Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:
Jackson, what are your thoughts about this?
Participatory vs. reflective/narrative awareness
It's a way of knowing that happens by active and complete participation. As such, stopping to reflect on 'experience', most often with the intent of comprehending and narrating, prevents it. Any attempt to capture instead of participating prevents it.
Like · · Unfollow Post · April 4 at 2:40pm near Ganddal, Rogaland
Seen by 74
Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, in either case, in any case its always complete "participation". If we create a catagory of experience that seems to be outside of "participatory experience", we are kidding ourselves. All experience is equal as experience, "same taste", neither better or worse. But in rigpa the intentional narrating mind is not happening, it energy has reverted to pure attentiveness.
April 4 at 3:39pm · Like
Albert Hong: Aren't those just these:
The all-discerning wisdom.
The all-performing wisdom.
April 4 at 6:44pm via mobile · Like · 3
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Where is the mind that knows (even when there is a sense of not knowing)?
The knowing is in co-location with the known — it happens AS the known, the known IS it.
Co-locate, inhabit, or completely participate with the known. In fact, that is how it is anyway — how could it not? — without beginning nor end.
Saturday at 11:50am via mobile · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon: The knowing is neither the same nor different than the known, and vice versa. Only as a convention does the knowing co-locate with the known... both designations originating interdependently.
Saturday at 6:14pm via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: There is a knower that is not dependent. It is this knower that is recognized in rigpa. When all mentation is absent, there is still a knower within that absence of something to be known. That knower is permanent, yet insubstantial. Without this knower liberation is impossible. There is also a dependent knower that is a reflexive, subjective pole within a subject object dichotomy. That knower is an object, not a true subject.
Sunday at 6:33am via mobile · Like
John Tan: The knowing is precisely the known and vice versa.
Only in ignorance does the knowing appear to co-locate with the known.
If both are realized as mere conventions that arise in dependence of the other,
Then the middle way that severs the extremes can be understood.
Sunday at 7:04am · Like · 4
Jackson Peterson: When we dream at night the "me" and my dream scenery appear as one piece. Yet they appear within a consciousness that is not made up of only the dream. We call that the mind. In waking consciousness there arises a conceptualized subjective self and conceptualized objects. They both arise in the changeless space of pure knowing, like rainbows in the vast sky. When the subjective consciousness recognizes its nature as emptiness, this space-like Intelligence becomes self-known. The nature of mind is not an arising as is the conceived self. The knower and known are not identical, only non-dual. Like waves and water. Mahdyamaka can easily cause one to jump to this conclusion of only there being a dependent consciousness, like the fifth skandha. Whereas Great Madhyamaka clarifies the ontological quality of empty-luminosity as not being a dependent arising. It remains completely "unestablished", as the context of content, like a mirror In which all reflections arise and release. In the absence of all experience, Knowingness still knows its independent nature as being independent, yet luminous. We can't say the sun's rays are as great as the sun, nor identical.
Sunday at 8:46am via mobile · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Thanks, John Tan.
"The knower and known are not identical, only non-dual" — nice; non-dual, not a-dual.
(Critical) Madhyamaka is concerned with absolutely nothing else but the non-affirming refutation of absolutely nothing else but precisely 'inherent existence'.
"Following (Critical) Madhyamaka" *alone* does not "cause one to easily jump to this conclusion of only there being a dependent consciousness, like the fifth skandha" because (Critical) Madhyamaka is not at all concerned with anything else but the non-affirming refutation of absolutely nothing else but precisely 'inherent existence'.
I hope that's clear!
Hopefully you can enlighten me regarding the following: Great Madhyamaka is concerned with absolutely nothing else but attributing to luminosity absolutely nothing else but precisely 'inherent exsistence'. Is this correct?
Sunday at 10:00am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: No Stian Gudmundsen Høiland. Great Madhyamaka leans more into the luminosity side in terms of emptiness not being empty of knowingness as "clarity", Selwa as wisdom. The Buddha Nature is empty of inherent existence and adventitious afflictions, but not empty of the Buddha qualities or attributes. Because Dzogchen, Mahamudra and Zhantong all confirm the Knower as rigpa or Buddha Mind, not just leaving it all as a "non-confirming negation". I argue all three are actually participating in an inferred "affirming negation". Of course most will reject my opinion. However, rigpa or Buddha Nature are both considered insubstantial and "unestablished" in these systems which makes clear these positions are not the same as Advaita. One really needs to understand the whole Third Turning of the Wheel teachings and the Uttara Tantra to get the correct sense of this. Rigpa cannot be understood conceptually or analyzed. It remains firmly in the realm of yogic direct experience.
