by Toni Packer, "The Wonder of Presence"


Someone asked, “Does it really matter if we ‘wake up’ or not?”

A little while ago I took a walk up the hill. What a delightful morning! Warmth and coolness were present at the same time. Gentleness pervaded the air, and birds were singing everywhere. Wet, sodden shoes passed by the croaking pond where tiny little skimmers crisscrossed back and forth on the surface of the water, leaving their ever so delicate tracks.

On the big upper field several deer were grazing. Looking up at the intruder, their long white tails twitched a little as we looked at each other. Then they kept on grazing. Colors dotted the sun-drenched field, and blooming grasses were swaying in the breeze. The fragrance of wild roses filled the air.

If you had walked along with me this beautiful morning, we both would have laughed at the question whether it matters if we wake up or not.

Had we been caught up in anger, worry, or frustration, we wouldn’t have laughed. We would not have seen the lovely vibrant field.

We have so many questions. Whence do they arise? Are there deeper motives to our question? Can we wonder about it and look? Someone asked, “Is there such a thing as ultimate, complete and total enlightenment?” Are we really asking, “If there is such a thing, can I get it?”

Where does wondering about complete and total enlightenment come from? And from where does wanting it arise? And the frustration about not getting it? Doesn’t it all come out of our deep inner discontent with ourselves, with others, and with the world? Sometimes we can’t even say what it is that causes it; we just feel painfully out of sync. There is an inner meaninglessness, a feeling of hollow emptiness. Not the emptiness of vast open space, but a feeling of nothing of value inside, feeling lonely, cut off from happiness and alienated from people. There may be the fear of abandonment, or feeling unloved. All of these things are going on in human beings.

Out of the desires to fill up the inner depletion and find lasting contentment may come questions about enlightenment, and with them the yearning to find meaning and not feel isolated from everything and everyone. The brain creates endless concepts and fantasies to alleviate the inner suffering.

If we become increasingly transparent to these movements of thought and feeling, we will realize that inner pain is not dissolved by conventional ways of dealing with it, materially or spiritually. Money, position, acquisitions, or relationships have not brought lasting contentment. Religious beliefs may provide illusions of security and support, but for many of us they simply have not worked. We have wandered from one belief system to another, attracted by promises of salvation, liberation, or enlightenment, but real hunger for truth and clarity can be stilled only with genuine food.

The discursive mind is capable of throwing up doubts and sceptical questions at any time. Maybe we suddenly find ourselves in quiet openness, a profound stillness without any feeling of lack. Then thought comes in and beings to wonder “Will this last? Can I get it back? Was it real? Was this enlightenment or is there more? It doesn’t seem enough.” Thinking about a past moment of freedom immediately sows the seeds of doubt by asking, “Is this all there is? It can’t be! There must be a more convincing experience than what I just had!” Thoughts grow like clinging vines that choke the living presence. Truly being here is being unknown, unknowable, unadorned. Being here is absence of doubting or affirming thoughts about myself. It is the absence of me! Thoughts that arise about me are just thoughts, with their enormous power to obscure clarity.

Is it our task to find out whether or not there is total and complete enlightenment like the Buddha proclaimed? I always liked the Buddha’s saying: “I truly attained nothing from complete, unexcelled enlightenment, and that is why it is called complete, unexcelled enlightenment” No-thing, no one to attain it, spaceless space, no one there to occupy it. Just alive presence with the evening star in the sky. Dying to all the stuff imagined and clung to about oneself – what I am, what I was, what I will be, what I could be, should be...

Can we see all concepts as concepts with deepening clarity and wisdom? Not immediately lurching toward something promised in the future that has its sole existence in thoughts? Can we clearly discern what constitutes thinking and what is actually present right here without needing to think it? Can we discern it effortlessly?

