Mahamudra or Dzogchen without tantric empowerment?

[Tsongkhapafan]

Nicely done, twisting my words like that!
You must be one of those who feels plain words need to be elucidated.
I said Mahamudra was not merely a completion stage realization, if you read the entirety of my post. It is also a self-suifficent path, without need of the Two Stages, in my tradition. Maitripa and Saraha, nevermind Gampopa, would take issue with our baseless assertions.

I will follow up when I have a chance with some clarifications regarding your assertions and erroneous statements of Mahasiddhas. If I get the time, I'll try to clarify your misconceptions of "Hashang" and that tired old trope, otherwise known as "dead horse."

I'm not twisting anything, you yourself said it was a completion stage realisation but thanks for the clarification. I didn't realise that you asserted that Mahamudra can be attained without the two stages; this certainly goes against the teachings of Highest Yoga Tantra and the great Indian adepts who expounded them. I find it strange that you would assert such a thing as it's clear that Marpa, Milarepa and Gampopa all practised Highest Yoga Tantra and thus relied on the two stages - has this been lost in your tradition nowadays?

I look forward to what you have to say about Hashang.

[conebeckham]

Nicely done, twisting my words like that!
You must be one of those who feels plain words need to be elucidated.
I said Mahamudra was not merely a completion stage realization, if you read the entirety of my post. It is also a self-suifficent path, without need of the Two Stages, in my tradition. Maitripa and Saraha, nevermind Gampopa, would take issue with our baseless assertions.

I will follow up when I have a chance with some clarifications regarding your assertions and erroneous statements of Mahasiddhas. If I get the time, I'll try to clarify your misconceptions of "Hashang" and that tired old trope, otherwise known as "dead horse."

I'm not twisting anything, you yourself said it was a completion stage realisation but thanks for the clarification. I didn't realise that you asserted that Mahamudra can be attained without the two stages; this certainly goes against the teachings of Highest Yoga Tantra and the great Indian adepts who expounded them. I find it strange that you would assert such a thing as it's clear that Marpa, Milarepa and Gampopa all practised Highest Yoga Tantra and thus relied on the two stages - has this been lost in your tradition nowadays?

All the Tibetan traditions maintain lineages of practice from the Tantras, Tsongkhapafan. Your own tradition inherited these traditions from us, in fact.
You misunderstand the positions of Mahasiddhas such as Maitripa, Saraha, Shavaripa, and others. Merely because they practiced various systems of Tantric practice does not support your assertion that a system of the two stages is necessary.

You should closely read the quotes from Kongtrul I provided, which address the various possible avenues toward realization. In particular:

Generally, everything up to the mahamudra is termed "mind path."
Common dzogchen is also included in this.
The class of exceptional esoteric instructions (MenNgakDe)
is said to be the "awareness path," and as such,
it is not definite that one must begin with calm abiding.
When the nature of naked awareness itself, without exaggeration or denial is revealed,
it is sufficient just to become accustomed to that.
However, if the true nature is not unerringly revealed,
then even the profound esoteric instructions will be difficult to assimilate.

When he says everything up to the mahamudra, he is not merely referring to the result of completion stage tantric practice. He is also talking about the Path Mahamudra of Gampopa and his followers. His point about Dzogchen, in particular, is used to illustrate his contention that "calm abiding" is not always necessary. Calm abiding, in this case, also refers to the Creation Stage of Yidam practice. He then makes a statement about the revelation of the nature of naked awareness.

This revelation, to be specific, can be the Fourth Empowerment of Highest Yoga Tantra. It can also be NgoTro of the Path or Essence Mahamudra system, or Pointing Out, or Direct Introduction, or the Rigpai Tselwang of some Dzogchen systems. These instructions do not necessarily belong to the Two Stages, per se, though Kongtrul includes methods outside the two stages, even so-called "Hinayana methods," when he refers to avoiding, transforming, or resting....

Therefore, he is saying the Two Stages are not absolutely necessary. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal said the same thing, if you care to read him. Check out the Ganges Mahamudra Doha, as well.

I look forward to what you have to say about Hashang.

You'll have to wait a bit....

[PuerAzaelis]

If the Generation Stage is not required, why did: [... etc.]

Has anyone tried to approach this a different way? By talking about illusory body (gyulu) versus rainbow body (jalu)?

If there are different intentions there will be different results.

[Mod-note: offensive image removed.]

