Existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
[N.B. This is the forum that was called ‘Exploring Buddhism’. The new name simply describes it better.]
Thundering Cloud
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Existence

Post by Thundering Cloud » Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:10 pm

stevie wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:08 pm
Thundering Cloud wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:39 pm
The point is that the space of concepts which are both closely tied to direct experience and also in conflict with direct experience is not well-populated. Those counterintuitive experiences you mention arise because one's intuition has been mired in concepts that are many levels removed from one's direct experience.
That's interesting. you seem to believe that there are two kinds of conceptuality: 1. a conceptuality that is guided by a direct experience which accounts for its validity and 2. a conceptuality which is guided by itself, is therefore invalid but nevertheless does affect experience which therefore is not direct.

From my perspective the problem is that the term 'experience' does necessarily rely on meaning and therefore does rely on conceptuality which is why 1 is necessarily circular. That means there is no experience whatsoever that could be nonconceptual. The addition of 'direct' to 'experience' is therefore irrelevant.
As to 2: Conceptuality can certainly be guided by philosophical tenets and thus determine the contents of experience which is necessarily conceptual be it called 'direct' or not.

Maybe you borrowed your 'direct' from the buddhist epistemologists who are talking of 'direct perception' and 'inference' (type of conceptuality) as the two means of valid cognition. But the buddhist epistemologists are in error insofar as an utterly nonconceptual ('direct') perception wouldn't perceive anything. Why? Because in order to perceive 'something' meaning, i.e. conceptuality, is required.
I am using the term "direct experience" here as a relative term to refer to experience which is less heavily interpreted / filtered. I am leveraging this idea of "direct experience" for purposes of speaking in some meaningful way about how abstract conceptualization leads to conventionally incorrect conclusions which can then conflict with "more direct" (relatively lightly conceptualized) experience.

It can be demonstrated that in terms of experiential predictive validity, the less built-up the conceptualization has become, the more it tends to agree with relatively direct experience. This does not actually demonstrate that the more direct conceptualizations are more correct… rather, what it shows is that the incorrectness of any given conceptualization does not become apparent until the conceptualization has grown to a fairly high degree of maturity.

Thundering Cloud
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Existence

Post by Thundering Cloud » Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:11 pm

Rick wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:47 pm
Yeah, I think we might be talking past each other ...

Before I respond, please tell me if this is right, i.e. what you meant:

The more closely a concept I have coincides with my direct experience, the more accurate (right, correct) that concept is likely to be.
Almost… it is less likely to conflict with experience, but (see my post just above) this does not imply correctness.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2049
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Existence

Post by Rick » Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:32 pm

Yeah, we're speaking past each other. I am still not sure what you're getting at ... and, given my tech-writer mentality, I don't feel comfortable responding to something I don't grok. And so do I respectfully bow out of this fork in the thread.

Hopefully we'll be more on the same wavelength next time we talk, Thundering! :-)
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

Thundering Cloud
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Existence

Post by Thundering Cloud » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:20 am

stevie wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:24 am
Thundering Cloud wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:39 pm
...
Dear friend Thundering Cloud,

I have to apologize that I have not selected my last words more carefully. Why? The way I expressed myself may easily appear as if I were making assertive truth statements but that can't be the case and if I did I would have fallen prey to my ignorance again.
Why is this so?
Because when I apply words on the basis of the fundamental deceptiveness of my (!) conceptuality as shown to me (!) by the kindness of Madhyamaka teachers (incl. authors of scriptures and commentaries) these words are naturally trapped in the dichotomies/dualities of language, i.e. in 'is' vs 'isn't' and 'has' vs hasn't' and 'does' vs 'doesn't' etc. There is no way out of this dilemma when expressing myself with words but I should have more often applied expressions like 'from my perspective' or 'talking from within the sphere of my experience' to sort of 'attenuate' the deceptive appearance of my words as assertive truth statements.
If my conceptual expressions through language would be understood in light of Madhyamaka then there would be no problem. But such an understanding is not the common and conventional way language is understood in the world and most of us may therefore be conditioned to understand conceptual expressions through language in a non-Madhyamaka way. But understanding my conceptual expressions through language in a non-Madhyamaka way from my perspective necessarily entails that 1. they are understood as assertive truth statements although they are not intended to be such and that 2. if they are understood as assertive truth statements an infinite regress that doesn't arrive at any truth would be necessarily implied by my words due to the fundamental deceptiveness of my conceptuality which is trapped in the dichotomies/dualities of language.
Dear stevie,

I think much of the confusion in this thread generally has arisen precisely because we must use conceptual language to try and discuss nonconceptuality. Many of the statements I made appear to be assertions of truth, and rely on ideas such as "direct experience" which ultimately fall apart under scrutiny.

