Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by DGA » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:25 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
lelopa wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote: ........................
.........
.....................
The method to cause emptiness to appear is the syllogistic reasoning that Malcolm doesn't believe is necessary in order to realise the Dharmakaya.
says who?
Guru Tsongkhapa
Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to have a look at the passage you refer to. Thanks.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by DGA » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:26 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Grigoris wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:But the truth is emptiness and that is not realised by meditating on conventional phenomena such as the nature of the mind.
WRONG! What is the nature of mind? If you meditate on the nature of mind, what will you see?

I'll tell you what you will see! Your beloved fetish: Emptiness.

The whole point of Tantra seems to have flown under your radar.
You really won't. You will see clarity.
Would you please elaborate on what you mean by clarity in this context? Can you say what Tibetan or Sanskrit word "clarity" is used to translate? Thanks.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by DGA » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:28 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Furthermore, to deny a self althogether is nihilism. A merely imputed self does exist.
Please help me understand your position. is a "merely imputed self" anything more than a mere imputation? which is to say, a thought?

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by DGA » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:31 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote: His Buddhism is a result of a thousand years of doctrinal politics
Buddhadharma is really not about politics at all.
You can blame certain Dalai Lamas for corrupting political elements.
I think the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was right to call upon the great Terton Sogyal to bring an end to the political conflicts that were tearing Tibet apart. It is unfortunate that the effort was not embraced by some who gain advantage through applying sectarian and political means. I'm glad the current Dalai Lama has a good bead on this situation. Long may He live.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28717
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:55 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote: A merely imputed self does exist.

There are two kinds of imputation: valid and false.

The imputation of a self is a false imputation. That false imputation exists, but the self it imputes does not.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

muni
Posts: 4532
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by muni » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:04 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Anonymous X wrote: Wanting to understand or realize anything is already the wrong approach. You can't resolve anything from a dualistic point of view. That only leads to a theoretical understanding and not an experiential one. That naked awareness, your basic state, is a knowingness that is directly experienceable. That is the nature of your mind. Without that kind of knowing, which is non dual and present, everything is seen from the samsaric view and the idea of a problem to be solved gets born over and over. All of this dharma talk will drive you crazy. Stabilize that basic state and let go of the conceptual. There is no self to realize or control anything.
I accept that maybe this is the approach you have been taught, I've been taught another approach which is there is no point in meditating if you don't understand the object of meditation or how to get there. This involves extensive study combined with meditation. Naked awareness is never going to lead to the ultimate because we suffer from dualistic appearance and this can only be removed by meditation on emptiness, which requires study. That dualistic appearance is not because of conceptuality so getting rid of conceptuality isn't going to lead to realisation. There is no basic state to stablise because although mind and emptiness are one nature, simply staring at the the mind will never lead to a realisation of emptiness because of dualistic appearance. This must be removed by separate meditation on emptiness alone.

Study leads to wisdom, which leads contemplation, which leads to meditation, which leads to experience, which leads to liberation and enlightenment.

Furthermore, to deny a self althogether is nihilism. A merely imputed self does exist.


Naked awareness is to recognize nondual, as emptiness of own self/ a person ánd emptiness of all phenomena. Then experiencer and the experience are not two. That cannot be nihilism but is not different than the middle way, it is not different from the harmony of inseparable dependence-emptiness, since it is not a cold void. So called clear light is not just naked cold spacious awareness. There is the compassion-aspect and it is beyond description. Clear light is very subtle, leading or flowing into Buddhahood. Terms can clarify but also confuse. If this happens, I think it is the best to keep us by our approach.

There are many other approaches by which steps are paving the path and by which it is very useful to analyse a lot, step by step. They are all perfect. The great variety of practices, helping to erase our confused perception how can they be rejected? All practices ( like using terms like Naked Awareness) are the liberating medicine of others.

