The Knowing of experience is the Dharmakaya. Experience is the Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya. Neither does the Knowing block experience, nor does experience block the Knowing. Knowingness is the essential nature of the Dharmakaya, the Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya are its Light, like the sun and its rays. In such an all inclusive Space, where can samsara be found?
Like · · Unfollow Post · April 3 at 7:27am
Seen by 77
Ian Reclusado likes this.
Din Robinson: it's a world of pure consciousness/awareness so samsara is simply ideation
April 3 at 8:30am · Like
Jackson Peterson: And "ideation" is the Light of the Dharmakaya...
April 3 at 9:03am · Like
Din Robinson: so the idea of a someone who needs to accomplish something or realize something is simply that, just an idea, who sees through that?
who is identified with ideas?
it's all just ideas within ideas within ideas...
April 3 at 9:13am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Light upon Light... a play of sun light shimmering off wind blown ripples upon a lake... how beautiful!
April 3 at 9:16am · Like
Kyle Dixon: The direct knowing that all of experience is unborn, is the dharmakāya... not simply 'knowing'. To say the dharmakāya is the 'knowing of experience' is extremely misleading. The kāyas signify the experience of a Buddha, those same capacities are present in a sentient being but are obscured.
"Awakened mind - timelessly spontaneous and uniform vidyā - the spacious nature of phenomena, just as it is, the naturally settled state, is dharmakāya by nature, the expanse of primordial equalness. It is present in everyone but within the reach of only a fortunate few."
April 3 at 9:35am via mobile · Like · 2
Din Robinson: pointers are only as good as the identified consciousness that thinks it needs it
April 3 at 9:43am · Like
Kyle Dixon: Not the case at all.
April 3 at 9:45am via mobile · Like · 1
Din Robinson: notice how there is a grasping onto meaning and an automatic acceptance or rejection leading to the adoption of a "position", this is seeing how the unconscious works
April 3 at 9:47am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Meaning, acceptance/rejection and points of view are always present in ones relative experience. You're doing the very same thing right now.
April 3 at 9:58am via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: The most essential aspect of Dharmakaya is pure Knowing. Norbu says "That which notices the arising of a thought or the state of no thought, is rigpa." He also along with Dudjum Rinpoche says "That which is present and recognized between two thoughts is rigpa, the Dharmakaya". I can quote many teachers who make clear the same. But what teachers or scriptures say is secondary to your own direct perception. When rigpa authentically arises, it is known that condition of Knowingness is primordial, changeless and unconditioned. One knows in that moment that that Knowing is not the alaya, but is the Dharmakaya. The only sentient quality is rigpa, there is no secondary "Knower", however there are filters, but filters aren't sentient. More practice and less "reading" is hugely to the point don't you think?
April 3 at 11:47am · Like · 1
Din Robinson: more practice or simply more awareness?
can someone practice awareness?
if someone does have the intention of practicing being more aware of thoughts, what should one do with that thought?
April 3 at 11:52am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon Chinul says much the same: "Zen Master Chinul writes:
"Internal and external are all the same function. That means when we are practicing, we take up all the phenomena of the physical universe, internal, external, mental or physical as well as motion and activity, and regard them all as the sublime activity of the True Mind (Dharmakaya). As soon as any thought or mental state arises, it is then the appearance of this sublime function. Since all things are this sublime functioning, where can the deluded mind stand? This is the method of extinguishing delusion by seeing that all things external and internal are the same function of the True Mind (Dharmakaya).”
April 3 at 11:54am · Like
Din Robinson: that sounds too complicated to me Jackson, i'd rather not go with any idea whatsoever, so much more simple, don't you think?
April 3 at 11:56am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Yes, I agree Din of course...I wrote that for someone else's benefit
April 3 at 11:58am · Like · 1
Din Robinson: Kyle wrote:
"Meaning, acceptance/rejection and points of view are always present in ones relative experience. You're doing the very same thing right now."
it's always about what is going on in my own experience, what thoughts are being identified with, what positions are being held, it's really about being still and being aware of all this activity, seeing it for what it is, as opposed to being totally identified with it, don't you think Kyle?
April 3 at 12:04pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, yes I would agree with 'pure knowing' (even though it's not a term I would use myself). These pointers that Norbu Rinpoche and others are giving are meant as pointers, to convey that there's no need to search elsewhere for these qualities. They're ever present innate aspects of your own condition which must be recognized. I'm sure we can both cite teachers all day and I can find many quotes which affirm my point as well.
