Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Subject/Object Duality Collapse?


Dairin Ashley:
I'm frustrated and need clarity on this. I keep imagining that when the subject/object duality collapses there will no longer be any sense of a localised awareness. Rather, there will be a total expansion and the once localised awareness will be everywhere at once. Omnipresent. Omniscient. The chair or wall will be as much 'me' as my physical body is 'me'. Is this wrong knowledge? Is this 'experience' just Makyo as it's called in Zen? I don't know what equivalent word for Makyo is in Dzogchen. I want to let go of this concept if it's incorrect.
Like ·  · Unfollow Post · April 8 at 11:20am
Seen by 91
Gary Falk likes this.

Piotr Ludwiński: "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya
www.accesstoinsight.org
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at J...
See More
April 8 at 11:22am · Like · 4 · Remove Preview

Dairin Ashley: Many thanks Piotr
April 8 at 11:25am · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html this link is actually from Soh but you will find direct link to teachings by Buddha that will probably clarify some things for you. If you can read this too: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/mistaken-reality-of-amness.html

Awakening to Reality: Two Sutras (Discourses by Buddha) on the Mistaken Views of Consciousness
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
April 8 at 11:25am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Dairin Ashley: GREAT!! thanks
April 8 at 11:27am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Dairin Ashley much of what you mentioned will authentically be experienced in different aspects. Its all possible, but impermanent. We have no limitations.. Our nature is infinite in capacity.
April 8 at 11:32am via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Best to put all conceptualizing aside permanently and remain free of expectation in immediate clarity.
April 8 at 11:33am via mobile · Like · 7

Dairin Ashley: This seems to be a very sticky thought! Haha! Thanks Jackson.
April 8 at 11:34am · Like · 3

Travis Eneix: That concept is incorrect. 
April 8 at 11:42am via mobile · Like

Jeff Montgomery: For me the most difficult (and frustrating) part was getting from conceptual to experiential.
April 8 at 1:31pm via mobile · Like · 2

Windy Kian: The local remains the local.
April 8 at 1:43pm via mobile · Like

Windy Kian: While also containing and reflecting the universal.
April 8 at 1:44pm via mobile · Like · 1

Windy Kian: The personal self does not become the chair, the sky, the sun, and the moon. The sense of 'me' is dependent on a relationship with local phenomena, both mental and physical.
April 8 at 1:47pm via mobile · Like

Dannon Flynn: It takes many forms! 
One of my favorites lately is no-awareness, just the sensed/seen phenomenon right in the middle shining like a disco ball. Feeling like it is where I thought 'I' used to be. Oh words don't do it justice. I give up. I am going to read that link to blog post above now.

Awareness is empty, it has no inherent existence. It can take many forms but I see it like a mandala. But I don't think that it will be as if your omniscience will fill space and you will be aware when a leaf falls off a tree around the block. It is always right HERE. There is no OUT THERE. There are only sensations RIGHT HERE of an OUT THERE.
As such, you are already omniscient and non-localized since there is no aspect of your present experience that you are not aware of or exists separately from awareness. If this experience is a dream projected from Mind, where is Mind not? Or where is Mind? lol. 

If space, location, and such are all empty concepts, and there is no noumenon, what or where is there that exists outside of your knowledge? If there is no 'out there' only sensations 'right here' of an 'out there', are you not already omniscient? Omniscient means "all knowing", kind of like Rigpa, but the cultural glosses are different. There is only one thing that we know for sure, whatever that is. That is the door to omniscience.
April 8 at 2:43pm · Edited · Like · 1

John Ahn: Imagination is not how you practice (unless you are doing tantric practices). Even if you imagine the right thing, it is an incorrect way of practice if you are looking for direct experience. Rather, observe the mechanism of imagination and cut its seed. Then you will know directly what is reality.
April 8 at 2:23pm · Like

John Ahn: Again and again I notice people are trying to "fit" reality into the dharma. Even if it is emptiness, anatta, the collapse of subject/object dichotomy, one should not attempt to "fit" their experiences into what is believed and often imagined to be the right way. There are many spiritual scholars who can expound on dharmic principles, but they have no clarity. One does not realize with the mind. Realization is about the mind. Just cut the ties that are binding you, then you will naturally float. Don't worry about what it's like to float. Just deal with what's in your experience now.
April 8 at 2:33pm · Edited · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Actually when the "self" illusion ceases, many experience oneself to be the entire universe as "oneness". This is of course the case... First emptiness, you are not a separate individual entity, but then you are everything. There is only one vast unified Field and you are IT.
April 8 at 4:11pm · Like · 1

Dannon Flynn: But it isn't as if you can see out of somebody else's eyes or feel what it feels like for them to burn their hand on a fire. There are still the sensations and perspective of this organism's point of view or location, which is in the center of the field. The field perhaps is the radiance of IT?
April 8 at 4:14pm · Like

Windy Kian: Okay, but why concern yourself with what is transient, when pursuing the deathless? You don't even know you're an organism until you wake up in the morning and think about it.
April 8 at 4:21pm · Like · 1

Soh: 'Sensations', 'field', 'radiance', 'IT', 'perspective', are only conventions for the same activity, never a thing to be pinned down... not locatable and without center. You aren't looking out of your eyes as a seer, in seeing there's just vision without seer, which is inseparable from conditions, and fundamentally empty. Another person's vision (conventionally speaking) is simply another unique activity/mindstream/experience inseparable from other conditions, and fundamentally empty. They are not the same, not one, and ultimately also not 'many' since 'many' also cannot be established.
April 8 at 4:22pm · Edited · Like · 3

John Ahn: @ Dannon, ime, such inquiries are really irrelevant.
April 8 at 4:21pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: There is only one Knowing looking. Individualization is mind. One Awareness is looking out an infinity of windows... The individual is the window frame.
April 8 at 4:22pm · Like

Dannon Flynn: I wasn't making any inquiries.
April 8 at 4:23pm · Like

Windy Kian: You alone can place your hand on the earth, and know that fundamentally there is nothing outside or inside the appearance but the appearance.
April 8 at 4:23pm · Like · 1

Windy Kian: To me the experience stinks of being God. I have not figured out yet if this feeling of being God seeing God and nothing but God is a mental hoax or not.
April 8 at 4:25pm · Like · 1

Windy Kian: But it does have a flavor of tremendous bliss and uncontainable energy to it.
April 8 at 4:25pm · Like

Soh: The notion of a universal one awareness is an Advaita notion, not a Buddhist one - the uber over-arching consciousness that Malcolm pointed out.

As Malcolm pointed out: "Is this pure consciousness single or multiple? If it is the former, it is susceptible to all of the faults of Advaita. Also things are luminously clear, so why restrict this to mind?"

Thusness: "In One-Mind, manifestation is understood as Mind (from an individual stream perspective) but the relationship between phenomena and mind is not clear... ...[it is understood as] an individual stream in Buddhism as well as misunderstood as Universal essence. I am talking about the experience leading one to wrongly conclude that and still have a resting place, and there is a strong tendency to reify a universal source after that experience."
April 8 at 4:29pm · Edited · Like

Dannon Flynn: So as far as I understand, when it is said that the Buddha is "omniscient" it isn't like the Christian idea of God is everywhere, but that the Buddha knows the nature of all phenomena because it is Buddha-nature.
April 8 at 4:29pm · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Soh, I am not speaking from a doctrine, just what is noticed here. The presence of the Universal Divinity appearing as everything, is palpable on every level directly and explains many otherwise difficult to comprehend phenomena like "synchronicity". God is being you seeking God. There is no personal you... Thusness calls the "Divinity" Immense Intelligence and "God".
April 8 at 4:31pm · Edited · Like · 1

Windy Kian: That is also my appreciation of those words Dannon - although we could still be intepreting it differently! lol
April 8 at 4:31pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Thusness calls the "Divinity" Immense Intelligence and "God".
April 8 at 4:31pm · Like

Soh: Jackson, there is no personal you is a direct experience, but a universal consciousness is an extrapolation. This is often not distinguished.

As written in my e-book: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

24th May 2010

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

"I wrote: Your mirror-like awareness has no limitations, has no boundaries and edges. It does not belong to any object that appears on it. It does not belong to the body-mind object that you identify as 'yourself'. It does not belong to anything. But everything arise from that…
…Impersonal/Universal Awareness is animating or ‘powering’ the body and the personality like electricity is powering the TV to show the images on screen. Whatever happens on screen is ‘run’ only by the ‘power’ of the One Mind. Everything and everyone is the spontaneous functioning of One Mind, there is no individual doers/actors/selves."

Just had a conversation with Thusness about this.

He told me that there is a problem of saying more than what is necessary, and that it comes from a clinging mind. That is, stripping of 'individuality' and 'personality' becoming a 'Universal Mind' is an extrapolation, a deduction. It is not direct experience like "in thinking just thoughts", "in perceptions just perceptions", "in seeing just the seen" - just 'what is'.

Similarly when I experienced 'impersonality', it is just 'impersonality', but it becomes a 'Universal Mind' due to clinging which prevents seeing. And if I further reinforce this idea, it becomes a made belief and appears true and real.

Therefore when I said 'impersonality', I am not being blinded as I am merely describing what I have experienced. This Mind is still an individual mindstream, and though impersonality leads one to have the sort of 'Universal Mind' kind of sensation, one must correctly understand it.

Buddhism never denies this mind stream, it simply denies the self-view. It denies separation, it denies an observer, a thinker. It denies a perfect controller, an independent agent. This is what 'Self' means, otherwise why is it a 'Self'? An individual mindstream remains as an individual mindstream, but it is nothing related to a Self.

Hence it is important to understand liberation from the right understanding, otherwise one gets confused. There is the experience of non-duality, Anatta, 'Tada' (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/tada.html), Stainlessness (http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/04/stainlessness.html), but these have nothing to do with Self. Hence if one wants to understand Presence, then one must clearly and correctly understand Presence.

It is important to refine the understanding of Presence through the four aspects: impersonality, degree of luminosity, dissolving the need to re-confirm and understanding why it is unnecessary, and effortlessness.

