PTS: A ii 61 (exceprt)

As they were sitting there, Nakula's father said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since Nakula's mother as a young girl was brought to me [to be my wife] when I was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to her even in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."

And Nakula's mother said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since I as a young girl was brought to Nakula's father [to be his wife] when he was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to him even in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."

[The Blessed One said:] "If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come, they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment. Then they will see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."

What happens to a Buddha after they die?


I’ll take a look at the Rigpa Rangshar and Longchenpa’s seven treasuries, principally the Tshig don mdzod to start. But as I’m interested if there is a specific exposition on the topic, if I come up short with my own resources, I’ll check with my teacher.

The Four Great Elements in Buddhism?


The element of air represents the experience of movement and motility in Buddhist philosophy.

In the sane way earth element represents perception of solidity. Water represents liquid of any type. Fire represents heat and growth. Space represents a lack of obstruction and spatial dimension.

These elements categorize and illustrate all experiencable phenomena.

What happens to a Buddha after they die?


Particularly to the comment of animuseternal. How does our tradition articulate it?

Seems close to the same. In especially Dzogchen teachings practitioners who actualize buddhahood go through the bardo sequence while still alive, and upon death it is like a Garuda hatching from an egg fully matured into full flight.

As for specific teachings on Buddhas after physical death in Vajrayāna, I’d have to research. Experientially, for Buddhas everything is the five lights of jñāna, originally pure and naturally perfected free from birth and death.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


These arent politics

Unbeknownst to you, pro-life and pro-choice are both legislative positions, and a stringent disparity that exists for hardline conservative Christians. For the rest of us, there is context and nuance.

Try to avoid being conditioned by Abrahamic monotheist fundamentalists.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


Damn a lot of consciousnesses floating in and out of clumps of cells that are miscarried without the “mother” even knowing

Indeed, as texts like the Ārya Āyuṣman Nanda Garbhāvakrānti Nirdeśa state:

Then, the Bhagavan said this to Āyusman Nanda, “Nanda, when a sentient being wishes to enter the womb, if causes and conditions are perfect, a body will appropriated. However, if [the causes and conditions] are not perfect, a body will not be appropriated.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


So combining the Buddhist understanding with science gives a very different picture.

You’re of course welcome to believe this if you like. I disagree based on the fact that the gandhārva is said to be present even at the time of intercourse. The consciousness decends into the womb as soon as fertilization occurs. Pregnancy is not possible without these combined factors.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


Entry into the womb is traditionally considered to occur at the moment of conception. Pregnancy is not possible unless the intermediate state aggregate is present and seeking a womb.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


Consciousness decends upon conception.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


The fact that I am debating the buddhists opinion on life being precious is laughable.

No one is debating that life is precious. Nor is anyone debating that practitioners of the buddhadharma should refrain from killing.

But it is not our job to police other people. Despite the fact that taking life is considered wrong, and abortion should be avoided when possible, hardline pro-life politics have absolutely no place in Buddhism.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


It’s common for properties to post signs to prohibit people from trespassing and hunting.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


Pro-Life is more than a Christian thing.

Hardline pro-life is a Christian thing.

Nearly every temple I have visited has had a no hunting rule on its grounds.

Yes, because Buddhist practitioners should avoid taking life.

If other peoples choices are their own, then why would this exist?

Buddhist precepts are merely guidelines which help the individual to avoid engaging in activity which will result in a karmic debt. But it is up to each and every individual what their choices are. If someone makes a choice to have an abortion, feels it is necessary, and is okay with the karmic consequences, then it is not any of our business. Our business is guarding our own conduct and doing our best to benefit other beings. But we cannot control others.

I’m very curious to know more about the “Bardo” state, for reasons I will explain.


I guess my question is this: can those who are trapped in the Bardo truly visit anywhere, even if it is in our dreams?

Yes, it is possible.

Are you pro choice when it comes to abortions?


Hard stance “pro-life” is a Christian thing.

While we can acknowledge the issues with abortion, we as Buddhists should never be hardline pro-life in the sense of campaigning to prevent and outlaw abortion. Other people’s choices are their own. If it is the fetuses’ karma to be aborted, then it will be aborted.

Concept of no self


Anatta only means there is no established, underlying, subjective knower of phenomena. No seer of sights, no hearer of sounds, no feeler of tactile sensation, no taster of tastes, no thinker of thought, and so on. The apparent internal reference point that we take to be a knower is a false construct of dependently originated afflictive conditions. The same goes for objects, but the lack of essence in objects is really only emphasized in certain systems.

The Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā defines anātman:

Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that, is selflessness [anātman].

Is there a way to meditate at work with your eyes open?


Meditation is generally best with all the sense doors open, including the eyes.

Is there a way to meditate at work with your eyes open?


In many Buddhist systems the senses are not blocked off at all and one would want to avoid noise cancelling headphones.

Why is lust so hard to overcome for us guys?


Lust does not disappear until the higher bhūmis, meaning you have to be quite realized and essentially close to buddhahood.

Sadness about ‘surplus’ frozen embryos


Gandhārva is just a name for the series of skandhas in the intermediate state between lives.

Sadness about ‘surplus’ frozen embryos


I just skimmed the essay which someone else linked above and it seems like when the embryo is considered a sentient being is not at the moment of conception, but later on.

In Mahāyāna abhidharma the sentient being forms at the moment of conception because the consciousness decends into the womb at that moment.

Sadness about ‘surplus’ frozen embryos


Those are not sentient beings according to Buddhism

The source says they are sentient beings. Sentient beinghood begins at the moment of conception in Buddhist teachings, the fact that science allows conception to occur outside the womb in this scenario does not negate that conception occurs.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how IFV works though. After reading u/animuseternal’s post, conception could feasibly occur when the embryo is implanted but generally a fetus only develops because consciousness has decended into it, so not sure what to make of it.

[deleted by user]


Nirvana is just the complete cessation of cause for the arising of samsara.

[deleted by user]


No, it isn’t.

If nirvana is existent then it is conditioned.

This is why nirvana is taught to be illusory, and even non-existent ultimately.

Question on artificial intelligence in regards to rebirths


Buddha nature [tathāgatagarbha] is just a name for dharmakāya, the nature [dharmatā] of mind, encased in obscurations. Thus to be a sentient being, that being must have a mindstream in order to have a nature of mind that could be obscured or unobscured.

Question on artificial intelligence in regards to rebirths


In the lotus born story he is a nirmanakaya, an emanation.

There is also a Bönpo history of Padmasambhava where he was born naturally.

The Bön state he had a father (Drenpa Namkha), mother (Nyimai Nyingpo Obarma) and a twin brother Yungdrung Donsal a.k.a. Tsewang Rigdzin.

Question on artificial intelligence in regards to rebirths


If there is a respiratory system then there is vāyu present that is sustaining the mind.

The other issue is that new mindstreams are not created, thus a mindstream would have to be reborn in the artificial body.

On top of that, this mindstream is ultimately the dharmakāya. It is just insanely unlikely that any process of science could construct anything which could adequately sustain the wondrous and incredibly profound nature of consciousness.

Consciousness constructs this apparent material reality, not the other way around. Science just has no clue what it is dealing with. It is far beyond their comprehension.

