The Two Truths

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

The Two Truths goes beyond the "object of the mind"... didn't you read that?

The understanding of Ultimate Truth does exactly that so all of this really means nothing..

Now this assertion, is it an object of [your] mind or not?

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Also, where do you get that there is no truth at all?

Is that Buddhist or something you are making up?

See ... having directly perceived emptiness then when applying linguistic expressions one can apply them from one's own perspective or from the perspective of those who have not perceived emptiness directly because one knows how it is when perceiving alleged truths or true objects/phenomena.

When I say or write words I do apply the words from my perspective because non-authentic talk does not make sense to me.

Perception of inherent existence in any objects/phenomena is what causes the sentiment of truth in the context of these objects/phenomena and emptiness is exactly the absence of inherent existence in these objects/phenomena. And when emptiness has been perceived directly one can authentically and validly say that there is no truth at all.

The way I am using words here is perfectly compatible with the prasangika madhyamaka philosophy as presented by Jeffrey Hopkins in his Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom. When translating and commenting Tsong-kha-pa’s writings Jeffrey Hopkins has perfectly pointed out that the innate truth habit is nothing other than the innate ordinary consciousness's projection of inherent existence. If one applies successfully the meditative and introspective analysis which is part of Tsong-kha-pa’s prasangika madhyamaka then one can validate that emptiness/absence of inherent existence necessarily is emptiness/absence of truth. In order to do this it is not necessary to also follow Tsong-kha-pa’s typically buddhist views, that is this prasangika madhyamaka philosophy and its practice can be applied whether one is buddhist or not. Why is this? It is so because it is a rational and consistent analytical philosophy that does not depend on beliefs. There is no claim of truth at all in this philosophy because any truth necessarily is a truth for a concealer (with reference to Chandrakirti) and the concealer is the innate ordinary mind's projection of inherent existence into objects/phenomena.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

Now this assertion, is it an object of [your] mind or not?

No because the Two Truths have to go in line with the Heart Sutra :)

See ... having directly perceived emptiness then when applying linguistic expressions one can apply them from one's own perspective or from the perspective of those who have not perceived emptiness directly because one knows how it is when perceiving alleged truths or true objects/phenomena.

You do realize that if you are perceiving emptiness... then it isn't emptiness?

When I say or write words I do apply the words from my perspective because non-authentic talk does not make sense to me.

Perception of inherent existence in any objects/phenomena is what causes the sentiment of truth in the context of these objects/phenomena and emptiness is exactly the absence of inherent existence in these objects/phenomena. And when emptiness has been perceived directly one can authentically and validly say that there is no truth at all

.

First isn't that a truth in which you are stating?

Also, if you look at the Buddhist teaching, they go beyond emptiness which is why we have the Heart Sutra.... Again, emptiness is not something perceived.

The way I am using words here is perfectly compatible with the prasangika madhyamaka philosophy as presented by Jeffrey Hopkins in his Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom. When translating and commenting Tsong-kha-pa’s writings Jeffrey Hopkins has perfectly pointed out that the innate truth habit is nothing other than the innate ordinary consciousness's projection of inherent existence. If one applies successfully the meditative and introspective analysis which is part of Tsong-kha-pa’s prasangika madhyamaka then one can validate that emptiness/absence of inherent existence necessarily is emptiness/absence of truth. In order to do this it is not necessary to also follow Tsong-kha-pa’s typically buddhist views, that is this prasangika madhyamaka philosophy and its practice can be applied whether one is buddhist or not. Why is this? It is so because it is a rational and consistent analytical philosophy that does not depend on beliefs. There is no claim of truth at all in this philosophy because any truth necessarily is a truth for a concealer (with reference to Chandrakirti) and the concealer is the innate ordinary mind's projection of inherent existence into objects/phenomena.

I would disagree and ask that you show the relevant quote so that we can all validate your linguistic expertise

If one applies successfully the meditative and introspective analysis which is part of Tsong-kha-pa’s prasangika madhyamaka then one can validate that emptiness/absence of inherent existence necessarily is emptiness/absence of truth

To say there is no truth is a truth just one you are promoting... Also it does not lead to an absence of truth... If you also follow the teaching you will understand that Buddhism doesn't stop a Emptiness.



After all, you are saying a Buddhist who does have beliefs is saying by your interpretation that there are no beliefs.... seems you may have it wrong..

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I am aware of what I have let go of in myself over a period of thirty years of conscious practice to do so, so I relate myself as that, not the practices that supported me. I have become the practice and the realization in this way so its all integrated as myself. Did you need to know this to confirm something in yourself?

Confirms nothing... pretty silly question.