At any rate though, the dharmakāya is only evident once one's condition has been divested of obscuring propensities. When direct experience appears like a reflection, meaning it is apparent yet explicitly known to be unreal, baseless, unfounded etc., that is dharmakāya.
The iconic metaphor that most adepts implement is very suiting; the objects of experience appear like a reflection of the moon in a pool of water: valid in that they are an appearance, just as the image of the moon upon the water is a valid image. Yet, just as one needs no convincing that the moon in the water is not the moon, when dharmakāya dawns it's known beyond any shred of doubt that all the constituent objects and qualities of 'reality' have never once been established or unestablished in any way... The empty appearances of experience do not create anything within or beyond their empty appearance. The experience must be akin to waking up from a dream if it's a valid knowledge of dharmakāya, it's a compelling and overwhelming epiphany that there's never been anything there at all... and yet, appearances.
April 3 at 1:29pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 5
Jackson Peterson: Can't disagree with you at all there Kyle Dixon. That is the experience here. However the Dharmakaya does not require "divesting of obscurations". That is the Sutra view as renouncing and "divesting". In Dzogchen we recognize the intrinsic freedom from obscurations as a permanent quality of the Dharmakaya. Recognizing that quality of primordial purity (kadag), is rigpa. As is said in Zhantong: "naturally free or empty of adventitious obscurations, but not empty of its intrinsic Buddha qualities."
April 3 at 2:26pm via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: The dharmakāya doesn't require 'divesting of obscurations', obscurations must be divested to apperceive dharmakāya.
The sutra view is that stains must be actively renounced and rejected, the obscurations of samsara are avoided while the enlightened qualities of nirvana are cultivated, not what I suggested at all. Since the dzogchen view is vidyā, the obscurations of mind are bypassed (divested) immediately upon recognition (though integration with vidyā is necessary due to the mind's proclivity to continually resurface by force of latent habitual tendencies and karmic propensities).
For the dharmakāya to become evident, obscurations must certainly be cleared away:
From the Necklace of Precious Pearls Tantra:
"The dharmakāya is the exhaustion of contamination."
"When divested of this mind, one is expansively awakened into buddhahood."
April 3 at 3:26pm · Edited · Like · 2
Jackson Peterson: That certainly violates the principle of "kadag". But there are many contradictions in the scriptures. The whole point of Direct Introduction is to point out the "immediate" kadag quality of the Dharmakaya awareness that is ever present. The Dharmakaya recognizes itself. No lesser state can do so. To think one has to free or divest the Dharmakaya of contamination is our point of difference. When you experience Rigpa, you will know its intrinsic purity immediately. One does not have to remove the reflections from the mirror before its capacity can fully reflect is its own unconditioned potential. The empty reflections however they appear ARE its potential in manifestation.
Your view seems driven by a hinayana and sutric view. Even Tantra believes one must "transform" the "contamination", hence its faulty view. We shouldn't waste our time "polishing" the dust from the mirror. On what surface could the dust alight?
April 3 at 3:39pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: I would disagree that it violates the principle of ka dag. Ka dag is an aspect of the basis (gzhi) which is only evident in recognition of vidyā (since vidyā is knowledge of the basis).
You seem to have misread (or didn't read) what I wrote though. I never said the dharmakāya must be divested of contamination, I said contamination must be exhausted in order to apperceive dharmakāya. Vidyā and the ignorance (avidyā) of mind are antonymous and contrast each other:
"The essence of mind is an obscuration to be given up. The essence of vidyā is a wisdom to be attained."
- Longchenpa from nam mkha' dri med in the bla ma yang thig [per Malcolm]
Vidyā and avidyā (ignorance i.e. mind) are immediately separated in recognition. However the divestment of contamination as a whole is achieved through familiarization with vidyā. Dzogchen speaks of the 'full measure of vidyā' being the realization of emptiness. The 'full measure' or 'full effulgence' signifies an absence of contamination i.e. the direct realization of emptiness. In one's practice, vidyā increases by way of a decrease in the power that karmic and habitual propensities have over experience. So integration with vidyā is nothing more than resting in vidyā so that those propensities which once dominated experience exhaust themselves.