The open windows, fresh air touching the skin, bright sunshine everywhere, all kinds of twittering sounds, crows calling and breathing, pulsating life! Caw, caw, caw, caw.. Sensations throughout the body, breathing, beholding it, not the words, but the aliveness of it all. Can we realize now that “complete unexcelled enlightenment” is a concept?

You may sincerely object, “How can I know for sure that enlightenment is just a concept? Maybe it is real. Lots of enlightened teachers have told and written about it. So – shall we then ask together: “What is enlightenment without all concepts?”

Let us delve profoundly into this question, not asking for other people’s description of experiences, not looking for promises, nor expecting to know for sure, but questioning out of not knowing, inquiring meditatively, deeply, darkly, until we don’t know anymore what is “enlightened” or “un-enlightened”! In silently wondering deeply without knowing, the conceptual world is left behind. Are we going into the question in this way?

All too often our yearning for something to alleviate the inner suffering gets in the way of deep inquiry. Rather than asking, “What is enlightenment” can we question our inner feeling of insufficiency? We have tried to fill it with fantasies of all descriptions, with entertainment, acquisitions, achievements, relationships, spiritual searching, and solemn vows – anything to fill the aching void. But have we ever really explored it directly, unconditionally?

Becoming conscious of it in or out of retreat, can we be with the ache of emptiness ,not calling it by any name? Let all labels fly into thin air and stay with what is here, discomfort without calling it discomfort. Staying here with what’s indefinable. Not resisting, not fighting, not looking for anything else. Just letting what is here be here in its entirety, physically, mentally, totally. Letting it be without knowing. Not becoming the doer for or against it. Just this quiet presence in the midst of the silence of chaos. In this there is an unfolding transparency. It happens when one sits patiently, silently, unconditionally. By “sitting” I simply mean being totally with what is here. Not moving away or toward something else, just remaining with the whole thing – an intense presence that includes all bodily sensations, breathing, wind-storming, raining, sunning, birding, coughing, fans humming – everything right here, all at once, without a seam. Observing thoughts coming up, emotions about to be triggered, physical sensations arising and more thoughts, emotions, feelings, sensations unfolding and abating – being with it all. There isn’t any place to escape to. Everything is here without separation.

Let thoughts come up, let them reveal themselves for what they are and disappear. It all is the stuff of dreams, traces from the infinite past. Thoughts may trigger fear, but fear too can become transparency. When it arises, here it is. Let it be. Don’t call it by name – labels attract memories and reactions from the past. No need to have any feelings about it – they too are empty. Fear is an unavoidable occurrence in our habitual self-centered consciousness. We cannot possibly live the illusion of a separate me without experiencing fears about what may happen to it. But illusions and dreams can also be seen as just dreams and illusions, even though they can arouse tremendous inner turbulence in the form of horror, agony, or pleasure. It is all part and parcel of human consciousness manifesting as separate me and you.

Sitting quietly, watching things come up time and time again, a tape may be playing: “Is that what meditation is all about? I don’t want to spend the rest of my meditative life watching endless repetitions of garbage.” But the important thing is not what is seen but the quality of seeing. When a person asks, “Is watching the comings and goings of thoughts and emotions all there is to meditation?” I say that it all depends on the quality of the watching. Is it consumed by judging, by feeling guilty, ashamed, or impatient? As those mental movements occur, see them for what they are and don’t be disturbed by them. That is choiceless awareness – no separate watcher occupying center stage. The inner show is simply displaying itself on its own and needs no particular audience, no applause or rejection . Let it all happen as it is happening in the infinite space of open presence.

Is “choiceless awareness” just another dream, a new illusion? Thought can turn anything into a concept by thinking and dreaming about it. See it when it happens and don’t be fooled by it. Choiceless awareness is not an illusion. It is here for human beings like you and me. Transparency unfolds on its own, revealing all there is as it is, in utter directness and simplicity, without need for a director.