Question on artificial intelligence in regards to rebirths


Robot bodies can be made to approximate human bodies.

There are so many subtle, even organic processes in a yogic sense, that a robot would just utterly lack, especially given that the vast majority of western science is completely ignorant of these processes. How could they construct a body to sustain consciousness when they presently do not understand consciousness or the physiology behind conscious embodiment?

Question on artificial intelligence in regards to rebirths


Could be dangerous to prejudge. I guess a wait and see attitude could be better. Since consciousness can be in mind made bodies, formless realms, hell, all sorts of animals,

Yes but it is always the same series of causal aggregates which just appropriate a new body. Even in formless realms there is always a subtle body. I don’t see how the mindstream could somehow enter a fully formed artificial body, not to mention how that body could sufficiently sustain that consciousness. Western science does not even understand organic consciousness presently, nor does modern science understand the physiology behind consciousness. For example, the standard contemporary view is that mind is an epiphenomena of the brain, which is inaccurate.

Question on artificial intelligence in regards to rebirths


How would the mind be sustained? There would be an organic body with vāyu to move the consciousness? I just don’t see how the organic machine that is our body could be replicated artificially. There are many processes that keep the mindstream embodied. Also the consciousness resides in the anahatabindu, which is both conditioned and unconditioned. I just don’t see how it could be possible to replicate something so wondrous. Our bodies are perfect, organic, dependently originated vehicles for the mind.

Also the mahāprānavāyu and vijñāna which contains the other four skandhas in a “disembodied” sentient being would have to take birth in the artificial apparatus, the artificial body. I’m skeptical as to whether contemporary science which is based on materialism and Cartesianism would be able to construct an adequate body.

My Drikung teacher, Drubpon Gongpo Dorje said only organic and natural bodies can sustain the mindstream. He said that it would be impossible for AI to attain buddhahood.

Question on artificial intelligence in regards to rebirths


If humans ever created sentient (truly sentient) artificial intelligence, would those AI have Buddha nature?

The AI would lack a mindstream, so it would not have buddha nature.

Assuming the story of Jesus was true, what kind of phenomena was that in Buddhist's perspective?


Imagine the virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus were all true (historically happened).

There are also virgin births, miracles and resurrections in Buddhist teachings.

Nirmanakaya emanations, siddhis and resurrecting the dead (as long as the aggregates haven’t broken up).

What are some good Buddhist Critiques of Shankara?


Maybe try Shantarakshita‘s Tattvasamgraha. There is a section with critiques of Advaita Vedanta.

Any teachings on formlessness or emptiness?


You won’t get emptiness of mind by filling it up with teachings on how to be formless and empty.

This is actually the opposite of what Buddhist teachings state. Instead, a well rounded intellectual understanding is like washing out water trapped in an ear with more water.

How do people typically react when you tell them you are a practicing Buddhist?


I don’t tell anyone.

Emptiness is empty?


If emptiness is non-reductive, there is no "emptiness of emptiness" from the beginning and as "empty" is canceled from the beginning it is unnecessary, and misleading, as a descriptive.

Emptiness is the cure for your ignorance, or avidyā, and since avidyā afflicts your mind, it is necessary for you to realize emptiness.

Also, one could say that all entities are established (and not established) from the beginning, except, as there is no beginning, there is nothing "to be established" (since all phenomena are inherently established) and it is unnecessary, and misleading, to mention or discuss either from the start.

This is nonsensical and has no relevance to the topic.

Emptiness is empty?


Appearances would still manifest, but they would not be experienced as substantial entities, objects, persons, places or things.

It would be akin to realizing phenomena are like a dream. Apparent, but not real objects. Like a tiger in a dream is apparent, but there is not actually a tiger there. In realizing emptiness, the appearance or basis for the designation of an object like a car would appear, but you would know there is no car there. Only an illusion.

You would experience the entire universe as being devoid of substance, like a mirage.

Emptiness is empty?


Emptiness is an insight that removes a type of ignorance which causes you to perceive conditioned phenomena that are not actually real. Because you perceive conditioned phenomena you aim to recognize that said phenomena are empty. Realizing emptiness is the antidote to the problem. However, once you realize the emptiness of the phenomena in question, and realize said phenomena was false from the very beginning, what phenomena are left to be empty? There must be an entity to be empty, but if you realize the entity was a misconception from the start, then how can there be an empty entity? How can there be emptiness?

Realizing emptiness was the very epiphany which revealed the entity was a misconception from the very start.

As such, emptiness alleviates the predicament, like a cure. And then you are liberated via the knowledge of the actual nature of the phenomena you previously misunderstood.

This is why Nāgārjuna inquires:

If there were some thing subtly not empty, there would be some thing to be empty, but as there is no thing that is not empty, where is there some thing to be empty?

Emptiness is empty?


The emptiness of emptiness refers to the fact that emptiness is a non-reductive insight which simply reveals that the alleged entity in question, that we are supposed to realize is empty, was not established from the very beginning. Thus there is, in the end, no entity to be empty, and thus emptiness is cancelled out.

The import is that emptiness is an epistemic insight, rather than an ontological nature.

u/ULoophant tagging you, since this is the relevant logic behind the emptiness of emptiness.

Emptiness is empty?


Although that isn’t when emptiness is empty.

Why does anything exist at all?


It is all due to an error in cognition.

Śravākayāna and common Mahāyāna systems do not explain the process by which the mind and universe manifest, many of the responses you are receiving stating that the line of inquiry is not useful, or speculative, are coming from that perspective. However not all Buddhist systems adopt this line of reasoning, Vajrayāna, for example, does explain the process in detail.

How to deal with a ghost at home?


You're then going to help later by eating that food yourself.

In some scenarios the food is later placed outside, perhaps after a few days, and not consumed by the person who offered it. The rule of thumb is that you wouldn’t offer food to a guest at a dinner party and then eat it yourself, so it is the same in principle with our unseen guests.

How to deal with a ghost at home?


Be sure that if you leave offerings of food that it isn’t packaged. Only loose items like fruit, vegetables, nuts, grain, crackers, cookies, etc., you can even leave a bit of meat if you are inclined. Think of someone who lived centuries ago, as an example, and offer food that would be familiar to such a person. No plastic or wrappers or anything like that.

Perhaps also light some incense and put that in the food bowl at times, just make sure the aroma is light and not too pungent or overpowering.

Do other schools of Buddhism outside of Theravada consider the Pali Canon to be the legitimate teachings of the Buddha


I keep hearing people say how certain branches of Buddhism deny the authenticity of certain texts that other traditions hold to be important

Only fundamentalist sectarian Theravadins act like that.

Do you practise Buddhism to attain enlightenment? What drives you and attracts you to the practice?


For the benefit and liberation of all sentient beings.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


Note that I said grasping to views.

Obviously myriad views are and have been historically employed by innumerable awakened individuals. Look at the complexity of Longchenpa’s expositions for example. Views themselves are not the issue, it is just how the person in question relates to them.

And then abandoning “all views” [sarvadtsti] as I mentioned is a synonym for realizing emptiness because referents are exhausted.

I also think there is a place for how I present things

Yes, this goes without saying. The contrasts are always nice and offer a balanced discourse.

