Thursday, June 13, 2013

The Nature Of The Intellect


Jackson Peterson:
We often get all wrapped up in these intellectual conversations that go back and forth endlessly. We also post quotes of the Buddha that we give great weight to. Below is a quote from the Buddha that I don't see given much credence. But here he really cuts to the chase and outlines what needs to be recognized. This wisdom is echoed by all the great masters of the non-dual Buddhist traditions as well. Something to contemplate perhaps.

The core of intellect is "conceptualizing" or to conceive ideas. Here is what the Buddha said about this core function of the intellect:

The Buddha: MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

" ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’ Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?

Monk, “I am” is a conceiving. “I am this” is a conceiving. “I shall be” is a conceiving. “I shall not be” ... “I shall be possessed of form” ... “I shall be formless” ... “I shall be percipient” ... “I shall be non-percipient” ... “I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient” is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a cancer, conceiving is an arrow. By going beyond all conceiving, monk, he is said to be a sage at peace.

Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die. He is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?

So it was in reference to this that it was said, ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’"

Let's look at "intellect" a bit as how it used in the Dzogchen and Mahamudra teachings. Intellect is considered a process of analysis. Some concept is examined. Intellect can only examine concepts, that's its soft-ware language. It can't function outside of its soft-ware. Its soft-ware is inherently flawed because its processes are based on a subject/object model, dualism. Its the mechanism of ego-mind for navigating its imaginary world. In these Tibetan traditions "intellect" is part of "sem", the karmic ego mind. It is the driver of samsaric experience. Bringing the intellect to go off-line, allows wisdom to arise. Wisdom is not part of the soft-ware, rather it is part of the "operating system".

Nagarjuna: "What language describes is non-existent. What thought describes is non-existent. Things neither arise nor dissolve, just as in Nirvana."

"Thought is bondage; the immeasurable openness of empty awareness is freedom."
Dzogchen Master Nyoshul Khenpo

Let's take a look at what two Dzogchen masters have to say, starting with Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche and then Longchenpa.

He says in his book: Present Fresh Wakefulness:

"Give up thinking of anything at all, about the past, the future or the present. Remain thought-free, like an infant."

"Innate suchness is unobscured the moment you are not caught up in present thinking."

"That which prevents us from being face to face with the real Buddha, the natural state of mind, is our own thinking. It seems to block the natural state."

"Rigpa, the Natural State, is not cultivated in meditation. The awakened state is not an object of the intellect. Rigpa is beyond intellect, and concepts."

"This is the real Buddhadharma, not to do a thing. Not to think of anything. Like Saraha said, "Having totally abandoned thinker and what is thought of, remain as a thought-free child."

"Thinking is delusion."

"When caught up in thinking we are deluded. To be free of thinking is to be free."

"That freedom consists in how to be free from our thinking."

"As long as the web of thinking has not dissolved, there will repeatedly be rebirth in and the experiences of the six realms (of suffering)."

"The method: But if you want to be totally free of conceptual thinking there is only one way: through training in thought-free wakefulness. (rigpa)."

"Strip awareness to its naked state."

"If you want to attain liberation and omniscient enlightenment, you need to be free of conceptual thinking."

"Being free of thought is liberation."

"This is not some state that is far away from us: thought-free wakefulness actually exists together with every thought, inseparable from it... but the thinking obscures or hides this innate actuality. Thought free wakefulness (the natural state) is immediately present the very moment the thinking dissolves, the moment it vanishes, fades away, falls apart."

"Simply suspend your thinking within the non-clinging state of wakefulness: that is the correct view."

Lonchenpa said: "A Buddha with a thinking mind is an ordinary sentient being (unenlightened) , but a sentient being without a thinking mind (sem) is a Buddha." 
'
Like ·  · Unfollow Post · April 11 at 10:59am
Seen by 83
Piotr Ludwiński, Dairin Ashley, Steven Monaco and 4 others like this.

Piotr Ludwiński: Identification with beingness is part of disease of conceiving. Using this quote alone without providing sermons where Buddha refuted reification of Self/source as well suttas where formless jhanas are mentioned as being not nirvana is going probably to be misinterpreted by beings who realized themselves as one with aware presence.
April 11 at 11:08am · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: All reification is delusion. Who is recommending "reifying" Beingness? There is a difference between the direct seeing of the nature of reality and "conceiving" some notion about the nature of reality. Any thought construct regarding "Being" or anything is always a delusion. Remain "thought free", "concept free"... no constructs are left standing. That's the point. Why is this so confusing?
April 11 at 11:10am · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: “Those who do not understand emptiness will fail to achieve liberation. Thus, ignorant beings wander helplessly in the prison of the six cyclic existences.” ~ Nagarjuna
April 11 at 11:11am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: "By erroneously viewing emptiness unintelligent minds bring about their own destruction" ~ Nagarjuna
April 11 at 11:12am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: ""... no constructs are left standing. That's the point. Why is this so confusing?" because one can rest without any concepts, constructs and yet "I am" clinging is not overcome... In other words abiding as beingness without any concepts about this. Total certainty of beingness that is beyond conceptual elaboration. You can BE without any conceptual elaboration - simply being. Yet conceptual mind is not only thoughts. This very certainty, thoughtless self-conceiving is the problem... Most beings are unable to see this that self-conceiving can stand beyond thoughts and mental constructs and assume that by simply being they have overcame clinging to "me" and "mine".
April 11 at 11:18am · Edited · Unlike · 2

Piotr Ludwiński: That non-conceptual seemingly independent self-conceiving is ego itself in its "purest" form. ""Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'" that is what is described here in Khemakka sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html In other words no particular identification and constructs remains but still I-making is rolling on. Just that it can remain without any particular points of reference (mental constructs) that it would be mixed with... To sustain this non-mixed self-conceiving paradigms are created where this unmixed self-awareness is seen as "source", "God", "Universal consciousness" "divine beingness" etc

Khemaka Sutta: About Khemaka
www.accesstoinsight.org
On one occasion many elder monks were staying at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. And ...[Preview cut off]
See More
April 11 at 11:26am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Din Robinson: good advice! 

"Give up thinking of anything at all, about the past, the future or the present. Remain thought-free, like an infant."
April 11 at 11:26am · Like · 2

Justin Chapweske: Yeah, but... 
April 11 at 11:27am · Like · 2

Din Robinson: the spiritual message is very simple, it obliterates everything you can think of! 
April 11 at 11:27am · Like

Din Robinson: ha, ha... know what you mean... 
April 11 at 11:30am · Like

Din Robinson: the mind can't stop, it can't be still, thoughts arise all the time, but IDENTIFICATION with thought can stop when it is seen for what it is! 
April 11 at 11:31am · Like

Ville Räisänen: Of course mind can stop. Thinking can stop also. This happens usually in meditation but sometimes also spontaniously.
April 11 at 11:37am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: When the mind is in the state of nirvikalpa samadhi, all mind structures are absent. Conceptual mind is ONLY thoughts. However all thoughts are non-volitional and arise from the sub-conscious. Noticing this in meditation as samadhi, exposes the root. No instruction in anatta is required. We can all do it just like the Buddha did. Nirvikalpa samadhi.
April 11 at 11:58am via mobile · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: "Conceptual mind is ONLY thoughts." going along with this concept I could call that unassociated " I am" a non-conceptual thought... Nirvikalpa samadhi from what I know is just absorbing mind into this non-conceptual thought. Anatta is beyond this... Insight into anatta contains direct recognition of that deeply rooted attachment; self-conceiving aspect in this non-dual non-conceptual thought. Delight in this non-conceptual thought, conceiving it as "mine"... Nirvikalpa Samadhi is just abiding as this non-conceptual thought which you ma call "non-dual conscious presence". It isn't the way "like the Buddha" did.I can effortlessly abide in nirvikalpa samadhi; but when I began to penetrate into anatta I realized that it is beyond abiding as non-conceptual thought...
April 11 at 12:08pm · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Piotr is right on point. As in the other thread, where Din was espousing abiding in non-conceptual Beingness: yes, but there is more. Identification, or grasping, has not yet nirvana'd.