These have no extrapolation and are what I am experiencing currently, and these requires improvement so that one can progress from "I AM".

There is the experience of impersonality. It is the stripping off of the personality aspect, and it causes one to link to a higher force, as if a cosmic life is functioning within me, like what Casino_King (a forummer who posted many years ago in both the Christian and Buddhist forums) experienced and described - the impersonal life force, which he called Holy Spirit.

It is as if it is all the functioning of a higher power, that life is itself taking the functioning, so dissolving 'personality' somehow allows me to get 'connected'.

I agreed with Thusness and told him that just yesterday I remembered a Christian quote that is very apt in describing this aspect: "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." - Galatians 2:20

Thusness agrees and told me that it is about surrendering to this greater power, that it is not you, but the life in you that is doing the work. It is the key of getting 'connected' to a higher power, to a divine life, to a sacred power - and one wants to lose oneself for this divinity to work through us. And this is what Thusness meant by Thusness Stage 3 experience, the 'I' is the block, because of 'holding' one is unable to 'surrender' completely. When one completely surrenders, the divine will will become your 'will'.

This is not the non-dual sort of experience, nor is it about I AM or the Certainty of Being, nor is it about Anatta.

For example, "I AM" allows you to directly experience 'your' very own existence, the beingness, the inner most essence of 'You'.

A true and genuine practitioner must give rise to all these insights, and understand the causes and conditions that give rise to the experiences and not get mixed up. Many people get mixed up over different 'types' of 'no self'.

For example, no-self of non-dual, no-self of anatta, non-inherent existence and impersonality, are all not refering to the same experience - but rather they are different results of dissolving certain aspect of the tendencies.

Hence a practitioner must be sincere in his practice to clearly see, and not pretend that one knows. Otherwise practice is simply more mix-up, confusion, and nonsense. It is not that it cannot be known, it is just that the mind isn't clear enough to see the causes and conditions of arising.

Awakening to Reality: My e-book/e-journal
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Domo arigato! This updated version has twelve more pages than my current copy. S...
See More
April 8 at 4:34pm · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Windy Kian: Could you explain what you mean by "universal consciousness' Soh?
April 8 at 4:32pm · Like

Soh: Jackson, I'm very sure Thusness never implied anything universal out of it. As Dalai Lama puts it: "I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level."
April 8 at 4:33pm · Like · 1

Dannon Flynn: I don't think we are interpreting it differently, Windy Kian. I still only see what these eyes see, hear what these ears hear (conventionally speaking), etc. but I know exactly what you all are, you all are me, which is nothing.
April 8 at 4:34pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: For you Soh, Universal Consciousness may be an "extropolation", but here it is a naked fact as well as for all Sufis and many other mystics who have have this gnosis... I am not asking anyone to believe me or the idea. Just reporting as its seen here... 
April 8 at 4:35pm · Like

Soh: Windy: means there is an overarching consciousness looking out of everyone, living everyone, so that you and everyone and everything are only an expression of that one.
April 8 at 4:36pm · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: Jackson: I am still insisting that the experience of no personal self is direct, and it is very easy to have the impression of a universal consciousness. Obviously it will not be obvious it is merely a mistaken notion, it will be mistaken as reality. I myself have been there. It takes investigation to see through that notion of a Self.
April 8 at 4:37pm · Edited · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Dannon Flynn, I wouldn't say "nothing", I would say a Universal Presence that energizes the entire display as one harmonious hologram...
April 8 at 4:37pm · Like

Dannon Flynn: The hologram itself is that Universal Presence and it is empty.
April 8 at 4:38pm · Like

Windy Kian: Soh: Right, so that view still reifies a sort of localized independent consciousness with volition and power and attributes. I do not see it this way at all. The "Universal Mind" is not "volitional" by nature, does not "act" through people, and is not a replacement for the individual ego.
April 8 at 4:38pm · Like

Soh: "what you all are, you all are me, which is nothing."

There isn't a me... just vision, sensation, etc (even that is a convention)
April 8 at 4:38pm · Edited · Unlike · 4

Dannon Flynn: Exactly
April 8 at 4:39pm · Like · 1

Soh: If Presence is seen as universal and overarching it is seen as inherently existing.
April 8 at 4:39pm · Like · 2

Soh: Windy: Whether you see it as volitional or not, that very notion of universal mind is mistaken.
April 8 at 4:39pm · Like · 1

Soh: Contemplating in accordance with Bahiya Sutta will let you realize that 'Mind' is only an empty convention for the activities of the six senses, and the six senses themselves are empty.
April 8 at 4:40pm · Like · 3

Soh: Check this out: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/zen-exploration-of-bahiya-sutta.html

Awakening to Reality: A Zen Exploration of the Bahiya Sutta
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
What a surprise, to find my picture and recent journal entries on your brilliant...
See More
April 8 at 4:40pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Windy Kian: I don't speak for myself here, as I have no relationship or concept of a "universal mind" as such. But I do want to understand more clearly the exact conditioning that births that concept.
April 8 at 4:42pm · Like

Soh: An experience of impersonal leads to a shift of perspective from being a personal you looking at things as a personal consciousness, to everything being experienced as being in the same space, so it feels that everyone is functioning out of the same space, the space of consciousness feels like it isn't yours as it is the floor's and cat's etc. Later one may be led to the experience of being 'lived' as if by a universal source. Well, it is true that consciousness is impersonal, but it is not true that there is a universal consciousness looking out of everyone.

The conditioning = the experience of impersonality + false view of inherency
April 8 at 4:45pm · Edited · Like · 3

Jackson Peterson: Its not a notion here Soh. Its a living experience. I have so much gratitude that this is perceived here. The majestic richness is almost overwhelming at times. It comes from the heart, not the head. Its humbling and inspiring and reveals the deepest nature of unconditional love and compassion as being the texture within all experience, if only our hearts are developed to the point where you can see with the "eye" of the heart. In the mystical gnosis, you occupy the Absolute position as being yourself creating the relative seeking the Absolute. A certainty occurs in this moment as a permanent seal. A gift... like a kiss from your Beloved that you can never forget.
April 8 at 4:45pm · Like · 1

Soh: The certainty of beingness does not tell you anything about a universal source. There is the experience, and there is the extrapolation
April 8 at 4:46pm · Unlike · 2

Jackson Peterson: I didn't say a Universal "source", but rather "Presence". That is not an extropolation... its able to be directly known especially in Kundalini realization. That "Presence" is everything like Chinul explains.
April 8 at 4:49pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: We are afloat in a sea of infinite Consciousness. Individuals are like ice cubes that appear and disappear, freezing by conceiving of being a separate "I" and melting upon the cessation of the separate "I" concept. Its like moving in and out of quantum super-positions, sometimes localized and sometimes non-local. The Clear Light can appear as a "particle" (like a photon) or appear like a wave. But one's nature is always the Knowing Clear Light.
April 8 at 4:54pm · Like · 2

Windy Kian: How do we know anything? To this Knowing, we give various names: presence, rigpa, consciousness, awareness. To whom does this knowing belong? We investigate and find it does not have an owner. That it is self-arisen, self-sustaining, self-destroying. Next question: does this knowing cause suffering, and how? By getting involved in the world, using the divisive and discursive mind apparatus, the self-arisen mind conditions the experience of suffering. Is it reversible? Yes. By remaining uninvolved in appearances, the self-arisen, self-sustaining, self-destroying Knowing, does not create the causes and conditions for suffering. Is the Knowing permanent? No. It obviously comes and goes. Therefore it is not a final refuge for one who seeks liberation. What is the Knowing Knowing? It is knowing itself in the light of its own knowing. Is this Knowing Universal? It depends! It is an aspect or quality of itself. It can appear to be universal or personal, but in its universal aspect it is free of identity, because identity implies Two. And this is not even one, so where would two come from?
April 8 at 5:00pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: There is a spiritual dimension beyond the five senses, body and brain. You enter that dimension by activating the chakras and energizing the Body of Light. We often become limited by focusing on only sensory experience. Its a very limited dimension of the brain.
April 8 at 5:00pm · Like

Windy Kian: Oh my! We have entered the realm of the unknown and unknowable, and our language has become more of a hindrance than a help. I will sit the remainder of this discussion out, so I can cultivate real experiences to reflect on.
April 8 at 5:02pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Windy, have you activated Kundalini and brought it into the crown chakra?
April 8 at 5:03pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kundalini is pure Wisdom...
April 8 at 5:04pm · Like

Soh: Jackson: the notion that one awareness looks out of everyone is precisely the notion of universal source. Presence is non local and empty of self but not shared and overarching. In fact precisely because it is empty of self, it cannot be something shared and overarching. Presence is empty of something in and of itself apart from activity and this is seen directly through contemplation on Bahiya Sutta (in seeing always just scenery no seer, in hearing always just sound no hearer). Always unique every moment and inseparable from conditions.
April 8 at 5:56pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 2

Soh: Windy: there is no knower of knowing, knowing is ever just the known without knower. Knower, knowing and known are merely conventions collating one activity. Selfaware colours shapes sounds senses. There is no permanent self.
April 8 at 5:43pm via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 2

Soh: Liberation is not about abiding as a permanent self but the complete dissolution of all views and sense of self/Self.
April 8 at 5:49pm via mobile · Like · 2

Windy Kian: I can't confirm that that is true. On what do you base your claims about liberation?
April 8 at 5:59pm · Like · 1

Windy Kian: I find that making too many claims about what is true and how things function reflects a sort of personal and spiritual grandiosity that betrays the actual process of understanding and clarification. With my false, adopted knowledge, I head out into the world to feed 'wisdom' to the other people, but I do not know that what I am feeding them has no nutritional value.
April 8 at 6:02pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Windy, it's very self-evident upon the actualization of anatta.
April 8 at 6:03pm via mobile · Like · 3

Logan Truthe: Windy, there is value in the discussion, explanations given by others from their experience. If you humble yourself and take a clear look at your own experience in the light of their discussions, you may find some pointers. Never is anything here suggested as a dictum but all are references for your own further investigations. Take it the right way
April 8 at 6:10pm · Like · 1

Windy Kian: What is atta?
April 8 at 6:13pm · Like

Windy Kian: Is it not, succinctly, the tendency of mind to interfere with and attempt to adjust/control sensory phenomena? Why say that atta is not at all, when atta is a clear phenomena, a clear happening. It may not have a center, it may not have any definition, but in order to teach anatta, there must be an atta to which Buddha refers in the first place.
April 8 at 6:15pm · Like

Windy Kian: In my understanding, atta is the false personality - a false locus of control. A simple inquiry into the lapping of waves, the moving of planets, the blowing of the wind, the movement of thought, the presence of light, will yield the insight: there is no controller! And furthermore, there is no 'one' who gains this insight. The phenomena themselves are the self-revealing insight.
April 8 at 6:17pm · Edited · Like

Windy Kian: Not only is there not a "me" or "I" who perceives phenomena, but there is no "Grand Self" or "Super I" that governs the flow of the cosmos.
April 8 at 6:18pm · Like · 2

Soh: Indeed, what's spoken is simply actualized and experienced in real time. 

