Bringing Buddha to Buddhism

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

Or as Dzogchen has it: All appearances are actually self appearance of the ground of being.


Interestingly in Dzogchen the pristine cognition of the ground of being - the essence of which is a self knowing intelligence (rigpa) - has several aspects and the one that is responsible for this 'inner' ground appearing in and as appearance(s) of 'outer space' (not in the scifi sense but in the metaphorical sense of 'outside' of the inner sphere of the ground of being) is called thugs rje which usually - depending on translator and/or context - is translated as 'energy' or 'responsiveness' or 'compassion'. So here 'cognition' is not inherently different from 'energy' or 'responsiveness' or 'compassion'. However one should keep in mind that the sphere of Dzogchen is nonpersonal, there being neither self not other-than-self which removes or transfers the conventional emotional aspect of 'compassion' that may depend on holding the object of compassion as inherently other than oneself. That is why I prefer the term 'responsiveness' in the sense of 'reactivity'. I think the pristine cognition called 'energy' or 'responsiveness' or 'compassion' could also be interpreted as a kind of creative curiosity which creates appearances for its own pleasure.

Compassion arises because there is suffering and in regards to suffering, but the roots of compassion extend to the outpouring of infinite love (which I think it fair to say is primal to any person's being), so although compassion pertains to suffering, it doesn't entail a distaste for it.

The deep wish that all beings be happy is more like the recognition of love than the desire to change sadness and pain into elation and pleasure. That loving can flow through the mind and body, or perhaps a seed of love opens in the heart and starts to bloom, not because one finds any object to adore, but because of no reason other than it begins to come forth as a person's 'true nature'.

This does the raise the question of how much delusion we may have in regards to ourselves. If indeed we have a true nature, a universal commonality, the same source, or what have you, it might be queried why people are largely unaware of it or even completely oblivious to it. If it is imagined like the sky is there even on a cloudy day, what is in the way of 'seeing' it? Well... it is seeing... so 'in the way' is a bit of misnomer, but perhaps 'distraction' is more to the point.

Very tricky thing, this, but as far as I'm concerned, it's always the way of truthfulness, and I claim 'the way you are now' is 'the true state of consciousness'. We are led to believe the true state of consciousness is other than 'this', so we become impelled to seek a 'true state' other than 'this', which is, perhaps, a distraction.

If there is a search and a seeking going on, you're aware this is the case, and meditation is essentially: 'remain aware'. Don't 'try' to remain aware, because of course you are already aware, without exception, everyone. Isn't that the miracle?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

This does the raise the question of how much delusion we may have in regards to ourselves.

From my perspective an inapproriate question because there seems to be affirmation of the conventional self.
I'd prefer: how much delusion we may have in regards to our nature or being.
And the answer is in what follows below:

Originally Posted by Gem

If indeed we have a true nature, a universal commonality, the same source, or what have you, it might be queried why people are largely unaware of it or even completely oblivious to it. If it is imagined like the sky is there even on a cloudy day, what is in the way of 'seeing' it? Well... it is seeing... so 'in the way' is a bit of misnomer, but perhaps 'distraction' is more to the point.

This 'being unaware' is called ma-rigpa and is a misapprehension of the self-appearance of the ground of being.

Originally Posted by Gem

... I claim 'the way you are now' is 'the true state of consciousness'. We are led to believe the true state of consciousness is other than 'this', so we become impelled to seek a 'true state' other than 'this', which is, perhaps, a distraction.

If there is a search and a seeking going on, you're aware this is the case, and meditation is essentially: 'remain aware'. Don't 'try' to remain aware, because of course you are already aware, without exception, everyone. Isn't that the miracle?

Funnily those words of yours could be taken to represent the Dzogchen view. But differentiating words and meaning as elaborated before in another posting, I am quite sure that the corresponding meaning of those words in your mind does not correspond to the Dzogchen view because the words you used initially in your posting - starting with Compassion arises because there is suffering and ending with as a person's 'true nature'. - do not appear as if they could represent the Dzogchen view.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

From my perspective an inapproriate question because there seems to be affirmation of the conventional self.
I'd prefer: how much delusion we may have in regards to our nature or being.