In general I don’t tend to call you out much at this point but if you do to me

I don’t mean to make it seem as if I’m calling you out. Our dialogue is just one that can be valuable, and when you provide context to your statements I find the logic reasonable.

Christian God vs Enlightenment


In both religions suffering is related to the attachment and meaning we attribute to things that are impermanent by nature.

Not true for buddhadharma, where suffering results from far more fundamental errors in cognition which literally produce the misconception of persons, places and things.

Is working in a restaurant that serves meat/alcohol considered wrong livelihood?


Try to understand intention and how it relates to karma:

In the context of your practice and view, killing [lit. cutting life or 'taking life'] is considered to be the worst of the ten non-virtues. One should do one's best to avoid taking the life of other beings, however the Buddha stated that if the intention to kill is not present and a sentient being dies (or is killed) accidentally, then there is no karma created by that action.

For karma to be created the four branches must be present: (i) basis or basic factor which is the subject to be killed, (ii) the recognition or factor of thought which is the intention to kill, (iii) the factor of motive or preparing the conditions for the killing, (iv) final step or ultimate factor i.e. the result of actually killing the sentient being... and the delusion or satisfaction with the action is what seals the deal.

There has to be a clear cognition of a sentient being and the intention to kill it for the action to be akusala karma or an unskillful action. The Buddha stated that intent to harm or kill is not present if one cannot see or cognize the being which is killed.

u/filmbuffering

Dzongsar Kyentse Rinpoche explains zombies to modern audience


Ro lang is what zombies or revenants were called in old Tibet, if anyone wants to dive into that topic in their spare time. It is interesting.

Is working in a restaurant that serves meat/alcohol considered wrong livelihood?


There is no meaningful difference between killing and paying for killing.

Sure, but to incur a karmic debt you must request that a being is killed specifically for you, and then that being must be subsequently killed on your behalf.

Working with cut meat may be less harmful

There is no harm in working with meat because (i) the breakup of the aggregates has already occurred, and (ii) in a supermarket scenario, that being was not slaughtered for you specifically by your request.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


So if anything as a Vajrayani this stuff is less important perhaps in terms of rhetorical approach to teaching. Basically.

In terms of practice, I can agree, however we see a fairly strong theme of anātman in written works, along with rhetoric which explains the implications of self-grasping and so on. Undermining selfhood does not contradict purity and so on, because the luminous nature is pure due to being unconditioned and uncontaminated by obscuring afflictions that accompany the root fetters of I-making and mine-making. Thus we can avoid impurity as a topic in Vajrayāna, as we should, since our practice is training in pure vision, and that avoidance needn’t mean we are forced to opt out of positions regarding self.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


I find this reply to be much more honest and agreeable. It adds context and some underlying reasoning, which both lack in your original response.

In general you seem to think that for one who has not realized the deathless, it is preferable basically categorically to have a view of there being no self. I don’t generally agree. I think it is most important that a being who has not realized the deathless gets established with an understanding of karma, basically, and by doing so, they can become more firmly established with the dharma gradually and realize conditions in which they - like the bird with developed wings - can properly relate to the teachings on anatman and emptiness.

Both are important, however when the topic of selfhood and it’s implications are brought up explicitly and specifically, I disagree that anātman should take a backseat to karma, etc., there is an opportunity to strategically touch on both sides of it.

And I do think this absolutely relates to the precept about properly teaching emptiness. It is the same topic.

That is fair, although I still maintain there isn’t as much a reason to shelter or insulate people who intentionally visit a dharma forum. I agree it is invariably inappropriate in public places around strangers who have no interest in such things.

that with proper realization of anatman or emptiness, there is no grasping to views at all.

An absence of views for awakened individuals is related to the absence of characteristics in realizing emptiness. It isn’t so much referring to everyday views we might hold, although there can be some implications there.

Is working in a restaurant that serves meat/alcohol considered wrong livelihood?


In Buddhist teachings there must be specific criteria that are met in order to incur a karmic debt from an action like killing. Working with meat does not satisfy that criteria.

Is working in a restaurant that serves meat/alcohol considered wrong livelihood?


Taking life unintentionally has no karmic consequence.

For people feeling lonely this Christmas 🎄


Got anything for a lonely Theravadin?

It also applies to you.

Main differences between Zen and Tibetan Buddhism?


The most characteristic description of Chan practice is “taking no method as the method”, in other words, the teacher makes use of any method to point directly the nature of the students mind... This differentiates it from the tantric methods with prescribed rituals and conditions or the sutric schools that have a myriad of set practices.

Vajrayāna also includes various direct introductions to example jñāna.

Does anyone outside Vajrayana NOT like the Dalai Lama? Or have anything other that positive feelings/opinions of him? Is he universally loved across the Buddhist world?


I know many people don’t like Vajrayana

Like who for example? Just curious because I rarely see such sentiments.

Is working in a restaurant that serves meat/alcohol considered wrong livelihood?


Killing is the issue. If you are working in a slaughterhouse for example, that would be problematic.

Meat is not an issue. By the time you receive the meat the consciousness has long been separated from the body.

Christian God vs Enlightenment


Do you think there’s a difference between salvation through the Christian God and Enlightenment?

Without question.

The teachings of Siddhartha and Jesus seem to say the same things a lot (in different words) which makes me think it’s a “same cart” kind of situation.

Apart from some moral guidelines that are similar, their teachings are nothing alike.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


you can be sure that internet buddhists will also have to constantly fend off argumentation of the form 'the self exists'.

Having been involved in dharma forums for well over a decade, I can assure you no one makes such arguments.

Does insight and liberating wisdom occur naturally when doing concentration practice?


I was just wondering if insight and liberating wisdom (wisdom that produces enlightenment) occur naturally when doing concentration practice for long periods (retreat-like durations). I ask because I intend on doing long periods of concentration practice on a kasina and I would like to know if I can attain stream-entry just by practicing in this way (developing concentration, sensory clarity, and equanimity) or do I have to analyze the three characteristics of existence (not-self, suffering, and Impermanence) or something?

If you have the karma for it, awakening can happen naturally in that way.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


Can you please describe for me your understanding of why the Buddha disagreed with his contemporaries who taught "no self"?

He disagreed with tirthikas who espoused annihilationism and so on.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


My friend, I've been reading your comments here and I worry that your focus is more on having an intellectual understanding of the dharma rather than actually practicing it.

I do both, and both are beneficial.

Maybe it's unintentional but your comments do come off as passive-aggressive and antagonistic. These are aspects of divisive speech, and I don't think you realize that they are unwholesome.

Okay. /u/En_Lighten and I have a lengthy history of interaction, both on and off reddit, he is a vajra brother of mine, and we both respect each other. He knows I am not being passive aggressive or antagonistic. Sure I stir the pot with him, but it is all love.

But thank you for your concern.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


Either way. Since conventional selves are just nominal inferences, the qualifier “inherent” to contrast the conventional self in articulating the species of self that is deemed to be unfounded (the inherent self or self in general) is essentially unnecessary. Self or inherent self, it is all the same.

Much like when Nāgārjuna inquired, where is there an existence apart from inherent existence and dependent existence? The same principle applies, where is there a self apart from an inherent self or dependent self? No such self can be located. The demarcation between an inherent self and a self in general is a farce, for if you have one, you have the other.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


There really is a big difference between non-self and no-self.