It may be helpful to understand the words, phrases, and ideas we use as being akin to the proverbial raft of the dharma; a means to an end. We use them to illustrate what needs to be shown, but then can discard them or uproot them in turn. Particularly if one has a very intellectual monkey mind like I have, it can be a very instructive exercise to leverage Concept B to completely undermine the validity of Concept A, and then turn around and leverage Concept C to similarly undermine Concept B (without re-validating Concept A in the process)… but it can make for somewhat confusing conversation.

I am very appreciative of your efforts to round off the corners of your statements; I am trying to practice this as well. :smile:

Take care, and thank you for your insights. :namaste:

stevie
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Existence

Post by stevie » Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:17 am

Thundering Cloud wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:10 pm
I am using the term "direct experience" here as a relative term to refer to experience which is less heavily interpreted / filtered. I am leveraging this idea of "direct experience" for purposes of speaking in some meaningful way about how abstract conceptualization leads to conventionally incorrect conclusions which can then conflict with "more direct" (relatively lightly conceptualized) experience.

It can be demonstrated that in terms of experiential predictive validity, the less built-up the conceptualization has become, the more it tends to agree with relatively direct experience. This does not actually demonstrate that the more direct conceptualizations are more correct… rather, what it shows is that the incorrectness of any given conceptualization does not become apparent until the conceptualization has grown to a fairly high degree of maturity.
Hi Thundering Cloud,

Thanks for your explanation. Now I can make sense of your '(relatively) direct experience'.
What you call 'abstract conceptualization' in fact does lead to 'incorrect conclusions' which from my perspective was exactly what has been demonstrated by Nagarjuna.

Actually I seem to agree with what you're saying. It seems as if I am just applying different expressions of language: I use the term 'intuition' for 'the seed of (full-fledged) concepts'. So from my perspective intuition belongs to the sphere of conceptuality and it is how you say that 'the incorrectness of any given conceptualization does not become apparent until the conceptualization has grown to a fairly high degree of maturity' which I would express as 'the deceptiveness of any intuition does not become apparent until it has grown to a full-fledged concept'. Talking from within the sphere of my experience since intuition belongs to conceptuality it has the same degree of deceptiveness and thus is mere habitual imputation.
What I have just expressed for me builds the bridge to the fact that every sense perception I have is also deceptive because every sense perception I have necessarily has at least concomitant conceptuality qua intuition. Being aware of this undermines what I have believed for some time namely that if I would be perceiving without conceptual thinking then that could be 'more valid' and therefore I believed that sense perceptions are 'more valid' than conceptual thinking. Now however I'd say that in my sphere of experience so called 'non-conceptual perception' does not exist at all because if my perception would be non-conceptual, i.e. lacking even imputing intuition, then I would not perceive anything even when my eyes are open at day and I am not unconscious or sleeping.

When you say 'the less built-up the conceptualization has become, the more it tends to agree with relatively direct experience' then considering your explantion of 'relatively direct experience' as 'less heavily interpreted / filtered' this for me means: 'indeterminate conceptuality appears to correspond better to indeterminate experience' which again for me means that if there is less intentionality in conceptuality then that conceptuality is implicit rather than explicit and that seems to correspond better to an experience that is actually empty of conceptuality from the outset which - since 'experience' conventionally has the connotation of 'experience of' - from my perspective casts doubt on the term 'experience' in this context.

