Showing posts with label Mahamudra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mahamudra. Show all posts

Shared by Yin Ling


https://www.lionsroar.com/this-very-mind-empty-and-luminous/

This Very Mind, Empty and Luminous
BY DZOGCHEN PONLOP RINPOCHE| MAY 1, 2008

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
We can see awakening in the world around us, but we can also turn the telescope inward and look directly at our mind. In the Vajrayana school of Buddhism, we discover that this very mind is the mind of the Buddha, and what we’ve been searching for so long has been right in front of us all the time.

Photo by Arne Schog

Only when we have a genuine, abiding desire to free ourselves from suffering and all its causes does our spiritual journey begin. That original desire is very potent and very real. It is the basis upon which we enter the path that will lead us to our goal. Yet from the point of view of the Vajrayana, or tantric, school of Buddhism, there is no place to go on that path, no end of the road where we will one day satisfy our thirst for liberty. Why? Because the very thing that we are looking for—freedom, wakefulness, enlightenment—is right here with us all the time.

There is a story in the tantric meditative tradition of Mahamudra about a farmer who owns a buffalo. Not realizing that the buffalo is in its stable, the farmer goes off in search of it, thinking the animal has strayed from home. Starting on his search, he sees many different buffalo footprints outside his yard. Buffalo footprints are everywhere! The farmer then thinks, “Which way did my buffalo go?” He decides to follow one set of tracks and they lead him up into the high Himalayas, but he doesn’t find his buffalo there. Then he follows another set of footprints that lead way down to the ocean. However, when he reaches the ocean, he still doesn’t find his buffalo. It is not in the mountains or at the beach. Why? Because the buffalo is back home in the stable in his yard.

In the same way, we search for enlightenment outside ourselves. We search for freedom high up in the mountains of the Himalayas, at peaceful beaches, and in wonderful monasteries, where there are footprints everywhere. In the end, we may find traces of the great Tibetan yogi Milarepa’s enlightenment in the caves where he meditated, or hints of the Indian pandit Naropa’s enlightenment at the bank of the River Ganges. We may find signs of the enlightenment of many individual masters in different towns, cities, or monasteries. What we will not find, however, is the one thing we are looking for: our own enlightened nature. We may find someone else’s enlightenment, but it is not the same as finding our own.

No matter how much you may admire the realizations of the buddhas, bodhisattvas, and yogis of previous times, finding your own freedom inside yourself, your own enlightenment, your own wakefulness, is much different. When you have your own realization, it is like finding your own buffalo. Your buffalo recognizes you and you recognize your buffalo. The moment we meet our own buffalo is a very emotional and joyful moment.

In order to find our own enlightenment, we have to start right here where we are. We have to search inwardly rather than outwardly. From the Vajrayana point of view, the state of freedom, or enlightenment, is within our mind and has been from beginningless time. Like our buffalo comfortably resting in its stable, it has never left us, although we have developed the idea that it has left home. We think it is now somewhere outside, and we have to find it. With so many footprints leading in different directions, so many possibilities for where it could be, we may start to hallucinate. We might think it was stolen by a neighbor and is gone forever. We start to have all kinds of misconceptions and mistaken beliefs.

To summarize this, we can say: There is nothing called “buddha” or “buddhahood” that exists outside of one’s mind. We can say the same for samsara: It does not exist apart from one’s mind. That is why Milarepa sang:

Nirvana is nothing imported from somewhere else
Samsara is nothing deported to somewhere else
I’ve discovered for sure the mind is the buddha…

From the point of view of the Mahamudra and Dzogchen traditions of Vajrayana Buddhism, there is nothing within samsara—our state of dualistic confusion—to be relinquished, discarded, or left behind. And nirvana—the state of enlightenment—is not a place we go to from here. It is not a place found outside of where we are right now. If we wanted to renounce samsara, leave it behind physically, where would we go? To the International Space Station, the moon, or Mars? We would still be within samsara. So how can we leave samsara behind?

What we are trying to leave behind is duality, the mind of confusion, our perpetual state of suffering. Physically, yes, you can leave your hometown and go to some secluded place such as a mountain cave or a monastery. Your body will be somewhere else, but will your mind be in a different state? How your mind functions when you are in a mountain cave, a monastery, or at home is what determines whether you are in the state of samsara or nirvana.

According to the Vajrayana teachings, enlightenment is right here within our mind’s nature. That nature is what we are trying to discover and connect with. It is what we are trying to recognize, realize, and perfect. The entire journey on this path is trying to discover the nature of our mind as it is.

How can we recognize this nature of mind? The experience of awakening, of complete enlightenment, can be arrived at through many different methods. The methods of the three vehicles of Buddhism—the Hinayana, the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana—all lead to the same goal. The difference is not in the result achieved but in the time it takes to reach that result and in the methods used. Only the Vajrayana is said to possess the methods that can lead to the realization of the true nature of mind in one lifetime. In the Vajrayana liturgy, this way of achieving the state of wakefulness is called attaining “complete enlightenment in one instant.” When we take the instructions to heart, when we employ the methods properly, stage by stage, and when we focus on the path and do not drift on to any sidetracks, this awakening can take place in any minute. One moment we can be a totally confused, ordinary sentient being, and the next we can be a completely enlightened being. This outrageous but very realistic notion is known as sudden enlightenment, or “wild awakening.”

The Path of Devotion
The tantric path is sometimes known as the path of devotion. With the eye of devotion—toward our guru, our lineage, and our instructions—we can see the true nature of mind. What role does the guru play in our journey to find enlightenment? On the one hand, it is said that enlightenment is right there within you, and on the other hand, it is said that there is no enlightenment without devotion to the guru or lineage of enlightened masters. It sounds a little contradictory.

Why is devotion so important? How does it work? Devotion is a path, a skillful means through which you develop basic trust—trust in your own enlightened heart, trust that your mind is totally, utterly pure and has been right from the beginning. Trusting in that truth is what devotion is. You come to see the truth of your own enlightened heart through the guru and the lineage. Your relationship with your guru is personal, yet it is also beyond the personal. It is so close that you feel like you can control it, yet at the same time you realize it is beyond your control. It is similar to your ordinary relationships—with your spouse, friends, and family—yet it goes beyond them. If you can work with the relationship with the guru, it opens a door to working with every relationship in the world. It becomes a great vehicle for transforming your negative emotions and suffering.

The point here is that the guru simply plays the role of a mirror. When you look in a mirror, your own face is reflected back to you. The mirror does not reflect itself. It shows you whether your face is clean or dirty or if you need a haircut. The mirror is unbiased; it reflects positive and negative qualities equally clearly.