In my awareness and personal connection to emptiness I came to the realization that all attachments including all stories, "assumptions" "others in me" held in the old story, had to be released fully, when let go of in yourself to that level, naturally you enter into the space of emptiness, where you sit in nothing, feel fully what emptiness is like, to enter fully into your ground of being, completely at peace with the whole in yourself..That is emptiness I experienced and know myself as now. My conscious walk to understand myself as that emptiness didn't come from a cereal box..hehehe

One doesn't perceive any "thing" with emptiness. Also, if you are using the Dzogchen term Ground of being or Primordial Nature then you perceive your thoughts as energy as all things as energy.

I am creating a new story from my ground of being without attachments to the old story that attached itself, because when you rebirth in your body consciously aware of yourself having a second chance at life with new awareness, you start to notice yourself as life and live your life fully, because you no longer fear letting go fully to death or life..Of course, the new story is consciously aware of itself complete and living as that and the emptiness awareness allows me to know and understand that everything is temporary and changing and life continues. I am also aware of myself in the expression of myself as the I or me, understand that I choose to continue to exist as myself in light of where I am now, so even as I am using the I am, I feel, I experience, I exist and live this life, I am aware of myself in this moment.

Just you saying the I, me, my body, disputes what you said above that you have realize Primordial Nature or Buddha Nature or Ground of Being.

Can you share how you perceive thoughts?

So where you seek enlightenment, I seek life in lots of ways of being open and clear as I am now. I explore life itself in lots of ways of living it. So I take myself as the practice and realization everywhere I am, not just in forums and chat rooms.

That seeking enlightenment is what leads to a better life.

My use of chat rooms allows me to work with people from all over the world. From Lebanon, Europe, South Africa to the U.S. I am able to work with and help people. In order to do that it means that I can share my presence over any distance... Chat rooms are very nice tools to help people.

Surely someone who has realized Buddha Nature knows such a thing?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

No because the Two Truths have to go in line with the Heart Sutra :)




You do realize that if you are perceiving emptiness... then it isn't emptiness?

.

First isn't that a truth in which you are stating?

Also, if you look at the Buddhist teaching, they go beyond emptiness which is why we have the Heart Sutra.... Again, emptiness is not something perceived.



I would disagree and ask that you show the relevant quote so that we can all validate your linguistic expertise



To say there is no truth is a truth just one you are promoting... Also it does not lead to an absence of truth... If you also follow the teaching you will understand that Buddhism doesn't stop a Emptiness.



After all, you are saying a Buddhist who does have beliefs is saying by your interpretation that there are no beliefs.... seems you may have it wrong..

jonesboy,

you are merely a believer. That's fine since most people are.
I cannot make you realize. So let's leave it at that. There is neither benefit nor harm for me whether you realize or not or whether you agree or not.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

jonesboy,

you are merely a believer. That's fine since most people are.
I cannot make you realize. So let's leave it at that. There is neither benefit nor harm for me whether you realize or not or whether you agree or not.

I am much more than a believer. I have shared my realization of emptiness of self so I know when people are blowing smoke..

Your view is one of there is not Truth, you don't have to meditate or do anything to progress. Just be and realize it.

It is very common, nothing new and an excuse to do nothing but sound spiritual.

Which is fine if that is what you want to do.. But when you then try to promote that as a Buddhist Dharma.. well that is very wrong.

P.S. I also noticed that you didn't mention again how you perceive emptiness

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Your view is one of there is not Truth, you don't have to meditate or do anything to progress. Just be and realize it.

Well see once one is introduced into dzogchen one will never fall back into advocating ordinary mind's views. However the nice thing about prasangika madhyamaka is: it is not dzogchen view but it is completely in line with dzogchen view.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

It is very common, nothing new and an excuse to do nothing but sound spiritual.

spiritual or non-spiritual ... just imputation. Take whatever you like.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Which is fine if that is what you want to do.. But when you then try to promote that as a Buddhist Dharma.. well that is very wrong.

Prasangika madhyamka is very buddhist traditionally however Tsong-kha-pa's version of it is not necessarily buddhist because it is a rational philosophy that does not necessarily depend on buddhist views.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

P.S. I also noticed that you didn't mention again how you perceive emptiness

if you perceive an object as being empty you perceive an emptiness. There are as many emptinesses as there are objects. Emptiness depends on objects. without objects emptiness couldn't be perceived.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Confirms nothing... pretty silly question

I figured it wouldn't..

One doesn't perceive any "thing" with emptiness. Also, if you are using the Dzogchen term Ground of being or Primordial Nature then you perceive your thoughts as energy as all things as energy.

