Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ḍ Ḥ Ī Ḷ Ṃ Ṇ Ñ Ṅ Ṛ Ṣ Ś Ṭ Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Difference between revisions of "How Luminosity, Clarity And Clear Light Relate To Emptiness"

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with " <poem> Robert Dominik: From Garma C.C. Chang's "The Buddhist Teaching of {{Wiki|Totality}}. The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism.": One day {{Wiki|Empress Wu}}...")
 
m (Text replacement - "[[[" to "([[")
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{DisplayImages|353|1021|4524|2563|3375|674|4148|2092|1234|1808|2955|3494|1881|2596|1765|942|914|4520|2198|3761|2527|857|4368|3248|363|1585|3408|2303|1303|4196|1844|1998|2151|3184|3570|2514|1347|844|3304|558|3632|1285|1286|4491|1862|248|3033|3579|289|2488}}{{DisplayImages|1873|4238|2194|106|3576|3037|1826|2843|3230|33}}
 +
<poem>
 +
[[Robert Dominik]]:
 +
From [[Garma C.C. Chang's "The [[Buddhist Teaching]] of {{Wiki|Totality}}. The [[Philosophy]] of [[Hwa Yen]] [[Buddhism]].": One day {{Wiki|Empress Wu}} asked [[Fa Tsang]] the following question: [[Reverend]] [[Master]], I understand that man's [[knowledge]] is acquired through two approaches: one is by [[experience]], the direct approach,and the other by {{Wiki|inference}}, the indirect approach. I also understand that the first [[five consciousnesses]] and the [[Alaya]] only take the [[direct approach]]; whereas, the [[mind]], or the [[sixth consciousness]], can take both. Therefore, the findings of the [[conscious mind]] are not always trustworthy. The {{Wiki|superiority}} and reliability of direct [[experience]] over indirect {{Wiki|inference}} is [[taught]] in many [[scriptures]]. You have explained the [[Hwa Yen]] [[Doctrine]] to me with great clarity and ingenuity; sometimes I can almost 'See the vast [[Dharmadhatu]] in my [[mind's eye]], and {{Wiki|touch}} a few spots here and there in the great {{Wiki|Totality}}. But all this, I realize, is merely indirect conjecture or guesswork. One cannot really understand {{Wiki|Totality}} in an immediate [[sense]] before reaching [[Enlightenment]]. With your genius, however, I [[wonder]] whether you can give me a demonstration that will reveal the {{Wiki|mystery}} of the [[Dharmadhatu]] including such wonders as the "all in one" and the "one in all," the simultaneous [[arising]] of all [[realms]], the interpenetration and containment of all [[dharmas]], the [[Non-Obstruction]] of {{Wiki|space and time}}, and the like? After taking [[thought]] for a while, [[Fa Tsang]] said, "I shall try, your Majesty. The demonstration will ·be prepared very soon."
 +
 +
A few days later [[Fa Tsang]] came to the {{Wiki|Empress}} and said, "Your Majesty, I am now ready. Please come with me to a place where the demonstration will be given." He then led the {{Wiki|Empress}} into a room lined with mirrors. On the ceiling and floor, on all four walls, and even in the four corners of the room were fixed huge mirrors-all facing one another. Then [[Fa Tsang]] produced an image of [[Buddha]] and ·placed it in the center of the room with a [[burning torch]] beside it. "Oh, how fantastic! How marvelous!" cried the {{Wiki|Empress}} as she gazed at this aweinspiring panorama of [[infinite]] interreflections. Slowly and [[calmly]] [[Fa Tsang]] addressed her: Your Majesty, this is a demonstration of {{Wiki|Totality}} in the [[Dharmadhatu]].
 +
 +
In each and every [[mirror]] within this room you will find the reflections of all the other mirrors with the [[Buddha's]] image in
 +
them. And in each and every {{Wiki|reflection}} of any [[mirror]] you will find all the reflections of all the other mirrors, together with the specific [[Buddha]] image in each, without omission or misplacement. The [[principle]] of interpenetration and containment is clearly shown by this demonstration. Right here we see an example of one in all and all in one-the {{Wiki|mystery}} of [[realm]] embracing [[realm]] ad infinitum is thus revealed. The [[principle]] of the simultaneous [[arising]] -of different [[realms]] is so obvious here that no explanation is necessary. These [[infinite]] reflections of different [[realms]] now simultaneously arise without the slightest [[effort]]; they just naturally do so in a perfectly harmonious way. . . .
 +
 +
As for the [[principle]] of the [[non-obstruction]] of [[space]], it can be demonstrated in this [[manner]] . . . (saying which, he took a {{Wiki|crystal}} ball from his sleeve and placed it in the palm of his hand) . Your Majesty, now we see all the mirrors and their reflections within this small {{Wiki|crystal}} ball. Here we have an example of the small containing the large as well as of the large containing the small. This is a demonstration of the [[non-obstruction]] of "sizes," or [[space]]. As for the [[non-obstruction]] of times, the {{Wiki|past}} entering the {{Wiki|future}} and the {{Wiki|future}} entering the {{Wiki|past}} cannot be shown in this demonstration, because this is, after all, a static one, lacking the dynamic [[quality]] of the {{Wiki|temporal}} [[elements]]. A demonstration of the [[non-obstruction]] of times, and of [[time]] and [[space]], is indeed difficult to arrange by ordinary means. One must reach a different level to be capable of witnessing a "demonstration" such as that. But in any case, your Majesty, I {{Wiki|hope}} this simple demonstration has served its {{Wiki|purpose}} to your [[satisfaction]].
  
−
<poem>
 
−
Robert Dominik:
 
−
From [[Garma]] C.C. Chang's "The [[Buddhist Teaching]] of {{Wiki|Totality}}. The [[Philosophy]] of Hwa Yen [[Buddhism]].": One day {{Wiki|Empress Wu}} asked Fa [[Tsang]] the following question: [[Reverend]] [[Master]], I understand that man's [[knowledge]] is acquired through two approaches: one is by [[experience]], the direct approach,and the other by {{Wiki|inference}}, the indirect approach. I also understand that the first [[five consciousnesses]] and the [[Alaya]] only take the [[direct approach]]; whereas, the [[mind]], or the [[sixth consciousness]], can take both. Therefore, the findings of the [[conscious mind]] are not always trustworthy. The {{Wiki|superiority}} and reliability of direct [[experience]] over indirect {{Wiki|inference}} is [[taught]] in many [[scriptures]]. You have explained the Hwa Yen [[Doctrine]] to me with great clarity and ingenuity; sometimes I can almost 'See the vast [[Dharmadhatu]] in my [[mind's eye]], and {{Wiki|touch}} a few spots here and there in the great {{Wiki|Totality}}. But all this, I realize, is merely indirect conjecture or guesswork. One cannot really understand {{Wiki|Totality}} in an immediate [[sense]] before reaching [[Enlightenment]]. With your genius, however, I wonder whether you can give me a demonstration that will reveal the {{Wiki|mystery}} of the Dharmadhatuincluding such wonders as the "all in one" and the "one in all," the simultaneous [[arising]] of all [[realms]], the interpenetration and containment of all [[dharmas]], the [[Non-Obstruction]] of {{Wiki|space and time}}, and the like? After taking [[thought]] for a while, Fa [[Tsang]] said, "I shall try, your Majesty. The demonstration will ·be prepared very soon."
 
  
−
A few days later Fa [[Tsang]] came to the {{Wiki|Empress}} and said, "Your Majesty, I am now ready. Please come with me to a place where the demonstration will be given." He then led the {{Wiki|Empress}} into a room lined with mirrors. On the ceiling and floor, on all four walls, and even in the four corners of the room were fixed huge mirrors-all facing one another. Then Fa [[Tsang]] produced an image of [[Buddha]] and ·placed it in the center of the room with a [[burning torch]] beside it. "Oh, how fantastic! How marvelous!" cried the {{Wiki|Empress}} as she gazed at this aweinspiring panorama of [[infinite]] interreflections. Slowly and [[calmly]] Fa [[Tsang]] addressed her: Your Majesty, this is a demonstration of {{Wiki|Totality}} in the [[Dharmadhatu]]. In each and every [[mirror]] within this room you will find the reflections of all the other mirrors with the [[Buddha's]] image in
 
−
them. And in each and every {{Wiki|reflection}} of any [[mirror]] you will find all the reflections of all the other mirrors, together with the specific [[Buddha]] image in each, without omission or misplacement. The prihciple of interpenetration and containment is clearly shown by this demonstration. Right here we see an example of one in all and all in one-the {{Wiki|mystery}} of [[realm]] embracing [[realm]] ad infinitum is thus revealed. The [[principle]] of the simultaneous [[arising]] -of different [[realms]] is so obvious here that no explanation is necessary. These [[infinite]] reflections of different [[realms]] now simultaneously arise without the slightest [[effort]]; they just naturally do so in a perfectly harmonious way. . . . As for the [[principle]] of the [[non-obstruction]] of [[space]], it can be demonstrated in this [[manner]] . . . (saying which, he took a {{Wiki|crystal}} ball from his sleeve and placed it in the palm of his hand) . Your Majesty, now we see all the mirrors and their reflections within this small {{Wiki|crystal}} ball. Here we have an example of the small containing the large as well as of the large containing the small. This is a demonstration of the [[non-obstruction]] of "sizes," or [[space]]. As for the [[non-obstruction]] of times, the {{Wiki|past}} entering the {{Wiki|future}} and the {{Wiki|future}} entering the {{Wiki|past}} cannot be shown in this demonstration, because this is, after all, a static one, lacking the dynamic quality of the {{Wiki|temporal}} [[elements]]. A demonstration of the [[non-obstruction]] of times, and of [[time]] and [[space]], is indeed difficult to arrange by ordinary means. One must reach a different level to be capable of witnessing a "demonstration" such as that. But in any case, your Majesty, I {{Wiki|hope}} this simple demonstration has served its {{Wiki|purpose}} to your [[satisfaction]].
 
−
Like ·  · Follow Post · Sunday at 4:48pm
 
−
Seen by 69
 
 
Wei Yu, Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, Albert Hong and 12 others like this.
 
Wei Yu, Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, Albert Hong and 12 others like this.
  
−
Albert Hong: http://i.imgur.com/kIv7O4l.jpg
+
Jackson Peterson: This is perfectly the holographic [[nature]] of the [[universe]] and all [[reality]]. That's exactly how its [[experienced]] here at times.
−
Sunday at 7:44pm via mobile · Like · 6
 
  
−
Jackson Peterson: This is perfectly the holographic [[nature]] of the [[universe]] and all [[reality]]. That's exactly how its [[experienced]] here at times.
 
−
Yesterday at 8:36am via mobile · Like · 2
 
  
 
Jackson Peterson: Great picture Albert Hong!
 
Jackson Peterson: Great picture Albert Hong!
−
Yesterday at 8:37am via mobile · Like
 
  
−
Robert Dominik: Holographic [[nature]] of the [[universe]] is only a model sugessted in [[physics]] that isn't sufficient to describe how [[reality]] works (and it is the way things work that no model ever will be). Still it is quite useful for the {{Wiki|purpose}} of [[communication]] and I also like to share such [[knowledge]] with [[people]] who may not be rady for studying [[buddhism]] themselves and practising but could use a little [[interesting]] [[information]] about the miraculous [[universe]]
 
−
11 hours ago · Like · 1
 
  
−
Robert Dominik: [[Book]] is only a [[book]] and certainly experiental [[insight]] is of more value than speculations and descriptions but when I was reading this [[book]] some [[time]] ago I found a valuable excerpt that may be useful when talking with [[people]] about the [[Universe]] (when I was younger I was [[thinking]] about the problems mentioned here in numbers 2 and 3). Here it is:  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Holographic [[nature]] of the [[universe]] is only a model sugessted in [[physics]] that isn't sufficient to describe how [[reality]] works (and it is the way things work that no model ever will be). Still it is quite useful for the {{Wiki|purpose}} of [[communication]] and I also like to share such [[knowledge]] with [[people]] who may not be rady for studying [[buddhism]] themselves and practising but could use a little [[interesting]] [[information]] about the miraculous [[universe]]
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[[Robert Dominik]]: [[Book]] is only a [[book]] and certainly experiental [[insight]] is of more value than speculations and descriptions but when I was reading this [[book]] some [[time]] ago I found a valuable excerpt that may be useful when talking with [[people]] about the [[Universe]] (when I was younger I was [[thinking]] about the problems mentioned here in numbers 2 and 3). Here it is:  
  
−
[[Garma]] C.C. Chang's "The [[Buddhist Teaching]] of {{Wiki|Totality}}. The [[Philosophy]] of Hwa Yen [[Buddhism]].":
+
[[Garma]] C.C. Chang's "The [[Buddhist Teaching]] of {{Wiki|Totality}}. The [[Philosophy]] of [[Hwa Yen]] [[Buddhism]].":
  
 
"(...)we have found that the {{Wiki|Totality}} and [[Non-Obstruction]] of [[Buddhahood]] are expressed in these terms:
 
"(...)we have found that the {{Wiki|Totality}} and [[Non-Obstruction]] of [[Buddhahood]] are expressed in these terms:
Line 30: Line 31:
 
1. That a [[universe]] can be infinitely vast or small depending on the scale of measurement, or the position from which a measurement is made.
 
1. That a [[universe]] can be infinitely vast or small depending on the scale of measurement, or the position from which a measurement is made.
  
−
2. That the "larger" [[universes]] include the "smaller" ones as a {{Wiki|solar system}} contains its {{Wiki|planets}}, or a {{Wiki|planet}} contains its [[atoms]]. This system of [[higher realms]] embracing the lower ones is pictured in a structure extending ad infinitum in both [[directions]] to the infinitely large or the infinitely small. This is called in the Hwa Yen vocabulary the [[view]] of realms-embracing-realms.
+
2. That the "larger" [[universes]] include the "smaller" ones as a {{Wiki|solar system}} contains its {{Wiki|planets}}, or a {{Wiki|planet}} contains its [[atoms]]. This system of [[higher realms]] embracing the lower ones is pictured in a {{Wiki|structure}} extending ad infinitum in both [[directions]] to the infinitely large or the infinitely small. This is called in the [[Hwa Yen]] vocabulary the [[view]] of realms-embracing-realms.
  
 
3. That a "small" [[universe]], (such as an {{Wiki|atom}}) not only contains the [[infinite]] "lesser" [[universes]] within itself, but also contains the [[infinite]] "larger" [[universes]] (such as the {{Wiki|solar system}}), thus establishing the genuine {{Wiki|Totality}} of [[Non-Obstruction]].
 
3. That a "small" [[universe]], (such as an {{Wiki|atom}}) not only contains the [[infinite]] "lesser" [[universes]] within itself, but also contains the [[infinite]] "larger" [[universes]] (such as the {{Wiki|solar system}}), thus establishing the genuine {{Wiki|Totality}} of [[Non-Obstruction]].
Line 43: Line 44:
 
Me: Yes, it is like [[universe]] [[activity]]... not drop of [[water]] dissolved into static beingness but oceanic [[activity]] in which drop and ocean is seamlessly [[arising]].
 
Me: Yes, it is like [[universe]] [[activity]]... not drop of [[water]] dissolved into static beingness but oceanic [[activity]] in which drop and ocean is seamlessly [[arising]].
  
−
[[Thusness]]: No [[sense]] of beingness anymore... that is good. Rather it is this [[maha]] [[suchness]] of total {{Wiki|exertion}} in this immediate moment... yet [[empty]]. Mature this [[experience]]. [[Feel]] this [[maha]] [[suchness]]... until it becomes as natural as [[breathing]].
+
[[Thusness]]: No [[sense]] of beingness anymore... that is good. Rather it is this [[maha]] [[suchness]] of total {{Wiki|exertion}} in this immediate [[moment]]... yet [[empty]]. Mature this [[experience]]. [[Feel]] this [[maha]] [[suchness]]... until it becomes as natural as [[breathing]].
  
 
Now you know the difference? Tell me the difference between [[anatta]] and this [[experience]] and what is exactly {{Wiki|obscuring}} the smooth progress to this [[insight]] and [[experience]]?
 
Now you know the difference? Tell me the difference between [[anatta]] and this [[experience]] and what is exactly {{Wiki|obscuring}} the smooth progress to this [[insight]] and [[experience]]?
Line 49: Line 50:
 
Me: The [[dualistic]] agent may be gone but [[maha]] requires the replacement of [[inherent]] [[view]] with D.O. so that when you see this, you see that... you see everything as entirely seamless [[self-arising]] [[activity]]. Not just this but how this arise without [[self]], this is, that is.
 
Me: The [[dualistic]] agent may be gone but [[maha]] requires the replacement of [[inherent]] [[view]] with D.O. so that when you see this, you see that... you see everything as entirely seamless [[self-arising]] [[activity]]. Not just this but how this arise without [[self]], this is, that is.
  
−
[[Thusness]]: Well said. First you must be left with only [[manifestation]]. Solely that. Then into the general [[[principle]] of] D.O. Before that, there is this mini [[sense]] of [[activity]] but will not be thorough. But you must make this a continuous practice and keep integrating the [[view]] of general D.O. to replace [[dualistic]] and [[inherent]] framework. Till even this [[view]] is also forgotten.
+
[[Thusness]]: Well said. First you must be left with only [[manifestation]]. Solely that. Then into the general ([[principle]] of] D.O. Before that, there is this mini [[sense]] of [[activity]] but will not be thorough. But you must make this a continuous [[practice]] and keep integrating the [[view]] of general D.O. to replace [[dualistic]] and [[inherent]] framework. Till even this [[view]] is also forgotten.
  
 
p.s. Yesterday a [[dream]] of clarity arose in {{Wiki|conjunction}} with Thusness's [[visions]] and [[meditative]] [[experiences]] (due to [[karmic]] links this is not the first [[time]] it happened) regarding a drop of [[water]] placed in an ocean, upon hearing this [[phrase]] in the [[dream]] there was an immediate shift where [[dream]] dawns as [[non-dual]] [[clear light]] (without the [[dream]] dissolving into [[formless]] [[clear light]]) which is free from subject/object [[duality]], boundless/oceanic, vividly intense, blissful and exhilarating.
 
p.s. Yesterday a [[dream]] of clarity arose in {{Wiki|conjunction}} with Thusness's [[visions]] and [[meditative]] [[experiences]] (due to [[karmic]] links this is not the first [[time]] it happened) regarding a drop of [[water]] placed in an ocean, upon hearing this [[phrase]] in the [[dream]] there was an immediate shift where [[dream]] dawns as [[non-dual]] [[clear light]] (without the [[dream]] dissolving into [[formless]] [[clear light]]) which is free from subject/object [[duality]], boundless/oceanic, vividly intense, blissful and exhilarating.
Line 57: Line 58:
 
8 hours ago · Like · 4
 
8 hours ago · Like · 4
  
−
Jackson Peterson: I have found as transparent [[openness]], the entire field is without obstruction, shimmering [[luminosity]] without possibility of [[reification]] and with no borders dividing this or that. The vividness of [[experience]] is its [[nature]] without an observer. The vividness of [[experience]] with an observer is also its [[nature]]. Nothing needs correcting. [[Empty]] as it already is, its left however it is. Reified and seemingly solid, its left as its own [[emptiness]], just as it is. Meddling with what is, is also what it is!
+
Jackson Peterson: I have found as transparent [[openness]], the entire field is without obstruction, shimmering [[luminosity]] without possibility of [[reification]] and with no borders dividing this or that. The vividness of [[experience]] is its [[nature]] without an observer. The vividness of [[experience]] with an observer is also its [[nature]]. Nothing needs correcting. [[Empty]] as it already is, its left however it is. Reified and seemingly solid, its left as its [[own]] [[emptiness]], just as it is. Meddling with what is, is also what it is!
 
6 hours ago via mobile · Like
 
6 hours ago via mobile · Like
  
Line 65: Line 66:
 
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
 
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
  
−
Wei Yu: The [[nature]] is [[emptiness]], [[emptiness]] means [[empty of self]], [[emptiness]] of [[self]] is twofold. [[Luminosity]] is the [[essence]], and all {{Wiki|expressions}} is self-luminous. That [[luminosity]] or self-luminous expression is [[empty]] by [[nature]], [[empty]] of being a subjective {{Wiki|perceiver}} or having [[objective]] [[existence]]. (p.s. i'm not using [[Dzogchen]] terms here, as there are some differences in terminologies the way I use it)
+
Wei Yu: The [[nature]] is [[emptiness]], [[emptiness]] means [[empty of self]], [[emptiness]] of [[self]] is twofold. [[Luminosity]] is the [[essence]], and all {{Wiki|expressions}} is self-luminous. That [[luminosity]] or self-luminous expression is [[empty]] by [[nature]], [[empty]] of being a [[subjective]] {{Wiki|perceiver}} or having [[objective]] [[existence]]. (p.s. i'm not using [[Dzogchen]] terms here, as there are some differences in terminologies the way I use it)
 
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
 
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  
−
Jackson Peterson: Wei Yu, exactly. However nothing obstructs this [[Clear Light]] [[Knowing]], whatever the [[condition]], its always known just as it is. There is no [[entity]] that needs rescuing through a better [[view]] or [[seeing]] "two-fold [[emptiness]]". Two fold [[emptiness]] is a description not a [[cause]]. [[Realizing]] two-fold [[emptiness]] releases the {{Wiki|intellect}} from its [[samsaric]] journey, but it then enjoys a {{Wiki|liberated}} [[condition]]. Its still a "[[mind]]" state. i think this is what John is working you through. This is not one's [[essential]] [[nature]] of [[pure]] [[knowing]], the [[nature]] of all [[experience]]. This [[pure]] [[nature]] is never [[conditioned]] nor [[bound]]. It requires only [[recognizing]] itself as this [[pure]] [[knowing]] in your current [[condition]]. Your pointing to a method using [[mind]] to [[release]] [[mind]]. I am pointing to a method that points to that which needs no releasing. In this case we use the [[essence of mind]] to [[recognize]] the [[essence of mind]], the [[mind]] then dissolves upon [[recognition]] of the "[[knowing]]", without working with [[minds]] contents at all. We don't have to remove the clouds to discover the sky. By focusing on the clear [[space]] of the sky, we discover the sky immediately. Just how its seen here...  
+
Jackson Peterson: Wei Yu, exactly. However nothing obstructs this [[Clear Light]] [[Knowing]], whatever the [[condition]], its always known just as it is. There is no [[entity]] that needs rescuing through a better [[view]] or [[seeing]] "two-fold [[emptiness]]". Two fold [[emptiness]] is a description not a [[cause]]. [[Realizing]] two-fold [[emptiness]] releases the {{Wiki|intellect}} from its [[samsaric]] journey, but it then enjoys a {{Wiki|liberated}} [[condition]]. Its still a "[[mind]]" [[state]]. i think this is what John is working you through. This is not one's [[essential]] [[nature]] of [[pure]] [[knowing]], the [[nature]] of all [[experience]]. This [[pure]] [[nature]] is never [[conditioned]] nor [[bound]]. It requires only [[recognizing]] itself as this [[pure]] [[knowing]] in your current [[condition]]. Your pointing to a method using [[mind]] to [[release]] [[mind]]. I am pointing to a method that points to that which needs no releasing. In this case we use the [[essence of mind]] to [[recognize]] the [[essence of mind]], the [[mind]] then dissolves upon [[recognition]] of the "[[knowing]]", without working with [[minds]] contents at all. We don't have to remove the clouds to discover the sky. By focusing on the clear [[space]] of the sky, we discover the sky immediately. Just how its seen here...  
 