In the same way, when you look at the guru with devotion, you see both your positive and negative qualities. You see your failures, your struggles, your disturbing emotions arising, just as you see dirt on your face in an ordinary mirror. At the same time, you see beyond the surface impurities—which can simply be washed away. You see your true face, your actual reality, which is the perfectly pure nature of your mind.

What happens, though, if you are sitting in front of the mirror in a room that is dark? The mirror still possesses the potential to reflect, and you still possess all those qualities to be reflected. But if there is no light, you could sit there in the dark for ages and nothing would happen. You would never see anything. Therefore, it is not enough just to sit in front of the mirror. You need to turn on the light. In this case, the light is the light of devotion. When this light is on, and when the mirror of the guru is in front of you, you can see the reflection of your own nature of mind very clearly and precisely—yet in a nonconceptual way. That is the role of the guru and the lineage in our enlightenment. The guru is not the creator of your enlightenment. He or she is simply a condition for attaining your own enlightenment.

The mirror does not turn on the light for you. It does not bring you into the room and tell you to sit in front of it. It doesn’t say, “Look here!” The mirror is just a mirror occupying a certain space. You have to enter the room, turn on the light, walk toward the mirror, and look into it. So who is doing the job here? It’s us. We are activating this relationship.

Some traditions say that you have to be passive to receive divine grace or to have mystical experiences, but here it is the opposite. To invoke the blessing of the lineage, you have to be active. Everything is done by you; the guru is simply a condition, a mirror, that you have chosen to keep in your room. That mirror did not mysteriously land there, you know. You selected it and placed it there through your own efforts.

The lineage instructions are also not the creator of your enlightenment. They are simply another condition. They are powerful and profound tools, which you must employ. Instructions are like directions for getting where you want to go. The instructions, the directions, play an important role, but not more important than your own role in initiating and taking the journey. You play the more active role on the path. You act on the directions. They give you all the information you need—which way is the safest, which is a little bit risky, and which is the fastest but most hazardous. However, if you take no action, then eons from now you will still be wandering around without reaching your destination.

We have full power to decide the course of our personal journey. This is the Buddhist view. Even from the perspective of Mahamudra and Dzogchen, you are the center of the path and your enlightenment depends on your own effort. It does not depend on anyone or anything outside of you.

Using Mind to Discover the True Nature of Mind
The basic nature of our mind, and the basic nature of all phenomena that we perceive as being external to our mind, is luminous emptiness. In other words, all forms, sounds, and so on, as well as all thoughts and emotions, are appearing yet empty, empty yet appearing. There are various approaches to discovering this nature of mind that is with us all the time.

From the Mahamudra-Dzogchen point of view, we first look directly at the appearances of thoughts and emotions and ascertain their emptiness. Their nature of appearance-emptiness is easy to see, because such mental forms are fleeting and insubstantial. Once this is seen with confidence, then we look at external appearances. Having penetrated the nature of thoughts and emotions, seeing the true nature of the outer world—the external objects that appear to our sense consciousnesses—is much easier. We see that they are equally empty.

In the Hinayana and Mahayana approach, the order is reversed. We first focus our analysis outside and ask: How is form empty? How is sound empty? How is smell empty? and so on. Through reasoning, we discover that the true nature of all these forms is emptiness. Once we find that the nature of all perceived objects is empty, we conclude that the nature of the perceiving subject is naturally empty as well. Subject and object exist only in dependence upon one another.

From the Vajrayana point of view, it is easier and more straightforward to analyze your mind first. Your own mind is very clear to you—you know your thoughts and emotions very well and you experience them directly. They are not hidden from you. They are not something you have to discover through analysis. Your emotions and thoughts are right there in front of you, so when you look at them, your examination is experiential.

When we analyze a form or sound, or turn our mind to the metaphysics of seeds and sprouts, it is conceptual, an academic exercise. We come to “know,” but our knowing is not direct knowledge. Therefore, from the Mahamudra-Dzogchen point of view, that approach is regarded as indirect analysis. It is not a direct experience. For this reason, the Hinayana and Mahayana stages of the path are called the “causal vehicles.” They cause us to have, or lead us to, the direct experience later. The methods of the causal vehicles will bring us to that experience at some point, but not right now.

Mahamudra-Dzogchen uses the approach of direct analysis, which is known as the “analytical meditation of the simple meditator,” or kusulu. This does not mean simple in the sense of being intellectually deficient, but simple in the sense of being intellectually uncomplicated. The Hinayana and Mahayana approach to analysis is known, on the other hand, as the “analytical meditation of the scholar,” or pandita, which is theoretical or scholarly analysis.

While the scholarly approach is necessary, if used alone, it does not bring us direct experience right away. The analysis of the simple meditator, in which we begin by looking at our immediate experiences of mind, is very clear and brings direct experience to everyone. Using this method, when you look closely at a thought or emotion, you can see its nature of inseparable luminosity and emptiness. You do not find any solid or substantially existent thing. The reason you do not find anything solid is that, on the absolute level of reality, nothing exists in that manner. Therefore, when we look for it, we do not find it.

True emptiness, however, is not just “not finding” something. If, for example, you searched your home to see if there was an elephant somewhere in your house, and you did not find any elephant, would it mean that elephants do not exist? No. There are elephants living in zoos and in the wild.

Simply searching for something and not finding it is not the kind of analysis that leads us to the genuine experience of emptiness. To arrive at the true experience of emptiness, we must base our analysis on looking at something we do see, that appears to us to exist, whether that is an external or internal object. When we analyze that object, let’s say an elephant, we look at it in order to discover its true nature, its fundamental reality. We look for that nature by thoroughly analyzing the existence of the elephant and each of its parts—ears, trunk, eyes, great body, legs, and tail—until we exhaust our looking. At that point, we come to the conclusion that we cannot find the true existence of this solidly appearing being. Nevertheless, we can see, smell, hear, and touch this empty-yet-appearing elephant. That is the method of analyzing that leads to the experience of emptiness.

In the same way, when we look directly at a thought or emotion, it is hard to find anything solid. We may be experiencing strong anger, but when we look at those intense feelings of aggression, we can’t really pinpoint them. We can’t really identify what they are. We may not even be certain why we are angry. After a while, our anger dissolves. One moment, we can barely speak or breathe because we are so enraged. In the next moment, the fury is gone, leaving nothing behind. Even if we wanted to maintain our anger so we can continue tormenting our rival or foe, it is too late. Our empty-appearing anger is gone. In truth, it was never there in the first place.

Ordinary Mind
The actual point of all our efforts on the spiritual path, whether we are studying, meditating, or engaged in socially oriented activities, is to return to the genuine state of our mind, the inherent state of wakefulness, which is very simple and completely ordinary. This is the goal of all three vehicles, or yanas, of the Buddhist path.