I do recall a point where perception ended. So you could be onto something in saying this...I have no need to perceive my thoughts as energy. Thoughts are thoughts as they are, I don't attach to them. For me they are like passing wind. (any wind for that matter, unless your strained of course, then you might twist and struggle for a bit.. ) I know myself beyond my mind and thoughts and my balance allows me to let them go if they arise in ways where the old patterns sneak in. Most often I like my thoughts, so what is that telling you?

Just you saying the I, me, my body, disputes what you said above that you have realize Primordial Nature or Buddha Nature or Ground of Being.

I knew your would come back with this. Reason I covered my ground. Your missing pieces of my communication and still in trying to prove me mode, which is your own perception of what I am being and what it adds up too in your beliefs.

Can you share how you perceive thoughts?

I don't need too. I am more conscious of what I am being beyond thoughts.





[quote]

That seeking enlightenment is what leads to a better life.

I am not disputing that.

My use of chat rooms allows me to work with people from all over the world. From Lebanon, Europe, South Africa to the U.S. I am able to work with and help people. In order to do that it means that I can share my presence over any distance... Chat rooms are very nice tools to help people.

Surely someone who has realized Buddha Nature knows such a thing?

Surely someone who is aware of themselves and living and being that which they believe in, doesn't have to question themselves do they? Or were you posing that question to me? You could have been, I seemed to have activated you to respond in ways that you perhaps feel I think its not ok to be doing what you do where you do it..That could be so.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ground

Well see once one is introduced into dzogchen one will never fall back into advocating ordinary mind's views. However the nice thing about prasangika madhyamaka is: it is not dzogchen view but it is completely in line with dzogchen view.

We are not talking prasangika madhyamaka are we? Also, being introduced is not the same thing as a permanent realization... Which you are missing..

if you perceive an object as being empty you perceive an emptiness. There are as many emptinesses as there are objects. Emptiness depends on objects. without objects emptiness couldn't be perceived.

You can't perceive emptiness except as an intellectual understanding...

Don't you see how that gives you away?

Also, it is a lack of understanding of the true nature to think one needs an object to perceive emptiness... again if you are perceiving a thing it is not emptiness.. I should also ask what is the true nature of those objects that you perceive as being needed to perceive emptiness?

The TTC mentions this in Chapter 1.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations

These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I figured it wouldn't..

I do recall a point where perception ended. So you could be onto something in saying this...I have no need to perceive my thoughts as energy. Thoughts are thoughts as they are, I don't attach to them. For me they are like passing wind. (any wind for that matter, unless your strained of course, then you might twist and struggle for a bit.. ) I know myself beyond my mind and thoughts and my balance allows me to let them go if they arise in ways where the old patterns sneak in. Most often I like my thoughts, so what is that telling you?

Now you are getting somewhere, please share how you experience thoughts as wind and not experience it as energy or to really be familiar with energy per all your previous posts?

I knew your would come back with this. Reason I covered my ground. Your missing pieces of my communication and still in trying to prove me mode, which is your own perception of what I am being and what it adds up too in your beliefs.

When you say you have realized ground of being which is the same thing as Buddha Nature.. expect someone to ask you about it.. Not to put it back on someone else and say "it adds up too in your beliefs". Whatever that is suppose to mean.

I don't need too. I am more conscious of what I am being beyond thoughts.

Oh and what is it that you perceive yourself as beyond thoughts?

[jonesboy]

Here is the debate from Dzogchen with regard to the Two Truths.

pp. 115-116:
"Madhyamaka ask: How can you Dzogchenpas do better than this? Your Dzogchen is not even Buddhism.

To this, the Dzogchenpa replies: We do not recognize the subject/object dichotomy and the Two Truths. Our view is
inseparability (dbyer-med) without any partiality. There is only one Truth, which we call Thigley Nyagchik (thig-le nyag-gcig), the Unique Essence. So our view is beyond your view of the Two Truths. Dzogchen is beyond your Madhyamaka view, but this does not mean that Dzogchen is not the Buddha's teaching. It simply means that it is beyond your definition of the Two Truths."

[]
p.117
"According to the Sutra system in general, if we do not recognize the Two Truths, then there is no cause for the realization of the Two Bodies. The Lamas, in this [Bönpo] tradition in particular, rely upon the exposition of Chandrakirti in his Madhyamakavatara. They take his Prasangika view as being the highest view and assert that there can be nothing beyond that. They follow Chandrakirti in this. According to Madhyamaka, the Buddha-nature is the conventional meaning, whereas Shunyata is the ultimate meaning. However, according to Dzogchen, once we discover our real nature, the Natural State, we do not need to search for anything else. Everything is present there already, all of the Paramitas, and will manifest spontaneously. But in Dzogchen, we do need secondary causes for the manifestation of the Trikaya. So, Dzogchen can justly claim that its view is the higher."

