[3/10/23, 11:52:34 PM] John Tan: Depends. This is not an easy topic but in general is, both perception and cognition are tainted therefore conceptual at least to gelug.
[3/10/23, 11:53:40 PM] John Tan: But yogacara they r somehow incoherent in their system about these.
[3/10/23, 11:54:03 PM] John Tan: This is according to theradava.
[3/10/23, 11:58:57 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic..
[3/10/23, 11:59:10 PM] John Tan: Eliminate samskaras into 18 dhatus. Sort of practice of bare attention and naked awareness.
But if one is free of conceptual elaborations, how can there be 18 dhatus?
[4/10/23, 12:08:18 AM] Yin Ling: Yeah
[4/10/23, 12:37:51 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Ic..
[4/10/23, 12:38:57 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah dzogchen exhausts five aggregates into five wisdoms (more precisely, the five buddha families, or the five lights of jñāna)
[4/10/23, 8:16:33 AM] Soh Wei Yu: DZOGCHEN, MADHYAMAKA & EMPTINESS
Although both Dzogchen and Madhyamaka speak of emptiness, they differ in their actual understandings of this. Madhyamaka, according to many interpretations in India and Tibet, maintains that phenomena are empty of inherent existence. This emptiness, an unfindability of just such inherently or independently established phenomena, makes causation both possible and a mere convention. Unconditioned emptiness and conditioned causality have the same ontological status: both exist conventionally. However, emptiness is an ultimate truth because it is only true for an ultimate consciousness and because it does not get misrepresented to the senses. All other phenomena are conventional truths.
Authenticity's ontology is not premised on distinguishing ultimate from conventional, on determining which is deceptive in appearance or findable under analysis; for example, through the famous tetralemma of Nagarjuna or the sevenfold analysis of Chandrakirti. Its chief emphasis is on the unlimited reach and unconstrained holism of unbounded wholeness, the multiplicity of appearances consonant with this, and the availability of open awareness to itself as just such unbounded wholeness. In all these contexts, even when phenomena self-arise from wholeness to become manifest due to specific causes and conditions, there is neither coming together nor separation within unbounded wholeness. "No separation" is considered an even stronger connection than "union", a term so often found in tantra.
Dzogchen differs from sutra in that it does not investigate, as sutra does, whether things inherently exist. It simply investigates whether or not the mind exists. It does not ask whether this mind inherently exists or not but investigates whether color, shape, and so on are the mind. The tradition of Authenticity does not consider phenomena empty because they are unfindable; it sees all appearances as empty because they are one in essence with mindnature. This is pivotal to understanding Dzgochen's view of the authentic. Neither the merely empty nor the wisdom realizing it can be authentic in the way that, finally, our text will propose that reflexive open awareness is authentic to unbounded wholeness.
Prasangika Madhyamaka searches for objects or persons and does not find them, and in this way it realizes the lack, or emptiness, of inherent existence. This emptiness is a mere negative; a reason that negates inherent existence can get at it. (Geluk presentations are a particularly strong example of this position.) Further, whereas for Prasangika emptiness is definitely an expres-sion of the middle way, in Authenticity the middle is found through avoiding any sort of definiteness. Conceptual processes, the via negativa alone, can neither access unbounded wholeness nor make open awareness of it manifest.
Although at various junctures in Authenticity unbounded wholeness, like the emptiness of Madhyamaka, is described in terms of what it is not, the text never rests with this but moves on to show that inclusion of various viewpoints, rather than the elimination of all of them via reasoning, is its way of understanding reality. This is a critical difference in our text's approach to the ultimate.
Being authentic with respect to unbounded wholeness thus requires not so much a superior logic as a more suitable subjective positioning. Although these two cannot be entirely separated, it seems fair to say that in contrast to classic Madhyamika emphasis on logic and the centrality in praxis and theory of the tetralemma analyses (catuskoti), Dzogchen emphasizes the subjective state of wisdom. After all, even though the existence of multiplicity, spontaneity, and bliss can be established through reasoning, they are not available to authentic recognition via reasoning.
~ from Unbounded Wholeness
[4/10/23, 8:16:38 AM] Soh Wei Yu: Andre shared this
[4/10/23, 8:16:56 AM] Soh Wei Yu: If unbounded wholeness is not subjected to analysis it would be reified isnt it
[4/10/23, 8:17:50 AM] Soh Wei Yu: I think malcolm and kyle wont agree on the different types of emptiness in dzogchen [Soh's correction: will not agree that dzogchen's emptiness differs from madhyamika in essence]. I also recall malcolm commented, not sure is it this book, that bonpos can be slightly eternalistic
[4/10/23, 2:02:45 PM] Soh Wei Yu: image omitted
[4/10/23, 2:13:41 PM] Yin Ling: Sorry Soh, 缘尽 for me
[4/10/23, 2:14:16 PM] John Tan: 👍
[4/10/23, 2:14:19 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Yeah no worries.. thanks for your contributions. It helped a lot of people
[4/10/23, 2:16:07 PM] Yin Ling: Not much to be fair. But too many people finding fault with me left right Center and my fb is still connected to my colleagues and medical friends. So I will block those crazy ones mostly from ATR 😂
[4/10/23, 2:30:43 PM] John Tan: Lol
[4/10/23, 2:31:18 PM] John Tan: Don't bother.
[4/10/23, 2:32:48 PM] John Tan: That is y there is suffering despite the fact there is always no-self.
[4/10/23, 2:34:07 PM] John Tan: Even if we r in ignorance there is no-self, it is due to ignorance and attachment that set the motion of afflictive dependent arising in actionm
[4/10/23, 2:34:58 PM] Yin Ling: Yeah
[4/10/23, 2:48:20 PM] Yin Ling: I also think partly because the dharma is so important to me and the way a lot in the group treat it with ego and treat others with ego become very distasteful to me of late. A lot of men talking as well 😂 the testosterone is too much for me.
I better focus on my own practice in both dharma and medicine. Enough for 10 lifetimes 😂
[4/10/23, 6:43:50 PM] John Tan: How to stop the sound cloud from playing and how do I exit it?
[4/10/23, 6:44:52 PM] John Tan: This app can just play by itself out of nowhere. Spooky. 🤣
[4/10/23, 6:45:15 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Lol im not sure how to shut down apps from android
[4/10/23, 6:45:25 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Just end task it shld do
[4/10/23, 6:45:51 PM] John Tan: End task will not do unless I remove the apps.
[4/10/23, 6:46:54 PM] Soh Wei Yu: “If someone using an Android device wants to stop SoundCloud from playing and exit the app, they can follow these steps:
1. **Stopping Playback**:
- Open the SoundCloud app.
- If music is playing, you should see a mini-player at the bottom. Tap on it to bring up the full player.
- Tap the pause button to stop the playback.
2. **Exiting the App**:
- Press the recent apps/multitasking button (this looks like two overlapping rectangles on many Android phones).
- Find the SoundCloud app in the list of recent apps.
- Swipe the app to the side or up, depending on your phone, to close it.
3. **Force Stop** (if it still behaves unexpectedly):
- Go to your phone's Settings.
- Navigate to "Apps" or "Applications."
- Scroll down and find SoundCloud.
- Tap on it, then tap "Force Stop."
4. **Prevent Auto-play**:
- Open SoundCloud.
- Tap on the three horizontal lines or your profile picture in the top right corner to open the menu.
- Go to "Settings."
- Look for an option related to auto-play or play next and toggle it off.
If the app is starting on its own without user intervention, it might be a glitch or a background process causing it. Restarting the phone or updating the app (if an update is available) might help. If the problem persists, consider reaching out to SoundCloud support.”
[4/10/23, 6:48:12 PM] John Tan: OK thanks
[4/10/23, 8:12:04 PM] John Tan: [Soh: If unbounded wholeness is not subjected to analysis it would be reified isnt it]
Not necessary. Analysis is one way but may not be the best and most appropriate approach (depending one's conditions).
Like going through the 2 ATR stanzas (Soh: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html ) is not really via analysis and reasoning, but a direct seeing.
I m not dzogchen practitioner and m not familiar with their path of practices so can't comment. Realized teachers often have effective and creative ways of triggering insights of their students.
[4/10/23, 8:12:56 PM] John Tan: I have the book actually but haven't read it. Y so u say it skewed towards externalist?
[4/10/23, 8:31:11 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oic.. found malcolm’s 2011 post
[4/10/23, 8:31:42 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Someone said: booker wrote:
Hmmmm, Namrdol ofen says emptiness in Madhyamaka and Dzogchen has the same meaning, however currently I'm reading "Undbounded Wholeness" by Geshe Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche and there's a part called "Core Philosophical Issues" where it's stated "Dzogchen and Madhyamaka speak of emptiness, they differ in their actual understandings of this".
[4/10/23, 8:31:50 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm replied:
[4/10/23, 8:32:10 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Bon Dzogchen and Buddhist Dzogchen are slightly different.
What we say is that the main difference between Dzogchen view and Madhyamaka view is that the former is experiential and the latter is intellectual. But their content, their meaning, is the same as Jigme Lingpa writes:
“ I myself argue ‘To comprehend the meaning of the non-arising baseless, rootless dharmakāya, although reaching and the way of reaching this present conclusion “Since I have no thesis, I alone am without a fault”, as in the Prasanga Madhyamaka system, is not established by an intellectual consideration such as a belief to which one adheres, but is reached by seeing the meaning of ultimate reality of the natural great completion.