The Hinayana school calls this state egolessness, selflessness, or emptiness. The Mahayana school calls it the great emptiness, or shunyata, freedom from all elaborations, all conceptuality. It is also known as the emptiness endowed with the essence of compassion, or as bodhichitta, the union of emptiness with the qualities of compassion and loving-kindness. Further, it is known as buddhanature or tathagatagarbha, the essence of all the buddhas, the “thus gone ones.” In the Vajrayana, it is called the vajra nature, or sometimes the vajra mind or heart, which refers to the indestructible quality of awareness. In Mahamudra, it is called ordinary mind, or thamal gyi shepa, and in Dzogchen, it is called bare awareness, or rigpa. The meanings of all these terms point to the most fundamental reality of our mind and phenomena, which is luminous emptiness. All is empty yet appears, appears yet is empty.

While many different methods are taught to reach this ordinary state of mind, the methods themselves can appear to be anything but ordinary. In some sense they are extraordinary, rather than ordinary; abnormal, rather than normal; and complex, rather than simple. The Hinayana path of personal liberation, for example, is known for its many detailed instructions for practice and postmeditation conduct. For monastics, there are the customs of shaving one’s head and putting on beautiful robes, which are rituals prescribed in order to lead the practitioner to the realization of selflessness.

In the same way, followers of the Mahayana system for realizing the great emptiness undertake the paramita practices, the six transcendent actions of generosity, discipline, patience, diligence (or exertion), concentration (or meditation), and discriminating knowledge (or prajna). In the Vajrayana, there are many complex practices, such as the visualization of deities and mandalas, which lead to the realization of the vajra mind.

So with all these practices, are we getting any closer to the natural state? Since it is natural for our hair to grow, the Hinayana practice of continually shaving our heads seems unnatural. It is also not the normal custom of society. In the Mahayana, there are many highly conceptual and occasionally “counterintuitive” methods for purifying negative states of mind, such as breathing in the impurities of the minds of others in tonglen practice. In the Vajrayana, in contrast to the Hinayana practice of shaving off our hair, we visualize not only extra hair, but also we imagine extra heads, extra arms, and extra legs.

Why do we do this, when such methods seem to take us further and further away from an ordinary, normal, and simple state of mind? There must be a reasonable explanation! The answer is simply that in order to reach the level of ordinary mind, to truly arrive at the basic state of simplicity, we have to cut through our habitual, dualistic pattern of labeling some things as normal and others as abnormal. If we have too much fixation on normalcy, on day-to-day convention, we have to cut through that to experience our mind as it truly is.

Therefore, in order to break through and transcend such solid, dualistic notions, we create “abnormal” situations to practice with on the path. In the deity yoga practice of the Vajrayana, you might be visualizing yourself in the form of an enlightened being with multiple heads, arms, and legs when you suddenly realize that you have no idea who you are—which is a wonderful experience. We usually have too many preconceived notions about who we are and about the world “out there.” We are so caught up in the process of labeling that we never see beyond the surface of those labels to the nonconceptual reality that is their basis.

When we work with profound and skillful methods like those of the Vajrayana path, they cut through the very root of our dualistic concepts. With these methods we rely on concept to go beyond concept, on thought to go beyond thought. A good example of this is a bird taking off from the ground. When the bird wants to fly, it has to either run a little bit or push down against the ground so that it can leap up. It has to rely on the earth to go beyond the earth—to leap into the space of sky. In the same way, we have to rely in the beginning on dualistic concepts in order to leap into the space of non-conceptuality or non-duality.

This is what all these teachings do for us. Through words and concepts, they point out the nature of phenomena, which is emptiness beyond words and concepts. If, when Buddha realized the true nature of mind and the world, he had never spoken about it, never communicated his wisdom to us through words, we would have no way to enter this profound path.

When it comes to the Mahamudra-Dzogchen tradition, however, the masters of these traditions introduce ordinary mind, or bare awareness, with utmost simplicity. Such a master might say to a student, “Look, a flower. Do you see it?” The student will say, “Yes, I see the flower.” The master will say, “Do you see the beautiful sunshine outside today?” The student will say, “Yes, I see the beautiful sunshine today.” Then the master will say, “That’s it.”

Normally we feel that our perceptions, thoughts, and emotions are too ordinary to mean much. Just seeing a flower or the sunshine on a beautiful day is too simple to be profound. As meditatorswe want whatever is profound, and so we look past our mundane experiences. We are looking for something that is extraordinary. Something big. We want the maha, or “great,” religious experience that we know is out there somewhere in a mysterious place called “the sacred world.” However, whenever we try to look outside, that is the point at which we depart from our own enlightened nature. We start walking away from the natural state of our mind—the basic state of Mahamudra and Dzogchen. “Looking outside” does not mean that we literally leave our home and go look in our neighbor’s backyard, or that we pack our bags and catch a bus for the next town, or shave our head and enter a monastery. Looking outside means looking outside whatever experience you are having right now.

Think about it from the perspective of your own experience. What do you do when an aggressive thought suddenly arises? You might try to stop that thought, deflect its energy by justifying it, or even correct it—change it from a “negative” thought into a “positive” one. We do all these things because we feel that that thought, just as it is, is not good enough to meditate on. We will meditate on the next pure thought we have; or even better, we will rest in the essence of the gap between our thoughts, the very next one we recognize. In this way, we continually miss the moment that we are awake now. The problem is that we will never catch up to the wakefulness of the next moment, the wakefulness we will have in the future. If aggression is here now, then that aggression is at heart, in its very nature, vividly awake, empty, and luminous. As our simple-minded master of Mahamudra and Dzogchen might say, “Do you see it? That is it.”

You may prefer to meditate on the Buddha rather than on your emotions. The Buddha is always perfectly relaxed and at ease; therefore, you feel very comfortable. When you are meditating on your emotions, you may start to feel slightly anxious and uncomfortable. You may think that your mental health is at risk, or that the environment of your mind is not in a sacred, uplifted, or spiritual state. It is helpful to a certain point, at the beginning of our training, to meditate on pure objects like images of the Buddha, deities, or great masters. If, however, you get addicted to relying on such objects, there can be negative consequences. When you feel you cannot invoke the experience of sacredness or connect with your basic, enlightened mind through your everyday experiences of perceptions, thoughts, and emotions, you are developing a serious problem. Your emotions are as familiar, as commonplace, as sunshine and flowers, and that is great news for realizing ordinary mind. You have so many opportunities. Appreciate and take advantage of them.

