Potential

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Potential

Postby heart » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:43 pm

TMingyur wrote:
Actually not all tibetan schools share your view.
But this is secondary.

My intention is investigation.

Kind regards


Investigating what exactly?

You are aware of the the Tripitaka is based on an oral tradition? The same is true for the Mahayana sutras and the Tantras.

/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: 3136
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:21 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
What can be experienced is non-attachment.
How does one experience non-attachment? For example, in order to see one needs the eye sense organ, light and a visual object. When one of the three are missing one does not experience non-seeing do they? They just do not see. So, again, how does one experience non-attachment?

Wondering about words that could apply I cannot find words that I find appropriate to describe how one experience anything. You are asking "how does one experience 'sweet'" and the answer is "for instance when one tastes sugar". So one experiences the removal of attachment through applying one of the ways the Buddha taught.

gregkavarnos wrote:
But emptiness is just a temporary modus operandi of consciousness leading to the experience of non-attachment.
Non-attachment relies on the realisation/experience of emptiness. Emptiness is the "basis" for non-attachment. Without the experience of emptiness, the realisation of dependent origination, from where will non-attachment arise? As long as one dwells in the dualistic notion of an inherently existing subject and object non-attachment cannot arise. So through experiencing emptiness and overcoming dualism one can then dwell in non-attachment.

Who do you refer to when writing "one does this or that?" If you are meaning "I" then fine. How could I know what and through what you experience what. Belief is very powerful.
If you are meaning "everybody" how could you know anything about others experience?

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:23 am

conebeckham wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
conebeckham wrote:But hey, if you prefer your "non-attachment," that's cool. :smile:


It is not a matter of choice but a matter of mindfulness of attachment, its arising and ceasing depening on conditions ... contact ... feeling ... volition ...

That is experience ... not mere thought. And yes I do prefer experience to mere thought.

Kind regards


As do I--and the path or technique of mindfulness of attachment is a path that leads to direct experience. In Mahamudra terms, we say "Thoughts are self-liberated as they appear."


That is a nice saying. The sayings in the suttas apply different words due to refering to different aspects.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:26 am

heart wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Actually not all tibetan schools share your view.
But this is secondary.

My intention is investigation.

Kind regards


Investigating what exactly?

The exchange of words and how these words correlate with words applied in texts of others.

heart wrote:You are aware of the the Tripitaka is based on an oral tradition? The same is true for the Mahayana sutras and the Tantras.

Well a text is not oral but of course the medium of transmission of texts is oral. Because before there is writing there must be oral information and processing of this information by the one who does the writing.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 4:54 am

When terms are applied repeatedly they tend to get reified in the minds of those who apply these terms.
Especially if there is insistence in the context of debate like "No it it this" "You do not understand that it is that" reification is necessarily the basis of such talk regardless whether there is affirmation or rejection of the validity of a term in a given context.

Therefore it seems appropriate to recall occasionally what one refers to when applying a certain term.

So taking "All"
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

attachment or its removal ("non-attachment") refers to "All", i.e. there is nothing whatsoever that is not covered in the context of "objects" or "phenomena".

As to the 12 limbs of DO the meaning of "attachment" in the context of "quality" of the subject refers to limb 8 and 9 (craving and clinging).

In the context of neither object nor subject "attachment" refers to the "clinging aggregates". Be it "All" or be it DO it boils down to the "clinging aggregates". "Aggregates" of course is just an arbitrary heuristic categorization of experience, kind of a "learning device", a term ("aggregate") or terms ("form, feeling, perception... " etc) that can be applied in the context of communication about experience.

That is important to keep in mind: If we are talking about experience we are talking about the aggregates with their "inherent quality/tendency" of clinging. ("inherent" here not in a philosophical sense).

Interesting question would be how this "inherent quality" of clinging relates to the so called "inherent potential" which is the topic of this thread.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:02 am

TMingyur wrote:
conebeckham wrote:In Mahamudra terms, we say "Thoughts are self-liberated as they appear."


That is a nice saying...


For an adept practitioner of Mahamudra or Dzogchen, it is much more than a saying.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:06 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
conebeckham wrote:In Mahamudra terms, we say "Thoughts are self-liberated as they appear."


That is a nice saying...


For an adept practitioner of Mahamudra or Dzogchen, it is much more than a saying.


Well maybe but we have been talking about "terms".

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:14 am

TMingyur wrote:When terms are applied repeatedly they tend to get reified in the minds of those who apply these terms.


