Average rating 4. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of Pointing Out the Dharmakaya. Feb 23, Carole rated it it was amazing Shelves: buddhism. Excellent book on Mahamudra that I read with a group and listening to taped talks by Ponlop Rinpoche. Will be using the book in the future for group guided practice. Patrick rated it it was amazing Aug 02, Megs rated it liked it Jan 24, Mark rated it it was amazing Nov 06, Jeremy rated it it was amazing Jul 22, L rated it really liked it Sep 06, Ivonne rated it really liked it Aug 22, Tibetan Reader rated it it was amazing Feb 23, David Wu rated it it was ok Jul 06, Tom rated it it was amazing Mar 08, Eric Pol rated it it was amazing Jun 03, Ishmael rated it really liked it Dec 28, Jeaninemg rated it it was amazing Mar 15, Brandon Commiskey rated it it was amazing Apr 16, Jack rated it really liked it Feb 17, Fred Rogers rated it it was amazing Feb 23, Scott Kleihege rated it it was amazing Oct 13, McNevin Hayes rated it it was amazing Jun 09, Brent McLean rated it really liked it Sep 20, Donatas rated it really liked it Dec 03, Pointing Out the Dharmakaya.
Add to Cart. At the heart of successful Mahamudra practice is the ability to understand the nature of mind. The Ninth Karmapa Wangchuk Dorje — was the acknowledged master of this approach.
No more authoritative or useful instructions exist than in his three definitive texts on Mahamudra, of which this easy-to-use manual is the shortest and most practical. Pointing Out the Dharmakaya is an indispensable companion to The Ocean of Definitive Meaning , the most vast and detailed of the texts. An invaluable guide for Mahamudra practitioners on how to look at the mind, it is clearly laid out so that the instructions are easy to recall and put to use.
For while the nature of your mind is emptiness, it also has this natural characteristic of cognitive lucidity, and in fact, this cognitive lucidity which characterizes the mind is inseparable from the emptiness which is its fundamental nature. Therefore, after saying, It does not exist and has not been seen by any of the Victorious Ones, the Third Karmapa goes on to say, It does not not-exist, it is the basis of samsara and nirvana.
Although the mind is empty in the sense of being devoid of any kind of substantial existence, it nevertheless is the ground for all of the qualities of Buddhahood and for all of the confusion of samsara. So, you would have to say, finally, that it is beyond being something or nothing.
You cannot say the mind is something because it has no substantial characteristics that make it meaningful to view it that way. Nor can you say that it is nothing, because it is the ground for all qualities and the ground of experience. Therefore, the mind is said to be beyond being something or nothing, beyond existence and non-existence. One of the implications of this is that when looking at the mind you have no need to pretend that that which exists does not exist, or that that which does not exist, does exist.
You simply see the mind as it IS. When you rest in this experience of the mind, which is beyond extremes or elaborations, what is the experience of that like? It is characterized by a profound state of ease, which means an absence of agitation or discomfort. Therefore the experience is comfortable and pleasant.
The term comfortable does not indicate pleasure in the sense of something you're attached to, or the pleasure of acting out an attachment or passion.
It's simply the absence of any kind of discomfort or imperfection in the nature of mind itself. Therefore, the experience of that nature is characterized by comfy blissfulness. This is as close as we can come in words to what you experience when you look at your mind.
You couldn't actually communicate what you experience. It's beyond expression. In fact, the Buddha said that this nature is the Prajnaparamita that is inexpressible, indescribable, and even inconceivable.
If it had substantial characteristics, for example, if it had a color, at least you could say, it's blue or it's yellow or it's red. And if it either existed or it didn't, then you could say it exists or it doesn't exist. But it's beyond any of that. Therefore, you can't accurately say anything about it. Therefore, it was characterized by Marpa the Translator as being like the situation of a mute person tasting sugar. The person would taste the sugar and would be aware of the sweetness, but if asked to describe it, would be unable to do so.
In the same way, since you are viewing your own mind, you can experience what it is like, but you could never really relate it to anyone else. If through looking at the mind, you come to experience that the nature of the mind is what has been described — if you experience it as such through your seeing it as such when looking — then this is probably a correct experience.
The only possible source of mistake here is that you might be reinforcing or adulterating your experience with conceptual understanding. For example, through study and so forth, you might have come to the conclusion intellectually that the mind must be insubstantial and therefore beyond existence, and that it must not be an absolute nothingness and must therefore by beyond non-existence.
0コメント