Actually, awareness is here even during times of darkness. Presence never goes anywhere. This is not a dogmatic statement but a simple fact that each one of us can come upon. See the cloud, the darkness! Hear the wind! Feel the breathing! Smell the flowers! Touch the swaying grasses! Clouds, wind, thoughts, breathing, fragrant flowers, and grasses change all the time, but seeing is here without time. Even though doubts may obscure it, it is here the instant the mind stops and every cell of the body opens up to hear and see and be.

No need to bother one’s head about what has been said. Being present is all of oneself, not just the head! We are this entire living creation from moment to moment without a break. Walk innocently through the fields, into the woods, along the ocean beach or in the city streets with the sheer joy of aliveness, its infinite movements and sounds and fragrance – the love of it all without making a thing out of it!

Are we here?
From time to time I hear people completely misrepresenting Dzogchen teachings by saying how no path, practices, stages etc are necessary. Here is what Mipham Rinpoche said:




Joel Agee wrote:

"Is it necessarily a misrepresentation of Dzogchen teachings to say "no path, practices, stages, etc. are necessary"? Here is a quote from the Kunjed Gyalpo, one of the oldest Dzogchen texts, that seems to say precisely that:

The Ten Absences


1. There is no view on which one has to meditate.

2. There is no commitment, or samaya, one has to keep.

3. There is no capacity for spiritual action one has to seek.

4. There is no mandala one has to create.

5. There is no initiation one has to receive.

6. There is no path one has to tread.

7. There are no levels of realization (bhumis) one has to achieve through purification

8. There is no conduct one has to adopt, or abandon

9. From the beginning, self-arising wisdom has been free of obstacles

10. Self-perfection is beyond hope or fear.

(“The Supreme Source,” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu and Adriano Clemente, pp. 67-68.)"



I replied:

"
The ultimate or the way things are is said in dzogchen to be the unity of primordial purity and spontaneous presence. Primordial purity means afflictions are not existent, the delusional constructs like existence and nonexistence, subject and object are fundamentally nonexistent. But the conventional is the way things appear. Deluded constructs appear very real to sentient beings. This needs to be released through practice and wisdom. On the ultimate level nothing needs to be done, that cannot be said for the conventional due to strong karmic propensities."


Kyle Dixon replied:

"
Though the kun byed rgyal po is an exposition given from the perspective of one's nature. As it is a sems sde teaching that focuses on "byang chub sems" [skt. bodhicitta] which is the sems sde name for the basis i.e., the nature of mind.

So from the
point of view of the nature of mind there is nothing to accept or reject, nothing to improve, no basis, no path, no result. But a Dzogchen practitioner is not the nature of mind. A Dzogchenpa only works with his/her knowledge [rig pa] of the nature of mind. And aspirants initially have no knowledge of that nature to speak of. And then adepts on the path have an incomplete knowledge that is refined through familiarization and practice. Finally at the time of the result that knowledge is complete. But the practitioner has much to do, extensive meditation, extensive practice. Our nature is perfect, but we as practitioners are not.

Not understanding these contexts properly creates big issues for people."



More posts by Kyle Dixon:

Larry writes:

"To claim a superiority of understanding by espousing a view still locked in the duality of correct/incorrect is laughable."

You're welcome to believe that, however these systems are no stranger to identifying corrrect/incorrect or higher/lower views. Even your beloved Longchenpa engages in such valuations, stating:

"Some say: 'Cause and effect, compassion and merits are the dharma for ordinary people, and it will not lead to enlightenment. O great yogis! You should meditate upon the ultimate meaning, effortless as space.'

These kinds of statements are the views of the utmost nihilism, they have entered the path of the most inferior. It is astonishing to expect the result while abandoning the cause."

.....

Larry, writes:

"The thing is Kyle the water's fine, always has been and always will be."

I'm not even sure what this means, but if you are stating that the suffering of samsara is "fine" and acceptable (and always has been), then you have unfortunately made a wrong turn somewhere.


.....

