Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:12 am

Virgo wrote:The problem is I don't think you understand the two heaps of merit and wisdom. You can have a good intellectual grasp of emptiness all day long, for a very, very long time and not attain any stages.

Kevin



I am well aware that only Vajrayana practitioners can attain Buddhahood, practically speaking.

Thats why I am looking to enter Vajrayana.
Last edited by alwayson on Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:38 am

deepbluehum wrote:You might be veering off into the situation of incurability, because you conceptualize emptiness.


I don't conceptualize emptiness, because Madhyamaka is all about the nature of conceptuality in the first place.

But you are right, that IS traditionally supposed to be a big error.

I'm surprised you knew that, but don't know that emptiness = dependent origination.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:40 am

alwayson wrote:
Well I PM'ed Pema, asking for some help in this area, but he blew me off.



I did not blow you off. I'm in college and I work and I practice and I also have a friend staying with me who is going through a difficult time, so I've not had time to finish the response I've been drafting. No need to be so fired up. Relax.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby muni » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:51 am

Be like sky, not like cloud. Forgot who said this.

Some clouds know a lot about the sky, others maybe bit less....never sure.









Nameless sky knows itself, in its' bright nature all right-wrong clouds are free.
muni
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby deepbluehum » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:38 am

Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:
None of them said dependent origination is emptiness.


?

That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.

-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.


Well, the Tathagata is

[n]either the aggregates, nor different from the
aggregates,
The aggregates are not in him, nor is he in the aggregates.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.


Whatever is dependent on another entity,
Its selfhood is not appropriate.
It is not tenable that what lacks a self
Could be a Tathagata.

How can an empty Tathagata
Be known through the empty?

"Empty" should not be asserted.
"Nonempty" should not be asserted.
Neither both nor neither should be asserted.
They are only used nominally.


Just because,

The agent is like the illusion.;

The action is like the illusion's illusion;

and

Afflictions, actions, bodies,
Agents and fruits are
Like a city of Gandharvas and
Like a mirage or a dream
;

does not mean you should have a view such that

You [w]ill be without the perception of causes and
conditions.


Because if you do have such a view,

Effects and causes
And agent and action
And conditions and arising and ceasing
And effects will be rendered impossible.


Therefore,

The ten [good karmas]
Are the method of realizing the Dharma.
;
-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.

And

The wise will always honor and bow down
To Buddha statues, though they're made of wood;

--Suhrillekha

Also illusory prayers emanated from an illusory person to the unmistaken Three Jewels will not be fruitless.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby deepbluehum » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:52 am

To capture Nagarjuna's intent in brief one should quote the dedicatory verse:

I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
The best of teachers, who taught that
Whatever is dependently arisen is
Unceasing, unborn,
Unannihilated, not permanent,
Not coming, not going,
Without distinction, without identity,
And free from conceptual construction.


The terse quote "whatever is dependently originated is explained to be emptiness" when placed in context deconstructs the view that suffering cannot cease, and is not a good candidate for a terse formulation intended to capture the whole of Nagarjuna's intent.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:27 am

To say that dependent origination is not emptiness is to assert an impassable chasm between relative and ultimate truths, Samsara and Nirvana. In truth, "dependent origination" and "emptiness", "relative truth" and "ultimate truth", "samsara" and "nirvana" only make sense in dependence upon one another. Genuine truth is free of any such designations or elaboration... It is the inseparability of the two truths.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby deepbluehum » Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:02 pm

Pema Rigdzin wrote:To say that dependent origination is not emptiness is to assert an impassable chasm between relative and ultimate truths, Samsara and Nirvana. In truth, "dependent origination" and "emptiness", "relative truth" and "ultimate truth", "samsara" and "nirvana" only make sense in dependence upon one another. Genuine truth is free of any such designations or elaboration... It is the inseparability of the two truths.