There really is no difference at all. The consequence of the suggested logic of “non-self” results in no self, given that if all phenomena are non-self, then there is no phenomenon which can qualify as a self.

It's important to remember that anicca and anatta were usually expressed by the Buddha together:

In the presentation of the trilakṣaṇa they are featured together, yes.

If you take into account that anicca and anatta are described together, I would argue that the Buddha is describing non-self, not no-self. He's saying that the aggregate phenomena that we experience together as a "self" appear singular and persistent; but in reality, these phenomena are actually transitory and composed of multiple parts.

Only conditioned phenomena are transitory, and since conditioned phenomena are ultimately delusions, they are not actually comprised of multiple parts. Conventionally we can state that phenomena possess parts, but conventional phenomena are inferences, and are ultimately just imputations, i.e., they cannot withstand keen scrutiny due to the fact that they are misconceptions.

That's very different than saying, "There is no self."

Selves or entities of any kind cannot be substantiated. They are useful tools, but they are just nominal constructs that are incorrectly attributed to sensory phenomena which do not contain nor produce the self or entity in question.

If you really think about it, it wouldn't make sense to say, "There is no self." If there were no "selves", then there would be no point to ethical action because literally no one would be hurt or helped by our actions.

Conventional individuals are hurt or helped because their conventional mindstreams are affected. Still there is no actual self involved in such activity, only serial dependent origination.

If a "self" didn't exist, then no one is actually improving from Buddhist practice.

Buddhist practice only refines your conventional mindstream by purifying it of affliction. And what is the root of the affliction that corrupts the continuum you call a mindstream? It is the twin obscurations of believe in a false self that does not actually exist, and likewise the perception of external entities that are also ultimately unfounded. Buddhas are Buddhas because they have completely purified their mindstream of affliction and ignorance.

And, funny enough, if a "self" didn't exist, then it wouldn't make sense to follow the teachings of Gautama Buddha because we would be arguing that he literally didn't exist.

Buddhas literally do not exist, they appear like emanations in accordance with the karma of conventional sentient beings. If a Buddha existed s/he would be conditioned, afflicted. Buddhas are free from the four extremes.

Interesting enough, the Buddha's competitors actually taught the idea that, "There is no self." The Buddha rejected the idea for the reasons I mentioned above

The Buddha never once rejected that idea. The assertion that he did is a pernicious lie that has seeped into internet dharma culture.

i.e., if no selves exist, then our actions don't actually matter... but they do matter).

Conclusions of this nature are just an utter failure to understand karma and dependent origination.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


Incidentally, the idea “I have no self” is said to be a “thicket of views”, and basically is not a proper view. The idea “I have a self” is also a thicket of views. In general a well instructed disciple doesn’t get caught in either of these.

You like to pretend as if these statements are equal in both being ensnaring positions, but that is obviously false and incredibly misleading. The former, selflessness, is the means by which sentient beings are liberated from samsara, and the latter, self-view, replete with the fetters of I-making and mine-making is literally the root cause of samsara.

The “well instructed disciple” does not become caught in either as mere conceptual positions, but instead uses them as a means to awaken, which involves a direct nonconceptual realization that there has never been a substantial self or substantial external objects, at any time. That and that alone is the meaning of liberation.

We’ve discussed this ad nauseam, but still this Thanissaro Bikkhu view keeps popping up for you, I don’t understand why you choose to spread his views, as a Vajrayāni. But okay.

Buddhism makes me depressed.


the buddha never said that there is no self.

This is false, but I do acknowledge that for OP a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down.

The Buddha repeatedly said sabbe dhamma anatta “all phenomena lack a self” and the entire import of the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus is to illustrate a lack of a core entity in mind and form in general.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


You call it a wrong view based on ill-founded logical reasoning. Rupa does not end at the ending of ignorance.

The four elements which constitute rūpa are symptoms of avidyā. Tathāgatas do not experience rūpa, or even a nāmarūpa dichotomy. Why is that? Because both nāma and rūpa are ultimately empty. Insubstantial, essenceless.

Given that these entities do not end at the ending of ignorance anyway, how can it be said that the entities will not exist after the ending of ignorance?

All entities end when avidyā is uprooted. The dharmakāya of the tathāgata is literally defined as a jñāna which does not perceive any entities or dharmas.

It is not just because one defers to authoritative texts that the obstacles that have arisen will clear away.

Obstacles are a straw man that you, yourself, introduced to this conversation. And then you attempted to substantiate the validity of these alleged obstacles with strange overly complicated explanations which coincide with some sort of understanding you harbor that is, to me, ostensibly complete nonsense, although if you wish to provide some sort of reference that you are deriving your claims from, I’d be more than happy to entertain it.

My path is one where I do not tolerate any obstacle that has arisen.

Who knows how you are defining obstacles and a lack thereof. I am willing to bet on the fact that your definition is at odds with how obstacles and a lack thereof are truly defined.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


The view 'entities do not arise' constricts the mind. No one will attain buddhahood holding this view. Of course it's wrong view.

At this point I can’t tell if you’re just trolling or what is going on, but you are making absurd assertions and stating that principles which are a cornerstone of buddhadharma are “wrong view.” Quite egregious behavior.

Entities will still be perceived 'they exist' even after overcoming the obstacle of ignorance. Why is that? Sampayutta paccayo atthi.

This is the actual wrong view occurring in this conversation.

Furthermore, the view 'entities do not exist in reality' generates the obstacle of dissonance. No one will attain buddhahood while holding this view. This too, is wrong view.

It is held to be a definitive view in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Buddhism. Perhaps your knowledge is limited to śravāka texts, there’s no way to know since you appear disinterested in sharing your background.

Texts such as the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra define the criteria for provisional meaning and a definitive meaning. The definitive meaning described, is, according to you, a “wrong view,” thus I really have no choice but to conclude you are trolling, engaging in sectarianism, or are simply undereducated, or uneducated, as to central tenets of the buddhadharma.

Any sūtrānta which explains in a variety of different terms a self, a sentient being, a living being, a personality, a person, an individual, one born from a human, a human, an agent, an experiencer — teaching an owner in what is ownerless — those sutras are called "of provisional meaning". Any sūtrānta which teaches emptiness, the signless, the wishless, the unconditioned, the non-arisen, the unproduced, the insubstantial, the non-existence of self, the non-existence of sentient beings, the non-existence of living beings, the non-existence of individuals, the non-existence of an owner up to the doors of liberation, those are called "definitive meaning". This is taught in the sūtrāntas of definitive meaning but is not taught in the sūtrāntas of the provisional meaning.

I will defer to the authoritative texts that many systems of the buddhadharma are founded upon.

Your path and karma are of course, your own. Again, best of luck.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


The emptiness view that you suggested 'entities do not arise' is a wrong view.

That is the actual meaning of emptiness [śūnyatā], it is not wrong view.

The correct view would be 'entities do not arise, conditioned on being pulled away from entities'

That does not make sense, unfortunately. Entities only appear because of ignorance [avidyā], when ignorance is uprooted, the misconception of entities is likewise uprooted.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


This is a nonsensical statement. Emptiness is not wrong view, and if a conceptual view of emptiness is an abandonment of the buddhadharma, then all sūtras, śāstras, kósas, tantras, etc., are effectively adharma. I’m sure you can see how this suggestion contains glaring intrinsic flaws.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


Better give up this view.