I agree with "Not only is there not a "me" or "I" who perceives phenomena, but there is no "Grand Self" or "Super I" that governs the flow of the cosmos."
April 8 at 6:22pm · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Atta = atman. Anatta/anatman is the realization of one-fold emptiness which reveals the lack of self. At that stage one is then an arhat. Two-fold emptiness i.e. shunyata is still required for complete liberation, even when anatta has been realized.
April 8 at 6:23pm via mobile · Like · 1

Soh: atta is the false personality - a false locus of control. --> not only personality, but also agency, inherency.

I separate these as it can arise as distinct experiences, even though eventually all the aspects - impersonality, nondual, anatta, emptiness etc fuse in one experience. (Also, nondual is already implicit in anatta)

For example, a person who has seen through personal self in experience may still reify a universal grand Self... that is why atta is still not seen through. In anatta there is no self/Self. In anatta, there is no agent and no unchanging, independent self/Self... in hearing just sound no hearer, in seeing just sight no seer... 'self'/'awareness' is simply a label collating self-luminous activity, fundamentally empty of self.
April 8 at 6:29pm · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: "At that stage one is then an arhat." - I would say that upon the realization of anatta, one is a sotapanna~arahant, while upon the realization of twofold emptiness one is a 1st bhumi Bodhisattva~Buddha

When you become a sotapanna or first bhumi bodhisattva, you are an arya - an awakened being. However subtle afflictions and obscurations still remain until it is eliminated in higher stages
April 8 at 6:37pm · Edited · Like · 1

Windy Kian: I have never even heard of an arhat. Didn't the Buddha just make that up to describe a particular stage of insight? You reify a separate self, while fully aware that there is no such thing. Why?
April 8 at 6:29pm · Like

Windy Kian: Since anatta is true, liberation is a given. The universe self-liberates by virtue of not having any solidity at all.
April 8 at 6:34pm · Like · 1

Soh: In Buddhism, we teach 'mindstreams' but not 'atman'. Venerable Hui-Feng explains this:

In short:

"self" = "atman" / "pudgala" / "purisa" / etc.
--> permanent, blissful, autonomous entity, totally unaffected by any conditioned phenomena

"mind" = "citta" / "manas" / "vijnana" / etc.
--> stream of momentarily arising and ceasing states of consciousness, thus not an entity, each of which is conditioned by sense organ, sense object and preceding mental states

Neither are material.

That's a brief overview, lot's of things to nit pick at, but otherwise it'll require a 1000 page monograph to make everyone happy.

You'll need to study up on "dependent origination" (pratitya-samutpada) to get into any depth to answer your questions.

~~ Huifeng
April 8 at 6:34pm · Like

Soh: "Since anatta is true, liberation is a given. The universe self-liberates by virtue of not having any solidity at all."

However, sentient beings conceive of delusory selves and things and the power of hypnotic perceptual spell causes suffering like a dream monster causes suffering and fear even if that monster is not existent. The only way out of this delusional basis of suffering is direct insight.
April 8 at 6:36pm · Edited · Unlike · 2

Kyle Dixon: Soh, to clarify, stage one = anatta?
April 8 at 6:36pm via mobile · Like

Soh: Yeah sorry it was confusing. I mean upon realizing firstfold emptiness and then twofold emptiness. Edited it
April 8 at 6:37pm · Edited · Unlike · 1

Soh: Windy: a stream enterer, having seen the nature of dharma and opened their dharma eye, perceives dharmas to be merely arising and ceasing upon conditions and all aggregates are empty of a subjective self/Self whether in or apart from those aggregates. In reality 'self' is a mere label imputed on those aggregates. There is fundamentally no atta that can be pinned down.

A stream enterer who has removed the first three fetters (self-view, doubt, attachment to rites and rituals) still has to go three more steps - sakadagami, in which sensual lust and ill will are attenuated, anagami, in which those two are eliminated, and arahant in which the five last fetters - lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo), lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)[13], conceit (māna)[14][15], restlessness (uddhacca)[16], ignorance (avijjā)[17].

An important point here I would like to elaborate is 'conceit'. It does not just mean 'pride' though of course, pride is definitely eliminated by that stage as well. 'Conceit' here refers to the 'conceit of I Am'. In the Khemaka Sutta, it is explained that a stream enterer has direct insight into the absence of an inherent self, yet a trace or residual clinging to an 'I' remains. It is a trace, but it is still there - like the smell of the contents of the jug remains when the liquid is poured off. 

Thusness explains this before in 2011 (he was not commenting on Khemaka Sutta, but later I realized the link of this to that sutta): "by seeing there is no-self in anatta, the sense of self should also dwindle. When you practice and there is mind body drop, due to de-construction of body and mind, there is only purity of sensations. It (that residual sense of self) is just a lingering trace. How does the sense of self arise? That means it is simply a dispositions, and during daily activity, there is re-enforcing of this trace. When there is no agent, this trace will be seen as it is. 

In [substantial] non-dual and one mind, this is not just a trace. You [after having realized anatta] may have trace of identity, but [to those substantial non-dualists] 'Self' is not a trace. It is as if it is truly 'there' and all there is. But anatta is different. For everything is like a trace, and self is not any more special that an arising sound. No difference."

So a stream enterer has clearly seen self/Self as empty, though there never was a self, a trace (sense of self) remains or arises due to dispositions in some situations until that 'conceit' is eliminated in arahantship. However, a stream enterer has clearly eliminated 'self view' which is why they no longer perceive a 'Self as if it is truly there'. They see that it is an illusion, yet by habitual propensities, sense of self may still manifest though that tendency has dwindled.

Even any residual trace of 'I, me, mine' attachment is removed at the arahant stage. An arahant has completely removed suffering and attachments and afflictions.

A 1st bhumi bodhisattva extends his insight of anatta/emptiness and not only deconstructs 'objects' and 'externality', seeing whatever dependently originates to be fundamentally empty and non-arising, illusory.

A 2nd~7th bhumi attenuates afflictions like sakadagami and anagami, while an 8th bhumi bodhisattva completely eliminated afflictions like an arahant, while the Buddha (11th bhumi in common Mahayana, or Vajrayana adds a few more stages up to 13 or 16) removes cognitive obscurations preventing omniscience.

The difference between arahant and buddha is that a buddha is able to benefit much more sentient beings than a mere arahant, and as Geoff states, a buddha has knowledge and abilities not shared by arahant disciples. The Paṭisambhidāmagga lists the following:

knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties

knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies

knowledge of the twin miracle*

knowledge of the attainment of great compassion

omniscience & unobstructed knowledge

*i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.
April 8 at 7:15pm · Edited · Like · 2

Windy Kian: Thank you for sharing. Does the Buddhist conceive of each stage as an irreversible development into the cognition of reality? This would be quite different from what is taught in Zen, particularly by Dogen, who speaks of Realization reverting to delusion, and this being a very intimate part of the entire liberation process.
April 8 at 6:50pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Some Buddhist traditions result in non-abiding nirvana and some result in abiding nirvana where buddhahood doesn't revert.
April 8 at 6:54pm via mobile · Like · 1

Soh: Windy: Insight won't be lost, however an initial insight may not remove all traces of delusion. Notice that 'ignorance' is one of the last five fetters removed at the arahant stage. It is not the case that after an initial realization, you are completely free from ignorance. It can still manifest. But as LU and RT puts it: 'once seen, it can't be unseen'.

Mahayana Buddhism will go on to speak about very subtle, non-afflictive kinds of delusions that arahants still have. These delusions do not prevent liberation but does prevent omniscience or Buddhahood or full awakening. But I digress here.
April 8 at 7:02pm · Edited · Like · 1

Windy Kian: As is the nature of phenomena, these are all self-contradicting theories about the nature of reality. 
April 8 at 7:01pm · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: Jackson, read this if you speak about "infinite consciousness" => ""Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness — the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html Moreover, as for reifications of what is beyond the senses like "There is a spiritual dimension beyond the five senses, body and brain. " =>""Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

Anupada Sutta: One After Another
www.accesstoinsight.org
I have heard that at one time the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta's ...
See More
April 9 at 1:40am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Dairin, re: the OP:

Reach out your hand and touch something. Contemplate the sense of touch that you are now experiencing. Become intimate with whatever it is that is happening at your hand, that we call touch. Treat it as if it had something to tell you, let it present itself.

Whatever it is, it is inexpressible. Notice; does that inexpressible-ness report any location, duration or relation? ...

When that inexpressible-ness is experienced from it own side, on it's own terms — as itself in total attention — then it is non-local.

This is total attention. All is like this, and on its own side. And that side is the same side you are on. Realize this, step into it, and both sides collapse. 

What about thought?

Conjure up a thought about the touch, a thought about where the touch is happening. Notice; does the thought about locality report any location of its own?

No.

