Dharma Wheel

Namdrol wrote:

conebeckham wrote:...Depends on how you understand the "two truths," but no, Dzokchen does not abandon the two truths.

Yes, actually it does.

I stand (or sit!) corrected, then!

conebeckham wrote:

Namdrol wrote:

conebeckham wrote:...Depends on how you understand the "two truths," but no, Dzokchen does not abandon the two truths.

Yes, actually it does.

I stand (or sit!) corrected, then!

As you can see by my quote above even Tsongkhapa asserted that the two truth was inseparable.

/magnus

So, do we say, therefore, that there is only One Truth, in the end, and that it is beyond concepts and imputations?

And that the so-called "relative truth" is just a seeming, an appearance, an illusion, which is nonetheless coemergent with the One Truth at all times?

conebeckham wrote:So, do we say, therefore, that there is only One Truth, in the end, and that it is beyond concepts and imputations?

And that the so-called "relative truth" is just a seeming, an appearance, an illusion, which is nonetheless coemergent with the One Truth at all times?

I think the point is that the so-called "two truths" are themselves a teaching method, thus, relative truth. . just as all Shakyamuni's teachings were conditional methods, in order to meet various beings according to their differing capacities. As the capacity and thus level of teaching develops (Vajrayana, and Dzogchen) the two truths are understood in completely different ways, not relevant to the sutra level of understanding them. As is pointed out in the quotes I left above regarding Longchenpa's different versions or the one written in the Guhyasamaja Tantra (which incidentally was Tsongkhapa's primary focus among the Tantras).

conebeckham wrote:So, do we say, therefore, that there is only One Truth, in the end, and that it is beyond concepts and imputations?

And that the so-called "relative truth" is just a seeming, an appearance, an illusion, which is nonetheless coemergent with the One Truth at all times?

Just a way to explain things I would say, categorizations always are, no?

/magnus

ngodrup wrote:Like it or not, Je Tsogkhapa's main Tantric sources are Nyingma.
Like it or not, about 70% of his writings are on Tantric subjects.
Je Tsongkhapa was a revolutionary philosopher who had studied
every system existing in his time, he also practiced them.
His view is not sectarian, his followers... well another story.
But the great monastic universities were intended for all Tibetans,
not just Gelugpas.

zhu len sman mchog bdud rtsi phreng ba was written by Namkha Gyaltsen 1326-1401.
This great Nyingmapa Siddha had many visions of Guru Padmasambhava and Vajrapani, whom he used to meet as though meeting real people. Quite good Todgal practitioner so.
Namkha Gyalten described Je Rinpoche as a "Gcig Char ba", pretty specific isn't it?
For not to talk about the lexicon, i think you can probably sell some lines as Nyinthig.

It's Ati yoga.

Is the pure, untainted, non-conceptual mind a truth or a reality?

It seems to me that some people here are being bamboozled by their gurus distorted,sectarian and self-serving opinion of who and what Tsongkhapa truly was.

gregkavarnos wrote:Is the pure, untainted, non-conceptual mind a truth or a reality?

It seems to me that some people here are being bamboozled by their gurus distorted,sectarian and self-serving opinion of who and what Tsongkhapa truly was.

On a personal note:
Actually, as a person who has mainly been in the Gelug tradition I find it interesting to hear these different POVs, it is helpful to understand the differences and come to one's own conclusions, and not from the perspective of who is "right" and who is "wrong".

While having little experience outside of the Gelug tradition besides the odd Nyingma or Kagyu text that HHDL has taught over the years, this is more a factor of my wanting to understand and practice at least one tradition to some reasonable degree before getting totally lost by mixing it all up prematurely, than a sectarian stance. So this thread has been informative for someone at my level.

Of course there are people on all sides who misunderstand their own tradition, let alone that of others. As to those Geshes who find other schools distasteful, I wonder if they really listened when HHDL gave teachings from Nyingma etc with great lamas from those respective traditions such as DIlgo Khyentse Rinpoche present (and what a presence!) and obviously sharing with HHDL.

mudra wrote:While having little experience outside of the Gelug tradition besides the odd Nyingma or Kagyu text that HHDL has taught over the years, this is more a factor of my wanting to understand and practice at least one tradition to some reasonable degree before getting totally lost by mixing it all up prematurely, than a sectarian stance. So this thread has been informative for someone at my level.

Mixing it up? Like natural, non-conceptual mind is different in one tradition to another???