Not sure if this is addressed to me, but I didn't say DO is not emptiness. I will point out this one thing to you Pema la. DO is not relative truth on the one hand and emptiness ultimate on the other. Relative conventional truth is just truth according to ordinary worldly language. Conventional language does not recognize that all things are DO'd, but conceives of them as unitary wholes. A mind that recognizes that all things are DO'd has transcended worldly convention. Emptiness is a name placed on DO. In that sense, the terms emptiness and DO themselves becomes a worldly conventions, and when these are conceptualized as such create incurable wrong views.

My beef with alwayson was that he was using his formula DO=emptiness to negate buddhas and karma. He is harboring a wrong view, specifically the view that DO exists, emptiness exists, Buddhas and karma do not exist, and therefore he doesn't need to renounce his pride or his self grasping.

Just as those in the realms of the hungry ghosts
See the sea as dry before their eyes
Just so those in the grip of ignorance
Think the Buddhas do not exist.

--Dharmadhatustotra

Madhyamaka is a sharp knife and must be wielded skillfully not bluntly.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby booker » Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:09 pm

It's better to relax, anyway. :)
"Be Buddhist or be Buddha"
User avatar
booker
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:08 pm
Location: UK

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:39 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Not sure if this is addressed to me, but I didn't say DO is not emptiness.


Ahem:

deepbluehum wrote:

None of them said dependent origination is emptiness.


N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12332
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:40 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Conventional language does not recognize that all things are DO'd, but conceives of them as unitary wholes.


That depends on the convention. That certainly is not the convention around things that are understood to possess parts, for example, machines.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12332
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:01 pm

Pema Rigdzin wrote:To say that dependent origination is not emptiness is to assert an impassable chasm between relative and ultimate truths, Samsara and Nirvana. In truth, "dependent origination" and "emptiness", "relative truth" and "ultimate truth", "samsara" and "nirvana" only make sense in dependence upon one another. Genuine truth is free of any such designations or elaboration... It is the inseparability of the two truths.


Well said. As Je Tsongkhapa says in the Three Principal Aspects of the Path:

Moreover, when the extreme of existence is dispelled by appearance
And the extreme of non-existence is dispelled by emptiness,
And you know how emptiness is perceived as cause and effect,
You will not be captivated by extreme views.
User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Acchantika » Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:13 pm

alwayson wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:I recommend you give up all this intellectual pursuit until you find a teacher. Your view will not get fixed unless you do.


You can be a Mahayana buddhist without a teacher.


Not necessarily a very good one.

However, being a Mahayana Buddhist does include developing bodhichitta, which includes the perfection of meditation and behaviour.

Lest we fall into the abyss of armchairyana.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby deepbluehum » Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:49 pm

Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Not sure if this is addressed to me, but I didn't say DO is not emptiness.


Ahem:

deepbluehum wrote:

None of them said dependent origination is emptiness.


N


You are not catching my meaning friend.

I'm trying to make Gorampa's point, perhaps in an unwieldy way.

...the thought that, having broken through the reification of grasping at truth, conceptualizes [things] to be mere imputations, is also said to be a form at grasping at the self of phenomena.
--lta ba'i shan 'byed

If you say "DO is emptiness," it is just a convention, a label. That is different than saying, "DO is emptiness. The Tathagata is emptiness. Therefore, the Tathagata is DO'd, and is just a mere label in my mind." This reasoning reifies the conventional as truth. Then, a Madhayamakan has to show that no, she or he has not made the logical argument that DO is emptiness, and that DO and emptiness are just labels. So just because that which arises conditionally is labelled "emptiness," does not mean the Tathagata is an object which we called "emptiness." In fact, the Tathagata cannot arise conditionally, because that would mean that which has transcended impermanence would not have done so. A "Tathagata" has relinquished grasping at truth and falsity, and so having cut the root of samsara, is unarisen.

"I didn't say DO is not emptiness," because first off a Madhyamakan doesn't make claims, and second of all because this conventional parlance is convenient, like bowing to a Buddha photo, because you can't bow to the nonarising essence.