If we say this approach of you is not possible, or less good, we can bring doubt by fellows their practice. Relative Bodhichitta can overcome this.
We use the intellect to recognize what is beyond. Wisdom is not the same as intelligence, by intelligence there is an experiencer and an experience, there is a perceiver and the perceived. This separation is not by Wisdom. Wisdom is beyond conceptual or intellectual analyses and its’ aspect is compassion, by which there is understanding of the need of the great variety of approaches.

Anyway, we should use terms to be beyond only, as navigation help only, to recognize inexpressible nature.
:meditate:

TaTa
Posts: 421
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:15 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by TaTa » Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:36 pm

Lukeinaz wrote:
TaTa wrote:Is rude to ask who is your teacher Tsongkhapafan?
Because what you are stating preatty much conflicts with basically every teaching ive received. Is this a gelug thing or a teacher thing?

We are not allowed to talk about cults on DW that are harmful to HHDL and the people of Tibet.
Say no more

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4943
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by conebeckham » Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:53 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Can we agree that you won't "see" either clarity or emptiness, but you will somehow experience the nature of empty clear awareness?

After all, as Karmapa Rangjung Dorje said, "even the Buddhas do not see it."
Why would experiencing the conventional nature of the mind lead to an experience of emptiness? Our mind is obscured and we perceive all phenomena as inherently existent including the mind. Without specific meditation on emptiness you will never perceive the empty nature of things and you certainly won't simply by focusing on conventional truths.
Who said anything about meditating on conventional nature of mind? Not me. Not the Dohas or Upadeshas, really, either. That is your own fabricated conclusion. I don't think you read the Upadesha from Tilopa, because you would not mistake the object if you had read it, and the commentary by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche.

I do wish you would read outside your own ghost-written tradition, with an attempt to be open-minded and with no tortured attempts to turn words and meaning to your purpose. It's transparent and intellectually dishonest.

Nowhere in the upadesha, nor in any of the quotes I have provided in this thread, does anyone suggest "conventional mind" to equate with primordial awareness. If you assert that "Nature of Mind," the empty yet cognizant awareness which is nonconceptual and without beginning or end, is conventional, please provide sources from sutra, Tantra, or upadesha to support this assertion. Frankly, every quote and every source provided thus far, and every Doha and pith instruction any of us could trot out in future, contradicts your position when read plainly without superimposition or needless twisting.

You can continue to parrot your dogma to the end of time and you will still have no idea what the Mahasiddhas are talking about in their pith instructions. You've gotten in your own way. I cannot say it more plainly. Go read and contemplate the Ganges Mahamudra Upadesha Tilopa spoke to Naropa, and read the commentary from the master, Thrangu Rinpoche, it is a gift--do not throw it away carelessly or break it.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

TaTa
Posts: 421
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:15 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by TaTa » Fri Mar 24, 2017 3:56 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote: This involves extensive study combined with meditation. Naked awareness is never going to lead to the ultimate because we suffer from dualistic appearance and this can only be removed by meditation on emptiness, which requires study. That dualistic appearance is not because of conceptuality so getting rid of conceptuality isn't going to lead to realisation. There is no basic state to stablise because although mind and emptiness are one nature, simply staring at the the mind will never lead to a realisation of emptiness because of dualistic appearance. This must be removed by separate meditation on emptiness alone.

Study leads to wisdom, which leads contemplation, which leads to meditation, which leads to experience, which leads to liberation and enlightenment.

Furthermore, to deny a self althogether is nihilism. A merely imputed self does exist.
So you deny the posibility of a guru pointing out non meditation to you and stabilizing that? Just trying to understand your view

Lukeinaz
Posts: 376
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:34 pm

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Lukeinaz » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:20 pm

conebeckham wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Can we agree that you won't "see" either clarity or emptiness, but you will somehow experience the nature of empty clear awareness?