But this insistence is not without valid foundation: I AMness is a semi-finality. The discovery has been made; what follows is refinement.
April 11 at 12:09pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: "The Buddha asked Mañjusri, "When one cultivates prajña-paramita in this way, how does one abide in prajña-paramita?"

Mañjusri replied, "Not abiding in dharmas is abiding in prajña-paramita." <= that non-conceptual thought into which mind is absorbed in nirvikalpa samadhi is included in "not abiding in dharmas"
April 11 at 12:13pm · Edited · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Garab Dorje did not pronouce one statement; he pronouced three. By fulfilling the criteria of the first statement, one is not yet a Buddha. By fulfilling the criteria of the second statement, one is not yet a Buddha. There is more still.
April 11 at 12:14pm via mobile · Edited · Like

Din Robinson: "where Din was espousing abiding in non-conceptual Beingness"

i was doing no such thing, don't go with ANY thought, any idea!

including anything i say! 
April 11 at 12:14pm · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The simple fact you were using words in that thread, Din, means you were explicitly entertaining and expressing thoughts and ideas.

Your message might be 'beyond' that, agreed, but you seem to delude yourself as to your own implication in thoughts and ideas.
April 11 at 12:19pm · Edited · Like

Din Robinson: 'nuff said 
April 11 at 12:18pm · Like · 1

Ville Räisänen: For me abiding in thought free state did not bring seeing through personal I and witness. It had to be investigated. Altough thought free state became more easily reached after this. My teacher first showed me it. It's pure awareness and I guess it's the so called I AM many talk about. I don't know how Anatta could be seen through just abiding thought free. But this is my experience. Maybe someone else can, maybe I just don't know. But thought free is blissfull and relaxing 
April 11 at 12:22pm · Like

Din Robinson: Anatta, as far as i know is emptiness, and emptiness is quite clear when all thoughts and perceptions are seen for what they are, all thoughts and perceptions arise in/as emptiness, it's just a matter of being still and noticing this
April 11 at 12:25pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Some of these quotes are meant in the context of certain practices, but overall 'thought-free wakefulness' (and the type of condition Shakyamuni is describing when he says 'he has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow'), is a cessation that is brought on through insight (as Soh) mentioned in the other thread. The Buddha isn't suggesting that one merely suspends thought and remains like an infant, that is why he says 'I shall be non-percipient' is still conceiving, to think that you're resting in a state of non-thought, and that constitutes being free from conceiving is delusion. The cessation that is free from conceiving can only come about through recognition and insight. 

That cessation can be one of two kinds, (i) analytical cessation or (ii) non-analytical cessation; most traditions (Dzogchen included) implement analytical cessation to achieve recognition. So thought should not be rejected preemptively, one should be mindful to avoid thought rejecting itself.
April 11 at 12:29pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: no... emptiness have nothing to do with what you are describing, Din.
April 11 at 12:30pm · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: Din http://emptiness.co/adv_to_empt pointers for ppl who come from "awareness teachings" and are stubborn in misinterpreting emptiness with awareness.. // " 
Emptiness is not a substance
Emptiness is not a substratum or background
Emptiness is not light
Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
Emptiness is not the Absolute
Emptiness does not exist on its own
Objects do not consist of emptiness
Objects do not arise from emptiness
Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind
" http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html both articles by Greg Goode

Coming from the Advaitic/Awareness Teachings? Special Pointers | http://emptiness.co
emptiness.co
When I began to study the emptiness teachings in earnest, I had already been fam...[Cut off preview]
See More
April 11 at 12:32pm · Like · Remove Preview

Piotr Ludwiński: "as far as i know" that is why open mind is better solution than aversion for concepts and clinging to mistaken assumptions
April 11 at 12:36pm · Like

Din Robinson: Piotr Ludwiński, i am coming from my own experience, not from some teaching, i may use some of their words but hopefully, it's my own unique expression, and i'd like to ask, is there a difference between "no-self" and "emptiness", because, to me, in my own experience there doesn't seem to be any
April 11 at 12:41pm · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: This pointer by Greg is for people who have direct realization too...
April 11 at 12:42pm · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: From what you described here in DC and what I had chance to read, you are using "no-self" and "emptiness" to point out different things that these concepts are used in buddhadharma to point to. So maybe better question would be to ask what is difference between your usage of them and what they refer to in buddhadharma?
April 11 at 12:44pm · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Jackson, I think the subject of non-conceptuality is a touchy one.

I can see two main reasons for this:

1)

Some are attached to their conceptualization.

Money & things, body & beauty, intellect & power – these are things we easily fall prey of craving and becoming painfully attached to.

So when non-conceptuality is discussed, a defensive or aggressive reaction ensues.

2)

Non-conceptuality can be a dead end.

To be in a state of non-conceptuality does not necessarily entail a state of wisdom. A dimming of awakeness, veiling of the senses and deadening of attentiveness can be the result of abiding non-conceptually. The nature of this is such that it is extremely hard to correct.

A bright mind once called this the Pre-Trans Fallacy.

• • •

I think that in this context, any advice to abide non-conceptually should come with a disclaimer, or only be issued to those who know of its pitfalls. Uncritically advising others to do this can not be a Good Thing™.

• • •

Finally: I've gathered that Buddhahood does entail the extinguishment of conceptuality by the brilliant lucidity of the Mind of Clear Light. The means to this end is not repression, but wisdom.
April 11 at 12:52pm · Edited · Unlike · 1

Jackson Peterson: Now for a more capable seeker, one can immediately recognize the presence of the perfect and changeless Buddha Nature as the Mind of Clear Light. It is fully present in our current conscious awareness in every moment. Our current consciousness can recognize this essential nature immediately when the orientation is so directed. This mind always sees correctly and never reifies conceptual constructs. It has no name, no history and no karma. Its pristine self-knowing wisdom. Recognizing this Natural State causes the mind to completely collapse during its recognition. Once recognized we revisit this state by recognizing and resting as it again and again. The State is always present and stable but it is the mind that comes and goes. This is the complete path of Dzogchen and Essence Mahamudra.
April 11 at 12:50pm via mobile · Like · 5

Din Robinson: that sounds grrrrrrrrreat Jackson, that is exactly it! 
April 11 at 12:57pm · Like · 2

Din Robinson: worth sharing! 
April 11 at 12:57pm · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: N.B.: This capable seeker is traditionally one in a million.
April 11 at 12:57pm · Like

Din Robinson: a very limiting idea Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
April 11 at 12:58pm · Like · 1

Din Robinson: beware (be aware) of what you believe!
April 11 at 12:59pm · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Don't blame me, blame tradition, Din! 
April 11 at 12:59pm · Like

Greg Goode: Din, about no-self and emptiness. We are free to use words in various ways to communicate with each other. Things are neither inherently the same or different, which is a great source of freedom all around. I do know some people and teachings that use these two words synonymously, and other people and teachings that use them as meaning different things.
April 11 at 12:59pm · Unlike · 3

Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland this teaching as all direct teachings occur in the context of a teacher/student relationship. No one else can really follow this instruction of the Buddha and Zen in general.
April 11 at 1:01pm via mobile · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Yes, Jackson, "special transmission outside the scriptures".

But the Buddha's instructions are for the benefit of all sentient beings.
April 11 at 1:05pm · Edited · Like · 1

Din Robinson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, you need do nothing since you already are this Mind of Clear Light, which is what this post is appearing in/as
April 11 at 1:05pm · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: "Once recognized we revisit this state by recognizing and resting as it again and again." and that is preciesly the problem. that "resting as it" is "I am" conceit Khemakka was not free from. "Abiding as anything" is still abiding in conditioned and unconditioned. // "Knowing his thought Subhuti spoke: "What do you think, Sariputta? Where does Tathagata abide?"