6 hours ago via mobile · Like
 
6 hours ago via mobile · Like
  
Line 76: Line 77:
 
6 hours ago · Like · 1
 
6 hours ago · Like · 1
  
−
Robert Dominik: I like this thread on [[Hua Yen]]... will be posting to my blog. Thanks for sharing. <- You're welcome. I recommend the book - it is full of such nice excerpts. Pity though because one day my backpack along with my friend's copy of the book was stolen (due to my lack of mindfulness that day) but I am planning to buy it in a few days. To be honest before coming across the book I had no idea of Hwa Yen. It uses some new terminology, and slightly different concepts and tools than other schools - though its still certainly Mahayana ^^
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: I like this thread on [[Hua Yen]]... will be posting to my blog. Thanks for sharing. You're welcome. I recommend the [[book]] - it is full of such nice excerpts. [[Pity]] though because one day my backpack along with my friend's copy of the [[book]] was stolen (due to my lack of [[mindfulness]] that day) but I am planning to buy it in a few days. To be honest before coming across the [[book]] I had no [[idea]] of [[Hwa Yen]]. It uses some new {{Wiki|terminology}}, and slightly different [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] and tools than other schools - though its still certainly [[Mahayana]] 
 
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
 
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2
  
−
Wei Yu: "Your pointing to a method using mind to release mind."
+
Wei Yu: "Your pointing to a method using [[mind]] to [[release]] [[mind]]."
  
−
No, first of all if by mind you mean concepts, then obviously it is not. Twofold emptiness is realized as a non-conceptual wisdom and awakening, as the nature of that luminosity. It has nothing to do with mind/concepts/intellect.
+
No, first of all if by [[mind]] you mean [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]], then obviously it is not. Twofold [[emptiness]] is [[realized]] as a [[non-conceptual]] [[wisdom]] and [[awakening]], as the [[nature]] of that [[luminosity]]. It has nothing to do with mind/concepts/intellect.
  
−
On the other hand, I've realized luminosity way before realizing emptiness. Realizing luminosity does not liberate fundamental ignorance that is why it is not a complete realization.
+
On the other hand, I've [[realized]] [[luminosity]] way before [[realizing]] [[emptiness]]. [[Realizing]] [[luminosity]] does not {{Wiki|liberate}} [[fundamental ignorance]] that is why it is not a complete [[realization]].
 
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
 
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Soh, you cannot realize luminosity before emptiness -- in sutrayāna they are synonyms.
+
Malcolm Smith: Soh, you cannot realize [[luminosity]] before [[emptiness]] -- in [[sutrayāna]] they are synonyms.
 
6 hours ago · Like · 2
 
6 hours ago · Like · 2
  
−
Jackson Peterson: There is no "fundamental ignorance" as there is "no one" that is ignorant. The knowing has no ignorance at any time. What I mean Soh, is what you are advising is excellent! But I am saying one can penetrate directly without addressing the issues of two-fold emptiness. The natural knowing is not lacking some insight. It never strayed into samsara. You really don't get this?
+
Jackson Peterson: There is no "[[fundamental ignorance]]" as there is "no one" that is [[ignorant]]. The [[knowing]] has no [[ignorance]] at any [[time]]. What I mean Soh, is what you are advising is {{Wiki|excellent}}! But I am saying one can penetrate directly without addressing the issues of two-fold [[emptiness]]. The natural [[knowing]] is not lacking some [[insight]]. It never strayed into [[samsara]]. You really don't get this?
 
6 hours ago via mobile · Like
 
6 hours ago via mobile · Like
  
−
Jackson Peterson: Oh my god! I agree with Malcolm!
+
Jackson Peterson: Oh my [[god]]! I agree with Malcolm!
 
6 hours ago via mobile · Like
 
6 hours ago via mobile · Like
  
−
Wei Yu: Malcolm Smith: Very little is spoken about 'luminosity' in sutras like the Prajnaparamita class (other than one vague statement as you know) and I am not sure of how it is defined there.  
+
Wei Yu: Malcolm Smith: Very little is spoken about '[[luminosity]]' in [[sutras]] like the [[Prajnaparamita]] class (other than one vague statement as you know) and I am not sure of how it is defined there.  
  
−
What I mean by luminosity is the knowing, aware aspect of mind, there is only a pure presence/knowingness - it can manifest as a formless sense of existence or it can also manifest as non-dual sensory experience. This luminosity is not only spoken in Buddhist sutras but also in described in various religions including the upanishads which describes the atman-brahman as self-luminous.  
+
What I mean by [[luminosity]] is the [[knowing]], {{Wiki|aware}} aspect of [[mind]], there is only a [[pure]] presence/knowingness - it can [[manifest]] as a [[formless]] [[sense]] of [[existence]] or it can also [[manifest]] as [[non-dual]] sensory [[experience]]. This [[luminosity]] is not only spoken in [[Buddhist sutras]] but also in described in various [[religions]] including the [[upanishads]] which describes the [[atman-brahman]] as self-luminous.  
  
−
This luminous, knowing aspect can be realized without penetrating its empty nature - not in the sense of formlessness, but empty of any self entity. This is why knowingness can be reified in a wrong way such as what happens in Advaita and certain forms of Shentong.
+
This [[luminous]], [[knowing]] aspect can be [[realized]] without penetrating its [[empty]] [[nature]] - not in the [[sense]] of [[formlessness]], but [[empty]] of any [[self]] [[entity]]. This is why knowingness can be reified in a wrong way such as what happens in [[Advaita]] and certain [[forms]] of [[Shentong]].
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Hi Soh, you are talking about citta-ābhāsvarāḥ
+
Malcolm Smith: Hi Soh, you are talking about [[citta-ābhāsvarāḥ]]
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: i.e. monks, the mind is luminous and afflctions roll in; monks the mind is luminous and afflctions roll out.
+
Malcolm Smith: i.e. [[monks]], the [[mind]] is [[luminous]] and afflctions roll in; [[monks]] the [[mind]] is [[luminous]] and afflctions roll out.
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: the luminosity of citta
+
Malcolm Smith: the [[luminosity]] of [[citta]]
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Jackson Peterson: Wei Yu, they then didn't know actual "luminosity". Knowing real Clear Light is knowing its empty nature, that's because the luminosity is itself Wisdom. That wisdom IS the luminosity, yeshe.
+
Jackson Peterson: Wei Yu, they then didn't know actual "[[luminosity]]". [[Knowing]] real [[Clear Light]] is [[knowing]] its [[empty]] [[nature]], that's because the [[luminosity]] is itself [[Wisdom]]. That [[wisdom]] IS the [[luminosity]], yeshe.
 
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
 
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: which really means purity
+
Malcolm Smith: which really means [[purity]]
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: jax, he is not talking about citta prakriti prabhāsvara
+
Malcolm Smith: jax, he is not talking about [[citta prakriti prabhāsvara]]
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: i.e. the the original nature of luminosity of the mind
+
Malcolm Smith: i.e. the the [[original nature]] of [[luminosity]] of the [[mind]]
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: he is talking about the notion of the mind being inherently free from afflctions
+
Malcolm Smith: he is talking about the notion of the [[mind]] being inherently free from afflctions
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: that is how citta-ābhāsvarāḥ is used in the Pali canon and so on
+
Malcolm Smith: that is how [[citta-ābhāsvarāḥ]] is used in the [[Pali canon]] and so on
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith, he is saying that one can realize or recognize the "luminosity" without realizing emptiness. They are inseparable in time or experience.
+
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith, he is saying that one can realize or [[recognize]] the "[[luminosity]]" without [[realizing]] [[emptiness]]. They are [[inseparable]] in [[time]] or [[experience]].
 
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
 
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
  
Line 138: Line 139:
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: he is talking about clarity, not luminosity
+
Malcolm Smith: he is talking about clarity, not [[luminosity]]
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Jackson Peterson: I thought he said that? No? Wei Yu?
+
Jackson Peterson: I [[thought]] he said that? No? Wei Yu?
 
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
 
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: he said luminosity, but he means clarity gsal ba, not 'od gsal
+
Malcolm Smith: he said [[luminosity]], but he means clarity [[gsal ba]], not '[[od gsal]]
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Jackson Peterson: O'dsal is luminosity no?
+
Jackson Peterson: [[O'dsal]] is [[luminosity]] no?
 
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
 
5 hours ago via mobile · Like
  
Line 159: Line 160:
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: he is saying that clarity can be recognized without emptiness being realized and that can lead to reification that happens in Advaita, Vedanta in general as well as in gzhan stong
+
Malcolm Smith: he is saying that clarity can be [[recognized]] without [[emptiness]] being [[realized]] and that can lead to [[reification]] that happens in [[Advaita]], [[Vedanta]] in general as well as in [[gzhan stong]]
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
  
Line 165: Line 166:
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: it is easy to recognize clarity and mistake it for being uiltimate
+
Malcolm Smith: it is easy to [[recognize]] clarity and mistake it for being uiltimate
 
5 hours ago · Like · 3
 
5 hours ago · Like · 3
  
−
Wei Yu: Thanks Malcolm for the clarification. Are there different usage of the term luminosity?
+
Wei Yu: Thanks Malcolm for the clarification. Are there different usage of the term [[luminosity]]?
  
−
e.g. Lama Tony Duff seems to describe prabhåsvara as similar to what you call "clarity".  
+
e.g. [[Lama]] Tony Duff seems to describe [[prabhåsvara]] as similar to what you call "clarity".  
  
−
"Luminosity or illumination, Skt. prabhåsvara, Tib. ’od gsal ba: The core of mind has two aspects: an emptiness factor and a knowing factor. The Buddha and many Indian religious teachers used “luminosity” as a metaphor for the knowing quality of the core of mind. If in English we would say “Mind has a knowing quality”, the teachers of ancient India would say, “Mind has an illuminative quality; it is like a source of light which illuminates what it knows”.
+
"[[Luminosity]] or [[illumination]], Skt. [[prabhåsvara]], Tib. ’[[od gsal ba]]: The core of [[mind]] has two aspects: an [[emptiness]] factor and a [[knowing]] factor. The [[Buddha]] and many [[Indian]] [[religious]] [[teachers]] used “[[luminosity]]” as a {{Wiki|metaphor}} for the [[knowing]] [[quality]] of the core of [[mind]]. If in English we would say “[[Mind]] has a [[knowing]] [[quality]]”, the [[teachers]] of {{Wiki|ancient India}} would say, “[[Mind]] has an illuminative [[quality]]; it is like a [[source of light]] which illuminates what it [[knows]]”.
  
−
This term been translated as “clear light” but that is a mistake that comes from not understanding the etymology of the word. It does not refer to a light that has the quality of clearness (something that makes no sense, actually!) but to the illuminative property which is the nature of the empty mind.
+
This term been translated as “[[clear light]]” but that is a mistake that comes from not [[understanding]] the {{Wiki|etymology}} of the [[word]]. It does not refer to a {{Wiki|light}} that has the [[quality]] of clearness (something that makes no [[sense]], actually!) but to the illuminative property which is the [[nature]] of the [[empty]] [[mind]].
  
−
Note also that in both Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist litera- ture, this term is frequently abbreviated just to Skt. “vara” and Tib. “gsal ba” with no change of meaning. Unfortu- nately, this has been thought to be another word and it has then been translated with “clarity”, when in fact it is just this term in abbreviation."
+
Note also that in both [[Sanskrit]] and [[Tibetan Buddhist]] {{Wiki|literature}}, this term is frequently abbreviated just to Skt. “[[vara]]” and Tib. “[[gsal ba]]” with no change of meaning. Unfortunately, this has been [[thought]] to be another [[word]] and it has then been translated with “clarity”, when in fact it is just this term in abbreviation."
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Hi Soh, I already addressed the errors that Duff makes in his Sanskrit here, if you recall.
+
Malcolm Smith: Hi Soh, I already addressed the errors that Duff makes in his [[Sanskrit]] here, if you recall.
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: For example, "vara" means a boundary, it is not a short cut for prabhāsvara, etc.
+
Malcolm Smith: For example, "[[vara]]" means a boundary, it is not a short cut for [[prabhāsvara]], etc.
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
 
Wei Yu: Thank you.
 
Wei Yu: Thank you.
  
−
Can this clarity be free of subject/object dualism and yet held to be substantial and true existence?
+
Can this clarity be free of subject/object [[dualism]] and yet held to be substantial and [[true existence]]?
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: This clarity has the quality of svasamvedana (rang gyis rig pa, not the same as rang gi rig pa i.e. one's vidyā), it is self-knowing and so yes, it can be free of subject object dualism. However, as a quality of citta, since the citta is momentary, so is it.
+
Malcolm Smith: This clarity has the [[quality]] of [[svasamvedana]] ([[rang gyis rig pa]], not the same as [[rang gi rig pa]] i.e. one's [[vidyā]]), it is [[self-knowing]] and so yes, it can be free of [[subject]] [[object]] [[dualism]]. However, as a [[quality]] of [[citta]], since the [[citta]] is momentary, so is it.
 
5 hours ago · Like · 4
 
5 hours ago · Like · 4
  
−
Wei Yu: Just to confirm: luminosity, the original nature of luminosity of the mind, citta prakriti prabhāsvara, is synonymous with emptiness free of extremes, yes?
+
Wei Yu: Just to confirm: [[luminosity]], the [[original nature]] of [[luminosity]] of the [[mind]], [[citta prakriti prabhāsvara]], is {{Wiki|synonymous}} with [[emptiness]] free of [[extremes]], yes?
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
Line 199: Line 200:
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: For example, the 8000 line PP [prajñāpāramitā] sutra states: "Because the emptiness of the conditioned is naturally luminous, it is pure and totally lacks fundamental afflictions."
+
Malcolm Smith: For example, the 8000 line PP [[prajñāpāramitā sutra]] states: "Because the [[emptiness of the conditioned]] is naturally [[luminous]], it is [[pure]] and totally lacks fundamental [[afflictions]]."
 
5 hours ago · Like · 2
 
5 hours ago · Like · 2
  
−
Malcolm Smith: To be more precise, prakriti prabhāsvara is a synonym of emptiness
+
Malcolm Smith: To be more precise, [[prakriti prabhāsvara]] is a {{Wiki|synonym}} of [[emptiness]]
 
5 hours ago · Like · 2
 
5 hours ago · Like · 2
  
−
Malcolm Smith: For example, it also says ""Because the earth element is naturally luminous, it is pure and totally lacks fundamental afflictions."
+
Malcolm Smith: For example, it also says ""Because the [[earth element]] is naturally [[luminous]], it is [[pure]] and totally lacks fundamental [[afflictions]]."
 
5 hours ago · Like · 2
 
5 hours ago · Like · 2
  
−
Wei Yu: In a previous thread, you said that Dzogchen does not agree with Gelug's characterization of clear light as momentary, is that right?
+
Wei Yu: In a previous thread, you said that [[Dzogchen]] does not agree with [[Gelug's]] characterization of [[clear light]] as momentary, is that right?
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: The Gelugpa make a distinction between ultimate clear light and the mind of clear light, claiming that the latter is a very subtle momentary mind that forms the basis for the continuum of the person.
+
Malcolm Smith: The [[Gelugpa]] make a {{Wiki|distinction}} between [[ultimate clear light]] and the [[mind of clear light]], claiming that the [[latter]] is a very {{Wiki|subtle}} momentary [[mind]] that [[forms]] the basis for the {{Wiki|continuum}} of the [[person]].
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: What Mipham disagrees with is the idea that the Gelug mind of clear light, which is momentary, has the same meaning as rigpa.
+
Malcolm Smith: What [[Mipham]] disagrees with is the [[idea]] that the [[Gelug]] [[mind]] of [[clear light]], which is momentary, has the same meaning as [[rigpa]].
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Like · 1
  
−
Jackson Peterson: Ok... makes sense all around... We don't have the "I am" in Dzogchen, and I guess Soh is saying that the realization of I Am is realization of Luminosity, but it can be reified as a Self or self. Yes? And also yes sal ba is the clear aspect of sem or alaya.
+
Jackson Peterson: Ok... makes [[sense]] all around... We don't have the "I am" in [[Dzogchen]], and I guess Soh is saying that the [[realization]] of I Am is [[realization]] of [[Luminosity]], but it can be reified as a [[Self]] or [[self]]. Yes? And also yes sal ba is the clear aspect of sem or [[alaya]].
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: there is a term in Dzogchen called "gnyug ma seems", meaning fundamental mind, which is a syonym of bodhicitta. Because of this, some Gelug influenced Nyingmapas tried to equate the Gelug doctrine with Dzogchen. But gnyug ma sems is completely unconditioned, like bodhicitta.
+
Malcolm Smith: there is a term in [[Dzogchen]] called "gnyug ma seems", meaning [[fundamental mind]], which is a syonym of [[bodhicitta]]. Because of this, some [[Gelug]] influenced [[Nyingmapas]] tried to equate the [[Gelug]] [[doctrine]] with [[Dzogchen]]. But gnyug ma [[sems]] is completely [[unconditioned]], like [[bodhicitta]].
 
5 hours ago · Like · 2
 
5 hours ago · Like · 2
  
−
Piotr Ludwiński: "I AM" we speak about is pure formless consciousness without cognizer/cognized split that is then reified as mirror dual with phenomena or then one with phenomena. When mirror error is seen through sound is no less "I AM" than that pure formless consciousness and experience is without center.
+
Piotr Ludwiński: "I AM" we speak about is [[pure]] [[formless]] [[consciousness]] without cognizer/cognized split that is then reified as [[mirror]] dual with [[phenomena]] or then one with [[phenomena]]. When [[mirror]] error is seen through [[sound]] is no less "I AM" than that [[pure]] [[formless]] [[consciousness]] and [[experience]] is without center.
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like
  
−
Wei Yu: Is ultimate clear light, fundamental mind, bodhicitta unchanging/non-momentary? What is its characteristics?
+
Wei Yu: Is [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[clear light]], [[fundamental mind]], [[bodhicitta]] unchanging/non-momentary? What is its [[characteristics]]?
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: correct. Ultimate clear light, gnyug ma sems, bodhicitta are unchanging and permanent.
+
Malcolm Smith: correct. {{Wiki|Ultimate}} [[clear light]], gnyug ma [[sems]], [[bodhicitta]] are [[unchanging]] and [[permanent]].
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  
−
Wei Yu: And what are its characteristics? The Hindus speak of Atman-Brahman as changeless, etc, how is it different from ultimate clear light?
+
Wei Yu: And what are its [[characteristics]]? The [[Hindus]] speak of [[Atman-Brahman]] as changeless, etc, how is it different from [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[clear light]]?
 
5 hours ago · Like
 
5 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Ultimate clear light is emptiness
+
Malcolm Smith: {{Wiki|Ultimate}} [[clear light]] is [[emptiness]]
 
5 hours ago · Like · 5
 
5 hours ago · Like · 5
  
Line 241: Line 242:
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like
 
5 hours ago · Edited · Like
  
−
Wei Yu: More qns... is ultimate clear light, fundamental mind and bodhicitta equivalent to rigpa?
+
Wei Yu: More qns... is [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] [[clear light]], [[fundamental mind]] and [[bodhicitta]] {{Wiki|equivalent}} to [[rigpa]]?
  
−
Also, is rigpa a state of resting in "total beingness" or is the knowledge actualized as spontaneous self-arising activity?
+
Also, is [[rigpa]] a [[state]] of resting in "total beingness" or is the [[knowledge]] actualized as spontaneous [[self-arising]] [[activity]]?
 
4 hours ago · Edited · Like
 
4 hours ago · Edited · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: RIg pa is knowledge of one's primordial state, the inseparable clarity and emptiness
+
Malcolm Smith: RIg pa is [[knowledge]] of one's [[primordial state]], the [[inseparable]] clarity and [[emptiness]]
 
4 hours ago · Like · 2
 
4 hours ago · Like · 2
  
−
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith, makes good sense. Now I understand what you meant about the Gelugpa view, but the Dalai Lama is not using "Mind of Clear Light" as that "momentary" mind in his book "Dzogchen", but as a "permanent" Fundamental Mind. Is that a unique Dzogchen view in Gelugpa from the Fifth Dalai Lama?
+
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith, makes good [[sense]]. Now I understand what you meant about the [[Gelugpa]] [[view]], but the [[Dalai Lama]] is not using "[[Mind]] of [[Clear Light]]" as that "momentary" [[mind]] in his [[book]] "[[Dzogchen]]", but as a "[[permanent]]" [[Fundamental Mind]]. Is that a unique [[Dzogchen]] [[view]] in [[Gelugpa]] from the [[Fifth Dalai Lama]]?
 
3 hours ago · Like
 
3 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: The Great Fifth's Dzogchen is perfect. There is no fault with it. But the problem with HHDL's book is that he is very much trying to explain Dzogchen to Gelugpas without distinguishing the Gelug view of clear light mind with the notion of 'od gsal gi sems, "luminous mind", etc. in Dzogchen. So when he says that the mind of clear light and rigpa are the same, Gelugs will hear that their presentation of the mind of clear light will agree with Dzogchen, and it does not.
+
Malcolm Smith: The Great Fifth's [[Dzogchen]] is {{Wiki|perfect}}. There is no fault with it. But the problem with HHDL's [[book]] is that he is very much trying to explain [[Dzogchen]] to [[Gelugpas]] without distinguishing the [[Gelug]] [[view]] of [[clear light mind]] with the notion of [['od gsal]] gi [[sems]], "[[luminous mind]]", etc. in [[Dzogchen]]. So when he says that the [[mind]] of [[clear light]] and [[rigpa]] are the same, Gelugs will hear that their presentation of the [[mind]] of [[clear light]] will agree with [[Dzogchen]], and it does not.
 