By itself, when the thought can just be what it is — something inexpressible — then there is no up or down, here or there, no present or past and no now.
April 9 at 11:07am via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Most of these arguments are being presented from a very Theravadin point of explication, as well as Madhyamaka dialectics. These are all First and Second Turning of the Wheel explanations and miss the positive aspect of Being or Buddha Nature or Tathagatagarbha as explained in the Third Turning. Actually the Third Turning teachings related more to direct meditative experience, not just the intellectual polemics of the Mahdyamaka as we hear here all too often. This then makes the wisdom aspects of omniscience incomprehensible in this context.
Dzogchen, Zen and Mahamudra are more interested in the nature of the knower of experience rather than just the seen and the heard. The Bahiyya Sutta only points out the absence of a self, a "me" and a "mine" in just the seeing and hearing. But that is pointing out the void nature of the Fifth Skandha. That voidness of the Fifth Skandha is then reified into the extreme of their being no self. This is where many are stuck here. Rigpa is a Knower beyond the "all" and Fifth Skandha. Only yogic insight will reveal this non-dependent, and non-dual knower. Its present in every moment of perception and every absence of perception.
April 9 at 12:09pm via mobile · Like · 2

Windy Kian: Whoa Jackson! You are a genius and a buddha scholar. No sarcasm. Much appreciated.
April 9 at 12:10pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Not all that glitters is gold my friend.
April 9 at 12:28pm via mobile · Like

Din Robinson: Kyle, why the put-down?

don't you see Jackson as simply a part of yourSelf? 

why would you put yourself down?

i've learned that to go with negative or painful thoughts is quite insane really
April 9 at 12:31pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Glad you perceived where I am always coming from Windy Kian. A small group here have this narrow and intellectually driven view as I pointed out. Its all quite counter to the spirit and methods of Dzogchen and Essence Mahamudra.
April 9 at 12:39pm via mobile · Like

Windy Kian: I find Theravada ill-suited to my personality, and moreover, terribly inadequate and out of sync with the development of modern occidental modes of consciousness. It's excellent that there are people like Kyle and Soh who can still bridge a connection to these very very old teachings, but perhaps these are beings who have been studying the dharma in a traditional manner for many lifetimes.
April 9 at 12:41pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Windy Kian, I call it being guilty of leaning too heavily towards nihilism, where the bathwater is praised, but the baby has been ignored and denied.
April 9 at 12:46pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: You can't be serious.
April 9 at 12:50pm via mobile · Like

Din Robinson: it seems to me it's more a matter of identification with the teachings and needing to be "right" which has to make someone "wrong" which is quite ego driven, not that there's anything wrong with that! 
April 9 at 12:50pm · Like · 1

Din Robinson: rigpa, it seems to me, would be the aware space in which all points of view arise, not a matter of one better than another
April 9 at 12:52pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Din, that's the same thing you're doing right now.
April 9 at 12:53pm via mobile · Like

Din Robinson: yes, it is, i'm glad you can see that
April 9 at 12:54pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, your own view is just as intellectual as anyone else's here.
April 9 at 12:54pm via mobile · Like · 1

Windy Kian: Jackson, it's an unacceptable interpretation, given the tremendous literature on disposition and personality types that we've developed in the west. So long as the mind is functioning, it needs methods and systems that match its preferences and analytical strengths. I find it is rare to find, if ever, a being who conceives of the spiritual path both microcosmically and macrocosmically. It is arrogance on the part of a Theravadan to invalidate the gleanings of the Advaita/Dzogchen traditions. It is similarly arrogant on the part of a Dzogchener/Advaitan practitioner to regard the Theravada path as somehow more rigid or narrow. These are functions of the mind and not qualities of the path. It is the responsibility of the practitioner to regard his own path with the necessary humility to see that his brother, walking a different trail, is headed to the same location, and that to communicate is simply to exchange ideas, not truths.
April 9 at 12:54pm · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: If someone accuse Theravada of leaning too heavily towards nihilism, that means only one thing. One hasn't comprehended it at all.
April 9 at 12:55pm · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: " That voidness of the Fifth Skandha is then reified into the extreme of their being no self. This is where many are stuck here. Rigpa is a Knower beyond the "all" and Fifth Skandha. Only yogic insight will reveal this non-dependent, and non-dual knower. Its present in every moment of perception and every absence of perception." both "there being no self" and your "non-dependent and non-dual knower" are equally deluded extremes and reifications. Your "non-dependent and non-dual knower" from my POV is also "being stuck here".
April 9 at 1:03pm · Edited · Like

Windy Kian: There is no difference between my experience and your experience. It is the same experience, interpreted differently. We are debating only about interpretations, about words. But who here has the strength of presence not to react to words? Show me that person and I will admire his understanding. But you are here because you like words. You come here to feed your conviction in the power of thinking.
April 9 at 1:04pm · Like

Windy Kian: What power does a moving mind have to judge what is true or not? It functions purely in dualistic fixations. Your mother and father were having fun in the bedroom and then the consciousness 'I am' arose with your birth, and you take this joke, this product of sensual enjoyment to be yourself. What was the intelligence that gave rise to that 'I am?' Can you account for all the factors that were present to give rise to your birth? Of course not. The causes are infinite. You take this "I am" all too seriously. Even the Buddha took this "I am" all too seriously, so of what use are your efforts?
April 9 at 1:12pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, I am saying that looking at Dzogchen view through the view and lens of Hinayana perspective is ludicrous. The Theravadin view as being expressed HERE is not compatible with Dzogchen. But Thanassaro Bhikkhus view is totally compatible.
April 9 at 1:14pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Windy, here is some info on the tathagatagarbha teachings which Jackson unfortunately interprets as a literal self-view

2006, Loppon Namdrol commented on taking a literal Self-view out of Tathagatagarbha teachings:

Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:

That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:

"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

"Similarly, that tathagatagarbha taught in the sutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, ayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

The Bhagavan replied:

“Mahamati, my teaching of tathagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

Mahamati, the Tathagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathagatagarbha.

Mahamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

Mahamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

Mahamati, similarly, although Tathagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

Mahamati, the demonstration of Tathagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

Mahamati, the Tathagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

Thus, the Lanka says:

All yanas are included
in five dharmas, three natures,
eight consciousnesses,
and two selflessnesses

It does not add anything about a true self and so on.

If one accepts that tathagatagarbha is the alayavijnana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:

Tathagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.

Mahamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathagatagarbha, because the tathagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aryas, that also evolves.

Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahasattvas of analytic intellect.

And:

Although tathagatagarbha
possesses seven consciousnesses;
always engaged with dualistic apprehensions
[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.

If one accepts that the tathagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:

"`Sariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathagatagarbha.
`Sariputra, that word ‘tathagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaya.

And:

`Sariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.

Then one cannot accept it as the alayavijnana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.

Other sutras state that tathagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimala suutra does here:

"Although in the `Sravakayana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathagatagarbha’.

So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Prajnaparamita to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states

"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/B) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.

Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.

When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.
April 9 at 1:23pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Soh comments:

This is not to say that all Tathagatagarbha sutras teach a balanced view. Some early Tathagatagarbha scriptures including the earlier version of Nirvana Sutra are very eternalist indeed, as Namdrol pointed out. There are many Mahayana teachings, each appearing to repudiate another one, as they are all written by different authors according to different circumstances. These Tathagatagarbha Mahayana teachings are late teachings written and edited by multiple unknown authors over a period of time. We simply need to discern what is definitive and provisional.

As our own insights and experience develope, we will be able to discern for ourselves better. Our appreciation of certain teachings changes accordingly.

-------------------

Soh comments:

Jackson, I disagree with your interpretation. Even the subtlest clear light, or the pure Beingness before sense perceptions and thoughts, that too is a manifestation, a flow, not a super-self of any sort. I do not see it as having any ontological or ultimate essence even though it was already realized 2+ years ago. But before realizing anatta it does seem like a substantial Self that Ramana Maharshi always teach about.

Also, rigpa is not 'earth, water, fire, air, and consciousness', it is when earth, water, fire, air, and consciousness are correctly cognized in its true state, then it is rigpa. You are misquoting him: 

"Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway."
April 9 at 1:23pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Windy, it is Jackson's own interpretation that Dzogchen, Formless/Essence Mahāmudrā etc. are more concerned with 'the knower' of experience as opposed to 'in seeing just the seen etc.'. It is also Jackson's own misinterpretation that vidyā (rig pa) points to something which transcends or is 'beyond' the fifth skandha. These are Jackson's interpretations, his own interpretations, and I hope you realize that. They do not accord with the standard view of these traditions.
April 9 at 1:28pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: "The Buddha explained the Dharma to sentient beings in three episodes, called 'the three periods or occasions,' during which the Buddha turned the wheel of the Dharma. This is also called 'the three turnings of the Dharma wheel.' The first was what we call the 'basic teachings,' including the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the three basic characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and not-self, the twelve links comprising the chain of interdependent origination, and so on. We might mistakenly think that Theravada or Hinayana, the so-called 'Lesser Vehicle' is inferior, but this is not the case. It is best to speak of the Theravadin tradition as the Ground, Fundamental, or Root Vehicle. This means that all the teachings have to be built upon that foundation, which includes being well-grounded in the Vinaya and the sutras taught by the historical Buddha. Therefore, all the higher teachings of Mahāmudrā, Maha Ati or Dzogchen - The Great Perfection, and Madhyamika, must all be supported by the ground, which must be very firm and well prepared."
- Dzogchen Master Nyoshul Khenpo Jamyang Dorje
April 9 at 1:30pm · Like · 1

Windy Kian: Nevertheless, all these words are only a stain on what is pure and untainted. You and Jackson may disagree about how the chairs on the titanic are to be arranged, but you are both going to die. The chairs are the words you are using. The titanic is your vessel, the I am. When the I am is gone, what use will your arrangements have been?
April 9 at 1:30pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: That isn't the case at all, I'm not sure what this theme is in rejecting the intellect or concepts, why? What good does that do? How does that benefit anyone to marginalize all of these teachings which have been recorded for the benefit of all beings so they may too find liberation. No one is saying that the conceptual and the intellectual is on par with direct experience, that's never been stated by anyone, these are straw man arguments, logical fallacies being thrown around. We all know very well that the intellectual and conceptual understandings are only a map and are not the 'truth' of the matter. That being said, they are incredibly useful and should never be rejected, for any reason whatsoever.
April 9 at 1:33pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The 'I Am' is not an aspect of the teachings I am usually involved with.
April 9 at 1:34pm · Like