And to clarify, I only harp on this issue like I do because I used to carry the same view: that everything is already perfect... there's nothing to realize... there's no one here to do anything... there's no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect"... or that concepts were the enemy, and so on, and so on, and so on. All the same narratives you see being spun by most neo-nondual teachers and systems. I remember I used to argue with a friend/mentor all the time about how he doesn't get it, and he's just fooling himself with practice and so on. And I used to cite the same quotations from Longchenpa and others that were speaking from the point of view of the ultimate, and I (in my delusion) provided them as proof that I was correct etc.

Then one day that changed, and I experientially tasted what all of these masters are pointing to. And I was shown directly that I had been wrong, and that was very humbling.

That made these teachings real for me. And surprisingly, instead of continuing to reject practice, and all of these other aspects of these systems that I had previously thought to be extraneous and a waste of time... I saw their value and their place for the first time. It became clear how and why they are applied, where they fit into the scheme of things... and I saw the sheer wisdom behind the structures that I had once mistakenly rejected.

So I only speak out against those who attempt to propagate the same mistakes because I've been there. I was so certain that I was right, and that I "got it", and that others didn't understand. And I was so wrong... unbelievably wrong.

I'm no teacher or messiah, I don't have a superiority complex or have some strange need to be "right", it's nothing like that. I simply speak out because when I see others who appear to be passionate about these teachings, making the same mistakes I made, I see myself, I can't help but to want to say "hey, it really isn't that way." And if all I accomplish is at least planting some shred of a seed of a possibility that X person may think twice and consider being open to the fact that they don't have it completely figured out, then that is good enough for me. If not, that is alright too, but at least I can say I tried.
.....
 
Larry writes:

"As Longchenpa says, we are free as we are, as free as we will ever be, in this moment. No deferral required."

Seems to be a massive case of confirmation bias going on here in terms of what Longchenpa texts you are reading, and what passages from said texts you are choosing to cherry pick in order to support your view. Because he does not say you are free as you are, quite the opposite in fact:

"Though primordially pure wisdom exists within us, by not recognizing it, we wander here in samsara. This karma of ignorance produces ego-grasping. By that in turn are produced passion, aggression, ignorance, pride, and envy. It is because of these five poisons or kleshas that we are whirling around here in samsara. Why so? As various habitual patterns are superimposed on alaya, we enter into unhappiness.... [after going over the beings who inhabit the six lokas, he states] Each of these (beings) has their own realm of
existence, with its happiness, sorrow, and the states between them. They have their own sorts of good and evil behavior. So it is that we wander helplessly in this plain of the beginningless and endless sufferings of samsara, so difficult to cross.... Thinking about that, and seeing the weariness of sentient beings, exhausted by the burden of their long wandering here in samsara, I wanted to compose a treatise giving the instructions of how we can ease this weariness."

This is clearly not the exposition of a man who believes you are "free as you are", which means you are taking that statement far out of context.


.....
 Right, "everything is primordially liberated" is only true from the standpoint of having recognized that, and when resting directly in that knowledge [rig pa].

Those who haven't recognized their nature, which is a vast majority, cannot say everything
is primordially liberated, because it isn't for them.

And then for those who have recognized their nature: in the practice of a Dzogchen yogin traversing the path, they fluctuate between mind [sems] and wisdom [ye shes]. So while resting in wisdom, sure every thing appears primordially liberated, because one is directly and experientially cognizing emptiness. However once one becomes distracted and falls back into mind they again perceive phenomena dualistically and again cannot make blanketed statements like everything is primordially liberated. Because while in post-equipoise they perceive conditioned phenomena. The "path" of Dzogchen is the process of gaining stability in that view, which is no walk in the park.