What we have been looking for—the true nature of our mind—has been with us all the time. It is with us now, in this very moment. The teachings say that if we can penetrate the essence of our present thought—whatever it may be—if we can look at it directly and rest within its nature, we can realize the wisdom of buddha: ordinary mind, naked awareness, luminous emptiness, the ultimate truth. The future will always be out of reach. You will never meet up with the buddha of the future. The present buddha is always within reach. Do you see this buddha? Where are you looking?

Adapted with permission from the “Wild Awakening” lecture series presented in Vancouver and Toronto, Canada, in February, 2004.

Yin Ling shared:


A very crucial point on why we need to keep meditating, from the  book "ocean of definitive meaning" teaching by Thrangu Rinpoche : 


----


If kleshas really existed, if they had true and solid existence, it would require effort to abandon them. But once you see their emptiness, once you see that they are empty, they will gradually disappear. I say “gradually,” because simply seeing the emptiness of one particular klesha on one occasion does not prevent the reoccurrence of kleshas. 


When you practice tranquility meditation, one of the effects is that your kleshas are weakened, but, as you will remember, aside from weakening them, the practice of tranquility does not eradicate them. But when you practice insight meditation, you actually see their nonexistence. Through seeing the nonexistence of a klesha, it is conquered, it is completely pacified. That particular klesha at that moment is pacified and conquered, but that does not prevent a reoccurrence. The reason why simply seeing the emptiness of a klesha once does not prevent its reoccurrence is that we have a strong habit of entertaining kleshas, which we have accumulated throughout beginningless time. For example, you look at your mind and you observe the emptiness of a thought or klesha that is present within it. Then you arise from that meditation and you no longer observe the emptiness of thoughts and kleshas. In other words, simply observing the emptiness of kleshas on one occasion is not the end of the path.


There will also be fluctuations in your experience, which means that some- times you will have a heightened awareness of the emptiness of kleshas, and it will be easy to observe that emptiness directly; and sometimes your aware- ness of emptiness will seem somehow dull or diminished, and it will not serve to enable you to see the emptiness of your kleshas. As long as the habit of indulging kleshas has not been eradicated, there will continue to be the need actually to observe their emptiness again and again.


Although someone has seen dharmata, has directly experienced the nature of mind, this insight has to be further cultivated. In the same way, on the path of mahamudra, if having seen the emptiness of kleshas in experience once, you do not continue to cultivate that insight and you just abandon it, this will not have any effect on the rest of your kleshas. So there is a great deal of difference between what is abandoned simply through being

seen once or a few times, and what has to be abandoned through the path of cultivation. Therefore it has been said by many mahasiddhas, “Our bad habits are like the tendency of a scroll that has been kept rolled up to roll itself back up every time we try to unroll it.” The insight into the nature of one klesha is not the end of the path.


Therefore, even practitioners who have realized the nature of mind must continue practicing meditation. And it need not be said that practitioners who have not realized the nature of mind must also continue practicing. In short, the actual practice of meditation is very important. As was said by Jamgön Kongtrül Lodrö Thayé in The Essence of Generation and Completion, “The achievement of the final fruition depends upon continuous diligent application. This in turn must be carried out throughout both meditation and post- meditation, through the application of both mindfulness and alertness.”


As for what the result of practice is, it has been said by many teachers, “The sign of having heard the dharma is to be peaceful and subdued. The sign of having meditated is to have no kleshas.” It is said that you can tell whether or not you have genuinely heard the teachings and understood their point by whether or not you are tame and peaceful in your conduct. And you can tell whether or not your meditation is effective by whether or not your kleshas are diminishing. Ideally, someone should finally have no kleshas what- soever. But even on the way to that klesha-free state, your kleshas and thoughts should diminish. Therefore, I think that it is of far greater impor- tance than the experience of dramatic instantaneous pointing out that peo- ple be taught mahamudra as a full system of instruction that they can implement on their own gradually through diligent application using either one of the three texts by the Ninth Gyalwang Karmapa—The Ocean of Defin- itive Meaning, Dispelling the Darkness of Ignorance, or Pointing Out the Dhar- makaya—or one of the texts by Dakpo Tashi Namgyal—either Moonbeams of Mahamudra or The Clarification of the Natural State.


In short, I think it is of far more importance that people receive this kind of complete and systematic instruction so that they can gradually develop experience on their own, than that some kind of dramatic pointing-out pro- cedure be done.



    Mr./Ms. JJ
    Totally agree especially this:
    In short, I think it is of far more importance that people receive this kind of complete and systematic instruction so that they can gradually develop experience on their own, than that some kind of dramatic pointing-out pro- cedure be done.


    Yin Ling
    it is a very good book, alongside pointing out the dharmakaya.
    Thrangu rinpoche wisdom is deep
    I just bought and downloaded 58 books of his after loving this one so much ahahaha


  • Mr. OMA
    Bullseye, thanks for sharing🙏☺️ l think it is a huge problem these days that one have one or two breakthrough and then think the work is over, l think especially for those who do not have a teacher this happens and it causes alot of confusion regarding what is enlightenment among the common man and in spiritual circles.
    Nature of mind has to be unintereupted, kleshas has to be destroyd 🙂


  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    > If kleshas really existed, if they had true and solid existence, it would require effort to abandon them. But once you see their emptiness, once you see that they are empty, they will gradually disappear. I say “gradually,” because simply seeing the emptiness of one particular klesha on one occasion does not prevent the reoccurrence of kleshas.
    > When you practice tranquility meditation, one of the effects is that your kleshas are weakened, but, as you will remember, aside from weakening them, the practice of tranquility does not eradicate them. But when you practice insight meditation, you actually see their nonexistence. Through seeing the nonexistence of a klesha, it is conquered, it is completely pacified.
    Wonderful, wonderful! Like MMK. And like this excerpt I really like which was discussed elsewhere some time ago:
    *
    In the Questions of Adhyāśaya Sūtra (Adhyāśayasaṃśōdana Sūtra), the Buddha makes this point in a dialogue with a disciple (CTB 161):
    "For example, during a magical display, a man sees a woman created by a magician and desire arises in him. His mind becomes ensnared with desire, and he is frightened and ashamed in front of his companions. Rising from his seat, he leaves and later considers the woman to be ugly, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless. O child of a good lineage, what do you think? Is that man behaving correctly or incorrectly?"
    "Blessed One, he who strives to consider a nonexistent woman to be ugly, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless behaves incorrectly."
    The Blessed One said, "O child of a good lineage, you should similarly view those bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, laymen, and laywomen who consider unproduced and unarisen phenomena to be ugly, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and selfless. I do not say that these foolish persons are cultivating the path; they are practicing in an incorrect manner."
    ~ Searching for the Self, p. 233-234, Dalai Lama & Thubten Chodron

    • Reply
    • 2h
    • Edited

    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    André, do you remember where we started a discussion about this earlier?