BTW: this indeterminate 'implicit rather than explicit' just mentioned may be the reason for the Buddha's use of metaphorical language and his use of similes.

stevie
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Existence

Post by stevie » Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:18 am

Thundering Cloud wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:20 am
Dear stevie,

I think much of the confusion in this thread generally has arisen precisely because we must use conceptual language to try and discuss nonconceptuality. Many of the statements I made appear to be assertions of truth, and rely on ideas such as "direct experience" which ultimately fall apart under scrutiny.

It may be helpful to understand the words, phrases, and ideas we use as being akin to the proverbial raft of the dharma; a means to an end. We use them to illustrate what needs to be shown, but then can discard them or uproot them in turn. Particularly if one has a very intellectual monkey mind like I have, it can be a very instructive exercise to leverage Concept B to completely undermine the validity of Concept A, and then turn around and leverage Concept C to similarly undermine Concept B (without re-validating Concept A in the process)… but it can make for somewhat confusing conversation.

I am very appreciative of your efforts to round off the corners of your statements; I am trying to practice this as well. :smile:

Take care, and thank you for your insights. :namaste:
Dear Thundering Cloud,

you hit the nail on the head! And I do share your intellectual inclination which is why I have been attracted by Madhyamaka reasoning in the first place.

Nevertheless mutual conceptual inspiration - the basis of any communication in forums like this - from my perspective may be very beneficial because it may foster awareness of the nature of language and conceptuality - ideally (as a kind of mindfulness) even while thinking and applying language.

:namaste:

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Existence

Post by Vasana » Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:23 am

Rick wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:54 pm
Vasana wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 10:21 pm
An end to suffering in this life does not mean an end to feeling it just means that feeling is experienced as the nature of wisdom rather than its potential for suffering (yet this can't really be got at by intellect )
Gotcha, thanks.
Milarepa once sung a song with the line "the suffering being bliss feels so good that even feeling bad feels good!"
Oh that Milarepa! :applause: It reminds me of something Atmananda Krishna Menon said:
[snip] ... Thus every emotion is a clear pointer to that permanent background Peace.
It's a very subtle point that's difficult to get at intellectually but even harder to actually experience even just a few times let alone in an continuously unbroken way. I wonder, Rick, have you read many other approaches or tenets besides Madyamika in tibetan Buddhism? It would seem that your reading on Madyamika has led you to the conclusion that it's just more concepts and stories when in fact the real madyamika isn't about that at all. I wonder whether reading up on different tennets might help give you a broader view of how it all ties in and connects together.

If madyamika texts aren't pointing towards at least an intellectual understanding of the 'madyamika beyond texts' then you need to see what else is in the medicine cabinet before assuming you've taken the correct dosage and combination of medicine to actually get an accurate taste for it.

...
Going Back to the previous post on whether an end to suffering is an end to feeling and mental events for realized beings, the 3rd Karmapa writes,
  • The apparent momentary birth and cessation of the “mental events” (of Buddhas)
    Correspond to the impure mental events (of beings).
    If (the mental events of the Buddhas) were not like that,
    The activity of the form kayas would cease.
    However, they are not given the name “mental events,”
    But (the name) “discriminating wisdom.”

    The nature of material elements
    Is (either) accompanied by clinging (or) their powerful essence is manifested.
    There is no difference whatsoever in appearances
    To the deluded and the undeluded.
    The (only) difference is the presence or absence of clinging to dualism.
from Instructions on A Treatise entitled: “A Teaching on the Essence of the Tathagatas (The Tathagatagarbha)” by the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje, according to
An Illumination of the Thoughts of Rangjung (Dorje): A Commentary to “The Treatise that Teaches the Buddha Nature” by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye the Great
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2049
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Existence

Post by Rick » Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:25 pm

Vasana wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:23 am
I wonder, Rick, have you read many other approaches or tenets besides Madyamika in tibetan Buddhism?
I've done buncha reading/contemplation around emptiness, the two truths, dependent origination, karma, rebirth, and the Madhyamaka view. But I haven't made an effort to stay within Tibetan Buddhism, I've been open to whatever resonates for me from whatever school of Buddhism.
It would seem that your reading on Madyamika has led you to the conclusion that it's just more concepts and stories when in fact the real madyamika isn't about that at all.
My view of the Madhyamaka is a bit more nuanced than that. Yes, it's a story ... as is everything else that can be conceived and communicated via language. But as far as stories go, emptiness is about as non-fiction as it gets!
I wonder whether reading up on different tennets might help give you a broader view of how it all ties in and connects together.
Sounds great, Vasana! I have avoided reading books on Dzogchen, because in the past I 'spoiled' many key aspects of Buddhism for myself by reading about them too much. There is imo HUGE danger in diving into advanced stuff before you've mastered the basics.