Sariputta replied: "Tathagata abides nowhere. This non-abiding mind itself is Tathagata. Tathagata does not abide in conditioned dharmas nor in unconditioned. Tathagata who abides in all dharmas is neither abiding nor non-abiding. In the same way bodhisattva should also keep his mind in this way"
April 11 at 1:08pm · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: "'Subhuti, this is why all Bodhisattvas and Mahasattvas should thus develop a pure and clean mind which should not abide in form, sound, smell, taste, touch and dharma. They should develop a mind which does not abide in anything." http://www.fodian.net/world/diamond2.htm
April 11 at 1:09pm · Edited · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: In anatta there is no more "abiding as it".
April 11 at 1:10pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Not true Stian Gudmundsen Høiland... Many are successfully being trained daily in these teachings. We should start here and cut back as necessary.
April 11 at 1:12pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Exactly Piotr Ludwiński!
April 11 at 1:13pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: An "abider" is an illusion..
April 11 at 1:14pm via mobile · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: What are you referring to, Jackson?
April 11 at 1:14pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Din, emptiness points to a freedom from extremes. So for emptiness, (i) self, (ii) no-self, (iii) both self and no-self and (iv) neither, would be considered extremes. Why is that? To have a lack of self would require a self to begin with. Or you can look at it subtly, that the very idea of no-self suggests it's opposite; self, that is the law of dependent origination. The moment no-self arises, self (and the other two extremes) are immediately implied. Another way dependent origination functions in this situation is that by grasping at the idea of no-self, the self arises. Why is that? It's not as if there is a homogenous entity that the 'self' is, the self is a conglomerate of habitual tendencies and propensities which arise out of grasping. It is just ignorance. So in grasping at 'no-self' the 'self' is immediately born. 

All of these reasons are why the cessation must be produced through direct insight and recognition which thoroughly apperceives the nature of the predicament. Only a self believes there's no-self, the point is to see that the whole possibility of grasping is truly an illusion created by ignorance. In perceiving that, it's realized that the foundation for habit is primordially unborn.
April 11 at 1:16pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 4

Jackson Peterson: Stian Gudmundsen Høiland regarding "one in a million". 
April 11 at 1:16pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: There is no self to believe in a no-self. There's only a flow of thoughts about selves. No one realizes anything because there is no realizer: Only a flow of thoughts about realization and a realizer.
April 11 at 1:21pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński, have you received "direct introduction" from a Dzogchen teacher?
April 11 at 1:22pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: No, I haven't.
April 11 at 1:22pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Ok... Its a concentrated dose of instant wisdom that is triggered from within. Its completely indescribable. Its non-conceptual.
April 11 at 1:25pm via mobile · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Realization certainly occurs.
April 11 at 1:27pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Piotr Ludwiński.. I am trying to share this "flash" here. Thusness is pointing directly to this as well. I have no argument with your positions.
April 11 at 1:27pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Ok.. But no "realizer" can be found.
April 11 at 1:28pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: And the lack of a 'realizer' is only an idea until realization occurs.
April 11 at 1:32pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: As well as a belief in a "realizer"... 
April 11 at 1:37pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: It's only a grammatical rule that verbs require nouns. In nature there is simply occurrence, e.g. the weather is the process, there is no weather 'weathering'. As Alan Watts said; language creates innumerable ghosts... 'it is raining', what is this 'it' that rains? Surely it is the rain itself. 'The lightning flashes', is there a lighting apart from the flash? Surely not. Has there ever been a realizer apart from any realization? Only language and ignorance say so.
April 11 at 1:41pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: So who is the "thinker doing the thinking?" If you say there is a realizer, then you say there is a "thinker". Neither have been found here. Realizations arise but benefit no one, because there is no one. That's self-liberation without the self. 
April 11 at 1:47pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: There is no one, just a flow...
April 11 at 1:48pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: No one said there is a realizer, yet it occurs, and without it, the notion of a realizer or lack thereof is merely fuel for the fire of ignorance.
April 11 at 1:51pm via mobile · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: I used to be thoroughly convinced there was 'no one'. I used to say everything is already perfect and there's nothing to realize. I used to argue with my mentor, telling him there's no one to be free of delusion, no one to wake up, everyone's just fooling themselves. I was utterly convinced. I'd say everything was just conceptual, practice was just conceptual, I was just a concept etc. just a thought, and I knew this, but of course "I" didn't know it, it was just known (I'm saying that sarcastically).. All that type of talk. 

And then one day realization actually happened. Hit like a ton of bricks... and I can't even begin to tell you how stupid I felt to think I knew what I was talking about before.
April 11 at 2:02pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Oh good... now you know what you thought, was indeed true! But now you know it instead of "thinking it". Well done...!
April 11 at 2:03pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: That was years ago.. My point is that saying there's no one to realize is pointless.
April 11 at 2:07pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: That's right... its all pointless when seen that it was all pointless running around in dream looking for one's self. Where else did we think we were?
April 11 at 2:14pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Actually its a powerful pointer... that can freeze the mind enough to then point out the Natural State immediately. The old one two...sucker punch right to the empty spot...
April 11 at 2:16pm · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: Nothing I had thought was true, the reality of it is unparalleled. I didn't take it as a confirmation of my deluded idiotic conduct, I took it as a humbling experience which if anything showed me what a fool I'd been. 

Up until that point, the dharma had been a fanciful notion which had merely been fodder for my ego. After that point... the dharma was real.
April 11 at 2:24pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Here's a good exercise to try, it really works: Get yourself in a comfortable seat, either in meditation posture or just in a comfortable chair. Now close your eyes. Just notice the content of your mind, like taking a snap shot as one whole piece, not really focusing on individual thoughts. Notice the mind-content. Now notice the "noticing" that is noticing the mind's content. Notice the emptiness of the noticing. Repeat these steps back and forth for awhile. A shift may occur that is like shifting from being a reflection in a mirror to being the clear space of the mirror itself. The contents of the mind will seem like non-dual appearance occurring within their own emptiness. The perspective shifts to being pure noticing with the mind's contents self-releasing effortlessly into their own emptiness which is the emptiness of the noticing. Then just continue in that state. When it fades, just repeat until stable.
April 11 at 2:31pm · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: There is no mirror.
April 11 at 2:33pm via mobile · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: That's great Kyle! It worked! Nice job! 
April 11 at 2:34pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: No mirror= anatta
April 11 at 2:35pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Tsonkyi Rinpoche shares: "The practice of the Trekchod is like taking a great big
knife and just cutting the snake of solidified confusion. You take
a machete to all the thoughts of the past and the future, to the
whole complex of confusion about what is real and what is not,
and just hack them down in one fell swoop. There is no visualization.
Do not think about it. Just cut it. Drop it. It is very
energetic. It is not like having a nice meditation."
April 11 at 2:42pm · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: What worked? I didn't realize that exercise was for me.. At any rate, I'd hope you wouldn't let your students off that easy with a response like mine. Anyone can say there's no mirror.
April 11 at 2:43pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Kyle... you need to find your sense of humor! No, my students wouldn't say such a silly thing...
April 11 at 3:00pm · Like · 1

Din Robinson: excellent post Kyle Dixon, and of course for me the truth is in the living of this not just the understanding of it
April 11 at 3:02pm · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Further regarding the OP: Tsoknyi Rinpoche wrote of his father: 
"As Tulku Urgyen said in his missive from the hospital,
dualistic fixation has to collapse because until it collapses there
is still samsara and still a journey to be made. Having a dualistic
mind means having a conceptualizing mind and as long as there is a
conceptualizing mind there is still a journey to be made. In terms of
the path, the thing that is the most important is to destroy
dualistic conceptualizing mind." In perfect accord with the Buddha's instructions on the conceptualizing mind.
April 11 at 3:03pm · Edited · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Now if you do this exercise and spend some time doing it, you will become more acquainted with this pure "noticing" that is completely integrated with the mind's content. This empty noticing when fully recognized as being the changeless Natural State, this is rigpa. When this same noticing is not recognized as being one's Natural State, it is then the "Alaya". The only difference is whether one self-recognizes or not. 