And what of us Kagyu? We "mix up" practices from various traditions, what does that mean? That we get lost or we do not understand our practices because we utilise practices from other traditions?

As for "right" and "wrong" it would be foolish to believe that there is no right and wrong, especially in regards to historical facts.

LOL

Greg, easy there

Nah, just meant that for me it helps to get one thing straight at a time, different systems might even use the same word with different meanings etc. It's like trying to patch a car together out of different parts from different makes. '

As we are all here on the forum using language, which is conceptual, and are pretty much discussing conceptually, and various traditions have weighed in on this thread, I am not in a big hurry to jump on what is right or wrong thank you, I prefer to sort through it carefully so I can understand better.

And historical facts take a while to establish 'objectively' as each person has their own version.

anyway we're off track.

Tsongkhapafan wrote:

conebeckham wrote:Well...
Ju Mipham, certainly, and I believe Gorampa as well, did not obviate Nonconceptual wisdom. I don't believe Tsong Khapa did either. But I think it is Tsong Khapa and his followers alone who claimed that Ultimate Realization can be an object of knowledge to a conceptual mind.

conebeckham,

Yes, the ultimate realization can be an object of knowledge to a conceptual mind, and that's how it has to start. It begins with inferential cognition but later it becomes direct, non-conceptual wisdom through familiarity, so there's no contradiction.

It can be what you say: conceptual first step and then direct yogic in a second time. But it's not true that it "has to start" that way in the Gelug school. Check First (or third?) Panchen Lama instruction on the mahamudra, where he mentions his teacher sangye yeshe. He says that by gathering the winds into the avadhuti you reach in a moment the same state of perfect knowledge of emptiness as a learned and trained scholar has.
In gelug school such possibility is accepted. Direct yogic nonconceptual wisdom due to correct yogic practice.

kirtu wrote:

conebeckham wrote:

You do absolutely need an understanding of emptiness but according to my Sakya and Nyingma teachers the Mind Only school position is sufficient

.

That's interesting, Kirt...I assume that this is the Mind Only interpretation which does not posit the absolutely existing Mind? Or, in other wordds, Yogacara that posits mind as ultimately empty?

No it's valid for Mind Only that posits the ultimately existing mind as well. As Tamdrin points out in a later posting this will not result in full enlightenment but can establish one on the bhumis. So it can get people started on tantra and can even result in the bhumis but it is incomplete and insufficient for full enlightenment. In Sakya in particular it is basically treated as a provisional view (as are all views lower than Madhyamaka).

In comparison the lower schools view of Sautantrika and Vaihasika is not sufficient for one to begin tantric practice, even kriya yoga tantra. However I think Tsongkhapa suggests that kriya yoga practice can begin with a lower view (I think this is in HHDL's commentary in "Tantra in Tibet" but I can't look that up). In practice some view of emptiness is better than none (unless it's too far off and is nihilistic).

The Mind Only teaching (Cittamantra) is indeed the minimum requirement for a Gelugpa to enter Anuttarayoga practice, not its NOT sufficient for any practitioners with that view to reach any of the bhumi stages....not even the first one. Gelugpa' treatment of the completion stages practice is way different way from other three schools, they see the state of mind generated by completion stage practices as Shamatha rather than the union of both Calm abiding and insight as preached by other three schools. Therefore, the Madhyamaka view that a Gelugpa hold at his point of meditation is very, very important.

According to Gelug teachings, a practitioner will see the light and abandons his inferior view of Mind only when he reaches the Mind isolation phrase of completion stage and take up the view of prasangika madhyamaka. Whatever the practitioners does that during or after his meditation sitting is unknown but Tsongkhapa have mentioned various time that the first Bhumi Bodhisattvas must held the Prasangika Madhyamaka as the supreme doctrine and there is no rooms for negotiations regarding that.

I'm not so sure about other schools thought as they view tantra practices as being the union of both Calm abiding and insight without requiring to undergo any Madhyamaka analysis of reality during the whole process.

Kai wrote: Gelugpa' treatment of the completion stages practice is way different way from other three schools, they see the state of mind generated by completion stage practices as Shamatha rather than the union of both Calm abiding and insight as preached by other three schools. Therefore, the Madhyamaka view that a Gelugpa hold at his point of meditation is very, very important.

Really? Do you have some scriptural citation? I am not being critical, just curious as it has always been explained to me (by Gelug lamas) as being the union that one focuses on, though yes shamatha is developed in generation stage.