When one has spent a lot of time thinking, but little time getting in meditation getting to know something about where the notion of "I" and its host concepts and experiences supposedly spring from, where they supposedly abide, and where they supposedly vanish to, all one can correlate these terms with is the churning thoughts of one's intellect. So yes, reification of mere terms is inevitable for such a person.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:29 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
TMingyur wrote:When terms are applied repeatedly they tend to get reified in the minds of those who apply these terms.


When one has spent a lot of time thinking, but little time getting in meditation getting to know something about where the notion of "I" and its host concepts and experiences supposedly spring from, where they supposedly abide, and where they supposedly vanish to, all one can correlate these terms with is the churning thoughts of one's intellect. So yes, reification of mere terms is inevitable for such a person.


Not so. "inevitable" is reification.

What you quoted actually is an instance of mindfulness. "they tend to get"

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:04 am

TMingyur wrote:Wondering about words that could apply I cannot find words that I find appropriate to describe how one experience anything. You are asking "how does one experience 'sweet'" and the answer is "for instance when one tastes sugar". So one experiences the removal of attachment through applying one of the ways the Buddha taught.
No I am not asking "how does one experience sweet", I am asking "how does one experience non-sweetness due to the absence of sweetness". That is what you are positing when you say that one experiences non-attachment. Words fail you because words merely express experience (clumsily albeit) and since there cannot be an experience of non-attachment (just the practice of non-attachment which leads to a realisation/experience of emptiness) then obviously there can be no words to describe your hypothetical experience. One can, for example, experience/perceive/realise emptiness by meditating on a flower as it starts off fresh and smelling beautiful and slowly decomposes and starts to stink, this experience can then lead to non-attachment to forms.

But emptiness is just a temporary modus operandi of consciousness leading to the experience of non-attachment.
You know, I have been studying Theravadra and Mahayana Abhidharma for over ten years and I don't recall having seen emptiness categorised as a temporary operation of consciousness. Care to refer me to something in any of the Canon (or even commentarial literature) which supports this speculative view of yours?

Who do you refer to when writing "one does this or that?" If you are meaning "I" then fine. How could I know what and through what you experience what. Belief is very powerful. If you are meaning "everybody" how could you know anything about others experience?
You ever study Abhidhamma or Abhidharma? Brilliant stuff, it basically categorises ALL sentient experience and leads to the logical conclusion that what we deem as personal knowledge or experience is merely a combination of factors that are common to ALL individuals. It seems that the Buddha was aware of this when he set down the Noble Eightfold Path as a road map towards enlightnemnet which is applicable to ALL people.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:21 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Wondering about words that could apply I cannot find words that I find appropriate to describe how one experience anything. You are asking "how does one experience 'sweet'" and the answer is "for instance when one tastes sugar". So one experiences the removal of attachment through applying one of the ways the Buddha taught.
No I am not asking "how does one experience sweet", I am asking "how does one experience non-sweetness due to the absence of sweetness".

"sweetness" is not the direct experience of "sweet". It is a concept that correlates with the direct experience. The same holds true for "non-sweetness". You experience "non-sweetness" through everything the term "sweetness" does not apply.
"attachment" is not the direct experience of "being attached to". It is a concept that correlates with a direct experience. The same holds true for "non-attachment". You experience "non-attachment" through everything the term "attachment" does not apply. In contrast to "sweetness" "attachment" does apply to every worldly experience be it "sweetness" or "non-sweetness". You experience "non-attachment" in the sphere of the non-wordly or supramundane but never in the sphere of the worldly or mundane.

Now emptiness is emptiness of what?

Kind regards
Last edited by ground on Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby Rael » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:22 am

conebeckham wrote:"Buddha Nature" is the inherent potential of all sentient beings. It is the base. It is not a conditioned phenomena, but the Realm of Reality, the Dharmadhatu.

This statement is in keeping with the original quote from HHDL. Also, it is in keeping with the traditions of Mahamudra and Dzokchen, and also Highest Yoga Tantra. It is called many things, "Ordinary Mind" (Thamal Gyi Shepa) in Mahamudra, "Rigpa" in Dzokchen.

Being attached to the concept "Buddha Nature" or "Inherent Potential" is just another attachment.....in the same way that one can be attached to "emptiness" as an "ultimate reality"....these are conceptual positions elaborated by the mental consciousness.

In actuality, it is impossible to be "attached" to Buddha Nature, because there is no ultimate subject/object dualism, therefore, no attachee and no attacher.