Windy Kian: Nevertheless, you are going to die, and whatever Nirvana or Buddha-Dharma you have understood will vanish. When (or if) you are born again into the body of a child, will that child have retained the understanding? Of course not. Again, you begin by learning your ABCs and learning to poop. It could not be more simple to understand: the teachings are useless. What is, is, based on causes and conditions beyond the scope and capacity of Dharma practice to alter. How can the finite affect the infinite? It is just a game in the head.
April 9 at 1:50pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: At any rate, here's the Dzogchen view regarding the Buddha Nature model, it is a useful model, but it isn't intended to be interpreted as a literal self-view:

Thus spoke Samantabhadra: "The ālaya is a state that is like the vast general ground of all samsara and nirvana having fallen asleep and not being awake to the sense objects. However, even during the five unconscious states, mind itself and mind, which have the nature of support and supported, remain latently present. In the lower vehicles this [ālaya] is taught as the buddha nature for the sake of temporarily guiding the immature ones who are eaten by doubts regarding the stainless true condition."
April 9 at 1:51pm · Like

Windy Kian: What is the literal self-view you mention?
April 9 at 1:53pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Windy, Any of us could die at any moment, should that fact stop us from living our lives? Should it stop us from creating a relationship with these teachings? I suppose it's left to each individuals own interpretation and you are welcome to come to the conclusion that the teachings are useless because of that fact. I respect your point of view but graciously disagree.
April 9 at 1:54pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Funny, I have always said the ultimate or absolute is "unestablished", "non-substantial" and without any trace of an "I am" or self. The Dharmata is like vast space, empty from bottom to top. Yet that emptiness is Aware Knowing and has attributes of a Buddha. Its luminosity is relative phenomena that arise according to dependent origination. Reality is one vast hologram suspended within vast Intelligence. The Knowingness of the Dharmata is non-dependent, like a mirror is not dependent on its reflections. This eternal Knowingness is fully present in every cognitive moment as the context of all content. This is the Dzogchen view... Not a Hinayana version as is being proffered here.
April 9 at 2:13pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The literal self-view is interpreting the buddha nature to be a type of substantiated 'beingness' which transcends the play of experience, but is simultaneously the source for experience etc. It's a view very similar, or perhaps identical to that of the Brahman of Vedanta. It is the big Self with the capital 'S', the Absolute, even the para-brahmaṇ that Nisargadatta speaks of. The idea that there is a supreme absolute which is eternal. It is a common view, and I very much respect that view and those who uphold it, my only objection is that the Buddhist view (and the Dzogchen view if one wishes to see Dzogchen as separate from Buddhism) is antonymous with the model of Vedanta.

Granted there are traditions within Buddhism, such as Yogācāra, Cittamātra (mind-only school) and gzhan stong (Zhentong/Shentong) i.e. the 'empty of other' view, which accord with that type of model. Shentong for example, essentially upholding that while the different qualities, characteristics and attributes of experience are empty and unfounded, the consciousness which apprehends these empty qualities is itself non-empty i.e. it is inherent, real, substantiated etc. So Buddhism does have some traditions which are synonymous with the view of the non-dual tīrthika traditions such as those found in Hindusim like Advaita Vedanta or other Trika non-dual traditions such as Kaśmir Śaivism etc. My point is that in actuality, traditions like Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā, while being different from Madhyamaka and Theravada, do not actually deviate from the essential view of emptiness expounded in Madhyamaka and Theravada, the fundamental view of emptiness free from extremes is always upheld, and because of that Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā do not fall into a eternalistic/essentialist nor nihilistic view or extremes. 

Here Lopön Malcolm contrasts the Advaita/Shentong view with Dzogchen:

"First off, Hookham's book is a very unbalanced book. It does not really matter that Khenpo Tsultim Gyatso was her advisor. And in any case, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso, when I debated him on a comparison between Advaita and Shentong, was forced to admit that the only difference between Shentong and Advaita Vedanta was 'Buddhahood'.

You are just importing Hinduism into Buddhism. This is a really negative thing to do. The Shentong position of Dolbupa and Taranatha, etc., is that wisdom ultimately exists. That is not the Dzogchen position. In Dzogchen, the wisdom of rigpa is also not established in anyway at all.

The Shentong position that there is a ultimately existing wisdom is more or less the same position as the Vedanta position that there is an ultimate consciousness. The sole difference in this respect is whether one calls it 'Buddhahood' or Brahman.
The Shentong position of Shakya Chogden however is more acceptable, but even here it is but a transitional view between false aspectarian Yogachara and true Madhyamaka.

Finally, as I have said elsewhere, and as is plainly stated in Dzogchen texts, there is no ultimate and relative truths in Dzogchen. If one persists in thinking this way, one will never understand the meaning of the Dzogchen. In Dzogchen there is only a single truth [vidyā]. It is not appropriate to label it ultimate or relative."
April 9 at 2:20pm · Edited · Like · 1

Windy Kian: As you can see Dairin Ashley, nobody has any idea what they are talking about. Good luck to you on your journey! LOL
April 9 at 9:25pm · Like · 2

Soh: Kyle Dixon is speaking from experiential realization of twofold emptiness and definitely knows what he is talking about
April 9 at 10:24pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: No Kyle is quite confused about Dzogchen and Shentong. There is no substantiated self in either and shentong sees the ultimate consciousness as thoroughly empty. His explanation is thoroughly incorrect. But they both recognize rigpa as the mind of a Buddha. A Buddha reincarnates again and again for the benefit of beings. Rigpa, as the Buddha Consciousness is not dependent and is always unconditioned. It is always in a condition of nirvana. 

A problem here is a closed informational loop. Malcolm is being quoted as an authority, because Malcolm has the same views. Malcolm is fully trained up as Sakyapa teacher which brings his views very similar to the Gelugpa. Both views are not Dzogchen view. However Malcolm's views have evolved: he recently told me he disagrees with Kyle's and Soh's notion of their being no consciousness beyond the fifth skandha that is not dependent and does not always remains unconditioned. He confirmed this again to me last week with a brief comment. 

To summarize my view: there is a thoroughly unsubstantial and completely empty Buddha Mind that is vast and all inclusive. Appearance are its non-dual spontaneous radiance. All those appearances are thoroughly empty of independent existence. This quality of pure presence, is forever empty and is unestablished. Because of this unchangeability it is as always fully present in our mind stream continuum. Nothing is needed to be changed, altered or done other than recognizing this pure presence within this and every moment until stable. No preliminaries or "practices" are necessary other than this recognition. Rigpa is not the result of any effort or path or analysis. Its arising fully in every moment as our first second of perceptual experience before the mind begins processing. This first moment is called "clarity". Recognizing this pure "clarity" presence in the initial moment of all arisings before the mind starts, is recognizing ever present rigpa. Having recognized this empty presence to be our natural state is itself the view, path and fruition. We continue in that naked recognition. Zhantong attempts to describe that experience as being something more than just emptiness as its recognizing the luminosity as that very "clarity" which is our rigpa Buddha Mind of Clear Light with all its Buddha attributes.
April 10 at 3:44am via mobile · Like · 2

Soh: Malcolm wrote before:

Clarity is the basis for samsara, and conditioned. Emptiness is the basis for nirvana. The union aspect is unconditioned, since clarity is always in union with emptiness.

....

No, as Sakya Pandita explains, because emptiness alone equivalent with the cessation of a shravaka, so it is not appropriate as tathagatagarbha

Clarity is cognitive potential.

That cognitive potential under the influence of afflictions is called "mind"; when free from obscurations, is called "wisdom."

Clarity is conditioned, so it is not appropriate as tathagatagarbha.

However, clarity is empty, always has been, and the fact of it's inseparability is unconditioned and so on.

N
April 10 at 4:01am · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: How can anything empty not be non-arising, not conditioned, etc? Clarity is unconditioned not because it has special ultimate status or that it is an ultimate Self like Advaita/Shentong* but because it is empty.

Heart Sutra states likewise: "Shariputra, all Dharmas are empty of characteristics. They are not produced, not destroyed, not defiled, not pure; and they neither increase nor diminish."

*On Shentong: "Equally controversially, Dolpopa was not afraid to employ the term 'Self' or 'Soul' (atman) to refer to the ultimate Buddhic Truth that according to him lay at the heart of all being. In his Mountain Doctrine work, he refers to this Buddhic Essence as the 'Great Self', 'True Self', 'Diamond Self', 'Supreme Self', 'Solid Self', and 'Supreme Self of all Creatures'" ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolpopa_Sherab_Gyaltsen

Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (Tibetan: དོལ་པོ་པ་ཤེས་རབ་རྒྱལ་མཚན་, Wylie: Dol-po-pa Sh...
See More
April 10 at 4:08am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Soh: Malcolm is not just thoroughly trained in Sakya having been to three year retreat etc, but was also asked by Kunzang Kechen Lingpa (a fully awakened Dzogchen master having attained fourth vision) to teach Dzogchen. - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/rainbow-body-and-thusnesss-advise.html

Awakening to Reality: Rainbow Body and Thusness's Advice to Me
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
April 10 at 4:12am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, you misunderstood Malcolm in that discussion, and the 'consciousness beyond the fifth skandha' that you think was affirmed is nothing more than a product of confirmation bias in misreading the information. A Buddha's condition is non-dependent and unconditioned only because from a Buddha's perspective, dependent origination is known to be illusory. The other reason is that emptiness and dependent origination are not synonymous in Dzogchen, so while a Budda's condition is 'self-originated' it is still 100% empty and therefore dependent origination is not contradicted. Your quest to actualize a consciousness which is eternal and permanent is Ill-conceived. No one ever said anything needed to be done other than recognition, this is more confirmation bias and selective informational input on your part. Vidyā is not neutral awareness as you continually parade it as.
April 10 at 4:12am via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Dairin Ashley: Haha! 
My conceptual mind was confused on Monday, totally spinning out on Tuesday and now it's like {<#W!}+[$T@>]=(&*F%!). From where I stand, which is kindergarten, and reading this thread, it's a very beautiful awe inspiring dazzling display of complexity. I had no idea there were so many schools and views. In my own case, I can clearly see that all conceptual thought must end, and what remains reveals the highest truth and natural pure self-arising wisdom. 

