Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:32 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Posts: 1952
By Je Tsongkhapa: http://www.tibetanclassics.org/pdfs/InP ... endent.pdf

_________________
Only consider helping others and forget yourself. Master Hsuan Hua


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 8:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Here for all of us; Chinese, Vietnamese, Tibetan.
http://www.dalailamabay2007.com/index.p ... &Itemid=35

Thupten Jinpa explains clearly in English each stansa: http://www.snowlionpub.com/html/product_9541.html

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 25, 2010 1:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
:namaste: thanks Will and Muni, am i right in summarising this...

everything depends on something else for its existence. its a network of life. nothing has its own independent existence. all things lack an independent identity, or self. all is depedent and interdependent.

love White Lotus.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:19 am 
Offline
Founding Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:54 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Greetings,

White Lotus wrote:
everything depends on something else for its existence.

Spot on!

Importantly, this also applies to those things we mistakenly assume to be I, me, mine or self (atman).

Analyzing the link of dependent origination helps us unpick false perceptions of self.

The teaching of Dependent Origination is cool. 8-)

Metta,
Retro. :)

_________________
Live in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes

Dhamma Wheel (Theravada forum) * Here Comes Trouble


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Posts: 1952
White Lotus wrote:
:namaste: thanks Will and Muni, am i right in summarising this...

everything depends on something else for its existence. its a network of life. nothing has its own independent existence. all things lack an independent identity, or self. all is depedent and interdependent.

love White Lotus.


Right you are Lotus. It even goes deeper than objects like people, trees or stars. Even our thoughts, words & deeds are empty of solid or inherent existence.

_________________
Only consider helping others and forget yourself. Master Hsuan Hua


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
:namaste: thanks.
does anyone actually think that although everything is dependent there is real existence in form?

i believe that one cannot fall into the extreme of emptiness, since ultimately there is no form. i think it would be misguided to say that those things which are dependent still are real. they may be real in a personal sense, but not truly any more than flowers in the sky, mirages in the destert and the reflection of the moon in a pond.

ie, dependent objects appear to be real, but truly they are not even appearances, nor are they arisings.

please correct me if i am wrong. just because emptiness may be seen on one level, does not mean that dependent objects still do not have some form of reality, albeit a personal one.

as for self, if one has a relative self, it can be perceived in relation to the 5 skhandas, but ultimately there are no skhandas, nor is there any perceiving... so how could there be a self? the relative self is impermanenent, it is also impure. a buddhist would seek to move in his experience from atman to sunyatman, and then ultimately to tathagatman. but why seek when there is already nothing to be found. 'this is it', just as you are. not a thing to seek, not a thing to be found... only emptiness (to see). no need to even see emptiness, no need to even see your original nature. this is it.

as the patriarch said (parphrase), let it be known that everyone is liberated.

seeing your own nature and the emptiness of all things is normal for everyone. they just dont see what they have always seen.

best wishes, White Lotus.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 26, 2010 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Delaware
"Relative truth may be conceptual, but there is no way to realize nonconceptual absolute truth without it."

-Tweet today from Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
justsit wrote:
"Relative truth may be conceptual, but there is no way to realize nonconceptual absolute truth without it."

-Tweet today from Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche


:namaste: Yes! The importance to actually put this great teaching in our daily life bit by bit.

It is like Khyentse Norbu explained with a large smile: "If I want to become an alcoholic, I need transmission. So when I feel need to become such alcoholic I must direct me to a bar. There I can find one who can introduce me. But if that one is giving me a whole bottle, I can be completely sick and lost and will not have learned to drink through this transmission. But when he gives me the first taste, then a bit more, than a glass, slowly I will become an alcoholic."

(so maybe this example is also a good one to be careful with all that)

The teaching of Dependent Origination must not be pushed away! All is interdependent! As what Retro and Will say about dependency of self, thoughts and really everything; is talking for itself.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
if we took away relative experience would there be tathata? and my it would be boring. i still suspect that inspite of relative experience there is no reality.

Venerable Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, even the relative is not seen. we talk of seeing and hearing, but actually we dont see, nor do we hear. how could that which is not a self see or hear.