Here's a good exercise to try, it really works: Get yourself in a comfortable seat, either in meditation posture or just in a comfortable chair. Now close your eyes. Just notice the content of your mind, like taking a snap shot as one whole piece, not really focusing on individual thoughts. Notice the mind-content. Now notice the "noticing" that is noticing the mind's content. Notice the emptiness of the noticing. Repeat these steps back and forth for awhile. A shift may occur that is like shifting from being a reflection in a mirror to being the clear space of the mirror itself. The contents of the mind will seem like non-dual appearance occurring within their own emptiness. The perspective shifts to being pure noticing with the mind's contents self-releasing effortlessly into their own emptiness which is the emptiness of the noticing. Then just continue in that state. When it fades, just repeat until stable.
April 11 at 3:37pm · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche short clip discussing thoughts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHmaBRlmYNw

Choegyal Namkhai Norbu - Dzogchen - Self-Liberation
www.youtube.com
Choegyal Namkhai Norbu is giving Dzogchen teachings in Australia during March & ...[Preview cut off]
See More
April 12 at 12:56am via mobile · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Soh: The void-awareness only seems to be a mirror behind thoughts and appearances... actually that too is an appearance, empty and non obtainable. Not seeing this however, the void-awareness seems more special than everything else so one is constantly 'subverting' back from percepts to the void. In anatta, there is nothing to choose, no mirror, or just self-mirroring reflections.
April 12 at 1:25am · Like · 1

Soh: However noticing the noticing is still important for an initial direct apprehension of Awareness.
April 12 at 1:27am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Yes, Soh, we discover the "noticing" is the perceptions. The mind has two qualities: emptiness and radiant luminosity. That is the equivalent of "emptiness and form". No amount of intellectual analysis will bring about the direct experience of "emptiness is form and form is emptiness" The quality of the experiences will always be be the vivid noticing itself. They are one reality not two. Beyond the empty "noticing" there is only its content. When the noticing is too busy energizing its content the experience becomes overwhelming due to reification of self and things. When the noticing notices its own emptiness, the content becomes self-releasing and great pleasure and joy are known continuously. Resting in this as this naked "noticing" is the path of "non-meditation". But first we must recognize authentically this "naked noticing" that has never been conditioned. This is the job of the direct introduction. However this direct introduction can also occur spontaneously in samadhi, but often needs verification and authentication due to all the possible mis-identifications regarding the correct "awareness" to rest in.
April 12 at 1:45am · Like · 3

Jackson Peterson: Kyle: Norbu's video is excellent, but that description is regarding "self-liberation" (rang drol) when one HAS ALREADY RECOGNIZED THE STATE OF RIGPA. Then all appearances self-liberate upon the arising 
(shar drol). However, the problem is not to do with "thoughts arising and self-liberating" as Norbu describes. The problem is the veil of thought and conceptualizing that prevents the initial RECOGNITION OF RIGPA from arising nakedly in experience. Hence the Buddha's and all the great masters of all traditions recommendation of bringing about the end of dualistic, cancer-like, conceptualizing initially. In Rigpa "conceptualizing" is not taking place. Flashes and fragments of thoughts arise and release until finally exhausted but no conceptualizing process is followed. These issues need to be precisely understood or one thinks that engaging in dualistic conceptualizing is occurring in Rigpa. They are mutually exclusive. Rigpa and marigpa (ignorance) do not exist in the same moment. One basis, two paths.
April 12 at 2:19am · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Jackson, it seems that anytime emptiness enters your expression it shrivels up and becomes contorted.

> Notice the emptiness of the noticing.

What do you mean, exactly? Clarifying this might be helpful in further communication.

> A shift may occur that is like shifting from being a reflection in a mirror to being the clear space of the mirror itself.

Is the mirror clear space? If so, where's the mirror and why mention it? What exactly do you mean with "the clear space of the mirror itself"? Is it nonsensical?

> The contents of the mind will seem like non-dual appearance occurring within their own emptiness.

What? "Seem"? Non-dual with regards to what?

"Occurring within their own emptiness"? What?

> The perspective shifts to being pure noticing with the mind's contents self-releasing effortlessly into their own emptiness which is the emptiness of the noticing.

"Self-[released] [...] into their own emptiness"? What is this emptiness that can be released into?

This is frustrating and seems like a great lack of understanding.
April 12 at 4:49am · Edited · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: In Mahamudra and Dzogchen it's all about the nature of mind. Focus is moved from a general investigation of the nature of reality, somewhat everything-goes, to specifically aiming at penetrating the reality or nature of our minds. By narrowing down the pool of things to investigate, this is supposedly the short-cut to realization in-this-life.

> Yes, we discover the "noticing" is the perceptions.
> The quality of the experiences will always be be the vivid noticing itself.

The quality of experience is the vivid noticing, which is the perceptions. This is what you state here. Is that your intention?

> They are one reality not two.

What happened with 'non-dual, not a-dual'? "One reality" is a-duality, sameness, oneness, Brahman. The first point of refutation in Madhyamaka, employed in both Mahamudra and Dzogchen, is sameness.

> Beyond the empty "noticing" there is only its content.

It is so strange to see this distinction come from someone who uses the words empty and emptiness all the time and claims to understand the terms. Literally, by saying the noticing is empty, you are saying the noticing is its content.

> But first we must recognize authentically this "naked noticing" that has never been conditioned.

Not only the naked noticing is empty, but everything else as well. At the end of the line of emptiness, all is unconditioned, not just the naked noticing.
April 12 at 2:38am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Jackson, I really appreciate most of what you express on this group, but you must be conflating 'emptiness' with something else.

That is strange thing to say as "emptiness" does not really point to anything in particular. But this is a place of exchange of profound, yet still conventional, ideas, and as such, clear definitions is paramount.

I'm not refuting 'your emptiness', but I think it falls outside of the consensus of the term. For the benefit of all here and everyone else you communicate with, I'd like to ask you to try to suss out the meaning of emptiness as per the traditions you speak the words of. Preferably from the horse's mouth, but as evident, many here are not shy of sharing their own definitions of emptiness, which seems to me to align more closely to the consensus.
April 12 at 2:47am · Edited · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Don't worry Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, its not so difficult! We have two philosophical uses of the word "emptiness". One is to use it as it is used in Madhyamaka and "Emptiness teachings. That one means that all phenomena have no independent and inherent existence or origination, and are all dependently originated. We see their "self-nature" is empty of any independent and ultimately valid entity-ness.

Then we have a different "emptiness" as used in Dzogchen and Mahamudra. This one means the above, but also brings in the sense of empty space. The ultimate nature in these teachings is described as "empty aware space" as Dharmata or Dharmakaya. That's the essential nature. However, the examples used point out that "like empty space, the fundamental nature of "being" as awareness is changeless, non-dependent and non-arising." So we need to understand which model we are talking about and which nomenclature applies. The mirror analogy is used in both Mahamudra and Dzogchen "Direct Introduction" and "Pointing out" rigpa or the essential Buddha Nature. I take it you haven't studied or received this "introduction" to the true nature of mind... correct?
April 12 at 2:48am · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Thank you, Jackson, for clearing this up.

I have not received formal introduction.

You are talking about 'space-like emptiness', while I'm talking about 'illusion-like emptiness'.

1. as space-like emptiness :

This is the sphere where perception and sensation of objects fades. This is the non-differentiated experience, to be directly and personally experienced by the enlightened mind. It cannot however be conceptually known or linguistically described from the outside. Even a Buddha cannot offer any criterion to describe it. In this sphere, suffering, with its coming, going, stasis, passing away, arising, stance, foundations, support, etc. end. Consistent with the universals & the summit of the Via Negativa of mystical experience, nothing can be conceptualized or said about this "apex" or capstone of nondual cognition. While clearly cognitive, for the object of wisdom-mind is emptiness, it is ineffable. If something is actually uttered concerning this, science nor metaphysics are at hand, only sheer sublime poetry.