Norbu Rinpoche states in his Questions and Answers on the Great Perfection:
That view established intellectually we need to establish consciously in dependence upon one’s capacity of knowledge and on convention. The way of establishing that is the system of Prasanga Madhyamaka commented upon by the great being Nāgārjuna and his followers. There is no system of view better than that.
What the Bonpos say is that Dzogchen view of emptiness and the Madhyamaka view of emptiness are different. We Buddhists definitely disagree.
"a vital point: only if wisdom and delusion do not exclude each other can wisdom be primordial."
That does not match well with this statement in the String of Pearls Tantra:
The mere term delusion cannot be described
within the original purity of the initial state,
likewise, how can there be non-delusion?
Therefore, pure of delusion from the beginning.
"Wisdom's status as primordial has to do with its being spontaneously arisen from the base and thus not dependent on causes."
The Unwritten Tantra states:
There is not object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Discriminating wisdom does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything.
If it arose, that means that even in wisdom there are processes. Wisdom is the basis, BTW.
"Sound, rays, and light are thus neither dependent on the base nor dependency arisen from the base. They are spontaneously present to it. This is not understood as a relationship of cause and effect."
The basis possess three wisdoms, essence, nature and compassion. They manifest as sound, lights and rays. However, the Bonpos place much more emphasis on this doctrine than Buddhist Dzogchen does (where it mainly appears as an explanation of the experience of the bardo).
My point was that the there are processess in the basis, whether you want to call them "causal" or not is really quite irrelevant.
And actually Buddhist Dzogchen disagrees with this Bon assessment above. Padmasambhava states:
"Though the trio of essence, nature and compassion exist in reality, they occur as cause, condition and result because of ignorance."
But this is partly why I did not want to get into this. This topic is very complex, and is just a bunch of intellectual proliferation if you are not a practitioner of tögal. Just understand that there are processes in the basis. You can call them spontanous if you want.
Padmasambhava again states:
The luminous part of vidyā in the basis stirs as the five lights. The karmic winds, the condition of vidyā, cause the colors to appear as a house of light. Since that is not understood as wisdom, delusion cognizing the part of dualistic appearances produces delusion about the duality of subject and object.
Garab Dorje explains the reason why there is stirring in the basis in his commentary on The Single Son of the All the Buddhas Tantra:
At that time, from the naturally occurring blessings of the personal experience of the realization of the heart essence (snying thig), having recognized one's own state, in one lifetime, everyone will attain the result of Buddhahood. From now on, the emptied pit of samsara will not appear as the six kinds of living beings. For twenty thousand eons, sentient beings will not appear possessing a bodily form having severed the stream of samsara. After that, from the arising of the subtle latent defilements of different actions, samsara and nirvana will arise in the same way as before.
Why is this possible? Again, the String of Pearls clarifies:
Luminosity itself stores traces.
Luminosity ['od gsal], the nature [rang bzhin], which is the naturally formed [lhun grub] aspect of the basis, stores traces.
As I said, these issues are subtle, difficult and would take a long time to properly flesh out. Since these things take a long to time to flesh out, and since the explanation of the basis and the arising of the basis and so on and forth is really only relevant to tögal practice and is meant to provide a basis for understanding the result of that practice, delving into explorations of that topic prior to understanding the context of that explanation causes people to become trapped in a lot of useless conceptual proliferation.
Incidentally, I do not appreciate the tone of your comments.
N
[4/10/23, 8:32:23 PM] Soh Wei Yu: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=59781&hilit=Wholeness#p59781
[4/10/23, 8:34:09 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Malcolm seems to take issue with Unbounded wholeness as it seems to over negate dependent origination, and the part where it says dzogchen has different type of emptiness
[4/10/23, 8:35:01 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Oh and this part, malcolm said bon dzogchen is slightly eternalistic:
From a Madhyamaka pov there no phenomena which do not dependently orginate. From a Buddhist Dzogchen pov, the basis is not established as something real.
If you think there is something real that exists outside of time, you are deluded beyond hope of recovery.
The reason we say that the basis is "outside of time" is that from the perspective of the basis itself there are no objects, and time depends on objects. If no objects or entities can be established, how can we talk about dependencies or time? But that does not mean there are no processes, because if there were no processes, the basis could never arise from the basis, and so on.
There are a lot of differences between Bon and Buddhist Dzogchen. Since Bon Dzogchen is not fully grounded in Buddhism, it is a somewhat eternalistic in its presentation of these issues.
N
[4/10/23, 8:35:08 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Idk if he still holds this view today lol
[4/10/23, 8:45:57 PM] John Tan: [Soh: Bon Dzogchen and Buddhist Dzogchen are slightly different....]
Actually this part is very subtle and not easy to understand esp the part by Padmasambhava. Y is it not "causal" is important.
But becoz I do not have the full text, I do not know whether it means the same as what I thought...lol
[4/10/23, 8:53:10 PM] John Tan: Yin ling, this part maybe of relevance to u for refining one's understanding of natural state as spontaneous presence than "cause, conditions and result":
Padmasambhava again states:
The luminous part of vidyā in the basis stirs as the five lights. The karmic winds, the condition of vidyā, cause the colors to appear as a house of light. Since that is not understood as wisdom, delusion cognizing the part of dualistic appearances produces delusion about the duality of subject and object.
Padmasambhava states:
"Though the trio of essence, nature and compassion exist in reality, they occur as cause, condition and result because of ignorance."
[4/10/23, 8:54:55 PM] John Tan: Especially when u taste "everything" as like musical notes of ur "universe body".
[4/10/23, 8:55:11 PM] Yin Ling: Yes lol
[4/10/23, 8:55:30 PM] Yin Ling: You understand what I meant? Lol
[4/10/23, 8:55:38 PM] John Tan: Of course...lol
[4/10/23, 8:57:08 PM] Yin Ling: Yeah it’s very surreal when the whole universe feels like my body is touched 😂
[4/10/23, 8:57:32 PM] Yin Ling: I cannot describe it in any other way
[4/10/23, 8:57:48 PM] John Tan: So it is understood as self-state. Stir of energy winds from one's self state in contrast to something being "produced".
[4/10/23, 8:58:01 PM] Yin Ling: I see
[4/10/23, 8:58:31 PM] John Tan: 悟身外身。
[4/10/23, 8:58:37 PM] Yin Ling: To me it’s like.. a myoclonic jerk. You know when ur muscle is tired and it trembles.
[4/10/23, 8:59:00 PM] Yin Ling: The whole universe is like the body itself trembles like myoclonic jerks 😂
[4/10/23, 8:59:17 PM] John Tan: Yes that resulted in the "stir" as radiance appearances.
[4/10/23, 8:59:36 PM] Yin Ling: I see . Ok. It’s hard for me to understand v chim stuff. I lost attention
[4/10/23, 9:00:31 PM] John Tan: I think that is how Padmasambhava puts it. But I maybe wrong...lol
[4/10/23, 9:00:55 PM] Yin Ling: I see. I won’t know. Haha
[4/10/23, 9:01:55 PM] Yin Ling: [John Tan: 悟身外身。]
What this means?
[4/10/23, 9:02:30 PM] John Tan: Ur space-like body beyond this six foot-body... lol
[4/10/23, 9:02:42 PM] Yin Ling: Oh I see. Yeah
[4/10/23, 9:03:03 PM] Yin Ling: I actually can’t feel my body much anymore except now I’m sick it’s painful 😂
[4/10/23, 9:03:25 PM] Yin Ling: I wake up and my universe body is touched 😁
[4/10/23, 9:04:25 PM] John Tan: Slowly...it also requires fearlessness on top of non-solidity contemplations.
[4/10/23, 9:04:46 PM] John Tan: It is very blissful and spacious.
[4/10/23, 9:05:24 PM] Yin Ling: Yeah slowly.
[4/10/23, 9:05:29 PM] Yin Ling: It clears up
[4/10/23, 9:09:02 PM] Yin Ling: Thanks for sharing. I go call my parents lol
[4/10/23, 9:09:29 PM] Yin Ling: If not they will say work until no father no mother 🤣
[4/10/23, 9:09:44 PM] John Tan: Lol
[4/10/23, 9:12:43 PM] John Tan: Just be as light as possible, no effort and natural.
