Instant Presence and Physical Pain

[krodha]

Relevant stories about Sabchu Tulku and a siddha by the name of Lama Tenje:

• Here is another story about the previous Sabchu Tulku - not the child who lives nowadays in Swayambhu, but in one of his former lives. The first Sabchu was a disciple of Situ Pema Nyingje, Jamgön Kongtrül and Jamyang Khyentse. Before he died, a horrible disease struck him; his stomach became one big open sore. It started with one sore and slowly it became bigger and bigger. Finally all his intestines were lying out in his lap. The pus, liquids and blood ran out onto the floor, all the way out to the door. There were definitely bodily sensations, and he wanted to scratch it all the time, so he asked to have his hands tied. They were tied with a white scarf to stop him from scratching the wound. His disciple asked, "Oh Rinpoche! This must be so difficult, it must be really painful for you." He said, "I'm not sick at all, there is nothing wrong with me." They said, "How terrible, all the pus and blood is flowing down the floor." He answered, "There is an old monk sitting on this bed, he seems to be moving around, quite uncomfortably. He wants to scratch his belly, but for me there is nothing wrong at all. I am not sick at all. However there is someone who looks like me sitting right here. He seems to be suffering quite a bit, but I am fine." If you are stable in practice, it is like that: there is no fixation at all.
  
  There was another lama, in Kham, by the name of Tenje, a siddha who contracted the same sickness where all his intestines were hanging out. People asked him, "How are you feeling today?" He said, "I'm fine, nothing wrong at all." They said, "But Rinpoche, look down, you have all these sores and open wounds." He replied, "Yes, it looks like there is something wrong here, but I am quite fine. I am not sick at all." The people asked, "We think you will die soon, so will you please tell us where you will be reborn so we can find the tulku?" He said, "Yes, I can take care of that. Call my disciple Tendar." The lama then told his disciple, "Carry me seven steps to the west." While Tendar was carrying his master those seven steps, the master snapped his fingers and said, "May my realization take birth in your stream of being." Afterwards, he said, while pointing at the student, "This is my tulku, even before I pass away. Will he be okay for this monastery? Tomorrow morning at dawn, I will enact the drama of dying. I am going home to the dharmadhātu buddhafield of Akanishtha." The next morning he died while the sun was rising. His disciple Tendar later said that from the moment when the lama snapped his fingers onwards, he was totally undistracted; he never wandered from the state of rigpa. This disciple later was known as Tendar Tulku, and he had the same realization as his master - no difference whatsoever.

[krodha]

In any case, the Mahāyāna Sūtrālaṃkara, a summary of the third turning sūtras, beautifully states:

This is not a definitive sutra since it discusses sentient beings and samsara. My point of the citation is just to answer your two questions. Your first question is rooted in the basis of nondefinitive teaching, that's why there is no direct answer that is definitive to that, but only indirect answer that is definitive, that is, if you can read the meaning.

The idea that a "definitive" text would not reference sentient beings and/or samsara in its exposition is an absurd notion.

[Jyoti]

In any case, the Mahāyāna Sūtrālaṃkara, a summary of the third turning sūtras, beautifully states:

This is not a definitive sutra since it discusses sentient beings and samsara. My point of the citation is just to answer your two questions. Your first question is rooted in the basis of nondefinitive teaching, that's why there is no direct answer that is definitive to that, but only indirect answer that is definitive, that is, if you can read the meaning.

The idea that a "definitive" text would not reference sentient beings and/or samsara in its exposition is an absurd notion.

It seems so according to logic, reason as well as common sense, but if one had read a chinese definitive scriptures before will say otherwise, only the buddha knows better what is in his scriptures and we should follow the advice that he has stated in the sutras.

[krodha]

It seems so according to logic, reason as well as common sense, but if one had read a chinese definitive scriptures before will say otherwise, only the buddha knows better what is in his scriptures and we should follow the advice that he has stated in the sutras.

Like beauty, what is definitive in the buddhadharma is in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as an objectively definitive text.

That said, many so-called "definitive" texts discuss sentient beings and samsara.

[Jyoti]

It seems so according to logic, reason as well as common sense, but if one had read a chinese definitive scriptures before will say otherwise, only the buddha knows better what is in his scriptures and we should follow the advice that he has stated in the sutras.

Like beauty, what is definitive in the buddhadharma is in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as an objectively definitive text.

That said, many so-called "definitive" texts discuss sentient beings and samsara.

These are of the second turning which are considered definitive only with interpretation. The tripitaka is very systematic and strict on what is definitive and what is not. The above criterias are fixed (not subject to doubt) and there are more.

[krodha]

These are of the second turning which are considered definitive only with interpretation. The tripitaka is very systematic and strict on what is definitive and what is not. The above criterias are fixed (not subject to doubt) and there are more.