2. as illusion-like emptiness :

In this mode of knowing ultimate truth, phenomena are apprehended as relational, interdependent and illusory. Relational because, as substantial instantiation has ceased, there are no independent objects and so all things are related. Interdependent because all objects are other-powered. Illusionary because they only appear as independent to conventional reason, while they are not. Although there is duality, this does not constitute a misconceived duality. When, with right discernment, one sees all phenomena as dependent co-arisings as they are actually present in this moment, one does not run after the past nor the future. The mere presence of duality, as mere existential instantiation is not problematic. Duality by itself causes no delusions, but the reification of its terms always does. Take this away, and the panacea against all suffering has been found !
April 12 at 3:05am · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Yes, that's good. 

When we talk about Dzogchen in particular there is an entire section of Dzogchen called "Longde". That means the "Space Section". Longde speaks very much about the "Space" of experience. Even more so in the Mangagde section of Dzogchen we have a practice called "Thogal", that is all about recognizing the "inner Space" that appears external, that Space(ying) in which all appearances arise. That Space is inseparable from Rigpa or primordial awareness, hence "aware empty space". I talk from that view, as that is my practice orientation.
We can combine the notion of "aware empty space" and "appearances" as a non-dual wisdom display with the holographic model. There is only the unique all-inclusive singular hologram, transparent,vibrating, occurring in the aware and unestablished space of its own colorful vibrating. Totally magical and joyous to behold!
April 12 at 3:25am · Edited · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: 'Space' is merely a metaphor for awakened wisdom. Like space is unconditioned, unproduced, vast, open, clear, pure, unborn, undying, unadulterated, unassailable etc. awakened wisdom is like that. Emptiness is like that. 

Emptiness in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka are exactly the same (so it would actually be inaccurate to say there's two differing philosophical uses): lack of inherency, freedom from extremes, illusory, unfindability. Everything is 100% empty in Dzogchen and in Madhyamaka. Emptiness allows for process and dynamism, if things existed inherently they'd be dead, stagnant, the basis (gzhi) wouldn't be able to display itself, there would be no possibility for awakening. 

Dependent origination in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka both apply to the 12 Nidanas. Dzogchen (unlike Madhyamaka) has both (i) afflicted dependent origination; which applies to the structuring of ignorance (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa) and, (ii) unafflicted dependent origination; i.e. lhun grub which is known in vidyā (Tib. rig pa). Lhun grub, which means 'not made by anyone', is spontaneous natural formation (autopoiesis), which is truly self-origination. 

Dharmakāya is the epitome of emptiness, but also signifies the condition of a Buddha. It is a total freedom from extremes so we cannot say it is the 'fundamental nature of being as awareness', if dharmakāya was 'being' it would be conditioned, so free from extremes.
April 12 at 9:04am via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: You are completely mistaken Kyle. Your view is grounded in Madhyamaka not Dzogchen. I am very clear on this both from direct teachings from several Dzogchen masters to me directly but also from practice. You have to abandon all your Madhyamaka frames of reference and Buddhist dogma. You can't come to where you are trying to get to through the conceptualizing mind. Rigpa has nothing to do with concepts like "freedom from extremes". That is placing an overlay of conceptual and philosophical muck open the openness of pure and unestablished "Being". Its a waste of my time to discuss Dzogchen with you further until you enter the experience of rigpa directly not theoretically. Its clear that hasn't occurred due to your attachment to Madhyamaka conceptual frameworks. Madhyamaka does not reveal rigpa, only the intellectual understanding of two-fold emptiness and dependent origination. Sorry, man... you just aren't getting it. You are surely not a practitioner of either Longde nor Thogal nor Yang Ti. Space as (ying) is definitely not a metaphor, rather it is this Spacious and Vast Ground of the Dharmata, the Ground of unestablished Being.
April 12 at 9:43am · Like

Greg Goode: Jackson, welcome back! Much livelier here with you around. Just a quick comment from the sidelines of this discussion, since I don't practice Dzogchen. 

To clarify one thing about what Madhyamika can do. You say that Madhyamika reveals "only the intellectual understanding of two-fold emptiness and dependent origination."

It can indeed do that. But it can do so much more as well.

According to the Gelug Prasangika system, Madhyamika meditation can provide nonconceptual, global, direct realization of emptiness. This realization marks the end of suffering, and the simultaneous realization of the emptiness of all things. I can tell you this from personal experience. Plus you can find it emphasized in almost all the longer Prasangika texts. That particular school does use conceptual tools, but for non-conceptual results. The way this happens is through a combination with calm abiding meditation in a very focused way. The result is that the conceptual negation (which as you know in this school is a non-affirming negation), which is often called an image, fades away during the force of the realization into imagelesness. It is a completely nondual experience, often likened to water being poured into water. The lack of conceptual imagery and conceptual exclusion universalizes the realization. It then applies to all objects, all subjects, all phenomena and beings, even emptiness itself. Nothing is excluded. 

This kind of direct realization takes you infinitely further than conceptuality can take you. Madhyamika can do this....
April 12 at 10:31am · Edited · Like · 7

Kyle Dixon: I never once claimed one could come to it through conceptualization (most Dzogchen teachers do however urge their students to have a sound understanding of the correct view, even conceptually to keep from erring into extremes). You're conceptualizing too, we're on the internet.

It can't be 'being' if it's unestablished (empty). Freedom from extremes is the correct view: 

"[Discussing vidyā] As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness. This is called the Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes."
- Longchenpa

"Space is a metaphor for awakened mind"
- Longchenpa

How you like them apples?
April 12 at 10:33am via mobile · Edited · Like · 3

Jackson Peterson: Kyle I would appreciate if you would cease from attempting to contradict every point that I write about. It really spoils the way I am trying to present the teachings and confuses the topic. If you would question as to a probing for further clarification regarding what I am trying to communicate, the adversarial attitude wouldn't be so obvious and the mood wouldn't seem so acrimonious. You may enjoy your style of debate, but I don't.
April 12 at 10:31am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: In my case I don't enjoy the way you assume that people "have not experienced" etc... and I think it is good that Kyle contradict your statements with quotes from Dzogpachenpas, Jackson. Why? Cause experiencing "space" can be mere sinking into nothingness like Nisargadatta or abiding as non-dual formless awareness and reifying it in ways that are refuted by buddhadharma. And I speak from direct experience here, since I experienced abiding as conscious presence, sinking into nothingness, and reifying both of them as "ground of being"/"source"/"knower"/"Being" etc
April 12 at 10:38am · Edited · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Greg, yes!
April 12 at 10:37am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: That's right Greg, but the Dalai Lama makes it very clear of the necessity as well regarding "non-conceptual" meditation in Gelug path practice as well as what you described. Very few "readers" about Madhyamaka actually are instructed in how to do those meditations, hence it remains a "conceptual" understanding of emptiness as well. But the Gelug path does not come close to what is realized in Dzogchen, through especially such practices as thogal. Gelug is not considered a path of yogis but more one of "panditas". Its definitely not my cup of tea... 
April 12 at 10:39am · Like

Greg Goode: If A is not close to B, then B is not close to A! 