Noble Muni, you once said in a post, "there is no arising". Yup, there is no arising, but we all like to go to the cinema if theres a good film showing. the enjoyment does not make the film real, but it is still seems to be experienced... where actually there is no experience.

i suspect that dependent origination just points to the fact that really there is since the beginning "not a single thing" anywhere. and yet... cut and you bleed, laugh and feel happy, drink tea and relax.

i have heard of the mind only school, but actually there is no mind... in anyone or anything. everything is without mind. if we talk of no mind we are talking of something where actually there is not even no mind, in anyone or anything at all.

the show must go on, dependent origination is merely the dancing of lights from the projector one sees in the movie theatre. insubstantial.

i am wondering "What creates dependent origination, where does it come from, what is its purpose, is it the buddha?" actually, is it not without purpose since fundamentally dependence does not exist? there is not a speck of dust anywhere, not a single hair enters into emptiness.

best wishes, White Lotus.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
White Lotus wrote:
if we took away relative experience would there be tathata? and my it would be boring. i still suspect that inspite of relative experience there is no reality.

Venerable Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, even the relative is not seen. we talk of seeing and hearing, but actually we dont see, nor do we hear. how could that which is not a self see or hear.

Noble Muni, you once said in a post, "there is no arising". Yup, there is no arising, but we all like to go to the cinema if theres a good film showing. the enjoyment does not make the film real, but it is still seems to be experienced... where actually there is no experience.

i suspect that dependent origination just points to the fact that really there is since the beginning "not a single thing" anywhere. and yet... cut and you bleed, laugh and feel happy, drink tea and relax.

i have heard of the mind only school, but actually there is no mind... in anyone or anything. everything is without mind. if we talk of no mind we are talking of something where actually there is not even no mind, in anyone or anything at all.

the show must go on, dependent origination is merely the dancing of lights from the projector one sees in the movie theatre. insubstantial.

i am wondering "What creates dependent origination, where does it come from, what is its purpose, is it the buddha?" actually, is it not without purpose since fundamentally dependence does not exist? there is not a speck of dust anywhere, not a single hair enters into emptiness.

best wishes, White Lotus.

:namaste: there is a text about the approaches of the Two Truths in Vajrayana Kagyu.

Beyond mental fabrications, constructions is no arisen (increasing-decreasing).
"Nothing enters" emptiness: emptiness is the very nature of phenomena.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
:namaste: Noble Muni,
the "two" truths are: mental fabrications versus the only reality... emptiness??? how could there be two truths? emptiness is form. thisness is empty. this is one truth.

is our experience a fabrication?... it is empty. yes, but is it right to speak of a cup of tea as false? (fabricated). it does not exist, but that does not make it false.

could we use a more accurate description of suchness, than fabrication? we know that the cup of tea does not exist, that it is dreamlike, nonetheless we still need it to live our daily life, to live the dream.

with respect, White Lotus.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 2:51 am 
Offline
Founding Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:54 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Greetings,

White Lotus wrote:
if we took away relative experience would there be tathata? and my it would be boring.

Boring? Sounds good to me.

Metta,
Retro. :)

_________________
Live in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes

Dhamma Wheel (Theravada forum) * Here Comes Trouble


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 4:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:24 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Delaware
White Lotus wrote:
We know that the cup of tea does not exist, nonetheless we still need it to live our daily life, to live the dream.

...which is Rinpoche's point, except that we don't "know" the cup of tea doesn't exist. Rather, the cup of tea has no inherent existence. It does exist on the level of relative truth. It does not exist from its own side.

That is not the same as saying "it does not exist," which is the extreme view of nihilism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 29, 2010 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
White Lotus wrote:
:namaste: thanks Will and Muni, am i right in summarising this...

everything depends on something else for its existence. its a network of life. nothing has its own independent existence. all things lack an independent identity, or self. all is depedent and interdependent.

love White Lotus.


Interdependent. :meditate:

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:56 pm
Posts: 589
:namaste: Noble Just sitting,
Quote:
we don't "know" the cup of tea doesn't exist. Rather, the cup of tea has no inherent existence. It does exist on the level of relative truth. It does not exist from its own side.


actually it can be said that inspite of its dependence a cup of tea exists if you think it does, it just has no independence. the colour of your mind determines the colour of the tea, the colour of the tea determines the colour of your mind.

if we think we dont know that the cup of tea doesnt exit, then we dont know. if we know it does then it does. if we think there is no cup then there isnt, if we think there is then there is. if we think there neither is nor isnt a cup of tea, then this is so, or if we think the cup of tea is just a cup of tea. that saves some headache. Mind being one flavour has all flavours.

best wishes, White Lotus.

Mind maketh the world,
the world maketh mind.

theres a killer whale in the tea cup.

_________________
in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gad rgyangs, LastLegend and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group