Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Malcolm Smith. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Malcolm Smith. Sort by date Show all posts

John Tan:

The logic that since there is no agency, hence no choice to be made is no different from "no sufferer, therefore no suffering".

This is not anatta insight.

What is seen through in anatta is the mistaken view that the conventional structure of "subject action object" represents reality when it is not. Action does not require an agent to initiate it. It is language that creates the confusion that nouns are required to set verbs into motion.

Therefore the action of choosing continues albeit no chooser.

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;

Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;

The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."



Related:



[10:40 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: Very good
[10:41 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: I wonder why people can't explain like Malcolm.
[10:42 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: Lol

[11:36 PM, 10/17/2019] John Tan: Yes should put in blog together with Alan watt article about language causing confusion.



Alan Watts: Agent and Action

Investigation into Movement


Also, an enlightening conversation recently (thankfully with permission from Arcaya Malcolm to share this) in Arcaya Malcolm's facebook group:


"[Participant 1]
June 14 at 2:40 PM

I came across a passage in a book I'm reading which brings up how Nagarjuna often bases arguments on unstated and unproven premises and manipulates ambiguities in language to justify his arguments leading to criticisms of sophistry. How do later authors address this if they do at all?

One example from chap 3 of the MMK with the following 3 arguments:

"Vision cannot in anyway see itself. Now if it cannot see itself, how can it see other things?

"The example of fire is not adequate to establish vision. These have been refuted with the analysis of movement, past, future, and present" - refers to the refutation from chap 2

"When no vision occurs there is nothing to be called visions. How then can it be said: vision sees?"

The book brings up the following critcism respectively:

This is based on the assumption for objects to have certain functions it needs to apply the function to itself but this is not justified. A counter example being lamps illuminate themselves and others.

The argument from chap 2 depends on natural functions (movement, burning of fire, seeing of the eye, etc.) being predicated on the moment of time which it takes place, and when the non obtaining of time is established it leads to the non happening of the function. This is not justified.

Here Nagarjuna jumps from how seeing only occurs with a sense object to the occlusion the eye faculty can't see. The author distinguishes between "seeing independent of condition" and "seeing dependent of condition" so Nagarjuna really only negates the first one. And that negating the first is close to pointless since no one asserts seeing occurs irrespective of condition. The second is left alone.
6[...] and 5 others
17 Comments
Like
Comment
Comments

    [Participant 2] What book is this from?
    1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

    [Participant 1] Madhyamaka in China, the author was giving some background on Nagarjuna.
    1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w


Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Lamps do not illuminate themselves. Candrakirti shows this.
2

Like
· Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Nāgārjuna is addressing the realist proposition, "the six senses perceive their objects because those sense and their objects intrinsically exist ." It is not his unstated premise, that is the purvapakṣa, the premise of the opponent. The opponent, in verse 1 of this chapter asserts the essential existence of the six āyatanas. The opponent is arguing that perception occurs because the objects of perception actually exist.
6

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith [Participant 1] "The argument from chap 2 depends on natural functions (movement, burning of fire, seeing of the eye, etc.) being predicated on the moment of time which it takes place, and when the non obtaining of time is established it leads to the non happening of the function. This is not justified."

Why?

Nāgārjuna shows two things in chapter two, one, he says that if there is a moving mover, this separates the agent from the action, and either the mover is not necessary or the moving is not necessary. It is redundant.

In common language we oftren saying things like "There is a burning fire." But since that is what a fire is (burning) there is no separate agent which is doing the burning, fire is burning.

On the other hand, when an action is not performed, no agent of that action can be said to exist. This is why he says "apart from something which has moved and has not moved, there is no moving mover." There is no mover with moving, etc.

This can be applied to all present tense gerundial agentive constructions, such as I am walking to town, the fire is burning, etc.
8

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited

Hide 11 Replies

 [Participant 3] Malcolm Smith these are not agentive constructions, they are unaccusative (cf. "byed med") verbs, so of course no separate agent can be established. So what?

The example of the fire and the eye are likewise not convincing, because they just happen to describe natural functions, but this is not all that unaccusative verbs do. When you say "the cat falls down", you cannot say that "falling down" is what a cat "is", the same way you can with fire burning.

Like
· Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith [Participant 3] the point is aimed at the notion that there has to be a falling faller, a seeing seer, etc. it is fine to say there is a falling cat, but stupid to say the cat is a falling faller. The argument is aimed at that sort of naive premise.

For example, if eyes could see forms by nature, they should be able to forms in absence of an object of form, and so on.