3 hours ago · Edited · Like
 
3 hours ago · Edited · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: See the Great Fifth was an important Rime Master [Like HHDL], and practiced deeply Lamdre as well as Dzogchen, writing seminal and important commentaries in both lineages. If he had a short coming, it was his distaste for Kagyu, and he dismissed Ganden/Kagyu Mahamudra and criticized the First Panchen Lama for being too interested in Kagyu matters.
+
Malcolm Smith: See the [[Great Fifth]] was an important [[Rime]] [[Master]] [Like HHDL], and practiced deeply [[Lamdre]] as well as [[Dzogchen]], [[writing]] seminal and important commentaries in both [[lineages]]. If he had a short coming, it was his distaste for [[Kagyu]], and he dismissed Ganden/Kagyu [[Mahamudra]] and criticized the [[First Panchen Lama]] for being too [[interested]] in [[Kagyu]] matters.
 
3 hours ago · Like
 
3 hours ago · Like
  
−
Jackson Peterson: Wow, these guys lived such "soap opera drama" lives! Thanks!
+
Jackson Peterson: Wow, these guys lived such "soap {{Wiki|opera}} {{Wiki|drama}}" [[lives]]! Thanks!
 
3 hours ago · Like
 
3 hours ago · Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: If he had a short coming, it was his distaste for Kagyu, and he dismissed Ganden/Kagyu Mahamudra and criticized the First Panchen Lama for being too interested in Kagyu matters. <- Could you explain in short why was he distasteful for Kagyu?
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: If he had a short coming, it was his distaste for [[Kagyu]], and he dismissed Ganden/Kagyu [[Mahamudra]] and criticized the [[First Panchen Lama]] for being too [[interested]] in [[Kagyu]] matters. Could you explain in short why was he distasteful for [[Kagyu]]?
 
2 hours ago · Like
 
2 hours ago · Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Sure, when he was a young man, his government was involved in a major war for control of tibet with supporters of the Karma Kagyu.
+
Malcolm Smith: Sure, when he was a young man, his government was involved in a major [[war]] for control of [[tibet]] with supporters of the [[Karma Kagyu]].
 
2 hours ago · Like · 1
 
2 hours ago · Like · 1
  
−
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Clarity means cognizance; vividness; "brightness"; knowingness.
+
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Clarity means cognizance; vividness; "[[brightness]]"; knowingness.
−
Luminosity is synonymous with two-fold emptiness aka. freedom from extremes.
+
[[Luminosity]] is {{Wiki|synonymous}} with two-fold [[emptiness]] aka. [[freedom from extremes]].
  
−
Rigpa means knowledge of one's beginingless state, inseparable clarity and emptiness. And this is synonymous with clarity and luminosity?
+
[[Rigpa]] means [[knowledge]] of one's beginingless [[state]], [[inseparable]] clarity and [[emptiness]]. And this is {{Wiki|synonymous}} with clarity and [[luminosity]]?
  
−
So a space metaphor (clarity – a clearing in the woods) is used for cognizance and a light metaphor (luminosity – the shine or glow of a lamp) is used for two-fold emptiness?
+
So a [[space]] {{Wiki|metaphor}} (clarity – a clearing in the woods) is used for cognizance and a {{Wiki|light}} {{Wiki|metaphor}} ([[luminosity]] – the shine or glow of a [[lamp]]) is used for two-fold [[emptiness]]?
  
−
To me this seems backwards. Cognizance seems like sourceless glow and emptiness seems like seamless space. What is the rationale for switching the terms?
+
To me this seems backwards. Cognizance seems like sourceless glow and [[emptiness]] seems like seamless [[space]]. What is the rationale for switching the terms?
  
−
Also, Clear Light and Wisdom is luminosity? If so, why distinguish?
+
Also, [[Clear Light]] and [[Wisdom]] is [[luminosity]]? If so, why distinguish?
  
 
In all of this, the chief point seems to be distinguishing the base from the all-base. What is the base?
 
In all of this, the chief point seems to be distinguishing the base from the all-base. What is the base?
  
 
Malcolm wrote:
 
Malcolm wrote:
−
> You cannot realize [[luminosity]] before [[emptiness]] -- in sutrayāna they are synonyms.
+
> You cannot realize [[luminosity]] before [[emptiness]] -- in [[sutrayāna]] they are synonyms.
  
 
But you, representing [[Dzogchen]], said several times that [[luminosity]] is {{Wiki|synonymous}} with [[emptiness]]. What gives?
 
But you, representing [[Dzogchen]], said several times that [[luminosity]] is {{Wiki|synonymous}} with [[emptiness]]. What gives?
Line 298: Line 299:
 
May 21 at 4:01pm · Edited · Like
 
May 21 at 4:01pm · Edited · Like
  
−
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Btw, what a terrific thread this is! Hwa Yen, [[Thusness]] and some thorough clarifications by Malcolm! Thank you all  
+
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Btw, what a terrific thread this is! [[Hwa Yen]], [[Thusness]] and some thorough clarifications by Malcolm! Thank you all  
 
May 21 at 4:16pm · Like · 1
 
May 21 at 4:16pm · Like · 1
  
 
Jackson Peterson: Clarity has two words in [[Tibetan]]:
 
Jackson Peterson: Clarity has two words in [[Tibetan]]:
−
Sal wa refers to a clarity within the [[mind]]: sem. Like a clear [[state of mind]]. Then there is o'd sal meaning "[[Clear Light]]" or the Clarity of [[Rigpa]]. This [[Clear Light]] in [[Dzogchen]] is [[permanent]]. It is [[emptiness]]. [[Emptiness]] is [[Wikipedia:cognition|cognitive]] [[Knowing]] at the level of [[Rigpa]] [[wisdom]], or Self-Arising [[Wisdom]] Known as "rang jyung yeshe". [[Emptiness]] is never "[[empty]]", rather [[emptiness]] is always [[luminous]] [[cognition]] called O'dsal or [[Clear Light]]. When we investigate the [[nature]] of [[emptiness]] we always find {{Wiki|aware}} Clarity. When we investigate {{Wiki|aware}} Clarity, we find its [[nature]] to be [[empty]].
+
Sal wa refers to a clarity within the [[mind]]: sem. Like a clear [[state of mind]]. Then there is o'd sal meaning "[[Clear Light]]" or the Clarity of [[Rigpa]]. This [[Clear Light]] in [[Dzogchen]] is [[permanent]]. It is [[emptiness]]. [[Emptiness]] is [[Wikipedia:cognition|cognitive]] [[Knowing]] at the level of [[Rigpa]] [[wisdom]], or Self-Arising [[Wisdom]] Known as "rang jyung yeshe". [[Emptiness]] is never "[[empty]]", rather [[emptiness]] is always [[luminous]] [[cognition]] called [[O'dsal]] or [[Clear Light]]. When we investigate the [[nature]] of [[emptiness]] we always find {{Wiki|aware}} Clarity. When we investigate {{Wiki|aware}} Clarity, we find its [[nature]] to be [[empty]].
 
May 22 at 5:23am via mobile · Like · 1
 
May 22 at 5:23am via mobile · Like · 1
  
Line 376: Line 377:
 
Albert Hong: Stephen Metcalf
 
Albert Hong: Stephen Metcalf
  
−
I wonder that myself.
+
I [[wonder]] that myself.
  
 
When I read comments I get a distaste in my being. Kind of gut {{Wiki|reaction}} of unease.
 
When I read comments I get a distaste in my being. Kind of gut {{Wiki|reaction}} of unease.
Line 384: Line 385:
 
Or it is something else, another way to interpret and [[feel]] the underlying {{Wiki|purpose}}, [[intention]] and meaning behind the post.
 
Or it is something else, another way to interpret and [[feel]] the underlying {{Wiki|purpose}}, [[intention]] and meaning behind the post.
  
−
Maybe there isn't really a good [[reason]] or [[justification]] or any [[absolute]] way or interpretation.
+
Maybe there isn't really a good [[reason]] or [[justification]] or any [[absolute]] way or [[interpretation]].
  
 
But I do see that some posts bring that up in me. And its my problem, buts its very, very odd. Should I [[trust]] my [[distrust]]? Or should I just be airy, fairy and agreeably?
 
But I do see that some posts bring that up in me. And its my problem, buts its very, very odd. Should I [[trust]] my [[distrust]]? Or should I just be airy, fairy and agreeably?
Line 413: Line 414:
 
May 23 at 4:10pm via mobile · Like · 1
 
May 23 at 4:10pm via mobile · Like · 1
  
−
Robert Dominik: Albert Hong : I wonder that myself.
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Albert Hong : I [[wonder]] that myself.
  
 
When I read comments I get a distaste in my being. Kind of gut {{Wiki|reaction}} of unease.
 
When I read comments I get a distaste in my being. Kind of gut {{Wiki|reaction}} of unease.
−
<- Even when insight into anatta starts to enter one's experience... there are still so many impurities, propensities and habits. Realising that there is no self does not equal to complete abandoning of the self. There may be still some clinging, some subtle arrogance or satisfaction "Yeah... I HAVE REALISED emptiness" (Trungpa made a comment about such thing xd). So even when people see the wrongness of the views they still might become agitated about people expressing such wrong views. This is the simple, primitive "OH NOEZ SOMEONE IS WRONGZ ON DA INTERNET!!!111" That is a sad truth but also what motivates to further practice  
+
Even when [[insight]] into [[anatta]] starts to enter one's [[experience]]... there are still so many [[impurities]], propensities and [[habits]]. Realising that there is [[no self]] does not {{Wiki|equal}} to complete [[abandoning]] of the [[self]]. There may be still some [[clinging]], some {{Wiki|subtle}} [[arrogance]] or [[satisfaction]] "Yeah... I HAVE REALISED [[emptiness]]" ([[Trungpa]] made a comment about such thing xd). So even when [[people]] see the wrongness of the [[views]] they still might become agitated about [[people]] expressing such [[wrong views]]. This is the simple, primitive "OH NOEZ SOMEONE IS WRONGZ ON DA INTERNET!!!111" That is a [[sad]] [[truth]] but also what motivates to further [[practice]]
  
−
And let's not forget - understanding the right view does not mean that people don't have their opinions and some knowlegde regarding "not so ultimate" subjects  
+
And let's not forget - [[understanding]] the [[right view]] does not mean that [[people]] don't have their opinions and some knowlegde regarding "not so [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]" [[subjects]]
 
May 23 at 11:50pm · Edited · Like · 2
 
May 23 at 11:50pm · Edited · Like · 2
  
−
Robert Dominik: I once have heard a joke from a pal of mine:  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: I once have heard a joke from a pal of mine:  
  
−
Two Zen masters are in a train. There are other passengers who are very curious and keep looking at them because these Two masters have traditional clothings on them. The masters are very silent - the whole journey they are silent and do not even engage in a slightest conversation between themselves.
+
Two [[Zen]] [[masters]] are in a train. There are other passengers who are very curious and keep looking at them because these Two [[masters]] have [[traditional]] clothings on them. The [[masters]] are very [[silent]] - the whole journey they are [[silent]] and do not even engage in a slightest [[conversation]] between themselves.
  
−
Finally someone asks Zen masters: "Why so silent?"
+
Finally someone asks [[Zen]] [[masters]]: "Why so [[silent]]?"
−
One of the Zen masters replies: "I know everything. He knows everything. Why talk about anything?"
+
One of the [[Zen]] [[masters]] replies: "I know everything. He [[knows]] everything. Why talk about anything?"
 
May 23 at 11:48pm · Edited · Like · 2
 
May 23 at 11:48pm · Edited · Like · 2
  
Line 438: Line 439:
 
Friday at 12:09am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
 
Friday at 12:09am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
  
−
Robert Dominik: I don't understand why leave the group. He could have just stopped posting.
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: I don't understand why leave the group. He could have just stopped posting.
 
Friday at 12:21am · Edited · Like
 
Friday at 12:21am · Edited · Like
  
−
Kyle Dixon: He's quite fond of Jax, which is fine, but Jax left so I suppose he saw no reason to stay in the group.
+
Kyle Dixon: He's quite fond of Jax, which is fine, but Jax left so I suppose he saw no [[reason]] to stay in the group.
 
Friday at 12:21am · Like
 
Friday at 12:21am · Like
  
−
Magnus Tigerschiöld: Very sensitive guy Jax, I just open my mouth he either kicks me or run away in anger, a very emotional response. I am not that bad am I?
+
Magnus Tigerschiöld: Very [[sensitive]] guy Jax, I just open my {{Wiki|mouth}} he either kicks me or run away in [[anger]], a very [[emotional]] response. I am not that bad am I?
 
Friday at 5:48am · Like
 
Friday at 5:48am · Like
  
Line 450: Line 451:
 
Friday at 6:24am · Like · 1
 
Friday at 6:24am · Like · 1
  
−
Kyle Dixon: He might just be intimidated because your last name is tiger shield  but no I think you're right, his own personality causes him to perceive you in a certain way... because I think you're great!
+
Kyle Dixon: He might just be intimidated because your last [[name]] is [[tiger]] shield  but no I think you're right, his [[own]] [[personality]] [[causes]] him to {{Wiki|perceive}} you in a certain way... because I think you're great!
 
Friday at 6:28am via mobile · Like · 1
 
Friday at 6:28am via mobile · Like · 1
  
−
Albert Hong: Robert Dominik
+
Albert Hong: [[Robert Dominik]]
  
−
You hit it on the nail. Thanks for the mirror!
+
You hit it on the nail. Thanks for the [[mirror]]!
 
Friday at 7:17am via mobile · Like · 1
 
Friday at 7:17am via mobile · Like · 1
  
−
Robert Dominik: Here's another excerpt from the book about Hwa Yen I've just posted it in the Emptiness group so might as well post it here  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Here's another excerpt from the [[book]] about [[Hwa Yen]] I've just posted it in the [[Emptiness]] group so might as well post it here  
  
−
This is from "Concise Prajnaparamita Sutra". Many of you may know this but if someone doesn't... here it is:  
+
This is from "Concise [[Prajnaparamita Sutra]]". Many of you may know this but if someone doesn't... here it is:  
  
−
"Subhuti said, "0 Kausika, a Bodhisattva who aspires to the glorious vehicle should abide in the Prajiiaparamita with the teaching of Emptiness. He should not abide in form, in feeling, conception, impulses or consciousness; he should not abide in form that is transient or eternal . ... He should not abide in the fruit of arhatship ... not even in Buddha's Dharmas. In this manner he should benefit and deliver infinite sentient beings."
+
"[[Subhuti]] said, "0 [[Kausika]], a [[Bodhisattva]] who aspires to the glorious [[vehicle]] should abide in the Prajiiaparamita with the [[teaching]] of [[Emptiness]]. He should not abide in [[form]], in [[feeling]], {{Wiki|conception}}, {{Wiki|impulses}} or [[consciousness]]; he should not abide in [[form]] that is transient or [[eternal]] . ... He should not abide in the fruit of [[arhatship]] ... not even in [[Buddha's]] [[Dharmas]]. In this [[manner]] he should [[benefit]] and deliver [[infinite]] [[sentient beings]]."
  
−
Whereupon Sariputra thought, "Where then should a Bodhisattva abide?"
+
Whereupon [[Sariputra]] [[thought]], "Where then should a [[Bodhisattva]] abide?"
  
−
Subhuti, knowing his thought said to him, "What do you think, Sariputra? Where does Tathagata abide?"
+
[[Subhuti]], [[knowing]] his [[thought]] said to him, "What do you think, [[Sariputra]]? Where does [[Tathagata]] abide?"
  
−
Sariputra said, "Tathagata abides nowhere. This no-abiding mind itself is the Tathagata. Tathagata does not abide in conditioned things, nor in the unconditioned. The Tathagata who abides in all dharmas is neither abiding nor non-abiding. Just so, a Bodhisattva should also rest [his mind] in this manner."
+
[[Sariputra]] said, "[[Tathagata]] abides nowhere. This no-abiding [[mind]] itself is the [[Tathagata]]. [[Tathagata]] does not abide in [[conditioned things]], nor in the [[unconditioned]]. The [[Tathagata]] who abides in all [[dharmas]] is neither abiding nor [[non-abiding]]. Just so, a [[Bodhisattva]] should also rest [his [[mind]]) in this [[manner]]."
  
−
At that time in the assembly many gods thought, "Even the languages and letters of the Yaksha demons are intelligible, but what Subhuti has just said is unintelligible."
+
At that [[time]] in the assembly many [[gods]] [[thought]], "Even the [[languages]] and letters of the [[Yaksha]] {{Wiki|demons}} are intelligible, but what [[Subhuti]] has just said is unintelligible."
  
−
Knowing their thoughts, Subhuti addressed the gods, "In that, there is no speech no demonstration and no hearing."
+
[[Knowing]] their [[thoughts]], [[Subhuti]] addressed the [[gods]], "In that, there is no {{Wiki|speech}} no demonstration and no hearing."
  
−
The gods thought, "What Subhuti intended to do was to make the doctrine easier for us to understand, but what he has done is to make the doctrine more subtle, profound, and obscure."
+
The [[gods]] [[thought]], "What [[Subhuti]] intended to do was to make the [[doctrine]] easier for us to understand, but what he has done is to make the [[doctrine]] more {{Wiki|subtle}}, profound, and obscure."
  
−
Reading their thoughts, Subhuti said to the gods, "If a devotee wants to attain the state of Stream-Winner, Once-Returner, No-Returner or Arhat he should not depart from this deep insight .... "
+
Reading their [[thoughts]], [[Subhuti]] said to the [[gods]], "If a [[devotee]] wants to attain the [[state]] of [[Stream-Winner]], [[Once-Returner]], [[No-Returner]] or [[Arhat]] he should not depart from this deep [[insight]] .... "
  
−
The gods thought, "Who can understand and agree with what Subuiti has just said?"
+
The [[gods]] [[thought]], "Who can understand and agree with what Subuiti has just said?"
  
−
Subhuti knew their thought and said, "I say sentient beings are like dreams and magical delusion. Stream-Winners ... Arhats are also like dreams and magical delusions."
+
[[Subhuti]] knew their [[thought]] and said, "I say [[sentient beings]] are like [[dreams]] and [[magical]] [[delusion]]. Stream-Winners ... [[Arhats]] are also like [[dreams]] and [[magical]] [[delusions]]."
  
−
The gods said, "Subhiiti, are you saying that the Buddha's Dharmas are also like dreams and magical delusions?"
+
The [[gods]] said, "Subhiiti, are you saying that the [[Buddha's]] [[Dharmas]] are also like [[dreams]] and [[magical]] [[delusions]]?"
  
−
Subhuti said, "Yes, I say Buddha's Dharmas are like dreams and magical delusions. I say Nirvana is also like a dream and a magical delusion."
+
[[Subhuti]] said, "Yes, I say [[Buddha's]] [[Dharmas]] are like [[dreams]] and [[magical]] [[delusions]]. I say [[Nirvana]] is also like a [[dream]] and a [[magical]] [[delusion]]."
  
−
The gods said, "0 Subhuti, are you really saying that even Nirvana is like a dream and a magical delusion?"
+
The [[gods]] said, "0 [[Subhuti]], are you really saying that even [[Nirvana]] is like a [[dream]] and a [[magical]] [[delusion]]?"
  
−
Subhuti said, "0 dear gods, if there were something that was more superior even than Nirvana, I would still say that it is like a dream and a magical delusion. 0 dear gods, there is not the slightest difference between Nirvana and dreams and magical delusions."
+
[[Subhuti]] said, "0 dear [[gods]], if there were something that was more {{Wiki|superior}} even than [[Nirvana]], I would still say that it is like a [[dream]] and a [[magical]] [[delusion]]. 0 dear [[gods]], there is not the slightest difference between [[Nirvana]] and [[dreams]] and [[magical]] [[delusions]]."
 
June 3, 2013 at 1:00am • Unlike • 3
 
June 3, 2013 at 1:00am • Unlike • 3
  
−
Ed Cooper: hi. just bought jacksons book. are u guys saying he has nothing to teach? im going to give it a read but feel unsettled reading this thread.
+
Ed Cooper: hi. just bought jacksons [[book]]. are u guys saying he has nothing to teach? im going to give it a read but [[feel]] unsettled reading this thread.
 
June 3, 2013 at 9:16am • Like
 
June 3, 2013 at 9:16am • Like
  
Line 497: Line 498:
 
June 3, 2013 at 9:24am • Like
 
June 3, 2013 at 9:24am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: Haven't read any of his works but I'll give my two cents... Give it a try but be aware of the issues that were brought up here Even if Jax is wrong then he might have some good points and use nice examples to deconstruct some of the mind games - just do not take his every word as the sacred, holy truth but compare it with experience and some high quality texts about emptiness + If you do read it you might come back here and ask questions  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Haven't read any of his works but I'll give my two cents... Give it a try but be {{Wiki|aware}} of the issues that were brought up here Even if Jax is wrong then he might have some good points and use nice examples to deconstruct some of the [[mind]] games - just do not take his every [[word]] as the [[sacred]], {{Wiki|holy}} [[truth]] but compare it with [[experience]] and some high [[quality]] texts about [[emptiness]] + If you do read it you might come back here and ask questions  
 
June 3, 2013 at 9:36am • Like • 1
 
June 3, 2013 at 9:36am • Like • 1
  
Line 503: Line 504:
 
June 3, 2013 at 9:46am • Like
 
June 3, 2013 at 9:46am • Like
 
    
 
    
−
Kyle Dixon: The overall issue is that he essentially has a great view when it comes to Advaita Vedanta and the like. Except he marries his affinity for traditions Iike Dzogchen, with his Vedantic/Trika influenced view, which results in a misguided and convoluted presentation of Dzogchen/Mahamudra etc. Couple that with an unparalleled conviction of infallibility, and you end up with a conflation and misinterpretation of various traditions being presented as an accurate and valid teaching.
+
Kyle Dixon: The overall issue is that he [[essentially]] has a great [[view]] when it comes to [[Advaita Vedanta]] and the like. Except he marries his [[affinity]] for [[traditions]] Iike [[Dzogchen]], with his Vedantic/Trika influenced [[view]], which results in a misguided and convoluted presentation of Dzogchen/Mahamudra etc. Couple that with an unparalleled conviction of infallibility, and you end up with a conflation and misinterpretation of various [[traditions]] being presented as an accurate and valid [[teaching]].
 
June 3, 2013 at 10:28am • Unlike • 2
 
June 3, 2013 at 10:28am • Unlike • 2
  
−
Wei Yu: Hi Ed, a friend told me he likes Jackson's book cos it's very personal. I'm looking forward to reading it as well. Even though we (I and Jax) don't necessarily agree on every point and he may not be representing the traditions (e.g. Dzogchen) accurately, it still interests me to read someone else's genuine account of his path, practice and experience.
+
Wei Yu: Hi Ed, a [[friend]] told me he likes Jackson's [[book]] cos it's very personal. I'm looking forward to reading it as well. Even though we (I and Jax) don't necessarily agree on every point and he may not be representing the [[traditions]] (e.g. [[Dzogchen]]) accurately, it still interests me to read someone else's genuine account of his [[path]], [[practice]] and [[experience]].
 