Second Contradiction - Madhyamaka

The second contradiction represents the Madhyamaka criticism of Dzogchen.




Both Chittamatra and Madhyamaka recognize the Two Truths, the Relative Truth which are appearances and the Absolute Truth which is Shunyata. Madhyamaka asserts that everything is related to these Two Truths and that there is nothing beyond them.

Subject and object have no independent existence; they exist only as names created by thoughts. Nothing has any independent existence. Shunyata is the final or ultimate reality and there is nothing beyond this. So the followers of Madhyamaka ask: How can you Dzogchenpas do better than this? Your Dzogchen is not even Buddhism!

To this, the Dzogchenpa relies: We do not recognize the subject/ object dichotomy and the Two Truths. Our view is inseparability (dbyer-med) without any partiality. There is only one Truth which we call Thiglay Nyagchik (thig-le nyag-gcig), the Unique Essence. So our view is beyond your view of the Two Truths. Dzogchen is beyond your Madhyamaka view, but this does not mean that Dzogchen is not the Buddha's teaching-- it simply means that it is beyond your definition of the Two Truths. [On this, see the Gal mdo.]

Je Tsongkhapa, in his commentary to the Madhyamakavatara of Chandrakirti and in his Lam-rim chen-mo, criticizes Dzogchen for not asserting the Two Truths. Dzogchen claims that the final view pertains to only a single nature, a state beyond cause and effect. It does not say that karmic causes and consequences are ultimate. If there are two truths, then we must have two minds in order to know them. Tsongkhapa does speak of two kinds of cognition: (1) a discriminating intelligence (the subject side) that understands Shunyata (the object side) (stongnyid rtogs-pa'i shes-rab) and (2) and a discursive intellect that knows names and concepts. Both of these represent "wisdom" or "intelligence" (shes-rab), but here we have two minds, not one. According to Dzogchen there is only one cognition, the Thiglay Nyagchik, and not two minds.

Again, the Madhyamaka practitioner objects: If Dzogchen does not have the Two Truths, then it does not recognize the ten Paramitas. Then how can you Dzogchenpas do any practice? And if you do not do any practice, how can you accumulate any virtues? And if you do not have the two accumulations of merit and wisdom, how can you attain Buddhahood? The sources of the two accumulations are the Two Truths and the result of the two accumulations are the realizing of the Two Bodies, the Dharmakaya and the Rupakaya. So you cannot realize Buddhahood unless you have these Two Truths. They are required as causes for the Dharmakaya and the Rupakaya. Without such a cause, you cannot realize Buddhahood.

The Dzogchenpa replies: Dzogchen agrees that without a cause we cannot realize Buddhahood. But if we are given a piece of gold, we do not have to search for its qualities-- they are inherent in it from the very beginning. Dzogchen never says that we should not practice the ten Paramitas; it only asserts that the Natural State already contains the ten Paramitas and, when we realize the Natural State, they will manifest spontaneously. So we do not need to practice them separately, one after the other.

The ten Paramitas are spontaneously present within the Natural State.

Thus Dzogchen only explains the Thiglay Nyagchik (thig-le nyag-gcig) or Natural State, and that is sufficient. If we practice the Natural State, we will realize the Dharmakaya and the Rupakaya because all things are present already in the Natural State, and when the secondary causes arise, they will manifest spontaneously. If we practice the one Natural State, everything is present there already, and so that is enough. According to the Sutra system in general, if we do not recognize the Two Truths, then there exists no cause for the realization of the Two Bodies. The Gelugpas, in particular, rely upon the exposition of Chandrakirti in his Madhyamakavatara (dbu-ma la 'jug-pa).

They take his Prasangika view as being the highest view and assert that there can be nothing beyond that.

They follow Tsongkhapa in this.

According to Madhyamaka, the Buddha-nature is the conventional meaning, whereas Shunyata is the ultimate meaning. In his Tshig don mdzod, the great Dzogchen master Longchenpa maintains that the Buddha actually taught Dzogchen in the Prajnaparamita texts.

There he interpreted Prajnaparamita as Dzogchen, in contrast to the interpretation of Chandrakirti. Once we discover our real nature [=the Natural State], we do not need to search for anything else. Everything is present there already and will manifest spontaneously. But in Dzogchen, we do need secondary causes for the manifestation of the Trikaya. [Contrast this with the view of the Jonangpas.]

So Dzogchen can justly claim that its view is the higher.