As long as there is merely conceptual "investigation," there will be no experiental understanding of any of this. One must ultimately go beyond analysis. The oral instructions of the masters of the lineages of Dzokchen and Mahamudra and the practices of these lineages are the means and methods to generate experience.


if there is no such thing as anything being inherent....why would Buddah nature over ride this ...
Buddha Nature" is the inherent potential of all sentient beings.


inherent potential...that makes the whole thing worst for wear....

you are confusing the ultimate nature of all things because you want Buddha nature to be inherent .....

the whole point is to realize that even Buddha nature is empty of being inherent ....and even emptiness is empty....


i kinda liken the use here of this in this way ,to be the ultimate get out jail free card....pointing out the misuse of inherent is not attachment....
Being attached to the concept "Buddha Nature" or "Inherent Potential" is just another attachment.


His holiness says many things that are rife with confusion over his use of the English language and we cut Him some slack.... Buddha nature is not inherent




The oral instructions of the masters of the lineages of Dzokchen and Mahamudra and the practices of these lineages are the means and methods to generate experience

I agree but every now and then they prove to be fallible when not using their own language....

another huge rason to never let the teachings go to all english...or some dreadful language like spanish...lol...just kidding about Spanish....


In actuality, it is impossible to be "attached" to Buddha Nature, because there is no ultimate subject/object dualism, therefore, no attachee and no attacher.


and finally ...did you say this piece due to it's nature being empty of inherent existence
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:32 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
Who do you refer to when writing "one does this or that?" If you are meaning "I" then fine. How could I know what and through what you experience what. Belief is very powerful. If you are meaning "everybody" how could you know anything about others experience?
You ever study Abhidhamma or Abhidharma? Brilliant stuff, it basically categorises ALL sentient experience and leads to the logical conclusion that what we deem as personal knowledge or experience is merely a combination of factors that are common to ALL individuals. It seems that the Buddha was aware of this when he set down the Noble Eightfold Path as a road map towards enlightnemnet which is applicable to ALL people.
:namaste:


Well see my post here:

viewtopic.php?p=29790#p29790

obviously NOT all people share the same "understanding" (metaphorical meaning, not identical to your "logical conclusion") of what is valid as to ALL.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:44 am

TMingyur wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:
When one has spent a lot of time thinking, but little time in meditation getting to know something about where the notion of "I" and its host concepts and experiences supposedly spring from, where they supposedly abide, and where they supposedly vanish to, all one can correlate these terms with is the churning thoughts of one's intellect. So yes, reification of mere terms is inevitable for such a person.


Not so. "inevitable" is reification.

Not quite sure what you're meaning to express here. In any case, those with deep experiential familiarity with the emptiness of the I and its conceptual proliferations is not likely to get caught in the trap of reifying terms used to express the qualities of emptiness or uncompounded cognizance. Why not? Because he or she is not working with mere conceptualizations of those terms but has actually tasted them through incisive meditative experience.

A person who has discovered that the "snake" he saw in the garden was actually a rope is not likely to revert to thinking of the rope as a snake when telling his story. Even though he may not be looking at the rope while telling the story of his discovery, a lasting impression of realizing the true identity of the "snake" and ceasing to be startled will stay with him. Similarly, those who've had thorough, frequently repeated glimpses of their true nature - and who keep up their training daily so they do not fall back - are not likely to revert to reification when using various traditional terms to speak about things such as emptiness, the empty nature of mind, emptiness-awareness, buddhanature, etc. Even if they are not able to have a clear experience of their nature while outside of meditative absorption, the sense of a total lack of substantiality will nonetheless persist when making use of the terms used to speak about these topics.

TMingyur wrote:What you quoted actually is an instance of mindfulness. "they tend to get"

Actually, what I quoted is an instance of you projecting onto others your own assumptions and experiences.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Potential

Postby Sherab Dorje » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:51 am

TMingyur wrote:Now emptiness is emptiness of what?
Go read the Sutta and Sutra I referred to and then we can continue this conversation on emptiness.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 10167
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:53 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:
When one has spent a lot of time thinking, but little time in meditation getting to know something about where the notion of "I" and its host concepts and experiences supposedly spring from, where they supposedly abide, and where they supposedly vanish to, all one can correlate these terms with is the churning thoughts of one's intellect. So yes, reification of mere terms is inevitable for such a person.


Not so. "inevitable" is reification.