"None of them said DO is emptiness," because Nagarjuna explicitly stated that "empty" and "DO" are just a labels. The key point being these labels do not justify negating the Buddha, karma, etc., by claiming the Buddha is a mere imputation.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby deepbluehum » Mon Oct 03, 2011 4:59 pm

Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Conventional language does not recognize that all things are DO'd, but conceives of them as unitary wholes.


That depends on the convention. That certainly is not the convention around things that are understood to possess parts, for example, machines.

N


Lol. Depends on who's conceiving it. I had a girlfriend once who thought her car was permanently injured when the tire went flat. But I get your point. So the Buddha is understood to possess parts or what?
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby heart » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:13 pm

deepbluehum wrote: That is different than saying, "DO is emptiness. The Tathagata is emptiness. Therefore, the Tathagata is DO'd, and is just a mere label in my mind." This reasoning reifies the conventional as truth.


Exactly, all grass is green so then everything green is grass. There is faulty logic in the way alwayson is reasoning.

/magnus
"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."
- Longchenpa
User avatar
heart
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:17 pm

alwayson wrote:YES BUDDHAS ARE PERMANENT.

But ONLY because Sambhogakāyas are fueled by infinite compassion.

They are still dependently originated (i.e. empty).



I just want to add to my statement here.

Infinite cause (bodhicitta) equals infinite effect (Sambhogakāya)
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:20 pm

Eel-wriggling.


deepbluehum wrote:
You are not catching my meaning friend.

I'm trying to make Gorampa's point, perhaps in an unwieldy way.

...the thought that, having broken through the reification of grasping at truth, conceptualizes [things] to be mere imputations, is also said to be a form at grasping at the self of phenomena.
--lta ba'i shan 'byed

If you say "DO is emptiness," it is just a convention, a label. That is different than saying, "DO is emptiness. The Tathagata is emptiness. Therefore, the Tathagata is DO'd, and is just a mere label in my mind." This reasoning reifies the conventional as truth. Then, a Madhayamakan has to show that no, she or he has not made the logical argument that DO is emptiness, and that DO and emptiness are just labels. So just because that which arises conditionally is labelled "emptiness," does not mean the Tathagata is an object which we called "emptiness." In fact, the Tathagata cannot arise conditionally, because that would mean that which has transcended impermanence would not have done so. A "Tathagata" has relinquished grasping at truth and falsity, and so having cut the root of samsara, is unarisen.

"I didn't say DO is not emptiness," because first off a Madhyamakan doesn't make claims, and second of all because this conventional parlance is convenient, like bowing to a Buddha photo, because you can't bow to the nonarising essence.

"None of them said DO is emptiness," because Nagarjuna explicitly stated that "empty" and "DO" are just a labels. The key point being these labels do not justify negating the Buddha, karma, etc., by claiming the Buddha is a mere imputation.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 12332
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:21 pm

Acchantika wrote:
alwayson wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:I recommend you give up all this intellectual pursuit until you find a teacher. Your view will not get fixed unless you do.


You can be a Mahayana buddhist without a teacher.


Not necessarily a very good one.

However, being a Mahayana Buddhist does include developing bodhichitta, which includes the perfection of meditation and behaviour.

Lest we fall into the abyss of armchairyana.



Very true.

Thats why I'm looking for a teacher.

But lets also not pretend that Western Vajrayana practitioners are attaining even first Bhumi, let alone Buddhahood.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:24 pm

heart wrote:
deepbluehum wrote: That is different than saying, "DO is emptiness. The Tathagata is emptiness. Therefore, the Tathagata is DO'd, and is just a mere label in my mind." This reasoning reifies the conventional as truth.


Exactly, all grass is green so then everything green is grass. There is faulty logic in the way alwayson is reasoning.

/magnus



my logic?

Everyone, including Nagarjuna and sons, says DO = emptiness.

Even Namdrol here is saying the same thing.

Why are SOME Vajrayana practitioners so ignorant about basic Buddhism???

:techproblem:
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

>