Showing posts with label Prajna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prajna. Show all posts

 https://www.facebook.com/yin.l.chok/posts/pfbid07QELx2KJS8FC3bgdU5P3Vic29me8oqZUcb1oneEjUB7ziNw3aZqNsoRJoji5oRfLl?__cft__[0]=AZU3gou_MzINvYm-yA2p6gL8IvKepUSRqrjrrT0SHigBL047n8PRQk5xvlpR67DRkGecEa6mph9d3uwmVoQuMb7H_8EHcl0EywAc04QSnfo2Os5PBPjLiGH6y8omMibaX_03yMQ_PGf_6_dmBm2i--7Qk9XU3WkxUySoDEkn8lNU_o5igVE4LrKVxY8_OGz_8Wg&__cft__[1]=AZU3gou_MzINvYm-yA2p6gL8IvKepUSRqrjrrT0SHigBL047n8PRQk5xvlpR67DRkGecEa6mph9d3uwmVoQuMb7H_8EHcl0EywAc04QSnfo2Os5PBPjLiGH6y8omMibaX_03yMQ_PGf_6_dmBm2i--7Qk9XU3WkxUySoDEkn8lNU_o5igVE4LrKVxY8_OGz_8Wg&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R]-R

  • John Tan
    Yin Ling André A. Pais is just saying u should move from insight of emptiness and dependent arising to freedom from all elaborations. But don't listen to him (just joking) 🤣.
    Negation requires an essence to be negated, but since there never was any essence to begin with, how can the path of negation which the gelupas are subscribing be ultimate?
    This relates to the difference between the 2 types of wisdoms: Yeshe vs Prajna. Yeshe is the wisdom of the natural state free from all elaborations, primordial purity of suchness whereas Prajna is the wisdom that deals with emptiness of inherentness. U may want to look into the difference.
    That said, without stable insights of anatta, dependent-arising and emptiness, we will not have undistorted direct knowledge of suchness free from all elaborations.
    5
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited
    • Yin Ling
      oh thank you.
      I will look into yeshe and prajna.
      At this point, to me, like you said, one is the condition of another. Prajna is the condition for yeshe. For me, yes there’s no essence to be negated in natural nirvana but our mind carry that essence and that’s the negation for.. negating that ignorance.
      Otherwise if there’s any hint of essence, how is there true “freedom from elaborations”/ true quiescence?
      Hmmm that’s my understanding but I think I need to look deeper into it when I have time. I think the masters must have some reason to debate but I just can’t see the clear obvious reason. I think I’m not getting it 😂
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1d
    • John Tan
      Yin Ling don't worry too much about the polemics, see it as bringing out some subtle points along the journey. This in fact instill lots of confidence for practitioners along the path if they authenticate the truth of these subtle refinement and discernment of insights of these great masters.
      It's just like penetrating the insight of anatta resulting in direct authentication of suchness. Some may only see the negation aspect and not the radiance aspect of suchness from that insight and wrongly conclude that "no self" is just about negation but in truth, the single breakthrough involves the 2 authentications.
      Likewise for Tsongkhapa. In praises of dependent origination,
      27
      Therefore whatever originates dependently,
      Though primordially free of intrinsic existence,
      Appears as if it does [possess intrinsic existence];
      So you taught all this to be illusion-like
      So Tsongkhapa is not in ignorant of the primordially pure and like what Mipham said, Tsongkhapa is clear about coalescence of appearances and emptiness. To Tsongkhapa (imo), thorough, mature and direct insight of dependent arising and emptiness suffice and will naturally ferry one there, there is no need to create anything extra.
      2
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1d
      • Edited
    • Yin Ling
      John Tan oh thank you. Yes I get what you mean.
      Just by understanding the object of negation of what is “inherent existence” send one right into nature of mind if they have already ascertain mind. Which should have been. I believe when Buddha taught Brahmans in his time they should have know this, let alone bodhisattvas.
      The fruition after negating inherent existence is very clear, just not stable and powerful. So clear that makes one wonder “what else is left to be negated?” “what are they talking about?” After negating Inherency.
      Thanks. Also quite funny how one thinks Tsongkhapa does not know primodially pure?
      Hmm.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1d
    • André A. Pais
      I just lost a full comment I was writing here... Jesus! I'll try to write it later...
      2