Dzogchen is not my cup of tea either, since I have Pure Land Buddhism and the advaitic Direct Path....
April 12 at 10:43am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Those "apples" Kyle apply to expounding the philosophical view of Dzogchen. Thogal is a different discussion and nomenclature. Must I now quote Longchenpa where he is actually teaching pith instructions to students and explained the "space-like, vast dimension of rigpa" quite directly? I am not interested in playing "one up manship" with quotes with you. Its always been a waste of time. When I do successfully, you call it "cherry picking" or "mistranslations". Never mind Kyle... not interested in that game with you.
April 12 at 10:45am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Also, most students are urged to have a solid understanding of dependent origination, prior to engaging in practices such as tregchö etc. The definitive view considered (by the key Dzogchen adepts of the past) to be Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka. Specifically the early Indian view expounded by Nāgārjuna etc. You can read many Dzogchen teachers state this. Dzogchen is experiential, however when discussing the view intellectually or when refuting other positions in debate etc., Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka is the view which is implemented. Norbu Rinpoche states; 'Nāgārjuna's view is flawless'.
April 12 at 10:46am via mobile · Like · 1

Din Robinson: Jackson, you can always block Kyle, which will keep him from being able to see your posts and answer them, then maybe he'll get the idea that you're serious about not liking his oneupmanship and constant debate style
April 12 at 10:50am · Like

Din Robinson: it seems to me, the highest intention here should be to bring truth into clear focus not fight amongst each for who is "more right" than the other
April 12 at 10:52am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Great idea Din, but Soh made him an "Admin." so he can see and respond without my seeing his negative responses. But thanks!
April 12 at 10:52am · Like

Din Robinson: actually my post was aimed at Kyle more than you, maybe he'll wake up to the fact his style is not working for other people
April 12 at 10:54am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: His style works perfectly for me. Because of his debating with Jax I can have wider perspective and see how differently certain things can be interpreted ^^
April 12 at 10:56am · Edited · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Kyle, there is no need to know anything about Buddhist philosophy before engaging in Dzogchen. It is probably better that students don't. They then begin using the "mind". Understanding "emptiness" intellectually is a "mind" method. Dzogchen does not address the mind, but rather the nature of mind, which is by nature empty. But you don't get that...
April 12 at 10:55am · Like · 1

Ville Räisänen: At last some points start to clear up. Dzoghzen is not the way alone, actually awareness, Knowing, whatever Vast Superior Infinite Space it is called, is the same as in Advaita or in kundalini tantra. If it is not understood as emptiness as a base which is wrong in any way you look at it Only difference seem to be the view that is Anatta, no-self. Now, if Anatta is not realized, awareness becomes the Self. If there is Anatta, awareness is seen mind's luminosity. Okay...
April 12 at 10:56am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: That's great Piotr Ludwiński, because you guys come from the same orientation.
April 12 at 10:56am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Ville Räisänen, in Dzogchen and Mahamudra and Zen, anatta is a discovery of insight in meditation as vipassana. Its not an understanding ABOUT emptiness of self and things, its the experience itself. Which is better?
April 12 at 10:59am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Greg Goode, that's great... and what you share and teach is always brilliant and useful... 
April 12 at 11:03am · Like · 2

Mardava Christian Palocz: really Jackson you believe emptiness is an experience? or, is just this way you pose it part of the misunderstanding? so, i agree with you that it is not ABOUT emptiness but also it is not an experience. none is better.
April 12 at 11:05am · Edited · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: "because you guys come from the same orientation." First you assume that there is orientation, then you assume we share this orientation. Jackson, I have noticed that you easily assume many things about people and write statements based on these mere assumptions. They often look like they are posted to make these people look less credible in discussions. Do you write these post to argue or is it manifestation of compassionate activity that is supposed to be expression of true realization of what you are speaking about?
April 12 at 11:05am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Ville, we can't even consider the Base empty, because its never separate from its potential. Its a joke to think otherwise. That being "pregnant", nullifies "emptiness". So there you go with Shiva Shakti. We have the same with Samantabadhra and Samantabhadri. All of this is realized in the moment of "gnosis".
April 12 at 11:07am · Like

Ville Räisänen: Well, I have the experience what you call Great Death in zen. Total disappearing of I, in samadhi. That is not Anatta, it is an entry into I AM but without needing to come to I because the witness is also gone. Basis shift to manifestation. I've mediated on kundalini and awareness for years, please stop thinking we are all like little childs here 
April 12 at 11:09am · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Mardava Christian Palocz, this should help: I wrote this awhile ago:

In the Dzogchen phase of pracitce known as Trekchod or "cutting through tension", there eventually comes a sense of completion: no more practice, no searching and no effort to "stabilize a state". When it is recognized that Awareness or Beingness is naked of any particular flavor or form or "feel", that Awareness is then known to be the Knowing within all experience. All experience is equal in this case or sometimes known as "same taste" in Dzogchen or Buddhist Mahamudra.

We have to be alert that we don't have a subtle definition of Awareness that colors its empty, nakedness. That means we , by mistake, make Awareness into a particualr state of experience. That would be like: "Awareness is a clear openness that is spacious and serene" or "a sense of awakened-ness" or "transparency" or "bliss" or "love" etc. We then have defined Awareness and by doing so we have made it possible to lose the "state of Awareness". When we aren't feeling that "clear openness that is spacious and serene" we feel we have lost Awareness. But Awareness has no definition, all experience is the experience of Awareness. Awareness has no form or state of its own. That then allows Awareness to be every state, every feeling,every emotion,every thought, every identity sensation, every perception. That being so, what is there left to achieve? Every experience, happy, sad or neutral is the appearance of Awareness. We give up completely the notion that Awareness has to have some particular flavor or color. Oh my god, we can finally really relax! Its over! Every experience is equal in Awareness! What could you possibly practice? You are already aware, so you don't need to become aware. Everything is already happening however its happening, so there is nothing special to do. No special "state" to attain! If you experience a special state, that's fine, but it will never become stable. The only stability is your unchanging perceiving of whatever is experienced. That unchanging perceivingness is Awareness, the heart of the Dharmakaya (Pure Primordial Being).
April 12 at 11:09am · Like · 2

Ville Räisänen: I'm not only intellectual, I have actually done the practice
April 12 at 11:10am · Like

Jackson Peterson: I was agreeing with you Ville Räisänen... 
April 12 at 11:11am · Like

Ville Räisänen: Where?
April 12 at 11:12am · Like

Ville Räisänen: Sorry   
April 12 at 11:12am · Like · 1

Ville Räisänen: Broken english...
April 12 at 11:12am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Better than a broken leg... 
April 12 at 11:14am · Like

Mardava Christian Palocz: Jackson, sounds still like something quite "special" and as some sort of experience. i read what you write as giving a tint, even though you say its nothing special, to the experience you still describe it as "unchanging perceivingness"...this can still be deconstructed into emptiness.
April 12 at 11:16am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Well Madava, you can't deconstuct basic Knowingness. Its permanent as the Dharmakaya. You can't deconstruct further than that. Deconstruction is a mental gymnastic that has nothing to do with Rigpa. Rigpa is naturally "deconstructed" without a process. The type you describe is artificial, an artifice of the intellect.
April 12 at 11:19am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: I'm not really trying to 'one up' anyone, merely giving an alternate point of view on a few things. We each have our views. If you'll notice though, it only deviated into ad hominem attacks with your own response Jackson, where you resorted to casting unfounded aspersions at my own 'experience' in order to discredit my opinion. So I apologize but I will fire back, and will provide evidence for my statements in a situation like that. Not to one up anyone, if anything I would interpret your ad hominem attack as an attempt at oneupmanship. Like I said though I don't take it personally, I just respond. I've never once said 'you're wrong'... however you have. I've never once said you don't know what you're talking about. Never once said 'sorry man.. you just aren't getting it', never said 'it's a waste of time to discuss dzogchen with you', never have said 'you are completely mistaken', or 'your view is Hinayana' etc., I never say things like that. All I do is present another opinion and point of view. 

Of course 'how you like them apples' isn't a very cordial thing to say, but the magnitude of aspersions you had just casted to say I was wrong wasn't exactly good game either. 

At any rate, we're both just people giving opinions, I like having mine challenged... makes me have to think. I love it when someone absolutely shreds my view or counters my opinion with theirs so we can both explore, compare and contrast our views. To me, it's a great time. 