[4/10/23, 9:13:07 PM] Yin Ling: 👌👍🏻🙏🏻I try my best thanks
[4/10/23, 9:18:41 PM] Soh Wei Yu: [John Tan:
Not necessary. Analysis is one way but may not be the best and most appropriate approach (depending one's conditions)....]
i just did chatgpt translation of this passage into english for someone.. somehow sounds related
ven yin shun:
http://www.mahabodhi.org/files/yinshun/03/yinshun03-10.html
庚一 法空 『復次，迦葉！真實觀者，不以空故令諸法空，但法性自空。不以無相故令法 無相，但法自無相。不以無願故令法無願，但法自無願。不以無起、無生、無取 、無性故，令法無起、無取、無性，但法自無起、無取、無性。如是觀者，是名 實觀。』
上來雖已經開示中觀，但空義是甚深的，還得再加抉擇顯了，以免學者 的誤會。這又分三節，先顯了空義。顯了，是以語言文字，使空義更為明了 ，這又分法空我空來說。
說到這裡，先應略說空的差別。佛說空，都是修行法門，但略有三類不 [P116] 同：一、『分破空』：以分析的觀法來通達空；經中名為散空，天台稱之為 析空。如色法，分分的分析起來，分析到分無可分時，名『鄰虛塵』，即到 了空的邊緣。再進，就有空相現前。但這是假觀而不是實觀，因為這樣的分 析，即使分析到千萬億分之一，也還是有，還是色。二、『觀空』：如瑜伽 師的觀心自在，觀青即青相現前，觀空即空相現前。因為隨心所轉，可知是 空的。但還不徹底，因以觀空的方法來觀空，觀心是怎麼也不能空的。事實 上，他們也決不許心也是空的。這二種法門，佛確也曾說過，也可以祛息許 多煩惱顛倒，但不能究竟，究竟的是第三『自性空』：不是分破了才空，也 不是隨心轉而空；空是一切法的本性如此。如阿含經也說：「諸行空：常空 ……我我所空；性自爾故』。所以，佛說法性空，不是以觀的力量來消滅什 麼，而只是因觀而通達一切法的本來面目。如古人『杯弓蛇影』的故事一樣 ，以為吞了蛇，所以憂疑成病。現在使他自覺到根本沒有蛇，憂疑病苦就好 了。所以，觀空是祛除錯覺，達於一切法的本性空，這才是大乘究竟空義。 [P117] 否則，眾生為情見所縛，不能徹了真空，終於又背空而回到『有』中去安身 立命。
空，是本性空，絕一切戲論的畢竟空，所以說『空』就圓滿的顯示了中 道。但為了適應機宜，又說為無相、無願（古譯為無作），合名三解脫門。 又每說無起、無生（無滅）、無取、無性等，使眾生同歸於一實。依大乘了 義說，『空無相無願，同緣實相』。無自性以離見，名空；離相以息分別， 名無相；離取著以息思願，名無願。但也不妨約偏勝說：依『諸法無我』即 名空，依『涅槃寂靜』即名無相，依『諸行無常』即名無願。也可作淺深說 ：空一切而有空相現（其實畢竟空是空也不可得的），所以說無相。雖達境 無相，而心還有所著，所以又說無願。但這都是方便善巧，三解脫門是平等 一如的。起是現起，生是生起，與起相近；但起可能是錯亂，而生是因緣生 。本譯在無生下，還有『無我』二字。參照別譯，這應該是衍文，所以刪去 了。無取，是無所取著。無性，是沒有自性。如總相的說，從無相到無性， [P118] 都是空的異名。
現在依文來解說。佛說：「迦葉！真實觀」──中道正觀是這樣的：並 「不以空」三昧的觀力，「令諸法」的有性成「空，但」是「法性自空」。 本性是空的，以觀照去觀察，只是覺了他的本來如此而已。這是本性空，自 空，不是他空；這才是中道的真實正觀。依此可見，空觀，真實觀，中道觀 ，是一樣的。同樣的，並「不以無相」三昧力，所以諸「法無相，但法自無 相」。也「不以無願」的觀力，所以諸「法無願，但法自無願」。這樣，佛 說的「無起、無生、無取、無性」，都是這樣的本來如此。能「如是觀」本 性空，「是名實觀」，而不是分破空，觀空等他空的觀門。
[4/10/23, 9:18:43 PM] Soh Wei Yu: english translation:
[4/10/23, 9:18:50 PM] Soh Wei Yu: You deleted this message.
[4/10/23, 9:37:55 PM] Soh Wei Yu: You deleted this message.
[4/10/23, 9:41:26 PM] Soh Wei Yu: You deleted this message.
[4/10/23, 9:41:35 PM] Soh Wei Yu: Sorry previous translation was inaccurate and missed out a lot
[4/10/23, 9:43:43 PM] Soh Wei Yu: **Translation**: The Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra states:
"Furthermore, Kāśyapa! A genuine contemplative does not make all phenomena empty because of emptiness; instead, the nature of phenomena is inherently empty. They do not make phenomena without attributes due to the lack of attributes, but rather phenomena inherently lack attributes. They don't make phenomena as desire-less due to the absence of desires, but phenomena naturally have no desires. They don't make phenomena non-arising, non-birth, non-attainment, or naturelessness due to non-arising, non-birth, non-attainment, or naturelessness but phenomena are naturally so. Such a contemplative is seeing truth/reality."
Although there's been an introduction to the middle view of emptiness, the profound nature of emptiness still requires further elucidation to prevent misunderstandings. This discussion can be broken into three parts, the first being an exposition on emptiness. The exposition uses language and text to clarify the concept of emptiness, diving into the distinction between the emptiness of phenomena and the emptiness of the self.
Up to this point, we should provide a brief outline of the different facets of emptiness. While the Buddha speaks of emptiness as a practice, there are subtle variations:
1. **"Analytical Emptiness"**: This is realizing emptiness through analytical means. When analyzing materiality in detail, once it's dissected to an indivisible point called the "edge of emptiness", emptiness is almost perceived. But this is a constructed view, not the genuine view, because even dissected to a minute level, there remains materiality.
2. **"Contemplative Emptiness"**: As practiced by yogis, when one contemplates blue, the blue appears; when one contemplates emptiness, emptiness appears. It shows emptiness as mind-dependent. However, this isn't complete, because, by this method, one's mind cannot be truly empty. In reality, these practitioners do not accept that even the mind is empty.
3. **"Inherent Emptiness"**: It's not that things become empty after being dissected or that they are empty because they follow the mind. Instead, emptiness is the natural state of all phenomena. For instance, the Agama Sutra states: "All conditioned phenomena are empty, always empty… Both the self and what belongs to the self are empty, naturally so."
Thus, when the Buddha speaks of the nature of phenomena as empty, it's not through force or observation that one removes or negates anything. Instead, it's about understanding the true face of all phenomena. Just like the ancient story where someone mistakenly believed they swallowed a snake, causing them distress, realizing there was no snake to begin with alleviates their suffering. In this way, observing emptiness is about dispelling misunderstandings and recognizing the inherent emptiness of all phenomena. This is the ultimate Mahayana view of emptiness.
[P117]
Otherwise, sentient beings, bound by their perceptions, fail to truly comprehend emptiness and revert to clinging to existence. Emptiness, in its truest sense, is devoid of all speculations and perfectly captures the Middle Way. However, for adaptability, it's also expressed as formlessness, non-desire, collectively termed the "Three Gates of Liberation". Furthermore, terms like non-arising, non-birth, non-attainment, and naturelessness guide all beings towards a unified truth. In the grand Mahayana exposition, "emptiness, formlessness, and non-desire" all point towards the same true nature. Emptiness means no inherent nature, formlessness is being free from attributes, and non-desire signifies freedom from attachments.
However, there are also expedient explanations: "All phenomena lack self" is termed as emptiness, "Nirvana's peace" is deemed formlessness, and "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent" is termed non-desire. There's also a gradation in understanding: one may realize everything is empty but still cling to the form of emptiness, hence formlessness is taught. Even when one reaches a state where there's no attachment to form, there might still be a subtle clinging, and hence non-desire is taught. But these are all skillful means; the Three Gates of Liberation are essentially the same. "Arising" refers to manifestation, "birth" is due to conditions, and though closely related, "arising" might be misunderstood, while "birth" is about conditional origination.
Currently, based on the text, the Buddha said, "Kāśyapa! The true observation of the Middle Way is such that one doesn't rely on the meditation of 'emptiness' to make phenomena empty, but realizes that their nature is inherently empty. It's a genuine observation of the Middle Way, distinct from other methods like analytical or contemplative emptiness."
[4/10/23, 10:10:24 PM] John Tan: 👍
[4/10/23, 10:41:00 PM] Yin Ling: This is nice thank you
---------------------
https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/23898597483088357/?__cft__[0]=AZWXa-ub2FNDt-osM91pb-0oJKrXBOZD6xfCQXmt0R7yz92BdUxUnHlC2BIeaf_CI547sW908XQ-UkNmO5qsb4r1INUezEBVi6hTjyPWgChS-Fk-yZLwqTuFjG-hyVcFIW7_B9T3nPOBo5epp3Tz4tco&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
Sim Pern ChongVery nice sharing. Thanks!
"Luminosity
['od gsal], the nature [rang bzhin], which is the naturally formed
[lhun grub] aspect of the basis, stores traces." Thanks for this line...
this is my experience too. But, in my limited experience, the
'traces/imprint'
are only percievable.. when the 'conceptual' part is uncontrived. I
don't have enough experience in this region though. IMO, that territory
is also very complex.. it is very similar to generative AI... in that
the imprint also 'produces' AI-like intelligence from the dataset... To
me, this is also a basis for the experience of the 'higher self or
oversoul'.. that some othe types of paths are talking about. Because
this 'intelligence' can communicate with the 'human' symbolically. I
think i better not say anymore so as to not add to further confusion.
For
me, as long as whatever appears/comes into contact directly
dissolves/self-liberates is effective and good enough. The difference
between Bon or Buddhist Dzogchen is irrelevant (to me).