  • Reply
  • 21m

Kyle Dixon (Krodha) wrote:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TibetanBuddhism/comments/vqvv82/emptiness_and_nagarjunas_madhyamaka_in_relation/

Subreddit Icon
Posted by1 month ago
HelpfulSilver

Emptiness and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka in Relation to Dzogchen and Mahamudra

Here is a compendium of excerpts on the topic. The consensus on this matter is quite clear. While there are some Shentong (a sūtrayāna view) and Gelug adherents of Atiyoga and Mahāmudrā, the majority align with the trödral [spros bral] view epitomized in Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka, and elucidated upon by Tibetan Madhyamaka masters such as Görampa. This was too long to post in a reply to the other relevant thread:

From Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:

Furthermore, since one must rely on Nagarjuna’s reasonings in order to realize the essence of Dzogchen, it is the same for Mahamudra. Those who studied at the shedras (philosophical universities) in Tibet studied “The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way” and Chandrakirti’s “Entering the Middle Way” and other similar texts over the course of many years. Mahamudra and Dzogchen were not studied, however, because it is the Middle Way texts that are filled with such a vast array of different arguments and logical reasonings that one can pursue the study of them in a manner that is both subtle and profound. In the Mahamudra teachings as well, we find statements such as this one from Karmapa Rangjung Dorje’s Mahamudra Aspiration Prayer:

As for mind, there is no mind! Mind is empty of essence.

If you gain certainty in mind’s emptiness of essence by analyzing it with the reasoning that refutes arising from the four extremes and with others as well, then your understanding of Mahamudra will become profound. Otherwise, you could recite this line, but in your mind it would be nothing more than an opinion or a guess.

If you study these reasonings presented in “The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way,” when you receive Mahamudra and Dzogchen explanations of emptiness and lack of inherent reality, you will already be familiar with what is being taught and so you will not need to learn anything new. Mipham Rinpoche composed a brief text called “The Beacon of Certainty,” in which he states: 'In order to have perfect certainty in "kadag" (primordial purity) one must have perfect understanding of the view of the Consequence or Prasangika school. Kadag, or original, primordial purity, is the view of Dzogchen, and in order to perfect that view, one must perfect one’s understanding of the Middle Way Consequence or Prasangika school’s view. What this implies is that the view of Dzogchen kadag and the view of the Consequence or Prasangika of Chandrakirti's school are the same.

From Tulku Tsullo's instruction on the view of Dzogchen:

Therefore, whether in sutra or in tantra, there is consensus that the only direct antidote to the ignorance of clinging to things as real - which lies at the root of our karma and disturbing emotions - is the wisdom that realizes emptiness. So for Dzogchen practitioners, too, it is extremely important to realize emptiness.

The sgra thal gyur tantra states:

Nonexistent therefore appearing, appearing therefore empty. The inseparable union of appearance and emptiness with its branches.

Zilnon Zhepa Tsal said:

How could liberation be attained without realizing emptiness? And how could emptiness be realized without the Great Perfection [Dzogchen]? Who but I offers praise such as this?

The Dalai Lama states:

We need a special form of wisdom - the wisdom that realizes emptiness - to act as the direct antidote to the cognitive obscurations. Without this wisdom, which can be realized through the Great Perfection... we will not have the direct antidote to the cognitive obscurations. So this point is conclusive.

Khenchen Rigdzin Dorje [Chatral Rinpoche's heart disciple] states:

The Madhyamika consider the Prasangik as the perfect Rangtong view. The Dzogchen trekcho view as Kadag (primordially pure view) and the Prasangik view is the same. The emptiness is the same, there is no difference... It is important to understand that the words primordially pure [kadag] is the Dzogchen terminology for the Prasangic Emptiness. [The ancient Nyingmapa Masters like Long Chenpa, Jigme Lingpa, Mipham, were] Prasangikas [Thalgyurpas]... the Prasangika Madhyamika sunyata [tongpanyid] and the Dzogchen sunyata are exactly the same. There is no difference. One hundred percent [the] same.

Longchenpa says:

This system of the natural great perfection is equivalent with the Consequentialist [Prasangika] Madhyamaka’s usual way of considering freedom from extremes and so on. However, emptiness in Madhymaka is an emptiness counted as similar to space, made into the basis; here [in Dzogchen] naked pellucid vidyā pure from the beginning that is not established; that, merely unceasing, is made into the basis. - The phenomena that arise from the basis are apprehended as being free from extremes, like space.

David Germano:

While a detailed analysis of the relationship of these classical Great Perfection texts to the Madhyamaka Prasangika tradition is quite beyond the scope of my present discussion, at this point I would merely like to indicate that even in The Seventeen Tantras (i.e. without considering Longchenpa's corpus) it is very clear that the tradition embodies an innovative dialectical reinterpretation of the Prasangika notions of emptiness, rather than a mere sterile 'diametric opposition' to them that Karmay suggests.

Ju Mipham Rinpoche states in his commentary on the Madhyamakālaṃkāra, the dbu ma rgyan gyi rnam bshad 'jam dbyangs bla ma dgyes pa'i zhal lung:

Without finding certainty in primordial purity (ka dag), just mulling over some 'ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent' will get you nowhere. If you apprehend this basis of emptiness that is empty of both existence and nonexistence as something that is established by its essence separately [from everything else], no matter how you label it (such as an inconceivable self, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Īśvara, or wisdom) except for the mere name, the meaning is the same. Since the basic nature free from the reference points of the four extremes, that is, Dzogchen (the luminosity that is to be personally experienced) is not at all like that, it is important to rely on the correct path and teacher. Therefore, you may pronounce 'illusionlike,' 'nonentity,' 'freedom from reference points,' and the like as mere verbiage, but this is of no benefit whatsoever, if you do not know the [actual] way of being of the Tathāgata’s emptiness (which surpasses the limited [kinds of] emptiness [asserted] by the tīrthikas) through the decisive certainty that is induced by reasoning.

Chögyal Namkhai Norbu states:

Madhyamaka explains with the four 'beyond concepts,' which are that something neither exists, nor does not exist, nor both exists and does not exist, nor is beyond both existing and not existing together. These are the four possibilities. What remains? Nothing. Although we are working only in an intellectual way, this can be considered the ultimate conclusion in Madhyamaka. As an analytical method, this is also correct for Dzogchen. Nagarjuna's reasoning is supreme.

and,

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.

From Jigme Lingpa:

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.

Chokyi Dragpa states:

On the path of trekchö, all the rigidity of mind's clinging to an "I" where there is no "I", and a self where there is no self, is cut through with Madhyamika Prasangika reasoning and the resulting conviction that an "I" or a "self" does not exist. Then, by examining where mind arises, dwells and ceases, you become certain of the absence of any true reality.