June 3, 2013 at 3:41pm • Like • 3
 
June 3, 2013 at 3:41pm • Like • 3
  
−
Ed Cooper: Great stuff Ok im going to give it a read and see what I think! - personally I like the idea of anything that tries to extract a teaching from its cultural context and then cross references if it with other wisdom traditions - to try and find some sort of unified perennial philosophy type thing. My instinct is the that the stuff that is specific to a particular tradition is most likely false and generic ideas that can be seen across the board (in some degree) are 'true' - for example most traditions value silence as useful in practice, but those that specify particular colours of light, going up or down various nostrils are more likely to be cultural and not pointers to something universal (which is what interests me) - do you think this sounds reasonable?? - I would have thought the truth is accesible to all people in all times, therefore if you can strip away the cultural expression and get to the truth, it should have been showing up all over the place?!
+
Ed Cooper: Great stuff Ok im going to give it a read and see what I think! - personally I like the [[idea]] of anything that tries to extract a [[teaching]] from its {{Wiki|cultural}} context and then cross references if it with other [[wisdom]] [[traditions]] - to try and find some sort of unified [[perennial]] [[philosophy]] type thing. My {{Wiki|instinct}} is the that the stuff that is specific to a particular [[tradition]] is most likely false and generic [[ideas]] that can be seen across the board (in some [[degree]]) are 'true' - for example most [[traditions]] value [[silence]] as useful in [[practice]], but those that specify particular colours of {{Wiki|light}}, going up or down various nostrils are more likely to be {{Wiki|cultural}} and not pointers to something [[universal]] (which is what interests me) - do you think this {{Wiki|sounds}} reasonable?? - I would have [[thought]] the [[truth]] is accesible to all [[people]] in all times, therefore if you can strip away the {{Wiki|cultural}} expression and get to the [[truth]], it should have been showing up all over the place?!
 
June 3, 2013 at 6:58pm • Like
 
June 3, 2013 at 6:58pm • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: Certainly some traditions, rituals, ceremonial robes and such may not of importance But it's the insight and the state of mind that is achieved true practice that is important wouldn't you agree? And the differences in opinions between Jax and many people revolve also around insight and such things ^^ I also was very much into cross cultural teachings etc. Certainly we can take some teachings and insights out of context but we have to be careful if we do not distort the real sense. // + if someone likes to takes thing out of context then fine but he shouldn't be trying to (mis)represent the traditions. So a person can say that his message is not about the traditions (altough it was inspired by some pratctises) and that's fine. The problem begins when someone says that various traditions point to things they don't. I'm not talking about Jax at the moment - just saying in general. // Truth is accesible to all people. But not so many people have arrived at the truth. If it was so easy the we would be already living in enlightened societies.
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Certainly some [[traditions]], [[rituals]], {{Wiki|ceremonial}} [[robes]] and such may not of importance But it's the [[insight]] and the [[state of mind]] that is achieved true [[practice]] that is important wouldn't you agree? And the differences in opinions between Jax and many [[people]] revolve also around [[insight]] and such things ^^ I also was very much into cross {{Wiki|cultural}} teachings etc. Certainly we can take some teachings and [[insights]] out of context but we have to be careful if we do not distort the real [[sense]]. // + if someone likes to takes thing out of context then fine but he shouldn't be trying to (mis)represent the [[traditions]]. So a [[person]] can say that his message is not about the [[traditions]] (altough it was inspired by some pratctises) and that's fine. The problem begins when someone says that various [[traditions]] point to things they don't. I'm not talking about Jax at the [[moment]] - just saying in general. // [[Truth]] is accesible to all [[people]]. But not so many [[people]] have arrived at the [[truth]]. If it was so easy the we would be already living in [[enlightened]] {{Wiki|societies}}.
 
June 3, 2013 at 7:12pm • Like • 1
 
June 3, 2013 at 7:12pm • Like • 1
  
−
Kyle Dixon: The differences aren't superficial, aesthetic or cultural, but have to do with the very position which caused Buddhism to diverge from the Hindu view in the first place. The traditions I mentioned (Dzogchen and Mahamudra), ultimately accord with the same principles shared in most all of the buddhadharma, so presenting them as Vedantic/Trika themed, is a gross misinterpretation and deviation. It's essentially Neo-Advaita dressed in Dharma drag.
+
Kyle Dixon: The differences aren't [[superficial]], {{Wiki|aesthetic}} or {{Wiki|cultural}}, but have to do with the very position which [[caused]] [[Buddhism]] to diverge from the [[Hindu]] [[view]] in the first place. The [[traditions]] I mentioned ([[Dzogchen]] and [[Mahamudra]]), ultimately accord with the same {{Wiki|principles}} shared in most all of the [[buddhadharma]], so presenting them as Vedantic/Trika themed, is a gross misinterpretation and deviation. It's [[essentially]] {{Wiki|Neo-Advaita}} dressed in [[Dharma]] drag.
 
June 3, 2013 at 7:28pm • Unlike • 3
 
June 3, 2013 at 7:28pm • Unlike • 3
  
−
Wei Yu: Ed Cooper, I agree with Kyle Dixon there. The differences are not merely superficial. The experiential realizations differ.
+
Wei Yu: Ed Cooper, I agree with Kyle Dixon there. The differences are not merely [[superficial]]. The experiential realizations differ.
  
 
See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../thusnesss-six...
 
See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../thusnesss-six...
Line 526: Line 527:
 
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../substantial...
 
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../substantial...
  
−
Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment  
+
[[Awakening]] to [[Reality]]: Thusness/PasserBy's [[Seven Stages of Enlightenment]]
 
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
 
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
−
I understand very little of what Thusness has said. The path that Thusness descr...See More
+
I understand very little of what [[Thusness]] has said. The [[path]] that [[Thusness]] descr...See More
 
June 3, 2013 at 7:49pm • Like • 3 • Remove Preview
 
June 3, 2013 at 7:49pm • Like • 3 • Remove Preview
  
−
Greg Goode: Ed Cooper, I also agree with Kyle and Soh here, though for somewhat different reasons. Perennialism is not accepted by all traditions. In fact, more recently, it has come to be seen as an outgrowth of Orientalism and Western cultural imperialism, where one (usually one's own) religious philosophy imposes its interpretations on the religions and wisdom teachings of different countries, cultures, eras, etc. It tells other religions what their teachings "really" mean, as opposed to their own interpretations of themselves. Swami Vivekananda was a big perennialist, and saw his own religion, Vedanta, as the truth of all other religions. I studied for a while in their school, and that is their message.  
+
Greg Goode: Ed Cooper, I also agree with Kyle and Soh here, though for somewhat different [[reasons]]. [[Wikipedia:Perennial Philosophy|Perennialism]] is not accepted by all [[traditions]]. In fact, more recently, it has come to be seen as an outgrowth of {{Wiki|Orientalism}} and {{Wiki|Western}} {{Wiki|cultural}} {{Wiki|imperialism}}, where one (usually one's [[own]]) [[religious]] [[philosophy]] imposes its interpretations on the [[religions]] and [[wisdom]] teachings of different countries, cultures, eras, etc. It tells other [[religions]] what their teachings "really" mean, as opposed to their [[own]] interpretations of themselves. [[Swami Vivekananda]] was a big perennialist, and saw his [[own]] [[religion]], [[Vedanta]], as the [[truth]] of all other [[religions]]. I studied for a while in their school, and that is their message.  
  
 
For an alternative approach, here are some other sources (I'm including 4 links here, not just the one that fb displays!)  
 
For an alternative approach, here are some other sources (I'm including 4 links here, not just the one that fb displays!)  
  
−
God is Not One
+
[[God]] is Not One
 
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not.../dp/B003F1WMAC/ref=sr_1_1...
 
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not.../dp/B003F1WMAC/ref=sr_1_1...
  
−
Deep Religious Pluralism
+
Deep [[Religious]] {{Wiki|Pluralism}}
 
http://www.amazon.com/Deep.../dp/066422914X/ref=sr_1_1...
 
http://www.amazon.com/Deep.../dp/066422914X/ref=sr_1_1...
  
−
Religious Pluralism and the Modern World
+
[[Religious]] {{Wiki|Pluralism}} and the {{Wiki|Modern}} [[World]]
 
http://www.amazon.com/Religio.../dp/B009AUS5BW/ref=sr_1_2...
 
http://www.amazon.com/Religio.../dp/B009AUS5BW/ref=sr_1_2...
  
Line 547: Line 548:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Polydox.../dp/B004OBZY3Y/ref=sr_1_7...
 
http://www.amazon.com/Polydox.../dp/B004OBZY3Y/ref=sr_1_7...
  
−
God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter  
+
[[God]] Is Not One: The Eight Rival [[Religions]] That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter  
 
www.amazon.com
 
www.amazon.com
−
Stephen Prothero, the New York Times bestselling author of Religious Literacy, m...See More
+
Stephen Prothero, the {{Wiki|New York Times}} bestselling author of [[Religious]] Literacy, m...See More
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:15am • Unlike • 1 • Remove Preview
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:15am • Unlike • 1 • Remove Preview
  
Line 555: Line 556:
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:25am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:25am • Like • 1
  
−
Ed Cooper: Thanks folks, I can see I have a bit or of reading to do! In the mean time, maybe someone could just give me a pointer how my perspective might be incorrect: Just to clarify, my intuitive sense is that what lies at the heart for all these traditions is essentially beyond description - for example in these 7 stages it isnt 'reality' that changes but the view develops and become more sophisticated - or less, depending on how you look at it. As human beings, our similarities seem more striking than our differences, hands, feet, brains etc - So it just seems natural to me that this non-conceptual experience of reality is accessible to all and universal. However as soon as this experience condenses into form via words an concepts it takes on a limited/partial/cultural aspect. So we have lots of different fingers and only one moon. IS the suggestion here that there are many different moons?! - This just doesn't feel right to me, maybe someone could give me sense of how that might work?! - Greg I can appreciate how looking at a tradition through this perennial lens would naturally distort the teachings, especially by the standards of the more conservative adherents to that system. Im sure there are some that would have and still might, burn me at the stake for suggesting that the chirstian god might be the same as the allah, krishna, zeus etc etc - or that the buddhist idea of emptiness is pointing to the same thing as the tao etc - No im sure there are some passionate arguments why these things are actually all very different, but for myself that just seems unlikely, unless of course you stick to a really literal understanding of those traditions? - Im guess people dont agree, but if you could give me a clue how to see where this outlook falls down, that would be great! Greg I thought your point of view was that Emptiness teachings and Awareness teachings, were both useful as pointers but that it isnt a case that one trumps the other, or that either represents The Truth, this gave me the idea that you felt worked as different pointers but same moon? This idea of the same moon is what I meant by perennial philosophy - however that may not help as Perrenialism sounds like quite a specific thing/expression about which I couldn't claim to have any understanding!
+
Ed Cooper: Thanks folks, I can see I have a bit or of reading to do! In the mean [[time]], maybe someone could just give me a pointer how my {{Wiki|perspective}} might be incorrect: Just to clarify, my intuitive [[sense]] is that what lies at the [[heart]] for all these [[traditions]] is [[essentially]] beyond description - for example in these 7 stages it isnt '[[reality]]' that changes but the [[view]] develops and become more sophisticated - or less, depending on how you look at it. As [[human beings]], our similarities seem more striking than our differences, hands, feet, {{Wiki|brains}} etc - So it just seems natural to me that this [[non-conceptual]] [[experience]] of [[reality]] is accessible to all and [[universal]]. However as soon as this [[experience]] condenses into [[form]] via words an [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] it takes on a limited/partial/cultural aspect. So we have lots of different fingers and only one [[moon]]. IS the suggestion here that there are many different moons?! - This just doesn't [[feel]] right to me, maybe someone could give me [[sense]] of how that might work?! - Greg I can appreciate how looking at a [[tradition]] through this [[perennial]] lens would naturally distort the teachings, especially by the standards of the more conservative {{Wiki|adherents}} to that system. Im sure there are some that would have and still might, burn me at the stake for suggesting that the chirstian [[god]] might be the same as the {{Wiki|allah}}, [[krishna]], zeus etc etc - or that the [[buddhist]] [[idea]] of [[emptiness]] is pointing to the same thing as the [[tao]] etc - No im sure there are some [[passionate]] arguments why these things are actually all very different, but for myself that just seems unlikely, unless of course you stick to a really literal [[understanding]] of those [[traditions]]? - Im guess [[people]] dont agree, but if you could give me a clue how to see where this outlook falls down, that would be great! Greg I [[thought]] your point of [[view]] was that [[Emptiness]] teachings and [[Awareness]] teachings, were both useful as pointers but that it isnt a case that one trumps the other, or that either represents The [[Truth]], this gave me the [[idea]] that you felt worked as different pointers but same [[moon]]? This [[idea]] of the same [[moon]] is what I meant by [[perennial]] [[philosophy]] - however that may not help as Perrenialism {{Wiki|sounds}} like quite a specific thing/expression about which I couldn't claim to have any [[understanding]]!
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:13am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:13am • Like
  
−
Wei Yu: Ed Cooper, Awareness teachings and Emptiness teachings don't point to the same thing.  
+
Wei Yu: Ed Cooper, [[Awareness]] teachings and [[Emptiness]] teachings don't point to the same thing.  
  
−
As Malcolm said: "there is a mind, it has a nature of clarity and emptiness. It is one thing that has two natures, like water is limpid and wet. one thing, two aspects"
+
As Malcolm said: "there is a [[mind]], it has a [[nature]] of clarity and [[emptiness]]. It is one thing that has two natures, like [[water]] is limpid and wet. one thing, two aspects"
  
−
Other religions generally lead to realization of clarity (aka Awareness) but sees it as substantially existent, true Self, changeless, independent, etc.  
+
Other [[religions]] generally lead to [[realization]] of clarity (aka [[Awareness]]) but sees it as substantially [[existent]], [[true Self]], changeless, {{Wiki|independent}}, etc.  
  
−
While Buddhism leads to the empty nature of clarity, of everything. We don't deny clarity, we simply realize the empty nature... so the nature of mind is described as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness.
+
While [[Buddhism]] leads to the [[empty]] [[nature]] of clarity, of everything. We don't deny clarity, we simply realize the [[empty]] [[nature]]... so the [[nature of mind]] is described as the {{Wiki|inseparability}} of clarity and [[emptiness]].
  
−
From the perspective of Advaita, the substantialist view they teach is correct and others are incomplete/wrong/etc. From the Buddhist perspective, the non-substantialist view is correct and the substantialist view is incomplete/wrong/etc.
+
From the {{Wiki|perspective}} of [[Advaita]], the substantialist [[view]] they teach is correct and others are incomplete/wrong/etc. From the [[Buddhist]] {{Wiki|perspective}}, the non-substantialist [[view]] is correct and the substantialist [[view]] is incomplete/wrong/etc.
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:19am • Like • 3
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:19am • Like • 3
  
−
Greg Goode: Ed, I like both teachings, but you don't see me making moon comparisons! Here's another way to look at it. Two different teachings are saying stuff that really sounds like pointing in some way about ultimate reality. And you, as a person looking into the teachings, attempt to adjudicate the sameness or adequacy of these pointings.  
+
Greg Goode: Ed, I like both teachings, but you don't see me making [[moon]] comparisons! Here's another way to look at it. Two different teachings are saying stuff that really {{Wiki|sounds}} like pointing in some way about [[ultimate reality]]. And you, as a [[person]] looking into the teachings, attempt to adjudicate the [[sameness]] or adequacy of these pointings.  
  
−
The question would be, where do you stand, and from what vantage point to you assess these two approaches? If you adjudicate from inside either one, then of course that will be the answer. But if you don't do that, then where can you stand in the process that is not already implicated in its own view of some sort?
+
The question would be, where do you stand, and from what vantage point to you assess these two approaches? If you adjudicate from inside either one, then of course that will be the answer. But if you don't do that, then where can you stand in the process that is not already implicated in its [[own]] [[view]] of some sort?
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:26am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:26am • Like
  
−
Ed Cooper: Yeah I sort of see what you mean! But all I can say is that most systems have a trend towards those who are really conservative in there understanding of there system, it my way or you going to hell - sort of thing, and then there are those that take a broader approach and look for wider trends across world traditions, with an aim to distinguishing the partial from the universal - the wider you look the better chance you have of understanding what is common to all - even if they practiced mediation in another galaxy - I think it would help, as long as i didnt over identify with the 'earth based traditions!' But I guess like science it seems the best way to asses an approach would be from the outside, as identification with that form is bound to skew the results!
+
Ed Cooper: Yeah I sort of see what you mean! But all I can say is that most systems have a trend towards those who are really conservative in there [[understanding]] of there system, it my way or you going to [[hell]] - sort of thing, and then there are those that take a broader approach and look for wider trends across [[world]] [[traditions]], with an aim to distinguishing the partial from the [[universal]] - the wider you look the better chance you have of [[understanding]] what is common to all - even if they practiced [[mediation]] in another {{Wiki|galaxy}} - I think it would help, as long as i didnt over identify with the '[[earth]] based [[traditions]]!' But I guess like [[science]] it seems the best way to asses an approach would be from the outside, as identification with that [[form]] is [[bound]] to skew the results!
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:37am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:37am • Like
  
−
Greg Goode: Ed, this is a really good point. There are lots of things to say in this... One thing is that perennialism assumes that the conservatives in the traditions are wrong and that the esotericists are "closer to the perennial truth of things, which is usually best described by [ fill in the blank ] teaching."
+
Greg Goode: Ed, this is a really good point. There are lots of things to say in this... [[One thing]] is that perennialism assumes that the conservatives in the [[traditions]] are wrong and that the [[esotericists]] are "closer to the [[perennial]] [[truth]] of things, which is usually best described by [ fill in the blank ] [[teaching]]."
  
−
I agree, the non-conservatives you mention actually do take a broader approach. But it is not necessarily a substantialist, philosophically perennialist approach. Like the Dalai Lama - he does lots of outreach, but he isn't a perennialist. What he is most concerned to do is inspire folks t try to get along more harmoniously with others so that we don't make each other suffer. I think that is a wonderful goal. But those interfaith talks don't necessarily mean that the individual teachings have the same metaphysical basis underlying the doctrines. One could look at what they are doing in reaching out to each other as an ethical or social or heart-based endeavor. Again, I think that is wonderful. But that seems a very far cry from telling each other, "Your teachings don't mean what your traditionalists say they mean. Instead, they mean this [ ... fill in the blanks ...]."
+
I agree, the non-conservatives you mention actually do take a broader approach. But it is not necessarily a substantialist, [[philosophically]] perennialist approach. Like the [[Dalai Lama]] - he does lots of outreach, but he isn't a perennialist. What he is most concerned to do is inspire folks t try to get along more harmoniously with others so that we don't make each other [[suffer]]. I think that is a wonderful goal. But those interfaith talks don't necessarily mean that the {{Wiki|individual}} teachings have the same [[metaphysical]] basis underlying the [[doctrines]]. One could look at what they are doing in reaching out to each other as an [[ethical]] or {{Wiki|social}} or heart-based endeavor. Again, I think that is wonderful. But that seems a very far cry from telling each other, "Your teachings don't mean what your {{Wiki|traditionalists}} say they mean. Instead, they mean this [ ... [[fill in the blanks]] ...]."
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Unlike • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Unlike • 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Truths, such as the two truths, are at base _subjective_ cognitions; with ultimate truth being the object of a correct cognition and the relative truth the object of an incorrect cognition. The controversy lies more in the realm of what a correct cognition constitutes than anything else.
+
Malcolm Smith: [[Truths]], such as the [[two truths]], are at base _[[subjective]]_ [[cognitions]]; with [[ultimate truth]] being the [[object]] of a correct [[cognition]] and the [[relative truth]] the [[object]] of an incorrect [[cognition]]. The [[controversy]] lies more in the [[realm]] of what a correct [[cognition]] constitutes than anything else.
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:59am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:59am • Like • 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: When it comes to comparing systems, it is a bit useless. The principles underlying the Upanishads, underlying Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, Dzogchen, etc., are all somewhat different. They all do share a common feature however i.e. from what are we being liberated? In all cases, that from which we are being liberated are kleshas, which cause actions, which lead to suffering and rebirth in samsara. All of these practice streams, if you will, share the view of rebirth -- and this is non-negotiable -- for without the principle of rebirth in samsara, all of these practice streams become redundant and meaningless.
+
Malcolm Smith: When it comes to comparing systems, it is a bit useless. The {{Wiki|principles}} underlying the [[Upanishads]], underlying [[Samkhya]], [[Jainism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Dzogchen]], etc., are all somewhat different. They all do share a common feature however i.e. from what are we being {{Wiki|liberated}}? In all cases, that from which we are being {{Wiki|liberated}} are [[kleshas]], which [[cause]] [[actions]], which lead to [[suffering]] and [[rebirth]] in [[samsara]]. All of these [[practice]] streams, if you will, share the [[view]] of [[rebirth]] -- and this is non-negotiable -- for without the [[principle]] of [[rebirth]] in [[samsara]], all of these [[practice]] streams become redundant and meaningless.
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:07am • Unlike • 2
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:07am • Unlike • 2
  
−
Greg Goode: There are many, many, many Westerners who adopt these systems but not the rebirth parts...
+
Greg Goode: There are many, many, many Westerners who adopt these systems but not the [[rebirth]] parts...
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:12am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:12am • Like
  
Line 594: Line 595:
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:18am • Like • 2
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:18am • Like • 2
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Such people are lokayatis, charvakas.
+
Malcolm Smith: Such [[people]] are lokayatis, [[charvakas]].
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:19am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:19am • Like • 1
 
      
 
      
−
Malcolm Smith: They are merely "spiritual" hedonists.
+
Malcolm Smith: They are merely "[[spiritual]]" hedonists.
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:19am • Unlike • 2
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:19am • Unlike • 2
  
−
Malcolm Smith: There may be some relaxation they can gain, a sense of well being, but not realization.
+
Malcolm Smith: There may be some [[relaxation]] they can gain, a [[sense]] of well being, but not [[realization]].
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:20am • Like • 2
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:20am • Like • 2
  
−
Robert Dominik: for without the principle of rebirth in samsara, all of these practice streams become redundant and meaningless. <- not neccessarily. I mean that even if there was no rebirth then still compassionate beings would aspire for lessening the suffering of other beings. But in the end I agree with you - it is hard to practice certain practices while denying the basis underlaying them. The problem is that people are often very confused and do not understand how the principle of rebirth works. Especially some westerners that in reality have no idea of buddhism tend to think that there is some inherently existent soul that incarnates during different lifetimes because they haven't heard even such simple concepts as skandhas ^^
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: for without the [[principle]] of [[rebirth]] in [[samsara]], all of these [[practice]] streams become redundant and meaningless. not neccessarily. I mean that even if there was [[no rebirth]] then still [[compassionate]] [[beings]] would aspire for lessening the [[suffering]] of other [[beings]]. But in the end I agree with you - it is hard to [[practice]] certain practices while denying the basis underlaying them. The problem is that [[people]] are often very confused and do not understand how the [[principle]] of [[rebirth]] works. Especially some westerners that in [[reality]] have no [[idea]] of [[buddhism]] tend to think that there is some inherently [[existent]] [[soul]] that [[incarnates]] during different lifetimes because they haven't heard even such simple [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] as [[skandhas]] ^^
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:21am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:21am • Like
  
