Natural State and the individual state

[Natan]

As you go deeper and deeper you realize that no substance can remain, no traces can be kept. That is why it is possible to purify all defilements and negative actions. It is very clear that if one person practises and achieves Buddhahood, it is only for himself, not for the rest of the sentient beings; it is not that way at all. That shows us.

This is the essence of why our side says your side has your side has wrong view and is not a Buddhist lineage, but is a heretic religion. Just saying...

There is no reason to obtain Buddhahood for oneself. All this talk about dissolving the elements is just a bunch of flashy talk. Even the so call Sanatana dharma guys have a guru with an eternal rainbow body, Maheshwar Babaji.

Buddhahood is Buddhahood whether one attains a rainbow body or not, but no matter how one achieves the purifications the basis of Buddhahood is Bodhicitta and the bodhisattva vow, and motivation.

Perhaps there is further clarification you can make on this point, but on it's face, it resembles the exact criticisms the Buddhist groups says is wrong with Bon, why they sacrifice animals and such...

[PadmaVonSamba]

Individual is here the word, which has for me personal, an identity . That identity has a name like Maitreya Buddha.Without a name it has no identity.
it is he himself who achieves (Buddhahood), no-one else. For me that Buddha has an identity , like the 12 oaths of Sangye Menlha and his eastern paradise. He became a Buddha dependent on his oaths and realized a pure realm. He is an individual Buddha with identity.

Hurricanes are also individual and have names.
But they don’t possess any qualitative essence.

So, that’s why I’m asking what you are using the term “identity” to refer to specifically. For example, what makes Amitabha Amitabha and not Shakyamuni?

Obviously we can say this is Amitabha Buddha over here and that’s Maitreya over there or whatever. Those designations exist for the benefit of beings.
But if all you are saying is that different Buddhas have different names, I think most people here already know that.

[Johnny Dangerous]

All Lopon appears to be saying is pointing out what has been pointed out many times on DW, that is that if Buddha Nature was shared, one being attaining Buddhahood would make all beings obtain it, but of course it does not work that way.

I’ve also heard more than one Bönpo teacher express admiration for Madhymaka in different contexts, so the idea that this statement is somehow anti-Madhymaka, advocating Shentong specifically or something seems to have little basis in its content.

[krodha]

All Lopon appears to be saying is pointing out what has been pointed out many times on DW, that is that if Buddha Nature was shared, one being attaining Buddhahood would make all beings obtain it, but of course it does not work that way.

I’ve also heard more than one Bönpo teacher express admiration for Madhymaka in different contexts, so the idea that this statement is somehow anti-Madhymaka, advocating Shentong specifically or something seems to have little basis in its content.

Agreed. Also, Jean-Luc Achard said on his forum many years ago that Lopön Tenzin Namdak is a proponent of Prasangika Madhyamaka. He would be the one to know.

[Johnny Dangerous]

All Lopon appears to be saying is pointing out what has been pointed out many times on DW, that is that if Buddha Nature was shared, one being attaining Buddhahood would make all beings obtain it, but of course it does not work that way.

I’ve also heard more than one Bönpo teacher express admiration for Madhymaka in different contexts, so the idea that this statement is somehow anti-Madhymaka, advocating Shentong specifically or something seems to have little basis in its content.

Agreed. Also, Jean-Luc Achard said on his forum many years ago that Lopön Tenzin Namdak is a proponent of Prasangika Madhyamaka. He would be the one to know.

Totally anecdotal, but my impression from the Bön teachers I’ve learned from is that there is a spectrum of thought wrt to Madhymaka, just like in Chos.

I know plenty of Bönpo geshes have studied Buddhist Madhymaka as well. I do not really get the impression that there is much polemicism towards common Buddhist positions outside of the obvious contentious lineage claims.

Not sure how accurate that is, just my impression.

[Passing By]

As you go deeper and deeper you realize that no substance can remain, no traces can be kept. That is why it is possible to purify all defilements and negative actions. It is very clear that if one person practises and achieves Buddhahood, it is only for himself, not for the rest of the sentient beings; it is not that way at all. That shows us.

This is the essence of why our side says your side has your side has wrong view and is not a Buddhist lineage, but is a heretic religion. Just saying...

There is no reason to obtain Buddhahood for oneself. All this talk about dissolving the elements is just a bunch of flashy talk. Even the so call Sanatana dharma guys have a guru with an eternal rainbow body, Maheshwar Babaji.