Ka dag may be ever present, but unless one is resting in the natural state (vidyā) ka dag is not directly evident, and even when it does become apparent, familiarization is always required (via practices such as tregchö). The path is not complete in the moment of recognition. The simultaneity of the basis, path and result is only to say that vidyā in recognition is the basis, vidyā in integration is the path, and vidyā in it's full measure is the result (though since vidyā's full measure is the 3rd vision, technically the path is not totally complete).
So again, i'm not advocating for a renunciation of contamination nor am I advocating for a transformation of contamination, you're misreading what I'm saying.
Also, sutra and tantra may be different paths, but to label them as 'faulty' (outside of the specific context of a circumstantial implication which arises in contrasting them with dzogchen), is not a good view to uphold. It's impossible for them to be faulty since they do produce buddhahood, they are just different methodologies and paths.
April 3 at 4:19pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Also important to define whether it is the Mahāmudra or Dzogchen path which is being discussed because they both view dharmakāya differently (as elucidated by the Essence Mahāmudra quote you posted today by Gampopa).
"The Dagpo Kagyüpas designate thoughts and emotions as the dharmakāya; we Great Perfection practitioners do not make that designation."
- Namkhai Naljor Lhatsün
Differentiating mind and wisdom in Mahāmudra is not equivalent to the difference between mind and vidyā in Dzogchen as Malcolm explains:
"Honestly, I think this analysis by this master [Tsele Natsok Rangdröl] is a bit misleading -- he is trying to assert that gzhi described by Dzogchen has an equivalent counterpart in the kun gzhi of the Mahāmudra system. However, if you read any straight mahāmudra manual, for example, Dagpo Tashi Namgyal's texts or Sakyapa presentations and so on, for them the basis [gzhi] is the all-basis [kun gzhi], the clear and empty nature of the mind. It is called the all-basis because when it is not recognized, it is the basis for samsara, and when it is recognized, it is the basis for nirvana.
On the other hand, you have Dzogchen texts that systematically differentiate between gzhi and kun gzhi. The reason for this is not arbitrary and have everything to do with the path of Dzogchen. These topics are not mentioned at all in any system of Mahāmudra since they form no part of Mahāmudra practice. The system of differentiating mind and wisdom (sems and ye shes) in Mahāmudra is not the same as differentiating between mind and vidyā in Dzogchen and does not have the same intention."
April 3 at 4:46pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, all of the truth is contained in rigpa, not in scholarly debate. The rigpa of Mahamudra is the same rigpa as experienced in Dzogchen. Again, I am attempting to point out that only by directly perceiving the essence for oneself can liberation be understood. There is no need to discern intellectually all of the subtle philosophical points in Dzogchen. This is really just intellectual grasping, not realization. There are a few points I disagree with from your conclusions and assumptions, but I am done with posting the counter-points from various teachers and texts. Its too time consuming and pointless. You seem fixated on turning Dzogchen into a "cause and effect" path. This needs to be done, then this, then that. If you were my Zen student, I'd give you a big whack for filling empty space with concepts that are attempting to discover empty space!
April 4 at 2:10am via mobile · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle and Jackson, I would like to ask of you two that you read the following sections of the supplied links.
Analyzing the Correct View & Calm Abiding on the Fruits
The Third Turning: Buddha-nature, the Potential to Buddhahood
You'll never be able to reconcile your views and I think you should find out why. These links should assist in that.
April 4 at 4:31am · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The second link also has an epilogue which is relevant. Here's a quote mid-way through the epilogue:
"Although the classical logic of the gradualist argument is clear-cut and powerful, it does stand in stark contrast to the experience of the yogis of the Mind-Only School, the view of the Kagyupas or the masters of Dzogchen. For these splendid yogic minds, focusing on meditative equipoise rather than on first-order logic, conceptualism & philosophy, enlightenment, the wisdom-mind apprehending ultimate truth, must be defined as an uncompounded, whole, continuous, permanent & unbounded state of mind. Some will add it is eternal, everlasting, self-arisen, independent and the inseparability of emptiness & Clear Light. How split, compounded, discontinuous, impermanent conditions may act as "causes" producing the profound fruit of Buddhahood is beyond them."