Not quite sure what you're meaning to express here. In any case, those with deep experiential familiarity with the emptiness of the I and its conceptual proliferations is not likely to get caught in the trap of reifying terms used to express the qualities of emptiness or uncompounded cognizance. Why not? Because he or she is not working with mere conceptualizations of those terms but has actually tasted them through incisive meditative experience.

A person who has discovered that the "snake" he saw in the garden was actually a rope is not likely to revert to thinking of the rope as a snake when telling his story. Even though he may not be looking at the rope while telling the story of his discovery, a lasting impression of realizing the true identity of the "snake" and ceasing to be startled will stay with him. Similarly, those who've had thorough, frequently repeated glimpses of their true nature - and who keep up their training daily so they do not fall back - are not likely to revert to reification when using various traditional terms to speak about things such as emptiness, the empty nature of mind, emptiness-awareness, buddhanature, etc. Even if they are not able to have a clear experience of their nature while outside of meditative absorption, the sense of a total lack of substantiality will nonetheless persist when making use of the terms used to speak about these topics.

Yes yes, I know those views. To what degree are these different to "conceptual proliferations" you are referring to above?

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
TMingyur wrote:What you quoted actually is an instance of mindfulness. "they tend to get"

Actually, what I quoted is an instance of you projecting onto others your own assumptions and experiences.

Sorry but this "projecting onto others" is your fabrication only.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby ground » Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:56 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Now emptiness is emptiness of what?
Go read the Sutta and Sutra I referred to and then we can continue this conversation on emptiness.
:namaste:


Well I would be interested what you read into these. I am not communicating with "Sutta and Sutra" but with you.

kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Potential

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:04 am

Rael wrote:
inherent potential...that makes the whole thing worst for wear....

you are confusing the ultimate nature of all things because you want Buddha nature to be inherent .....

the whole point is to realize that even Buddha nature is empty of being inherent ....and even emptiness is empty....


lol now see, here you're just seeing the word inherent and clinging to the sense that it's "inherently" problematic or mistaken when it's not. For instance, phenomena are inherently empty of any true, uncompounded self-nature or identity. Since such a truly existing nature of phenomena has never existed, does not exist now, and can never exist in the future, compounded phenomena are inherently lacking such a nature. Similarly, the potential for a sentient being to become a Buddha is inherent because he does not possess the eternal, unchanging nature of a sentient being. He is not doomed for all eternity, by nature, to remain a sentient being. Instead, it is possible to collapse the primordial crystalization of emptiness-awareness into notions of self and other, releasing one from all that held one back from naked, uncontrived, unobstructed freedom and enlightened expression that spontaneously benefits all beings.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Potential

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:39 am

TMingyur wrote:Yes yes, I know those views. To what degree are these different to "conceptual proliferations" you are referring to above?
I think it's quite obvious, but since you asked:

If one's words are based on mere thinking, then there is merely conceptual proliferation. Clinging and speculation is involved and cannot be helped.

If there is significant depth of meditative insight, i.e. not based on mere thinking but rather on repeated glimpses of emptiness, one's words are clearly not based on mere conceptual proliferation even though realization is not yet permanent; in other words, whatever conceptualization that arises while speaking about emptiness or the empty yet cognizant nature of mind, etc, will not have the power to trap one because one already knows firsthand the insubstantiality of what these terms point to. Or put another way, one has already seen that there is neither a "thing" to be attached to, nor anyone to be attached, no matter how many words one conjures up to try to speak about the true nature.

If there is complete realization, there is obviously no conceptual proliferation and realization is permanent.

TMingyur wrote:Sorry but this "projecting onto others" is your fabrication only.

TMingyur, you spend the majority of your time at Dharmawheel spewing your views on what must be going on in others' minds. If you want to live in denial about that, I suppose that's your business.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Potential

Postby heart » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:18 pm

TMingyur wrote:Well a text is not oral but of course the medium of transmission of texts is oral. Because before there is writing there must be oral information and processing of this information by the one who does the writing.

Kind regards


All existing Buddhist text are written down from an oral tradition. Just because the oldest text we have are Theravada don't necessarily mean that those teachings are the only teaching the Buddha taught. The teachings of the Mahayana sutras are nevertheless not Tibetan in origin but Indian and the oldest one are very close in age to the Theravada texts we have. So the idea that Theravada is the original teachings and that all further texts are just proliferation stands on very thin legs. All the tenets practiced in Tibet have their source in India.

/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: 3136
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], BrianG, Fruitzilla, heart, tiagolps and 22 guests

>