−
Magnus Tigerschiöld: It is like they are watching the moon, thinking it is made of cheese because it so yellow...
+
Magnus Tigerschiöld: It is like they are watching the [[moon]], [[thinking]] it is made of cheese because it so [[yellow]]...
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: There is no need for any of these systems in absence of rebirth.
+
Malcolm Smith: There is no need for any of these systems in absence of [[rebirth]].
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Compassion is not something that belongs to so called spritual traditions
+
Malcolm Smith: [[Compassion]] is not something that belongs to so called spritual [[traditions]]
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Unlike • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Unlike • 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: even though spiritual traditions like to imagine somehow they own compassion
+
Malcolm Smith: even though [[spiritual traditions]] like to [[imagine]] somehow they [[own]] [[compassion]]
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:23am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:23am • Like
  
−
Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: If they were not rebirth ... why should I give a sh.?
+
Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: If they were not [[rebirth]] ... why should I give a sh.?
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:24am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:24am • Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Also of course, in absence of rebirth, everyone achieves nirvana at death
+
Malcolm Smith: Also of course, in absence of [[rebirth]], everyone achieves [[nirvana]] at [[death]]
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:24am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:24am • Like • 1
  
−
Magnus Tigerschiöld: or oblivion, which most people cherish so much
+
Magnus Tigerschiöld: or oblivion, which most [[people]] cherish so much
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:25am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:25am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: Also of course, in absence of rebirth, everyone achieves nirvana at death <- sometime ago I heard a criticism of buddhism from a guy who said that there is no sense in aiming for Nirvana because its just atheistic anihilation. And some people don't like that idea and they would instead prefer being reborn again (even paying the price of suffering but hoping for better rebirths that will make up for it) xD
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Also of course, in absence of [[rebirth]], everyone achieves [[nirvana]] at [[death]] sometime ago I heard a [[criticism of buddhism]] from a guy who said that there is no [[sense]] in aiming for [[Nirvana]] because its just [[atheistic]] anihilation. And some [[people]] don't like that [[idea]] and they would instead prefer being [[reborn]] again (even paying the price of [[suffering]] but hoping for better [[rebirths]] that will make up for it) xD
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:26am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:26am • Like
  
−
Greg Goode: Most of the folks I know who cherry-pick from the traditions like that tend to privilege scientific materialism as their master philosophy. The spiritual teachings get pasted on over that. So they are mostly interested in the momentary psychological, therapeutic benefits they can get from the teachings.
+
Greg Goode: Most of the folks I know who cherry-pick from the [[traditions]] like that tend to privilege [[scientific]] {{Wiki|materialism}} as their [[master]] [[philosophy]]. The [[spiritual]] teachings get pasted on over that. So they are mostly [[interested]] in the momentary [[psychological]], {{Wiki|therapeutic}} benefits they can get from the teachings.
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:27am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:27am • Like • 1
  
−
Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: If most of the folks I knew were materialistic ... I would change of place (lol)
+
Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: If most of the folks I knew were {{Wiki|materialistic}} ... I would change of place (lol)
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:29am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:29am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: Sometimes its just the egotic urge to be seen and view oneself as a spiritual person that practices various practices and knows many schools of thought. So yeah - the reasons for this cherry-picking can be even more primitive ^^
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Sometimes its just the egotic [[urge]] to be seen and [[view]] oneself as a [[spiritual]] [[person]] that practices various practices and [[knows]] many schools of [[thought]]. So yeah - the [[reasons]] for this cherry-picking can be even more primitive ^^
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:29am • Like • 2
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:29am • Like • 2
  
−
Greg Goode: "Nightstand Buddhists"
+
Greg Goode: "Nightstand [[Buddhists]]"
 
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-nightstand-buddhist.htm...
 
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-nightstand-buddhist.htm...
  
−
What is a Nightstand Buddhist?  
+
What is a Nightstand [[Buddhist]]?  
 
www.wisegeek.com
 
www.wisegeek.com
−
Brief and Straightforward Guide: What is a Nightstand Buddhist?
+
Brief and Straightforward [[Guide]]: What is a Nightstand [[Buddhist]]?
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:30am • Like • 1 • Remove Preview
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:30am • Like • 1 • Remove Preview
  
−
Magnus Tigerschiöld: Robert Dominik "atheistic annihilation" have nothing to do with Buddhism except as complete misunderstanding by westerners.
+
Magnus Tigerschiöld: [[Robert Dominik]] "[[atheistic]] {{Wiki|annihilation}}" have nothing to do with [[Buddhism]] except as complete {{Wiki|misunderstanding}} by westerners.
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:32am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:32am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: About perennialism... we can say thanks to theosophy  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: About perennialism... we can say thanks to [[theosophy]]
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:32am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:32am • Like • 1
  
−
Malcolm Smith: My comments sound more grim than I intended -- while it is true that I don't hold out that much respect for scientific materialism aka physicalism, it is better people who adhere to such beliefs do something (like yoga, vipassana, etc.) then do nothing.
+
Malcolm Smith: My comments [[sound]] more grim than I intended -- while it is true that I don't hold out that much [[respect]] for [[scientific]] {{Wiki|materialism}} aka {{Wiki|physicalism}}, it is better [[people]] who adhere to such [[beliefs]] do something (like [[yoga]], [[vipassana]], etc.) then do nothing.
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:33am • Unlike • 6
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:33am • Unlike • 6
  
−
Robert Dominik: Didn't say it has anything to do Magnus. But Malcolm suggested that lack of rebirth (as in materialistic atheism... but there are some atheists who are not following any tradition who do believe in rebirth but let's put them aside) means automatical Ni...See More
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Didn't say it has anything to do Magnus. But Malcolm suggested that lack of [[rebirth]] (as in {{Wiki|materialistic}} {{Wiki|atheism}}... but there are some {{Wiki|atheists}} who are not following any [[tradition]] who do believe in [[rebirth]] but let's put them aside) means automatical Ni...See More
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:37am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:37am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: Let us remember that many sceintific materialists are born because of great satisfaction with traditional religion and its dark side: stakes, crusades, Inquisition, extremists, religious wars. Even people calling themselves (not neccessarily being) bud...See More
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Let us remember that many sceintific {{Wiki|materialists}} are born because of great [[satisfaction]] with [[traditional]] [[religion]] and its dark side: stakes, crusades, Inquisition, extremists, [[religious]] [[wars]]. Even [[people]] calling themselves (not neccessarily being) bud...See More
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:41am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:41am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: It is especially easy for the kids in the west to turn to scientific materialism after dissatisfaction with contemporary religion. But I'm talking now only from my experience because I had such a moment in my life during late mid school and early high school.
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: It is especially easy for the kids in the [[west]] to turn to [[scientific]] {{Wiki|materialism}} after [[dissatisfaction]] with contemporary [[religion]]. But I'm talking now only from my [[experience]] because I had such a [[moment]] in my [[life]] during late mid school and early high school.
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:42am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 12:42am • Like
  
−
Ed Cooper: Ok - I think im getting a flavour of where people art coming from now. If you dont believe in rebirth your a spiritual hedonist diluting the traditions?! - if I dont believe in rebirth whats the point?! - The fact is some westerner adopt these teachin...See More
+
Ed Cooper: Ok - I think im getting a {{Wiki|flavour}} of where [[people]] [[art]] coming from now. If you dont believe in [[rebirth]] your a [[spiritual]] {{Wiki|hedonist}} diluting the [[traditions]]?! - if I dont believe in [[rebirth]] whats the point?! - The fact is some westerner adopt these teachin...See More
  
−
Bloom's Taxonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
+
Bloom's Taxonomy - Wikipedia, the free {{Wiki|encyclopedia}}
 
en.wikipedia.org
 
en.wikipedia.org
−
Bloom's Taxonomy is a classification of learning objectives within education pro...See More
+
Bloom's Taxonomy is a {{Wiki|classification}} of {{Wiki|learning}} objectives within [[education]] pro...See More
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:24am • Like • Remove Preview
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:24am • Like • Remove Preview
  
−
Robert Dominik: if I dont believe in rebirth whats the point?! <- It depends on how do you understand rebirth.
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: if I dont believe in [[rebirth]] whats the point?! It depends on how do you understand [[rebirth]].
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:26am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:26am • Like
 
    
 
    
−
Robert Dominik: If you dont believe in rebirth your a spiritual hedonist diluting the traditions?! <- Geeeez I knew that the comments from above would trigger such a reaction  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: If you dont believe in [[rebirth]] your a [[spiritual]] {{Wiki|hedonist}} diluting the [[traditions]]?! Geeeez I knew that the comments from above would trigger such a {{Wiki|reaction}}
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:28am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:28am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: Saying that all traditions are the same is like saying that all the models of how our solar system works are the same. Now think about heliocentric and geocentric model It's true that since movement is relative one could argue that the Sun revolves around the Earth (not the other way around) but... simply heliocentric way of looking at how our solar system works is more pragmatical ^^
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Saying that all [[traditions]] are the same is like saying that all the models of how our {{Wiki|solar system}} works are the same. Now think about {{Wiki|heliocentric}} and geocentric model It's true that since {{Wiki|movement}} is [[relative]] one could argue that the {{Wiki|Sun}} revolves around the [[Earth]] (not the other way around) but... simply {{Wiki|heliocentric}} way of looking at how our {{Wiki|solar system}} works is more pragmatical ^^
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:30am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:30am • Like • 1
  
−
Robert Dominik: But real PR0s know that heliocentric model is still flawed because the Sun is in fact moving because our Galaxy rotates. Then other galaxies are moving and the cosmos is inflating  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: But real PR0s know that {{Wiki|heliocentric}} model is still flawed because the {{Wiki|Sun}} is in fact moving because our {{Wiki|Galaxy}} rotates. Then other {{Wiki|galaxies}} are moving and the [[cosmos]] is inflating  
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:31am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:31am • Like • 1
  
−
Robert Dominik: So what I'm getting at is that we are all trying to describe how does the Universe work. But some systems are more practical and more useful than others ^^
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: So what I'm getting at is that we are all trying to describe how does the [[Universe]] work. But some systems are more {{Wiki|practical}} and more useful than others ^^
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:32am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:32am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: So we have two different approaches. One says that all traditions and religions are entirely different. It is not true because there are some similiraties - the clarity aspect, the need for compassion found in many systems etc. The other says that ever...See More
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: So we have two different approaches. One says that all [[traditions]] and [[religions]] are entirely different. It is not true because there are some similiraties - the clarity aspect, the need for [[compassion]] found in many systems etc. The other says that ever...See More
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:36am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:36am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: Or another metaphor for you Ed Cooper. Spiritual traditions are like cars. The mechanisms might be simillar - most have 4 wheels, engine, driving wheel etc. But tell me wouldn't you see any difference between Bugatti Veyron and Toyota Prius? XD And let us remember - there are cars which can go crosscountry and reach some places that other cars cannot Hope I've been helpful and my comments were of use to you  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Or another {{Wiki|metaphor}} for you Ed Cooper. [[Spiritual traditions]] are like cars. The mechanisms might be simillar - most have 4 [[wheels]], engine, driving [[wheel]] etc. But tell me wouldn't you see any difference between Bugatti Veyron and Toyota Prius? XD And let us remember - there are cars which can go crosscountry and reach some places that other cars cannot {{Wiki|Hope}} I've been helpful and my comments were of use to you  
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:39am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:39am • Like
 
    
 
    
−
Ed Cooper: Ha! buddhism - you make it sound like its one system! - find me two buddhist that are in complete agreement about theory and practice!? seriously! - my sense is that its just not like that.
+
Ed Cooper: Ha! [[buddhism ]]- you make it [[sound]] like its one system! - find me two [[buddhist]] that are in complete agreement about {{Wiki|theory}} and [[practice]]!? seriously! - my [[sense]] is that its just not like that.
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:41am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:41am • Like
  
−
Ed Cooper: yeah Robert but if i wanted to know what a generic car was I might compare the two to get a sense of what is fundemental to a car and what is specific to a model!
+
Ed Cooper: yeah Robert but if i wanted to know what a generic car was I might compare the two to get a [[sense]] of what is fundemental to a car and what is specific to a model!
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:44am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:44am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: Yeah - you're right. There is buddhism and then there is buddhism ^^ // But please do remember that there are people who are trying to apply emptiness teachings out of the buddhist context (stripping away ceremonies and things that may appear useless to some people).
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: Yeah - you're right. There is [[buddhism]] and then there is [[buddhism ]]^^ // But please do remember that there are [[people]] who are trying to apply [[emptiness]] teachings out of the [[buddhist]] context (stripping away {{Wiki|ceremonies}} and things that may appear useless to some [[people]]).
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:46am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:46am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: All traditions have single purpose - that is stripping away all the concepts and useless intellectual mind games to be left only with what is true. That's true for most of the traditions.
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: All [[traditions]] have single {{Wiki|purpose}} - that is stripping away all the [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] and useless [[intellectual]] [[mind]] games to be left only with what is true. That's true for most of the [[traditions]].
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:49am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:49am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: But I think that most of the traditions do not reach the end of this road of deconstructing concepts. Most of them like Advaita Vedanta are still left with some concepts and reifications at the end of the road. I would argue that only Buddhist schools (and not all of them) reach this goal of transcending all concepts, meanings and perspectives.
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: But I think that most of the [[traditions]] do not reach the end of this road of deconstructing [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]]. Most of them like [[Advaita Vedanta]] are still left with some [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] and reifications at the end of the road. I would argue that only [[Buddhist]] schools (and not all of them) reach this goal of transcending all [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]], meanings and perspectives.
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:51am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:51am • Like • 1
  
−
Robert Dominik: But some concepts are so, so very subtle... Many people reach states of mind where they are free of most of the concepts but are left with some very subtle notions. They cannot see them in similar manner that people who are completely ignorant of spiri...See More
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: But some [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] are so, so very {{Wiki|subtle}}... Many [[people]] reach [[states of mind]] where they are free of most of the [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] but are left with some very {{Wiki|subtle}} notions. They cannot see them in similar [[manner]] that [[people]] who are completely [[ignorant]] of spiri...See More
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Like
  
−
Dhruval Patel: Ed Cooper Of course the conservative traditions are models of reality not reality.  
+
Dhruval Patel: Ed Cooper Of course the conservative [[traditions]] are models of [[reality]] not [[reality]].  
  
 
However models can be functional or dysfunctional to various degrees.
 
However models can be functional or dysfunctional to various degrees.
  
−
The problem with post-modernist views is that although there is sort of a conceptual emptiness, too often it goes to the extreme of denying the functional importance of concepts altogether.
+
The problem with post-modernist [[views]] is that although there is sort of a {{Wiki|conceptual}} [[emptiness]], too often it goes to the extreme of denying the functional importance of [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] altogether.
  
−
So from that viewpoint it can seem quite elitist and uncouth to insist on a particular model or have high standards for spiritual realization.  
+
So from that viewpoint it can seem quite elitist and uncouth to insist on a particular model or have high standards for [[spiritual]] [[realization]].  
  
−
But consider that the function of these models is to lead practitioners to a realization that can completely eradicate suffering.
+
But consider that the [[function]] of these models is to lead practitioners to a [[realization]] that can completely eradicate [[suffering]].
  
−
The concern is that sometimes in the attempts to assuage very human needs for acceptance and belonging, the concepts gets diluted to the extent where they are no longer functional in eradicating suffering completely.
+
The [[concern]] is that sometimes in the attempts to assuage very [[human]] needs for [[acceptance]] and belonging, the [[Wikipedia:concept|concepts]] gets diluted to the extent where they are no longer functional in eradicating [[suffering]] completely.
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Like • 1
  
−
Ed Cooper: 'stripping away ceremonies and things that may appear useless to some people'- that sounds like insolent talk of a lokayatis or dare i say it a charvakas (spits on ground)  
+
Ed Cooper: 'stripping away {{Wiki|ceremonies}} and things that may appear useless to some [[people]]'- that {{Wiki|sounds}} like insolent talk of a lokayatis or dare i say it a [[charvakas]] (spits on ground)  
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:55am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:55am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: But please note that many of us in this group have studied different schools outside of buddhism so when they are saying that buddhism points to something different... it's not just opinions based on no experiental knowledge  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: But please note that many of us in this group have studied different schools outside of [[buddhism]] so when they are saying that [[buddhism]] points to something different... it's not just opinions based on no experiental [[knowledge]]
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:55am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 1:55am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: that sounds like insolent talk of a lokayatis or dare i say it a charvakas (spits on ground) <- You would like Chogyam Trungpa He was a holder of two famous buddhist lineages (of Tibetan Buddhism) Kagyu and Nyingma He had very liberal approach to...See More
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: that {{Wiki|sounds}} like insolent talk of a lokayatis or dare i say it a [[charvakas]] (spits on ground) You would like [[Chogyam Trungpa]] He was a holder of two famous [[buddhist]] [[lineages]] (of [[Tibetan Buddhism]]) [[Kagyu]] and [[Nyingma]] He had very liberal approach to...See More
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:01am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:01am • Like
  
−
Ed Cooper: Thanks Dhurval - yes good to keep an eye on the prize. Although I think that an abiility to cross reference a teaching, and understand it outside of its traditional context actually strengthens what is of value while removing what isnt. - Sure the conservative would say the stricter and pure'r the better. Which would be great if I lived a few centuries ago in tibet but I dont.
+
Ed Cooper: Thanks Dhurval - yes good to keep an [[eye]] on the prize. Although I think that an abiility to cross reference a [[teaching]], and understand it outside of its [[traditional]] context actually strengthens what is of value while removing what isnt. - Sure the conservative would say the stricter and pure'r the better. Which would be great if I lived a few centuries ago in [[tibet]] but I dont.
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:03am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:03am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: You have a point. But who is skilled enough to decide which things are worth removing and which are of value? You? Me? Please remember that Buddhist masters are not some lunatics who aren't aware of that problem  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: You have a point. But who is [[skilled]] enough to decide which things are worth removing and which are of value? You? Me? Please remember that [[Buddhist masters]] are not some {{Wiki|lunatics}} who aren't {{Wiki|aware}} of that problem  
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:07am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:07am • Like
  
−
Robert Dominik: And I say that many of those masters are quite into advanced technologies and aren't rejecting modern culture. So comparing modern buddhism to Tibet from centuries ago is doing baseless harm. For example modern technologies (like internet webcasts) are applied by some masters in order to do transmissions of some practices and teachings. Doesn't sound like medieval Tibet  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: And I say that many of those [[masters]] are quite into advanced technologies and aren't rejecting {{Wiki|modern}} {{Wiki|culture}}. So comparing {{Wiki|modern}} [[buddhism]] to [[Tibet]] from centuries ago is doing baseless harm. For example {{Wiki|modern}} technologies (like internet webcasts) are applied by some [[masters]] in order to do [[transmissions]] of some practices and teachings. Doesn't [[sound]] like {{Wiki|medieval}} [[Tibet]]
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:09am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:09am • Like
  
−
Ed Cooper: doing baseless harm No I was just saying you couldnt do as much cross referencing a while back in Tibet, you just turn up to the monastery and do what your told! - still I guess you had your different schools, but I dont know how keen they were on shopping around between them?
+
Ed Cooper: doing baseless harm No I was just saying you couldnt do as much cross referencing a while back in [[Tibet]], you just turn up to the [[monastery]] and do what your told! - still I guess you had your different schools, but I dont know how keen they were on shopping around between them?
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:15am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 2:15am • Like
  
−
Dhruval Patel: It is wonderful to distill the value of the teachings and present it in different ways to make them more accessible so they can benefit more people.
+
Dhruval Patel: It is wonderful to distill the value of the teachings and {{Wiki|present}} it in different ways to make them more accessible so they can [[benefit]] more [[people]].
  
−
However in attempts to distill that of value people often end up misunderstanding the teachings and diluting their value.  
+
However in attempts to distill that of value [[people]] often end up {{Wiki|misunderstanding}} the teachings and diluting their value.  
  
−
Further in thinking that they have successfully distilled value from the tradition, they end up confusing and misleading a lot of people.
+
Further in [[thinking]] that they have successfully distilled value from the [[tradition]], they end up confusing and misleading a lot of [[people]].
  
−
Two common examples of confusion about buddhist teachings in spiritual circles:  
+
Two common examples of [[confusion]] about [[buddhist teachings]] in [[spiritual]] circles:  
−
1) that No-self is pointing to no little 'me' but yes True Self.
+
1) that [[No-self]] is pointing to no little 'me' but yes [[True Self]].
−
2) Or that Emptiness is just the flip side of Oneness.
+
2) Or that [[Emptiness]] is just the flip side of [[Oneness]].
  
−
These are common confusions, very easy to make. Unless someone point them out very clearly. And can become quite a big hindrance to realizing No-self or Emptiness.
+
These are common confusions, very easy to make. Unless someone point them out very clearly. And can become quite a big [[hindrance]] to [[realizing]] [[No-self]] or [[Emptiness]].
  
−
Then again I might not have been exposed to any of these teachings and subsequently befitted from them at all if someone hadn't made an attempt to distill the value and present them in accordance with a more contemporary context and scientific world view.
+
Then again I might not have been exposed to any of these teachings and subsequently befitted from them at all if someone hadn't made an attempt to distill the value and {{Wiki|present}} them in accordance with a more contemporary context and [[scientific]] {{Wiki|world view}}.
  
−
So I see your point as well. Maybe there is room for both sorts in this world.
+
So I see your point as well. Maybe there is room for both sorts in this [[world]].
 
June 4, 2013 at 3:14am • Like • 1
 
June 4, 2013 at 3:14am • Like • 1
  
Line 767: Line 768:
 
Dhruval Patel: Greg Goode,  
 
Dhruval Patel: Greg Goode,  
  
−
For #2 eg. Ken Wilber often lumps Mahayana and Adivaita style non-duality together. And uses the terminology interchangeably. Here is something I found on google that has citations...
+
For #2 eg. Ken Wilber often lumps [[Mahayana]] and Adivaita style [[non-duality]] together. And uses the {{Wiki|terminology}} interchangeably. Here is something I found on google that has citations...
  
