Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

[Kelwin]

Just find me a quote from Nagarjuna then saying that emptiness if dependent origination or else we are finished with this discussion.

/magnus

That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.
-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.

Ok I don't know anything like you guys do. But again, this says DO is empty. It doesn't say that all of emptiness is DO? Does it?

Could we say for example that the nature of mind is empty, but not dependently originated?

[alwayson]

Deopendent origination and emptiness are synonyms.

N

Thats what I said many times

[Malcolm]

Just find me a quote from Nagarjuna then saying that emptiness if dependent origination or else we are finished with this discussion.

/magnus

That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.
-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.

Ok I don't know anything like you guys do. But again, this says DO is empty. It doesn't say that all of emptiness is DO? Does it?

Could we say for example that the nature of mind is empty, but not dependently originated?

If there is no dependently originated mind, there is no mind at all, and hence there is would be no nature of the mind of which to speak.

N

[Malcolm]

Deopendent origination and emptiness are synonyms.

N

Thats what I said many times

Some people are a little slow, padawan.

[alwayson]

And the fact that the Tsongkhapa view has contaminated even common Mahayana like Zen.

But even Tsongkhapa said "empty" = "dependently originated", I assume??

He is still a Madhyamakia after all, although a crappy one.

[Kelwin]

If there is no dependently originated mind, there is no mind at all, and hence there is would be no nature of the mind of which to speak.

N

True, mind has of course dependently originated. But it's nature hasn't, has it?
And actually, the nature of mind, or Buddha-nature, doesn't ultimately really on the existence of mind I think.

Therefore, my position would be that all phenomena, and relative mind included, are both empty and dependently originated. And mind's nature is empty of any inherent existence, but has itself not dependently arisen. It actually is the ground within which dependent origination happens.

I must be one of the really slow ones, because I don't see where the above is wrong?

[alwayson]

What you are talking about is called "clarity". The mind can take it's own awareness as an object.Indeed, in all Mahamudra and Dzogchen meditation, this is precisely what is taken as the object. You may not be able to "get rid" of this clarity, but you will never find it or be able to say "This is it, this is not it". This clarity is also dependently originated since the mind is dependently originated. There is no awareness or clarity seperate from the mind. The characteristic of the mind is clarity. The essence of the mind is emptiness. These two are non-dual, and that is the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness.

N

[kirtu]

I hate Budda Nature sutras with a passion.

You are so rigid - relax a bit .....

Hate this, hate that. You hate (HATE?) Buddha Nature sutras? Do you also hate water?

Kirt

[alwayson]

I do not consider the crappy Tathgatagarbha Sutras as part of Buddhism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81 ... bha_Sutras" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How can you compare this garbage to water?

They are essentially heretical and blasphemous, if taken literally.


P.S. I have no problem with the Tibetan view of Buddha Nature

[Kelwin]

What you are talking about is called "clarity". The mind can take it's own awareness as an object.Indeed, in all Mahamudra and Dzogchen meditation, this is precisely what is taken as the object. You may not be able to "get rid" of this clarity, but you will never find it or be able to say "This is it, this is not it". This clarity is also dependently originated since the mind is dependently originated. There is no awareness or clarity seperate from the mind. The characteristic of the mind is clarity. The essence of the mind is emptiness. These two are non-dual, and that is the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness.

N

Good quote, thanks. But I agree that clarity, as it manifests within mind, is DO. I would however not say that is synonymous with the nature of mind. If it is, I'm learning something new here!
In that case, 'nature of mind' is certainly used in very different ways.

[Acchantika]

What you are talking about is called "clarity". The mind can take it's own awareness as an object.Indeed, in all Mahamudra and Dzogchen meditation, this is precisely what is taken as the object. You may not be able to "get rid" of this clarity, but you will never find it or be able to say "This is it, this is not it". This clarity is also dependently originated since the mind is dependently originated. There is no awareness or clarity seperate from the mind. The characteristic of the mind is clarity. The essence of the mind is emptiness. These two are non-dual, and that is the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness.