Mr. MPSim Pern Chong
Very interesting. Just today I was thinking about the fact that there
can be such purely empty experience, where there seems to be no place
for traces to be stored, yet they can then arise. And then there are
nearly infinite latent
experiences. Certainly some of it is more 'personal', but there does seem to be a transpersonal element also.
But 'where' is this unmanifest material? Lol...
I
wonder if this connects to the Yogacara idea of ālaya-vijñāna. I think
there is some overlap, or at least different attempts to think about
similar phenomenon. Unless I am off base.
Sim Pern ChongMr. MP Thanks for the sharing. I was hoping somebody brings this up..
Just my understanding only...
Yes,
i think the storehouse/respository is what is meant by "Luminosity ['od
gsal], the nature [rang bzhin], which is the naturally formed [lhun
grub] aspect of the basis, stores traces."
I
see Yogacara as really deep. There is a part in the Lankavantara sutra
that say something like "Nirvana is the transformation of the will and
alaya/repository consciousness'.
To
me, Yogacara seems to suggest that for Liberation to occur the
transformation/purification of the repository/Alaya is required.
Then
Dzogchen.. to me, point out the method for liberation. That is 'if
anything is done to cause a transformation of the repository'.. it is
just another grasping.. and it will then establish more imprints.
Because, it is 'originally' 'void/empty', hence the best method is no
method.. or non grasping.. hence leave it as it is.
However,
the issue here is that prior to anatta.. non-grasping is not really
possible or stable.. because the primary blindspot of self-grasping
isn't detected yet. And then emptiness is the further unfolding of
blindspots.. etc.
Sim Pern Chong
to me and based on lankavatara sutra, the only way to really clear the
alaya is full actualization of twofold emptiness. And it seems arahants
only clear the first seven consciousness, buddhas clear the eighth
(alaya)
古佛在楞伽经（达摩祖师把这部经作为法脉传承印心的法本）也说：
佛告大慧：“为无余涅槃故说，诱进行菩萨行者故。此及余世界修菩萨行者，乐声闻乘涅槃，为令离声闻乘进向大乘，化佛授声闻记，非是法佛。大慧！因是故记诸声闻与菩萨不异。大慧！不异者，声闻、缘觉、诸佛如来，烦恼障断，解脱一味，非智障断。大慧！智障者，见法无我，殊胜清净。烦恼障者，先习见人无我断，七识灭；法障解脱，识藏（注：八识）习灭，究竟清净。因本住法故，前后非性。无尽本愿故，如来无虑无察，而演说法。正智所化故，念不忘故，无虑无察。四住地，无明住地，习气断故，二烦恼断，离二种死，觉人法无我，及二障断。”
Chatgpt translation, didnt verify its accuracy:
Certainly, let's refine the translation by capturing all nuances of the text.
In
the
Lankavatara Sutra (which Zen Master Bodhidharma regarded as the
foundational scripture for the transmission of the Dharma seal), the
ancient Buddha said:
The
Buddha spoke to Mahamati: "For the sake of achieving Parinirvana
without residue, I speak thus, to encourage Bodhisattva practitioners.
Those Bodhisattvas in this and other worlds who find joy in the Sravaka
vehicle's Nirvana are guided away from the Sravaka path towards the
Mahayana. This prediction of future Buddhahood is not the true nature of
Buddha. Mahamati! For this reason, the predictions given to Sravakas
and Bodhisattvas are no different. Mahamati! They are indistinguishable
in that Sravakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and all Tathagatas have severed the
afflictive obscurations, and their liberation is of the same taste, but
they have not eradicated the knowledge obscurations. Mahamati! The
knowledge obscurations pertain to recognizing the non-self nature of
phenomena, which is supremely pure. The afflictive obscurations relate
to first understanding the non-self of individuals, which results in the
extinguishing of the seventh consciousness. With the obstructions
related to phenomena removed, the habitual tendencies of the store
consciousness (eighth consciousness) also ceases, leading to ultimate
purity. Owing to their grounding in the Dharma, there is no inherent
nature, neither in the past nor the future. Due to their infinite
primordial vows, the Tathagatas expound the Dharma without concern or
scrutiny. Through transformations brought about by true wisdom and their
undistracted mindfulness, they are free from worries or detailed
examination. Residing in the four stages, and in the realm of ignorance,
once habitual tendencies are terminated, the two kinds of obscurations
(afflictive obscurations and knowledge obscurations) are eradicated, and
one is liberated from the two types of mortal existence. One then
perceives the non-self nature of beings and phenomena and overcomes the
two obscurations."
This
translation aims to capture the essence of the original text and
emphasize the points about the same taste of liberation and the detailed
distinctions made between the different types of obscurations.
Eighth consciousness ceases
the habitual tendencies of the store consciousness (eighth consciousness) also ceases
It
is solely personal. As Kyle Dixon said in reddit, it is not collective
or shared in any way. But the individual traces of sentient beings
collectively project a container universe.
According to yogacara doctrine.
But there are no universals including universal consciousness. All universals are an unreal abstraction in Buddhadharma.
“Seeds, bījas, are never shared in buddhadharma. Your bījas pertain to your own individual continuum.”
Also
Kyle: “The ālayavijñāna is not collective in Buddhist teachings,
including Yogācāra. There are no universals in any system of
buddhadharma.
Also,
the ālayavijñāna and the container universe are two separate
principles.” “False-aspectarian Yogācāra does posit a container universe
that is collectively created by all sentient beings.”
Mr. MP also of relevance. Something i sent someone before:
One
last point.. i dont see the “unconscious” as an entity but more of a
collection of latent tendencies like how dzogchen teacher tenzin wangyal
said in his dream yoga book,
“Karmic
traces remain with us as psychic remnants of action performed with
grasping and aversion. They are obscurations of consciousness stored in
the base consciousness of the individual, in the kunzhi namshe. Although
it is spoken of as a container, the kunzhi namshe actually is
equivalent to the obscurations of consciousness: when there are no
obscurations of consciousness there is no kunzhi namshe. It is not a
thing or a place; it is the dynamic that underlies the organization of
dualistic experience. It is as insubstantial as a collection of habits,
and as powerful as the habits that allow language to make sense, forms
to resolve into objects, and existence to appear to us as something
meaningful that we can navigate and understand.
The
common metaphor for the kunzhi namshe is of a storehouse or repository
that cannot be destroyed. We can think of the kunzhi namshe storing a
collection of patterns of schematics. It is a grammar of experience that
is affected to a greater or lesser extent by each action that we take
externally or internally, physically or cognitively. As long as habitual
tendencies exist in the mind of the individual, the kunzhi namshe
exists. When one dies and the body deteriorates, the kunzhi namshe does
not. The karmic traces continue in the mental consciousness until they
are purified. When they are completely purified, there is no longer a
kunzhi namshe and the individual is a buddha.”
Also,
although I accept the conventional usage of the term alaya vijnana, I
can also understand why some masters like tsongkhapa and even some
dzogchen teachers reject using these terms. And it has to do with what
john tan said here:
"Rejection"
here means alaya is nothing "hidden", it is "actively" manifesting in
the 6 streams of consciousness and do not need an extra "category" for
explanation. Tsongkhapa wanted practitioners to see this "ignorance" is
frequently in action.
Now let's look at master Shen Kai's teaching "念念相续" and the skillful means of transformation.
If
u go through the anatta insight, u r not trying to transform anything
like tantra -- hatred to compassion, ignorance to wisdom or greed to
generosity. What u realized is the nature of what appears is already
free from duality of hatred/compassion or ignorance/wisdom or
greed/generousity but we r confused due to all the reified mental
constructs taken as "real" in a very hypnotic way - conventionally known
as ignorance.
This
may sound easy but it is not in actual situation because "ignorance"
like what Tsongkhapa said is not hidden at all but an active agent that
constantly confuses the mind. That is y Tsongkhapa reject the
alayavinana concept.
If
u say "John", u r already unconsciously and unknowingly treating "J"
"o" "h" "n" as a whole and it already has many implications. Similarly
like the letter "i", is the '"." separated from bar "I" to that forms
"i". Is the plant "growing" or "decaying"? U may say oh I have learnt
mmk and they r only conventionally true but ultimately empty. But that
is useless from a yogi perspective and "念念相续" must be understood from a
deeper perspective.
What u need to be aware is how "strong", how "powerful", how hypnotic is it. Like I told u in 2014:
John TanSaturday, December 27, 2014 at 6:04am UTC+08
...it
relates to another question about de-construction of "physicality".
What is the relation between "physical", designations and consciousness?
If we seriously think about it, how is it possible that a chain of
physical causes (like hitting a bell, sound waves, air vibration) can
give rise to a mental event (sound-consciousness)? We feel "physical" as
something very different and separated from consciousness as if
physical conditions went through a twilight zone then magic happens and
BAM sound-consciousness arises. Actually "the alienness and difference"
between physical and mental is purely due to the power of
classifications -- the mind is bounded by that spell of our worldly
definitions and suddenly "physical" feels very different from
"consciousness". This is analogous to drawing a line in thin air and
miraculously we find ourselves unable to step beyond that line.