Sunday at 11:04am via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, the non-dependent self-originated wisdom of vidyā is only such because in dzogchen's view; dependent origination and emptiness are not synonymous (like they are in Madhyamaka). So while self-originated wisdom is not dependently originated, it is 100% empty, and therefore it does not deviate or contradict dependent origination, important to be very clear about that. Dependent origination doesn't work from the perspective of vidyā as dharmakāya, because dependent origination is illusory from a buddha's perspective. Doesn't mean dependent origination is contradicted, nor does it mean dependent origination is null and void. Everything is 100% empty in dzogchen. Afflicted dependent origination begins with avidyā, non-afflicted dependent origination (i.e. lhun grub) begins with vidyā.
Sunday at 12:02pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Your affirming negation/non-affirming negation theory has also been thoroughly refuted.
Sunday at 12:04pm via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: I said nothing about dependent origination and agree with your comments however.
Karmay actually supports the notion I express. He feels Madhyamaka and Dzogchen are diametrically opposed. Its worth considering. Its pretty obviously true, but the tradition can't afford the concession to the obvious.
Sunday at 12:36pm via mobile · Like
John Ahn: @ Kyle, huh? How you wrote that in dzogchen self originated wisdom is not dependently originated, but vidya begins with non-afflicted dependent origination. Is vidya not wisdom in a non contrived state? Clarify please.
Sunday at 12:40pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Non-afflicted dependent origination i.e. spontaneous natural formation which is completely unestablished in any way (self-origination). That spontaneous natural formation is lhun grub and lhun grub is inseparable from ka dag (primordial purity); meaning that there is no establishment nor unestablishment of anything at any time (freedom from the four extremes).
Sunday at 12:47pm via mobile · Like
John Ahn: So non-afflicted dependent origination is not dependently originated...
Sunday at 12:54pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: Your thoughts on this John Tan From Thanassaro Bhikkhu: :
With regard to the first sort of argument, we can see that release is not caused by dependent co-arising; it’s experienced only when dependent co-arising ceases (SN 12:2). When attained, release is known independently of the aggregates and sense media that provide the raw material of our sense of self and of the world. Although it is experienced as a form of consciousness (DN 11), this consciousness—unlike ordinary sensory consciousness—is not known through the six sense media (MN 49). Because it’s outside of space and time, this consciousness doesn’t come under the aggregate of consciousness, which applies only to the conditioned consciousness experienced in terms of space and time: near or far; past, present, or future (SN 22:59). Release is also experienced as the highest bliss, but this bliss is not classed as a feeling (SN 36:19).
Because release is outside of the aggregates and sense media, it’s not subject to the Buddha’s description of the aggregates and sense media as being without essence. This means that the first sort of argument fails the test provided by Dhp 11–12, in that it doesn’t recognize what is essence and what’s not. Similarly, the Buddha would not have agreed with the premises underlying the second sort of argument, that the Dhamma is nothing more than language, and that language can point to nothing more than itself. As he maintains, the realm of all that can be described goes no further than the six senses (SN 35:23). However, it is possible to experience the dimension where the experience of the six senses ceases (SN 35:117). Because of the limitations of language, we can’t say that anything remains or doesn’t remain (or both or neither) in this dimension (AN 4:173). But the dimension itself does exist—you can say that much about it to indicate that it’s not an impossibility.
"There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress. — Ud 8:1"
In fact, if this dimension didn’t exist, the ending of suffering wouldn’t be possible (Ud 8:3), and the Dhamma as a whole would be pointless. But one of the realizations on attaining this dimension is that it otherwise lies beyond the limits of what language can adequately describe (DN 15).
Excerpt from: http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/EssenceDhamma.pdf
Sunday at 12:59pm via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, I wouldn't say they're diametrically opposed, Prasanga Madhyamaka is the view implemented for the processes of avidyā in the Dzogchen system. The only reason the Prasanga model doesn't apply to the processes of vidyā is because Madhyamaka was only concerned with addressing the afflictive dependent origination of the standard 12 Nidana model. Since dzogchen's practice is resting in vidyā from the very beginning the 12 Nidanas are recognized as illusory from the very start. This all has to do with the respective paths of each system; Dzogchen's goal is an abiding nirvana (i.e. a buddhahood that does not revert to the basis). According to Dzogchen, Madhyamaka results in a non-abiding nirvana (i.e. a buddhahood that reverts to the basis). Not because Madhyamaka is wrong or insufficient, Madhyamaka is a profound and excellent system and most Dzogchen practitioners are urged to have a solid understanding of Madhyamaka. They're just different languages, but that doesn't mean they're diametrically opposed in any way.