Only those who have realized the result can say everything is primordially liberated at all times. And those beings are rarer than stars in the daytime, as it is said. Even my teacher Chögyal Namkhai Norbu says he is not in a direct knowledge of his nature at all times. So to hear people claim in this thread that they don't need to do anything and that all is perfect just means they're living in a fantasy. Which is fine, but should be pointed out as the misconception it is.
Which takes years, decades, lifetimes, and is why serious Dzogchenpas spend their entire lives practicing in solitary retreats.The Nyarong Tertön Rinpoche (i.e., Tertön Sogyal) said:

“At this, the time for discovering Buddha directly, you must remain alone, without companions, in an isolated mountain retreat—with a staff to the right, a container of grain to the left, a coppe
r pot in front, and a cave behind. From now until the attainment of enlightenment, you must look upwards, entrusting ourselves to the teacher and Three Jewels, and downwards, into the naked unity of awareness and emptiness. At all times and in all situations, you must guard the fortress of the view, just as you would cherish a diamond. And you must continue meditating until, your eyes turned lifeless and blue, you breathe your very last breath.”

Again, these are not examples of advice given by individuals who think there's nothing to do and everything is already perfect.
From "Jamgon Mipham: His Life and Teachings"










Taken from http://kiloby.com/what-if-awareness-isnt-real/

Scott Kiloby:

What if awareness isn’t real? A recent scientific study found that awareness or consciousness is a construction of the mind like everything else – like the self, our world views, all of it.

This latest scientific discovery is not particularly groundbreaking. In fact, postmodern philosophical explorations in the last century have essentially obliterated inherent metaphysical notions like awareness or spirit. They have torn these notions to shreds in so many ways and from so many angles that it is embarrassing in those circles to posit such notions. Whatever we think is pregiven as a reality is exactly not that. It is a construction. This has been dealt with so directly that there are now things like non-metaphysical nonduality and post-metaphysics popping up. Yet, most of the spiritual community is ignorant of what science is currently saying and what these postmodern explorations have uncovered about how our minds conceive – essentially “make up” – everything, even our most profound metaphysical notions. Even though our spiritual circles are slow to see this, we have all already seen it, yet we often turn a blind eye to it. For example, those who follow certain regional traditions and teachings tend to see what those teachings and traditions teach and nothing more. For example, a Buddhist is not going to find Union with Christ. A Christian is not going to realize nirvana. True nature is realized only by those who follow teachings that say that there is a true nature and that this is what you are. I found this out long ago when I would meet with people who had experiences of the dropping away of everything. They didn’t follow any teachings. When I suggested they were seeing their true nature, they looked at me as if I had just said “You are a squirrel.” Even when they began to call their realization “true nature,” they did so by taking that on as a conception, a context for what had been seen. And that’s the mind, through and through.

Awareness gets thrown around as if it is the final realization, as if everything is just awareness. But look around – nothing in the universe is labeling itself awareness. Labeling happens through the mind. And to say that we have to be aware in order to even see a universe is still the mind, for it posits a division between what is aware and what one is aware of. All divisions are of the mind. They are constructions.

The perennial philosophy itself, which is the notion that there is one pregiven reality that we all come to see, regardless of our particular tradition or spiritual view, has been obliterated also. If there is one pregiven reality, why is everyone still arguing about it? Is reality arguing with itself? How would that happen anyway if there is one reality? Why do Buddhists, Advaitists, Scientists and Christians still assert that whatever they are realizing is what everyone else is realizing as one fundamental truth? Could it be that what they are realizing is only what their teachings and traditions make room for? Could it be that the notion of one fundamental truth is just another way the ego wants to be right? If so, that has nothing to do with a pregiven, nonconceptual reality. That is all about self.

Is this the end of metaphysical notions like awareness? I say “no.” It just means it is time for a change in how we view these things (or non-things). Setting up the notion of awareness can be helpful on one’s path to freedom. It provides a way to identify less with thoughts and other arisings that come and go. But inevitably, many land on that conception as a final realization, still dividing the universe in two, between awareness and all that other stuff that comes and goes.

We often hear that all there is, is Oneness. But did you know that many schools of Buddhism do not posit Oneness as a final insight. Instead, they say it is empty too, like everything else. It is a construction.