I'm going to keep my practice very simple. As per...
"A Dzogchen Master STARTS with "direct introduction" with everyone. If they don't "get it" then one starts to use all the infinite methods and means to help bring about the experience of Rigpa. When one has the experience of Rigpa, then one confirms the validity of one's path now being "remaining with Rigpa" as path. Then, one simply continues in that state. Rigpa is the view to be experienced, Rigpa is the path to be followed, and Rigpa is the fruit of the path. There is no change in Rigpa, either in the beginning, middle or end. The fruit is your first realization of Rigpa. There are no Stages of Rigpa. Thogel does not modify Rigpa."
—Dudjom Rinpoche on the Three Statements of Garab Dorje
April 10 at 4:34am · Like

Dairin Ashley: I'm very glad to be in this group 
April 10 at 4:34am · Like · 1

Soh: Malcolm explains also that there is no such thing as Rangtong or Shentong in true Madhyamaka:

Nagarjuna's refutation of rang stong [instrinsic emptiness]:

If there something subtle not empty,
there would be something subtle to be empty;
as there is nothing not empty,
where is there something to be empty?

And his refutation of gzhan stong [extrinsic emptiness]:

Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,
the conditioned is not established;
since the conditioned is never established,
how can the unconditioned be established?
April 10 at 4:38am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: had written this earlier today:

Self-originating wisdom (rang jung ye shes) is indeed non-dependent, but that is because from the perspective of a buddha, dependent origination is known to be illusory, ergo it's realized that whatever originates dependently is in truth unoriginated i.e. emptiness has been realized. The wisdom of a Buddha is unconditioned, meaning it does not depend on causes and conditions, so it is non-dependent i.e. self-originated. The fact that wisdom (ye shes) is 'self-originated' as opposed to 'dependently originated' isn't because dependent origination is invalid, it's because emptiness and dependent origination aren't synonymous in dzogchen. Therefore self-originated wisdom is subject to the same principle of emptiness that everything else is, completely unestablished in any way and free of the four extremes (existence, non-existence, both and neither). 

One must be careful not to view 'non-dependent' wisdom as an implication of inherency... misinterpreting the lack of dependency to be suggesting that because wisdom is non-dependent, it is therefore an absolute which answers to nothing i.e. it defies emptiness. That isn't what 'self-originated' is implying. According to dzogchen, everything is 100% empty and completely illusory (free from extremes). Dependent origination only applies to the defiled structuring of ignorance (avidyā), while self-origination represents the 'structuring' of vidyā i.e. the spontaneous natural formation (lhun grub) of ye shes which is always inseparable from primordial purity i.e. emptiness (ka dag). The very fact that both dependent origination and self-origination are implemented in Dzogchen, is precisely why the wonderful teaching of Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka can be considered a definitive view according to masters such as Longchenpa etc.
April 10 at 4:38am · Like · 2

Soh: It's ok to be placing emphasis on realizing the luminous essence or "knowingness" that Jax always stressed, but it should not lead to extremes (such as establishing an unconditioned apart from conditioned etc)
April 10 at 4:41am · Edited · Like · 2

Soh: Yes Kyle, also, Lhun Grub is unafflicted dependent origination which is why it does not contradict D.O. as explained by Malcolm in http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=5474&p=59562#p59562

"First, one has to distinguish the general theory of dependent origination from the specific theory of dependent origination. The general theory, stated by the Buddha runs "where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that,this arose". The specific theory is the afflicted dependent origination of the tweleve nidanas. There is however also a non-afflicted dependent origination of the path. For the most part, Madhyamaka covers the principle general dependent originationi order to show that all dependent phenomena are empty. Since, according to Madhyamaka, there are no phenonomena that are not dependent, the emptiness of non-dependent phenomena is never an issue, like hair on a tortoise or the son of a barren woman, since there are no non-dependent phenomena at all.

Nagarjuna however does discuss the twelve nidanas, ignorance and so on, in chapter 28 of the MMK.

The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

Rigpa is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of samsara begin with avidyā; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidyā (rigpa).

N"

Re: DO and Emptinessby Malcolm » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:03 pm booker wrote:Namdrol wrote:Emptiness is th
www.dharmawheel.net
April 10 at 4:45am · Unlike · 2 · Remove Preview

Jackson Peterson: Nice Dairin Ashley!

Exactly Dairin. Follow that advice precisely, its perfect!
April 10 at 4:46am via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Ok guys, other than Malcolm, you are new to Dzogchen and lack the experience to put yourselves in a position to explain Dzogchen, its clear. Anyway, this conversation goes no where because you have to quote others as the "view" is not yet your own. You are simply guessing. Now I will focus on my other groups, especially Dzogchen Discussion here at Facebook. You can always find me there... 
April 10 at 4:54am via mobile · Like

Soh: You are merely assuming "the "view" is not yet your own."
April 10 at 4:56am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, you have your opinion, we have ours, no reason to take it personally. You quote teachers all the time and we do not complain, why it's an issue when we do I'm not sure. Why you'd 'focus on your other groups' instead of engaging with people here I'm not sure. 

We certainly cannot find you in the 'Dzogchen Discussion' group. You originally invited everyone there to create a melting pot of opinions and points of view so we could all share our insight, but that quickly unraveled when you felt challenged and you deleted many of us from the group, damage control as I interpreted it. 

At any rate though, if you're confident in your view there is no reason to retreat elsewhere, we are not ganging up on you here. You give an opinion, someone may refute it, I or someone else gives an opinion, you may refute it, and we go back and forth, people having the ability to decide for themselves what they want to think. Within all the refuting your point of view is always respected, even though I personally may not agree with it, it is respected. But no reason to take it personally, the refutations and contrasting opinions are not meant to be a personal attack. I don't take your refutations personally, I simply respond and the dance goes on.
April 10 at 5:07am · Like · 3

Jackson Peterson: What I shared regarding recognizing the "presence" in the very first second of sensory experience, is Norbu's often used "direct introduction" to rigpa, which he directed to me in person as well as during several retreats that I attended that he always spoke English. I shared this with you exactly as he teaches this and writes about. Its a method of introducing "instant presence" or rigpa. I use it often in transmitting the recognition of rigpa to my students. That "instant presence" is naked rigpa before the mind arises and "clothes" it. I have discontinued my "feed" to me from this group so I won't be responding. You can always contact me by PM. Sorry, I just don't have the time... Nothing personal. 
April 10 at 6:01am via mobile · Like

Soh: Dairin Ashley, what is your experience and practice like nowadays? Have you had direct realization of Awareness? Has non-dual experience (be it peak experiences, or otherwise) or nondual insight arisen?
April 10 at 6:56am · Edited · Like

Soh: I'm sorry if any of these discussions have caused confusion. What doubts or confusions do you have?
April 10 at 7:21am · Like

Dairin Ashley: Thank you for asking Soh.

In 2009 I started meditating. I learnt out of a book on Zen meditation. How to sit and how to breath. First counting breaths, then following breaths, then just sitting in bare attention. Then started with the koan "What is Mu", then just 'Mu'. I sat for 45 minutes twice a day. I also did walking 'bare attention' meditation and 'just washing the dishes' and 'just eating'. That means washing dishes free of thought or as bare attention. 

I wanted Kensho. I thought enlightenment was Kensho. I thought Kensho was when seer and seen merge, when subject/object become one. I thought when this happens the body as well as the chair or cat would be experienced as me. 

After a few months there was very vast empty space and mind almost free of thoughts. A thought was seen to arise, pass and vanish. Just silence. 

Then I had an experience that frightened me. I knew about makyo from the book, so I wrote it all off as makyo, but I stopped meditating. I also knew this very vast space free of thoughts was not Kensho. I searched South Africa for a teacher, but found none.

Then I actively encouraged thoughts and deliberately talked to myself in my mind repeatedly, and more and more thoughts came. 

Jump to September 2012. I read this sentence. 'When thought stops, what remains?'. Suddenly what remained recognized itself. "Oh! This is always here!". 'This' is bright clear aware presence. Hard to explain really.

Then I read Longchenpa's Natural Perfection in December, then Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's As It Is in January and Chogyal Namkhai Norbu's The Supreme Source in February and March. 

I don't know for sure if that was Rigpa or not. I meditate now in the same way as in 2009, 'just sitting', and practice 'short moments of presence many times until it becomes continuous' as often as I can remember to do so during the day and night if I wake up. I don't really know what else to do. I have ordered more books on Mahamudra and Ati Yoga. It's a pretty much quiet mind. But nothing like the silence before. 

I'm still expecting Kensho to be when seer and seen merge, when subject/object become one. And this is why I wrote the OP.
April 10 at 8:13am · Like · 3

Dairin Ashley: These discussions here have caused no confusion and doubts. The doubt's come from me. I enjoy all that is discussed here and it helps me to see more clearly.
April 10 at 8:15am · Like

Albert Hong: Dairin Ashley

Sounds like you had the I AM experience/realization into Non Dual (merging of witness and everything as one aware presence).

Silence, stillness, nothingness and spaciousness. 

These are perceptions that color consciousness. 

If we emphasize say spaciousness then awareness will take on the form of spaciousness.

I also had these realizations/experiences and still do.

But in Buddhism they are considered perception attainments and not necessarily the final goal or absolute goal. Though they are very skillful and useful on the path.

What followed next for me was the insight/realization into anatta, which was investigated via Bahiya Sutta.

This broke down the one presence/awareness into a stream of six interdependent consciousness. Smell, taste, sensation, thought, vision, and sound. 