Again from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:

The great scholar and master, Mipham Chokle Namgyal, said, “If one seeks to master the basic nature of alpha purity, or kadak, it is necessary to perfect one’s understanding of the view of the Prasangika, or the Consequence School.” Alpha purity describes the basic nature of mind as it is expressed in the dzogchen descriptions. If one wishes to realize dzogchen, alpha purity, or trekcho, as it is also called, then one must perfect one’s understanding of the Consequence School. That is, one must realize that the nature of reality transcends all conceptual fabrications; it cannot be described by any conceptual terms. This is the aspect of the 'expanse.' If one recognizes this, then it is easy to realize the mahamudra because, as Milarepa sang:

”The view: is original wisdom which is empty. Meditation: clear light free of fixation. Conduct: continual flow without attachment. Fruition: is nakedness stripped of every stain.”

From Acarya Dharmavajra Mr. Sridhar Rana:

The meaning of Shunyata found in Sutra, Tantra Dzogchen, or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangic emptiness of Chandrakirti, i. e. unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of Dzogchen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of unfindability- no seeing as it could also be expressed. Also some Shentong scholars seem to imply that the Shentong system is talking about a different emptiness. They say Buddha nature is not empty of qualities therefore, Buddha nature is not merely empty, it also has qualities. First of all the whole statement is irrelevant. Qualities are not the question and Buddha nature being empty of quality or not is not the issue. The Buddha nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence). Because it is empty of real existence, it has qualities. As Arya Nagarjuna has said in his Mula Madhyamika Karika: “All things are possible (including qualities) because they are empty.” Therefore the whole Shentong/ Rangtong issue is superfluous. However, in Shentong, Buddha nature is also empty and emptiness means unfindable. In short, the unfindability of any true existence is the ultimate (skt. paramartha) in Buddhism, and is diametrically opposed to the concept of a truly existing thing called Brahman, the ultimate truth in Hinduism.

from Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche:

The practice of tregcho is essential when it comes to realizing the originally pure nature of mind and phenomena. This nature is emptiness, the basic state of the Great Perfection. For this reason, a thorough grounding in the view of Madhyamaka can be a great help when receiving instructions on tregcho. With the correct view of emptiness, one can meditate effectively on original purity [ka dag].

and a final warning from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso:

If we still believe in existence, if we have some type of belief in something substantial, if we think that there is something that truly exists, whatever it might be, then we are said to fall into the extreme called eternalism or permanence. And if we fall into that extreme, we will not realize the true nature of reality.

63 Comments
Comment as xabir


User avatar
level 1
genivelo
·
1 mo. ago
Rimé
Hi. I would be interested in knowing the sources of all those quotes.


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 2
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
I complied this some years ago, I can try to track down the sources for you though.


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 3
genivelo
·
1 mo. ago
Rimé
That would be great. They are very good quotes and I would love to see them in full context.


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 1
frank_mania
·
1 mo. ago
The best book on the topic I've ever encountered is available as a free PDF here, Progressive Stages of Meditation On Emptiness by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche.

Yo, u/Regular_Bee_5605, I consider this book (or an equivalent text) essential to intellectual understanding of emptiness.


4


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 2
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
Yes, I have this book already and have read it. And he lists shentong as the highest view, but it's described differently than the "Jonang version" which may be why people on this thread have been confused. I love this book and consider it a masterpiece.


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 3
frank_mania
·
1 mo. ago
Cool. I consider it, and the conceptual understanding it can give us a jumping board to leave concepts behind. Not that I have but I did not commit the schools and labels to memory. At least not long-term memory, and it's been 20 years at least since my last dip into it. I guess I'll revisit it soon.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 4
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
Very nice. Yes, he says very little about Shentong, noting that it can't be described by any concepts or the intellectual, has to be pointed out by a guru, etc. I feel grateful for his immense contribution to such an important topic. Despite being based on intellectual analysis, it's still fairly pithy and presented in a practice-oriented, not overly scholarly way.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 2
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
In fact, my reply to OP drew from the book heavily :)


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 1
konchokzopachotso
·
1 mo. ago
Kagyu
Shentong is not a suntrayana view, many take it as a higher tantra view


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 2
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
That makes sense. In Vajrayana there are some views that are not present in Sutrayana, eg. All beings already being promordially pure and enlightened from the start.


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 3
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.”


5


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 4
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
I don't know how you would get that from solely the Prajnaparamita sutras. That's why you never see Nagarjuna talking about the luminosity aspect of mind's nature, only the empty aspect. Buddha Nature is a teaching of the Third Turning, whereas emptiness is second-turning. Of course, the ultimate view is their inseparable union.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 5
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


4


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 6
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
Your views don't agree with Ju Miphams or any contemporary Nyingma master. That's alright though. For some reason anger is arising within me, and it Is because my own attachment to my own view, which I need to examine.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 7
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
Your views don't agree with Ju Miphams or any contemporary Nyingma master.

Which aspect of my views are discordant with Ju Mipham?


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 8
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
If you really want to continue this, I'll find sources later, got therapy sessions till 9 though (thats my job). And I'll try to observe any aggression thar comes up in me if does and practice examining its empty nature, and not take it out on you.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 9
Mayayana
·
1 mo. ago
Maybe it would be more clear to discuss it in ontological/experiential terms rather than as a legalistic battle of credentials. Doesn't this all really just come down to whether one views luminosity as a step less dualistic than emptiness realization? It seems to me that the idea of luminosity as dualistic comes from a nihilist tinge on shunyata. Whether one agrees with that or not, there's no need to pull in arcane philosophical references.

On a still more practical level, luminosity is directly relevant to formless practice. If one is trying to grasp emptiness then stressing luminosity might seem like corruption. But if one is practicing resting in awareness, that's already nondual. Calling it empty is a distorting complication.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 10
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
I agree. I think me and this guy actually agree on the essentials. The wording is just ever so slightly different.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 5
Mayayana
·
1 mo. ago
That's what I was thinking. The risk of mistaking shunyata seems to be a red herring in the context of buddha nature. At that point, emptiness is established. I think of analogies such as light in space. It's empty, but it's also luminous. To regard that as "merely sutra view" seems to be a mistake of thinking the luminous quality is a subtle claim of a dualistic existence of awareness, and therefore not understanding emptiness. As I understand it, shentong is more like the antidote to "shunyata hangover" -- the risk of making emptiness a thing.