But hear you and I do honestly try to be mindful of my responses. I will say I'm glad you returned, Greg's right it does make for a much livelier forum! And as I said before, even though I may disagree with you on some points, and vice versa, your point of view is always respected.
April 12 at 11:25am via mobile · Edited · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Ok... let's see how we can both do better... 
April 12 at 11:24am · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: Din, I can understand the option of blocking someone being useful when, say for instance, someone's being harassed in a manner which is concerning, physically threatened, stalked etc. But simply blocking someone because you disagree with them and don't want to hear their opinion is what kids in grade school do.
April 12 at 11:34am via mobile · Edited · Like

Mardava Christian Palocz: you can deconstruct when you still name it and give emptiness characteristics like "unchanging perceivingness". i understand rigpa is naturally deconstructed without a process but since you keep on describing it i perceive a subtle reification, and what you call "mental gymnastics" is just a way to help you see your subtle reification.
April 12 at 11:32am · Like

Jackson Peterson: The reason Kyle that I said what I said was because I was pointing out a technical reason for your type of responses. They seemed to be coming from a place of intellectual presumption without the wisdom clarity that comes with deep and profound experience. This is still my take. Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But I have gone head to head with many over the internet for over 10 years and I have gotten pretty good at spotting what's up with "who" when things are going "off the rails". You seem to respond very analytically, in a way that almost never catches my admiration as though "here's is a guy of deep practice". I don't sense that with you. I do sense it with Thusness. I sense it more with Soh. Soh and I also disagree but a certain experiential Knowing attends his writing that I respect. There are many that catch my eye as well, like Dannon. His authenticity comes through even though his studies are very thin. I want to be honest with you... its not hostility.
April 12 at 11:33am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Mardava Christian Palocz, don't worry about "reification". Its harmless.
April 12 at 11:38am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Mardava Christian Palocz, that text was written as a "deconstruction" of Awareness. Awareness has permanent attributes. These are the attributes of a Buddha, like compassion, unconditional love, wisdom, power, omniscience, all pervading without obstruction etc.
April 12 at 11:46am via mobile · Like

Din Robinson: Kyle, blocking someone or even the threat of blocking someone may be effective in getting their attention in a way that nothing else can do
April 12 at 11:53am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: @Jackson
> We have to be alert that we don't have a subtle definition of Awareness that colors its empty, nakedness.

I think most people with an analytical inclination — not just towards the dharma, but as an expression of personality — will find the above quote distasteful. Do you see why?

In your compassion to share your most precious treasure with all, you must invariably be speaking untruth; your expression will trip over itself, stumble and crash. And that is okay. What's missing is grace — a humorous tint of inescapable paradoxicallity; a crooked smile that acknowledges the treasure is ineffable but we are stuck with words.

Some words are not truer than other words. Both emptiness and awareness allows poetic expression: Calling awareness love, bliss, spacious, transparent... naked, empty...

In other words, "why so serious?" 
April 12 at 12:10pm via mobile · Edited · Like

Mardava Christian Palocz: i am not worried about reification. i am worried about you confusing emptiness with attributes...and it is not a worry it is just part of the conversation. your list of buddha attributes just proves my point that you seem to be giving emptiness attributes. it was to all these attributes that a little "mental gymnastics" would help to deconstruct....unless certainly you have the experience of rigpa. yet again i call an experience, and this is why i was asking you if you really think emptiness is an experience or is it just a limitation of language to call it an experience....?
April 12 at 12:12pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Mardava Christian Palocz. Word games, not really points for serious discourse. Lets discuss how to best actualize this changeless awareness in immediate experience...
April 12 at 12:22pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, that's all well and good and I respect your opinion. There are many areas where I feel the exact same way towards you, and that's my opinion. 

We're both viewing each other through the veil of our own opinions and respective confirmation biases. We don't catch each others admiration because of that. As for everyone you believe expounds a solid or profound view, they're people who mirror your own view. People who don't mirror your own view you will deem 'inexperienced'. Relationship is a mirror, Scott Kiloby discussed that on a video once, referencing J. Krishnamurti and that always stuck with me. You see a reflection of your own view in those you're attracted to opinion-wise (and in other ways). Same goes for me. 

You respond analytically too, you just use different words. Since my words don't match your words, you deem my insight to be a deviation from the 'standard' i.e. your own view. 

That's great that you're being honest with me, but you're being honest about how you feel, honest about your opinion. It's not as if you're breaking the news of accurate inherent truths to me, there's no such thing. I can't interpret it as hostility, it's an interpretation, opinion, translation etc. Same goes for my view of you, we access 'persons', 'places', 'things' via comparison and measurement against a point of reference, and so we're never actually experiencing the person, place, thing in-and-of itself, again, no such thing. When this becomes explicitly apparent, every view and everything is disarmed.
April 12 at 12:26pm via mobile · Like · 1

Din Robinson: my feeling about the way this thread is going is that it's way too cerebral and not enough heart
April 12 at 12:30pm · Edited · Like · 1

Piotr Ludwiński: "That's great that you're being honest with me, but you're being honest about how you feel, honest about your opinion. It's not as if you're breaking the news of accurate inherent truths to me, there's no such thing. I can't interpret it as hostility, it's an interpretation, opinion, translation etc. Same goes for my view of you, we access 'persons', 'places', 'things' via comparison and measurement against a point of reference, and so we're never actually experiencing the person, place, thing in-and-of itself, again, no such thing. When this becomes explicitly apparent, every view and everything is disarmed." thanks, needed to hear this
April 12 at 12:30pm · Like · 1

Din Robinson: Jackson, what you shared earlier is definitely worth repeating! 

In the Dzogchen phase of pracitce known as Trekchod or "cutting through tension", there eventually comes a sense of completion: no more practice, no searching and no effort to "stabilize a state". When it is recognized that Awareness or Beingness is naked of any particular flavor or form or "feel", that Awareness is then known to be the Knowing within all experience. All experience is equal in this case or sometimes known as "same taste" in Dzogchen or Buddhist Mahamudra.

We have to be alert that we don't have a subtle definition of Awareness that colors its empty, nakedness. That means we , by mistake, make Awareness into a particualr state of experience. That would be like: "Awareness is a clear openness that is spacious and serene" or "a sense of awakened-ness" or "transparency" or "bliss" or "love" etc. We then have defined Awareness and by doing so we have made it possible to lose the "state of Awareness". When we aren't feeling that "clear openness that is spacious and serene" we feel we have lost Awareness. But Awareness has no definition, all experience is the experience of Awareness. Awareness has no form or state of its own. That then allows Awareness to be every state, every feeling,every emotion,every thought, every identity sensation, every perception. That being so, what is there left to achieve? Every experience, happy, sad or neutral is the appearance of Awareness. We give up completely the notion that Awareness has to have some particular flavor or color. Oh my god, we can finally really relax! Its over! Every experience is equal in Awareness! What could you possibly practice? You are already aware, so you don't need to become aware. Everything is already happening however its happening, so there is nothing special to do. No special "state" to attain! If you experience a special state, that's fine, but it will never become stable. The only stability is your unchanging perceiving of whatever is experienced. That unchanging perceivingness is Awareness, the heart of the Dharmakaya (Pure Primordial Being).
April 12 at 12:37pm · Like · 3

Din Robinson: i'm not really interested in making anyone (including myself) right or wrong, i'm just interested in the expression of truth, sharing it, helping others see it for themselves, won't you all join me?
April 12 at 12:39pm · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I was just about to ask you Din; what do you suggest, then, seeing as the discussion is becoming too cerebral?

But you seized the moment and simply continued the discussion the manner you deemed satisfactory (the quote).