The "three turning" model became big in Tibet and East Asia, but the case for an authentic origin in the Indian corpus is dubious at best. Which is to say I would not take the three turnings so seriously.

For example, in terms of sūtrayāna I opt for the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra which sets out criteria for a provisional teaching and a definitive teaching. If I go by that criteria then many so-called "third turning" sūtras are considered provisional. Yet those who adhere rigidly to the three turning schematic would categorize the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa as "second turning."

The text reads:

• Any sūtrānta which explains in a variety of different terms a self, a sentient being, a living being, a personality, a person, an individual, one born from a human, a human, an agent, an experiencer — teaching an owner in what is ownerless — those sutras are called "of provisional meaning". Any sūtrānta which teaches emptiness, the signless, the wishless, the unconditioned, the non-arisen, the unproduced, the insubstantial, the non-existence of self, the non-existence of sentient beings, the non-existence of living beings, the non-existence of individuals, the non-existence of an owner up to the doors of liberation, those are called "definitive meaning". This is taught in the sūtrāntas of definitive meaning but is not taught in the sūtrāntas of the provisional meaning.

Even so, the above is only applicable within the scope of sūtrayāna, which is arguably provisional in its entirety when compared to Vajrayāna.

At the end of the day I see no reason to categorize everything so strictly, if the teaching is insightful and agrees with you then that is what is important.

[treehuggingoctopus]

Yes, rig pa is used in many different ways in Dzogchen texts. In this case, rig pa refers one's continuum of unmodified consciousness that is momentary. Hence "instant presence." In this case rig pa is referring to the knower, rather than a kind of knowledge as it is used in other contexts.

It basically means that when you are in this state, mental factors associated with pain of the body have no means of arising.

But what about the case of a practitioner who is in the state of instant presence? Is it possible to feel physical pain in that case?

[...] when you are in this state, mental factors associated with pain of the body have no means of arising.

I have heard ChNN say, and more than once, that when you are resting in rigpa the pain does not disappear tout court. It may lessen (he actually used the modal verb here) or be experienced differently.

Threads like that convince me such questions really ought to be discussed with one's teacher and nobody else, literally.

[Jyoti]

These are of the second turning which are considered definitive only with interpretation. The tripitaka is very systematic and strict on what is definitive and what is not. The above criterias are fixed (not subject to doubt) and there are more.

The "three turning" model became big in Tibet and East Asia, but the case for an authentic origin in the Indian corpus is dubious at best. Which is to say I would not take the three turnings so seriously.

For example, in terms of sūtrayāna I opt for the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra which sets out criteria for a provisional teaching and a definitive teaching. If I go by that criteria then many so-called "third turning" sūtras are considered provisional. Yet those who adhere rigidly to the three turning schematic would categorize the Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa as "second turning."

The text reads:

• Any sūtrānta which explains in a variety of different terms a self, a sentient being, a living being, a personality, a person, an individual, one born from a human, a human, an agent, an experiencer — teaching an owner in what is ownerless — those sutras are called "of provisional meaning". Any sūtrānta which teaches emptiness, the signless, the wishless, the unconditioned, the non-arisen, the unproduced, the insubstantial, the non-existence of self, the non-existence of sentient beings, the non-existence of living beings, the non-existence of individuals, the non-existence of an owner up to the doors of liberation, those are called "definitive meaning". This is taught in the sūtrāntas of definitive meaning but is not taught in the sūtrāntas of the provisional meaning.

Even so, the above is only applicable within the scope of sūtrayāna, which is arguably provisional in its entirety when compared to Vajrayāna.

At the end of the day I see no reason to categorize everything so strictly, if the teaching is insightful and agrees with you then that is what is important.

That's right, only apply to the scriptures concern where just seeing those words, we can establish with certainty whether the scriptures are definitive. Other sources we have to verify by the meaning being communicated and not just the words.

[krodha]

Also, the vast majority of "third turning" sūtras require a great deal of interpretation. Their expositions are certainly not direct and explicit in meaning. Rather they are indirect and implicit, requiring interpretation. Which often why we see the literal minded err into substantialism and eternalism when reading "third turning" sūtras, as they lack the experience and wherewithal to unpack the rhetoric in a way that allows them to comprehend the intended meaning.

With "interpretation" as a measure for what is provisional and definitive, the so-called "second turning" again comes out on top in terms of clarity as the rhetoric is often very direct and explicit, requiring no interpretation.

[krodha]

That's right, only apply to the scriptures concern where just seeing those words, we can establish with certainty whether the scriptures are definitive. Other sources we have to verify by the meaning being communicated and not just the words.

This is quite damning for your so-called "third turning."