 
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/atman_fiasco.html
 
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/atman_fiasco.html
  
−
For #1 I can't find a clear citation, but I do see a lot of New Age gurus eg Tolle, in the New Earth reinterpret Buddhist teachings through the lens of Self-realizaiton. And this then leads to confusion.
+
For #1 I can't find a clear citation, but I do see a lot of {{Wiki|New Age}} [[gurus]] eg Tolle, in the New [[Earth]] reinterpret [[Buddhist teachings]] through the lens of Self-realizaiton. And this then leads to [[confusion]].
−
The Atman Fiasco  
+
The [[Atman]] Fiasco  
 
www.kheper.net
 
www.kheper.net
−
The Atman Project( 1 ) is the central Wilber's book, the fount ( with the possib...See More
+
The [[Atman]] Project( 1 ) is the central Wilber's [[book]], the fount ( with the possib...See More
 
June 4, 2013 at 4:45am • Like • 1 • Remove Preview
 
June 4, 2013 at 4:45am • Like • 1 • Remove Preview
  
−
Robert Dominik: you just turn up to the monastery and do what your told! <- why go to a monastery if you just want to do whatever you like? ^^  
+
[[Robert Dominik]]: you just turn up to the [[monastery]] and do what your told! why go to a [[monastery]] if you just want to do whatever you like? ^^  
  
−
But srsly from what I know it is not exactly like that. Sure there are many approved techniques and teachings + many things that cannot be done in any other way (because then the practice would missed the point). So things aren't so rigid. Working with circumstances, being in the present and accomodating to the situation are very important throughout various schools.
+
But srsly from what I know it is not exactly like that. Sure there are many approved techniques and teachings + many things that cannot be done in any other way (because then the [[practice]] would missed the point). So things aren't so rigid. Working with circumstances, being in the {{Wiki|present}} and accomodating to the situation are very important throughout various schools.
  
−
Also in some monasteries (not in all - remember that there are monasteries which are really like factories/plants of enlightened beings and there are also places in which people just pray and do some rituals + recite teachings they do not really grasp the meaning of <- there are different buddhist monasteries) there is room for some liberties or variations. For example teachers accomodate their teaching to the capacity and understanding of their students.  
+
Also in some [[monasteries]] (not in all - remember that there are [[monasteries]] which are really like factories/plants of [[enlightened beings]] and there are also places in which [[people]] just pray and do some [[rituals]] + recite teachings they do not really [[grasp]] the meaning of there are different [[buddhist]] [[monasteries]]) there is room for some liberties or variations. For example [[teachers]] accomodate their [[teaching]] to the capacity and [[understanding]] of their students.  
  
−
It all differs between various schools. Some lower vehicles prefer path of renunciation - abiding vows, doing everything according to rules and precepts and avoiding behaviour regarded as unskillful. Zen for example was often about a little bit of originality and freestyle (but not only - Zazen, Zazen, Zazen :P) - masters slapping students, teachers going to jail only to help people there by spreading dharma message etc. Tantra prefers transformation - not avoiding some actions but transforming them for the purpose of insight and purification. And then there is Dzogchen where people have to be responsible for themselves with their actions - though they have a set of teachings and practices (which are efficient and sufficient :P) and achieve the goal through the means of self-liberation. So Buddhism varies from a school to school. But the basics are very important - among them anatta which is characteristic to buddhism. That's why we are so insinstent on regarding buddhism as not exactly the same as let's say Taoism. Because of Anatta which is quite specific and very profound. But let us remember that many schools argue about topic connected to anatta. For example Yogacara does not agree with various other schools  
+
It all differs between various schools. Some lower vehicles prefer [[path]] of [[renunciation]] - abiding [[vows]], doing everything according to {{Wiki|rules}} and [[precepts]] and avoiding {{Wiki|behaviour}} regarded as [[unskillful]]. [[Zen]] for example was often about a little bit of originality and freestyle (but not only - [[Zazen]], [[Zazen]], [[Zazen]] :P) - [[masters]] slapping students, [[teachers]] going to jail only to help [[people]] there by spreading [[dharma]] message etc. [[Tantra]] prefers [[transformation]] - not avoiding some [[actions]] but [[transforming]] them for the {{Wiki|purpose}} of [[insight]] and [[purification]]. And then there is [[Dzogchen]] where [[people]] have to be responsible for themselves with their [[actions]] - though they have a set of teachings and practices (which are efficient and sufficient :P) and achieve the goal through the means of [[self-liberation]]. So [[Buddhism]] varies from a school to school. But the basics are very important - among them [[anatta]] which is [[characteristic]] to [[buddhism]]. That's why we are so insinstent on regarding [[buddhism]] as not exactly the same as let's say [[Taoism]]. Because of [[Anatta]] which is quite specific and very profound. But let us remember that many schools argue about topic connected to [[anatta]]. For example [[Yogacara]] does not agree with various other schools  
 
June 4, 2013 at 4:55am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 4:55am • Like
  
−
Greg Goode: Dhruval, Ah, yes, Wilber. Good example of (2), and probably has traces of (1) too....
+
Greg Goode: Dhruval, [[Ah]], yes, Wilber. Good example of (2), and probably has traces of (1) too....
 
June 4, 2013 at 5:07am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 5:07am • Like
 
    
 
    
−
Malcolm Smith: Non-duality has two versions in Buddhism: version 1) taught in Yogacara is that emptiness is the absence of subject and object. version 2) Taught in Madhyamaka: emptiness is the absence of ontological pairs such existence/non-existence; permanence/annihilation, arising/ceasing and so on. Both schemes are attempts at working out what the Buddha meant by dependent origination.
+
Malcolm Smith: [[Non-duality]] has two versions in [[Buddhism]]: version 1) [[taught]] in [[Yogacara]] is that [[emptiness]] is the absence of [[subject]] and [[object]]. version 2) [[Taught]] in [[Madhyamaka]]: [[emptiness]] is the absence of [[Wikipedia:Ontology|ontological]] pairs such existence/non-existence; permanence/annihilation, arising/ceasing and so on. Both schemes are attempts at working out what the [[Buddha]] meant by [[dependent origination]].
 
June 4, 2013 at 6:41am • Unlike • 5
 
June 4, 2013 at 6:41am • Unlike • 5
  
−
Lindsay Funk: Dhruval says: " a lot of New Age gurus eg Tolle, in the New Earth reinterpret Buddhist teachings through the lens of Self-realizaiton."
+
Lindsay Funk: Dhruval says: " a lot of {{Wiki|New Age}} [[gurus]] eg Tolle, in the New [[Earth]] reinterpret [[Buddhist teachings]] through the lens of Self-realizaiton."
  
−
Tolle spent time contextualizing his realization with Ajaan Sumedho. Tolle, Sumedho and most of the Thai Forest tradition (for example) have initerpretations that most here would label essentialist.
+
Tolle spent [[time]] contextualizing his [[realization]] with [[Ajaan]] Sumedho. Tolle, Sumedho and most of the [[Thai Forest tradition]] (for example) have initerpretations that most here would label essentialist.
 
June 4, 2013 at 6:56am • Like
 
June 4, 2013 at 6:56am • Like
  
−
Malcolm Smith: Theravada, from a general Mahāyāna perspective has a strongly realist streak in it, like all the Nikaya schools.
+
Malcolm Smith: [[Theravada]], from a general [[Mahāyāna]] {{Wiki|perspective}} has a strongly realist streak in it, like all the [[Nikaya]] schools.
 
June 4, 2013 at 6:58am • Unlike • 2
 
June 4, 2013 at 6:58am • Unlike • 2
  
−
Wei Yu: I'm not sure if Sumedho is essentialist in the Tolle sense (i.e. treats Awareness as substantial)? Haven't looked into his works, but I do agree that many masters from Thai Forest Tradition teachings are close to Advaita.
+
Wei Yu: I'm not sure if Sumedho is essentialist in the Tolle [[sense]] (i.e. treats [[Awareness]] as substantial)? Haven't looked into his works, but I do agree that many [[masters]] from [[Thai Forest Tradition]] teachings are close to [[Advaita]].
 
</poem>
 
</poem>
 
{{R}}
 
{{R}}
 
[http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/how-luminosity-clarity-and-clear-light.html dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com.au]
 
[http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/how-luminosity-clarity-and-clear-light.html dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com.au]
 
[[Category:Śūnyatā]]
 
[[Category:Śūnyatā]]

Latest revision as of 04:11, 4 April 2016

Ksitigarbha 7.jpg
Efault.jpg
Msdnfluiu.jpg
Enhaxcv76-46.jpg
Amitabha-3.jpg
10.jpg
3270 dium.jpg
Tumblr mul8svXbWl1sy36u2o1 500.jpg
Migyur Namkhe Dorje.jpg
Shera gritz1.jpg
Youcx7ow11.jpg
Hotei in Thailand.JPG
Sherab Chamma.jpg
Grea n1.jpg
Cha5dhist.jpg
Teps one bow.jpg
Ksitigarbha-es30.jpg
Mesate.JPG
973(2).jpg
866hj.jpg
Yh4j4s c.jpg
Babhaha s.JPG
14 - 1x.JPG
2006Dzs1.jpg
Chod2321222.jpg
294076532211.jpg
Samadhi.jpg
Ha-14147.jpg
Kuh0019.JPG
6b63cdd.jpeg
Ksitigarbha Bo.jpeg
2nnge.jpg
3599281327 37b.jpg
Babfall2006b.jpg
754591627.jpg
Tripitaka-78.jpg
4-do-no.jpg
Kuh0102.JPG
2hj-and-m.jpeg
7003efd.jpg
Saihouji-kokedera01.jpg
Z4ini(5)x.jpg
Fifth dalai lama21.jpg
GaerPG.JPG
Guru-Mong.JPG
4GuruParampara.jpg
Eyes1.jpg
Ladakh.jpg
KailashTanka.JPG
St travel 1.jpg
Nakshatras-moon.jpg
B8fsfs.jpg
820084 n.jpg
N power.jpg
EarLobes.jpg
GRh42ru's 4.JPG
Ysics1.jpg
Buddhist-nuns-debate.jpg
Urlhhj.jpg
A-in-california.jpg

 Robert Dominik:
From [[Garma C.C. Chang's "The Buddhist Teaching of Totality. The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism.": One day Empress Wu asked Fa Tsang the following question: Reverend Master, I understand that man's knowledge is acquired through two approaches: one is by experience, the direct approach,and the other by inference, the indirect approach. I also understand that the first five consciousnesses and the Alaya only take the direct approach; whereas, the mind, or the sixth consciousness, can take both. Therefore, the findings of the conscious mind are not always trustworthy. The superiority and reliability of direct experience over indirect inference is taught in many scriptures. You have explained the Hwa Yen Doctrine to me with great clarity and ingenuity; sometimes I can almost 'See the vast Dharmadhatu in my mind's eye, and touch a few spots here and there in the great Totality. But all this, I realize, is merely indirect conjecture or guesswork. One cannot really understand Totality in an immediate sense before reaching Enlightenment. With your genius, however, I wonder whether you can give me a demonstration that will reveal the mystery of the Dharmadhatu including such wonders as the "all in one" and the "one in all," the simultaneous arising of all realms, the interpenetration and containment of all dharmas, the Non-Obstruction of space and time, and the like? After taking thought for a while, Fa Tsang said, "I shall try, your Majesty. The demonstration will ·be prepared very soon."

A few days later Fa Tsang came to the Empress and said, "Your Majesty, I am now ready. Please come with me to a place where the demonstration will be given." He then led the Empress into a room lined with mirrors. On the ceiling and floor, on all four walls, and even in the four corners of the room were fixed huge mirrors-all facing one another. Then Fa Tsang produced an image of Buddha and ·placed it in the center of the room with a burning torch beside it. "Oh, how fantastic! How marvelous!" cried the Empress as she gazed at this aweinspiring panorama of infinite interreflections. Slowly and calmly Fa Tsang addressed her: Your Majesty, this is a demonstration of Totality in the Dharmadhatu.

In each and every mirror within this room you will find the reflections of all the other mirrors with the Buddha's image in
them. And in each and every reflection of any mirror you will find all the reflections of all the other mirrors, together with the specific Buddha image in each, without omission or misplacement. The principle of interpenetration and containment is clearly shown by this demonstration. Right here we see an example of one in all and all in one-the mystery of realm embracing realm ad infinitum is thus revealed. The principle of the simultaneous arising -of different realms is so obvious here that no explanation is necessary. These infinite reflections of different realms now simultaneously arise without the slightest effort; they just naturally do so in a perfectly harmonious way. . . .

As for the principle of the non-obstruction of space, it can be demonstrated in this manner . . . (saying which, he took a crystal ball from his sleeve and placed it in the palm of his hand) . Your Majesty, now we see all the mirrors and their reflections within this small crystal ball. Here we have an example of the small containing the large as well as of the large containing the small. This is a demonstration of the non-obstruction of "sizes," or space. As for the non-obstruction of times, the past entering the future and the future entering the past cannot be shown in this demonstration, because this is, after all, a static one, lacking the dynamic quality of the temporal elements. A demonstration of the non-obstruction of times, and of time and space, is indeed difficult to arrange by ordinary means. One must reach a different level to be capable of witnessing a "demonstration" such as that. But in any case, your Majesty, I hope this simple demonstration has served its purpose to your satisfaction.


Wei Yu, Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, Albert Hong and 12 others like this.

Jackson Peterson: This is perfectly the holographic nature of the universe and all reality. That's exactly how its experienced here at times.


Jackson Peterson: Great picture Albert Hong!


Robert Dominik: Holographic nature of the universe is only a model sugessted in physics that isn't sufficient to describe how reality works (and it is the way things work that no model ever will be). Still it is quite useful for the purpose of communication and I also like to share such knowledge with people who may not be rady for studying buddhism themselves and practising but could use a little interesting information about the miraculous universe


Robert Dominik: Book is only a book and certainly experiental insight is of more value than speculations and descriptions but when I was reading this book some time ago I found a valuable excerpt that may be useful when talking with people about the Universe (when I was younger I was thinking about the problems mentioned here in numbers 2 and 3). Here it is:

Garma C.C. Chang's "The Buddhist Teaching of Totality. The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism.":

"(...)we have found that the Totality and Non-Obstruction of Buddhahood are expressed in these terms:

1. That a universe can be infinitely vast or small depending on the scale of measurement, or the position from which a measurement is made.

2. That the "larger" universes include the "smaller" ones as a solar system contains its planets, or a planet contains its atoms. This system of higher realms embracing the lower ones is pictured in a structure extending ad infinitum in both directions to the infinitely large or the infinitely small. This is called in the Hwa Yen vocabulary the view of realms-embracing-realms.

3. That a "small" universe, (such as an atom) not only contains the infinite "lesser" universes within itself, but also contains the infinite "larger" universes (such as the solar system), thus establishing the genuine Totality of Non-Obstruction.

4. That "time" has lost its meaning as merely a concept for measuring the flow of events in the past, present, and future. It has now become an element of Totality which actualizes the total interpenetration and containment of all the events of past, present, and future in the eternal present.

5. Upon the grand stage of the infinite Dharmadhatu, countless various dramas of religion are being enacted in numerous dimensions of space/time throughout eternity.
10 hours ago · Like · 5

Wei Yu: Thusness: Is your experience beingness or maha suchness? (comments: on the term 'maha suchness' see http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html) Then in the most ordinary and mundane activities, every action is fully exerted.

Me: Yes, it is like universe activity... not drop of water dissolved into static beingness but oceanic activity in which drop and ocean is seamlessly arising.

Thusness: No sense of beingness anymore... that is good. Rather it is this maha suchness of total exertion in this immediate moment... yet empty. Mature this experience. Feel this maha suchness... until it becomes as natural as breathing.

Now you know the difference? Tell me the difference between anatta and this experience and what is exactly obscuring the smooth progress to this insight and experience?

Me: The dualistic agent may be gone but maha requires the replacement of inherent view with D.O. so that when you see this, you see that... you see everything as entirely seamless self-arising activity. Not just this but how this arise without self, this is, that is.

Thusness: Well said. First you must be left with only manifestation. Solely that. Then into the general (principle of] D.O. Before that, there is this mini sense of activity but will not be thorough. But you must make this a continuous practice and keep integrating the view of general D.O. to replace dualistic and inherent framework. Till even this view is also forgotten.

p.s. Yesterday a dream of clarity arose in conjunction with Thusness's visions and meditative experiences (due to karmic links this is not the first time it happened) regarding a drop of water placed in an ocean, upon hearing this phrase in the dream there was an immediate shift where dream dawns as non-dual clear light (without the dream dissolving into formless clear light) which is free from subject/object duality, boundless/oceanic, vividly intense, blissful and exhilarating.
7 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2

Wei Yu: I like this thread on Hua Yen... will be posting to my blog. Thanks for sharing.
8 hours ago · Like · 4

Jackson Peterson: I have found as transparent openness, the entire field is without obstruction, shimmering luminosity without possibility of reification and with no borders dividing this or that. The vividness of experience is its nature without an observer. The vividness of experience with an observer is also its nature. Nothing needs correcting. Empty as it already is, its left however it is. Reified and seemingly solid, its left as its own emptiness, just as it is. Meddling with what is, is also what it is!
6 hours ago via mobile · Like

Wei Yu: The nature of experience is fundamentally empty of any self or observer to begin with. There never has been a self, never is, never will be. The deluded sense of an observer however arises due to afflictive dependent origination with ignorance and karmic tendencies as cause. Wisdom of twofold emptiness actualized liberates such ignorance, no other means or effort actually works. (just like no amount of trying to force out the irrational fear of monster actually works - one only needs to turn on the lights and see there isn't any)

Even trying to "let things be as they are" remains a delusion if there is still the sense of an "I" that is "letting things be".
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2

Wei Yu: The nature is emptiness, emptiness means empty of self, emptiness of self is twofold. Luminosity is the essence, and all expressions is self-luminous. That luminosity or self-luminous expression is empty by nature, empty of being a subjective perceiver or having objective existence. (p.s. i'm not using Dzogchen terms here, as there are some differences in terminologies the way I use it)
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Wei Yu, exactly. However nothing obstructs this Clear Light Knowing, whatever the condition, its always known just as it is. There is no entity that needs rescuing through a better view or seeing "two-fold emptiness". Two fold emptiness is a description not a cause. Realizing two-fold emptiness releases the intellect from its samsaric journey, but it then enjoys a liberated condition. Its still a "mind" state. i think this is what John is working you through. This is not one's essential nature of pure knowing, the nature of all experience. This pure nature is never conditioned nor bound. It requires only recognizing itself as this pure knowing in your current condition. Your pointing to a method using mind to release mind. I am pointing to a method that points to that which needs no releasing. In this case we use the essence of mind to recognize the essence of mind, the mind then dissolves upon recognition of the "knowing", without working with minds contents at all. We don't have to remove the clouds to discover the sky. By focusing on the clear space of the sky, we discover the sky immediately. Just how its seen here...
6 hours ago via mobile · Like

Wei Yu: Nobody said anything obstructs clear light knowing. I'm saying it is not correct to say that " The vividness of experience with an observer is also its nature."

Vividness of experience is empty of observer by nature, there never has been an observer, ever.
6 hours ago · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: I like this thread on Hua Yen... will be posting to my blog. Thanks for sharing. You're welcome. I recommend the book - it is full of such nice excerpts. Pity though because one day my backpack along with my friend's copy of the book was stolen (due to my lack of mindfulness that day) but I am planning to buy it in a few days. To be honest before coming across the book I had no idea of Hwa Yen. It uses some new terminology, and slightly different concepts and tools than other schools - though its still certainly Mahayana
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 2

Wei Yu: "Your pointing to a method using mind to release mind."

No, first of all if by mind you mean concepts, then obviously it is not. Twofold emptiness is realized as a non-conceptual wisdom and awakening, as the nature of that luminosity. It has nothing to do with mind/concepts/intellect.

On the other hand, I've realized luminosity way before realizing emptiness. Realizing luminosity does not liberate fundamental ignorance that is why it is not a complete realization.
6 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Malcolm Smith: Soh, you cannot realize luminosity before emptiness -- in sutrayāna they are synonyms.
6 hours ago · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: There is no "fundamental ignorance" as there is "no one" that is ignorant. The knowing has no ignorance at any time. What I mean Soh, is what you are advising is excellent! But I am saying one can penetrate directly without addressing the issues of two-fold emptiness. The natural knowing is not lacking some insight. It never strayed into samsara. You really don't get this?
6 hours ago via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Oh my god! I agree with Malcolm!
6 hours ago via mobile · Like

Wei Yu: Malcolm Smith: Very little is spoken about 'luminosity' in sutras like the Prajnaparamita class (other than one vague statement as you know) and I am not sure of how it is defined there.

What I mean by luminosity is the knowing, aware aspect of mind, there is only a pure presence/knowingness - it can manifest as a formless sense of existence or it can also manifest as non-dual sensory experience. This luminosity is not only spoken in Buddhist sutras but also in described in various religions including the upanishads which describes the atman-brahman as self-luminous.

This luminous, knowing aspect can be realized without penetrating its empty nature - not in the sense of formlessness, but empty of any self entity. This is why knowingness can be reified in a wrong way such as what happens in Advaita and certain forms of Shentong.
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Malcolm Smith: Hi Soh, you are talking about citta-ābhāsvarāḥ
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: i.e. monks, the mind is luminous and afflctions roll in; monks the mind is luminous and afflctions roll out.
5 hours ago · Like · 1

Malcolm Smith: the luminosity of citta
5 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: Wei Yu, they then didn't know actual "luminosity". Knowing real Clear Light is knowing its empty nature, that's because the luminosity is itself Wisdom. That wisdom IS the luminosity, yeshe.
5 hours ago via mobile · Like

Malcolm Smith: which really means purity
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: jax, he is not talking about citta prakriti prabhāsvara
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: i.e. the the original nature of luminosity of the mind
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: he is talking about the notion of the mind being inherently free from afflctions
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: that is how citta-ābhāsvarāḥ is used in the Pali canon and so on
5 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith, he is saying that one can realize or recognize the "luminosity" without realizing emptiness. They are inseparable in time or experience.
5 hours ago via mobile · Like

Malcolm Smith: I dont think he intends that
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: he is talking about something else
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: he is talking about clarity, not luminosity
5 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: I thought he said that? No? Wei Yu?
5 hours ago via mobile · Like

Malcolm Smith: he said luminosity, but he means clarity gsal ba, not 'od gsal
5 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: O'dsal is luminosity no?
5 hours ago via mobile · Like

Malcolm Smith: yes, but that is not what he is talking about
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: he is talking about clarity
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: cognizance
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: he is saying that clarity can be recognized without emptiness being realized and that can lead to reification that happens in Advaita, Vedanta in general as well as in gzhan stong
5 hours ago · Like · 1

Malcolm Smith: I also agree with him on that point
5 hours ago · Like · 1

Malcolm Smith: it is easy to recognize clarity and mistake it for being uiltimate
5 hours ago · Like · 3

Wei Yu: Thanks Malcolm for the clarification. Are there different usage of the term luminosity?

e.g. Lama Tony Duff seems to describe prabhåsvara as similar to what you call "clarity".