Buddhahood is Buddhahood whether one attains a rainbow body or not, but no matter how one achieves the purifications the basis of Buddhahood is Bodhicitta and the bodhisattva vow, and motivation.

Perhaps there is further clarification you can make on this point, but on it's face, it resembles the exact criticisms the Buddhist groups says is wrong with Bon, why they sacrifice animals and such...

Loppon is saying that when you go Buddha, the people in your life don't magically do so also. You have to help them along through your activity so they realize it for themselves as well.

I thought it isn't only Bon that says this but Chos too? Even Garchen Rinpoche says that people have to realize their own Buddha nature for themselves.


Also, anyone who says Yungdrung Bon has animal sacrifice has no idea what they are talking about....They'd probably faint if they saw a Bon Dzogchen text and noted how similar it is to a Nyingma one.

[haha]

Self may mean different things for different groups of people. Buddhist definition for Self and non-buddhist definition for Self both are quite different. Their etymology is different. But many people regard they are just the same.

First people should actually listen how Lopön Tenzin Namdak would explain Madhyamaka emptiness and Dzogchen or read him before making any assertion. If somebody had listened to him numerous times, they could definitely tell. Other assertions are not accurate and could be mere fantasy.

May be they are showing the limitation of Madhyamaka from Bonpo dzogchen perspectives. Everyone has their own version of Madhyamaka. Even Nyingma master said that Nagarjuna emptiness and Chandrakirti emptiness are different (i.e. their focus aspect).

[Johnny Dangerous]

As you go deeper and deeper you realize that no substance can remain, no traces can be kept. That is why it is possible to purify all defilements and negative actions. It is very clear that if one person practises and achieves Buddhahood, it is only for himself, not for the rest of the sentient beings; it is not that way at all. That shows us.

This is the essence of why our side says your side has your side has wrong view and is not a Buddhist lineage, but is a heretic religion. Just saying...

There is no reason to obtain Buddhahood for oneself. All this talk about dissolving the elements is just a bunch of flashy talk. Even the so call Sanatana dharma guys have a guru with an eternal rainbow body, Maheshwar Babaji.

Buddhahood is Buddhahood whether one attains a rainbow body or not, but no matter how one achieves the purifications the basis of Buddhahood is Bodhicitta and the bodhisattva vow, and motivation.

Perhaps there is further clarification you can make on this point, but on it's face, it resembles the exact criticisms the Buddhist groups says is wrong with Bon, why they sacrifice animals and such...

As others have pointed out, you have to -really- misunderstand what Lopon is saying here to think it’s some anti-Bodhicitta statement. Sacrificing animals? The whole narrative in Yungdrung Bön is that part of Shenrabs teaching was to put an end to that practice. Repeating it as you are here is just repeating a cultural prejudice.

Also, anyone who says Yungdrung Bon has animal sacrifice no idea what they are talking about....They'd probably faint if they saw a Bon Dzogchen text and noted how similar it is to a Nyingma one.

Yeah, it just evinces an ignorance of Yungdrung Bön, and is basically the Buddhist version of accusations of devil worship.

[Malcolm]

Even Nyingma master said that Nagarjuna emptiness and Chandrakirti emptiness are different (i.e. their focus aspect).

If they did, they were mistaken. There is nowhere in Nagarjuna or Aryadeva where they use formal syllogisms to prove emptiness. Candra’s main project is defending Buddhapalita from Bhavya’s assertion that the latter did not adequately flesh out his refutation of Samkhya, in addition to taking Bhavya to task for poor exegesis of pratityasamutpada, etc.

[haha]

Even Nyingma master said that Nagarjuna emptiness and Chandrakirti emptiness are different (i.e. their focus aspect).

If they did, they were mistaken. There is nowhere in Nagarjuna or Aryadeva where they use formal syllogisms to prove emptiness. Candra’s main project is defending Buddhapalita from Bhavya’s assertion that the latter did not adequately flesh out his refutation of Samkhya, in addition to taking Bhavya to task for poor exegesis of pratityasamutpada, etc.

Nagarjuna was focused on union of appearance and emptiness aspect whereas Chadrakirti was focused on emptiness aspect.

[Malcolm]

Even Nyingma master said that Nagarjuna emptiness and Chandrakirti emptiness are different (i.e. their focus aspect).

If they did, they were mistaken. There is nowhere in Nagarjuna or Aryadeva where they use formal syllogisms to prove emptiness. Candra’s main project is defending Buddhapalita from Bhavya’s assertion that the latter did not adequately flesh out his refutation of Samkhya, in addition to taking Bhavya to task for poor exegesis of pratityasamutpada, etc.