Also, my current TB guide <a longtime friend who is an accomplished Dzogchen student> keeps telling me I'm in too much with my head and I need to ground myself in practice.

All that said, do you have any recommendations for how I can encounter useful TB tenets?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

stevie
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Existence

Post by stevie » Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:57 pm

Rick wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:25 pm
... There is imo HUGE danger in diving into advanced stuff before you've mastered the basics.
For me the danger of contacting teachings of different modality (I do not find 'advanced' appropriate) is that when a 'new' modality resonates with me there may arise a deceptive sentiment that other modalities would be negated by this 'new' modality which actually is just a manifestation of my ignorant truth habit.
Rick wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:25 pm
Also, my current TB guide <a longtime friend who is an accomplished Dzogchen student> keeps telling me I'm in too much with my head and I need to ground myself in practice.
Best is maybe to integrate head and practice instead of introducing such an additional dichotomy ... ?

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2049
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Existence

Post by Rick » Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:30 pm

stevie wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:57 pm
Rick wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:25 pm
... There is imo HUGE danger in diving into advanced stuff before you've mastered the basics.
For me the danger of contacting teachings of different modality (I do not find 'advanced' appropriate) is that when a 'new' modality resonates with me there may arise a deceptive sentiment that other modalities would be negated by this 'new' modality which actually is just a manifestation of my ignorant truth habit.
Yes, this happens for me too, and it can be very confusing/nasty.
Also, my current TB guide <a longtime friend who is an accomplished Dzogchen student> keeps telling me I'm in too much with my head and I need to ground myself in practice.
Best is maybe to integrate head and practice instead of introducing such an additional dichotomy ... ?
So go straight for the middle/balance, rather than swinging the pendulum to the unfavored side to eventually oscillate back to the middle?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

stevie
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Existence

Post by stevie » Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:48 pm

Rick wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:30 pm
Also, my current TB guide <a longtime friend who is an accomplished Dzogchen student> keeps telling me I'm in too much with my head and I need to ground myself in practice.
Best is maybe to integrate head and practice instead of introducing such an additional dichotomy ... ?
So go straight for the middle/balance, rather than swinging the pendulum to the unfavored side to eventually oscillate back to the middle?
If that's possible, yes, directly into 'beyond extremes'. As mentioned earlier I have appoached my thinking (head) issue with Madhyamaka which led to a kind of disenchantment due to the deceptiveness of my conceptuality which is inherently biased towards either affirmation or negation of thoughts/concepts. Often conceptual objects appear as if they were true from their own side independent of me thinking them. This ignorance of mine can be observed in action once it is identified. Whether my illusory 'self' makes itself felt or I am only thinking about this or that and the thoughts/concepts appear as if being true from their own side it is exactly the same impulsive element in my cognition. So it is really a good practice for me to think about this or that and watch if my ignorance enters the scene. Once having become acquainted with my ignorance and being (and staying !!) alert it's no issue anymore. But you may guess that the issue is the 'staying alert' ;)

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2049
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Existence

Post by Rick » Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:09 pm

stevie wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:48 pm
Rick wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:30 pm
Best is maybe to integrate head and practice instead of introducing such an additional dichotomy ... ?
So go straight for the middle/balance, rather than swinging the pendulum to the unfavored side to eventually oscillate back to the middle?
If that's possible, yes, directly into 'beyond extremes'. As mentioned earlier I have appoached my thinking (head) issue with Madhyamaka which led to a kind of disenchantment due to the deceptiveness of my conceptuality which is inherently biased towards either affirmation or negation of thoughts/concepts. Often conceptual objects appear as if they were true from their own side independent of me thinking them. This ignorance of mine can be observed in action once it is identified. Whether my illusory 'self' makes itself felt or I am only thinking about this or that and the thoughts/concepts appear as if being true from their own side it is exactly the same impulsive element in my cognition. So it is really a good practice for me to think about this or that and watch if my ignorance enters the scene. Once having become acquainted with my ignorance and being (and staying !!) alert it's no issue anymore. But you may guess that the issue is the 'staying alert' ;)
It sounds like you really hit paydirt with this approach ... which is great! :thumbsup:
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

stevie
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Existence

Post by stevie » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:21 am

Rick wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:09 pm
stevie wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:48 pm
Rick wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:30 pm