But if the sight of forms cannot be found in the eyes, and not in the object, nor the eye consciousness, then none of them are sufficient to explain the act of seeing. Because of this, statements like the eyes are seers is just a convention, but isn’t really factual.

And it still applies in this way, apart from what has been seen and not been seen, there is no present seeing.
1

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited"

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Any people make the mistake of thinking that nag has an obligation to do more than just deconstruct the purpaksa.
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

[Participant 1] Malcolm Smith thank you, definitely clears it up

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Soh Wei Yu
Soh Wei Yu Malcolm Smith What is purpaksa?

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith purva means "prior", pakṣa" means postion
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm SmithActive Now
Malcolm Smith meaning, "the opponent's position."
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith Purvapaksa
1

    Like
     · Reply · 1w"


- From his facebook group Ask the Ācārya https://www.facebook.com/groups/387338435166650/

Who this group is for: people who wish to ask Ācārya Malcolm Smith questions about Dharma etc., and to converse with like-minded people. Being admitted to this group carries a commitment not to share content outside of the group.

Who this group is not for: People with pseudonyms; people who think one can practice Dzogchen, Mahāmudra, etc. without a guru; people who think psychedelics are useful on the Buddhist path; people who think they can mix Buddhadharma with nonbuddhist paths, etc.

Also, more by Malcolm:

[10:51 PM, 10/17/2019] Soh Wei Yu: malcolm (Arcaya Malcolm Smith) wrote:


https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=30365&p=479718&hilit=AGENT#p479718

There is no typing typer, no learning learner, no digesting digester, thinking tinker, or driving driver.

...

No, a falling faller does not make any sense. As Nāgārjuna would put it, apart from snow that has fallen or has not fallen, presently there is no falling.

...


 It is best if you consult the investigation into movement in the MMK, chapter two. This is where it is shown that agents are mere conventions. If one claims there is agent with agency, one is claiming the agent and the agency are separate. But if you claim that agency is merely a characteristic of an agent, when agent does not exercise agency, it isn't an agent since an agent that is not exercising agency is in fact a non-agent. Therefore, rather than agency being dependent on an agent, an agent is predicated upon exercising agency. For example, take movement. If there is an agent there has to be a moving mover. But there is no mover when there is no moving. Apart from moving, how could there be a mover? But when there is moving, there isn't a mover which is separate from moving. Even movement itself cannot be ascertained until there has been a movement. When there is no movement, there is no agent of movement. When there is moving, there is no agent of moving that can be ascertained to be separate from the moving. And since even moving cannot be ascertained without there either having been movement or not, moving itself cannot be established. Since moving cannot be established, a moving mover cannot be established. If a moving mover cannot be established, an agent cannot be established.

...

 Hi Wayfarer:

The key to understanding everything is the term "dependent designation." We don't question the statement "I am going to town." In this there are three appearances, for convenience's sake, a person, a road, and a destination.

A person is designated on the basis of the aggregates, but there is no person in the aggregates, in one of the aggregates, or separate from the aggregates. Agreed? A road is designated in dependence on its parts, agreed? A town s designated upon its parts. Agreed?

If you agree to this, then you should have no problem with the following teaching of the Buddha in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra:

This body arises from various conditions, but lacks a self. This body is like the earth, lacking an agent. This body is like water, lacking a self. This body is like fire, lacking a living being. This body is like the wind, lacking a person. This body is like space, lacking a nature. This body is the place of the four elements, but is not real. This body that is not a self nor pertains to a self is empty.

In other words, when it comes to the conventional use of language, Buddha never rejected statements like "When I was a so and so in a past life, I did so and so, and served such and such a Buddha." Etc. But when it comes to what one can discern on analysis, if there is no person, no self, etc., that exists as more than a mere designation, the fact that agents cannot be discerned on analysis should cause no one any concern. It is merely a question of distinguishing between conventional use of language versus the insight into the nature of phenomena that results from ultimate analysis.



-------



[11:36 PM, 10/17/2019] John Tan: Yes should put in blog together with Alan watt article about language causing confusion.


-------

From other threads:

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26272&p=401986&hilit=agent#p401986

There is no "experiencer" since there is no agent. There is merely experience, and all experience is empty.

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=24265&start=540


Why should there be someone upon whom karma ripens? To paraphrase the Visuddhimagga, there is no agent of karma, nor is there a person to experience its ripening, there is merely a flow of dharmas.


...