Sunday at 1:04pm via mobile · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon: John Ahn, yes essentially, but it never deviates from emptiness. Non-afflictive is just a way to show how lhun grub can be said to underlie afflictive dependent origination. The capacity called lhun grub, when adulterated by mind, becomes the 12 Nidanas of afflicted dependent origination. Meaning nothing truly originates just as Nagarjuna states; dependent origination is not origination.. But ignorance is powerful and origination certainly appears valid.
Sunday at 1:12pm via mobile · Edited · Like
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, "mind,sem" is lhundrub....
Sunday at 2:26pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Definitely not. Lhun grub is one of the wisdoms of the basis (gzhi). The basis never knows affliction, ergo mind, sem, avidyā etc., are not equivalent to lhun grub. Lhun grub is only known in vidyā.
Sunday at 2:50pm via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, Lhundrub is EVERYTHING that arises from Emptiness. There is the classic "Emptiness and Form". Lhundrub is "form", all and any movement, light, sound, thought, image and appearance. Lhundrub is the luminous display of the basis. All appearances are pure. Affliction is only an afflicted label...
Sunday at 3:06pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Nothing arises from emptiness. Things are empty. Form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form.
Sunday at 3:22pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Everything that arises, arises from ignorance. Purged of ignorance, arising is recognized as non-arising i.e. emptiness.
Sunday at 3:25pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Malcolm wrote:
"Well for example, your notion that Dzogchen is an affirming negation turns out to be completely unsupported by the primary texts of the system. But that does not require debate, that merely requires reading the texts themselves.
In general, we find that in many Dzogchen texts the twin terms dgag and sgrub are used -- dgag means to refute, sgrub means to prove. The essence of debate is refutation and proof, rejecting one point of view and accepting another point of view. But in reality, as Rongzom Chozang points out, the state of Dzogchen is beyond both refutation and proof. This is why I continue to insist that it is waste of time to debate about Dzogchen"
"You are Being."
"This is not Dzogchen. This is Neo-Advaita."
"Ok... you are not Being? If Dzogchen is a 'confirming negation', which it is, then there is affirmative existence regarding Rigpa. This is the difference between Madhyamaka and Dzogchen. Madhyamaka is a 'non-confirming negation', leaving us just with emptiness. Hence Madhyamaka is a different result. Vajrasattva means Diamond Being. It is not about neo-advaita or Taoism... its about what we are. We are Aware Emptiness in full integration with our equally empty, yet appearing Luminosity."
"What makes you think Dzogchen is a affirming negation?
This is not the case. Dzogchen does not have a view to support or promulgate, and that is what affirming negations are for i.e. rejecting one thing in order to prove one's own perspective. By asserting that Dzogchen is asserting an affirming negation you are rendering Dzogchen inferior to Madhyamaka.
If Dzogchen is an affirming negation, than this statement from the Unwritten Tantra makes no sense:
'Apparent yet non-existent retinue, listen well! There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.'
Vimalamitra's final paragraph on this passage states:
'Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], since one understands that there nothing apart from the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight which apprehends the chains, it [vidyā] also does not exist. Since the essence of vidyā does not exist, the vidyā of the perduring basis (the source of both energy [rtsal] and qualities, and also the apprehender of characteristics) does not exist.
Since the wisdom appearances of people's own vidyā that are seen in personal experience are not established as entities of any kind, it is the appearance of the exhaustion of dharmatā.'
Further, Vimalamitra states in The Lamp Summarizing Emptiness:
'Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore:
Everything arose from non-arising;
even arising itself never arose.
Dharmatā in and of itself is empty without a basis, present at all times as the single nature of the great emptiness of the basis, path, and result. Furthermore, primordial emptiness is empty without beginning. 
Empty things are empty by nature.
Since the emptiness of dharmatā is present without being contrived and without being transformed in the basis, yogins are also liberated by remaining naturally without contrivance and without transformations.'
