Someone wrote, "Well... there is no "someone" who could experience multiple things, there is no such duality. There is no subject-object division, but rather a undivided stream. Many names have been given to this unnamed, non-referential: Atman, God, Brahman, Buddha Mind, Indivisible Mind, Consciousness, "Awareness", etc.. etc. No one is better than the other because any attempt to reference this Unique makes it an object, makes it conceptual."

I just replied,
Mipham Rinpoche, one of the most influential masters of the Nyingma school wrote http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/.../madhyamaka... :
...Why, then, do the Mādhyamika masters refute the Cittamātra tenet system? Because self-styled proponents of the Cittamātra tenets, when speaking of mind-only, say that there are no external objects but that the mind exists substantially—like a rope that is devoid of snakeness, but not devoid of ropeness. Having failed to understand that such statements are asserted from the conventional point of view, they believe the nondual consciousness to be truly existent on the ultimate level. It is this tenet that the Mādhyamikas repudiate. But, they say, we do not refute the thinking of Ārya Asaṅga, who correctly realized the mind-only path taught by the Buddha...
...So, if this so-called “self-illuminating nondual consciousness” asserted by the Cittamātrins is understood to be a consciousness that is the ultimate of all dualistic consciousnesses, and it is merely that its subject and object are inexpressible, and if such a consciousness is understood to be truly existent and not intrinsically empty, then it is something that has to be refuted. If, on the other hand, that consciousness is understood to be unborn from the very beginning (i.e. empty), to be directly experienced by reflexive awareness, and to be self-illuminating gnosis without subject or object, it is something to be established. Both the Madhyamaka and Mantrayāna have to accept this...”
....
Mipham:
Although traditions may claim to be free from extremes, in the end since they constantly depend upon a conceptual reference for a Self, or Brahma, and so forth, how could this manner be the Middle Way? . . . The Great Perfection is the culmination of extreme profundity, so it is difficult to realize. Most who cultivate idiot meditation—those who do not fully eliminate superimpositions182 regarding the abiding reality through study and contemplation, or who lack the key points of the quintessential instructions—wind up [making a] similar [mistake]. Without gaining certainty in primordial purity, a mere impassioned thought of a ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent will bring you nowhere. If you hold on to such a ground, which is empty of both existence and nonexistence, as separate and established by its own essence, whether it is called the inconceivable Self, Brahma, Viṣṇu, Īśvara, wisdom, etc., it is merely a different name for a similar [mistaken] meaning. The abiding reality that is free from the four extremes183—the luminous clarity of the Great Perfection which is realized reflexively—is not at all like that. Therefore, it is important to rely on the authentic path and teacher. Although [we share] mere words such as “illusory,” “nonentity,” and “freedom from constructs,” it does not help if you do not know through a firm conclusion, with certainty induced by reason, how Buddhist emptiness is superior to the limited emptiness of non-Buddhists. If you do know, you understand that what the Buddha taught has not been experienced in the slightest by those [non-Buddhists] such as Viṣṇu, and you know that the traditions of “Awareness” and “the Middle Way” they describe are mere words. Although the words may be similar, Buddhists and non-Buddhists cannot be separated by words; the difference, which is like the earth and space, is in the profound essential point. —WORDS THAT DELIGHT GURU MAÑJUGHOṢA, 470–72
Duckworth, Douglas; Mipam, Jamgon. Jamgon Mipam: His Life and Teachings (pp. 146-147). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.
....
Bötrül’s teacher and Mipam’s student, Khenpo Künpel,
states as follows in his commentary on Mipam’s Beacon of Certainty:
In general, if the essence of Buddha-nature were not empty, it
would not be different from the permanent Self of the non-Buddhists;
therefore, the nature of the three gates of liberation was
taught. Also, if the wisdom of luminous clarity did not exist, being
an utterly void emptiness like space, there would be no difference
from the Nirgrantha; therefore, the unconditioned wisdom of
luminous clarity was taught. Thus, the definitive scriptures of the
middle and last Word of the teacher show the empty essence and
the natural clarity.66
 
 
----
 
 
    Soh Wei Yu
    I dont like to over emphasize differences and i like giving people non buddhist books like the power of now but sometimes the differences has to be stated clearly as well

  • Reply
  • 1h
 
0 Responses