There are no agents. There are only actions. This is covered in the refutation of moving movers in chapter two of the MMK.

...

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=26495&p=406369&hilit=agent#p406369

 The point is that there is no point to eternalism if there is no eternal agent or object.


...

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=16306&p=277352&hilit=mover+movement+agent#p277352

 Things have no natures, conventionally or otherwise. Look, we can say water is wet, but actually, there no water that possesses a wet nature. Water is wet, that is all. There is no wetness apart from water and not water apart from wetness. If you say a given thing has a separate nature, you are making the exact mistaken Nāgārajuna points out in the analysis of movement, i.e., it is senseless to say there is a "moving mover." Your arguments are exactly the same, you are basically saying there is an "existing existence."

...

This is precisely because of the above point I referenced. Nagārjuna clearly shows that characteristics/natures are untenable.

Candrakīrti points out that the possessor does not exist at all, but for the mere purpose of discourse, we allow conventionally the idea that there is a possessor of parts even though no possessor of parts exists. This mistake that we indulge in can act as an agent, for example a car, we can use it as such, but it is empty of being a car — an agent is as empty of being an agent as its actions are empty of being actions. 


...



------------------------



Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:

"When we say it's raining, we mean that raining is taking place. You don't need someone up above to perform the raining. It's not that there is the rain, and there is the one who causes the rain to fall. In fact, when you say the rain is falling, it's very funny, because if it weren't falling, it wouldn't be rain. In our way of speaking, we're used to having a subject and a verb. That's why we need the word "it" when we say, "it rains." "It" is the subject, the one who makes the rain possible. But, looking deeply, we don't need a "rainer," we just need the rain. Raining and the rain are the same. The formations of birds and the birds are the same -- there's no "self," no boss involved.

There's a mental formation called vitarka, "initial thought." When we use the verb "to think" in English, we need a subject of the verb: I think, you think, he thinks. But, really, you don't need a subject for a thought to be produced. Thinking without a thinker -- it's absolutely possible. To think is to think about something. To perceive is to perceive something. The perceiver and the perceived object that is perceived are one.

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," his point was that if I think, there must be an "I" for thinking to be possible. When he made the declaration "I think," he believed that he could demonstrate that the "I" exists. We have the strong habit or believing in a self. But, observing very deeply, we can see that a thought does not need a thinker to be possible. There is no thinker behind the thinking -- there is just the thinking; that's enough.

Now, if Mr. Descartes were here, we might ask him, "Monsieur Descartes, you say, 'You think, therefore you are.' But what are you? You are your thinking. Thinking -- that's enough. Thinking manifests without the need of a self behind it."

Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. What is our anger without our 'self'? This is the object of our meditation. All the fifty-one mental formations take place and manifest without a self behind them arranging for this to appear, and then for that to appear. Our mind consciousness is in the habit of basing itself on the idea of self, on manas. But we can meditate to be more aware of our store consciousness, where we keep the seeds of all those mental formations that are not currently manifesting in our mind.

When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of 'I am,' disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness."

....




Unread post by PadmaVonSamba » Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:25 pm
If Nagarjuna had a mirror, would he say the mirror is a different mirror each time something different is reflected in it, or is it the same mirror?

Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm Smith:

"Apart from what has been mirrored and not been mirrored, there is no [present] mirroring. A mirroring mirror is redundant, just like moving movers." - https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=35353...

I highly recommend all translations by Malcolm Smith (Loppon Malcolm Smith [Kunga Namdrol]). Thusness and I think that Malcolm is a very serious and responsible translator. Some translations of Buddhist texts we have seen are pretty bad quality or the translators have been slack, but it is certainly not the case for any translations by Malcolm.

Here's a video of Malcolm introducing his new translation: https://www.facebook.com/zangthal/videos/248338462688456/

Just bought the new release:

https://www.amazon.com/Self-Arisen-Vidya-Tantra-vol-Self-Liberated/dp/1614294860/ref=zg_bsnr_15755351_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=HAJVGKH0YD75GWDMD1DD

 

A complete translation of two of the eleventh-century Seventeen Tantras—texts that are among the most important in all of Tibetan Buddhism.

“If one knows the Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra, the Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra, and the Tantra Without Syllables, one will have command over the general meaning of the tantras, like a king who has command over his subjects.”—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle

The eleventh-century Seventeen Tantras are the most important texts in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition of the Great Perfection. This boxed set provides two luminous translations. The first is the only complete English translation of the Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra, which is the major commentary tantra on all aspects of the doctrine of the Great Perfection. The second, the Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra, outlines the structure of Dzogchen tantras in general and also provides a detailed outline of the Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra.