Designations have profound implications to consciousness and is magic to
mind. We must b aware of that. Be it science or religions, we r always
bounded by the power of definitions and designations. So the difference
between them is in fact difference by hypnotism but not by reality. If
we break this spell then "physicality" and "mental" becomes a blur and
we realize "physical" is nothing "physical" and never a moment separated
from consciousness; likewise consciousness is also only consciousness
by definition. So in addition to seeing through mind's constructs into
direct experience of non-duality and non-conceptuality, we must also be
deeply aware of the power of mind's constructs and designations to
consciousness; otherwise we r not understanding consciousness at all.
Total Exertion of Karmic Tendencies
Karmic
propensity is the whole of one's experiential reality. If one feels
like a changeless witness, that experience of feeling like a changeless
witness IS that propensity in action, in experience... if one is seeing
fully that there's only transience (the radiant flow of
sights/sounds/smells/taste/touch/thoughts), that is the actualization of
wisdom (of anatta).
If
one sees manifestation but appears solid, that's also the view of
latent tendency, that view of inherent existence in action. That very
feeling of concreteness IS karmic tendency. If one sees this very
presence (of any experience - sight, sound, smell, etc) is empty of any
it-ness, concreteness, solidity, apparent yet empty, that very vision
itself is the actualization of wisdom, it is the total exertion of
wisdom, it IS wisdom. Or as Dzogchen puts it - those very five elements
(space, wind, fire, water, earth) are wisdoms by nature, so experienced
in its actual state, is that actualization of wisdom.
In
a way, the view is the experience... every samsaric experience is the
total exertion of ignorance along with the 12 links in a single moment.
Occasionally ignorant view is forgotten in a peak experience, such a
cessation is however non-analytical and merely a passing state, as the
conditions for the re-emergence of ignorance and afflictions have not
been cut off from its roots. Only the analytical cessation resulting
from penetrative prajna wisdom of twofold emptiness can lead to a
permanent and quantum shift of perception away from ignorance, what
Lankavatara Sutra calls the "turning-about" in the deepest seat of
consciousness (but again this deepest seat is not somewhere else but
fully manifesting!).
So
the karmic tendency, and wisdom, you've been searching for has never
been elsewhere but is staring right in your face as your experiential
reality all along! Funny how one doesn't see that. That very activity
that is mentally fabricated but appearing real as one's only
experiential reality at that given moment, just that is the spell of
karmic tendency. That activity that is (experienced/seen as) luminous
and empty as one's only experiential reality at that given moment is the
wisdom.
I
remember when Ciaran (of Ruthless Truth) saw the real fiction of self
(a process of creative imagination brought into real life, a real
creation based on an imaginary character) he wrote that it was a "zen on
drugs" moment. Yeah, I can see why he said that!
Labels: Karmic Tendencies |
Mr. MPSoh Wei Yu
So, with regards to there being no transpersonal element, and indeed no
universals, how does this square with dependent origination?
The tree cannot be separated from the soil, water, sun, nor even it's evolutionary ancestors. Likewise, how
can
an individual's samskaras truly be the result anything other than
conditions that are dependently originated? And there can't be a
separate DO for each individual?
Having a hard time understanding this idea of each individual being on their own continuum.
Mr. TJThe
whole "There is no transpersonal in Buddhism" thing seems to me like it
is putting too much weight on the Abhidharma worldview. If you insist
that "there is no transpersonal" is ultimately valid, you don't take
Nagarjuna's critique of Abhidharma
on board: it
creates an inherent existience of the "personal". It is the opposite
extreme of, and hence equally as problematic as, absolutizing a
transpersonal. But even if this statement is only taken conventionally,
why insist that the Abhidharma worldview is a 100% correct description
of the conventional world? We aren't insisting on Meru cosmology, after
all. I have my reasons for wanting to accept the transpersonal as
conventionally valid.
Trees,
water, sun, are conventionally labelled based on unique particulars,
they are instances of manifestations, phenomena and activities. They are
not universals, like a cosmic consciousness shared by all beings and so
on. Just like the
word “weather” is merely named
after a collection of dynamic phenomena like raining and wind and
sunshine and snow falling and so forth, weather is thus mere name and
an unreal abstraction. Ultimately even these conventional phenomena or
unique particulars do not withstand analysis when subjected to scrutiny.
“Awareness” or “consciousness” is likewise name only and empty of
inherent existence as a reified universal.
Loppon
Namdrol/Malcolm: "Buddhism is all its forms is strictly nominalist, and
rejects all universals (samanya-artha) as being unreal abstractions."
This truth should be familiar to anyone who has truly realised anatta.
Ted:
“...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad
forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms
themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of
Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all
Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are
enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature
or mind.”
…
“In
Dogen’s view, the only reality is reality that is actually experienced
as particular things at specific times. There is no “tile nature” apart
from actual “tile forms,” there is no “essential Baso” apart from actual
instances of “Baso experience.” When Baso sits in zazen, “zazen”
becomes zazen, and “Baso” becomes Baso. Real instances of Baso sitting
in zazen is real instances of Baso and real instances of zazen – when
Baso eats rice, Baso is really Baso and eating rice is really eating
rice.” - Ted Biringer,
https://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../zazen...
The
postulation of universals as well as the inherent existence of any
phenomena are automatically negated if you see dependent origination.
Soil, water, sun, all are dependently designated. See:
Krodha/kyle dixon wrote eight years ago :
The
middle way is actually a freedom from the misconceptions of existence
and non-existence. Holding that things exist (whether they are
conditioned or unconditoned phenomena) is eternalism, holding that
things do not exist (whether they are conditioned or unconditioned) is
nihilism. Annihilationism is the belief that something existent becomes
non-existent.
The way to
avoid these various extremes is emptiness, which means (i) a lack of
inherent existence, (ii) a freedom from extremes, (iii) a lack of
arising [non-arising], (iv) dependent co-origination. All of those
definitions being synonymous.
Dependent
origination is the proper relative view which leads one to the
realization of the ultimate view; which is emptiness. Many people
misunderstand emptiness to be a negative view, but it is actually the
proper middle way view which avoids the extremes of existence,
non-existence, both and neither.
All
in all there is really no way to ELI5 with this topic, you'll just have
to ask questions. It is simple once understood, but very, very few
people actually understand dependent origination.
Here is a collection of stuff I wrote awhile ago on dependent origination for the sake of the discussion:
the
general definition of independent origination, the very idea that
things are endowed with their own-being/essence [svabhāva], or self
[ātman]. In order for something to be independently originated it would
have to be unconditioned, independent and uncaused, but this is
considered an impossibility in the eyes of Buddhism. The correct
conventional view for emptiness is that of dependent origination, and so
we see that in order to have objects, persons, places, things and so
on, they must possessed of causes and conditions. Meaning they cannot be
found apart from those causes and conditions. If the conditions are
removed, the object does not remain.
The
adepts of the past have said that since a thing only arises due to
causes, and abides due to conditions, and fails in the absence of cause
and condition, how can this thing be said to exist? 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'
is unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces,
which do not in fact create anything apart from themselves, and even
then, the parts are also arbitrary designations as well, for if there is
no inherently existent object, there can be no inherent parts,
characteristics or attributes either. Therefore the object is merely a
useful conventional designation, and its validity is measured by its
efficacy, apart from that conventional title however, there is no
underlying inherent object to be found.
Dependent
origination is pointing to a species of implied interdependency; the
fact that an allegedly conditioned 'thing' only arises via implication
from the misperception of other conditioned things, and so each 'thing'
is simultaneously a cause and an effect of each other, and everything
else. Dependent origination isn't a case in which we have truly
established things which are existing in dependence on other truly
existent things, for instance; that we have objects which are truly
constructed of parts which are in turn made of smaller parts such as
atoms etc. This is of course one way of looking at dependent
origination, but this would be considered a very coarse and
realist/essentialist view. One that subtly promotes a sense of own-being
or essence to things. So instead what dependent origination is pointing
out, is that there is no inherent object to be found apart from (or
within) the varying conventional characteristics we attribute to said
object. On the other hand there would also be no inherent objects found
in relation to (or within a relationship) with the various
characteristics attributed to said objects. For each would only be valid
when contrasted with the other, and upon discovering a lack of
inherency in regards to one, the validity of the other would be
compromised as well. Our experiences are merely interdependent
conventional constructs composed of unfounded inferences.
In
this way, the object 'itself', as an essential core 'thing' is
unfindable. We instead only find a designated collection of pieces,
which do not in fact create anything apart from themselves, and even
then, the parts are also arbitrary designations as well, for if there is
no inherently existent object, there can be no inherent parts,
characteristics or attributes either.
So
for example, if a table were truly inherently existent, meaning it
exists independently, then we would be able to find that table
independently of its varying characteristics. The table would be able to
exist independently of being observed, independent of its color or
texture, independent of its parts and pieces, independent of its
designated name, independent of its surroundings etc. In contrast, if
observation - or consciousness for example - were truly existent, we
would likewise be able to find it apart from the perception of the
table, surrounding environment, and so on. There is no essential, 'core'
nature that a table in fact 'is' or possesses, and the same goes for
consciousness and anything else.