Wow, this sweeps the proverbial rug out from under us. It calls on us to look at our reality differently – to stop taking the words of spiritual teachings, science and religion on face value. It calls on us to look at our conceptions, no matter what they are and no matter how profound they appear to be.
But isn’t this what freedom is about anyway? Isn’t it about not getting cozy within mental prisons that create more divisions and, instead, letting the fire of freedom burn everything up?

If you are willing and ready to let that fire burn it all up, nothing that is said here will offend you. Instead, it will excite you at the possibility of going deeper then where you are currently landing in your conceptions of reality. If this offends you, and you wish to argue with me, be prepared. I’m not defending a view here. I’m merely inviting you to examine your own. You’d only be arguing with yourself. Apparently, that’s what reality does.
Daniel M. Ingram:

"So you have these two extremes - both of which I find pretty annoying (laughs) - and uhm, not that they are not making interesting points that counterbalance each other. And then, from an experiential point of view, the whole fi
eld seems to be happening on its own in a luminous way, the intelligence or awareness seems to be intrinsic in the phenomena, the phenomena do appear to be totally transient, totally ephemeral. So I would reject from an experiential point of view, something in the harshness of the dogma of the rigid no-selfists that can't recognise the intrinsic nature of awareness that is the field. If that makes sense. Cos they tend to feel there's something about that's sort of (cut off?)..."

Interviewer: "And not only awareness..."

Daniel: "Intelligence. Right, and I also reject from an experiential point of view the people who would make this permanent, something separate from, something different from just the manifestation itself. I don't like the permanence aspect because from a Buddhist technical point of view I do not find anything that stands up as permanent in experience. I find that quality always there *while there is experience.* Because it's something in the nature of experience. But it's not quite the same thing as permanence, if that makes sense. So while there is experience, there is experience. So that means there is awareness, from a certain point of view, manifestation - awareness being intrinsically the same thing, intrinsic to each other. So while there is experience, I would claim that element (awareness) is there - it has to be for there to be experience. And I would claim that the system seems to function very lawfully and it's very easy to feel that there's a sort of intelligence, ok, cool... ...the feeling of profundity, the feeling of miraculousness, the wondrous component. So as the Tibetans would say, amazing! It all happens by itself! So, there is intrinsically amazing about this. It's very refreshingly amazing that the thing happens, and that things cognize themselves or are aware where they are, manifestation is truly amazing and tuning into that amazingness has something valuable about it from a pragmatic point of view."

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNg-gps9O0w
Loppon Malcolm:

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=19502&p=282172

One cannot find the nature of water apart from water. It does not precede or succeed it. Now then, if you are an essentialist [Hindu, etc.], you will argue that all water derives its nature from some hypothetical essence of water. If you are a nominalist [Buddhist], you will argue our notion of a characteristic of water is an abstraction derived from our experiences of water. So, the answer is that your nature of water is merely an abstraction, and does not really exist. See MMK chapter 5:7:

    Therefor space is not existent, it is not non-existent, is not the characterized,
    is not the characteristic; also any other of the five elements are the same as space.

And 5:8:

    Some of small intelligence, see existents in terms of ‘is’ or ‘is not’;
    they do not perceive the pacification of views, or peace.

...

Your quote does not support Dolbupa's entire theory, which has much more to do with his treatment of three own natures, his interpretation of the idea of the three turnings, and so on that it does tathāgatagarbha.

We all accept tathāgatagarbha theory, we just don't accept Dolbupas interpretation of it, because it is eternalist.

...

Nope. Gzhan stong is the theory that the ultimate truth is empty of relative truth and utterly different than it; it is not the theory that the nature of mind (tathāgatagarbha) is empty of adventitious defilements and replete with buddha qualities (potentially). You can cite the Śrīmālādevī-siṃhanāda sūtra (and the nine other tathāgatagarbha sūtras) till you pass out from exhaustion but it wont make tathāgatagarbha theory any more "gzhan stong".

...