April 4 at 4:43am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: I will read your links... But I must say the experience here is contained above as: "... the inseparability of emptiness and Clear Light." This totally empty transparency (zangthal), is the co-presencing of colors, light, sounds and sensations within a dimension of totally vibrant presence. Friction-less experience ... arises and releases within its own self-knowing. I'm trying to express this current moment as it has now arisen in this boundless and non-dual blissfull clarity. Words fail...
Clear Light Emptiness Non-dual Wisdom is close..
April 4 at 5:26am via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: read the links... Hugely interesting material. His explications of Zhantong were most interesting! I agree with your premise completely...
April 4 at 6:10am via mobile · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I'm glad you found the material interesting, Jackson. There is more to explore on that site, and with this initial interest you're much better equipped to tackle the sometimes heavy material. For me, it was and is totally worth the investment.
Did you also read the epilogue? I found it especially tasty
April 4 at 9:00am via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, Perhaps you weren't aware but, all of this is intellectual. We're on the internet using concepts and ideas to communicate and your writing is just as intellectual as anyone else's, it's an inescapable aspect of written communication. In communicating, when people have differing views, debate may happen and there's nothing wrong with that either. The great masters of the past clearly spent an immense amount of time and effort ironing out Dzogchen's 'subtle philosophical points' precisely due to the fact that a lack of understanding can easily lead to conflation with other views/systems. We're all well aware that dzogchen (and any dharma related endeavor for that matter) is solely concerned with direct experience, however 'all of the subtle philosophical points' are helpful pointers and there's no reason whatsoever to reject them.
Most of us can separate online discussion from dharma practice, no one ever exclaimed 'this is realization', it's blatantly obvious we're discussing intellectual points. Really anyone at any time can marginalize a discussion like this, resort to stating that 'it's about the direct experience' and say this is all just 'intellectual grasping', it's a cop out.
I'm also unsure of how you're coming to the conclusion that I'm 'fixated on turning Dzogchen into a cause and effect path', perhaps you're not reading my responses.
April 4 at 12:14pm via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Kyle, regarding "the cause and effect" path: you seem to think that "some wrong concepts" have be replaced by "right concepts" that you call "right view". But the "right view" is "no view". This "no view" can only be known rightly in rigpa itself. You also seem to think that something can obscure rigpa knowingness, and that those obscurations have to be removed before rigpa can be known. Both are not true. Nothing blocks this ever present knowingness of the Dharamakaya.
Many of the intellectual points of the teaching were established to defend the tradition from criticism, not meant to establish a "doctrine".
Kyle Dixon, you are the only one on the Internet that I have these abstruse doctrinal conversations with. The rest talk from practice, experience and sharing points of similar or dissimilar experience. That would be great here too!
April 4 at 12:45pm via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, We're using words, concepts, ideas to communicate, therefore points of view are always implied. You disagree with my view in places and I likewise do not find some aspects of your presentation to be accurate, to each their own. That being said, there's nothing wrong with debating and discussing ideas. Thinking that 'some wrong concepts' have to be replaced by 'right concepts' that one calls 'right view' is the very same thing you do as well.
'No view' is also a view when you wield it as a counterpoint against another point of view... and the fact the 'correct view' - in the context of dzogchen - is vidyā, is a redundant point we're all well aware of.
April 4 at 2:10pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: I'm certainly not the only one who states that vidyā can become obscured, all of the original tantras and great adepts of the past and present discuss obscuration, how straying comes about, the nature of ignorance, and how to resolve that predicament through authentic recognition and integration. If there was no ignorance, we would all be fully awakened buddhas and there would be no need for the dharma. Is that what you're suggesting?
"It is said, 'There is no buddha apart from your own mind.' We do not have two minds. There is just one mind that is either deluded or undeluded. The buddha nature is exactly the originally unmistaken quality of our mind, also called the dharmakāya buddha Samantabhadra.
There is a difference between being deluded and undeluded, between recognizing and not recognizing our nature. The primordially unmistaken quality is called enlightenment, buddhahood, or the awakened state of dharmakāya. The primordially deluded aspect is called ignorance, or the deluded experience of sentient beings. Although we have the essence of buddhahood within us, it is temporarily obscured.
The essence of the Buddha's teaching is the method on how to let confusion dawn as wisdom. The most vital point here is the introduction to and recognition of the buddha nature, the innate wisdom of dharmakāya that is already present within oneself. This fourth Dharma is a teaching on how to recognize, train in, and stabilize this recognition of the buddha nature. Understanding it is called the view, practicing it is called samadhi, and stabilizing it is called buddhahood."
- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche
"Ordinary beings are truly buddhas,
but this fact is obscured by adventitious distortions
once these are removed, truly there is buddhahood."
- Hevajra Tantraraja Nāma
April 4 at 2:10pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: [Responding to post Windy deleted] Windy Kian, I apologize if you've mistaken what's going on here as some form of petty argument. I enjoy the discussion/debate, it really has nothing to do with being right. I'm not contesting Jackson to feel validated inside, or so I can rest assured that my point of view is correct, that isn't my interest.
There's no degree of inadequacy that these discussions are compensating for. My relationship with myself is evolved enough so that I have no need to lash out at Jackson or anyone else in order to compensate for insecurities or anything of the like. Our respective knowledge may be experiential, but when we're sharing viewpoints online and implementing concepts and ideas (in order to relay that knowledge), it is an intellectual endeavor, and there's no harm in intellectualizing if it's implications are clearly understood.
There are indeed fools out there who fall under the delusion of seeking to be right for the sake of self-interest, so I understand your objection. For some individuals it isn't explicitly understood that their point of view is only as strong as it appears to be when contrasted with other views, and because of that, they feel that they must put down contrasting points of view in order to prop up their own. They identify with their view to such an extreme that when they feel their position lacks validation, they too lack validation, and so they must depreciate and degrade other views so they can acquire some level of self-approval. The compulsion to objectify and subjugate other people's opinions and ideas, by deeming them as inferior, is a symptom of immaturity tantamount to being led around by subconscious projections like a donkey chasing a carrot hanging from a string.
I hope you know that isn't what is going on here. At least for me, I discuss and debate because I have a profound love for the dharma. Just as some people enjoy dancing, or walking in the park - as you suggested, I enjoy activities like that as well, but I also enjoy discussing the teachings. It's very interesting to me and I feel that I have a healthy outlook on it, so there's no adverse repercussions that arise due to debating/discussing... it's simply a joy.
April 4 at 2:50pm · Like · 1
Windy Kian: No objections here.
April 4 at 3:04pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, I don't see my last post here... nor the Windy's post...???
April 4 at 3:10pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, I'm sorry that I'm the only one on the internet you have abstruse doctrinal conversations with, I rather enjoy it! I'm a proponent of speaking from experience, but I don't like discussing my own experience, never have, I'm not the type who talks about myself too often even in social situations (even though this is technically talking about myself now). Not a fan of broadcasting. At any rate though, you can rest assured that I'm always coming from experience, even if that isn't overtly apparent.
As for 'right concepts' and 'right view'; we're using words, concepts, ideas to communicate, therefore points of view are always implied. You disagree with my view in places and I likewise do not find some aspects of your presentation to be accurate, to each their own. That being said, there's nothing wrong with debating and discussing ideas. Thinking that 'some wrong concepts' have to be replaced by 'right concepts' that one calls 'right view' is the very same thing you do as well. The best route usually, is to go with the mutual appreciation approach to sharing ideas, you have yours, I have mine, and that is all well and good. Unfortunately however, topics we can be highly opinionated about do sometimes come up, and we may deviate into point-counterpoint debate. How those situations pan out will be reflections of ourselves and all we can do is roll with the punches.
'No view' is also a view when wielded as a counterpoint against another point of view... and the fact that the 'correct view' - in the context of dzogchen - is vidyā, is a redundant point we're all well aware of.
April 4 at 3:11pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, I see your last post I think... starting with "Kyle, regarding 'the cause and effect path'"... That was your most recent yeah? I don't see Windy's original post either but he may have removed it, I'm not sure.
April 4 at 3:13pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: No, I just sent another one just before your response to Windy. Oh, geesh... and it was brilliant... I countered all your points with perfect clarity and scriptural authority. Your position had been thoroughly defeated. But now its lost! Oh, well, I am much too lazy to write it all over again... so I guess the debate continues. But I am off to zzzzzzzz... land. Nite....over and out...
April 4 at 3:18pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Ah that's unfortunate, you should try copying all the text before you press enter that's what I do... and/or copying and pasting all the writing to a word file prior to posting (or even typing the response directly into a word file, I often do that). I...See More
April 4 at 3:38pm · Edited · Like
Dairin Ashley: I like reading what you guys debate
Saturday at 7:32am · Like · 1