Malcolm Smith also offers a comprehensive introduction and two vital appendices: (1) a brief historical account and survey of the Seventeen Tantras and (2) an examination of the themes of the Seventeen Tantras, translated from the commentary to the String of Pearls Tantra. This is vital reading for any student of Dzogchen.


Editorial Reviews

Review

"I sincerely rejoice that Acarya Malcolm Smith, a translator conversant in two languages, has now translated these two volumes directly from Tibetan into English with altruism, skill, and great diligence, and that Wisdom Publications, renowned throughout the world, has chosen to publish them." (from the foreword by Tulku Dakpa Rinpoche)

"Malcolm Smith's rendition of the original tantras included in the present collection are particularly faithful to the flavor of the original texts, using a precise English lexicon, which really helps readers generate a pertinent picture of what the originals actually state." (from the foreword by Jean-Luc Achard, author of The Six Lamps)

Acarya Malcolm Smith has certainly given the world a rare gift by presenting to English-reading Dzogchen practitioners this skilled translation of the first two volumes of the Seventeen Tantras, the Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and its accompanying commentarial tantra, the Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra.

The exceptional features of each of the seventeen tantras of Ati Yoga’s quintessential secret cycle of the upadesa class are described with metaphors. The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra is described with the metaphor of the ocean. The eighty-four chapters of this oceanic treatise detail the pinnacle view, meditation, conduct, and result of all paths of Buddhadharma presented in this world. As the destined Dharma of this time, this translation is extremely timely. I wish to express deep gratitude to Malcolm and the wonderful Zangthal team for their noble aspiration and qualified capacity to finally bring these most precious teachings that exist in our world into the English language.    (Sangye Khandro, Translator and Teacher, Light of Berotsana Translation Group)

“Malcolm Smith’s translation of these two tantras has opened a door to fundamental, previously inaccessible Nyingma teachings. With a comprehensive knowledge and experience of the subject, Smith has created an erudite translation that is not only accurate but also clear in meaning and beautiful to read. This work is an important milestone in the translation of Tibetan Buddhist texts.” (Peter Alan Roberts, translator of The Mind of Mahamudra)

“In 1975, when the magnificent Buddhist master Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche visited the West for the first time, an event comparable to the Indian adept Vimalamitra bringing Dzogchen from India to Tibet, among the very first transmissions he gave was the reading of the Rigpa Rangshar Tantra (Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra). Now this preeminent tantra has finally arrived in the English language to be taught and studied, read and re-read, contemplated, savored, and practiced by all fortunate people. This crown jewel of human civilization covers all the big questions in life and brings certainty about the deepest topics to interrupt, transform, and free the mind from confusion and ignorance. Even merely hearing its title forms a connection to realizing the innermost nature of reality. I deeply rejoice in this.”

  (Erik Pema Kunsang)






























About the Author

Malcolm Smith is a graduate of the Shang Shung Institute’s School of Tibetan Medicine (2009) and has been a student of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu since 1992. He is a veteran of a traditional three-year solitary Tibetan Buddhist retreat, a published translator of Tibetan Buddhist texts (in Treasures of the Sakya Lineage, Shambhala, 2008), and was awarded the acarya degree by the Sakya Institute for Buddhist Studies in 2004. He has worked on translations for renowned lamas since 1992, including His Holiness Sakya Trizin, Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, Lama Migmar Tseten, Khenpo Konchog Gyaltsen and many other lamas.


He’s the translator of Buddhahood in This Life.
[10:51 PM, 10/17/2019] Soh Wei Yu: malcolm (Arcaya Malcolm Smith) wrote:


https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=30365&p=479718&hilit=AGENT#p479718

There is no typing typer, no learning learner, no digesting digester, thinking tinker, or driving driver.

...

No, a falling faller does not make any sense. As Nāgārjuna would put it, apart from snow that has fallen or has not fallen, presently there is no falling.

...