Each of them unique, individual processes rather than singular entities. 

And then that was further refined with emptiness of phenomena. Seeing that the color had no center. The sound has no essence because it is dependently arisen upon various causes/conditions.

This is a rough outline of I AM to Non dual to Anatta (emptiness of self) to Emptiness of phenomena. 

Not sure why I typed that all out but maybe it will have use for you.

There is a tendency to desire wholeness or unity. For instance in many groups/individuals in spirituality people will posit an absolute awareness that is singular, independent of thought, etc. We sometimes come in with the assumption that I have to merge with the world. And that is done via perception and consciousness and view.

But what is assumed is that something can actually merge with something else. Anatta points out that already there is no self. In seeing there is only the seen, no seer. The subject always an after thought or mental impression. There is always just the flow of phenomena. 

We cling to a background awareness or frankly anything and we have a tendency to make a ground where there isn't one.

Or we can try to understand Dzogchen or different aspects of Buddhism from the vantage point of our assumptions in view and perception. 

Which is a great misdeed to the traditions and what they are offering. Many individuals here and elsewhere propagate and affirm views and perceptions that don't really accord with what the teachings are actually trying to get at. And even that statement can sound absurd, etc. 

I'm just ranting now.

In your question you assume a that there is a me. That the phenomenal world is merged with me. What is this me pointing to. And if its pointing to something then isn't that something the phenomena world already? What if the me is just an idea? And even more than just an idea, a tendency to contract areas causing tension. Or maybe a narrowing of attention and intentions. A patterning of assumptions?

Just some ideas.
April 10 at 8:34am · Like · 4

Soh: Hi Dairin, experience and realization of luminous essence are distinct... I've had experience of luminous essence here and there since 2007 until I AM realization (direct realization and apprehension of luminous awareness, as distinct from mere experience) arose in early 2010. It is marked by complete stillness and certainty of sheer Being, like having no more doubt about the core of existence-consciousness and not just a glimpse. Presence as the only doubtless fact seen vividly in that moment of realization. The difference is explained in this article:
April 10 at 8:50am · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: Do you have that quality of doubtless realization when recognizing that Presence-Awareness? Where everything comes to a standstill and there is only complete certainty of gapless Beingness left without thoughts... where you realize your very essence.
April 10 at 8:51am · Edited · Like

Soh: Albert Hong: those are good points. I think what Dairin is saying is that she is still hoping to experience non-dual, but she hasn't experienced it yet
April 10 at 9:03am · Edited · Like · 1

Dairin Ashley: What I'm doubtless about is that this bright clear aware presence is always here and has nothing to do with a personal me.
April 10 at 8:44am · Like · 1

Dairin Ashley: I havent yet read all you posted in the link, but will later.
April 10 at 8:45am · Like

Soh: Sorry Dairin wrong link, this one:
April 10 at 8:45am · Like

Dairin Ashley: Yes, Soh you're right "Dairin is saying is that she is still hoping to experience non-dual, but she hasn't experienced it yet"
April 10 at 8:45am · Like

Soh: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html

Awakening to Reality: Realization and Experience and Non-Dual Experience from Different Perspectives
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
April 10 at 8:45am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Dairin Ashley: Thanks Soh. I'll read all and then comment.
April 10 at 8:46am · Like

Dairin Ashley: Which might take a while. lol
April 10 at 8:46am · Like

Soh: Take your time lol
April 10 at 8:47am · Like · 1

Soh: I'm editing and replacing all terms 'recognition' with 'experience' as recognition is a Dzogchen term and is used differently in that context and can be confusing. 

What I mean is experience and realization are different
April 10 at 8:50am · Edited · Like

Din Robinson: Jackson, i have just one thing to add to your excellent summary:

"To summarize my view: there is a thoroughly unsubstantial and completely empty Buddha Mind that is vast and all inclusive. Appearance are its non-dual spontaneous radiance. All those appearances are thoroughly empty of independent existence. This quality of pure presence, is forever empty and is unestablished. Because of this unchangeability it is as always fully present in our mind stream continuum. Nothing is needed to be changed, altered or done other than recognizing this pure presence within this and every moment until stable. No preliminaries or "practices" are necessary other than this recognition. Rigpa is not the result of any effort or path or analysis. Its arising fully in every moment as our first second of perceptual experience before the mind begins processing. This first moment is called "clarity". Recognizing this pure "clarity" presence in the initial moment of all arisings before the mind starts, is recognizing ever present rigpa. Having recognized this empty presence to be our natural state is itself the view, path and fruition. We continue in that naked recognition. Zhantong attempts to describe that experience as being something more than just emptiness as its recognizing the luminosity as that very "clarity" which is our rigpa Buddha Mind of Clear Light with all its Buddha attributes."

all appears as Mind itself, as consciousness/awareness, including the separate sense of self and the physical body and the world, this, in a nutshell, is the key to the awakened state, that recognition, and that recognition alone, not as some idea or conceptual understanding but as your very own awakeness, which is the awakeness of ALL
April 10 at 9:25am · Like

Soh: Unfortunately, Jax has left the group
April 10 at 9:27am · Like

Din Robinson: so i noticed
April 10 at 9:29am · Like

Albert Hong: Din Robinson

Is awakeness one thing or many things?
April 10 at 9:29am · Like

Din Robinson: Albert, awakeness is all of it
April 10 at 9:30am · Like

Din Robinson:  Jackson wrote:

"Actually when the "self" illusion ceases, many experience oneself to be the entire universe as "oneness". This is of course the case... First emptiness, you are not a separate individual entity, but then you are everything. There is only one vast unified Field and you are IT."

that vast unified field is your very own awareness
April 10 at 9:33am · Like

Albert Hong: What makes it unified?
April 10 at 9:47am · Like · 1

Din Robinson: whatever it is that is aware of this post, of this thread, is that awareness, the problem is that most people have this unconscious belief of separateness and FEEL separate from everything but that is just conditioning and can be undone by looking directly into it, whatever has been learned, can be unlearned
April 10 at 9:48am · Like

Albert Hong: it and this post.

isn't that separation?

where is the location of the it that is "aware" of this "post"?

and how can it be merged with this?

What merges it?
April 10 at 9:50am · Like

Din Robinson: what makes it unified is your own insight into it's lack of borders or positionality, it simply IS
April 10 at 9:50am · Like

Albert Hong: Is what?
April 10 at 9:51am · Like

Din Robinson: there is no merging, no separation, nothing need be done or understood, it already is what it is, completely unknowable but completely crystal clear as all it right here and now
April 10 at 9:52am · Like

Din Robinson: "Is what?", is the question just being asked
April 10 at 9:53am · Like

Din Robinson: this is too simple for the mind to understand since the mind is it also
April 10 at 9:53am · Like

Soh: complete utter simplicity is just this self-radiant post, self-radiant sound of typing on keyboard... complexity is mind's inherent view trying to chain or trace everything back to some notion of a changeless independent awareness or source... trying to claim that 'i am the awareness that is everything and everything is that awareness which i am'... an erroneous extrapolation out of simple, immediate, direct self-luminous experience. awareness too is an empty word, seen to be none other than this sight, scent, touch, sound, taste, thought... after seeing this everything - source/awareness/self is forgotten into total exertion or activity, itself whole and crystal clear without self/Self/agent/hearer/seer
April 10 at 10:02am · Edited · Like · 1

Din Robinson: "I need do nothing", for there is nothing to understand, nothing to comprehend, nothing to explain, this is just too simple, too fundamental for the thinking mind whose job is to figure it all out and come to some conclusion of what reality is
April 10 at 10:03am · Like

Din Robinson: it simply is what is
April 10 at 10:05am · Like

Soh: To come to the simplicity of what is, erroneous notions of self/Self/reality needs to be seen through, as the mind is used to deluded complex views/positions of reality and self.
April 10 at 10:06am · Like · 2

Din Robinson: yes, the simplicity of clarity itself leaves me speechless 
April 10 at 10:08am · Like

Din Robinson: although the mind loves to talk about it 
April 10 at 10:09am · Like

Albert Hong: Well idk man.

How can it be one thing or unity if there isn't any multiplicity.

One has only meaning and purpose if there is many.

One also has to have parts. Then if it didn't it wouldn't be one.

So how can there be a wholeness, if there isn't variety.
April 10 at 10:53am · Like · 2

Albert Hong: You're saying something is completely unknowable, yet also positing "something" in a conceptual manner.

And saying something is beyond concept is a concept.

Right here and now is an idea. Here and now have only relationship to prior to and after. 

Like for instant people posit the present moment is all there is.

Well what use is the present without the past and future. If the past and future don't exist then the present certainly doesn't either. 

But why is there is tendency to create a ground when there isn't a ground? Why this positing of something/nothing?
April 10 at 10:55am · Like

Jeff Montgomery: These conversations make my brain hurt. = )
April 10 at 10:56am via mobile · Like

Albert Hong: Yeah sometimes it hurts my brain too.

But recently I've been enjoying the inquiry and intellectual debate.

It sharpens our minds and lets us be more fluid with language. 

And at the same time it shows our assumptions and bias.

And I have a heavy aversion towards becoming a non-dual zombie.
April 10 at 10:58am · Like · 3

Greg Goode: Dairin, I'm not too familiar with Dzogchen, but in the advaitic direct path-style teachings, the sense of localization disappears first. And later, the subject/object duality collapses, along with any sense of the inherent substantiality of awareness. The "I" is pure radiance and clarity, like "light shining in its own glory." There is no differentiation, and nothing left out. 

But usually, before that happens, there is a very subtle witnessing stage that happens. It's not a tortured psychological self-obsessed monitoring, but a vast, open space characterized by awareness and that-which-appears-to-awareness. I call it the "transparent" or "higher" or "thin witness." It is a very subtle "place" with no suffering and no sense of physicality or containment. Nothing is personal. There is no sense of unknown-ness or unseen objects. No presumption of multiple vantage points from which things are perceived. The old Cartesian "container" metaphor of knowledge has been seen through. There is no sense of physicality, and nothing that can block or hold or contain awareness. So there is nothing to base localization on. So there's no localization.