For
sentient beings afflicted with ignorance, conceptual imputation and
conventional language are mistaken as pointing towards authentic
persons, places, things, etc. When ignorance is undone, there is freedom
to use conventional language, however it doesn't create confusion
because wisdom directly knows ignorance for what it is. In Buddhism
conventionality is allowed to be a tool implemented for communication,
so we're allowed to be John Doe or Mary Smith, trees, rocks, cars are
allowed to be designations. Conventionality is simply a useful tool
which doesn't point to anything outside of itself. The conventional
truth is relative... words, concepts, ideas, persons, places, things
etc., and is contrasted by ultimate truth, which is emptiness.
All
apparent phenomena which fall under the category of 'conditioned' -
meaning they accord with one or more of the four extremes (existence,
nonexistence, both, neither) - originate dependently. We know this is so
because there is no such thing as phenomena which doesn't arise
dependent upon causes and conditions.
"Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.
Something that is not dependently arisen,
Such a thing does not exist.
Therefore a non-empty thing
Does not exist."
-- Nāgārjuna
Mr. MP lastly, not only does dependent origination apply to continuum, it can Only apply to continuums.
This is explained by Mipham here which you should read:
Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
“If
one thing were to arise from another, it would follow that anything
could arise from anything else, like darkness arising from a butter lamp
and so on, given that there is no difference in terms of their being
other.
It is said [in the Introduction to the Middle Way]:
If things could arise on the basis of something ‘other’,
Well then, thick darkness should come from flames.
For the cause and effect to be entirely ‘other’,
Is never feasible.
If the cause and effect were entirely other,
Causes would be just the same as non-causes.
Then
you might say, “In the case of anything truly different such as light
and darkness and so on, cause and effect would be unpredictable. But
seeds and sprouts and so on have an uncommon acting causal relationship
of influencer and influenced, and so the preceding cause produces a
subsequent effect. And so there is no question of anything arising from
anything else, like darkness from flames and so on.”
Then, it is said [in the Introduction to the Middle Way]:
You do not accept that barley, stamens, Kimshuka and so on
Can produce a rice sprout, because they lack the capability,
They are not within the same continuum, and are not similar.
It is the same for the rice seed, we say, because of being ‘other’.
In
the same way that barley and flowers, stones and so on cannot be
included within the same continuum as the cause of a rice sprout or be
said to be of ‘similar type’, so too, the barley seed and its sprout, if
they are established as truly ‘other’ from the perspective of ultimate
analysis, cannot ultimately belong to the same continuum.
Even
though this does not affect the ultimate conclusion that it is wholly
unacceptable for a thing’s own producers to belong to its same
continuum, it is acceptable to classify a producer as belonging to the
same continuum on the conventional level, based on the ultimately
incontrovertible point that things are not inherently ‘other’, but arise
in interdependence.”
"One,
whoever told you rig pa is not part of the five aggregates? Rig pa is
knowledge of your own state. In its impure form one's own state
manifests as the five aggregates; in its pure form, it manifests as the
five buddha families.
Nagārjuna
resolves this issue through using the eight examples. There is no
substantial transmission, but there is serial continuity, like lighting a
fire from another fire, impressing a seal on a document and so on. See
his verses on dependent origination:
All migrating beings are causes and results.
but here there are no sentient beings at all;
just empty phenomena entirely produced
from phenomena that are only empty,
phenomena without a self and what belongs to a self,
[like] utterances, lamps, mirrors, seals,
lenses, seeds, sourness and echoes.
Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are understand that nothing transfers.
Also, the one who imputes annihilation
upon extremely subtle existents,
is not wise,
and will not see the meaning of ‘arising from conditions’."
"In brief from empty phenomena
Empty phenomena arise;
Agent(cause), karma(action), fruits(effect), and their enjoyer(subject) -
The conqueror taught these to be [only] conventional.
Just as the sound of a drum as well as a shoot
Are produced from a collection [of factors],
We accept the external world of dependent origination
To be like a dream and an illusion.
That phenomena are born from causes
Can never be inconsistent [with facts];
Since the cause is empty of cause,
We understand it to be empty of origination."
Mr. MPI
see and agree that anything conditioned is empty, but the trouble for
me is with a strictly 'personal' continuum. For instance 'Barley can not
produce a rice sprout' is true, but both are from a common ancestor and
so are in that sense,
divergent (and part of) from
a single continuum. They did not arise as separate. And this can be
applied to anything in existence.
So
a strictly personal continuum doesn't quite make sense to me because it
implies some kind of ultimate isolation (unless I am misunderstanding
what this is referring to, which is possible).
Everything is connected to everything else by the chain of causality.
Also i wrote recently, translated from chatgpt:
Here's the translation of the passage you provided:
"I feel that what I wrote yesterday was not clear, so I wanted to elaborate:
When
you reify awareness, it becomes one whole, encompassing everything as
its parts, just like the ocean and its waves. But when you deconstruct
the waves and the ocean, the whole and the parts, it's merely the
bright, luminous, pellucid, vividness of sound, taste, and color – the
basis upon which waves and ocean are mere imputations of. Awareness is
just a name but empty of its own existence, like how 'weather' is a term
denoting rain, wind, sunlight, and all dynamic manifestations of
ungraspable nature, and is not a container or singular overarching
entity, nor does it transform into or modulate as them.
Similarly,
awareness isn't an unchanging singular overarching entity that
permeates, encompasses, subsumes, or even modulates as everything.
What's seen, heard, and felt is clear, vivid, luminous, and
crystal-like. 'Awareness' is merely a term to describe such, not
permeated/pervaded by a singular essence of awareness across all diverse
sights, sounds, and sensations. Ultimately, awareness is seen as not
possessing its own intrinsic nature, not just as a dualistic nature of a
background witness, but also empty of a substance that possesses
'oneness with everything' or a unity with all things. And the 'awareness
substance' is seen through without leaving a trace, leaving only the
luminosity and clarity that is all appearances, not just a state of
self-forgetfulness but a wisdom insight.
As
Scott Kiloby, a teacher from America, once said: 'If you see awareness
as no different from everything, and those things are not separate
"things", why use the term 'awareness'? You are left only with the
world, your life, and the diversity of experiences.' Another teacher,
Dr. Greg Goode, who initially practiced Advaita but later delved deeply
into Buddhism, told me: '
It
looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a
different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw
awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?
I
had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's
treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on
"emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came
together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of
awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from
the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the
"ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic,
playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back.
No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy
everywhere..."
Among
the practitioners I've met (be it Buddhist or non-Buddhist), of those
that can realize the nonduality of perceiver and perceived, even if they
transcend the duality of the seer and the seen, they still retain the
oneness (inherent ontological singular overarching substance) of
Advaita, not realizing the Buddhist anatta, still leaving traces. They
might experience the mindlessness of 'in the seen just the seen', but
still retain the view of a really existing singular pervasive mind, so
experience and view are not in sync.
Thus,
Master Guoru, a lineage successor of Ch'an Master Shengyan, also said
in the book I gave you, 'Believing that there exists a pure mind is
absolutely wrong. "True illumination without illumination", "One mind is
empty of Mind", these phrases are all about the ultimate reality of all
dharmas. The Record of Bodhisattva Shanwei also mentions: "In the
nature of extinction, there's no extinction; in true awareness, there's
no cognizance", which can be understood theoretically.' Patriarch
Bodhidharma also said, 'Both delusive thoughts and wisdom cease forever;
when both luminosity and illumination end, remaining serene and
non-active, this is called the supreme.' Damo's discourse on No-mind:
'The disciple then suddenly realized, knowing that outside the mind
there's no phenomena, and outside of phenomena, there's no mind. Every
action and use became free, breaking all webs of doubt, with no more
attachments.'
But
what we can all agree is that dependent origination is empty of I, me
and mine. It is only conventionally labelled as peter, john doe, etc.
As
john tan asked me before
“And when u talk about empty clarity, r u having the sense of it is "ur" empty clarity? Is empty clarity "urs"?”
I answered,
“No,
there is no i or mine or other at all.. no subject action object in
equipoise. Only Conventionally, we can talk about mindstreams and how
they are conventionally distinct but dependently originates etc”
However this does not imply there are universal entities.
If
you read the link (you should), you will see that dependent origination
negates arising from itself, not from other. Ultimately Identity and
difference is negated. Whatever dependently originates is not one, not
many, ultimately empty
and non arisen but conventionally dependently originating
Mr. MP about the single ancestor part. The ancestor is neither the same not different from the current sprout.
“
Firewood
becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose
that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand
that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which
fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future.
Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes
future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after
it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.
This
being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth
turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an
unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into
birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.
Birth
is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete
this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the
beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.”
Mr. MPSoh Wei Yu
Yes, that all makes sense. Perhaps the idea of a personal continuum is
throwing me because I'm trying to put it on the conventional level and
it's pointing more at the ultimate.
Everything else makes good sense to me. Both analytically and
experientially, reality is dependently originated and empty.
Mr. MPSoh Wei Yu
Mipham says: "You might think that a seed and sprout are not
equivalent to fire and water because they belong to the same continuum.
Yet a “continuum” is merely an imputation based on the uninterrupted
resemblance of momentary phenomena,
and does not really exist."
This makes perfect sense. So then, how could a continuum be either personal or transpersonal?