That does seem to be getting into a lot of splitting of hairs, but maybe it's more relevant in terms of practice. If you're trying to understand emptiness, it confuses things to say it's luminous. But if you're practicing resting in rigpa, it confuses things to need to define that as empty. The practice is connecting with the luminosity aspect, with emptiness a given at that point.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 2
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 3
king_nine
·
1 mo. ago
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? You could even then come up with the paradoxical statement that the vajrayana is a sutrayana view, as is is a unique interpretation of the Buddha-nature sutras synthesized with the two truths of madhyamaka.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 4
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 5
king_nine
·
1 mo. ago
Indeed, but a completely different methodology which sets it apart from sūtra.

Then a “sutrayana view” used in tantric methods becomes a tantrayana view - and this must include Zhentong ones, which are clearly used (proportionally) often in tantric contexts. This being the case, I’m not quite clear on what this distinction between a sutra view and a tantra view is supposed to accomplish


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 6
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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].


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 3
kuds1001
·
1 mo. ago
·
edited 1 mo. ago
The above statement is factually incorrect. Dolpopa was the first to use the term gzhan stong (in the way that most of us mean it) and he explicitly stated that gzhan stong was derived from the Kalacakra tantra and the realizations produced by its sadangayoga practice. Relevant sources for this are laid out in Cyrus Stearns' book The Buddha from Dolpo (e.g., page 46 onwards).

In the Mountain Dharma (and elsewhere), Dolpopa illustrates how gzhan stong reconciles various conflicting views of Buddhism (including the three natures and two truths) because gzhan stong represents the pure golden age (krta yuga) teachings of the Buddha, and he uses extensive collections of both sutras and tantras to make this illustration. But it's fallacious to argue that just because gzhan stong has the consequence of clarifying conflicting sutrayana views that its "entire premise" is to do so, or that it therefore becomes a sutrayana view when it's, in fact, based on the Kalacakra tantra.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 4
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 5
kuds1001
·
1 mo. ago
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, 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.

For Dolpopa, the fact that gzhan stong illuminates and integrates sutra and tantra is simply further proof that it is the Buddha's definitive teaching and that the Buddha's definitive teaching is free from internal contradiction. 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.

If one needs a modern teacher, or someone outside the Jonang, you can read Khenpo Tsultrim's teachings in Shenpen Hookham's The Buddha Within. 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, which, again, is not about reconciling sutra views, and is about the tantric sadangayoga practice.

Either way, I posted this more so for onlookers that they may have the facts about gzhan stong rather than to convince rangtongpas. Be well.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 6
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 7
kuds1001
·
1 mo. ago
Just a few more responses to balance out what I perceive to be factual mistakes in the above comment.

The origin of gzhan stong itself is not in tantra, the idea of it camefrom a master by the name of Tsan Kawoche who received teachings on thesix limb yoga of Kalācākra, and specifically based this view on areinterpretation of the pratyahāra part of the six limbs which featuredsome sort of empty forms, or śūnyatābimba.

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?

Gzhan stong is also not really a reinterpretation. Early commentaries on the sadangayoga like the Laghutantratika talk about how the emptiness of empty forms is not a "nihilistic emptiness." The Kalacakra means something unique by emptiness which relates to the empty forms of the sadangayoga practice. It's hard to explain but is about the simultaneous de-materialization of physical particles and arising of all the many signs and symbols of the Buddha. 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.

Also, the empty forms play a role in all of the six limbs (and the unique preliminary), not just pratyahara. This is all clearly explained in the upadesha on Kalacakra practice, which clarifies how gzhan stong emerges from practice.

It is just a sūtrayāna view that is referenced from within the framework of anuttarayogatantra

You have it backwards, it's an anuttarayogatantra view from the Kalacakra that was later used to explain the sutras and reconcile their contradictions.

Dolbupa's presentation is logically rooted in sūtrayāna. Shentong literally is about reconciling sūtrayāna views.

You keep claiming that, Dolpopa states otherwise extensively.

The shentong reinterpretation deviates from the standard understanding in Yogācāra, but nevertheless shentong claims it has the actual understanding.

Gzhan stong isn't the standard understanding of the three natures, but its understanding is clearly found in canonical texts, like Vasubandhu's Brhattika, for instance.

Yes, I mean different shentong sympathetic lamas are going to make all sorts of claims of this nature

And unsympathetic lamas will make opposing claims then, no?

To add, rang stong is a false title. It is a shentong straw man.

A straw man is an argument that nobody actually believes but that people offer only to debunk. Rang stong clearly is not a straw man seeing how many people rush to defend it.

What is false is the notion that the two are opposing descriptions of the same reality. Dolpopa was clear that rang stong applies to samsara and gzhan stong applies to nirvana. So all shentongpas accept the rangtong view of samsara, the fault that makes one a rangtongpa is misapplying intrinsic emptiness to nirvana. So if rang stong was a mere straw man, it seems odd that Dolpopa would accept it as a valid description of samsara.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 8
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 9
ChanCakes
·
18 days ago
The Shentong view on the Three Natures is not common in Yogacara but it is also not novel. It is found in very early Yogacara texts like the Mahayana Sutra Alamkara.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 1
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
u/Regular_Bee_5605


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 2
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
Thanks Krodha. You mentioned Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche, but he says Shentong Madhyamaka, not Prasangika, is the highest view. The misunderstanding comes because there are different forms of Shentong, is what it seems like to me. The Shentong that Kagyu teachers teach isn't the same or as eternalistic in language as that of the original Jonang school. If you're curious to see how he presents it, his book really is excellent, and pretty short too. Most Kagyu teachers call themselves Shentong, not Prasangika these days, yet it's extremely common for them to also hold the Nyingma and Dzogchen lineages (Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Mingyur Rinpoche, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, just a few of the many alive today. Many more great deceased masters held both lineages too.)

Anyway, I really think this is just a scholarly splitting of hairs. Which I'm not blaming anyone for, since I'm the one who began it. 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. in fact, any attempt to describe the luminous awareness left after all else has been negated with prasangika is impossible, because it's empty, it can't be found with words and concepts, can only be experienced directly. And that's why shentong I think appeals to yogis more than scholars (even though many of the teachers who hold Shentong views are great scholars themselves.)

Edit: the way its presented by the Kagyu masters who hold it is that Shentong is a form of Madhyamaka. Another way Gelug Prasangika differs from Nyingma prasangika is that like shentong Madhyamaka, Nyingma school uses a lot of the framework of Cittamatra, whereas Gelug eschews such language altogether. You will not hear Gelug teachers talking about the lack of subject and object, pure awareness etc. Tsongkhapa approached it as a pure negation, and from what I understand, did not believe all appearances came from mind. The main difference of Shentong and Cittamatra is that Shentong says that even the mind that Cittamatra reifies is empty.