'That dharmatā emptiness dwells in a fortress and is captured in a fortress: the fortress (that is like a circle of spears in the sky) encircles (without a beginning or an end) dharmatā, i.e., existence is dharmatā, non-existence is dharmatā, both are dharmatā and neither are dharmatā. As such, [dharmatā] is surrounded by the names “clear and unclear”, “empty and not-empty”, “existence and non-existence”, “permanence and annihilation”, and so on. That lack of finding evidence itself is dharmatā. Further, in reality nothing exists apart from dharmatā. That being the case, that emptiness (as a mere representation, baseless, and non-referential, being non-existent like a pretense) is understood with scripture, accepted by reasoning, proven by argument, and captured in a fortress. Be confident that dharmatā is the unmistaken true emptiness.'
Therefore, to describe Dzogchen as an affirming negation does not make any sense at all."
[Sorry, I made a translation error -- this is from an old, unedited translation I have not re-examined. The passage should be read:
"Since neither of those exist [i.e. samsara or nirvana], one understands that the originally pure vidyā [rig pa] which apprehends the basis and the vidyā of insight, the chains, do not exist other than being mere designations...
(My bad I don't usually trot out unedited translations without checking them to see if they are free of errors)
The passage is trying to state that all of these discussions are merely nominal. This is why Longchenpa, Jigme Lingpa and others state over and over the intention of Dzogchen and the intention of Madhyamaka are the same.]
Sunday at 7:51pm · Like · 1
John Tan: In ignorance, there is hearer hearing sound.
In anatta, in hearing, only sound.
Yet sound has no true inherent nature (empty),
It is an activity and is that very activity call “hearing”.
Both “hearing and sound” are pointing to the same activity.
Only when seen to have true existence on either side does confusion arise.
In Madhyamaka Emptiness, reification is seen through.
Yet the experiential state of freedom from reification is not expounded.
However one can have a taste of that freedom from arising insight of anatta since anatta is precisely the freedom from reification of Self/self (First fold Emptiness).
In anatta, seeing is simply the full scenery, in hearing only sound…
thus, always only lights, shape, colors, sounds, scents… in clean purity.
Emptying the object further (second fold) is merely dissolving subtle bond of “externality” that creates the appearance of true existence of objects outside. When “externality” is deconstructed, it is effectively a double confirmation of anatta…
…innerly coreless and outward empty, all appearances are still simply sound, lights, colors and rays
In thorough deconstruction, as there is no layer that reifies, there is no conceptuality. Therefore no complication, no confusion, no stains, no boundaries, no center, no sense of dual..
no sense of activity…just self arising.
All collapse into a single sphere of natural presence and spontaneous simplicity.
Whatever appears is
neither here nor now,
Neither in nor out,
Neither arises nor ceases,
In the same space…
non-local, timeless and dimensionless
The place where there is no earth, fire, wind, space, water…
is the place where the earth, fire, wind, space and water kills “You” and fully shines as its own radiance, a complete taste of itself and fully itself.
Lastly, it is interesting to get know something about Dzogchen however the jargons and tenets are far beyond me.
Just wrote due to a sudden spurt of interest, nothing intense.
Thanks for all the sharing and exchanges.
Sunday at 8:16pm · Unlike · 8
Jackson Peterson: I told Malcolm that I disagree. One can post all the intellectual arguments they wish, but none of them can take away that Dzogchen and Mahamudra discuss an ephemeral quality known as "rigpa" or Buddha Nature or Buddha Mind, Bodhicitta. Once we go into such a discussion we have left the realm of Madhyamaka and Nagarjuna. We now enter the realm of the Third Turning of the Wheel and Great Madhyamaka (Zhantong). This is for me the clear expression of "affirmation" of Tatagatha, Thusness, Buddha Nature and rigpa. I agree completely with Karmay on this. "Buddhists" just don't want to go there... and they are very careful not to admit this as they see it as a "fault" instead of a deep and profound perception regarding the mystery of "Being".
Yesterday at 2:49am · Like
Kyle Dixon: Shentong is pretty much Advaita Vedanta in Buddhist drag, I'd hardly call it 'Great Madhyamaka' since it's clearly an inferior line of reasoning and logic in my opinion (when compared with the genuine and classical Madhyamaka of Nargajuna etc). The label 'Madhyamaka' being associated with it is odd in general since it's eternalism, meaning it clearly deviates from a middle way... But to each their own.