Nagarjuna was focused on union of appearance and emptiness aspect whereas Chadrakirti was focused on emptiness aspect.

That’s a misunderstanding, whoever made that assertion did not read Madhyamaka-avatara.

[haha]

If they did, they were mistaken. There is nowhere in Nagarjuna or Aryadeva where they use formal syllogisms to prove emptiness. Candra’s main project is defending Buddhapalita from Bhavya’s assertion that the latter did not adequately flesh out his refutation of Samkhya, in addition to taking Bhavya to task for poor exegesis of pratityasamutpada, etc.

Nagarjuna was focused on union of appearance and emptiness aspect whereas Chadrakirti was focused on emptiness aspect.

That’s a misunderstanding, whoever made that assertion did not read Madhyamaka-avatara.

I am out of opinion on somebody's assertion but can provide some references.

One reference:

There is a slight difference in the prasangika madhyamaka taught by Nagarjuna and that taught by Chandrakirti. What is this difference? Glorious Chandrakirti stressed mainly the emptiness aspect, teaching the view of dharmadhatu in which everything is realized to be of the nature of emptiness.

Further in same passage,

Chandrakirti's emphasis on emptiness and Nagarjuna's emphasis on appearance, taken together, are the inseparability of appearance and emptiness.

Khyentse, Dilgo; Jinba Palmo, Ani, (1999), Primordial Purity, pp 28-29

[Malcolm]

Nagarjuna was focused on union of appearance and emptiness aspect whereas Chadrakirti was focused on emptiness aspect.

That’s a misunderstanding, whoever made that assertion did not read Madhyamaka-avatara.

I am out of opinion on somebody's assertion but can provide some references.

One reference:

There is a slight difference in the prasangika madhyamaka taught by Nagarjuna and that taught by Chandrakirti. What is this difference? Glorious Chandrakirti stressed mainly the emptiness aspect, teaching the view of dharmadhatu in which everything is realized to be of the nature of emptiness.

Further in same passage,

Chandrakirti's emphasis on emptiness and Nagarjuna's emphasis on appearance, taken together, are the inseparability of appearance and emptiness.

Khyentse, Dilgo; Jinba Palmo, Ani, (1999), Primordial Purity, pp 28-29

Sorry, I can’t agree with this opinion at all.

[Natan]

As you go deeper and deeper you realize that no substance can remain, no traces can be kept. That is why it is possible to purify all defilements and negative actions. It is very clear that if one person practises and achieves Buddhahood, it is only for himself, not for the rest of the sentient beings; it is not that way at all. That shows us.

This is the essence of why our side says your side has your side has wrong view and is not a Buddhist lineage, but is a heretic religion. Just saying...

There is no reason to obtain Buddhahood for oneself. All this talk about dissolving the elements is just a bunch of flashy talk. Even the so call Sanatana dharma guys have a guru with an eternal rainbow body, Maheshwar Babaji.

Buddhahood is Buddhahood whether one attains a rainbow body or not, but no matter how one achieves the purifications the basis of Buddhahood is Bodhicitta and the bodhisattva vow, and motivation.

Perhaps there is further clarification you can make on this point, but on it's face, it resembles the exact criticisms the Buddhist groups says is wrong with Bon, why they sacrifice animals and such...

As others have pointed out, you have to -really- misunderstand what Lopon is saying here to think it’s some anti-Bodhicitta statement. Sacrificing animals? The whole narrative in Yungdrung Bön is that part of Shenrabs teaching was to put an end to that practice. Repeating it as you are here is just repeating a cultural prejudice.

Also, anyone who says Yungdrung Bon has animal sacrifice no idea what they are talking about....They'd probably faint if they saw a Bon Dzogchen text and noted how similar it is to a Nyingma one.

Yeah, it just evinces an ignorance of Yungdrung Bön, and is basically the Buddhist version of accusations of devil worship.

That makes sense.

[Kai lord]

There is a slight difference in the prasangika madhyamaka taught by Nagarjuna and that taught by Chandrakirti. What is this difference? Glorious Chandrakirti stressed mainly the emptiness aspect, teaching the view of dharmadhatu in which everything is realized to be of the nature of emptiness.

Further in same passage,

Chandrakirti's emphasis on emptiness and Nagarjuna's emphasis on appearance, taken together, are the inseparability of appearance and emptiness.

Khyentse, Dilgo; Jinba Palmo, Ani, (1999), Primordial Purity, pp 28-29

The fact that Dilgo Khyentse only acknowledged only one historical Nagarjuna, must be taken into account.