To do so would mean the complete abandonment of the buddhadharma.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


And the view 'entities do not arise' is wrong view, categorically constricting the mind.

The entire import of emptiness is that entities do not arise, and never have.

If you had instead said "I'll attend to entities that have not arisen dispelling attention to entities that have arisen - this is how I'll produce non-arising knowledge", I would not have criticized your practice.

I have no idea what system of buddhadharma you practice, but your suggestion is unnecessarily over complicating the principle.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


Studying and correctly understanding buddhist teachings, as right view, that directly acts as support for nonconceptual practice and insight, according to you: “constricts the mind.”

Good luck with that.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


Even if you say that it is a Buddhist principle, you still hold a view that constricts the mind.

All views are capable of becoming obscurations. Even fixation on right view. That said, properly understanding Buddhist principles in their correct context however is not a constructing activity, but rather belongs to the prajñā of reflection and are treated as path dharmas. Path dharmas are incapable of creating obscurations.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


It can be seen that I’m engaged in a dialogue with someone who is unfamiliar with Buddhist principles.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


This is the definition of emptiness [śūnyatā].

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


Yet the view 'the alleged entity did not arise in the first place. The entity was always a figment of delusion' constricts the mind.

Non-arising is a yogic direct perception [yogapratyaksa], not a relative concept or mundane direct perception. It is the realization of emptiness. The assertion that such insight, which is the heart of the buddhadharma, somehow constricts the mind, is indefensible.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


Is 'the alleged entity in question did not arise in the first place. The entity was always a figment of delusion' an insight ascertained by a modality of mind?

Indeed, called jñāna.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


You say that, yet one cannot categorically impute 'this did not arise, this is a figment of delusion' onto non-arising knowledge without constriction of mind.

Non-arising is an insight ascertained by a modality of mind.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


I do not contest that knowledge of arising & passing does not succeed knowledge of non-arising. But the perception 'it exists' can definitely arise after knowledge of non-arising.

It cannot. Existence and non-arising are antithetical. Something must arise to exist. In non-arising, it is revealed the alleged entity in question did not arise in the first place. The entity was always a figment of delusion.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


All of this is besides the point. There is most assuredly the perception 'it's transient', or even 'it exists', 'it's conditioned' after knowledge of non-arising.

Absolutely not. Non-arising results in bhāvanirodha or a cessation of becoming, a cessation of all perceptions of existence. Buddhas do not perceive entities to be real, and actually do not perceive entities at all. For them, appearances manifest like reflections, illusions, dream images, free of arising and cessation.

The Incredible Buddha Boy - GQ Magazine [Article from 2006]


A friend of mine from Poland became involved with Ram Bahadur Bomjon’s (Buddha boy’s) sangha and was thoroughly convinced he is the real deal. I’m not educated enough on all of it to make a sound judgement, but I trust my friend’s judgement, as he has always strived to involve himself with reputable teachers and sanghas.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


Form is transient, feeling is transient.. consciousness is transient. All constitutions are transient.

Right. And all predicated on ignorance [avidyā].

Existence is a conditioned entity

Existence [bhāva] is a characteristic of conditioned phenomena.

and yet the perception of transience does not fall on existence.

The perception of transience is intimately linked to perceptions of existent phenomena.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


What is transient then? If not entities and processes?

Regardless, this is the view of the buddhadharma, impermanence is a characteristic of conditioned entities which have originated (or been born), and which will eventually cease (or die) in time.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


Yes because it is predicated on a perception of entities that arise, decay in time and eventually cease.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


see everything you experience (both internally and externally) as impermanent.

Contemplating impermanence is good for beginners, it can be a door to recognition of anātman. But it is an afflicted cognition, we actually only experience impermanence because we are deluded, and have failed to recognize anātman.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


Anātman technically has to do with what is called non-arising [anutpāda]. We only experience impermanence because we have failed to recognize anātman and non-arising.

Perceptions of impermanence are symptoms of delusion.

thoughts on r/awakened?


i’ve only checked it out a few times, but there seems to be quite a lot of people that claim to be awakened.

There are a lot of deluded people who deceive themselves and others.

How to Live Life in Accordance with Non-Self?


From your own experiences, what are some things that you do every day to detach from the individual self?

Anātman is only known by awakened āryas. There’s nothing in your relative life that needs to be done to “detach.” That is not how awakened insight functions. The perception of a self is always present for non-āryas. Just live virtuously and practice the dharma, and then at some point you will hopefully awaken to know anātman, and at that time you will have to learn how to cultivate that awakened equipoise.

But there is nothing to do to be “more selfless,” in the sense of according with anātman. That is not how it works. Anātman is based on insight, it is experiential like tasting sugar.

That said, one tip that has been beneficial for others, is trying in your practice and meditation, to begin to imitate anātman by trying to notice that in seeing there is just the seen, in hearing just sounds, etc., no background seer or hearer. That is a way you can begin to prime your mind when practicing or even in daily life.

Is Sikhism an acceptable path to nirvana according to Buddhism?


Despite incorporating some similar principles, even a brief glance at Sikh tenets reveals that their views are 100% at odds with buddhadharma. I can elaborate some later today though.

Could my grandpa still be around?


21 days is roughly how long the deceased maintain their appearance from their former life and can see/hear relatives. After that the karma that impels the next rebirth takes over and the deceased then begin to focus on that for the remaining time, so it is said.

Jesus as a Bodhisattva?


Indeed.

Jesus as a Bodhisattva?


There was. The gospels. Flavius Josephus. Quite a few sources that spoke of a Jesus of Nazareth. Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, shows very clearly the evidence from Jesus’ time to prove that there was such a man. Check out “Did Jesus Exist?” by Ehrman. Fascinating read. He debunks the Jesus myth claims as well as explains how we know such a person existed. It’s very clear that such a man existed.

Total horse shit.

Is Sikhism an acceptable path to nirvana according to Buddhism?


Krodha is wrath in English, and represents the active subjugation of afflictions and obscurations within the mind.

Is Sikhism an acceptable path to nirvana according to Buddhism?


How does anyone know for sure what leads to Nirvana?

The Buddha and many other Buddhist luminaries have said that only buddhadharma is capable of leading to legitimate liberation.

Liberation in buddhadharma is also defined specifically, as the total cessation of cause for the cycle of rebirth in the three realms. This is it how Sikhism defines their liberation.

Sikhism is a beautiful religion and Sikhs are wonderful people, but stating that both systems produce the same result while the basis and path both is different, is really an indefensible assertion.

Jesus as a Bodhisattva?


I don't think he is for the simple fact that he never existed. The Christian Jesus is a myth. That's the Jesus that some Buddhists see as Bodhissatva. A non-existent figure.

Amen.

Is Sikhism an acceptable path to nirvana according to Buddhism?


They aren’t, but believe what you like.

Is Sikhism an acceptable path to nirvana according to Buddhism?


Right, this is at odds with buddhadharma.

Jesus as a Bodhisattva?


Plenty of very respected teachers, including the Dalai Lama, have floated the idea.