[Tsongkhapafan]

All the Tibetan traditions maintain lineages of practice from the Tantras, Tsongkhapafan. Your own tradition inherited these traditions from us, in fact.

for the most part, yes. We have specific oral instructions of Mahamudra within our own tradition that don't come from other traditions but our main Tantric practice of relying on Heruka Father and Mother does come from the Sakya and Nyingma traditions.

You misunderstand the positions of Mahasiddhas such as Maitripa, Saraha, Shavaripa, and others. Merely because they practiced various systems of Tantric practice does not support your assertion that a system of the two stages is necessary.

Well tell me how you can create an effect without a cause? Since the main cause of the Dharmakaya is meaning clear light and the main cause of the Sambhogakaya is the pure illusory body, and these are completion stage realisations, which in turn depend upon generation stage, how will enlightenment be magically achieved? I don't accept that we already have a Dharmakaya that we just haven't realised just as I don't accept that a sprout exists at the same time as its seed.

You should closely read the quotes from Kongtrul I provided, which address the various possible avenues toward realization. In particular:

Generally, everything up to the mahamudra is termed "mind path."
Common dzogchen is also included in this.
The class of exceptional esoteric instructions (MenNgakDe)
is said to be the "awareness path," and as such,
it is not definite that one must begin with calm abiding.
When the nature of naked awareness itself, without exaggeration or denial is revealed,
it is sufficient just to become accustomed to that.
However, if the true nature is not unerringly revealed,
then even the profound esoteric instructions will be difficult to assimilate.

When he says everything up to the mahamudra, he is not merely referring to the result of completion stage tantric practice. He is also talking about the Path Mahamudra of Gampopa and his followers. His point about Dzogchen, in particular, is used to illustrate his contention that "calm abiding" is not always necessary. Calm abiding, in this case, also refers to the Creation Stage of Yidam practice. He then makes a statement about the revelation of the nature of naked awareness.

I don't accept Kongtrul's assertion that tranquil abiding is not required. Tranquil abiding is required to generate any spontaneous realisation. Without a spontaneous realisation of bodhichitta, one is not even a bodhisattva, let alone a Tantric adept. As you can see, it's needed not just for generation stage meditation. If one doesn't penetrate the central channel with single pointed concentration, the winds cannot enter, abide and dissolve there and so completion stage realisations are impossible, thus it is impossible to create the path bodies that lead to resultant Buddhahood.

This revelation, to be specific, can be the Fourth Empowerment of Highest Yoga Tantra. It can also be NgoTro of the Path or Essence Mahamudra system, or Pointing Out, or Direct Introduction, or the Rigpai Tselwang of some Dzogchen systems. These instructions do not necessarily belong to the Two Stages, per se, though Kongtrul includes methods outside the two stages, even so-called "Hinayana methods," when he refers to avoiding, transforming, or resting....

Therefore, he is saying the Two Stages are not absolutely necessary. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal said the same thing, if you care to read him. Check out the Ganges Mahamudra Doha, as well.

There's a reason why there are four empowerments in HYT - they plant the seeds for the four bodies of a Buddha. Cultivating one seed, i.e., that planted by the fourth empowerment, is not sufficient. It shows a complete misunderstanding about the relationship between the four bodies of a Buddha as there is the union of the conventional and the ultimate - you cannot ignore the conventional, the form body development, or even the wisdom truth body development any more than a bird can fly with one wing. Just meditating on the conventional nature of the mind ('awareness'), as seems to be the case with Dzogchen, is also not going to lead anywhere - it doesn't eliminate the dualistic appearance that keeps us trapped in samsara.

I look forward to what you have to say about Hashang.
You'll have to wait a bit....

I'm patient.

[Grigoris]

Well tell me how you can create an effect without a cause? Since the main cause of the Dharmakaya is meaning clear light...

Did you just say that the Dharmakaya is a dependently arisen phenomenon??? Dude, you are seriously confused!

[Tsongkhapafan]

Well tell me how you can create an effect without a cause? Since the main cause of the Dharmakaya is meaning clear light...

Did you just say that the Dharmakaya is a dependently arisen phenomenon??? Dude, you are seriously confused!

One part of the Dharmakaya is - the wisdom truth body. This is Buddha's omniscient mind; it's how he's able to help us. The nature body or entity body is not dependently arisen because it is the emptiness of Buddha's mind. This is the real true cessation which is why nirvana is said to be unconditioned. Without an understanding of the union of the two truths you end up asserting an unconditioned Buddhahood (which cannot benefit anyone) or asserting that emptiness is impermanent (which is also crazy).

Do you think that Buddha's mind is permanent or that it simply ceases to exist at the time of enlightenment? Both assertions are incorrect.

[PeterC]

All the Tibetan traditions maintain lineages of practice from the Tantras, Tsongkhapafan. Your own tradition inherited these traditions from us, in fact.

for the most part, yes. We have specific oral instructions of Mahamudra within our own tradition that don't come from other traditions but our main Tantric practice of relying on Heruka Father and Mother does come from the Sakya and Nyingma traditions.

You misunderstand the positions of Mahasiddhas such as Maitripa, Saraha, Shavaripa, and others. Merely because they practiced various systems of Tantric practice does not support your assertion that a system of the two stages is necessary.

Well tell me how you can create an effect without a cause? Since the main cause of the Dharmakaya is meaning clear light and the main cause of the Sambhogakaya is the pure illusory body, and these are completion stage realisations, which in turn depend upon generation stage, how will enlightenment be magically achieved? I don't accept that we already have a Dharmakaya that we just haven't realised just as I don't accept that a sprout exists at the same time as its seed.

https://dharmawheel.net/posting.php?mod ... 0&p=382152#


There are clearly systems of practice that hold otherwise, quite a few of them, who have both in antiquity and in recent years produced what most people consider to be great masters. You do not consider those systems to be valid because they do not fit within the tenets of your system. Is that the essence of your argument? The corollary is that these systems are not valid Buddhist practices; that all those who practiced or taught those systems were wasting their time; that if they did have any attainment, it was because they had previously or concurrently practiced the two stages. Do you hold that position?

[Tsongkhapafan]

There are clearly systems of practice that hold otherwise, quite a few of them, who have both in antiquity and in recent years produced what most people consider to be great masters. You do not consider those systems to be valid because they do not fit within the tenets of your system. Is that the essence of your argument? The corollary is that these systems are not valid Buddhist practices; that all those who practiced or taught those systems were wasting their time; that if they did have any attainment, it was because they had previously or concurrently practiced the two stages. Do you hold that position?

Clearly there are people who believe that enlightenment is possible without the two stages of Highest Yoga Tantra, maybe they are right but it contradicts my own knowledge and experience, that's all I can say.

[Grigoris]

One part of the Dharmakaya is - the wisdom truth body. This is Buddha's omniscient mind; it's how he's able to help us. The nature body or entity body is not dependently arisen because it is the emptiness of Buddha's mind.

First you said that the Dharmakaya arises from a cause, now you are saying that omniscience is a characteristic of the dependently arisen nature of phenomena (emptiness).

This is the real true cessation which is why nirvana is said to be unconditioned.

The dependently arisen nature of phenomena is true cessation???

Without an understanding of the union of the two truths you end up asserting an unconditioned Buddhahood (which cannot benefit anyone) or asserting that emptiness is impermanent (which is also crazy).

If emptiness is permanent that means phenomena cannot manifest. Now that is frackin crazy. Like I said in another thread: Read the Lankavatara Sutra on emptiness, I fail to see why your cult would possibly not let you read a Sutra.

Do you think that Buddha's mind is permanent or that it simply ceases to exist at the time of enlightenment? Both assertions are incorrect.

These are your assertions, not mine. I tend to go with Madhyamaka explanations regarding these sorts of issues. Nagarjuna's interpretation is just fine by me.

[PeterC]

There are clearly systems of practice that hold otherwise, quite a few of them, who have both in antiquity and in recent years produced what most people consider to be great masters. You do not consider those systems to be valid because they do not fit within the tenets of your system. Is that the essence of your argument? The corollary is that these systems are not valid Buddhist practices; that all those who practiced or taught those systems were wasting their time; that if they did have any attainment, it was because they had previously or concurrently practiced the two stages. Do you hold that position?

Clearly there are people who believe that enlightenment is possible without the two stages of Highest Yoga Tantra, maybe they are right but it contradicts my own knowledge and experience, that's all I can say.

I see how it contradicts your knowledge. But how does it contradict your experience? You would have to be at a very advanced stage of realization to know that methods you had *not* practiced did not work.

[Grigoris]

Clearly there are people who believe that enlightenment is possible without the two stages of Highest Yoga Tantra, maybe they are right but it contradicts my own knowledge and experience, that's all I can say.

You are enlightened???

[Vasana]

There are clearly systems of practice that hold otherwise, quite a few of them, who have both in antiquity and in recent years produced what most people consider to be great masters. You do not consider those systems to be valid because they do not fit within the tenets of your system. Is that the essence of your argument? The corollary is that these systems are not valid Buddhist practices; that all those who practiced or taught those systems were wasting their time; that if they did have any attainment, it was because they had previously or concurrently practiced the two stages. Do you hold that position?

Clearly there are people who believe that enlightenment is possible without the two stages of Highest Yoga Tantra, maybe they are right but it contradicts my own knowledge and experience, that's all I can say.

You would have to be at a very advanced stage of realization to know that methods you had *not* practiced did not work.

- Even with practice aside, you need to have at least digested enough of the theoretical groundwork of other systems before you can reject their authenticity.

Tsongkhapafan disagreeing with a majority opinion isn't new (nor is it something bad), but hopefully any future readers will at least read with a critical mind before taking any single person 's word for it.

[Malcolm]

There's a reason why there are four empowerments in HYT - they plant the seeds for the four bodies of a Buddha. Cultivating one seed, i.e., that planted by the fourth empowerment, is not sufficient.

It is absolutely sufficient:


For example, the trikāya chapter in the Suvarnaprabhāsa Sūtra states:

• For example, lightening arises in an empty sky and light appears based upon lightening. Likewise, the sambhogakāya appears based on dharmakāya and the nirmanakāya appears based on the sambhogakāya.

The Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃk̄ara states:

• The divisions of the kāyas of the buddhas
  are the svabhāvakāya and the sambhogakāya,
  and the other one is the nirmanakāya.
  The first two are supports.

And:

• The svabhāvakāya is uniform,
  subtle, connected with [the sambhogakāya],
  exhibits the enjoyment of all joys,
  and is asserted as the cause of the abundance of the sambhogakāya.

The svabhāva/dharmakāya is what one realizes for oneself. This realization spontaneously produces the other two kāyas. Therefore, it is sufficient to realize the dharmakāya alone.

The difference is that people of your inclination, gradualists, are algorithmic in their approach and understanding of practice and realization. People of our inclination, non-gradualists, are dialectical in our approach and understanding of practice and realization.

In fact, the whole Prasanga approach of Candrākirtī makes gradualism unnecessary. Just as one does not need to use syllogism (a form of algorithm) to demonstrate emptiness, and can demonstrate emptiness through consequences (a form of dialectics), likewise, one can realize dharmakāya dialectically, without the need to go step by step. Even in sūtrayāna, such persons are called thod rgal bas, people who skip stages.

[DGA]

There's a reason why there are four empowerments in HYT - they plant the seeds for the four bodies of a Buddha. Cultivating one seed, i.e., that planted by the fourth empowerment, is not sufficient.

It is absolutely sufficient:


For example, the trikāya chapter in the Suvarnaprabhāsa Sūtra states:

• For example, lightening arises in an empty sky and light appears based upon lightening. Likewise, the sambhogakāya appears based on dharmakāya and the nirmanakāya appears based on the sambhogakāya.

The Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃk̄ara states:

• The divisions of the kāyas of the buddhas
  are the svabhāvakāya and the sambhogakāya,
  and the other one is the nirmanakāya.
  The first two are supports.

And:

• The svabhāvakāya is uniform,
  subtle, connected with [the sambhogakāya],
  exhibits the enjoyment of all joys,
  and is asserted as the cause of the abundance of the sambhogakāya.

The svabhāva/dharmakāya is what one realizes for oneself. This realization spontaneously produces the other two kāyas. Therefore, it is sufficient to realize the dharmakāya alone.

The difference is that people of your inclination, gradualists, are algorithmic in their approach and understanding of practice and realization. People of our inclination, non-gradualists, are dialectical in our approach and understanding of practice and realization.

In fact, the whole Prasanga approach of Candrākirtī makes gradualism unnecessary. Just as one does not need to use syllogism (a form of algorithm) to demonstrate emptiness, and can demonstrate emptiness through consequences (a form of dialectics), likewise, one can realize dharmakāya dialectically, without the need to go step by step. Even in sūtrayāna, such persons are called thod rgal bas, people who skip stages.

Malcolm, this algorithic/dialectic analogy is a helpful insight. Tip of the hat and thanks.

[Tsongkhapafan]

There's a reason why there are four empowerments in HYT - they plant the seeds for the four bodies of a Buddha. Cultivating one seed, i.e., that planted by the fourth empowerment, is not sufficient.

It is absolutely sufficient:

Actually, it really isn't. The Sambhogakaya arises from the Dharmakaya and the Nirmanakaya emerges from the Sambhogakaya due to having trained in the three bringings of generation and completion stage; in other words, the two stages. Do you think this happens automatically? If there is no motivation, no love, no great compassion, no bodhichitta, no three bringings, none of this will happen automatically. You can't build a house without a solid foundation.

How many stages are you missing out? renunciation? Bodhichitta? Correct view of emptiness?

Don't be in too much of a rush because you'll miss something important.

As for the Chandrakirti analogy, consequences are a useful way of realising emptiness but syllogisms are also important and play their part - don't be in a hurry to bin something that might be important. Even contemplating consequences is a gradual path.

[Malcolm]

There's a reason why there are four empowerments in HYT - they plant the seeds for the four bodies of a Buddha. Cultivating one seed, i.e., that planted by the fourth empowerment, is not sufficient.

It is absolutely sufficient:

Actually, it really isn't. The Sambhogakaya arises from the Dharmakaya and the Nirmanakaya emerges from the Sambhogakaya due to having trained in the three bringings of generation and completion stage; in other words, the two stages. Do you think this happens automatically? If there is no motivation, no love, no great compassion, no bodhichitta, no three bringings, none of this will happen automatically. You can't build a house without a solid foundation.

How many stages are you missing out? renunciation? Bodhichitta? Correct view of emptiness?

Don't be in too much of a rush because you'll miss something important.

As for the Chandrakirti analogy, consequences are a useful way of realising emptiness but syllogisms are also important and play their part - don't be in a hurry to bin something that might be important. Even contemplating consequences is a gradual path.

When you realize dharmakāya, everything else happens automatically. Since the three kāyas are innate, there is no need for effort on a path to realize them. In fact, effort obscures them.

[conebeckham]

All the Tibetan traditions maintain lineages of practice from the Tantras, Tsongkhapafan. Your own tradition inherited these traditions from us, in fact.

for the most part, yes. We have specific oral instructions of Mahamudra within our own tradition that don't come from other traditions but our main Tantric practice of relying on Heruka Father and Mother does come from the Sakya and Nyingma traditions.

Not so much Nyingma, frankly--Cakrasamvara and Vajravarahi are found there, mainly in terma cycles, but the Ghantapada and Luipa systems come to you mainly from Sakya. Guhyasamaja and Vajrabhairava, too, though I believe you don't practice these systems, per se--they do inform Phabongka's interpretation to some degree. Phabongka popularized Ghantapada's tradition and also Naro Khacho, both are originally Sakya practices. In general, the mainstream Geluk tradition owes much to the Sakya lineages, but also to the Shangpa Kagyu and even the Marpa Kagyu, where you will find some of the original Kadam practices still exist. Of course Tsongkhapa was a synthesist, and honestly could be called the First Ri-Maypa. And you have your "emanated volume," I know. I always found that subject somewhat ironic, frankly, considering some of the invective hurled against terma traditions in the past.

You misunderstand the positions of Mahasiddhas such as Maitripa, Saraha, Shavaripa, and others. Merely because they practiced various systems of Tantric practice does not support your assertion that a system of the two stages is necessary.

Well tell me how you can create an effect without a cause? Since the main cause of the Dharmakaya is meaning clear light and the main cause of the Sambhogakaya is the pure illusory body, and these are completion stage realisations, which in turn depend upon generation stage, how will enlightenment be magically achieved? I don't accept that we already have a Dharmakaya that we just haven't realised just as I don't accept that a sprout exists at the same time as its seed.

The Clear Light can also arise due to practices apart from the Two Stages of Niruttaratantra. But I think that's been covered-I don't feel the need to repeat the words of others.

One thing I do want to make clear, though, is that it is always good to recognize the limits of one's experience and knowledge. You make black/white assertions quite a bit, you know, and the BuddhaDharma doesn't really operate that way. 84,000 teachings, you know? Expedient Meaning.

[Malcolm]

You make black/white assertions quite a bit, you know, and the BuddhaDharma doesn't really operate that way.

His Buddhism is a result of a thousand years of doctrinal politics, based in part on annals written to bolster Pro-Indian clans over Pro-Chinese clans. This is why these conversations always degenerate into "Your view is Hashang"!

But we know, from a clear study of Samten Migdron, that Hashang's nongradualist view, based on definitive sūtras, was much more profound than Kamalashila's view, based as it was on provisional sūtras.

[Tsongkhapafan]

When you realize dharmakāya, everything else happens automatically. Since the three kāyas are innate, there is no need for effort on a path to realize them. In fact, effort obscures them.

That's the craziest thing you've written so far.

[PuerAzaelis]

... annals written to bolster Pro-Indian clans over Pro-Chinese clans.

Irony.