After all, as Karmapa Rangjung Dorje said, "even the Buddhas do not see it."
Why would experiencing the conventional nature of the mind lead to an experience of emptiness? Our mind is obscured and we perceive all phenomena as inherently existent including the mind. Without specific meditation on emptiness you will never perceive the empty nature of things and you certainly won't simply by focusing on conventional truths.
Who said anything about meditating on conventional nature of mind? Not me. Not the Dohas or Upadeshas, really, either. That is your own fabricated conclusion. I don't think you read the Upadesha from Tilopa, because you would not mistake the object if you had read it, and the commentary by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche.

I do wish you would read outside your own ghost-written tradition, with an attempt to be open-minded and with no tortured attempts to turn words and meaning to your purpose. It's transparent and intellectually dishonest.

Nowhere in the upadesha, nor in any of the quotes I have provided in this thread, does anyone suggest "conventional mind" to equate with primordial awareness. If you assert that "Nature of Mind," the empty yet cognizant awareness which is nonconceptual and without beginning or end, is conventional, please provide sources from sutra, Tantra, or upadesha to support this assertion. Frankly, every quote and every source provided thus far, and every Doha and pith instruction any of us could trot out in future, contradicts your position when read plainly without superimposition or needless twisting.

You can continue to parrot your dogma to the end of time and you will still have no idea what the Mahasiddhas are talking about in their pith instructions. You've gotten in your own way. I cannot say it more plainly. Go read and contemplate the Ganges Mahamudra Upadesha Tilopa spoke to Naropa, and read the commentary from the master, Thrangu Rinpoche, it is a gift--do not throw it away carelessly or break it.

Is this it? http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/upadesha.pdf
You are truly astonishing--going to look for yourself when you already are yourself! --Longchen Rabjam

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4943
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by conebeckham » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:29 pm

Yes.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18214
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Grigoris » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:33 pm

First you say this:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:Our mind is obscured and we perceive all phenomena as inherently existent including the mind.
Then you say this:
If you don't meditate on emptiness you cannot remove dualistic appearance...
The method to cause emptiness to appear is the syllogistic reasoning that Malcolm doesn't believe is necessary in order to realise the Dharmakaya.
If the first statement is true, then the second and third statements are false.

So either you actually have no idea about what you are saying and that is why you end up contradicting yourself, or you are correctly reporting what you have been taught and thus what you have been taught is complete and utter bullshit.

So which is it? :shrug:
Last edited by Grigoris on Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28717
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:41 pm

conebeckham wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Can we agree that you won't "see" either clarity or emptiness, but you will somehow experience the nature of empty clear awareness?

After all, as Karmapa Rangjung Dorje said, "even the Buddhas do not see it."
Why would experiencing the conventional nature of the mind lead to an experience of emptiness? Our mind is obscured and we perceive all phenomena as inherently existent including the mind. Without specific meditation on emptiness you will never perceive the empty nature of things and you certainly won't simply by focusing on conventional truths.
Who said anything about meditating on conventional nature of mind? Not me. Not the Dohas or Upadeshas, really, either. That is your own fabricated conclusion. I don't think you read the Upadesha from Tilopa, because you would not mistake the object if you had read it, and the commentary by Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche.

I do wish you would read outside your own ghost-written tradition, with an attempt to be open-minded and with no tortured attempts to turn words and meaning to your purpose. It's transparent and intellectually dishonest.

Nowhere in the upadesha, nor in any of the quotes I have provided in this thread, does anyone suggest "conventional mind" to equate with primordial awareness. If you assert that "Nature of Mind," the empty yet cognizant awareness which is nonconceptual and without beginning or end, is conventional, please provide sources from sutra, Tantra, or upadesha to support this assertion. Frankly, every quote and every source provided thus far, and every Doha and pith instruction any of us could trot out in future, contradicts your position when read plainly without superimposition or needless twisting.