 It is best if you consult the investigation into movement in the MMK, chapter two. This is where it is shown that agents are mere conventions. If one claims there is agent with agency, one is claiming the agent and the agency are separate. But if you claim that agency is merely a characteristic of an agent, when agent does not exercise agency, it isn't an agent since an agent that is not exercising agency is in fact a non-agent. Therefore, rather than agency being dependent on an agent, an agent is predicated upon exercising agency. For example, take movement. If there is an agent there has to be a moving mover. But there is no mover when there is no moving. Apart from moving, how could there be a mover? But when there is moving, there isn't a mover which is separate from moving. Even movement itself cannot be ascertained until there has been a movement. When there is no movement, there is no agent of movement. When there is moving, there is no agent of moving that can be ascertained to be separate from the moving. And since even moving cannot be ascertained without there either having been movement or not, moving itself cannot be established. Since moving cannot be established, a moving mover cannot be established. If a moving mover cannot be established, an agent cannot be established.

...

 Hi Wayfarer:

The key to understanding everything is the term "dependent designation." We don't question the statement "I am going to town." In this there are three appearances, for convenience's sake, a person, a road, and a destination.

A person is designated on the basis of the aggregates, but there is no person in the aggregates, in one of the aggregates, or separate from the aggregates. Agreed? A road is designated in dependence on its parts, agreed? A town s designated upon its parts. Agreed?

If you agree to this, then you should have no problem with the following teaching of the Buddha in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra:

This body arises from various conditions, but lacks a self. This body is like the earth, lacking an agent. This body is like water, lacking a self. This body is like fire, lacking a living being. This body is like the wind, lacking a person. This body is like space, lacking a nature. This body is the place of the four elements, but is not real. This body that is not a self nor pertains to a self is empty.

In other words, when it comes to the conventional use of language, Buddha never rejected statements like "When I was a so and so in a past life, I did so and so, and served such and such a Buddha." Etc. But when it comes to what one can discern on analysis, if there is no person, no self, etc., that exists as more than a mere designation, the fact that agents cannot be discerned on analysis should cause no one any concern. It is merely a question of distinguishing between conventional use of language versus the insight into the nature of phenomena that results from ultimate analysis.



-------

[10:40 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: Very good
[10:41 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: I wonder why people can't explain like Malcolm.
[10:42 PM, 6/15/2020] John Tan: Lol

[11:36 PM, 10/17/2019] John Tan: Yes should put in blog together with Alan watt article about language causing confusion.


-------

From other threads:

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26272&p=401986&hilit=agent#p401986

There is no "experiencer" since there is no agent. There is merely experience, and all experience is empty.

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=24265&start=540


Why should there be someone upon whom karma ripens? To paraphrase the Visuddhimagga, there is no agent of karma, nor is there a person to experience its ripening, there is merely a flow of dharmas.


...

There are no agents. There are only actions. This is covered in the refutation of moving movers in chapter two of the MMK.

...

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=26495&p=406369&hilit=agent#p406369

 The point is that there is no point to eternalism if there is no eternal agent or object.


...

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=16306&p=277352&hilit=mover+movement+agent#p277352

 Things have no natures, conventionally or otherwise. Look, we can say water is wet, but actually, there no water that possesses a wet nature. Water is wet, that is all. There is no wetness apart from water and not water apart from wetness. If you say a given thing has a separate nature, you are making the exact mistaken Nāgārajuna points out in the analysis of movement, i.e., it is senseless to say there is a "moving mover." Your arguments are exactly the same, you are basically saying there is an "existing existence."

...

This is precisely because of the above point I referenced. Nagārjuna clearly shows that characteristics/natures are untenable.

Candrakīrti points out that the possessor does not exist at all, but for the mere purpose of discourse, we allow conventionally the idea that there is a possessor of parts even though no possessor of parts exists. This mistake that we indulge in can act as an agent, for example a car, we can use it as such, but it is empty of being a car — an agent is as empty of being an agent as its actions are empty of being actions. 


...



Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Lamps do not illuminate themselves. Candrakirti shows this.
2

Like
· Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith Nāgārjuna is addressing the realist proposition, "the six senses perceive their objects because those sense and their objects intrinsically exist ." It is not his unstated premise, that is the purvapakṣa, the premise of the opponent. The opponent, in verse 1 of this chapter asserts the essential existence of the six āyatanas. The opponent is arguing that perception occurs because the objects of perception actually exist.
6

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith
[Participant 1] "The argument from chap 2 depends on natural functions (movement, burning of fire, seeing of the eye, etc.) being predicated on the moment of time which it takes place, and when the non obtaining of time is established it leads to the non happening of the function. This is not justified."

Why?

Nāgārjuna shows two things in chapter two, one, he says that if there is a moving mover, this separates the agent from the action, and either the mover is not necessary or the moving is not necessary. It is redundant.

In common language we oftren saying things like "There is a burning fire." But since that is what a fire is (burning) there is no separate agent which is doing the burning, fire is burning.