Sure, it’s called being diplomatic.

Is Sikhism an acceptable path to nirvana according to Buddhism?


Concept of avija is repetitee thousands of times in the teachings.

Different systems, different definitions of avidyā, different definitions of liberation.

Is Sikhism an acceptable path to nirvana according to Buddhism?


Yes and it's the core principle.

This is false.

Jesus as a Bodhisattva?


I see this claim made often in new age spirituality and it seems quite baseless.

Obviously baseless.

Choosing between Zen and Tibetan Buddhism?


Investigate both.

Choosing between Zen and Tibetan Buddhism?


All Buddhist interests are allowed here.

Is Nirvana (or enlightment) a sudden or progressive experience?


I have been wondering, is enlightenment something like a sudden epiphany or are there stages? Can one "keep track" of their progress?

A series of epiphanies accompanied by instances of equipoise involving yogapratyaksa, or a yogic direct perception of the nature of phenomena, which in the beginning are short, but gradually increase in duration with integration and stability, until that equipoise is eventually unbroken at the time of buddhahood.

The five paths measure realization, the ten bhūmis measure qualities, both can be used to keep track of progression.

Could my grandpa still be around?


as to me the distinct soul only exists within the catalyst of a body and without one they are deconstructed back into an unidentifiable form

Better to defer to traditional Buddhist views on these matters. In this case when physical death occurs the deceased have a mental body that lasts for roughly 21 days, and during that time the deceased has a complete set of faculties and can see family and relatives.

Could my grandpa still be around?


It is possible a disembodied expression of himself was around for awhile close to the time of his passing, but five months down the line, it is likely, from a Buddhist perspective, that his mindstream has begun the process of a new life, perhaps currently in utero given the timeframe.

That said, there are buddhafields that people can take rebirth in and I am reluctant to make any definitive assertions as to the logistics of all that.

One to one rebirth


My teacher says Hsuan Hua is known to make eccentric statements and assertions that do not always correspond to the dharma, and for this reason some of his claims should be taken with a grain of salt. This particular teaching of his on soul fragmentation is not a Buddhist view at all.

I’m in no way saying that Hsuan Hua has no value overall, just that sometimes he makes questionable assertions.

How can we reincarnate if we have no souls?


Only the rūpa skandha is material.

One to one rebirth


Nope. Not Buddhist at all. Its a corrupt religio-political Tibetan system that you can ignore.

It is not corrupt in every case, there are real tulkus. But yes one needs to be careful because the tulku system can easily be abused and manipulated.

One to one rebirth


The tulku system just has political implications, and isn’t a great gauge for accuracy.

Like Chögyal Namkhai Norbu said, there are real tulkus, genuine rebirths of great masters. And then there are false tulkus who are just put in place for political reasons. Political puppets basically, which generates income for certain monasteries and systems.

Also sometimes they just mess up and fail to find the right rebirth. It is said that even the Dalai Lama was something they didn’t get right every time. There are certain Dalai Lama’s where they did get it right, and it is obviously the same continuum, but some of them were errors.

It’s not an exact science. Great when it works, but that is hit or miss at times.

This is why as Tibetan Buddhists we should not seek teachings from some tulku with a grand title, but rather should just find a teacher who resonates with us.

One to one rebirth


I vaguely remember reading a lama arguing that one person would generally not be reborn as a mosquito, but as a swarm of mosquitos. I can't find anything online which argues anything like that, though (maybe it was a hindu arguing that?).

Sounds like a non-Buddhist view.

but I'm wondering if there is any textual basis for non-one-to-one reincarnation

Essentially all rebirth scenarios is one to one, because the mindstream is a single causal continuum that continually appropriates a new series of aggregates in each incarnation.

The tulku fragmented three-doors rebirth could be legit but it could also be a political thing. My bet is on the latter.

What is the order in which I should learn the Buddhist teachings?


This sub is sort of a melting pot, not everyone practices the same system.

What's everyone's opinion on Eckhart Tolle. He wrote "The Power of Now". He says he's achieved enlightenment / stillness of mind and I believe his story. He doesn't seem like some assholes who's just trying to sell a book


Although there has been some differing views, yes that is accurate. Bodhi or awakening/enlightenment is said to occur at stream entry or first bhūmi in Mahāyāna teachings. And then total liberation occurs later in the path.

Past Buddhas and Maitreya Buddha unscientific and illogical?


Buddhism says a lot that doesn’t align with science,

Buddhism says a lot that doesn’t align with pure materialism, pure physicalism and pure realism. FTFY.

Why do you believe in no-self (anatta)?


Vijñāna mixed with imputation.

Why do you believe in no-self (anatta)?


Unfortunately religions tend to complicate simple precepts to confuse the laity and keep control of their secret esoteric knowledge.

Maybe some religions, I wouldn’t really know.

The real truth is 'mind' is all you need to explore enlightenment, and no acedemic study or bizarre lexicon is required to make that realisation.

In Buddhist teachings there are three forms of what is called prajñā, the first two are “hearing” and “reflection,” and both help to actualize the third, which is realization of the nature of mind. Academic study belongs to the prajñā of reflection, and sharpening that prajñā will only aid in realizing the nature of mind experientially and non-conceptually.

Sometimes the example of using more water to wash trapped water out of an ear. Skillful concepts can be used to go beyond concepts in an authentic manner. Sapan said that those with a refined conceptual or academic understanding are closer to buddhahood than an individual who lacks such knowledge.

Why do you believe in no-self (anatta)?


In Zen there are two aspects of mind; defiled mind which is the origin of suffering, and original mind which is our true nature.

This is the same in all Buddhist teachings.

Why do you believe in no-self (anatta)?


And how is this a positive concept

The mind of practitioners who have realized anātman is expressed as stainless and pure jñāna, free of birth and death.

Overview on Buddhist schools and 3 wheel turning


Madhyamaka is classified under common (exoteric) Mahāyāna. Vajrayāna is a different set of teachings. Sometimes Vajrayāna is called uncommon (esoteric) Mahāyāna, because it is part of Mahāyāna, but it is a different system.

Common Mahāyāna is prajñāpāramitā, Yogācāra, tathāgatagarbha, Madhyamaka, Zen, Chan, Pure Land schools, etc.

What is the Nagarjuna concept of Emptiness in Buddhism?


Hey guys I need some help! I’m a 3rd year university student who needs to write a paper on the Nagarjuna concept of emptiness, in particular in relation to the Buddhist concept of Svabhava.

Emptiness is just the absence of svabhāva. That absence is termed nihsvabhāva, defined by Buddhapālita as the non-existence of svabhāva, which means svabhāvas are held to be completely impossible. A svabhāva is a core entity which possesses perceived characteristics. Nāgārjuna and Buddhist teachings in general state that no such entities are possible, and those alleged entities cannot be found when sought. A practitioner who has realized emptiness does not perceive a self or objects at all, even though phenomenal appearances still manifest to them.

What is the Nagarjuna concept of Emptiness in Buddhism?


Most Buddhist schools affirm that: There is no svabhava. There is no not-svabhava. There is not both svabhava and not-svabhava

This is over complicating the topic. The ultimate truth of phenomena is simply nisvabhāva, or an absence of svabhāva. And conversely, sentient beings dwell in delusion because they they are ignorant of nisvabhāva, and thus perceive svabhāvas, specifically a personal subjective self, and also external substantial objects or other entities.