You can continue to parrot your dogma to the end of time and you will still have no idea what the Mahasiddhas are talking about in their pith instructions. You've gotten in your own way. I cannot say it more plainly. Go read and contemplate the Ganges Mahamudra Upadesha Tilopa spoke to Naropa, and read the commentary from the master, Thrangu Rinpoche, it is a gift--do not throw it away carelessly or break it.
Most of the confusion here results from the fact that in the Great Perfection, the three kāyas are regarded as the path appearances, and not the result. Since TKF has no idea about this, he is naturally confused about it.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18214
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Grigoris » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:59 pm

conebeckham wrote:Nowhere in the upadesha, nor in any of the quotes I have provided in this thread, does anyone suggest "conventional mind" to equate with primordial awareness.
Whoa there cowboy! Are you suggesting that the nature of conventional mind is not emptiness? Are you saying that conventional mind is something other than primordial awareness?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4943
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by conebeckham » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:49 pm

Grigoris wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Nowhere in the upadesha, nor in any of the quotes I have provided in this thread, does anyone suggest "conventional mind" to equate with primordial awareness.
Whoa there cowboy! Are you suggesting that the nature of conventional mind is not emptiness? Are you saying that conventional mind is something other than primordial awareness.
I understand the term "conventional mind" to mean the discursive, the conceptual, the flow of mental chatter, along with memory, perceptions, feelings, etc.

Of course the nature of all these contents are empty, as well, and all mental activity arises in the space of the Nature of Mind. But the Nature of Mind is differentiated from the contents of mental activity, conventionally, is it not?
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18214
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Grigoris » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:31 pm

conebeckham wrote:Of course the nature of all these contents are empty, as well, and all mental activity arises in the space of the Nature of Mind. But the Nature of Mind is differentiated from the contents of mental activity, conventionally, is it not?
WARNING! YOU ARE ABOUT TO HEAR THE IGNORANT OPINION OF A DUMBASS.

If the Nature of Mind is separate to the contents of conventional mental activity, that means that-right-here-and-right-now (as we are) we have no real way to access/experience the Nature of Mind. That would imply that the nature of mind is not/never actually revealed to conceptual mind, as it would immediately reify the experience and continue on it's merry samsaric merry-go-round. But this would mean that either:

a)It is enlightened mind that experiences enlightenment, whereupon I would ask the silly question: "What use does the enlightened mind have of enlightenment since it is already frackin' enlightened?"
b)We are already enlightened exactly in this moment and exactly as we are, in which case one would ask the moronic question: "What is the purpose of Dharma if I am already enlightened?"
c)There is an enlightened mind and there is conventional mind, and never the twain shall meet; in which case I would ask: "WhereTF is my enlightened mind right now and WhyTF am I wasting my time with conventional mind?" But this would also imply that conventional mind is eternal, since it cannot ever be changed (enlightened).

I guess that is why (recently)I am being drawn more-and-more towards the view of one truth.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4943
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by conebeckham » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:42 pm

Grigoris wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Of course the nature of all these contents are empty, as well, and all mental activity arises in the space of the Nature of Mind. But the Nature of Mind is differentiated from the contents of mental activity, conventionally, is it not?
WARNING! YOU ARE ABOUT TO HEAR THE IGNORANT OPINION OF A DUMBASS.

If the Nature of Mind is separate to the contents of conventional mental activity, that means that-right-here-and-right-now (as we are) we have no real way to access/experience the Nature of Mind. That would inply that the nature of mind is not/never actually revealed to conceptual mind, as it would immediately reify the experience and continue on it's merry samsaric merry-go-round. But this would mean that either:

a) It is enlightened mind that experiences enlightenment, whereupon I would ask the silly question: "What use does the enlightened mind have of enlightenment since it is already frackin' enlightened?"
b)We are already enlightened exactly in this moment and exactly as we are, in which case one would ask the moronic question: "What is the purpose of Dharma if I am already enlightened?"
c)There is an enlightened mind and there is conventional mind, and never the twain shall meet; in which case I would ask: "WhereTF is my enlightened mind right now and WhyTF am I wasting my time with conventional mind?" But this would also imply that conventional mind is eternal, since it cannot ever be changed (enlightened).