On the other hand, when an action is not performed, no agent of that action can be said to exist. This is why he says "apart from something which has moved and has not moved, there is no moving mover." There is no mover with moving, etc.

This can be applied to all present tense gerundial agentive constructions, such as I am walking to town, the fire is burning, etc.
8

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited

Hide 11 Replies

 [Participant 2] Malcolm Smith these are not agentive constructions, they are unaccusative (cf. "byed med") verbs, so of course no separate agent can be established. So what?

The example of the fire and the eye are likewise not convincing, because they just happen to describe natural functions, but this is not all that unaccusative verbs do. When you say "the cat falls down", you cannot say that "falling down" is what a cat "is", the same way you can with fire burning.

Like
· Reply · 1w

Malcolm Smith
Malcolm Smith
[Participant 2] the point is aimed at the notion that there has to be a falling faller, a seeing seer, etc. it is fine to say there is a falling cat, but stupid to say the cat is a falling faller. The argument is aimed at that sort of naive premise.

For example, if eyes could see forms by nature, they should be able to forms in absence of an object of form, and so on.

But if the sight of forms cannot be found in the eyes, and not in the object, nor the eye consciousness, then none of them are sufficient to explain the act of seeing. Because of this, statements like the eyes are seers is just a convention, but isn’t really factual.

And it still applies in this way, apart from what has been seen and not been seen, there is no present seeing.
1

Like
· Reply · 1w · Edited
 
 
............
 
 

Unread post by PadmaVonSamba » Thu Dec 10, 2020 11:25 pm
If Nagarjuna had a mirror, would he say the mirror is a different mirror each time something different is reflected in it, or is it the same mirror?

Dzogchen teacher Arcaya Malcolm Smith:

"Apart from what has been mirrored and not been mirrored, there is no [present] mirroring. A mirroring mirror is redundant, just like moving movers." - https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=35353...
 

Highly recommended videos of interviews with Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith for those interested in Dzogchen teachings,


Also See: Teachers who Realised Anatta



In their journey towards a deeper understanding of nonduality and anatta, individuals frequently face the decision of whether to seek a teacher, guide, engage in one-on-one personal mentorship, participate in coaching programs, or explore other forms of spiritual guidance. This complex and nuanced topic has been extensively discussed in various online platforms, shedding light on the experiences and insights of different practitioners and teachers.

I, Soh, an admin of the Awakening to Reality Facebook group and co-author of AtR, addressed this topic by highlighting the practical challenges of offering mentorship while holding a full-time job. I emphasized that it's difficult to mentor a large community and maintain a separate career unless one decides to dedicate full-time to coaching, which would necessitate charging a fee for survival. This is a path I have chosen not to pursue, preferring to maintain my current career over giving up for full-time spiritual coaching​​.

The conversation extends to different paths within spiritual practice. Some practitioners, like Yin Ling, are inclined towards the Vipassana path, which leads more to nondual and anatta insights. Yin Ling's journey, detailed on the AtR website in the article "6) Nice Advice and Expression of Anatta from Yin Ling and Albert Hong + What is Experiential Insight?", provides valuable insights for those interested in this particular path.

Regarding Dzogchen teachings, Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith stands out as a key figure. He offers teachings and practice instructions through his website, www.zangthal.com, with a structured fee. You can watch this YouTube video (highly recommended) for an introduction to Acarya Malcolm’s Dzogchen teachings that was recommended by Sim Pern Chong on the AtR group: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/09/talk-on-buddhahood-in-this-life.html . Also, some of Malcolm’s writings can be found here https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html . His approach includes regular Zoom sessions and encourages students to email their queries, albeit concisely due to his large student base and other professional responsibilities​​. 


Do watch this talk by Acarya Malcolm Smith:


Similarly, Zen teacher Venerable Jinmyo Osho Renge offers a long-distance training program in Zen, accessible via www.wwzc.org, which is akin to Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith's approach in terms of structure and fees. You can read some of her articles here https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2010/04/tada.html and https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/12/zen-master-ven-jinmyo-renge-senseis.html


On Reddit, a user inquired about finding a good nondual coach and guide. In response, I, Soh, referred to teachers like Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith and Zen teacher Venerable Jinmyo Osho Renge, emphasizing that while these teachers do charge for their services, the fees are reasonable considering the support they provide to their communities and temples. I pointed out the importance of finding a practice, community, and teaching that resonates with the individual, rather than seeking quick solutions through one-time sessions. There are of course, many awakened teachers apart from these two that I have mentioned.