And then all those very subtle structures gently and peacefully fall away when the subject/object distinction collapses.... 

But omniscience - this is not really talked about in that direct path, because omniscience is based on the assumption of multiple awarenesses, each aware of certain objects that the others aren't aware of. Andit's also based on the assumption that there can be unknown objects. In the direct path, all these distinctions themselves drop away. You don't get realizers in the direct path saying that they know everything, such as what how may hairs on your head or how many atoms are in the Great Wall of China...
April 10 at 11:04am · Edited · Unlike · 4

Dairin Ashley: Soh,

I went through the LU gate about a year ago and was very disappointed. There was still a sense of 'hereness' ie this particular view from these particular eyes. This 'hereness' sense really bothered me and I tried to express this to the guide at the time. But, to my and I think to my guides' surprise, she was informed that I was through the gate. I felt the process was incomplete. I believed in that moment I was not through the gate. Something essential was missing. I thought that going through the gate meant the subject/object division would end. That didn't happen. The chair is the chair and the chair is over there. Here and there is duality.

There is no separate 'me' entity. There is no entity at all. This has been clearly seen. No entity ever existed. All that 'me' notion is is a set of thoughts and beliefs with a whole host of seemingly attached emotions, stories and memories etc etc, the whole nine yards. 

Through direct experience/perception it was seen there is only colours, sounds, smells, tastes and sensations. There is just seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feelings, sensations and thoughts happening ie there is no 'me'. But, obviously in my case there is still a sense of a 'me', or so I think, because there is a sense of 'hereness' - this particular view from these particular eyes. 

The experience here is of endless sights, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings, sensations and thoughts. There is bright vivid clear aware presence even though there may be heavy thoughts and emotions that can seem to cloud this. Distraction into thoughts and emotions also happens.

In 2009 there was very vast empty space that is not the case right now. In 2009 there was no bright vivid clear aware presence, this is the case now.

You asked: "Do you have that quality of doubtless realization in that Presence-Awareness experience?" YES. "Where everything comes to a standstill.." NO. "... and there is only complete certainty of gapless Beingness left without thoughts..." YES. "where you realize your very essence." YES. In the moment after reading the sentence 'When thought stops, what remains?' Bright vivid clear aware presence, then "Oh!" the immediate realisation - this is what I am. I am this. 

There was no fanfare, no trumpeting trumpets, no thunderbolt and lightening, no bells and whistles, no ticker-tape, no confetti, no extravaganza, no sensational cosmic experience, no vision of deities, no rush of energies, no grandeur, no glamour, no voices from on high, no angelic singing, no clapping... you get the picture. It was ordinary yet unmistakable.

There is doubt, not of what was realised, but because duality has not ended. Perhaps there is a concept of what the end of duality should be like.
April 10 at 11:54am · Like · 1

Dairin Ashley: Thanks Greg, sometimes I think I should just sit on damn my zafu until it's all absolutely finally and completely over. Die while still alive. Frustration! Only because there is still too much conceptual thinking going on.
April 10 at 12:04pm · Like · 1

Din Robinson: "There is doubt, not of what was realised, but because duality has not ended. Perhaps there is a concept of what the end of duality should be like."

there you go Dairin, you saw through you own idea that was giving rise to doubt, in my own case there's no argument with the dualistic experience, it is what it is, but it appears in awareness, AS awareness, of that, there is no doubt
April 10 at 12:05pm · Like · 1

Din Robinson: if you make a problem of the experience of duality, then the ego is guaranteed to live long and prosper in that thought! 
April 10 at 12:07pm · Like

Din Robinson: reality is never as you THINK it should be, reality always is what it is, no matter what is being experienced

why make a problem out of any of it?
April 10 at 12:09pm · Like

Din Robinson: in the instant that a problem or doubt arises, this is when awareness needs to rise to the occasion and see it for the ideation/perception that it is
April 10 at 12:10pm · Like

Greg Goode: Conceptual thinking! And groups like this have a lot of that. Now that I regard conceptual thinking as more like poetry or music, and not as a window to the truth, I like it. And it works better, too!

Nice to see you mention your zafu. When I was deepest into my advaita self-inquiry, I sat zazen for years at a local zendo and at home. For about 5 years I even took all the chairs out of my NYC apartment and had only zafus and zabutons. It was excellent, excellent stabilization for the mind, helping it to rest alertly in one place, and yet without dozing off either! That stabilized focus, applied to self-inquiry, is like a laser, and it really helped when things got ultra subtle.
April 10 at 12:12pm · Unlike · 3

Travis Eneix: Nothing like some good old fashioned Shikan-taza to sharpen the body-brain.

I've been meditating daily for 2,128 days now. I don't think it has anything to do with waking up to what you really are, but I would not give it up for the world. The practical benefits to the body-brain-system are innumerable!
April 10 at 12:28pm · Unlike · 5

Kyle Dixon: Dairin, how often do you meditate?
April 10 at 12:34pm via mobile · Like

Dairin Ashley: Kyle, at the moment once a day in the morning for 45 minutes and 'short moments repeated many times until continuous' as per Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche in his book As It Is.
April 10 at 12:58pm · Like · 1

Dairin Ashley: Yes, Shikantaza Travis
April 10 at 12:59pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: 45 minutes of sitting daily is really good. Not that conceptual thinking/movement of thought is a negative thing but you still have a lot of thought-movement going on? I wasn't sure if that's what you meant by 'still too much conceptual thinking going on'.
April 10 at 1:25pm · Like · 1

Ville Räisänen: Greg, could you tell more about the difference between two witnessing states? I know that one has gone down but I can't find the other, if there is other  How did you find the other one? Did you experience any energy shifts or kundalini type stuff? My energy is in point that I don't actually know what to do anymore. I know energetically also the "bubble" of "I", container of my energy, is gone. There is just "wastness" in energy level. It is hard to talk about that but if you have same experience you may understand it.
April 10 at 1:27pm · Like · 1

Greg Goode: The two things I just mentioned weren't both witness states. The latter one is the end of any kind of witness. But that witness state wasn't bad at all!

Before that witness state, there is that what teaching calls a "lower" or "opaque" witness. That one has more psychological characteristics packed into it which are seen as inherent and not seen as arising objects. So that opaque witness seems to remember things and place various degrees of importance on things, and maybe even choose things. But further inquiry will show that these supposedly internal characteristics are arising objects only, and ultimately, nothing other than awareness itself....

I had lots of energy shifts as things go redistrubuted and recontextualized....
April 10 at 1:44pm · Like · 1

Soh: Hi Dairin, "I thought that going through the gate meant the subject/object division would end. That didn't happen."

This is why I wrote an article to LU and talked about the faces/degrees of self/no-self: http://liberationunleashed.com/Article_Integrating-View-And-Experience.html

I'll post something later...
Liberation Unleashed - Article - Integrating View and Experience
liberationunleashed.com
Liberation Unleashed, article Integrating
April 11 at 3:49am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Soh: I wrote this to someone in e-mail two months ago, hope it helps:

Hi K.,

How long/when has the I AM realization occurred for you?

For insight into non-dual, a particular form of contemplation would be necessary. I recommend reading my own e-book: 
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

You see, the very notion of a witness separate from the seen is based on a wrong framework and view... and the fallacy of our linguistic structure. Imagine if someone says to you one day, "the rainer is raining the rain"... you will find that person ridiculous, because obviously there is only rain! What rainer is raining the rain?.... what nonsense, you might say. In raining there's just rain!

But actually that is precisely what we feel on a day to day basis - that there is a seer seeing the seen. This is due to the poverty of our structure or view of reality. It is fundamentally flawed.

So you ask 'how can the apparent split disappear'... since as you said, the split is merely apparent, the only way for 'it' to dissolve is to see that 'it' never was... the very framework, view, position of how we see things has been fundamentally flawed and delusional... but understanding this conceptually is not good enough. In direct realization, there is an enormous perceptual and experiential shift....

From the false sense of a 'self' into immense bliss, boundless release and freedom. Free from the entrapment of a six foot body, awareness is not seen as some formless entity but rather is experienced as (and realized to be none other than) every details of experience - every sound of rain drop, every colour, every shape, every sound, every touch, every taste.... words cannot capture the wonder and intense clarity and aliveness of this. Nothing 
is lost in relinquishing the delusion of self, for in place of the delusion 
of a non-existent separate self, there is nothing short of, well, 
everything! Luminous light (which is none other than Everything) becomes all the more splendid, if the 'witness' is like a radiant moonlit night, then non-dual is like a radiant autumn day.

You have to practise insight contemplation... My advise is,

1) have quality time each day being naked in awareness, sensing to the minutest details of what each moment of being alive is (as all foreground sensations, seeing/sight, hearing/sound, tasting/taste, smelling/smell, touching/touch, thinking/thought), until you can recognize the equal taste of I AM (pure, luminous light of presence-awareness and beingness) not only as formless Presence but as all the multiplicity of manifestations

2) investigate, challenge, in real time experience all notions or sense of a seer-seen dichotomy, inside/outside dichotomy, witness-witnessed, awareness-manifestation dichotomy,

3) always contemplate and keep Bahiya Sutta in mind: 
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2008/01/ajahn-amaro-on-non-duality-and.html 
(both the article and the comments by PasserBy/Thusness in the comments section are great!)

4) establish more firmly the view of no division between the observer and observed

Good luck and happy journey!

Soh (AEN)

p.s. when non-conceptuality and perceptual bond drops, one can experience an oceanic state of beingness... there is still sense of separation because the bond of 'I' has not dropped sufficiently. However if it is completely dropped, it simply results in a samadhi state and is not the breakthrough insight that uproots the bond of self

Awakening to Reality: My e-book/e-journal
awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com
Domo arigato! This updated version has twelve more pages than my current copy. S...
See More
April 11 at 4:03am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview


1 comment:

  1. I have just installed iStripper, so I can have the hottest virtual strippers on my desktop.

    ReplyDelete