"Luminosity or illumination, Skt. prabhåsvara, Tib. ’od gsal ba: The core of mind has two aspects: an emptiness factor and a knowing factor. The Buddha and many Indian religious teachers used “luminosity” as a metaphor for the knowing quality of the core of mind. If in English we would say “Mind has a knowing quality”, the teachers of ancient India would say, “Mind has an illuminative quality; it is like a source of light which illuminates what it knows”.

This term been translated as “clear light” but that is a mistake that comes from not understanding the etymology of the word. It does not refer to a light that has the quality of clearness (something that makes no sense, actually!) but to the illuminative property which is the nature of the empty mind.

Note also that in both Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist literature, this term is frequently abbreviated just to Skt. “vara” and Tib. “gsal ba” with no change of meaning. Unfortunately, this has been thought to be another word and it has then been translated with “clarity”, when in fact it is just this term in abbreviation."
5 hours ago · Edited · Like

Malcolm Smith: Hi Soh, I already addressed the errors that Duff makes in his Sanskrit here, if you recall.
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Malcolm Smith: For example, "vara" means a boundary, it is not a short cut for prabhāsvara, etc.
5 hours ago · Like

Wei Yu: Thank you.

Can this clarity be free of subject/object dualism and yet held to be substantial and true existence?
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: This clarity has the quality of svasamvedana (rang gyis rig pa, not the same as rang gi rig pa i.e. one's vidyā), it is self-knowing and so yes, it can be free of subject object dualism. However, as a quality of citta, since the citta is momentary, so is it.
5 hours ago · Like · 4

Wei Yu: Just to confirm: luminosity, the original nature of luminosity of the mind, citta prakriti prabhāsvara, is synonymous with emptiness free of extremes, yes?
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: Yes.
5 hours ago · Like · 1

Malcolm Smith: For example, the 8000 line PP prajñāpāramitā sutra states: "Because the emptiness of the conditioned is naturally luminous, it is pure and totally lacks fundamental afflictions."
5 hours ago · Like · 2

Malcolm Smith: To be more precise, prakriti prabhāsvara is a synonym of emptiness
5 hours ago · Like · 2

Malcolm Smith: For example, it also says ""Because the earth element is naturally luminous, it is pure and totally lacks fundamental afflictions."
5 hours ago · Like · 2

Wei Yu: In a previous thread, you said that Dzogchen does not agree with Gelug's characterization of clear light as momentary, is that right?
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: The Gelugpa make a distinction between ultimate clear light and the mind of clear light, claiming that the latter is a very subtle momentary mind that forms the basis for the continuum of the person.
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: What Mipham disagrees with is the idea that the Gelug mind of clear light, which is momentary, has the same meaning as rigpa.
5 hours ago · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Ok... makes sense all around... We don't have the "I am" in Dzogchen, and I guess Soh is saying that the realization of I Am is realization of Luminosity, but it can be reified as a Self or self. Yes? And also yes sal ba is the clear aspect of sem or alaya.
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: there is a term in Dzogchen called "gnyug ma seems", meaning fundamental mind, which is a syonym of bodhicitta. Because of this, some Gelug influenced Nyingmapas tried to equate the Gelug doctrine with Dzogchen. But gnyug ma sems is completely unconditioned, like bodhicitta.
5 hours ago · Like · 2

Piotr Ludwiński: "I AM" we speak about is pure formless consciousness without cognizer/cognized split that is then reified as mirror dual with phenomena or then one with phenomena. When mirror error is seen through sound is no less "I AM" than that pure formless consciousness and experience is without center.
5 hours ago · Edited · Like

Wei Yu: Is ultimate clear light, fundamental mind, bodhicitta unchanging/non-momentary? What is its characteristics?
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Malcolm Smith: correct. Ultimate clear light, gnyug ma sems, bodhicitta are unchanging and permanent.
5 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1

Wei Yu: And what are its characteristics? The Hindus speak of Atman-Brahman as changeless, etc, how is it different from ultimate clear light?
5 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: Ultimate clear light is emptiness
5 hours ago · Like · 5

Wei Yu: Thanks for the clarifications Very much appreciated...
5 hours ago · Edited · Like

Wei Yu: More qns... is ultimate clear light, fundamental mind and bodhicitta equivalent to rigpa?

Also, is rigpa a state of resting in "total beingness" or is the knowledge actualized as spontaneous self-arising activity?
4 hours ago · Edited · Like

Malcolm Smith: RIg pa is knowledge of one's primordial state, the inseparable clarity and emptiness
4 hours ago · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith, makes good sense. Now I understand what you meant about the Gelugpa view, but the Dalai Lama is not using "Mind of Clear Light" as that "momentary" mind in his book "Dzogchen", but as a "permanent" Fundamental Mind. Is that a unique Dzogchen view in Gelugpa from the Fifth Dalai Lama?
3 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: The Great Fifth's Dzogchen is perfect. There is no fault with it. But the problem with HHDL's book is that he is very much trying to explain Dzogchen to Gelugpas without distinguishing the Gelug view of clear light mind with the notion of 'od gsal gi sems, "luminous mind", etc. in Dzogchen. So when he says that the mind of clear light and rigpa are the same, Gelugs will hear that their presentation of the mind of clear light will agree with Dzogchen, and it does not.
3 hours ago · Edited · Like

Malcolm Smith: See the Great Fifth was an important Rime Master [Like HHDL], and practiced deeply Lamdre as well as Dzogchen, writing seminal and important commentaries in both lineages. If he had a short coming, it was his distaste for Kagyu, and he dismissed Ganden/Kagyu Mahamudra and criticized the First Panchen Lama for being too interested in Kagyu matters.
3 hours ago · Like

Jackson Peterson: Wow, these guys lived such "soap opera drama" lives! Thanks!
3 hours ago · Like

Robert Dominik: If he had a short coming, it was his distaste for Kagyu, and he dismissed Ganden/Kagyu Mahamudra and criticized the First Panchen Lama for being too interested in Kagyu matters. Could you explain in short why was he distasteful for Kagyu?
2 hours ago · Like

Malcolm Smith: Sure, when he was a young man, his government was involved in a major war for control of tibet with supporters of the Karma Kagyu.
2 hours ago · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Clarity means cognizance; vividness; "brightness"; knowingness.
Luminosity is synonymous with two-fold emptiness aka. freedom from extremes.

Rigpa means knowledge of one's beginingless state, inseparable clarity and emptiness. And this is synonymous with clarity and luminosity?

So a space metaphor (clarity – a clearing in the woods) is used for cognizance and a light metaphor (luminosity – the shine or glow of a lamp) is used for two-fold emptiness?

To me this seems backwards. Cognizance seems like sourceless glow and emptiness seems like seamless space. What is the rationale for switching the terms?

Also, Clear Light and Wisdom is luminosity? If so, why distinguish?

In all of this, the chief point seems to be distinguishing the base from the all-base. What is the base?

Malcolm wrote:
> You cannot realize luminosity before emptiness -- in sutrayāna they are synonyms.

But you, representing Dzogchen, said several times that luminosity is synonymous with emptiness. What gives?

This is my current understanding. Please pick apart any and all that doesn't align — that would be very helpful!
___

Seems like there's three "levels":

— cognizance/clarity (I AM)
— emptiness + cognizance/clarity (Mahayana teachings)
— Luminosity/Clear Light (capital letters, hehe) (Dzogchen + Mahamudra)
May 21 at 4:03pm · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Alternatively clarity can be a metaphor of penetration ("seeing through"), as in translucency. Still, the terms seems mixed.
May 21 at 4:01pm · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Btw, what a terrific thread this is! Hwa Yen, Thusness and some thorough clarifications by Malcolm! Thank you all
May 21 at 4:16pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Clarity has two words in Tibetan:
Sal wa refers to a clarity within the mind: sem. Like a clear state of mind. Then there is o'd sal meaning "Clear Light" or the Clarity of Rigpa. This Clear Light in Dzogchen is permanent. It is emptiness. Emptiness is cognitive Knowing at the level of Rigpa wisdom, or Self-Arising Wisdom Known as "rang jyung yeshe". Emptiness is never "empty", rather emptiness is always luminous cognition called O'dsal or Clear Light. When we investigate the nature of emptiness we always find aware Clarity. When we investigate aware Clarity, we find its nature to be empty.
May 22 at 5:23am via mobile · Like · 1

Wei Yu: Malcolm and I think you have confused gsal ba with 'od gsal.
May 22 at 7:18am · Like

Wei Yu: "So a space metaphor (clarity – a clearing in the woods) is used for cognizance" -- no, actually, its like what Kyle said http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/dzogchen-space.html
May 22 at 10:59am · Edited · Like

Wei Yu: "
— emptiness + cognizance/clarity (Mahayana teachings)
— Luminosity/Clear Light (capital letters, hehe) (Dzogchen + Mahamudra)"

As Malcolm said,
luminosity = emptiness
clear light - it depends on whether it is ultimate clear light (emptiness) or the clarity aspect

In Dzogchen, rigpa is also the knowledge of the inseparability of clarity and emptiness.

Your other points should be better answered by Malcolm.. I'm not good with terminologies.
May 22 at 11:02am · Edited · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Yes, I think our conversation clarified it for me. And yes, space makes more sense to me to be used for emptiness and not clarity, which was one of the reasons why I was confused.

Sourceless glow/shine and seamless, unobstructed space, inseparable!
May 22 at 12:03pm via mobile · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: The main thing is that emptiness is intelligent, aware, cognizant.
May 22 at 3:49pm via mobile · Like

Malcolm Smith: Jax, the main point is that nature of the mind is inseparable clarity and emptiness.

Sent from my iPad
May 23 at 5:58am via · Like · 2

Wei Yu: hi malcolm, sad to say jax has left this group.

Me: hi jackson, i noticed that for some reason you left the group, just like you to know that your presence, sharing and discussions are appreciated even if we may not agree on every point and you're welcome to join back any time you like to.

Jax: Thank you Soh, and please share your wonderful posts on my groups! The Dharma Wheel discussion group is not my cup of tea. I have no problem with you at all!
May 23 at 6:01am · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: "share your wonderful posts on my groups!" I may be wrong but it seems like he was refuted too much and too effectively here. Maybe he needs group to be focused on his vision and view for it be his cup of tea lol. He left us already not long ago, probably will come back after few days, haha.
May 23 at 6:05am · Like · 1

Albert Hong: He does have a group. It's called Transparent Being.
May 23 at 6:39am · Like

Wei Yu: And 'Dzogchen Discussions'
May 23 at 6:40am · Like

Stephen Metcalf: It was good to have him here. The contrast of opinions brought out clearer and more in depth answers. This will be missed.
May 23 at 8:07am · Like · 6

Piotr Ludwiński: Don't worry, I think he will come back sooner or later lol.
May 23 at 8:11am · Like

Stephen Metcalf: Who knows ? Sometimes the comments get a bit insulting. Almost like school boys. He is earnest and even though you disagree with him he is courageous for sticking to his views.
May 23 at 8:17am · Edited · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: I remember that Jax called many of us morons and potatoes by the way. What we discuss here mostly is views, no one is saying he is unrealized intellectualist (like he often accused other people who did not agree with his views). No one is accusing him with lack of sincerity and courage.
May 23 at 8:23am · Edited · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Mixing up different concepts that are used in different context in various buddhist schools is simply confusing... Complete spiritual technologies like Dzogchen/Mahamudra teachings do not need "corrections" which are done in a way that is creating space for substantialistic misinterpretation of them etc.. If these corrections make Dzogchen/Mahamudra teachings look like something that "even" pali cannon effectively refutes... then I presume it does not lead to accumulation of too much merit... I suppose that is the reason why he is sometimes very strongly refuted. If I am wrong with this view, I will be happy to be refuted by Malcolm or Kyle.
May 23 at 8:31am · Edited · Like

Stephen Metcalf: On a very light and non-disrespectful note, his comment about potatoes might be relevant given your profile pic . To continue, I did not mean to imply that he did not partake in the insults also as he did. I just think that it is interesting how pretty much everyone here that comments regularly [ except Soh !! ] slips into the reactionary. If you are very clear on your truth, why would this reactionary back and forth need to even occur?
May 23 at 8:44am · Like · 2

Piotr Ludwiński: That is why his presence and these discussions were helpful; to realize that patience is not listed as paramita without reason.
May 23 at 8:46am · Like · 1

Albert Hong: Stephen Metcalf

I wonder that myself.

When I read comments I get a distaste in my being. Kind of gut reaction of unease.

And there are two things I can interpret. This is my shadow being projected outwards to a post/poster.

Or it is something else, another way to interpret and feel the underlying purpose, intention and meaning behind the post.

Maybe there isn't really a good reason or justification or any absolute way or interpretation.

But I do see that some posts bring that up in me. And its my problem, buts its very, very odd. Should I trust my distrust? Or should I just be airy, fairy and agreeably?

Guess it depends. Maybe its style? I don't like abstract expressionism, no matter how much I do it, learn about it or just gawk at it. I don't enjoy or like it. But I do enjoy surrealism.

Bias! Dualistic thinking! But hey maybe that's just how forums and this world works?

Whatever it is, it is pregnant for inquiry.
May 23 at 9:00am · Like · 3

Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: Stephen: "If you are very clear on your truth, why would this reactionary back and forth need to even occur?"
Do not forget that Jax pretends to be (and actes as) a teacher, he writes books and has students. Therefore it is a necessity to be reactionary to erroneous allegations of Jax. Hevput himself in the position of the knower who teaches others ... he is the one who creates that situation. But a true teacher wil not be bothered by our reactions, he would show where we are wrong and why he is right. Unfortunately I think all that is, also, a question of business ...
May 23 at 9:22am · Like

Stephen Metcalf: Serge, I respectfully disagree. Not with everything you say but your overview. The most potent revelations occur when we share about OUR part of the equation.
May 23 at 9:28am · Like

Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: If you speak of harsh words, of course I agree with you ... not on being immediately reactif to everything he says, when it's wrong ... it's the result of his teacher position. Also it's a long story with Jax ...
May 23 at 9:34am · Like

Steven Monaco: A wordless expression sighs as my Heart smiles at these games... and the points missed under all the words argued. None of this touches a heart that needs words to mean more than holding an open space.
May 23 at 1:25pm · Like

Albert Hong: Steven Monaco

The ongoing wow we call our lives
May 23 at 4:10pm via mobile · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: Albert Hong : I wonder that myself.

When I read comments I get a distaste in my being. Kind of gut reaction of unease.
Even when insight into anatta starts to enter one's experience... there are still so many impurities, propensities and habits. Realising that there is no self does not equal to complete abandoning of the self. There may be still some clinging, some subtle arrogance or satisfaction "Yeah... I HAVE REALISED emptiness" (Trungpa made a comment about such thing xd). So even when people see the wrongness of the views they still might become agitated about people expressing such wrong views. This is the simple, primitive "OH NOEZ SOMEONE IS WRONGZ ON DA INTERNET!!!111" That is a sad truth but also what motivates to further practice

And let's not forget - understanding the right view does not mean that people don't have their opinions and some knowlegde regarding "not so ultimate" subjects
May 23 at 11:50pm · Edited · Like · 2

Robert Dominik: I once have heard a joke from a pal of mine:

Two Zen masters are in a train. There are other passengers who are very curious and keep looking at them because these Two masters have traditional clothings on them. The masters are very silent - the whole journey they are silent and do not even engage in a slightest conversation between themselves.

Finally someone asks Zen masters: "Why so silent?"
One of the Zen masters replies: "I know everything. He knows everything. Why talk about anything?"
May 23 at 11:48pm · Edited · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Damn Steven Monaco left too? Jackson Peterson a.k.a. Jerry Maguire...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZZI6-zh0GM

Jerry Maguire (2/8) Movie CLIP - Who's Coming With Me? (1996) HD
Jerry Maguire Movie Clip - watch all clips http://j.mp/SKHOD5 click to subscribe...
See More
Friday at 12:09am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Robert Dominik: I don't understand why leave the group. He could have just stopped posting.
Friday at 12:21am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: He's quite fond of Jax, which is fine, but Jax left so I suppose he saw no reason to stay in the group.
Friday at 12:21am · Like

Magnus Tigerschiöld: Very sensitive guy Jax, I just open my mouth he either kicks me or run away in anger, a very emotional response. I am not that bad am I?
Friday at 5:48am · Like

Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: You're not Magnus, much less that I could be ...
Friday at 6:24am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: He might just be intimidated because your last name is tiger shield but no I think you're right, his own personality causes him to perceive you in a certain way... because I think you're great!
Friday at 6:28am via mobile · Like · 1

Albert Hong: Robert Dominik

You hit it on the nail. Thanks for the mirror!
Friday at 7:17am via mobile · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: Here's another excerpt from the book about Hwa Yen I've just posted it in the Emptiness group so might as well post it here

This is from "Concise Prajnaparamita Sutra". Many of you may know this but if someone doesn't... here it is:

"Subhuti said, "0 Kausika, a Bodhisattva who aspires to the glorious vehicle should abide in the Prajiiaparamita with the teaching of Emptiness. He should not abide in form, in feeling, conception, impulses or consciousness; he should not abide in form that is transient or eternal . ... He should not abide in the fruit of arhatship ... not even in Buddha's Dharmas. In this manner he should benefit and deliver infinite sentient beings."

Whereupon Sariputra thought, "Where then should a Bodhisattva abide?"

Subhuti, knowing his thought said to him, "What do you think, Sariputra? Where does Tathagata abide?"

Sariputra said, "Tathagata abides nowhere. This no-abiding mind itself is the Tathagata. Tathagata does not abide in conditioned things, nor in the unconditioned. The Tathagata who abides in all dharmas is neither abiding nor non-abiding. Just so, a Bodhisattva should also rest [his mind) in this manner."

At that time in the assembly many gods thought, "Even the languages and letters of the Yaksha demons are intelligible, but what Subhuti has just said is unintelligible."

Knowing their thoughts, Subhuti addressed the gods, "In that, there is no speech no demonstration and no hearing."

The gods thought, "What Subhuti intended to do was to make the doctrine easier for us to understand, but what he has done is to make the doctrine more subtle, profound, and obscure."

Reading their thoughts, Subhuti said to the gods, "If a devotee wants to attain the state of Stream-Winner, Once-Returner, No-Returner or Arhat he should not depart from this deep insight .... "

The gods thought, "Who can understand and agree with what Subuiti has just said?"

Subhuti knew their thought and said, "I say sentient beings are like dreams and magical delusion. Stream-Winners ... Arhats are also like dreams and magical delusions."

The gods said, "Subhiiti, are you saying that the Buddha's Dharmas are also like dreams and magical delusions?"

Subhuti said, "Yes, I say Buddha's Dharmas are like dreams and magical delusions. I say Nirvana is also like a dream and a magical delusion."

The gods said, "0 Subhuti, are you really saying that even Nirvana is like a dream and a magical delusion?"

Subhuti said, "0 dear gods, if there were something that was more superior even than Nirvana, I would still say that it is like a dream and a magical delusion. 0 dear gods, there is not the slightest difference between Nirvana and dreams and magical delusions."
June 3, 2013 at 1:00am • Unlike • 3

Ed Cooper: hi. just bought jacksons book. are u guys saying he has nothing to teach? im going to give it a read but feel unsettled reading this thread.
June 3, 2013 at 9:16am • Like

Kyle Dixon: I plead the 5th!
June 3, 2013 at 9:24am • Like

Robert Dominik: Haven't read any of his works but I'll give my two cents... Give it a try but be aware of the issues that were brought up here Even if Jax is wrong then he might have some good points and use nice examples to deconstruct some of the mind games - just do not take his every word as the sacred, holy truth but compare it with experience and some high quality texts about emptiness + If you do read it you might come back here and ask questions
June 3, 2013 at 9:36am • Like • 1

Ed Cooper: cheers. what are the main issues here?
June 3, 2013 at 9:46am • Like
  
Kyle Dixon: The overall issue is that he essentially has a great view when it comes to Advaita Vedanta and the like. Except he marries his affinity for traditions Iike Dzogchen, with his Vedantic/Trika influenced view, which results in a misguided and convoluted presentation of Dzogchen/Mahamudra etc. Couple that with an unparalleled conviction of infallibility, and you end up with a conflation and misinterpretation of various traditions being presented as an accurate and valid teaching.
June 3, 2013 at 10:28am • Unlike • 2

Wei Yu: Hi Ed, a friend told me he likes Jackson's book cos it's very personal. I'm looking forward to reading it as well. Even though we (I and Jax) don't necessarily agree on every point and he may not be representing the traditions (e.g. Dzogchen) accurately, it still interests me to read someone else's genuine account of his path, practice and experience.
June 3, 2013 at 3:41pm • Like • 3

Ed Cooper: Great stuff Ok im going to give it a read and see what I think! - personally I like the idea of anything that tries to extract a teaching from its cultural context and then cross references if it with other wisdom traditions - to try and find some sort of unified perennial philosophy type thing. My instinct is the that the stuff that is specific to a particular tradition is most likely false and generic ideas that can be seen across the board (in some degree) are 'true' - for example most traditions value silence as useful in practice, but those that specify particular colours of light, going up or down various nostrils are more likely to be cultural and not pointers to something universal (which is what interests me) - do you think this sounds reasonable?? - I would have thought the truth is accesible to all people in all times, therefore if you can strip away the cultural expression and get to the truth, it should have been showing up all over the place?!
June 3, 2013 at 6:58pm • Like

Robert Dominik: Certainly some traditions, rituals, ceremonial robes and such may not of importance But it's the insight and the state of mind that is achieved true practice that is important wouldn't you agree? And the differences in opinions between Jax and many people revolve also around insight and such things ^^ I also was very much into cross cultural teachings etc. Certainly we can take some teachings and insights out of context but we have to be careful if we do not distort the real sense. // + if someone likes to takes thing out of context then fine but he shouldn't be trying to (mis)represent the traditions. So a person can say that his message is not about the traditions (altough it was inspired by some pratctises) and that's fine. The problem begins when someone says that various traditions point to things they don't. I'm not talking about Jax at the moment - just saying in general. // Truth is accesible to all people. But not so many people have arrived at the truth. If it was so easy the we would be already living in enlightened societies.
June 3, 2013 at 7:12pm • Like • 1

Kyle Dixon: The differences aren't superficial, aesthetic or cultural, but have to do with the very position which caused Buddhism to diverge from the Hindu view in the first place. The traditions I mentioned (Dzogchen and Mahamudra), ultimately accord with the same principles shared in most all of the buddhadharma, so presenting them as Vedantic/Trika themed, is a gross misinterpretation and deviation. It's essentially Neo-Advaita dressed in Dharma drag.
June 3, 2013 at 7:28pm • Unlike • 3

Wei Yu: Ed Cooper, I agree with Kyle Dixon there. The differences are not merely superficial. The experiential realizations differ.