Mr. MP continuums are by definition so called “personal”. If it were not personal, then barley seeds will grow banana trees
Mr. MP
but they are also conventional and dependently designated. But it does
not mean anything goes or everything happens haphazardly. The correct
way to see conventional phenomena is dependent origination, and what
dependently originates is empty and non arisen
Mr. MP also the personal or continuum is also a mere designation
Although universals are deconstructed it does not mean personal entities are real
The
purpose is not to set up sense of separateness but to deconstruct
inherent view into freedom from conceptual constructs of inherent self
and phenomena and also one can feel immense interconnectedness without
boundaries. But it is not a reified “one thing” like a transpersonal
cosmic consciousness everybody shared.
Sim Pern ChongMr. MP
Wow.. so much have been posted..haha.. You asked "What are your
thoughts on the Alaya and or the Basis being partially transpersonal?"
From my experience, they are of the same 'cluster'...Those (derivatives of ) imprints and the complex
processes
'produced' this apparent experience of a human being that is
'identified as Sim Pern Chong'. Simultaneously, other apparent
'identities' are derived from those imprint derivatives as well. Those
of same 'past live' lineage.
The
way that is written by me may give the impression that there is a
beyond somewhere where the alaya is occuring. I think a more precise way
of describing is that certain cognitive processes/obscuration are in
operation that prevent the perception of the 'alaya' . That means, we
cannot go to a alaya realm.. rather the wider perception is blocked by
cognitive obscuration.
Mr. MPVery well said, this resonates with my experience as well!
Mr. MPSim Pern Chong I think
Soh Wei Yu's
placing the importance on not reifying the alaya material as a sort of a
transpersonal cosmic thing is very important, but in terms of it
existing in sort of conventional transpersonal way, it sure seems to.
The
experiences of synchronicities, dreams,
'psychic' phenomenon, etc, IMO point to a degree of connection in the
'sub conscious' with other beings.
Whether
we treat the connection as 'the same thing' vs 'resonance/harmony' may
be a technical difference with regards to the word 'transpersonal' but
it's not super important to me.
I
think your analysis that it is not somewhere else and simply blocked by
obscurations makes sense. Another way to say it might be that we simply
don't have the mental resolution to see it. Perhaps it is right here
but our minds don't have the 'magnification' to resolve it.
Sim Pern ChongMr. MP I see... thanks for sharing.
The
few times that those territories were experienced were always in states
of total uncontriveness.. and the self of self, subject/object fully
gone.. and no conceptual thinking too. In fact, the first time in
those
terrorities of spinning petals visions were years before i have even
heard of Dzogchen (in this life).. it is later i knew that what had been
seen were very likely the early phase of Togal visions. I still see
those visions nowadays... in the phase between 'cessation' and getting
up from sleep/meditation.
My
take is that, when total non-grasping is in effect, those perception
will naturally appear. Hence they are not some 'beyond' that is a
separate 'realm' .. or rather the idea of the beyond is non-existent
when experiencing them.
From
my experience, the times the 'alaya' is percieved... its actually
putting a kind of strain on the body... as if the physical body is not
vibrating high enough to hold such as perception naturally. Our physical
body/brain 's frequency is not matching that very fine 'energy'. To
sustain that will require the 'dropping' / releasing of 'grosser
graspings'.
These are just my thoughts only though.
Mr. MPSim Pern Chong Interesting thanks! I've only dipped a toe in the shallow end of this pool. Sounds like you've had a few dips!
Mr. MPSim Pern Chong
Just reading a little about Togal visions now. Have been doing kasina
practice lately, but just with back of eyelids. Sounds like it is
similar territory?
I have only achieved something like mild electric purple clouds and some very
slightly
rainbow blobs, and only the faintest hints of organization - sometimes
spinning like a hurricane. Good practice for shamatha though, it quite
holds interest and quiets the mind.
Based on reading about kasina in Daniel Ingram's book, it can go to those similar territories of deep visualization.
Mr. MP
focus on penetrating anatta and dependent origination deeply. Must have
unshakeable insight and realization. There can be no liberation with
any substance view. If there is any sort of views about transpersonal
substance, essence, source
or substratum, it will hinder liberation.
Mr. MPSoh Wei Yu
Thank you, yes. I appreciate that. The interest in subtle stuff is a
side curiosity, I fully recognize it's only relative and am not looking
there for any real insight.
Mr. MPSoh Wei Yu
Actually about a week ago, sense fields had an important clarifiying
shift. There was a small bit of 'holding out' of background that was
flipped. Now it's very clear - whole sense field is awake and aware of
itself. Whole room is equally
same as body senses/cognition. All are same exact degree of presence. Absolutely no background. It's very nice lol
Sim Pern ChongMr. MP hmmm... i don't know anything abt Kasina.
But
for sure...they cannot be a goal.. they only appear in total non
grasping..and is not optical.neither are they thoughts. So during those
times, they are not bothered too. But they provide clear
indication of the illusionariness of what appears as physical.
This gives confidence in not to be bothered with many conditions of the mundane.
Nondual
can just be experience, peak experiences. For some it can even last
days or months. Even if there is real breakthrough, without very deep
and thorough insights it will flip back in 90 days. Therefore the 90
days cycle.
Mr. MP
even if nondual is realized it can still fall into substantial nondual.
So very clear and thorough insight into anatman and then into twofold
emptiness is crucial
Mr. MP90 day cycles, interesting!
Well,
last two or so months have been lots of falling away, non dual and no
self kind of both clarifying at same time (and even before this, a lot
of glimpses and stretches of both).
First
was more like impersonality, seeing lack of doer. Then became more non
dual, but it was like 'Subject is still there a little, but seen to be
non separate from object'. And it was kind of flipping in and out.
About
a week ago, it went into 'just the senses' and that bit of holding out
of background was only seen to be a bit of sensations in back of head
and spine with some beliefs attached. So bit of a flip happened, where
it was seen that there cannot be, and there has never been, a background
at all.
And
so then sense field was seen as totally equal, all senses and body
sense same degree of presence. So, the room is the same as body, no
different. No 'holdout' in body any more. In the seeing, only the seen.
In the felt, only the felt. Big release of energy, and body sense much
more relaxed.
So
now I am looking closely at 'foreground' and investigating DO. Some
interesting peak experiences in this where things kind of deconstruct.
But I am committed to continued insight and am deeply looking at
experience all the time. And am meditating at least an hour a day, often
2. (I only started meditating when this started 2 months ago)
Mr. MPSoh Wei Yu
Thanks to you, I am deeply on the hunt for reification though lol! I
think there is a feeling of crisp clarity that comes with emptiness that
is really different from the unity thing, though there is nothing wrong
with unity as an experience
- just not as an ultimate reality.
(Am reading the Lankavatara sutra link thanks)
Mr. MP
many thought they are there but turns out to be mistaken in the past.
So good to monitor your progress and never think it is a finality. True
realization is remarkable like what I wrote in the atr guide and
practice guide foreword, and
even this is just the beginning:
It
is important to understand that reading these information alone will
not by itself bring about the benefits one finds in actual
enlightenment/awakening. Awakening is experiential realization and
completely beyond the realm of intellectual understanding. The
difference is like night and day, analogous to memorizing a restaurant
menu versus actually eating the meal. An intellectual understanding can
be a good semblance of reality and be a good forerunner to true
contemplative insights, however one must be very honest with oneself and
not fall into the mistake of mistaking a conceptual understanding for
direct realization. I have unfortunately witnessed more than one person
over the past decade that have tragically mistaken themselves to be
realised after reading the AtR materials. They are only having glimpses
of experiences - not realization - and thought themselves to be realized
after having a little intellectual grasp of AtR materials. It is easy
to deceive oneself of being realized when one has not. Parroting learnt
wisdom is not a sign of wisdom actualized. One has to look at oneself
honestly, how is one living one’s life, am I living life in its utter
purity and perfection? Can I honestly say that life as experienced in
this very moment is perfection and purity, the best that life can give
and is always giving freely? Is this moment sullied by any identity,
grasping of self/Self, any holding back from complete openness to the
utter fullness of life? Then the real test is in the “marketplace”, in
truly living one’s life in complete freedom and peace while engaging in
the daily encounters of people, things and events, not in armchair
philosophizing and conceptualizing about the meaning of life. As John
Tan pointed out, by posting so much information about awakening, I can
at times do certain people a disservice by providing them with ample
information that they churn into an intellectual knowledge in disguise
and mimicry of real wisdom and freedom. Yet it is my hope that these
words can serve as pointers -- not as signposts to be collected and hung
on one’s wall as a decoration, or made into a dogma or belief, but
merely as guidance and pointers to one’s destination, which is none
other than the immediate nature of mind/universe actualized.
Personally,
I can say from direct experience that direct realization is completely
direct, immediate, and non-intellectual, it is the most direct and
intimate taste of reality beyond the realm of imagination. It far
exceeds one’s expectations and is
far superior to
anything the mind can ever imagine or dream of. It is utter freedom. Can
you imagine living every moment in purity and perfection without
effort, where grasping at identity does not take hold, where there is
not a trace or sense of 'I' as a seer, feeler, thinker, doer,
be-er/being, an agent, a 'self' entity residing inside the body
somewhere relating to an outside world, and what shines forth and stands
out in the absence of a 'self' is a very marvellous, wondrous, vivid,
alive world that is full of intense vividness, joy, clarity, vitality,
and an intelligence that is operating as every spontaneous action (there
is no sense of being a doer), where any bodily actions, speech and
thoughts are just as spontaneous as heart beating, fingernails growing,
birds singing, air moving gently, breath flowing, sun shining - there is
no distinction between ‘you are doing action’/’you are living’ and
‘action is being done to you’/’you are being lived’ (as there is simply
no ‘you’ and ‘it’ - only total and boundless spontaneous presencing).