It probably is a better way of saying - so I'll go with that.

And the answer is in what follows below:


This 'being unaware' is called ma-rigpa and is a misapprehension of the self-appearance of the ground of being.

What do you mean by self-appearance?

Funnily those words of yours could be taken to represent the Dzogchen view. But differentiating words and meaning as elaborated before in another posting, I am quite sure that the corresponding meaning of those words in your mind does not correspond to the Dzogchen view because the words you used initially in your posting - starting with Compassion arises because there is suffering and ending with as a person's 'true nature'. - do not appear as if they could represent the Dzogchen view.

I think you'll find my words resemble Dzogchen at times but don't at other times. It seems to me that Dzogchen itself is misapprehended in principle and taken to be a particular tradition or set of traditions in Tibet, but we're not Tibeten, haven't lived in that sangha, so we have practically no insight into it. I can only speak from the particular Buddhist setting I'm actually familiar with, but one thing that should be understood regarding traditions is it isn't a 'factual thing'. It's a nuanced, subtle set of relationships within the lived experience. Metaphorically, If one wants to talk about surfing they best speak with a surfer (as opposed to a duuuuude who read about it online).

We merely design and maintain an organised structure in order to create the conditions which are conducive to the teaching, learning and practice of Dhamma. It can't be contained within that structure nor constrained to any tradition, and it must universally pertain to all people completely regardless of their particular traditions.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

What do you mean by self-appearance?

Actually I do not want to elaborate on this because in a sense it might get too 'technical'. So maybe I just chip in with the term 'non-duality' knowing that this term is quite misleading and nearly always applied inappropriately if the context isn't the buddhist 'no-self' but if the context is the buddhist 'no-self' then 'non-duality' actually does not make sense. So 'non-duality' actually is a nonsensical term.

Originally Posted by Gem

I think you'll find my words resemble Dzogchen at times but don't at other times. It seems to me that Dzogchen itself is misapprehended in principle and taken to be a particular tradition or set of traditions in Tibet, but we're not Tibeten, haven't lived in that sangha, so we have practically no insight into it. I can only speak from the particular Buddhist setting I'm actually familiar with, but one thing that should be understood regarding traditions is it isn't a 'factual thing'. It's a nuanced, subtle set of relationships within the lived experience. Metaphorically, If one wants to talk about surfing they best speak with a surfer (as opposed to a duuuuude who read about it online).

When you say 'I can only speak from the particular Buddhist setting I'm actually familiar with' then that is what I call the 'individual conditioning'. So my conditioning is that I find many (but not all) of the characteristic verbal expressions of traditional Dzogchen appropriate. E. g. since I am not into religion I am not into the expressions which are affirmations of 'buddha' or 'buddhanature' or 'enlightenment'.
Anyway ... those of your words which could be taken to represent the Dzogchen view do express what appears to be the decisive point: that everything is already as it should be OR everything is as it is and that is exactly how it should be. There is nothing to do, nothing to improve, nothing to attain. And if we take this to be the basic decisive view then the additional view put onto this basic view which is in your case is represented by your words starting with Compassion arises because there is suffering and ending with as a person's 'true nature' is just individual conditioning, relevant for oneself but not necessarily relevant for others.

Originally Posted by Gem

We merely design and maintain an organised structure in order to create the conditions which are conducive to the teaching, learning and practice of Dhamma. It can't be contained within that structure nor constrained to any tradition, and it must universally pertain to all people completely regardless of their particular traditions.

Well if you don't forget that what you consider to 'universally pertain to all people completely regardless of their particular traditions' again is just your individual conditioning, i.e. the expression of it, then that's fine. It is necessarily just your individual conditioning, i.e. the expression of it, because if this were not the case then all of your words would appear to be appropriate to me.