N

This quote really confuses me.

So this nature of mind that is "not created by anything", "not derive[d] from anything outside itself" and "self-originated" is in fact created, derived and dependently originated. Got it.

[kirtu]

I do not consider the crappy Tathgatagarbha Sutras as part of Buddhism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81 ... bha_Sutras" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How can you compare this garbage to water?

They are essentially heretical and blasphemous, if taken literally.


P.S. I have no problem with the Tibetan view of Buddha Nature

Nice PS - all teaching is upaya. Does something get someone going in the right (or better) direction in this lifetime? So in that vein Tathagathagarbha teaching can be very helpful if you are of that temperament (if you read the Uttaratantra for example and start crying or if you read some of these sutras and have positive reactions then you are of that temperament).

Kirt

[conebeckham]

What you are talking about is called "clarity". The mind can take it's own awareness as an object.Indeed, in all Mahamudra and Dzogchen meditation, this is precisely what is taken as the object. You may not be able to "get rid" of this clarity, but you will never find it or be able to say "This is it, this is not it". This clarity is also dependently originated since the mind is dependently originated. There is no awareness or clarity seperate from the mind. The characteristic of the mind is clarity. The essence of the mind is emptiness. These two are non-dual, and that is the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness.

N

Good quote, thanks. But I agree that clarity, as it manifests within mind, is DO. I would however not say that is synonymous with the nature of mind. If it is, I'm learning something new here!
In that case, 'nature of mind' is certainly used in very different ways.

I am sure I have heard Namdrol talk about Dzokchen being "beyond mind." I would be interested to hear how that assertion can be reconciled with the quote above.

[conebeckham]

I do not consider the crappy Tathgatagarbha Sutras as part of Buddhism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81 ... bha_Sutras" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How can you compare this garbage to water?

They are essentially heretical and blasphemous, if taken literally.


P.S. I have no problem with the Tibetan view of Buddha Nature

And which "Tibetan View" of Buddha Nature would that be? Tsong Khapa's? Dolpopa's? Sakya Pandita's? Rangjung Dorje's? Longchenpa's? Mipham's?

[Silent Bob]

I do not consider the crappy Tathgatagarbha Sutras as part of Buddhism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81 ... bha_Sutras" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How can you compare this garbage to water?

They are essentially heretical and blasphemous, if taken literally.

P.S. I have no problem with the Tibetan view of Buddha Nature

in·suf·fer·a·ble

adjective /inˈsəf(ə)rəbəl/ 

Too extreme to bear; intolerable
- the heat would be insufferable by July

Having or showing unbearable arrogance or conceit
- an insufferable bully
- insufferable French chauvinism

[deepbluehum]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

What do you think emptiness means?

"empty" = "dependently originated"

They are synonymous phrases.

This is not rocket science.

Just find me a quote from Nagarjuna then saying that emptiness if dependent origination or else we are finished with this discussion.

/magnus

That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.
-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.

As you know one sentence can be taken out of context. Which this one is. But you two are free to continue with the same short shrift nonsense ad nauseam, if it makes you feel warm and cozy.

Commentators like Gorampa often have to take a quote that appears to mean one thing and show that it means another.

The the above quote comes from the chapter on FNT and follows the verses:

If you perceive the existence of all things
In terms of their essence,
Then this perception of all things
Will be without the perception of causes and
conditions,

Effects and causes
And agent and action
And conditions and arising and ceasing
And effects will be rendered impossible.

Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way.

Readers should not think these two have settled the issue with DO=Emptiness. This simplistic formulation based on a quote taken out of context of what it was meant to teach has led apparently both of them to negate the efficacy of karma.

[Epistemes]

It's apparent that Namdrol just wants to support his pet, alwayson.

[rose]

Temporarily locked.