[James Sealy]

Individual is here the word, which has for me personal, an identity . That identity has a name like Maitreya Buddha.Without a name it has no identity.
it is he himself who achieves (Buddhahood), no-one else. For me that Buddha has an identity , like the 12 oaths of Sangye Menlha and his eastern paradise. He became a Buddha dependent on his oaths and realized a pure realm. He is an individual Buddha with identity.

Hurricanes are also individual and have names.
But they don’t possess any qualitative essence.

So, that’s why I’m asking what you are using the term “identity” to refer to specifically. For example, what makes Amitabha Amitabha and not Shakyamuni?

Obviously we can say this is Amitabha Buddha over here and that’s Maitreya over there or whatever. Those designations exist for the benefit of beings.
But if all you are saying is that different Buddhas have different names, I think most people here already know that.

Well, for me it as the moment, more useful to mention names of Buddhas to avoid confusions.

Therefore Maitreya is for sure not Tönpa Shenrab Miwoche etc.or are they ?

What they are in their ultimate sense /form etc. is at the very moment not relevant for me, because that is only a case of study and agreeing to something, which goes beyond text and understanding.

The "personal" Natural State, has that certain "empty" quality, about which is discussed here with endless examples based on words.
That state, is not based at all, on all the explanations here, it goes beyond that.

So to avoid Madyamika floating in total nihilism etc, i better keep my feet on the ground and my head in the air.

Mad yamika is not at all for me a way to understand, my natural state based on Trekchod and Thodgal.
That is something more for the dualistic mind, to understand that there must be something which goes beyond.

And there are states which go beyond words and their dualistic meanings, but that can never be attained by the understanding of Madyamika.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The "personal" Natural State, has that certain "empty" quality, about which is discussed here with endless examples based on words.

One needs to be careful when suggesting that
(1) a given entity exists, and that
(2) that entity possesses the quality of emptiness.

The reason to be careful is in the definition of “exists”. If I say that rainbows “exist” what does that actually mean? We can say that subjective appearances arise. However, from the very start we need to make clear that although the appearance of a rainbow arises (due to temporary causes), nothing exists which can be called a rainbow. So, it’s not that the rainbow “has that certain empty quality” but rather that the form of a rainbow is emptiness; the emptiness of a rainbow is form.

This may seem like a minor detail, to say that something doesn’t have emptiness, that it is emptiness. But it’s actually very important.

[James Sealy]

The "personal" Natural State, has that certain "empty" quality, about which is discussed here with endless examples based on words.

One needs to be careful when suggesting that
(1) a given entity exists, and that
(2) that entity possesses the quality of emptiness.

The reason to be careful is in the definition of “exists”. If I say that rainbows “exist” what does that actually mean? We can say that subjective appearances arise. However, from the very start we need to make clear that although the appearance of a rainbow arises (due to temporary causes), nothing exists which can be called a rainbow. So, it’s not that the rainbow “has that certain empty quality” but rather that the form of a rainbow is emptiness; the emptiness of a rainbow is form.

This may seem like a minor detail, to say that something doesn’t have emptiness, that it is emptiness. But it’s actually very important.

All in all we never can, with Madyamika emptiness, have a correct understanding of Dzogchen .
Dzogchen is based on an awareness and Madyamika on dualistic reasoning based on a non self and non here and there, which can go into absurdness, or misunderstood, can easily end into nihilism, or the contrary namely eternalism.


We can see that individually both, body and mind, are connected to the fundamental base and wisdom-awareness, through these subtle energy-forms of 5 reflections, 5 pure lights and 5 impure lights. You almost can say in Dzogchen everything is connected to light and its awareness, like analogous in Shamanism everything is linked to spirits, and probably in Sutra everything is seen as being empty.

[krodha]

All in all we never can, with Madyamika emptiness, have a correct understanding of Dzogchen .
Dzogchen is based on an awareness and Madyamika on dualistic reasoning based on a non self and non here and there, which can go into absurdness, or misunderstood, can easily end into nihilism

This really is not true at all. Dzogchen and Madhyamaka are divergent in method, but their fundamental view and the import of that view are essentially identical.

[heart]

All in all we never can, with Madyamika emptiness, have a correct understanding of Dzogchen .

Khenchen Namdrol Rinpoche say exactly the opposite, without Madyamika emptiness we can't correctly understand Dzogchen. Maybe you should as Loppon about it since it seems you are making up things right now. Let me know what Loppon said.

/magnus