So go straight for the middle/balance, rather than swinging the pendulum to the unfavored side to eventually oscillate back to the middle?
If that's possible, yes, directly into 'beyond extremes'. As mentioned earlier I have appoached my thinking (head) issue with Madhyamaka which led to a kind of disenchantment due to the deceptiveness of my conceptuality which is inherently biased towards either affirmation or negation of thoughts/concepts. Often conceptual objects appear as if they were true from their own side independent of me thinking them. This ignorance of mine can be observed in action once it is identified. Whether my illusory 'self' makes itself felt or I am only thinking about this or that and the thoughts/concepts appear as if being true from their own side it is exactly the same impulsive element in my cognition. So it is really a good practice for me to think about this or that and watch if my ignorance enters the scene. Once having become acquainted with my ignorance and being (and staying !!) alert it's no issue anymore. But you may guess that the issue is the 'staying alert' ;)
It sounds like you really hit paydirt with this approach ... which is great! :thumbsup:
This approach is a start but it's not complete yet. I feel very grateful to the translators of texts of the authors Mañjushrimitra and Tsongkhapa. Without these English texts I would never have been able to identify my cognitive ignorance.

White Lotus
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: Existence

Post by White Lotus » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:34 pm

Dear Muni, I hope you won't mind if I ask you some more questions about non dual awareness.

first of all, the word "awareness" is a label, should we drop it?

the words ''non dual'' are a label, should we drop them?

is awake and asleep the same non dual awareness? how can I be aware in deep sleep? is it possible that awareness is actually dual. that it comes or goes? I do not understand how awareness is superior to ''this''. when I sleep, the bed I sleep on is ''this'' bed, the room I sleep in is ''this'' room. my lack of awareness is ''this'' lack of awareness.

emptiness is not a synonym for illusion, it is a synonym for reality. a diamond is real, hard and solid and yet empty. the mind of the diamond is hard, sharp and clear. NOT an illusion. in zen some say that the teaching of illusion is the imperfect teaching.

if we hold to non dual mind we say that there is no illusion, nor reality. but that defies experience. ''this'' is always there, even though awareness of it comes and goes.

clearly I still don't understand your argument Muni. please enlighten me! :consoling:

best wishes, Tom x :namaste:
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

stevie
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:23 pm

Re: Existence

Post by stevie » Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:18 am

White Lotus wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:34 pm
first of all, the word "awareness" is a label, should we drop it?

the words ''non dual'' are a label, should we drop them?
Great questions!

Talking from within my sphere of experience:
Why should I want to drop labels if I know them the be mere labels? To be honest when I'd like to drop labels then because that intellectual knowledge of mine (that labels are mere label) doesn't seem to be enough. Enough for what? Enough to annihilate my habitual impulsive ignorance that imputes truth. Imputes truth to what? To the concept the label is. How does this happen to me? There are two cases:
1. if the label refers to a sense perception of any of my five senses then imputation of truth makes it appear as if the label would truly refer to the sense perception, which may have two connotations: a) sense perception and the concept (the label is) appear as if truly one (worst case) or b) there appears to be a true sense perception which is not felt to be one with the label but the label appears nevertheless as if truly correctly applied.
2. if the label is merely a concept, i.e. is only an idea and does not refer to a sense perception of any of my five senses like the two examples given ('awareness', 'non dual' -> I can neither see, nor hear, nor taste, nor touch, nor smell 'awareness' or 'non dual') then imputation of truth makes the concept (that the label is) appear as if being true or truly established independent of me thinking it.