[Ground]

double post deleted

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

Actually I do not want to elaborate on this because in a sense it might get too 'technical'. So maybe I just chip in with the term 'non-duality' knowing that this term is quite misleading and nearly always applied inappropriately if the context isn't the buddhist 'no-self' but if the context is the buddhist 'no-self' then 'non-duality' actually does not make sense. So 'non-duality' actually is a nonsensical term.

When you say 'I can only speak from the particular Buddhist setting I'm actually familiar with' then that is what I call the 'individual conditioning'.

It basically means I only familiar with the tradition I have been involved with, so I can talk about that without having to google it. It's just that it doesn't matter, as everyone has their lived experience in their own way, and Dhamma doesn't concern people's particular traditions, religions, cultures and what have you.

So my conditioning is that I find many (but not all) of the characteristic verbal expressions of traditional Dzogchen appropriate. E. g. since I am not into religion I am not into the expressions which are affirmations of 'buddha' or 'buddhanature' or 'enlightenment'.
Anyway ... those of your words which could be taken to represent the Dzogchen view do express what appears to be the decisive point: that everything is already as it should be OR everything is as it is and that is exactly how it should be. There is nothing to do, nothing to improve, nothing to attain. And if we take this to be the basic decisive view then the additional view put onto this basic view which is in your case is represented by your words starting with Compassion arises because there is suffering and ending with as a person's 'true nature' is just individual conditioning, relevant for oneself but not necessarily relevant for others.

Yep, I'm very much 'as it is'.

If people don't find it relevant, what me worry.

Well if you don't forget that what you consider to 'universally pertain to all people completely regardless of their particular traditions' again is just your individual conditioning, i.e. the expression of it, then that's fine. It is necessarily just your individual conditioning, i.e. the expression of it, because if this were not the case then all of your words would appear to be appropriate to me.

My personal conditioning, personal conditioning in general, isn't really a concern in considering Dhamma as its meaning, 'nature's way'. Even if we entertain a notion such as Dzogchen, we be talkin' universal.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

... and Dhamma doesn't concern people's particular traditions, religions, cultures and what have you.
...
My personal conditioning, personal conditioning in general, isn't really a concern in considering Dhamma as its meaning, 'nature's way'. Even if we entertain a notion such as Dzogchen, we be talkin' universal.

Whether the term 'dhamma' is applied or the term 'reality' may depend on individual preference. What cannot be known from my perspective is whether assuming such a singularity, be it called 'dhamma' or 'reality', is appropriate. Appropriate or not from my perspective 'dhamma' or 'reality' exist only through imputation.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

Whether the term 'dhamma' is applied or the term 'reality' may depend on individual preference. What cannot be known from my perspective is whether assuming such a singularity, be it called 'dhamma' or 'reality', is appropriate. Appropriate or not from my perspective 'dhamma' or 'reality' exist only through imputation.

I was told that Dhamma refers primarily to natures way and the teachings, also called Dhamma, are Guatama Buddha's discourse about nature's way.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/...data/fdd41.htm

It is important when 'taking refuge' to understand what one is taking refuge in, so the teachers gave a pretty clear elaboration which enabled me to make an informed decision for myself. They said it's nothing to do with becoming a Buddhist, and it isn't a religious conversion ceremony.

Other people say it is the sign of becoming a Buddhist, but the ashram I was associated with attracted people of all religions who were interested in learning the meditation. Everyone was basically required to take refuge, but none were required to identify as Buddhists (though you could if that was your thang). We didn't care about all that because it didn't matter as far as Buddha's teachings were concerned.

The refuge is taken in the 'Three Jewels':

1) Buddha.

The first jewel is the Buddha. To take refuge in the Buddha is not to hide in the safety of a powerful being. Refuge in this situation is more like moving to a new perspective, to a new awareness of the possibility within us all. By taking refuge in the Buddha, we align ourselves with the ability to become a Buddha ourselves, to seek the capacity to be awakened to what the Buddha experienced. This precious jewel reminds us to find our own Buddha nature.

2) Dhamma. (see link above)

3) Sangha.