Yesterday at 4:44am via mobile · Edited · Like · 1
Logan Truthe: Jackson: i hardly think Thusness view is Shentong.
Yesterday at 6:09am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Zhantong view is experience based, the view of yogis. It completes the incomplete view of Madhyamaka, which only elucidates emptiness. In Dzogchen and Mahamudra "pointing out" and "direct introduction", rigpa, Buddha Mind, primordial Awake Awareness is pointed out, not "emptiness". What knows "emptiness"? This is understanding the Knowingness within emptiness: rigpa.
Yesterday at 7:09am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Thusness view is perfect Zhantong. He acknowledges the Immense Intelligence that manifests as everything. He has referred to this "Intelligence" as "God".
Yesterday at 7:11am via mobile · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle, yes Madhyamaka is superior logic, some would say 'ultimate', in the sense that it is the furthest one can go with the conceptual mind.
Jackson's point is that Shentong is more accurate in terms of the way things really are. But in elucidating this, it is logically inferior, because what's being pointed to is beyond the conceptual mind.
This can't be so hard to understand?
Jackson, though John "acknowledges Immense Intelligence that manifests as everything", I have yet to see any claims that this "God of Intelligence" is not empty.
Yesterday at 9:55am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Its not empty at all, its full to the brim! Look around you... Voila!
Yesterday at 10:04am via mobile · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I don't quite understand your sudden change of expression, Jackson. It sure seems like some kind of straw-man distraction.
Do you disagree with any of the specific statements in my last comment? Are you unwilling to investigate their implications?
Yesterday at 10:24am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: I like what you wrote Stian Gudmundsen Høiland...
Yesterday at 10:50am via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, The fact that you're using 'full' as a way to counter the idea of something being 'empty' means you don't understand emptiness. Perhaps that is why you view Madhyamaka as incomplete when it isn't at all.
Stian, I also wouldn't say Shentong is more accurate as to how things really are. Jackson is just very prone to a substantialist nondual view.
Jackson, Vidyā is completely empty and totally unestablished in any way.. You seem to be treating vidyā as an abiding knower of some type, I'm not really sure what you're suggesting.
Yesterday at 10:59am via mobile · Edited · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I'm wondering the same, Kyle (whether emptiness is understood), though using the word 'full' does not exclude one from understanding emptiness. I think there are many skillful ways in which one can conclude that emptiness is full, but this present context doesn't seem like one of them.
Kyle, were you addressing me with "you seem to be treating..."?
Yesterday at 11:12am via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: I was addressing Jackson, but in the eyes of emptiness, full would be an extreme, an absence (opposite of full) would be an extreme, emptiness is a freedom from extremes. Full would be an unskillful pointer, of course classical Madhyamaka allows for 'full' conventionally, but it doesn't transcend the conventional.
Yesterday at 11:17am via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon... There is no point in elucidating my expressions further as I am speaking from a different platform than you are. And its ok
Yesterday at 11:41am via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: You're deluding yourself.
Yesterday at 11:46am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Conscious discrimination regarding this topic is actually more distraction. All concepts of emptiness, five lights, right view etc. are just thoughts that arise and dissolve offering no benefit or harm. Nothing needs "fixin".
Yesterday at 11:49am via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: "The sage oriented toward realization who explains to every flawed person with little merit he meets, 'The genuine realization that whatever arises is the nature of the dharmakāya is itself self-arisen wisdom,' and 'Absorption is accordingly nescience and manas,' teaches what is tantamount to a fabrication that seduces beings. Because of this, one sees [disciples] who are cut off from the profound dharma, which will not be found elsewhere. Such a teacher is a thief of this vehicle. There are many appearing nowadays."
- Jigme Lingpa
Yesterday at 12:51pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: "How to bring all conceptualizing to an end is the real Dharma. How many are able to successfully instruct others in this supreme Dharma?"
Yesterday at 12:56pm via mobile · Like
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle, I'm not so sure that quote is applicable to Jackson. Whether or not that is the case, there seems to be a foundation or reason to believe that there is more to Jackson's view than what you're currently entertaining.
Though I can see that the words expressed by Jackson can come from an unfortunate stale-mate of insight, those same words seem, as above, to have a foundation on which they are valid and more meaningful than you're allowing.
Yesterday at 1:00pm via mobile · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle, your comment above, re: 'full', puts you in a bind re: your opinion of Jackson's view. Are you allowing right/wrong, but not full/empty?