Considering my experience the term 'label' has a great disadvantage: the conventional connotation implies that a label is attached to something. This means that me talking of 'labeling' may cause a deceptive intuition in my mind that there would be true objects or true bases that - being without conventional name from the outset - are merely given a name through labeling which then may appear a to be a matter of pragmatism. This deceptive intuition of mine proves especially relevant in case 1 above. However considering my analysis I cannot even confirm nameless true objects or true bases to which labels could be applied.
Strangely and inconsistently 'imputation' does not have the same disadvantage for me although the connotation here also is 'to impute sth to something'. I think this is because 'to label' is more figurative than 'to impute' for me and because once in a book about Madhyamaka emptiness a Geshe had written that imputing (subject side) and appearing (object side) happen simultaneously in mutual dependence and that made perfect sense for me. Such an understanding of imputation could cover both cases mentioned above: the appearance of nameless sense perceptions (i.e. sense objects, intuitive imputation, case 1 above) and the appearance of conceptual objects (case 1 and case 2 above).

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Existence

Post by Vasana » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:29 am

Rick wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:25 pm
Vasana wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:23 am
I wonder, Rick, have you read many other approaches or tenets besides Madyamika in tibetan Buddhism?
I've done buncha reading/contemplation around emptiness, the two truths, dependent origination, karma, rebirth, and the Madhyamaka view. But I haven't made an effort to stay within Tibetan Buddhism, I've been open to whatever resonates for me from whatever school of Buddhism.
It would seem that your reading on Madyamika has led you to the conclusion that it's just more concepts and stories when in fact the real madyamika isn't about that at all.
My view of the Madhyamaka is a bit more nuanced than that. Yes, it's a story ... as is everything else that can be conceived and communicated via language. But as far as stories go, emptiness is about as non-fiction as it gets!
I wonder whether reading up on different tennets might help give you a broader view of how it all ties in and connects together.
Sounds great, Vasana! I have avoided reading books on Dzogchen, because in the past I 'spoiled' many key aspects of Buddhism for myself by reading about them too much. There is imo HUGE danger in diving into advanced stuff before you've mastered the basics.

Also, my current TB guide <a longtime friend who is an accomplished Dzogchen student> keeps telling me I'm in too much with my head and I need to ground myself in practice.

All that said, do you have any recommendations for how I can encounter useful TB tenets?
Yes I didn't mean to say you should be limited to T.B alone. You're right that sometimes reading too far ahead can spoil it but it's really down to the individual and the material you happen to encounter. But 100% agree that the so called basics need deep familiarization- without them there's little or week foundation to get the most from the more subtle teachings.

We're advised in the beginning to be like bees who seek nectar from all kinds of flowers : seek teachings everywhere, get a taste for many tennets, styles, approaches, presentations. See how they connect, connect dots. In my experience, cross reading it's how things click for me. Its not usually a straightforward linear process but that's just how it is for some and not others.

Lam rim style texts are great places to start since they're so systematic.

Don't underestimate the sutras and pali suttas either. Its not just the head but the heart that needs engaging! Just be curious and read *beyond* your initial preferences otherwise you'll only ever find things to reinforce or build up existing ideas and avenues rather than encounter the ones that forge new paths all together.

Do you listen to, watch or attend any teachings?
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

User avatar
Vasana
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:22 am

Re: Existence

Post by Vasana » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:36 am

Highly recommended reading on the Tathagatagarbha /Buddha nature. Systematic and covers a lot of ground.

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/buddhanature.htm
'When alone, watch your mind. When with others, watch your speech'- Old Kadampa saying.

muni
Posts: 4673
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Existence

Post by muni » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:18 pm

first of all, the word "awareness" is a label, should we drop it?

the words ''non dual'' are a label, should we drop them?


Where will they fall?




:namaste:
*Om Mani Peme Hung*

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2049
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Existence

Post by Rick » Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:34 pm

In the lagoon where the raft was abandoned? :tongue:
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...

haha
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:30 pm

Re: Existence

Post by haha » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:07 pm

muni wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:18 pm
first of all, the word "awareness" is a label, should we drop it?

the words ''non dual'' are a label, should we drop them?
Where will they fall?
Whether it is labeled or it is not labeled. Whether it is held or it is dropped. Whether it is risen or it is fallen. All are imagined by Ignorance.

Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests