The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate

[themiddleway]

 

Is it safe to give up all, including the Buddhas teachings?

In my case I'm definitely not beyond clinging to the raft and I get a lot of surety from knowing that my chosen path is a well delineated one. My objection is directed at the uncharitable tone in online Dharma discussions, exemplified by a recently banned forum guest. To paraphrase Malcolm (again) :"Do we really have our shit together more than other traditions"?

Edited March 21, 2014 by themiddleway

[Tibetan_Ice]

 

Not sure if that is directed at my comment, but I was not advocating for an utter lack of ignorance, nor that the path is extraneous. I was merely saying there is no inherent mind and no inherent self, but that doesn't mean there is no affliction to overcome, nor does it mean there is no path to traverse.

Hi Sun,

I see you've edited your other post... I thought you said some other strange things about mind...

No matter, I really like Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche. Finished "As It Is book 2" and now I'm reading book 1.

 

And I read this a few hours ago. I like his perspective on the existence and nonexistence of mind...

 

There is mind, but it is not tangible or substantial. You cannot say that there is no mind because it is the basis of everything; it is that which experiences every possible thing. You cannot say really that there is a thing called mind, and yet at the same time you cannot say that there is no mind. It lies beyond both extremes of being and not being. That is why it is said, Not existent, since even a buddha does not see it; not nonexistent, since it is the basis of both samsara and nirvana.

 

If we were without a mind, we would be corpses. You are not corpses, are you? But can you say that there is a mind that you can see, hear, smell, taste or take hold of? Honestly, you can continue to search for it exactly like this, scrutinizing for a billion years, and you will never be able to find mind as something that either exists or doesnt. It is truly beyond both extremes of existence and nonexistence. The absence of contradiction between these two is the principle of the Middle Waythat mind is beyond conflict between existence and nonexistence. We do not have to hold the idea that there is a concrete mind or that there isnt. Mind in itself is natural thatness, meaning that it is an unformed unity of being empty and cognizant.

 

The Buddha called this unformed unity shunyata, emptiness. Shunye means empty, while the -ta in shunyata, the -ness in emptiness, should be understood as meaning able to cognize. In this way, mind is empty cognizance. Natural thatness means simply what is by itself. Our nature is just like that. Just recognize that fact, without coloring it with any kind of idea about it.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[asunthatneversets]

Not sure which edited post you're referring to but I haven't edited any lately, especially not to change anything I've written.

 

I'm also not sure what you find strange, but being that we are obviously coming from different points of view on a few things, I could also label things you've said 'strange', though really you're just sharing your opinion, which you are welcome to.

 

All in all, i have not say anything that contradicts what Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is attempting to convey in the quote you cited.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Not sure which edited post you're referring to but I haven't edited any lately, especially not to change anything I've written.

 

I'm also not sure what you find strange, but being that we are obviously coming from different points of view on a few things, I could also label things you've said 'strange', though really you're just sharing your opinion, which you are welcome to.

 

All in all, i have not say anything that contradicts what Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche is attempting to convey in the quote you cited.

Oh sorry, I was mistaken...duh

Apology..

[yabyum24]

And I read this a few hours ago. I like his perspective on the existence and nonexistence of mind...

 

"There is mind, but it is not tangible or substantial. You cannot say that there is no mind because it is the basis of everything; it is that which experiences every possible thing. You cannot say really that there is a thing called mind, and yet at the same time you cannot say that there is no mind. It lies beyond both extremes of being and not being. That is why it is said, Not existent, since even a buddha does not see it; not nonexistent, since it is the basis of both samsara and nirvana."

 

When it comes investigating the aggregates in order to locate the consciousness, we may arrive at the conclusion that there is no separate consciousness which can be found. The best we can perhaps posit is that there is some kind of dependent relationship between the two - one upholds and makes possible the other. Some even claim that inability to find it amongst its basis is proof that it does not exist.

 

There is much truth in the first but the second position is entirely incorrect. The truth is that the lower schools are looking in the wrong direction. Consciousness will never be found amongst the aggregates because all aggregates are held within consciousness. It's like taking apart a TV in order to find the living room.

 

The prime division of pure consciousness into duality makes the arising of the aggregates (and all other objects of mind) a possibility. That's why the arisen product of the "self", its intellect and aggregates can never find consciousness. They are reflected within it, not the other way around.

This understanding is what takes emptiness away from the territory of nihilism or eternalism because all categories of existence or non existence are irrelevant in the unconditioned.

 

It's why I can't even be arsed to argue this stuff any more.

 

[Yascra]

I guess that's the issue with polemics

 

As stated elsewhere - if you're serious about it, then just don't discuss with idiots.

You can force yourself to keep smiling, but actually it still drains your energy, and smiling to make oneself forget that things are already messy is unhealthy and a waste of time.

A blind cow can differentiate who speaks out of own experience and who's just citing others. Unfortunately buddhist debates mainly ARE about citing others, as they are not about cultivation but a contest about study, and are fighting on a very coarse level of worldly logic. If you're a spiritual person you'll just stick away from it.

 

My few cents.

Best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them if you're not a mod.

[Simple_Jack]

Unfortunately buddhist debates mainly ARE about citing others, as they are not about cultivation but a contest about study, and are fighting on a very coarse level of worldly logic. If you're a spiritual person you'll just stick away from it.

 

When it comes to Buddhism, I think a person needs to be honest with themselves on whether they can actually accept the implications, of the view that is to be cultivated and eventually realized on the path. A Mahayana practitioner, really needs to consider what it means when they recite the vow "Buddhahood is supreme, but I vow to attain it", otherwise what's the point in taking up the path of Mahayana, if not to eventually awaken to what the Buddha realized under the bodhi tree? If a person can't even accept the basic tenets of Buddhism then ultimately what are they cultivating? An individual should sincerely reflect on this.

[Paul]

S*** J****

I never said you were trying to win anyone over. If anything, you post too many diverse and contradictory quotes to make a good Buddhist salesman. What you are really doing is fostering more diversity and confusion. Perhaps you should find a practice, stick to it and then based on your experiences and understanding, write about that.

 

Why do you mention Gatito, Dwai and 3Bob? I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about the contradictions in Buddhist writings. And, you know what is wrong with forums? There is no accountability. Anyone can pretend to be anybody, say anything and may or may not really know what they are talking about. And, most posters have their own hidden agenda in mind, not the welfare or spiritual development of others.

 

And I never said that emptiness equates to nihilism, nor eternalism. That's your deffective interpretation of what I wrote.

 

And, if I was to discuss experiences with anyone, I would certainly not go to any of those forums that you suggested. Many of those forums breed their own misconceptions and serve only to fuel and reify concepts such as the 'dark night' or 'noting practice'. I have no intention of catching those diseases..

 

But, here is a good case in point. I was reading C N Norbu's "Manifesting the Rainbow Body" from here:

http://dzogchen.ca/category/teachings/page/2/

 

 

 

 

So here is "the world's foremost Dzogchen Master", Dzogchen being the one most powerful practice that overcomes all obstacles, and he is saying that he uses channels, chakras, prana and kundalini and then mantras in order to transform into the Rainbow Body. WHAT! What happened to remaining in presence, in the natural state? What about the effortless non-meditation? And, then, is he saying that Kriya Yogins or Raja Yogins, because they also master the prana, chakras and kundalini attain rainbow body too? Gives your head a scratch, doesn't it? Do you know how many times people posted in this forum about how Dzochen is unique and "the only way"? Always a little off?

 

It is like the other book that I am currently reading called "As It Is" by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche.

He is supposed to be "an authentic Dzogchen Yogi".

He spends three quarters of the book belabouring the point that one must recognize unconfined empty cognizance. Then, out of nowhere, he says this:

 

 

 

 

WHAT? The more I read, the more all the teachings are sounding the same.

 

I also find it funny that both CN Norbu and Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche give the impression that Dzogchen is a subset of Vajrayana. One would imagine that such preliminary practices such as tantra, kundalini, chakras, channels, melting the bliss drops etc are practices for the lesser practitioners or new initiates, and not the other way around.

 

TI

 

Milarepa said that yidam, prana, nadi and bindu are but the beginning stages of Mahayana. The Ganga Mahamudra Upadesha explains that karmamudra is for lowest capacity and tummo is for medium capacity. Mahamudra is for highest capacity. Dzogchen is the path of self-liberation and does not make distinctions about capacity. Interest is the main capacity. Candali, channels and drops are secondary practices in DC. It doesn't mean for lesser practitioners. It means when you have a particular imbalance or some missing capacity, for example, if the body gets too cold, then you can use tummo. Tummo is also useful for mastering the pure nature of the elements.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well, again i am surprised. I have finished reading a book called "The Main Dzogchen Practices" by Lopon Tenzin Namdak. The book contains explicit instructions on trecko and thogal as well as meditation in the clear light... And then, towards the end of the book, it reveals some techniques for opening and remaining in the central channel!

 

He quotes the Donma:

" In the central channel abides the great wisdom without stopping"

 

TN also says that it is only in the central channel where there are no obscurations, that this is where the "pure nature lies".

 

And this is BON!

 

So, now my understanding is greatly enhanced.

 

These are my conclusions:

Resting in the natural state is actually simply resting in the central channel.

 

The central channel is the great dissolver, as I have read many times in kriya books, kundalini books and Buddhist books. It is also my experience that the central channel will dissolve ordinary consciousness. You can do this forcefully or you can do this gently.

 

Transmission entails something very similar to shaktipat, as you are in effect causing the other person's energies to become dissolved in the central channel.

 

If you just sit and let everything just be (you exert no effort or willpower), then eventually the outer consciousnesses dissolve in the central channel all by themselves.

 

Resting in the natural state is resting in the central channel.

 

You can access the central channel through various methods, including breath meditation, concentrative meditation, samadhi, or even by resting your attention on the central channel itself, or even at distinct points in the central channel, like between the brows, the center of the head, the top of he head, the region near the medulla, at any of the chakras, and even in between and in line with the central channel.

 

You can tell when you hit a part of the central channel because there is a pleasant energy flow that accompanies the fixation of attention on the particular region.

 

The clincher was when I started to investigate the fact that rigpa has energy. It radiates energy, just like the central channel.

 

So, at this point in my understanding, it is all starting to make sense now, and there is not much difference between the Hindu yoga systems and the Buddhist systems, except that the Hindu yoga systems take a more forced approach through pranayama to access the central channel, whereas the Buddhist approaches use a form of pranayama to open the channels sort of as a preliminary step and then try not to disturb the winds after that.

 

Really the implications from this realization are staggering: Resting in the natural state is resting in the central channel!

 

Many times while doing forms of kriya pranayama, or spinal breathing, I metamorphosed into a being of light just hanging in a wide open space that resembled outer space. That is "being in the central channel" or " being in the natural state". That is why they say in the "space Bon" teachings they keep comparing the natural state to unlimited space.

 

Also when someone has their central channel fully open and active, that is why people around them end up passing out (like what would happen with Dhyan Yogi or many of the kundalini active yogis.. My interpretation is that the other persons consciousnesses were being dissolved into their central channels by conduction. Hmmm.. Evangelical preachers causing people to faint by tapping their brows, or tapping their hearts/chests.. It all makes sense to me now..

 

The Dzogchen teachings say that the mind is just like or is the darmakaya in the sense that thoughts arise from nowhere, show an appearance and then dissolve back into the natural state, so the practice is not to grasp at the thoughts ( or visions) and let them appear and dissolve. Eventually, by doing so, not only are you placing your consciousness in the central channel, but because you are placing your consciousness in the same location as the central channel and remaining there, eventually your consciousness dissolves into the central channel as well.

 

The natural state is blissful. The central channel is also blissful. Great bliss.. I could go on...

 

Edited May 18, 2014 by Tibetan_Ice

[GrandmasterP]

You could indeed TI.

You could indeed.

Edited May 18, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[asunthatneversets]

Many times while doing forms of kriya pranayama, or spinal breathing, I metamorphosed into a being of light just hanging in a wide open space that resembled outer space. That is "being in the central channel" or " being in the natural state". That is why they say in the "space Bon" teachings they keep comparing the natural state to unlimited space.

Whatever you are describing is definitely not the 'natural state' [tathātva]. Sounds more like some sort of ārūpadhātu (and most likely is, given your affinity for the ārūpadhyānas you often post about).

 

Since you don't have a teacher, and are openly against having a teacher (for who knows what reason), you tend to fall victim to your own misinterpretations. Which is unfortunate, but you make your own bed on that account.

 

The 'space' [klong] discussed in Bönpo and Buddhist Dzogchen has nothing to do with ārūpadhātus or anything close to what you are referencing.

Edited May 19, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[ChiForce]

The New Age scam... Debate and reasoning? In Zen? Dear no. If the purpose of these the so-called debates is to produce Samatha, then, there is no logic. Depends on one's own mind to see the nature of the one's own mind. Grasp it or not, it only depends on that person alone. What happens to accumulating merit by doing good deeds and to follow the teaching of the Dharma???

[Tibetan_Ice]

Whatever you are describing is definitely not the 'natural state' [tathātva]. Sounds more like some sort of ārūpadhātu (and most likely is, given your affinity for the ārūpadhyānas you often post about).

 

Since you don't have a teacher, and are openly against having a teacher (for who knows what reason), you tend to fall victim to your own misinterpretations. Which is unfortunate, but you make your own bed on that account.

 

The 'space' [klong] discussed in Bönpo and Buddhist Dzogchen has nothing to do with ārūpadhātus or anything close to what you are referencing.

Well so far you have said that it is not the natural state, but you never describe the natural state.

I followed a Dzogchen practice of ejecting the green pill at the heart out of the top of the head and ended up in the same place (vast expanse of translucent space) except this time I also noticed that there was a surrounding field that looked like a black flame or a black vaporous lotus halfway unfolded which surrounded "me".

 

Have you ever been in the central channel? Have you ever practiced phowa?

[asunthatneversets]

Well so far you have said that it is not the natural state, but you never describe the natural state.

I followed a Dzogchen practice of ejecting the green pill at the heart out of the top of the head and ended up in the same place (vast expanse of translucent space) except this time I also noticed that there was a surrounding field that looked like a black flame or a black vaporous lotus halfway unfolded which surrounded "me".

 

Have you ever been in the central channel? Have you ever practiced phowa?

The ejection of consciousness in phowa is not a practice which is exclusive to Dzogchen.

 

Phowa is a practice which is implemented in preparation for death so the consciousness can be ejected from the crown instead of leaving through one of the other doors.

[Tibetan_Ice]

The ejection of consciousness in phowa is not a practice which is exclusive to Dzogchen.

 

Phowa is a practice which is implemented in preparation for death so the consciousness can be ejected from the crown instead of leaving through one of the other doors.

Yes and phowa can also be used to take over another body..

 

You did not even answer my questions..

Have you ever been in the central channel?

Can you describe the natural state personally?

It is one thing to say that something is not, but you have to prove your authority and knowledge through experience and be able to explain certain qualities or characteristics that you've discovered on your own.

 

And who is your teacher?

[asunthatneversets]

Yes and phowa can also be used to take over another body..

 

You did not even answer my questions..

Have you ever been in the central channel?

Can you describe the natural state personally?

It is one thing to say that something is not, but you have to prove your authority and knowledge through experience and be able to explain certain qualities or characteristics that you've discovered on your own.

 

And who is your teacher?

Well, no one has been able to use such practices to take over another body, living or dead, for centuries.

 

You either know your state or you don't. I don't broadcast my experience all over internet forums. I have nothing to prove. Authority is for fools.

 

My teachers are Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and Drubpon Gonpo Dorje Rinpoche.

[asunthatneversets]

Bottom line; the Dzogchen tantras, and most every buddhist teaching, warn against attachment to formless realms like the one you described above. They are cause for rebirth in devalokas.

 

Definitely not the 'natural state' [gnas lugs]. The real meaning of 'gnas lugs' is 'the way things are', which means gnas lugs implies knowledge of dharmatā. Not some ārūpadhātu.

Edited May 19, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[Jeff]

Although TI will probably not appreciate it coming from me, his description has merit. Thinking in terms of a two-fold emptiness framework, the central channel directly correlates to the concept of "emptiness of self". After one has realized the emptiness of self, it "expands" to the emptiness of ultimate reality. In TI's terms, this would be like the central channel expanding and integrating into all of percieved reality. But, as described, the key is letting go of this ultimate reality being a "thing" or "oneness". Becoming "attached" to that divine oneness is what separates the teachings of Buddha from many other traditions.

 

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

Edited May 19, 2014 by Jeff

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well, no one has been able to use such practices to take over another body, living or dead, for centuries.

 

You either know your state or you don't. I don't broadcast my experience all over internet forums. I have nothing to prove. Authority is for fools.

 

My teachers are Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and Drubpon Gonpo Dorje Rinpoche.

I'm detecting a kind of contradiction here Kyle. I found this thread and not only does it tell me that you do occasionally broadcast your realizations, but it gives us more insight on your understanding of space...

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.ca/search/label/asunthatneversets

 

Just as an aside, when you are in the space, you realize that thousands of thoughts can and do exist simultaneously, so I would have to disagree with the part in that post where G Goode posits that disfigured koan about only one thought can exist at a time. Perhaps to the subject in the immediate present, but "space" is beyond the subject.

[asunthatneversets]

Although TI will probably not appreciate it coming from me, his description has merit. Thinking in terms of a two-fold emptiness framework, the central channel directly correlates to the concept of "emptiness of self". After one has realized the emptiness of self, it "expands" to the emptiness of ultimate reality. In TI's terms, this would be like the central channel expanding and integrating into all of percieved reality. But, as described, the key is letting go of this ultimate reality being a "thing" or "oneness". Becoming "attached" to that divine oneness is what separates the teachings of Buddha from many other traditions.