Trying to apply the catuskoti tetralemma to svabhāva is extremely confusing.

The tetralemma should ideally be appled to existence [bhāva] in general, and non-existence [abhāva].

Nāgārjuna states that anyone who perceives inherent existence [svabhāva], dependent existence [parabhāva], existence [bhāva] or non-existence [abhāva], has failed to actualize the truth of the Buddha’s teaching.

As such, we are intended to undermine svabhāva by identifying its sheer absence. The realization of that absence is the realization of emptiness.

What are effective purification practices for those who have killed thousands of insects at one time?


Buddhahood is not possible without purification of karma and the accompanying obscurations.

What are effective purification practices for those who have killed thousands of insects at one time?


Vajrasattva 100 syllable mantra.

Recommendations for good books on celibacy in buddhism?


necessarily implies) torturing oneself.

My question is more along the lines of, why impose unnecessary limitations? What does it accomplish?

Obviously I am using “torture” figuratively to illustrate that limitations are being self-imposed which are unnecessary. And so the question is, why impose limitations if you do not need them?

Recommendations for good books on celibacy in buddhism?


I’m not rebuking anyone, just asking what is the motivation for adopting monastic guidelines as an upāsaka.

Upāsaka vows were established during the Buddha’s lifetime, thus the Buddha didn’t feel celibacy is necessary for non-monastics.

Recommendations for good books on celibacy in buddhism?


Whether monastics are “torturing themselves” is sort of besides the point because celibacy is a rule for śrāmaneras and bhikṣus. They sign up for that lifestyle.

It is not a mandatory rule for upāsakas.

Recommendations for good books on celibacy in buddhism?


Celibacy in monastery settings is to ensure there isn’t rampant sexual activity in a fraternity type living situation, (i) because it would be a major distraction, and (ii) because it could result in all sorts of issues.

As upāsakas we don’t really have to worry about that. Buddhist practice is not about suppression or repression, it is about understanding the nature mind and phenomena.

There is often this air of puritanical bias that deceives people who want to take something like Buddhism seriously as a lay practitioner. People really need to investigate their motivation for adopting rules that apply to monastics.

Of course if someone has a sexual addiction and they need to take a vow of celibacy to maintain discipline, then okay. But if this isn’t the case then I think people are just deceiving themselves as lay practitioners taking up monastic vows (not even taking the vows, just modeling themselves after it, again, for what). It is just aversion for upāsakas.

Do you believe in God/ Gods?


From what I read, the Buddha skillfully did not answer such questions

That is incorrect. Questions concerning a creator are not featured in the fourteen unanswered questions.

Recommendations for good books on celibacy in buddhism?


Yes, it is true people, upāsakas in this case, are free to torture themselves for no reason via observing śrāmanera and bhikṣu vows that don’t apply to them.

Celibacy in upāsakas just breeds aversion, which is just another form of attachment. This is not what buddhadharma is about.

Recommendations for good books on celibacy in buddhism?


Celibacy is really only a thing for monastics to observe.

Do you believe in God/ Gods?


Dependent origination is the heart of buddhadharma, I would look into it and try to understand it rather than quickly asserting “it doesn’t make sense.”

Do you believe in God/ Gods?


Research the 12 nidānas or links of dependent origination [pratītyasamutpāda].

Do you believe in God/ Gods?


Wouldn't a belief in God contradict the doctrine of dependent origination?

Yes absolutely.

Do you believe in God/ Gods?


Outright denied. There can be no first cause or “creator” in dependent origination.

The Buddhists call this concept anatta


There is no fixed version of you. There is no self. The Buddhists call this concept anatta, or no-self. In fact, they say that nothing in the world has a fixed self; everything is in flux. Including you.

The point of anatta is not that you or things are in flux, but rather that the self is an inferential designation that we think references something real, but it doesn’t, and when you experientially realize that, you awaken.

Do you believe in God/ Gods?


Fair enough, I sometimes forget that we may have discussed these things before, I often lose track of conversations I’ve had. But thanks, I value your opinion and knowledge of these things, in addition to your first hand knowledge coming from your family and cultural heritage, so I will take what you’ve said into consideration and am open to refining my own views to allow for more nuance.

Do you believe in God/ Gods?


Right, it means we reject the divine providence/provenance of the Vedas (translating to a rejection of divine providence in general) and also reject an inherent self.

We reject divine providence because of dependent origination, which as you’re aware forbids a creator. This makes Buddhists technically atheist. Especially since devas and asuras etc., are just classifications of other sentient beings, and while they possess what could be construed as “divine” characteristics (subtle ethereal bodies, longer lifespans, etc.) they are not technically “divine” in the sense of being some sort of higher power.

Do you believe in God/ Gods?


There are various Demi gods and spirits in Buddhism. Do you believe in them?

Asuras and devas are classifications of other sentient beings, just like we humans are a classification of sentient being. They are not above us or more special in any way, and actually are at a disadvantage when compared to humans because it is easier for us to practice dharma.

In my opinion glossing deva as “god” is somewhat misleading. And has religious and cultural baggage, but it’s a staple at this point.

It is not about believing in devas, but understanding that those with higher perception, called abhijñā, have witnessed and interacted with devas and asuras. The testimony of these “reliable” persons is called śabda, and we ourselves can rely on śabda as a provisional form of authority, until such time that we can establish knowledge of these beings ourselves, through our own abhijñā, so that we can then rely on direct perception [pratyaksa].

What are your thoughts on a creator God jn the world?

Impossible. Buddhists are technically atheist. We were classified as “nāstikas” in India along with materialist skeptics called carvākas.

Which are the views of Buddhism on homosexuality?


In systems such as Vajrayāna, sensation is not considered the issue, but rather one’s concepts about sensation are the root cause of samsara. For this reason, sensation is not renounced at all, but rather embraced through the lens of what is called training in “pure vision” where oneself and one’s environment are viewed as pure displays, and via this methodology, along with engaging in sensation which is also viewed as pure, then these concepts are purified, mind is purified, and all phenomena are purified.

As far as I understand emptiness, it is more terrifying than liberating...anyone else had this experience?


If fear or terror are present, then it is just some sort of meditation experience, and not insight into emptiness.

Has anyone ever had the enlightenment experience in a dream?


But I realize now that this fear of death was not a fear of physical death, but the death of myself, and instead of running from it, I yet again embraced it, and in the dream, I became God. When I woke up I realized what I had experienced was the Enlightenment experience,

From your description it sounds like a great dream with some clearly invaluable insight, but I’d hesitate to say it was enlightenment, or more accurately, awakening [bodhi].

emptiness of self, solipsism, and compassion


How do you deal with this

Conventional diversity and multiplicity of things that are all empty in the same way.

Is it wrong view to believe meditation is the best path to enlightenment?


I suspected this is the case. Thanks for the clarification.

Is it wrong view to believe meditation is the best path to enlightenment?


Alright, then I’ll go ahead and say that unless people are practicing in certain pure land sects then they should probably be taking measures to cultivate dhyāna and samādhi.

Tame the mind, purify the mind. That is the gist.