This
is a world where nothing can ever sully and touch that purity and
perfection, where the whole of universe/whole of mind is always
experienced vividly as that very purity and perfection devoid of any
kind of sense of self or perceiver whatsoever that is experiencing the
world at a distance from a vantagepoint -- life without ‘self’ is a
living paradise free of afflictive/painful emotions, where every color,
sound, smell, taste, touch and detail of the world stands out as the
very boundless field of pristine awareness, sparkling
brilliance/radiance, colorful, high-saturation, HD, luminous, heightened
intensity and shining wonderment and magicality, where the surrounding
sights, sounds, scents, sensations, smells, thoughts are seen and
experienced so clearly down to the tiniest details, vividly and
naturally, not just in one sense door but all six, where the world is a
fairy-tale like wonderland, revealed anew every moment in its fullest
depths as if you are a new-born baby experiencing life for the first
time, afresh and never seen before, where life is abundant with peace,
joy and fearlessness even amidst the apparent chaos and troubles of
life, and everything experienced through all the senses far surpasses
any beauty previously experienced, as if the universe is like heaven
made of glittering gold and jewels, experienced in complete gapless
directness without separation, where life and the universe is
experienced in its intense lucidity, clarity, aliveness and vivifying
presence not only without intermediary and separation but without center
and boundaries - infinitude as vast as an endless night sky is
actualized every moment, an infinitude that is simply the vast universe
appearing as an empty, distanceless, dimensionless and powerful
presencing, where the mountains and stars on the horizon stands out no
more distant than one’s breath, and shines forth as intimately as one’s
heartbeat, where the cosmic scale of infinitude is actualized even in
ordinary activities as the entirety of the universe is always
participating as every ordinary activity including walking and breathing
and one’s very body (without a trace of an ‘I’ or ‘mine’) is as much
the universe/dependent origination in action and there is nothing
outside of this boundless exertion/universe, where the purity and
infinitude of the marvellous world experienced through being cleansed in
all doors of perception is constant. (If the doors of perception were
cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: Infinite. For man has
closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his
cavern. - William Blake)
You
know all the Mahayana Sutras (e.g. Vimalakirti Sutra), old Zen talks
about seeing this very earth as pure land and all the Vajrayana talks
about the point of tantra as the pure vision of seeing this very world,
body, speech and mind in its primordial unfabricated purity as the
Buddha field, palace, mandala, mantra and deity? Now you truly get it,
you realise everything is really just like that when experienced in its
primordial purity and perfection, and that the old sages have not been
exaggerating at all. It is as much a literal and precise description of
the state of consciousness as it is a metaphor. As I told John Tan
before, Amitabha Sutra’s description of pure land resembles my living
experience here and now. “To me it just means anatta. When what’s seen,
tasted, touched, smelled are in clean purity, everywhere is pure land.” -
John Tan, 2019. "If one is free from background self, all
manifestations appear in clean purity in taste. Impurities from what I
know come from mental constructions." – John Tan, 2020
This
is a freedom that is free from any artificially constructed boundaries
and limitations. And yet, this boundlessness does not in any way lead to
the dissociation from one’s body, instead one feels more alive than
ever as one’s very body, one grows ever more somatic, at home and
intimate as one’s body. This is not a body normally conceived of, as the
boundaries of an artificially solidified body that stands separated
from the universe, dissolve into energetic streams of aliveness dancing
and pulsating throughout the body in high energy and pleasure, as well
as sensations of foot steps, movement, palm touching an object, where
the body is no longer conflated with a constructed boundary of ‘inside’
and ‘outside’, ‘self’ or ‘other’, where no trace of an ‘inside’ and an
‘outside’ can be found in one’s state of consciousness - there’s only
one indivisible, boundless and measureless world/mind - only this
infinitude of a dynamic and seamlessly interconnected dance that we call
‘the universe’. This is better than any passing peak experiences be
they arisen spontaneously, in meditation or through the use of
psychedelic substances. And yet, despite experiencing life to it fullest
every moment without any veils, in complete openness and utter
nakedness, nothing gains a foothold in consciousness, for as vivid as
they are, they leave no trace just as a bird leaves no tracks in the
sky, an empty and lucid display such as a gust of wind and the glittery
reflections of moon on the ocean waves - appearing but nothing ‘there’
or anywhere. All these words and descriptions I just wrote came very
easily and spontaneously in a very short time as I am simply describing
my current state of experience that is experienced every moment. I am
not being poetic here but simply being as direct and clear as possible
about what is immediately experienced. And this is only a figment that I
am describing. If I were to tell you more of what this is like, you
would not believe it. But once you enter this gateless realm you shall
see that words always pale in comparison.
Mr. MPSoh Wei Yu
Thanks for your dedication and clarity. Sincerity and true growth is my
interest, and nothing less, and I truly mean that. I'm after
liberation, not recognition or attainment in particular. I have been
'blessed' with a strong sense of doubt so I don't really 'trust' insight
until I really test it. The sense of this no background aspect can't be
faked by the mind though. I'll keep testing and watching. Clearly not
the end at all.
The
vividness and radiance of presence I do relate to. It's different than
beauty because the 'appreciator' is gone. It's nearly impossible to
describe, but radiant/luminous is a good word. Brightness, aliveness,
shimmering, and also a sense of dreamlike, like the reflecting surface
of a really clear pond. The coming together of nothing/everthing in a
way, in an expression of perfect as it-is-ness. Moments of immensity,
with gratitude. Maybe a sense of 'flow' like the water over a rock in a
stream or fountain. Body feels empty and vibrating.
Mr. RDTAbout the similarity and difference between Madhyamaka and Dzogchen is according to Longchenpa and N.Norbu it is:
- view, same* - freedom from extremes
- method, different -
based on direct introduction**,
Prof
Namkhai Norbu sees difference in practice between Dzogchen and Sutra in
general. As I experientally understand it in Sutra meditation is
oriented towards stilling concepts which represent the relative truth
which is a product of deluded mind to be rejected (You can use
euphemisms - used antidotes against, stilled, supressed, extinguished).
In Dzogchen nothing is rejected. Ultimately thoughts are like thieves
coming to an empty
house, they're coming and going doesn't make any difference, they can't take anything, can't do any hurt.
Madhyamaka
posits two truths, Tantra posits two visions, Dzogchen posits single
ground with two results (whether knowing or ignorant of it).
I'd
add following Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso that Madhyamaka is practiced by
analysis and resting in conceptless samadhi in meditation and training
in boddhisattvic virtues in post-meditation practice.
I'd
based on my Dzogchen practice and teachings received from N.Rinpoche -
it is based on maintaing the recognition to the ground that You were
introduced whether You are using concepts or not (thinking in terms of
concept doesn't mean You think they capture some kind of truth in their
content) and doing good and avoiding harm like in all Mahayana.
Self-liberation of thoughts isn't found only in Dzogchen. Then there is
also Thogal but that's regarding one out of three series of Dzogchen so
let's leave that aside, Semde is still popular and Mahamudra similar
enough.
One
could then argue that there are different views regarding methodology,
two truths etc. The sameness of the view concerns the point that all
Buddhadharma (Dharma of Awakening, Budhi, Budzić).
I think the view of Buddhadharma is best characterised:
- by Buddha in the Aggi-Vachagotta by having no positions and seeing dependent originagion
- Nagarjuna agrees about having no positions and dependent origination is central to his Madhyamaka
-
Dzogchen likes to call itself viewless view, in 12 (Small) Bon Tantras
there is said that with regards to the view there is now view to be
have, dependent originagion is seen in Thogal, like with your eyes (and
there are two types of dependent originagion, one simply explains the
process of selfperfection based on knowledge instead of ignorance)
Also,
Vajrayana teachings emphasise bliss and integration of sensory
pleasures while Sutra/Sutta encourages avoiding them. Good practitioners
shouldn't listen to music and dance nor have sex. Vajrayana uses not
only singing and playing intstruments as practice but dancing and sex as
well. Dzogchen has it's own variants of Vajra Dance and Karmamudra done
Ati or Anu-Ati style. Vajrayana literature talks more about bliss while
Sutra concentrates on suffering. So out of 3 aspects the natural state
as explained by Mahamudra - emptiness, clarity, bliss; bliss might be
somehow lacking in Madhyamaka practice.
NOTE:
View
is explained as having no views. It doesn't say we have the view of
awareness. Nor it doesn't say that our view is of emptiness.
**
my personal view is that the essence of direct introduction is simply
tuning your heart into the teacher who communicates this knowledge, it's
possible to have shared visualisations or dreams with people and it is
possbile to have this kind of the meeting of minds, as Thusness puts it
You can directly feel another person just as You can feel senses
directly (paraphrasing from a videocall years ago), rest is just means
to facilitate this process
Posts