 

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

Yes there's a correlation between the central channel and the natural state, but not in the sense Tibetan Ice was describing. The statement that a formless absorption state is equivalent to the nature of mind is an inaccurate assertion.

[asunthatneversets]

I'm detecting a kind of contradiction here Kyle. I found this thread and not only does it tell me that you do occasionally broadcast your realizations, but it gives us more insight on your understanding of space...

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.ca/search/label/asunthatneversets

 

Just as an aside, when you are in the space, you realize that thousands of thoughts can and do exist simultaneously, so I would have to disagree with the part in that post where G Goode posits that disfigured koan about only one thought can exist at a time. Perhaps to the subject in the immediate present, but "space" is beyond the subject.

You're still describing relative absorption states which have nothing to do with the definitive view. The term "space" has many applications and is used to translate a few Tibetan terms. None of those terms represent anything which even remotely resembles the ārūpadhyāna meditations you are describing. All you are touching on is the ālaya.

[Jeff]

Yes there's a correlation between the central channel and the natural state, but not in the sense Tibetan Ice was describing. The statement that a formless absorption state is equivalent to the nature of mind is an inaccurate assertion.

 

Agreed that they are not equivalent. As stated, there is a correlation which can be helpful. Simply "residing" in the central channel is useful.

[asunthatneversets]

Case in point:

 

"O Vidyāvajra, if you do not know how to distinguish between the ālaya and the dharmakāya, you may take the ālaya and the ālayavijñāna as the path, in which case you will not transcend the three realms. Why? The actual ālaya is something immaterial, thinking nothing, a space-like vacuity and blankness in which appearances are impeded. Know that you come to that state in deep, dreamless sleep, when you faint, and when you are dying. As a result of engaging in conceptual negation and affirmation, the ālaya is aroused, and if someone takes that as sublime meditation and stabilizes it, know that he may become demented, stupid, and totally ignorant. There are some teachers who identify that as the great, intellect-transcending extinction into dharmatā. If you get stuck there, it is certain that you will be cast into existence in the realm of gods who are devoid of discernment."

- Dudjom Lingpa

[Sunya]

I'm detecting a kind of contradiction here Kyle. I found this thread and not only does it tell me that you do occasionally broadcast your realizations, but it gives us more insight on your understanding of space...

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.ca/search/label/asunthatneversets

 

Just as an aside, when you are in the space, you realize that thousands of thoughts can and do exist simultaneously, so I would have to disagree with the part in that post where G Goode posits that disfigured koan about only one thought can exist at a time. Perhaps to the subject in the immediate present, but "space" is beyond the subject.

 

 

I think this quote from Kyle is pretty clear on the meaning of space in Dzogchen, which like the term 'mirror is used as a symbol or metaphor, not as a literal description which would only lead to formless state.

 

 

'Space' is merely a metaphor for awakened wisdom. Like space is unconditioned, unproduced, vast, open, clear, pure, unborn, undying, unadulterated, unassailable etc. awakened wisdom is like that. Emptiness is like that.

 

Emptiness in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka are exactly the same (so it would actually be inaccurate to say there's two differing philosophical uses): lack of inherency, freedom from extremes, illusory, unfindability. Everything is 100% empty in Dzogchen and in Madhyamaka. Emptiness allows for process and dynamism, if things existed inherently they'd be dead, stagnant, the basis (gzhi) wouldn't be able to display itself, there would be no possibility for awakening.

 

Dependent origination in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka both apply to the 12 Nidanas. Dzogchen (unlike Madhyamaka) has both (i) afflicted dependent origination; which applies to the structuring of ignorance (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa) and, (ii) unafflicted dependent origination; i.e. lhun grub which is known in vidyā (Tib. rig pa). Lhun grub, which means 'not made by anyone', is spontaneous natural formation (autopoiesis), which is truly self-origination.

 

Dharmakāya is the epitome of emptiness, but also signifies the condition of a Buddha. It is a total freedom from extremes so we cannot say it is the 'fundamental nature of being as awareness', if dharmakāya was 'being' it would be conditioned, so free from extremes.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Sunya

[Tibetan_Ice]

We'll thank you for the warning about the alaya. I've seen that warning in many books, even Alan Wallace talks about it, as does tulku Urgyen. The thing to keep in mind is to always be aware that you are aware, or, maintain a sense of knowing.

 

As for the topic of space, here is what I am talking about. Note: in Bon the basis is called the kunzhi, not the gzhi as CN Norbu's translators refer to it.