5


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 3
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 4
konchokzopachotso
·
1 mo. ago
Kagyu
Multiple popular drikung masters are shentong. Khenpo Samdup Rinpoche says the emptiness of Jigten Sumgon is the Shentong view, in his commentary of the four Dharmas of Gampopa


5


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 5
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 4
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
This may not be your intention, but I enjoy this healthy debate as it's helping me become more confident in the Shentong view :)


3


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 4
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
·
edited 1 mo. ago
That's simply not true. Ultimate and relative truth are inseparable and I've never heard it say otherwise.

If you say they're not there from the very beginning, and that the Dharmakaya hasn't primordially always been free, wouldn't Buddhahood be yet another conditioned phenomenon? Once again, I do think this is just splitting hairs, but I guess I don't mind doing it as an intellectual exercise.

Edit: also, isn't the view that all beings are enlightened in essence from the very start the entire basis of the fruition, Vajrayana path, which involves pure perception, the seeing of promordial wisdom and clarity as having always been there but not known due to ignorance?


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 5
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
·
edited 1 mo. ago
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.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 6
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
·
edited 1 mo. ago
Dude we're literally talking about the same exact thing but using different words. This conversation is pointless.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 7
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 8
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
Shentong still holds mind is empty. It's full of qualities of wisdom and compassion, but it's still essenceless and can't be found. So luminosity isn't a "thing" or "substance" so it's therefore still Madhyamaka, not Yogacara or Advaita.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 9
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 10
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
Yeah, that's why Dolpopa's Shentong is generally only seen in the Jonang school now. It's no wonder there's confusion though if people are using the same term to mean very different things.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 10
genivelo
·
1 mo. ago
Rimé
When pressed, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche actually admitted that there is not much difference between Dolbupa’s shentong and Advaita Vedanta.

I would love a link to that too, if you have it.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow
Continue this thread
 

User avatar
level 8
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
I think you're still not getting that there are multiple different "Shentongs" out there. And nowadays most are not taught in the way Dolpopa did. Now it's very much similar to Ju Mipham's view. It's just a synthesis of yogacara and madhyamaka basically. 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 🤣


0


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 9
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 10
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
Dzogchens view is basically identical to Mahamudra's man. How else can there be so many lineage holders of both traditions if they contradicted? My teacher mainly does Mahamudra but it's very Dzogchen influenced due to 2 of his 4 root gurus being Dzogchen masters (his father Tulku Urgyen and Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche.)


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow
Continue this thread
 

User avatar
level 10
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
No it's fine to discuss I just need to monitor my kleshas!


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 6
Mayayana
·
1 mo. ago
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?

Because it's not realized. You may consider that a mistaken view, but it's an expedient device. And the alternative must assume that a buddha is created where none exists. In a reality empty of existence, how could that be, except as a relative phenomenon?


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 7
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 8
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
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. You seem to have some unusual views about these things (which is fine, and maybe yours are right, who knows?). I think I actually agree with you on more than you think I do anyway.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 9
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 10
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
Well I agree! Beyond time, space, ideas of existence, non-existence, both, or neither, along with the quality of cognizance. So perhaps I simply have not been explaining my views carefully or understanding yours correctly.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 10
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
And the reason I don't think ultimste truth is different than conventional truth is that all appearances are simply manifestations of emptiness-luminosity. No different in essence. All phenomena are empty, come from empty mind, yet "it is nothing at all, but anything can manifest." (That line comes from supplication to the Dakpo Kagyu lineage prayer.)


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 8
Mayayana
·
1 mo. ago
It may be nonsensical if you view it as a mechanistic, dualistic scenario, where you posit awareness as something manufactured. It doesn't seem nonsensical to me in an experiential sense. But maybe it's really just a problem of the limitation of language. If you view awareness as dualistic then your approach should be more useful for you. Personally I'm very drawn to fruition view, in which luminous awareness is the view and practice. From that point of view, emptiness is still referring to dualistic perception, saying that dualistic perception is false and all phenomena are empty of true existence. Awareness, simply not leaving nowness, is no longer referring to "pre-awake". That's why it has to be the 3rd turning. It's less dualistic as a view.


0


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 9
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
The Gelug Prasangik doesn't really seem concerned with dualism. They are very focused on the second turning and emptiness as pure negation. As far as I'm aware, Tsongkhapa even believed that things actually do exist external to mind, but that they just don't "inherently exist." 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've already talked to him about his views don't seem to be the Nyingma consensus. Which is okay, I suppose. But he states that Shentong is a "bastardization" of Madhyamaka. Nice person, but I have let myself get pissed off by some of our discourse.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 10
Mayayana
·
1 mo. ago
You go over my head with these academic references, which I think of as pretty much just the province of Gelugpas. Maybe it's my bias, but I don't think it's especially relevant, when talking about such experiential topics, to support arguments through references, as though it were a legal court case. If references are used, their practice/view relevance should be explained rather than just holding them up as absolute authority. Otherwise we end up with an absurdity: The official absolute relative truth about absolute truth. That ignores the fact that view is a practice, not an ultimate description or law of reality.

I was referring to dualism because, if I understood correctly, the deal seems to be this:

Shentong is positing a kind of absolute reality to rigpa/yeshe, not as a dualistic view but rather as a practical device. The nature of reality as luminous, like the Christian device of God. Rangtong or anti-shentong seems to view that approach as dualistic. There seems to be a misunderstanding in that rangtong is viewing it in the context of shunyata. ("It can't exist because nothing exists.") My understanding is that shentong view is from a point of view beyond shunyata, of "been there-done that". Shunyata is accepted as established, but then here we are working with non-dual awareness. If we say it's empty then we're getting into nihilist acrobatics, sollidiying emptiness as having absolute existence. You seem to be saying the same. Do I have that right? Is that also your understanding?

I had assumed krodha was Gelugpa. Like you, I don't see how his adamant denial fits with Dzogchen, rife with imagery such as "the sun obscured by clouds". It's fruition view. If you say that that sun is not self-existing from the beginning then you back yourself into a corner and interpret fruition view as lower view. Buddhahood would then have to be created. But that would then class buddhahood as a relative phenomenon. At the risk of sounding excessively abstruse and erudite: That's icky :)


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 10
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


1


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

User avatar
level 9
Regular_Bee_5605
·
1 mo. ago
There are some Nyingmapas on here and especially the Dzogchen forum who believe some unusual things that most Nyingma masters didn't teach. Like the person you were arguing with who said realization could be "lost."


0


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow

level 1
Comment deleted by user
·
1 mo. ago

User avatar
level 2
krodha
OP
·
1 mo. ago
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.


2


Reply
Give Award
Share
Report
Save
Follow