In Prasangika Madhyamaka the conventional and the ultimate are not two different ontological grounds. The conventional and the ultimate are epistemologically different. With this in mind, to say that only conventionality can be full seems mistaken.
Yesterday at 1:11pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Stian, Jackson is implying that there is nothing to do, because all notions of 'anything to do', 'emptiness', 'right view', 'wrong view', 'ignorance', 'defilement' etc., are nothing more than concepts which arise and fall within the space of 'awareness' which cannot be improved upon or defiled... that is his view he is proposing. I beg to differ... to me this view is nothing more than a license for stagnation and complacency which only serves to perpetuate the issue. It is a false sense of security that one has already 'arrived' so to speak.
The quote applies to Jackson, because he claims precisely what Jigme Lingpa is describing in that statement to be true, and did so directly above that quotation: Jackson's view being, nothing need be done, because all concepts (including those of the dharma such as emptiness etc.), are nothing more than thoughts which arise in what is already complete, as expressions of what is already complete. His logic therefore being, there is no need to even entertain such notions, one is already innately realized. Jigme Lingpa is stating that such a notion is an incorrect view which actually severs one from the profound dharma. Jackson's assertion that 'nothing needs fixin' is a view he has touted for a very long time now, it is very unskillful and misleading.
Yesterday at 1:41pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: My view Kyle, is not that "nothing need be done". Bringing an end to conceptualizing is a huge task. Buddha stated "conceptualizing is a cancer". It is the sole source of samsara. If the cause of samsara ceases we only have nirvana as experience. However when that task has come to completion, then we know the space in which Nagarjuna lived along with all the masters of the Zen tradtion.
Yesterday at 1:48pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Stian, Yes, right and wrong should surely be understood as a necessary and indispensable duality when it comes to the dharma. Right view is that which will lead to realization, wrong view is that which will perpetuate delusion.
Right and wrong are conventional as well, any conceptual structure we are implementing here is conventional.
'Full' can only be a conventional designation, the ultimate nature of 'full' is it's emptiness.
Yesterday at 1:51pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: It's nothing more than a task that requires skillful recognition. At any rate though, it isn't simply a case of ending conceptualization... only conceptualization rejects conceptualization.
Yesterday at 1:53pm · Like · 1
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: "The ultimate nature of 'full' is it's emptiness."
I love that!
Kyle, as I see it, there is a valid praxis which encompass all what you said in your post, ie. "do nothing, all is complete". And it is available to all in the sense that no one can be without the basis for this praxis. But, (in lack of better words) actualizing or utilizing it is for a certain class of 'practitioner'.
The criteria for such a practitioner and the possibility of moving from one class to another, I don't know.
This praxis does not preclude wisdom 'arising' by other 'means'.
"This view [can be] [...] a license for stagnation and complacency which [...] serves to perpetuate the issue. It is a false sense of security that one has already 'arrived' so to speak." Yes, I understand and agree. Having said so, I believe there is a valid foundation for such a view, but not every one speaking the words of this praxis will have such a valid foundation.
Yesterday at 2:13pm · Edited · Like
Kyle Dixon: Stian, yes undoubtably... I do hope you realize that my 'do nothing, all is complete' theme in that post was only in reference to critiquing the view Jackson seems to uphold (though Jackson has clarified that he wasn't intending to give this impression). The 'do nothing, all is complete' approach is not one that I myself would sponsor. If anything the epiphany that 'all is complete, and nothing needed to be done' is one that becomes explicitly evident upon the actualization of true recognition or realization. Without true recognition or realization however, such a view would be damning if anything, because there's no basis for comprehending the wisdom that such a statement (in it's genuine form) is meant to express.
I agree, that the criteria for such a practitioner is surely one that isn't easily matched, those who can claim to have genuine realization which was attained via the 'do nothing' all is complete' approach are either non-existent or extremely rare I'd say. In general, the 'do nothing' approach is a very specific aspect of the teachings which is meant to convey the practice (or non-practice) one engages in while resting in the knowledge of their nature i.e. vidyā. Only then, is 'do nothing' truly understood in the genuine sense and intended meaning of the phrase. Without recognition or realization, doing nothing is simply doing nothing.