[heart]

Pain is just a necessary physical sensation. Suffering in the case of pain is (or is caused by) the aversion to pain. It is perfectly possible, though difficult without practice, to experience pain without the aversion. No aversion, no suffering. This is the Second Noble Truth.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

I think you are conflating marathon with Buddhism, but whatever ever you want to believe is fine with me.

/magnus

Who is talking about marathon? Not me. Clearly you are making a concerted effort to avoid understanding me. Fine.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

I am sorry if I offend you, but this distinction is not done in Buddhism, no matter where the quote is from. Like Malcolm said, pain is the suffering of suffering. You can read more about it here: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?titl ... _suffering

/magnus

[Jyoti]

I think you are conflating marathon with Buddhism, but whatever ever you want to believe is fine with me.

/magnus

Who is talking about marathon? Not me. Clearly you are making a concerted effort to avoid understanding me. Fine.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

I am sorry if I offend you, but this distinction is not done in Buddhism, no matter where the quote is from. Like Malcolm said, pain is the suffering of suffering. You can read more about it here: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?titl ... _suffering

/magnus

A saying is true when it is true, it does not matter where it come from. Even with your source, the definition 'suffering' is of non-definitive dharma.

[Simon E.]

Who is talking about marathon? Not me. Clearly you are making a concerted effort to avoid understanding me. Fine.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

I am sorry if I offend you, but this distinction is not done in Buddhism, no matter where the quote is from. Like Malcolm said, pain is the suffering of suffering. You can read more about it here: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?titl ... _suffering

/magnus

A saying is true when it is true, it does not matter where it come from. Even with your source, the definition 'suffering' is of non-definitive dharma.

You are not the teacher of anyone on this board.

[Jyoti]

I am sorry if I offend you, but this distinction is not done in Buddhism, no matter where the quote is from. Like Malcolm said, pain is the suffering of suffering. You can read more about it here: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?titl ... _suffering

/magnus

A saying is true when it is true, it does not matter where it come from. Even with your source, the definition 'suffering' is of non-definitive dharma.

You are not the teacher of anyone on this board.

I never said I was, does anyone here has to be a teacher to make a true statement?

[muni]

Great posts.
By having chronical nerve pains, i learned how distraction itself is causing the suffering from it. The pain itself causes no distraction on itself, it is thought, feeling going to fight against.

Integrate is there said.

Empty mind-pain without any commenting thoughts in between.
( without one reacting or commenting - protesting thought in between which makes it unbearable)
In such moments, experience - experiencer are not two then, since that would make it overwhelming and very much suffering. But when distraction comes, all I know is better not become discouraged or hard judgemental, that makes it worse and is of no any help.

o o

In any case this only when no directly medical help is available and by the kindness of guidance.

[heart]

Who is talking about marathon? Not me. Clearly you are making a concerted effort to avoid understanding me. Fine.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

I am sorry if I offend you, but this distinction is not done in Buddhism, no matter where the quote is from. Like Malcolm said, pain is the suffering of suffering. You can read more about it here: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?titl ... _suffering

/magnus

A saying is true when it is true, it does not matter where it come from. Even with your source, the definition 'suffering' is of non-definitive dharma.

You seem to have truth on your side Jyoti.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

I quoted a text which is classified as third turning, but you replied with non sequiturs

So what is the cause of suffering in the third turning sūtras? And which sūtras are you defining as such?

In any case, the Mahāyāna Sūtrālaṃkara, a summary of the third turning sūtras, beautifully states:

This is not a definitive sutra since it discusses sentient beings and samsara. My point of the citation is just to answer your two questions. Your first question is rooted in the basis of nondefinitive teaching, that's why there is no direct answer that is definitive to that, but only indirect answer that is definitive, that is, if you can read the meaning.

All sūtras refer to sentient beings and samsara; therefore, by your logic there are no definitive sūtras at all.

[Malcolm]

The tripitaka is very systematic and strict on what is definitive and what is not. The above criterias are fixed (not subject to doubt) and there are more.

No, actually it isn't —— and it is for this reason that there are disputation and multiple opinions about what is provisional and what is definitive.

[Malcolm]

But what about the case of a practitioner who is in the state of instant presence? Is it possible to feel physical pain in that case?

[...] when you are in this state, mental factors associated with pain of the body have no means of arising.

I have heard ChNN say, and more than once, that when you are resting in rigpa the pain does not disappear tout court. It may lessen (he actually used the modal verb here) or be experienced differently.

When one is in perfect śamatha, one will not feel pain. Śamatha in fact was the historical Buddha's ibuprofen. This is mentioned in more than one sutta.

[Malcolm]

the master snapped his fingers and said, "May my realization take birth in your stream of being."

I don't believe tall tales of this kind.