And what characterizes this continuation? Ideas, concepts, thoughts — cerebral-ness.
April 12 at 12:42pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Din, if anything the threat shows a level of distress within the other individual which should be respected. Just as when animals in the wild display warnings when threatened, it's sort of a last ditch resort to say 'hey buddy I don't like you messing with me'... except when someone blocks you on Facebook the rattlesnake doesn't kill you. I could care less if I'm blocked, if anything it would sadden me that I had upset someone or put someone else under a degree of stress like that. It's a good lesson and reminder that not everyone has a thick skin, it's never good to partake in upsetting or stressing out anyone or anything.
April 12 at 12:44pm via mobile · Like

Din Robinson: Kyle, don't you think it would be better use of your time to actually add to what Jackson says rather than shoot it down all the time, stress what works for you and leave the rest alone, bring forward the truth as you see it
April 12 at 12:53pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon.. I am interested in triggering insights and to inspire further engagement in these methods of spiritual enlightenment. That's all. I am not interested in debating.
April 12 at 1:05pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Din, isn't that what we're all doing? Bringing forth the truth as we see it?
April 12 at 1:15pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: No Kyle Dixon, you are bringing an over-criticality to my posts and contributions. Its not necessary.
April 12 at 1:29pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Disagreeing isn't allowed?
April 12 at 1:49pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Targeted over-criticality isn't necessary.
April 12 at 1:50pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Why is it targeted? You disagree with things I say and I think that's fine... I would hope everyone would subject everything to scrutiny, critique and critical analysis.
April 12 at 1:59pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: It's not targeted at you if that's what you're implying... If Billy Bob or Mary Smith said something I disagreed with I'd share my opinion too.
April 12 at 2:02pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Doesn't mean anyone's wrong or right. It's just a different view, if they contrast they contrast, why not celebrate diversity?
April 12 at 2:04pm via mobile · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: > I am interested in triggering insights and to inspire further engagement in these methods of spiritual enlightenment.
> I am not interested in debating.

Very well.

Seems condescending, but also well-intentioned and benign.

You've clearly stated your intent for posting, but what is your expectation of doing so? Ooohs and aaahs and no criticism? What do you deem a satisfactory reaction to you sharing?

I'm asking genuinely and honestly 
April 12 at 2:07pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: You can IM me, this discussion is not appropriate on this or any thread. Thanks
April 12 at 2:08pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, I'm just not sure that I understand your intolerance of being questioned. Usually when people make statements in a group setting or public forum, those statements are fair game. 

Nevertheless, not trying to make you feel under attack but what's supposed to happen when you make misleading or inaccurate assertions? 

For instance, above you straight up told Ville that the basis in dzogchen cannot be considered empty, even saying it would be 'a joke' to consider it empty. That's ludicrous, the only reason it has it's potentiality is precisely because it's empty, if it existed inherently it would have zero potential. 

And then you proceeded to compare Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri to Shiva and Shakti, when Dzogchen strictly refutes the Hindu Tantra model. Longchenpa among others specifically refute the Brahman. 

I can understand showing similarities. But there's a large difference between comparison/contrast and conflation.

Are you suggesting things like that go unaddressed and unquestioned? I'm really failing to understand how that's ok.
April 12 at 3:09pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Din Robinson: Kyle, what the hell is your obsession with Jackson? 

why not just post what you want, why always in relation to what he is saying?
April 12 at 3:14pm · Like

Din Robinson: Kyle, why not trying to contribute to the group with your own insights and knowledge, not always in relation to what Jackson is saying, do you see the difference?
April 12 at 3:16pm · Like

Din Robinson: in other groups and threads we poke fun at people who act like the "advaita police", you seem to come to this behaviour here, do you see that?
April 12 at 3:18pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Because what's the use of tradition in a centuries old system which is unbroken in lineage when you just present it as some other teaching? The masters of these traditions went way out of their way to define the system and contrast it with other teachings, they weren't fools. They wouldn't have spent the time if they were wasting it. I don't get it, how you can condone that.
April 12 at 3:33pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Aren't you likewise policing me?
April 12 at 3:51pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Kyle, your views are "company line". Much in Dzogchen had to be incorporated in fashion with the then current power of the Sarma schools. Longchenpa was under that pressure too. You don't see Samantabhadra and Samantabhadri as Shiva Shakti correlates? The notion of the Basis not being empty is my point being that one cannot go by words and descriptions. The entire Trikaya is the Basis. That means there is no aspect that is actually empty, indeterminate yes. But you cannot separate "essence, nature and energy" into separate parts. Its the indeterminacy of potential that allows for infinite expression. In this way we see that even "emptiness" is empty of emptiness. Malcolm commented to me that he sees strong Samkya influence in the Nying Thig. The placing rigpa in the heart as an indestructable shining thigle of mutliple colors comes right out of the Upanishads and Vedas. You gotta loosen up man! Dzogchen was manufactured and influenced from many sources, not all Buddhist, at different periods. Its still a work in progress...
April 12 at 3:58pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Din, you do realize conflation of systems isn't smiled upon? I just read yesterday, Dudjom Rinpoche stating, slightly paraphrased: 'those who uphold or teach wrong views in regards to dzogchen, may the 3 guardians, Ekajati, Rahula and Dorje Legpa, drink their blood'.
April 12 at 4:03pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, you believe that mythological garbage?
April 12 at 4:07pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Do you understand what empty means? Indeterminate means empty! Lack of inherency!
April 12 at 4:08pm via mobile · Like · 1

Logan Truthe: I agree very much with Kyle, teaching the wrong views is creating the worst kind of consequences for yourself in this and future lives. Be very careful about this
April 12 at 4:17pm · Unlike · 2

Kyle Dixon: Actually, can't even say indeterminate... determinacy and indeterminacy are 2 of the 6 erroneous views which aren't to be associated with the basis (gzhi). And that makes sense, being that indeterminacy would be an extreme with various implications. 

The tantras say: 

'Concerning the belief that the basis is indefinite: were the basis unfixed, becoming whatever the mind thinks, consequently, the fault would be that confusion could arise even after having attained liberation.

Concerning the belief that the basis is definite: if that were the case, change would be impossible. The fault would be that the defilement of ignorance could not be purified.'
April 12 at 4:57pm via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Ville Räisänen: Kyle, thanks for pointing that I may have misleading teching. You said: "For instance, above you straight up told Ville that the basis in dzogchen cannot be considered empty, even saying it would be 'a joke' to consider it empty. That's ludicrous, the only reason it has it's potentiality is precisely because it's empty, if it existed inherently it would have zero potential."

I may have expressed things baddly. What I meant was emptiness can not be seen same way as awareness. Like changing awareness straight to emptiness. Yes, awareness is also empty as anything else.

Samantabhadra/Samantabhadri is interesting. In wikipedia: "The two are usually depicted together in Tantric union." 

But there is also difference: "The term Samantabhadra in Sanskrit means thus: Sam(equipoise/equanimity/equaled/balance of polarization/equality of Dual and Non-Dual views as supplementary and complementary/Non-Duo)+Anta(end)+Bhadra(disciplined/structured/civilized/virtuous/righteous/conscientious/moral)= The Spirit of Truth that is righteous."

What I would say is that all hindu tantra and advaita vedanta is not the same thing. In advaita it is clearly stated that awareness is One, there is no other. This is same with many kashmir shaivism teachers. But there are also different opinions. Pandits and yogis not always agree  For instance in "shaktism" there is a picture of shakti standing on a corpse of shiva. What does that mean? Basis shift to manifestation. This may also be extreme view if it is not seen that shiva is also all. So where do we end? Balance of dual and non-dual view. This is just my take on things, not any teaching or from any scripture. I'm very happy that I found you people who know about emptiness teachings and Nagarjuna. This was really important to me.
Saturday at 2:14am · Unlike · 3

Steven Monaco: IMHO... As I Follow the thread, I, sense the exquisite clarity and truth in Jackson's statements and volleys. I view this from sense/experience outside of a Buddhist Belief system and like it that way. While I value the path set forth in /of Buddhism, I feel the truth can and needs be said in our language... Jackson's explanations I feel speak to both methods. The Field is beyond words and smiles at our attempts to point with foreign symbols... Shimmers... the lIght. Gracias to all playing here may the Shimmers touch you... in your way.
Sunday at 4:45pm · Like

No comments:

Post a Comment