Very much enjoying your comments, critiques, inquiries, etc. by the way
Yesterday at 2:29pm · Edited · Like · 2
Jackson Peterson: Conceptualization is not being "rejected", its causes are exhausted and it ceases. However one should not "follow" and energize conceptualizing in practice. That is a universal Buddhist Dharma. Without that cessation of conceptualizing, samsara continues no matter what "you" realized.
Yesterday at 4:19pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: In the absence of recognition, following or not-following conceptualization truly makes no difference due to the presence of affliction, which dominates one's experience either way. Conceptualization's cause (and foundation for proliferation) is delusion, so yes I agree that cause must be exhausted (i.e. the delusion of non-recognition must be resolved via the wisdom of recognition).
Ultimately conceptualization is the adulteration of vāyu (Tib. rlung) functioning in the body, and that being the case, 'conceptualization' i.e. imputation (in it's proliferating and perpetual form) arises through non-recognition, whereby it is then sustained by the compounded interweaving of habitual tendencies (and karmic propensities). It's rampant presence in most people's condition is actually an imbalance which can be calmed via practices such as śamatha (Tib. shiné), but even in balancing that energy (which results in the 'calm abiding' associated with a successful implementation of śamatha) the affliction which is the root cause of imputation remains unpacified. Therefore vipaśyanā is still required (as I know you've mentioned), but that vipaśyanā must be the undeluded insight of vidyā (rig pa), otherwise the fundamental cause of conceptualization is unresolved no matter how stable one's śamatha is. There are practitioners who claim to be able to remain without thought for extremely long periods of time, and that's all well and good, but that absence of conceptualization doesn't mean avidyā (ma rig pa) has been rectified, nor does it mean the ālaya (Tib. kun gzhi) has been pacified.
Therefore it isn't simply conceptualization which must end for samsara to fall, the entire foundation for conceptualization, mind, consciousness etc., must be severed, which is the ignorance of non-recognition. Conceptualization is indeed the direct ignorance which sets the 12 Nidānas of dependent origination into motion (and sustains them), however, conceptualization itself is the compounded result of preceding ignorance. Ergo, the mere suspension, pacification or cessation of conceptualization itself will not do the job, avidyā remains potent in the form of the latent traces which forego imputation. Only prajñā and vidyā can resolve the ignorance responsible.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that conceptualization is appropriate in practice nor is anyone suggesting that conceptualization is synonymous with practice. However, conceptualization is very appropriate (and necessary) while discussing the dharma in a group forum online.
Yesterday at 5:26pm · Like · 1
Logan Truthe: Neylug Rangjung tantra:
If the forever-present primordial wisdom of the dharmakaya is not realized even though you have practiced achieving stability in this profound path in the very state of conscious awareness free of conceptual elaboration, as soon as you pass away from this life, there are forces to propel you to the form realm and the formless realm; but with this alone it is impossible to achieve omniscient buddhahood.
Yesterday at 6:31pm · Edited · Unlike · 2
Jackson Peterson: When "shes pa" arises, being itself secondary, a play of tsal, it is not capable of Knowing. In lieu of the primary capacity to Know, it conceptualizes. This is where the dream begins. When that shes pa ceases all movement, its empty nature can be recognized at which point its vigorous self-energy transforms into wisdom. Through that wisdom, the Basis is then recognized. This is what happens whenever rigpa arises... Ones practice should bring this about more and more often for longer and longer duration until stable. Don't get complicated. Just recognize the empty nature of your current consciousness again and again. Release is the self-arising wisdom that follows the recognition of self emptiness.
21 hours ago via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: The shes pa in the basis is not a consciousness. Consciousness is always defiled.
18 hours ago via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Yes, Kyle, shes pa means "consciousness". It's an arising like I explained.
18 hours ago via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Well, no you're discussing the shes pa in the basis in the above post. That is not a consciousness at all. Consciousness only arises in non-recognition. Malcolm, whom you got this model from defines that shes pa as a neutral awareness located in the basis (and whether it's multiple or singular wasn't clear from the original texts). That shes pa, because it is located in the basis is also completely empty, unreal and not established in any way whatsoever just like the basis itself.
18 hours ago via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: The Five Buddhas appear. Vairocana as "mirror-like awareness wisdom" arises in the center. Samantabahdra self manifested as Vairocana. Then through not remaining in recognition Variocana transforms into "vijnana" as the fifth skandha. In practice we reverse this process. Keep it simple. Be practical, not academic.
18 hours ago via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: You should take your own advice on that one if it's such an issue.
18 hours ago via mobile · Like