See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/.../thusnesss-six...

and

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/.../substantial...

Awakening to Reality: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
I understand very little of what Thusness has said. The path that Thusness descr...See More
June 3, 2013 at 7:49pm • Like • 3 • Remove Preview

Greg Goode: Ed Cooper, I also agree with Kyle and Soh here, though for somewhat different reasons. Perennialism is not accepted by all traditions. In fact, more recently, it has come to be seen as an outgrowth of Orientalism and Western cultural imperialism, where one (usually one's own) religious philosophy imposes its interpretations on the religions and wisdom teachings of different countries, cultures, eras, etc. It tells other religions what their teachings "really" mean, as opposed to their own interpretations of themselves. Swami Vivekananda was a big perennialist, and saw his own religion, Vedanta, as the truth of all other religions. I studied for a while in their school, and that is their message.

For an alternative approach, here are some other sources (I'm including 4 links here, not just the one that fb displays!)

God is Not One
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not.../dp/B003F1WMAC/ref=sr_1_1...

Deep Religious Pluralism
http://www.amazon.com/Deep.../dp/066422914X/ref=sr_1_1...

Religious Pluralism and the Modern World
http://www.amazon.com/Religio.../dp/B009AUS5BW/ref=sr_1_2...

Polydoxy
http://www.amazon.com/Polydox.../dp/B004OBZY3Y/ref=sr_1_7...

God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter
www.amazon.com
Stephen Prothero, the New York Times bestselling author of Religious Literacy, m...See More
June 4, 2013 at 12:15am • Unlike • 1 • Remove Preview

Greg Goode: In other words, why must it either be "same" or "different"?
June 4, 2013 at 12:25am • Like • 1

Ed Cooper: Thanks folks, I can see I have a bit or of reading to do! In the mean time, maybe someone could just give me a pointer how my perspective might be incorrect: Just to clarify, my intuitive sense is that what lies at the heart for all these traditions is essentially beyond description - for example in these 7 stages it isnt 'reality' that changes but the view develops and become more sophisticated - or less, depending on how you look at it. As human beings, our similarities seem more striking than our differences, hands, feet, brains etc - So it just seems natural to me that this non-conceptual experience of reality is accessible to all and universal. However as soon as this experience condenses into form via words an concepts it takes on a limited/partial/cultural aspect. So we have lots of different fingers and only one moon. IS the suggestion here that there are many different moons?! - This just doesn't feel right to me, maybe someone could give me sense of how that might work?! - Greg I can appreciate how looking at a tradition through this perennial lens would naturally distort the teachings, especially by the standards of the more conservative adherents to that system. Im sure there are some that would have and still might, burn me at the stake for suggesting that the chirstian god might be the same as the allah, krishna, zeus etc etc - or that the buddhist idea of emptiness is pointing to the same thing as the tao etc - No im sure there are some passionate arguments why these things are actually all very different, but for myself that just seems unlikely, unless of course you stick to a really literal understanding of those traditions? - Im guess people dont agree, but if you could give me a clue how to see where this outlook falls down, that would be great! Greg I thought your point of view was that Emptiness teachings and Awareness teachings, were both useful as pointers but that it isnt a case that one trumps the other, or that either represents The Truth, this gave me the idea that you felt worked as different pointers but same moon? This idea of the same moon is what I meant by perennial philosophy - however that may not help as Perrenialism sounds like quite a specific thing/expression about which I couldn't claim to have any understanding!
June 4, 2013 at 1:13am • Like

Wei Yu: Ed Cooper, Awareness teachings and Emptiness teachings don't point to the same thing.

As Malcolm said: "there is a mind, it has a nature of clarity and emptiness. It is one thing that has two natures, like water is limpid and wet. one thing, two aspects"

Other religions generally lead to realization of clarity (aka Awareness) but sees it as substantially existent, true Self, changeless, independent, etc.

While Buddhism leads to the empty nature of clarity, of everything. We don't deny clarity, we simply realize the empty nature... so the nature of mind is described as the inseparability of clarity and emptiness.

From the perspective of Advaita, the substantialist view they teach is correct and others are incomplete/wrong/etc. From the Buddhist perspective, the non-substantialist view is correct and the substantialist view is incomplete/wrong/etc.
June 4, 2013 at 1:19am • Like • 3

Greg Goode: Ed, I like both teachings, but you don't see me making moon comparisons! Here's another way to look at it. Two different teachings are saying stuff that really sounds like pointing in some way about ultimate reality. And you, as a person looking into the teachings, attempt to adjudicate the sameness or adequacy of these pointings.

The question would be, where do you stand, and from what vantage point to you assess these two approaches? If you adjudicate from inside either one, then of course that will be the answer. But if you don't do that, then where can you stand in the process that is not already implicated in its own view of some sort?
June 4, 2013 at 1:26am • Like

Ed Cooper: Yeah I sort of see what you mean! But all I can say is that most systems have a trend towards those who are really conservative in there understanding of there system, it my way or you going to hell - sort of thing, and then there are those that take a broader approach and look for wider trends across world traditions, with an aim to distinguishing the partial from the universal - the wider you look the better chance you have of understanding what is common to all - even if they practiced mediation in another galaxy - I think it would help, as long as i didnt over identify with the 'earth based traditions!' But I guess like science it seems the best way to asses an approach would be from the outside, as identification with that form is bound to skew the results!
June 4, 2013 at 1:37am • Like

Greg Goode: Ed, this is a really good point. There are lots of things to say in this... One thing is that perennialism assumes that the conservatives in the traditions are wrong and that the esotericists are "closer to the perennial truth of things, which is usually best described by [ fill in the blank ] teaching."

I agree, the non-conservatives you mention actually do take a broader approach. But it is not necessarily a substantialist, philosophically perennialist approach. Like the Dalai Lama - he does lots of outreach, but he isn't a perennialist. What he is most concerned to do is inspire folks t try to get along more harmoniously with others so that we don't make each other suffer. I think that is a wonderful goal. But those interfaith talks don't necessarily mean that the individual teachings have the same metaphysical basis underlying the doctrines. One could look at what they are doing in reaching out to each other as an ethical or social or heart-based endeavor. Again, I think that is wonderful. But that seems a very far cry from telling each other, "Your teachings don't mean what your traditionalists say they mean. Instead, they mean this [ ... fill in the blanks ...]."
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Unlike • 1

Malcolm Smith: Truths, such as the two truths, are at base _subjective_ cognitions; with ultimate truth being the object of a correct cognition and the relative truth the object of an incorrect cognition. The controversy lies more in the realm of what a correct cognition constitutes than anything else.
June 4, 2013 at 1:59am • Like • 1

Malcolm Smith: When it comes to comparing systems, it is a bit useless. The principles underlying the Upanishads, underlying Samkhya, Jainism, Buddhism, Dzogchen, etc., are all somewhat different. They all do share a common feature however i.e. from what are we being liberated? In all cases, that from which we are being liberated are kleshas, which cause actions, which lead to suffering and rebirth in samsara. All of these practice streams, if you will, share the view of rebirth -- and this is non-negotiable -- for without the principle of rebirth in samsara, all of these practice streams become redundant and meaningless.
June 4, 2013 at 2:07am • Unlike • 2

Greg Goode: There are many, many, many Westerners who adopt these systems but not the rebirth parts...
June 4, 2013 at 2:12am • Like

Malcolm Smith: They are not adopting these systems, they are ruining them
June 4, 2013 at 2:18am • Like • 2

Malcolm Smith: Such people are lokayatis, charvakas.
June 4, 2013 at 2:19am • Like • 1
     
Malcolm Smith: They are merely "spiritual" hedonists.
June 4, 2013 at 2:19am • Unlike • 2

Malcolm Smith: There may be some relaxation they can gain, a sense of well being, but not realization.
June 4, 2013 at 2:20am • Like • 2

Robert Dominik: for without the principle of rebirth in samsara, all of these practice streams become redundant and meaningless. not neccessarily. I mean that even if there was no rebirth then still compassionate beings would aspire for lessening the suffering of other beings. But in the end I agree with you - it is hard to practice certain practices while denying the basis underlaying them. The problem is that people are often very confused and do not understand how the principle of rebirth works. Especially some westerners that in reality have no idea of buddhism tend to think that there is some inherently existent soul that incarnates during different lifetimes because they haven't heard even such simple concepts as skandhas ^^
June 4, 2013 at 2:21am • Like

Magnus Tigerschiöld: It is like they are watching the moon, thinking it is made of cheese because it so yellow...
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Like

Malcolm Smith: There is no need for any of these systems in absence of rebirth.
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Like

Malcolm Smith: Compassion is not something that belongs to so called spritual traditions
June 4, 2013 at 12:22am • Unlike • 1

Malcolm Smith: even though spiritual traditions like to imagine somehow they own compassion
June 4, 2013 at 12:23am • Like

Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: If they were not rebirth ... why should I give a sh.?
June 4, 2013 at 12:24am • Like

Malcolm Smith: Also of course, in absence of rebirth, everyone achieves nirvana at death
June 4, 2013 at 12:24am • Like • 1

Magnus Tigerschiöld: or oblivion, which most people cherish so much
June 4, 2013 at 12:25am • Like

Robert Dominik: Also of course, in absence of rebirth, everyone achieves nirvana at death sometime ago I heard a criticism of buddhism from a guy who said that there is no sense in aiming for Nirvana because its just atheistic anihilation. And some people don't like that idea and they would instead prefer being reborn again (even paying the price of suffering but hoping for better rebirths that will make up for it) xD
June 4, 2013 at 12:26am • Like

Greg Goode: Most of the folks I know who cherry-pick from the traditions like that tend to privilege scientific materialism as their master philosophy. The spiritual teachings get pasted on over that. So they are mostly interested in the momentary psychological, therapeutic benefits they can get from the teachings.
June 4, 2013 at 12:27am • Like • 1

Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: If most of the folks I knew were materialistic ... I would change of place (lol)
June 4, 2013 at 12:29am • Like

Robert Dominik: Sometimes its just the egotic urge to be seen and view oneself as a spiritual person that practices various practices and knows many schools of thought. So yeah - the reasons for this cherry-picking can be even more primitive ^^
June 4, 2013 at 12:29am • Like • 2

Greg Goode: "Nightstand Buddhists"
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-nightstand-buddhist.htm...

What is a Nightstand Buddhist?
www.wisegeek.com
Brief and Straightforward Guide: What is a Nightstand Buddhist?
June 4, 2013 at 12:30am • Like • 1 • Remove Preview

Magnus Tigerschiöld: Robert Dominik "atheistic annihilation" have nothing to do with Buddhism except as complete misunderstanding by westerners.
June 4, 2013 at 12:32am • Like

Robert Dominik: About perennialism... we can say thanks to theosophy
June 4, 2013 at 12:32am • Like • 1

Malcolm Smith: My comments sound more grim than I intended -- while it is true that I don't hold out that much respect for scientific materialism aka physicalism, it is better people who adhere to such beliefs do something (like yoga, vipassana, etc.) then do nothing.
June 4, 2013 at 12:33am • Unlike • 6

Robert Dominik: Didn't say it has anything to do Magnus. But Malcolm suggested that lack of rebirth (as in materialistic atheism... but there are some atheists who are not following any tradition who do believe in rebirth but let's put them aside) means automatical Ni...See More
June 4, 2013 at 12:37am • Like

Robert Dominik: Let us remember that many sceintific materialists are born because of great satisfaction with traditional religion and its dark side: stakes, crusades, Inquisition, extremists, religious wars. Even people calling themselves (not neccessarily being) bud...See More
June 4, 2013 at 12:41am • Like

Robert Dominik: It is especially easy for the kids in the west to turn to scientific materialism after dissatisfaction with contemporary religion. But I'm talking now only from my experience because I had such a moment in my life during late mid school and early high school.
June 4, 2013 at 12:42am • Like

Ed Cooper: Ok - I think im getting a flavour of where people art coming from now. If you dont believe in rebirth your a spiritual hedonist diluting the traditions?! - if I dont believe in rebirth whats the point?! - The fact is some westerner adopt these teachin...See More

Bloom's Taxonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Bloom's Taxonomy is a classification of learning objectives within education pro...See More
June 4, 2013 at 1:24am • Like • Remove Preview

Robert Dominik: if I dont believe in rebirth whats the point?! It depends on how do you understand rebirth.
June 4, 2013 at 1:26am • Like
   
Robert Dominik: If you dont believe in rebirth your a spiritual hedonist diluting the traditions?! Geeeez I knew that the comments from above would trigger such a reaction
June 4, 2013 at 1:28am • Like

Robert Dominik: Saying that all traditions are the same is like saying that all the models of how our solar system works are the same. Now think about heliocentric and geocentric model It's true that since movement is relative one could argue that the Sun revolves around the Earth (not the other way around) but... simply heliocentric way of looking at how our solar system works is more pragmatical ^^
June 4, 2013 at 1:30am • Like • 1

Robert Dominik: But real PR0s know that heliocentric model is still flawed because the Sun is in fact moving because our Galaxy rotates. Then other galaxies are moving and the cosmos is inflating
June 4, 2013 at 1:31am • Like • 1

Robert Dominik: So what I'm getting at is that we are all trying to describe how does the Universe work. But some systems are more practical and more useful than others ^^
June 4, 2013 at 1:32am • Like

Robert Dominik: So we have two different approaches. One says that all traditions and religions are entirely different. It is not true because there are some similiraties - the clarity aspect, the need for compassion found in many systems etc. The other says that ever...See More
June 4, 2013 at 1:36am • Like

Robert Dominik: Or another metaphor for you Ed Cooper. Spiritual traditions are like cars. The mechanisms might be simillar - most have 4 wheels, engine, driving wheel etc. But tell me wouldn't you see any difference between Bugatti Veyron and Toyota Prius? XD And let us remember - there are cars which can go crosscountry and reach some places that other cars cannot Hope I've been helpful and my comments were of use to you
June 4, 2013 at 1:39am • Like
  
Ed Cooper: Ha! buddhism - you make it sound like its one system! - find me two buddhist that are in complete agreement about theory and practice!? seriously! - my sense is that its just not like that.
June 4, 2013 at 1:41am • Like

Ed Cooper: yeah Robert but if i wanted to know what a generic car was I might compare the two to get a sense of what is fundemental to a car and what is specific to a model!
June 4, 2013 at 1:44am • Like

Robert Dominik: Yeah - you're right. There is buddhism and then there is buddhism ^^ // But please do remember that there are people who are trying to apply emptiness teachings out of the buddhist context (stripping away ceremonies and things that may appear useless to some people).
June 4, 2013 at 1:46am • Like

Robert Dominik: All traditions have single purpose - that is stripping away all the concepts and useless intellectual mind games to be left only with what is true. That's true for most of the traditions.
June 4, 2013 at 1:49am • Like

Robert Dominik: But I think that most of the traditions do not reach the end of this road of deconstructing concepts. Most of them like Advaita Vedanta are still left with some concepts and reifications at the end of the road. I would argue that only Buddhist schools (and not all of them) reach this goal of transcending all concepts, meanings and perspectives.
June 4, 2013 at 1:51am • Like • 1

Robert Dominik: But some concepts are so, so very subtle... Many people reach states of mind where they are free of most of the concepts but are left with some very subtle notions. They cannot see them in similar manner that people who are completely ignorant of spiri...See More
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Like

Dhruval Patel: Ed Cooper Of course the conservative traditions are models of reality not reality.

However models can be functional or dysfunctional to various degrees.

The problem with post-modernist views is that although there is sort of a conceptual emptiness, too often it goes to the extreme of denying the functional importance of concepts altogether.

So from that viewpoint it can seem quite elitist and uncouth to insist on a particular model or have high standards for spiritual realization.

But consider that the function of these models is to lead practitioners to a realization that can completely eradicate suffering.

The concern is that sometimes in the attempts to assuage very human needs for acceptance and belonging, the concepts gets diluted to the extent where they are no longer functional in eradicating suffering completely.
June 4, 2013 at 1:54am • Like • 1

Ed Cooper: 'stripping away ceremonies and things that may appear useless to some people'- that sounds like insolent talk of a lokayatis or dare i say it a charvakas (spits on ground)
June 4, 2013 at 1:55am • Like

Robert Dominik: But please note that many of us in this group have studied different schools outside of buddhism so when they are saying that buddhism points to something different... it's not just opinions based on no experiental knowledge
June 4, 2013 at 1:55am • Like

Robert Dominik: that sounds like insolent talk of a lokayatis or dare i say it a charvakas (spits on ground) You would like Chogyam Trungpa He was a holder of two famous buddhist lineages (of Tibetan Buddhism) Kagyu and Nyingma He had very liberal approach to...See More
June 4, 2013 at 2:01am • Like

Ed Cooper: Thanks Dhurval - yes good to keep an eye on the prize. Although I think that an abiility to cross reference a teaching, and understand it outside of its traditional context actually strengthens what is of value while removing what isnt. - Sure the conservative would say the stricter and pure'r the better. Which would be great if I lived a few centuries ago in tibet but I dont.
June 4, 2013 at 2:03am • Like

Robert Dominik: You have a point. But who is skilled enough to decide which things are worth removing and which are of value? You? Me? Please remember that Buddhist masters are not some lunatics who aren't aware of that problem
June 4, 2013 at 2:07am • Like

Robert Dominik: And I say that many of those masters are quite into advanced technologies and aren't rejecting modern culture. So comparing modern buddhism to Tibet from centuries ago is doing baseless harm. For example modern technologies (like internet webcasts) are applied by some masters in order to do transmissions of some practices and teachings. Doesn't sound like medieval Tibet
June 4, 2013 at 2:09am • Like

Ed Cooper: doing baseless harm No I was just saying you couldnt do as much cross referencing a while back in Tibet, you just turn up to the monastery and do what your told! - still I guess you had your different schools, but I dont know how keen they were on shopping around between them?
June 4, 2013 at 2:15am • Like

Dhruval Patel: It is wonderful to distill the value of the teachings and present it in different ways to make them more accessible so they can benefit more people.

However in attempts to distill that of value people often end up misunderstanding the teachings and diluting their value.

Further in thinking that they have successfully distilled value from the tradition, they end up confusing and misleading a lot of people.

Two common examples of confusion about buddhist teachings in spiritual circles:
1) that No-self is pointing to no little 'me' but yes True Self.
2) Or that Emptiness is just the flip side of Oneness.

These are common confusions, very easy to make. Unless someone point them out very clearly. And can become quite a big hindrance to realizing No-self or Emptiness.

Then again I might not have been exposed to any of these teachings and subsequently befitted from them at all if someone hadn't made an attempt to distill the value and present them in accordance with a more contemporary context and scientific world view.

So I see your point as well. Maybe there is room for both sorts in this world.
June 4, 2013 at 3:14am • Like • 1

Greg Goode: Dhruval,I like your last sentence. Earlier on, you list (1) and (2). Could you cite or quote examples?
June 4, 2013 at 3:21am • Like

Dhruval Patel: Greg Goode,

For #2 eg. Ken Wilber often lumps Mahayana and Adivaita style non-duality together. And uses the terminology interchangeably. Here is something I found on google that has citations...

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/atman_fiasco.html

For #1 I can't find a clear citation, but I do see a lot of New Age gurus eg Tolle, in the New Earth reinterpret Buddhist teachings through the lens of Self-realizaiton. And this then leads to confusion.
The Atman Fiasco
www.kheper.net
The Atman Project( 1 ) is the central Wilber's book, the fount ( with the possib...See More
June 4, 2013 at 4:45am • Like • 1 • Remove Preview

Robert Dominik: you just turn up to the monastery and do what your told! why go to a monastery if you just want to do whatever you like? ^^

But srsly from what I know it is not exactly like that. Sure there are many approved techniques and teachings + many things that cannot be done in any other way (because then the practice would missed the point). So things aren't so rigid. Working with circumstances, being in the present and accomodating to the situation are very important throughout various schools.

Also in some monasteries (not in all - remember that there are monasteries which are really like factories/plants of enlightened beings and there are also places in which people just pray and do some rituals + recite teachings they do not really grasp the meaning of there are different buddhist monasteries) there is room for some liberties or variations. For example teachers accomodate their teaching to the capacity and understanding of their students.

It all differs between various schools. Some lower vehicles prefer path of renunciation - abiding vows, doing everything according to rules and precepts and avoiding behaviour regarded as unskillful. Zen for example was often about a little bit of originality and freestyle (but not only - Zazen, Zazen, Zazen :P) - masters slapping students, teachers going to jail only to help people there by spreading dharma message etc. Tantra prefers transformation - not avoiding some actions but transforming them for the purpose of insight and purification. And then there is Dzogchen where people have to be responsible for themselves with their actions - though they have a set of teachings and practices (which are efficient and sufficient :P) and achieve the goal through the means of self-liberation. So Buddhism varies from a school to school. But the basics are very important - among them anatta which is characteristic to buddhism. That's why we are so insinstent on regarding buddhism as not exactly the same as let's say Taoism. Because of Anatta which is quite specific and very profound. But let us remember that many schools argue about topic connected to anatta. For example Yogacara does not agree with various other schools
June 4, 2013 at 4:55am • Like

Greg Goode: Dhruval, Ah, yes, Wilber. Good example of (2), and probably has traces of (1) too....
June 4, 2013 at 5:07am • Like
  
Malcolm Smith: Non-duality has two versions in Buddhism: version 1) taught in Yogacara is that emptiness is the absence of subject and object. version 2) Taught in Madhyamaka: emptiness is the absence of ontological pairs such existence/non-existence; permanence/annihilation, arising/ceasing and so on. Both schemes are attempts at working out what the Buddha meant by dependent origination.
June 4, 2013 at 6:41am • Unlike • 5

Lindsay Funk: Dhruval says: " a lot of New Age gurus eg Tolle, in the New Earth reinterpret Buddhist teachings through the lens of Self-realizaiton."

Tolle spent time contextualizing his realization with Ajaan Sumedho. Tolle, Sumedho and most of the Thai Forest tradition (for example) have initerpretations that most here would label essentialist.
June 4, 2013 at 6:56am • Like

Malcolm Smith: Theravada, from a general Mahāyāna perspective has a strongly realist streak in it, like all the Nikaya schools.
June 4, 2013 at 6:58am • Unlike • 2

Wei Yu: I'm not sure if Sumedho is essentialist in the Tolle sense (i.e. treats Awareness as substantial)? Haven't looked into his works, but I do agree that many masters from Thai Forest Tradition teachings are close to Advaita.

Source

dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com.au

Retrieved from "http://www.tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=How_Luminosity,_Clarity_And_Clear_Light_Relate_To_Emptiness&oldid=249268"