The Sangha comprises those who come together in any size group to study, discuss, practice meditation with a desire to help and be helped by that group. The Buddha saw that the interaction with others who are on the path as being essential for practice. He saw this as being important for ordained monks as well as those of the general community.

These three would be taken differently by different sects, so they don't really have a rigid 'true' definition. It's probably more accurate to allow the meaning to be fairly flexible depending on the environmental context in which thay are understood; in this case, a forum open to all religions and whack spiritual ideas teehee - a 'strictly Buddhist' definition would be quite meaningless in this social context. Some variation on the definitions I provided seem suitable to me in this forum.

These 3 jewels are also called 'Triple Gem' - That's the meaning of my username.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Gem

...
It is important when 'taking refuge' to understand what one is taking refuge in, ...

The refuge is taken in the 'Three Jewels':

1) Buddha.

The first jewel is the Buddha. To take refuge in the Buddha is not to hide in the safety of a powerful being. Refuge in this situation is more like moving to a new perspective, to a new awareness of the possibility within us all. By taking refuge in the Buddha, we align ourselves with the ability to become a Buddha ourselves, to seek the capacity to be awakened to what the Buddha experienced. This precious jewel reminds us to find our own Buddha nature.

2) Dhamma. (see link above)

3) Sangha.

The Sangha comprises those who come together in any size group to study, discuss, practice meditation with a desire to help and be helped by that group. The Buddha saw that the interaction with others who are on the path as being essential for practice. He saw this as being important for ordained monks as well as those of the general community.

These three would be taken differently by different sects, so they don't really have a rigid 'true' definition. It's probably more accurate to allow the meaning to be fairly flexible depending on the environmental context in which thay are understood; in this case, a forum open to all religions and whack spiritual ideas teehee - a 'strictly Buddhist' definition would be quite meaningless in this social context. Some variation on the definitions I provided seem suitable to me in this forum.

These 3 jewels are also called 'Triple Gem' - That's the meaning of my username.

In Dzogchen the expression 'take refuge in' does not appear to be appropriate although the way you are putting 'refuge in Buddha' as 'moving to a new perspective, to a new awareness of the possibility within us' comes close to Dzogchen view. I guess in a religious Dzogchen context which affirms 'buddhanature' to be true your wording may also appear.

But actually there is only one metaphorical 'gem' in Dzogchen and it is impossible for an individual to take refuge in it because the individual is its self-appearance. It is metaphorically called 'wishfulfilling gem' and it is the ground of being ... which is the meaning of my username

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

In Dzogchen the expression 'take refuge in' does not appear to be appropriate although the way you are putting 'refuge in Buddha' as 'moving to a new perspective, to a new awareness of the possibility within us' comes close to Dzogchen view. I guess in a religious Dzogchen context which affirms 'buddhanature' to be true your wording may also appear.

But actually there is only one metaphorical 'gem' in Dzogchen and it is impossible for an individual to take refuge in it because the individual is its self-appearance. It is metaphorically called 'wishfulfilling gem' and it is the ground of being ... which is the meaning of my username

Hahaha wishfulfilling Gem.

I'm pretty sure people who are into Dzogchen in a traditional way would take refuge much like any other Buddhist sect, but probably have various meanings from sect to sect. I cut and paste those definitions and it's not how I would have worded it, but it doesn't really matter here - a rough idea is good enough. All that matters is what meaning the three Jewels could take on in this social context.

The first really can only mean surrendering to the enlightenment of yourself, completely regardless of religions and so forth. This is what makes it universal.

The second, dhamma, has to mean a surrender to the ways of nature in order to remain universal, because the particular teachings of Dhamma are 'Buddhist' by definition. However, Gotama wasn't a Buddhist himself, so a broader interpretation could mean teachings of enlightened being, which might be you for all I care.

The third, sangha, refers to the group of individuals who participate in SF's Buddhist, since this is the context in which it practiced in this case - hence not universal - but is still underpinned by 'community' in a more general way.

To me, this makes sense as understood through the forum's social context.