Re: gnostics & trismegistus at nag hammadi 5
--- In gnosticism2@y..., Hvonhofe169@c... wrote:
Hello all, I can always be tempted back to a list by erudition.
Hello Hal - you mention the teachings of Dzoqpachenpo which is
contained in Nyingma but can also be found in Yung Drung Bon.
This is a path one may receive actual initiation into and it is wise
to take some teachings in person if one can. Ngakchang
Rinpoche does give these teachings on retreat in New York in
the autumn and in the spring, usually at Bailey farms just west of
the palisades and within an hour of NYC.
But on to Lamai Naljor you make the comment:
These bubbles of experience, these Bardos, are linked by
> when you know that... it's called Enlightenment (laughter).
When it's concept
> that links Bardos.. this is known as Unenlightenment!
> As I think the man in the Zoot Suit (hi Robert!) might say: It's all
> Nothing. ;-)
It is erroneous to confuse the term "emptiness" with "nothing";l
this is the clear misconception that engages and confuses many
minds in mahayana Buddhism. The actual premis is Form and
Emptiness as stated in the Prajnaparamita Sutra - Form is
Emptiness, Emptiness is Form, form is not other than
Emptimess and Emptiness is not other than Form. This much
Nagakchang Rinpoche goes to great lengths to explain in
We have both - and Form is not "nothing" yet it is Empty because
it is ontologically void - nevertheless, phenomenologically Form
is manifest. It is empty because there is no condition or quality
which is not dependent upon some other, and all qualities -
called skhandas in the original - are empty - the Prajnaparamita
Sutra goes on to explain the nature of those qualities and their
emptiness aspect which then concludes that despite this there
is awareness - and this is called the Heart of Transcendant
A similar principle obtains in Valentinian cosmology: Sige and
Bythos are together in duality ; Depth and Silence, and they beget
Nous - Mind; from which point the Aeonic Forms emanate yet all
originate in a Depth (Bythos) about which nothing can be said
Nevertheless form occurs but because of its dependent nature
on voidness, form lacks ontological solidity - only
phenomenological apparition. But because void depends on the
form which marks its boundaries, it cannot be actually called
nothing since it is defined as the void contained within a
boundary. The BUBBLES Rinpoche talks about.
This much can be apprehended in meditation as has been my
experience, it is the process however of diacritical reasoning
uncoupled from meaning that causes trouble; which gives rise to
apparent objects of thought which are presumed to be
ontologically real - thus the fall of Sophia.
While the two philophical constructs do not map there are
But it is inaccurate to confuse Sunyata - Void - with "nothing"
because in the Mahayana traditions Void is always contained in
Form. A similar view would obtain to Bythos, although there is a
Depth surrounded by silence, the apparent Wisdon of the Mind
spontaneously arises therefrom, beyond which no apprehension