I guess that is why (recently)I am being drawn more-and-more towards the view of one truth.
I don't think the contents of conventional mental activity are the same as Nature of Mind, but I do think the Nature of Mind is primordially inseparable from the nature of conventional mental activity.

I also don't think there is "an enlightened mind" per se. There is wisdom, and a "Change of State." But I do not think this is something newly added.
In the Mahamudra traditions, it's said that we work with mind, and most specifically with the mental consciousness. I think Dzogchen works with this, as well, but also has some other "tricks up it's sleeve," as it were.

I also hesitate to say this, but here goes: I do not think conceptual mind has ever been able to have Nature of Mind "revealed to it," but that conceptual mind reifies, as per it's own workings, any direct nonconceptual experience one may have--be it sense impressions, feelings, or even nonconceptual experiences arising as a result of pointing out, etc.

I'm going to leave this here, for others to pick apart.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 18214
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Grigoris » Fri Mar 24, 2017 8:48 pm

Image
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Anonymous X » Sat Mar 25, 2017 5:36 am

conebeckham wrote:
Grigoris wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Of course the nature of all these contents are empty, as well, and all mental activity arises in the space of the Nature of Mind. But the Nature of Mind is differentiated from the contents of mental activity, conventionally, is it not?
WARNING! YOU ARE ABOUT TO HEAR THE IGNORANT OPINION OF A DUMBASS.

If the Nature of Mind is separate to the contents of conventional mental activity, that means that-right-here-and-right-now (as we are) we have no real way to access/experience the Nature of Mind. That would inply that the nature of mind is not/never actually revealed to conceptual mind, as it would immediately reify the experience and continue on it's merry samsaric merry-go-round. But this would mean that either:

a) It is enlightened mind that experiences enlightenment, whereupon I would ask the silly question: "What use does the enlightened mind have of enlightenment since it is already frackin' enlightened?"
b)We are already enlightened exactly in this moment and exactly as we are, in which case one would ask the moronic question: "What is the purpose of Dharma if I am already enlightened?"
c)There is an enlightened mind and there is conventional mind, and never the twain shall meet; in which case I would ask: "WhereTF is my enlightened mind right now and WhyTF am I wasting my time with conventional mind?" But this would also imply that conventional mind is eternal, since it cannot ever be changed (enlightened).

I guess that is why (recently)I am being drawn more-and-more towards the view of one truth.
I don't think the contents of conventional mental activity are the same as Nature of Mind, but I do think the Nature of Mind is primordially inseparable from the nature of conventional mental activity.

I also don't think there is "an enlightened mind" per se. There is wisdom, and a "Change of State." But I do not think this is something newly added.
In the Mahamudra traditions, it's said that we work with mind, and most specifically with the mental consciousness. I think Dzogchen works with this, as well, but also has some other "tricks up it's sleeve," as it were.

I also hesitate to say this, but here goes: I do not think conceptual mind has ever been able to have Nature of Mind "revealed to it," but that conceptual mind reifies, as per it's own workings, any direct nonconceptual experience one may have--be it sense impressions, feelings, or even nonconceptual experiences arising as a result of pointing out, etc.

I'm going to leave this here, for others to pick apart.
Allow me to pick, just a bit.

I don't really disagree with your statements. As it's hard to describe what happens when the nature of mind is 'seen', the ensuing 'change of state' also 'sees' the 'not twoness' (nondual) nature of the ordinary mind and its activity. That ordinary mind does not become 'enlightened mind' as some may like to think. It is simply allowed to rise and fall and be what it is without obscuring the original purity of the nature of mind and its not twoness view. Conceptual mind is just seen as empty of a self and this is what is the same as the nature of mind. There is nothing added to what is already the case. In a sense, this is a seachange from the old view of separation and division within the mind.

User avatar
Konchog1
Posts: 1486
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

Post by Konchog1 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:34 am

Malcolm wrote:That false imputation exists
As a mere appearance
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats

Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Josef and 81 guests