Umm, no, that is not what gzhan stong is. This is how it is defined:

    Dharmatā, the thoroughly established, the ultimate truth, is not empty of its own nature, but because it is empty of imputed and other-dependent entities, relative entities, conditioned phenomena, it is empty of other entities. That is the true unperverted emptiness, ultimate truth, dharmakāya, [3/b] the limit of the real, suchness, and emptiness endowed with the supreme of all aspects. The powers, major and minor marks and so on are the unconditioned qualities that abide in that from the beginning.

...

What you do not seem to understand is while the sūtra passages you are citing are noncontroversial, the gzhan stong interpretation Dolbupa applied to them in general is controversial for many reasons, but mostly having to do with his novel (and largely unprecedented) interpretation of the three own natures, his idea that the perfected nature (parinispanna) was empty of both the dependent (paratantra) and imputed (parikalpita) natures. In fact Maitreyanath, Asanga and Vasubandhu uniformly consider that the absence of the imputed in the dependent is the perfected. The second place where the gzhan stong view is found contradictory to Nāgārjuna is that if one follows the gzhan stong view, samsara and nirvana cannot be inseparable. Therefore, the statement by the Buddha in the Hevajra Tantra must be false:

    This so-called "samsara,"
    just this is nirvana.

Many other clear and unambiguous statements by the Buddha on the identity of samsara and nirvana must also be considered false. Not to mention Nāgārjuna's famed dictum:

    Samsara is not the slightest bit different from nirvana,
    nirvana is not the slightest bit different from samsara;
    whatever is the limit of nirvana, that is the limit of samsara,
    a difference between those two does not exist even slightly.

We can see that Vasubandhu agrees with this meaning in the Sūtrālaṃkārabhāṣya:

    The meaning of nirvana being all-pervasive is that because samsara and peace (nirvana) have one taste due to one not having concepts about their faults and qualities, in the respect there is no difference between samsara and nirvana.

M

...

Right, so you did not even answer the question.

As a basic definition, nirvana, space and so on are included in "all phenomena." In fact, the Śatasāhasrika-prajñāpāramitā, etc., state:

    All phenomena are included with the category of suchness, those cannot go beyond that category. If it asked why, Subhuti no coming or coming can be perceived in suchness. Subhuti, all phenomena are within these categories: the dharmadhātu, are the limit of reality, uniformity and inconceivability.

And:

    Subhuti, when categorized, all phenomena are the nature of being unreal. Subhuti, in the same way, also all phenomena are nature of emptiness, all phenomena are the nature of signlessness, all phenomena are the nature of aspirationalessness. Subhuti, in the same way also, all phenomena are the nature of suchness, all phenomena are the nature of the limit of reality, all phenomena are the nature of dharmadhātu.

This being so, it is ludicrous to assert that the ultimate is empty of all relative phenomena. Such an assertion directly contradicts the words of the Buddha. It is one thing to claim "tathāgatagarbha is empty of adventitious afflictions." It is quite another to claim that the ultimate is empty of all relative phenomena. The ultimate is merely the emptiness of all phenomena, there is no other ultimate that can be found.

...

And it is for this reason, for example, that Rongton Sheja Kunrig classifies gzhan stong as a species of false aspectarian yogacara, or a sort of intermediate view between yogacara and madhyamaka.

...

The problem lies when one conflates the language of the tathatagarbha teachings, the language of yogacara and the language of madhyamaka. The ancient yogacarins in Indian took virtually no interest in tathāgatagarbha theory devoting only a total of two commentaries to the subject: the Uttaratantra and the subcommentary on that by Asanga. Further proof, is that Madhyamakas such as Bhavavieka and Chandrakirti treast the subject of tathāgatagarbha theory with much more interest then Asanga, Vasuubandhu and so on. We do not really find consistent commentarial treatment of tathāgatagarbha theory until the Vajrayāna commentaries dating from the ninth century onward. Even here it is not systematic.