The teachings of Dzogchen teacher Acarya Malcolm Smith are particularly recommended for those interested in a deeper understanding of Dzogchen. His approach is structured and includes Dzogchen texts he personally translated, regular teachings and recordings which are also made available through his online platform, and the possibility of personal guidance through email correspondence. This method ensures a comprehensive and structured approach to Dzogchen, accommodating both beginners and advanced practitioners.

For those seeking mentorship or guidance in spiritual practices, the path is not always straightforward. The availability of mentors and the structure of their teachings vary, and fees may be involved. It's crucial to find a path and a teacher that resonate personally, ensuring a sustained and meaningful engagement with the practice. Whether through online platforms, formal teachings, or personal mentorship, the journey towards understanding nonduality and anatta is a deeply personal one, shaped by individual circumstances and commitments.

In addition to the various paths and teachers discussed in the context of spiritual mentorship and guidance, the significance of finding an awakened teacher cannot be overstated. As I, Soh, shared with someone recently, the teachings of the first Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma offer profound insights into this matter.

Bodhidharma, esteemed as the first patriarch of Chan/Zen, marking him as a foundational and transformative figure in the lineage and teachings of this tradition, emphasizes the crucial role of a teacher in the journey towards enlightenment. In his teachings, he states, "To find a Buddha, you have to see your nature. Whoever sees his nature is a Buddha. If you don’t see your nature, being mindful of Buddhas, reciting sutras, making offerings, and keeping precepts are not equal to it. Being mindful of Buddhas results in good karma, reciting sutras results in a good intelligence; keeping precepts results in a good rebirth in heavens, and making offerings results in future blessings — but no buddha. If you don’t understand by yourself, you’ll have to find a teacher to know the root of births and deaths. But unless he sees his nature, such a person isn’t a good teacher. Even if he can recite the twelve groups of scriptures he can’t escape the Wheel of Births and Deaths. He suffers in the three realms without hope of release. Long ago, the monk Good Star was able to recite the twelve groups of scriptures. But he didn’t escape the Wheel, because he didn’t see his nature. If this was the case with Good Star, then people nowadays who recite a few sutras or shastras and think it’s the Dharma are fools. Unless you see your own Heart, reciting so much prose is useless.

To find a Buddha have to see your nature directly. Your nature is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the person who’s free: free of plans, free of cares. If you don’t see your nature and run outwards to seek for external objects, you’ll never find a buddha. The truth is there’s nothing to find. But to reach such an understanding you need a good teacher and you need to struggle to make yourself understand. Life and death are important. Don’t suffer them in vain.

There’s no advantage in deceiving yourself. Even if you have mountains of jewels and as many servants as there are grains of sand along the Ganges, you see them when your eyes are open. But what about when your eyes are shut? You should realize then that everything you see is like a dream or illusion. If you don’t find a teacher soon, you’ll live this life in vain. It’s true, you have the buddha-nature. But without the help of a teacher you’ll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher’s help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn’t need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you’re so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you’ll understand.

People who don’t understand and think they can do so without study are no different from those deluded souls who can’t tell white from black.” Falsely proclaiming the Buddha-Dharma, such persons in fact blaspheme the Buddha and subvert the Dharma. They preach as if they were bringing rain. But theirs is the preaching of devils not of Buddhas. Their teacher is the King of Devils and their disciples are the Devil’s minions. Deluded people who follow such instruction unwittingly sink deeper in the Sea of Birth and Death.

Unless they see their nature, how can people call themselves Buddhas they’re liars who deceive others into entering the realm of devils. Unless they see their nature, their preaching of the Twelvefold Canon is nothing but the preaching of devils. Their allegiance is to Mara, not to the Buddha. Unable to distinguish white from black, how can they escape birth and death?


Whoever sees his nature is a Buddha; whoever doesn’t is a mortal. But if you can find your buddha-nature apart from your mortal nature, where is it? Our mortal nature is our Buddha nature. Beyond this nature there’s no Buddha. The Buddha is our nature. There’s no Buddha besides this nature. And there’s no nature besides the Buddha."


Also See: Teachers who Realised Anatta



Podcast on dzogchen with Malcolm Smith, it’s very good 

It explains what rigpa is. Rigpa is not mere Awareness, it’s like a state of realization, the knowledge of our basis. And not only that, it must recognise the five lights as its own state.

How ignorance is present before beginning and why and the part about the bardo states is also well explained. A good podcast. First 1/4 is more on personal introduction.