Is it wrong view to believe meditation is the best path to enlightenment?


As an unqualified statement it becomes sectarian.

The fact that pure land practice is an exception in some cases does not mean that the other 99% do not strive to establish dhyāna and samādhi as integral parts of their practice in this life. It is just a fact. Acknowledging that all other Buddhist systems incorporate meditation as a vital activity is not a sectarian assertion, it is just an accurate observation.

If there is a small minority which does not place emphasis on meditation, then they can also be serious. The contrasting vast majority does emphasize meditation, including other systems which likewise emphasize pure lands aka buddhafields.

Ironically, most of these systems like Nichiren which place importance on chanting are also cultivating dhyāna. Perhaps unbeknownst to them. If you chant enough you will enter one pointedness. If this is not explicitly recognized by those adherents and they think they are foregoing meditation, well, they are welcome to call a rose by any other name.

Is it wrong view to believe meditation is the best path to enlightenment?


can you not be serious if you’re dedicated to keeping the 5 precepts and the uposatha days, giving alms, studying, cultivating the brahmaviharas and wot not?

Maybe, one isn’t all that different from a non-Buddhist if that is the extent of their practice. Non-Buddhists keep precepts, they observe special days, they give alms, they study, and generally cultivate principles identical to the brahmaviharas. This is why practice of the brahmaviharas only results in a higher rebirth. Which is nice, but buddhadharma is intended to be soteriological, meaning it results in liberation. I maintain that a serious practitioner sets their intentions on liberation, but to each their own.

In my own heart dharma, the warning related to the faults of not meditating are quite dire. It is beyond vital.

Which are the views of Buddhism on homosexuality?


It's an attachment to sensual phenomena that are ultimately unsatisfying.

Not every system agrees.

Why ghosts retain their memories of the past lives but humans don't?


Ghosts take an apparitional birth, whereas humans have womb birth. While I don’t know the technical aspects, I assume therein lies the distinguishing factor.

Is it wrong view to believe meditation is the best path to enlightenment?


So I’m well aware that historically, and even today, most Buddhists have not meditated.

Every serious Buddhist practitioner cultivates meditation in the form of dhyāna and samādhi. There really no awakening without them, and if there is, it won’t be thoroughly established due to instability.

[deleted by user]


I noticed that within the pali canon the Buddha puts great emphasis on putting aside metaphysical assumptions especially doctrines of the self.

The Buddha really doesn’t put aside addressing the self, the entirety of the teaching on the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus is to demonstrate a lack of an ātman that lies at the core of persons. To add, the Buddha states sabbe dhamma anatta quite frequently, which if understood correctly, absolutely removes the possibility of a self to be found anywhere.

We can see the importance and emphasis that the Buddha actually be puts on anātman, to the extent that he states that a practitioner whose mind is well acquainted with selflessness is liberated, and conversely, the practitioner who has not familiarized with selflessness dwells in bondage. Given this is the case, one can only naturally conclude that recognition and integration with selflessness is of paramount importance, and this theme indeed continues in every other canon and system.

AN 7.49 Dutiyasaññā Sutta:

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?

Monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated.

If, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is not rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has not transcended conceit, is not at peace, and is not well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have not developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is no stepwise distinction in me, I have not obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there. But if, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is stepwise distinction in me, I have obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there.

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. And in reference to this it was said.

Karma is empty?


Karma only functions from the standpoint of the deluded mind that has failed to recognize emptiness.

What is the difference between Buddhism and Hinduism with regard to their respective ideas of the self.


From Bhāviveka’s Tarkajvālā:

Since [the tīrthika position of] self, permanence, all pervasivness and oneness contradict their opposite, [the Buddhist position of] no-self, impermanence, non-pervasiveness and multiplicity, they are completely different.

Is this trying to say that people who become fully enlightened don't remain on earth? I'm a bit confused by this


Yes that is the meaning. This is often why the example of an illusion is used in Buddhist texts, something that appears yet is not a substantial entity.

The Daśa­sāhasrikā­prajñā­pāramitā:

Śāradvatī­putra, although bodhisattvas see all these phenomena distinctly from the perspective of the relative truth, they do not become fixated on them as ultimately real. Just as when someone afflicted by intense heat perceives various mirage-like images, moving in the manner of waves, but does not become fixated on the notion that this mirage is actually water. Just as when someone perceives diverse visual imagery in a dream, but on awakening does not become fixated on the notion that that visual imagery actually exists. Just as when someone perceives an optical aberration, but does not become fixated on these perceptions as entities. In the same way, Śāradvatī­putra, great bodhisattva beings perceive all phenomena distinctly, but they do not become fixated on them [as ultimately real].

Is this trying to say that people who become fully enlightened don't remain on earth? I'm a bit confused by this


For us sentient beings who have afflicted karmic vision, we mostly perceive Buddhas as flesh and blood persons, likewise we perceive a concrete earth composed of the four elements. However, from the Buddha’s perspective, since they have overcome affliction and have purified their mindstream, they do not perceive phenomena as substantial or real. Which means they do not perceive an external world. Even though we do. This is just a matter of the presence or absence of delusion.

Did the Buddha teach no self or not-self?


the buddha states that the view 'i have no self' is wrong view:

This sutta is discussing the activity of clinging to conceptual views as absolute truths. Essentially taking the description “sugar is sweet” to be the extent of what can be experienced, instead of going and actually tasting sugar. The Buddha is trying to help his students avoid turning the teachings into a solely intellectual conclusion, which is why it says “the view arises in him as true and established,” rather than the experiential insight arising in him as true and established.

Nuances, my friend.

there is good reason the buddha encourages us not to consider whether we have a self or not - such questions take us away from the goal of the end of suffering

Also wrong.

Did the Buddha teach no self or not-self?


There are a surprising amount of people who will disregard teachings that talk about the self, even if it's pretty clear they're speaking in terms of relative truth.

This is a way of speaking but that typically characterizes adherents of what is called “neo-Advaita.” It originated amongst Papaji’s people I believe, and came to be known as the Lucknow disease or * Lucknow syndrome.*

This type of error, which consists on negating convention, is not usually seen in Buddhist practitioners because for us the negation of convention is taught to be nihilism. The negation of convention is a cornerstone of Neo-Advaita because of the nature of their view.

Thus I still insist I have not really seen much of this on Buddhist forums. Go on a new age neo-Advaita type forum though, it will be prevalent.

Did the Buddha teach no self or not-self?


We’ve been over this before, the statement can be improper because it establishes a wrong view in certain beings which is counterproductive to the dharma.

How? It is just a pointer.

As I said before, this isn’t exactly a dharma thing as much as a vinaya thing

Like Malcolm said there is literally nothing in the vinaya which says this.

and it’s essentially related to the Bodhisattva precept about not disclosing emptiness improperly.

That only means discussing profound emptiness with so-called hīnayānists, not meaning śravākas necessarily, and non-Buddhists. Really it just means you shouldn’t stand on a soapbox in Times Square and preach freedom from extremes to strangers.

I don’t really agree that people in a dharma forum require insulation from such ideas.

Did the Buddha teach no self or not-self?


I’ve never witnessed what you’re referring to.

Labels: | edit post
0 Responses