Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:31 pm

Pema Rigdzin wrote:.....impassable chasm....



Exactly.

If something was hypothetically not empty, it would not be able to interact with our universe, or as you put it an "impassable chasm".

Thats a good phrase.....I have to remember that.

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

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Acchantika » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:37 pm

alwayson wrote:But lets also not pretend that Western Vajrayana practitioners are attaining even first Bhumi, let alone Buddhahood.


Who cares? How does someone else's realisation affect you? A seed needs planting to give fruit. Floating around laughing at other seeds won't help.

Anyway: since time, duration, progress and so on are mere constructs as you like to say, there is no difference between one who is starting the path and their eventual Buddhahood. It is the same instant. Ignorance is simply wisdom in the process of self-liberation.

So we can see everything as ignorant, stupid and worthy of animosity, or we can see all action as the activity of Buddhahood, nothing less.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Kelwin » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:53 pm

Acchantika wrote:
alwayson wrote:But lets also not pretend that Western Vajrayana practitioners are attaining even first Bhumi, let alone Buddhahood.


Who cares? How does someone else's realisation affect you? A seed needs planting to give fruit. Floating around laughing at other seeds won't help.

I can't answer for Alwayson, but it would certainly be a possible reason for worry, wouldn't it?
However, I know Western practitioners who have achieved (beyond) the first Bhumi, so the statement is wrong, thankfully!
May we all be able to do it! :namaste:
User avatar
Kelwin
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:52 pm

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby heart » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:29 pm

alwayson wrote:
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:


Of course your are right, everything green is grass. Try reading the post before replying.

/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: 3097
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:37 pm

heart wrote:Of course your are right, everything green is grass. Try reading the post before replying.

/magnus



I did read it.

I follow and have stated exact by the book Madhyamaka principles.

So take it up with Nagarjuna.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby heart » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:42 pm

alwayson wrote:
heart wrote:Of course your are right, everything green is grass. Try reading the post before replying.

/magnus



I did read it.

I follow and have stated exact by the book Madhyamaka principles.

So take it up with Nagarjuna.


No you don't even understand, OD = emptiness yes, but please quote where Nagarjuna says emptiness = OD. Because this is what you are saying young Padawan.

/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: 3097
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:45 pm

heart wrote:but please quote where Nagarjuna says emptiness = OD. Because this is what you are saying young Padawan.

/magnus


Namdrol just said where Nagarjuna says this in the Mulamadhyamakakarikas


Namdrol wrote:That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.

-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby heart » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:54 pm

alwayson wrote:
heart wrote:but please quote where Nagarjuna says emptiness = OD. Because this is what you are saying young Padawan.

/magnus


Namdrol just said where Nagarjuna says this in the Mulamadhyamakakarikas


Namdrol wrote:That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.

-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.


Yes, and please now find the quote where Nagarjuna says that whatever is emptiness is dependent origination. Samsara is empty, but is emptiness Samsara?

/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: 3097
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:59 pm

heart wrote:Yes, and please now find the quote where Nagarjuna says that whatever is emptiness is dependent origination.

/magnus



Namdrol just said where Nagarjuna says this in the Mulamadhyamakakarikas


Namdrol wrote:That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.

-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby deepbluehum » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:02 pm

Eel-wriggling is the epithet the Buddha gave for those who don't take a position. My position is as follows:

The Buddha taught cause and effect. Cause and effect are DO'd. DO is empty. Emptiness, DO, cause and effect, is efficacious.

Now be a good teacher and fix your fan's mistaken view of the nonexistence of karma and Buddhas.

Namdrol wrote: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.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:08 pm

deepbluehum wrote:Now be a good teacher and fix your fan's mistaken view of the nonexistence of karma and Buddhas.


Thats what you claimed LOL

Find one instance where I asserted this.

Go.

I never even used any variation on the word "existence", "nonexistence" etc.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby heart » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:10 pm

alwayson wrote:
heart wrote:Yes, and please now find the quote where Nagarjuna says that whatever is emptiness is dependent origination.

/magnus



Namdrol just said where Nagarjuna says this in the Mulamadhyamakakarikas


Namdrol wrote:That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.

-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.


:smile: so because Namdrol agreed that with you that what is dependent originated is emptiness (which everyone on this forum agrees with) that means that Namdrol agrees with everything you say including emptiness being dependent origination, everything green being grass and so on?

I go to bed now and anyway I feel pretty finished with this discussion. :smile:

Sweet dreams
/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: 3097
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:12 pm

heart wrote: :smile: so because Namdrol agreed that with you that what is dependent originated is emptiness (which everyone on this forum agrees with) that means that Namdrol agrees with everything you say including emptiness being dependent origination, everything green being grass and so on?


Of course emptiness is dependent origination.

And dependent origination is emptiness.

They are exactly synonymous.

To say an object is "empty" is the same as saying that thing is "dependently originated"

This is problem with jumping to Vajrayana without studying basic Buddhism.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby heart » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:15 pm

alwayson wrote:
heart wrote: :smile: so because Namdrol agreed that with you that what is dependent originated is emptiness (which everyone on this forum agrees with) that means that Namdrol agrees with everything you say including emptiness being dependent origination, everything green being grass and so on?


Of course emptiness is dependent origination.

And dependent origination is emptiness.

They are exactly synonymous.

To say an object is "empty" is the same as saying that thing is "dependently originated"

This is problem with jumping to Vajrayana without studying basic Buddhism.


And everything green is grass and Namdrol agrees with everything you say.

/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: 3097
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:18 pm

heart wrote:And everything green is grass and Namdrol agrees with everything you say.

/magnus


What the hell is that supposed to mean with the grass being green?

What do you think emptiness means?

"empty" = "dependently originated"

They are synonymous phrases, which is why everyone including Namdrol uses them interchangeably.

This is not rocket science.
Last edited by alwayson on Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am


Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby heart » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:24 pm

alwayson wrote:
heart wrote:And everything green is grass and Namdrol agrees with everything you say.

/magnus


What the hell is that supposed to mean?

What do you think emptiness means?

"empty" = "dependently originated"

They are synonymous phrases.

This is not rocket science.


Just find me a quote from Nagarjuna then saying that emptiness if dependent origination or else we are finished with this discussion.

/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: 3097
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:29 pm

heart wrote:
alwayson wrote:
heart wrote:And everything green is grass and Namdrol agrees with everything you say.

/magnus


What the hell is that supposed to mean?

What do you think emptiness means?

"empty" = "dependently originated"

They are synonymous phrases.

This is not rocket science.




Just find me a quote from Nagarjuna then saying that emptiness if dependent origination or else we are finished with this discussion.

/magnus


That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness.
-- Mulamadhyamakakarikas.
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: 12035
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby alwayson » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:30 pm

Thank you Namdrol

:bow:

I don't get what "heart" and "deepbluehum" think emptiness is. :crazy:
alwayson
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Postby Malcolm » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:41 pm

The full passage, for context:

That which is dependent origination
is explained to be emptiness,
that is designated from truth,
that is the middle path.

Why? A phenomena
that is not dependently originated does not exist,
therefore, a phenonomena
that is not empty does not exist.

If everything were not empty,
there would be no arising and perishing,
and the consequence would be that for you
the four truths of āryas would not exist.


Deopendent origination and emptiness are synonyms.

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: 12035
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

PreviousNext

Return to Dzogchen

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

>