(Malcolm Smith was asked by his teacher Kunzang Dechen Lingpa to teach dzogchen but he focuses on translation work for now)




Recognition of the five lights as one's own state is what I meant by anatta and the bardo shows the importance of realizing it in the 3 states (walking, dreaming and deep sleep). Depending on the practitioner the strength of recognition may not be there even if insight may have manifested.

Also highly recommend his translation work. Seldom do we see such a serious translation. Accurate and precise.

“Buddhahood in This Life”

https://www.amazon.com/Buddhahood-This-Life-Commentary-Vimalamitra/dp/1614293457





Pemi Yeshi wrote,

“I couldn't play it from that link because I don't have itunes, but here i is I listened: https://learn.wisdompubs.org/podcast/malcolm-smith/

Very very good stuff! I love reading translator's introductions in books. Hearing translator talk is great.”

Replied someone:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/AwakeningToReality/posts/10064928413548498/


Some people prefer a more vipassana path (over self-enquiry), so that leads more to nondual and anatta. Yin Ling took this path and can elaborate more. You can read https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/05/nice-advice-and-expression-of-anatta-in.html

I am unable to offer mentorship because I have a full time job. IMO it will not be possible for any person to offer mentorship to a large community and still have a separate full time job. That is to say, unless I decide one day to quit my job and dedicate full time to coaching people, this would be impossible for me. If I do that, then I will have to charge people for my survival, and some people did request me to do that but I rejected their requests because I do not want to give up my career for this.

That being said, you can indeed find mentors, who do 1 on 1 coaching but there is a fee involved of course, which you can find out from Yin Ling -- she has a teacher who guided her to anatta.

You can also attend teachings like those by Acarya Malcolm Smith www.zangthal.com . There is a fee to attend the Dzogchen teachings. He will give practice instructions and teachings on Zoom to all his students regularly, you can also e-mail him, although because he also has a community with hundreds of students, and he has to juggle with his job of dharma translation work, he requested his students to limit their questions to only a paragraph per e-mail.

I personally attend Acarya Malcolm Smith's teachings too. 

 

p.s. there are also teachers like Ven Jinmyo Osho Renge (whose articles I like) who offers long distance training program for Zen https://wwzc.org/long-distance-training-program -- I believe there is a fee like Acarya Malcolm Smith's teachings. 



-----


https://www.reddit.com/r/AwakeningToReality/comments/16tmwbb/im_looking_for_a_good_nondual_coach_and_guide/

1
Posted by
u/ch3nr3z1g
44 minutes ago
I'm looking for a good nondual coach and guide. Suggestions?

I was browsing the AtR website and came across this link.

...
xabir
·
9 min. ago

Hi, Soh here, co author of AtR.

I don't do coaching but do refer people to teachers like Acarya Malcolm Smith ( www.zangthal.com ) for Dzogchen (although some of his courses can be quite technical for some) and Ven Jinmyo Osho for Zen https://wwzc.org/long-distance-training-program , you can read her articles on that website. If you attend their teachings, you can write to them to get your answers about practice answered.

I notice so called "nondual coaches" charge a lot, the rates go like 100usd per hour? And it's not even clear if they have genuine and deep insights. I can vouch for the two individuals above, they do charge for teachings but they have a community to run, and the charges are like 180usd (depends on teaching) for a couple months of teachings, and I think the Ven Jinmyo it's something like 95 canadian dollars a month? And they have a temple, community, monastics to support so I think it's all quite reasonable.

It's more important that you find a practice and community and teaching you resonate with and can stick to it with earnest interest and discipline so that you can keep consistent practice and interest and engagement. Rather than attend a one time or one hour 1 to 1 session which may not work out. There is no magic pill to enlightenment, it does depend on one's interest and engagement on the path.
1


——

Someone asked for an introduction to Malcolm’s teachings, I said:


For malcolm you can watch this https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2023/09/talk-on-buddhahood-in-this-life.html


And read this https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/02/clarifications-on-dharmakaya-and-basis_16.html


…..


Malcolm will be teaching i think near year end again so keep track of zangthal.com announcements. Meanwhile his recommendations for beginners as always is to first read these two books before attending his teachings as some background introductory materials to dzogchen if possible:


https://www.amazon.com/Crystal-Way-Light-Dzogchen-Philosophy/dp/1559391359


And


https://www.amazon.sg/Dzogchen-Self-Perfected-Chogyal-Namkhai-Norbu/dp/1559390573