Dharma Connection: Nyoshul Lungtog's Instant Realization

Jackson Peterson

Here is a text by Tulku Thondup that is a different translation of the story of Nyoshul Lungtog's realization of authentic Rigpa as pointed out by his teacher, Patrul Rinpoche. What is especially enlightening is Nyoshul's comments at the end regarding "rigpa" and one's senses of seeing and hearing:

If there is no crucial means of teaching by oral instructions, the words, supposed to be of high realization from a Lama, well get nowhere. Nowadays teachers just dance to the tunes of he the texts. That is not sufficient. Once, Patrul was living with us disciples in a field on this side of Nagchungma hermitage.... Every day at dusk, Patrul would do a meditation session on the training of Namkha Sumthrug (gazing at the sky), stretched out on his back on a new woolen carpet on a piece of grass the size of himself. One evening, while he was lying there as usual, he said to me "Lungchey (Lung-gChes = dear Lung-tog)! Did you say that you do not know the essence of the mind?" (I answered,) "Yes, sir, I don't." (Abu said;) "Oh, there is nothing not to know. Come here." So, I went to him. (He said:) "Lie down, as I am lying, and look at the sky." As I did so, (the conversation went on as follows:)

"Do you see the stars in the sky?"

"Yes."

"Do you hear the dogs barking in Dzogchen monastery?"

"Yes"

"Well, that is the meditation!"

At that moment, I arrived at a certainty (of realization) from within. I had been liberated from the fetters of "it is" and "it is not." I had realized the primordial wisdom, the naked (union of) emptiness and intrinsic awareness [rig pa]. I was introduced to this realization by his blessing, as Saraha said:

"He in whose heart the words of the master have entered, sees (the truth) like a treasure in his own palm."

Afterwards, when the words (of Patrul Rinpoche) were (intellectually) examined, there was nothing much, but just his having said that the eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness are the intrinsic awareness. However, it should be understood that the introduction (to Dzogpa Chenpo) took place (through these words) because of the transmission of blessing, the absolute transmission of the realization of the meaning of the Heart Essence (sNying-Thig).

Like · · Unfollow Post · March 23 at 4:00am

Seen by 97

Joel Agee, Dairin Ashley and Steven Monaco like this.

Jackson Peterson: Understanding this fully can bring a real shift in one's perception and insight...

Its funny, I used to sense that rigpa was a default awareness "similar" to "just seeing" and "just hearing". But to recognize rigpa as being "just the seeing" and "just the hearing", unifies "awareness" with perception, inseparably so, instead of considering that "awareness" is aware OF perception.

An ancient Zen story: One day a monk disciple came

upon his Zen teacher and asked:

“How master may I come to perceive my Buddha

Nature?”

The master responded:

“You cannot perceive your

Buddha Nature because that which perceives, is

your Buddha Nature”

March 23 at 4:14am · Edited · Like · 3

Piotr Ludwiński: “You cannot perceive your

Buddha Nature because that which perceives, is

your Buddha Nature” some "satsang" teachers use the same logic to construe "ultimate subject", kind of Absolute/Self, and this logic is used to establish permanent "nothing" from which "something" arise,

"ultimate subject" etc. It is used to establish separation between "awareness" and it's "content" in general.

March 23 at 10:54am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Interesting Piotr!

March 23 at 12:23pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Vidyā 'is what's looking out our eyes and is hearing through our ears' is your own glossing. The story of Nyoshul Lungtog's recognition is not stating that.

March 23 at 2:15pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Rigpa is the only Knower and Looker... Rigpa is the "Divine Eye" of the Buddha. Didn't you know that Kyle Dixon? As Nyoshul said, rigpa is the eye and ear sense..

March 23 at 2:34pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: The words 'rigpa is the eye sense and ear sense' are not included in that text. That is your own interpretation. Vidyā is not the knower and looker, that is the ālaya.

March 23 at 2:39pm via mobile · Like · 1

Soh: How can there be the sense of an observer in true rigpa? Rigpa is not an observer. An observer is the ego as Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche said.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/self-liberation-through-seeing-with.html

Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:

Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.

Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.

And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything,

awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.

And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),

Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;

only a naked manifest awareness is present.

(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.

It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.

It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.

However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.

It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.

(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.

This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.

This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.

Awakening to Reality: Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

March 23 at 5:40pm · Like · 3 · Remove Preview

Soh: In my understanding, Rigpa is not seeing the inseparability of a real observer from the observed (that would still be substantialist non-dualism)... its seeing that there never was an observer apart from this process of pure observing - these empty and lucid shapes, colours, sounds, lights, rays - inseparability of emptiness, clarity and display. Both subject and objects are false conventions imputed on that like the word 'weather'.

March 23 at 5:45pm · Edited · Like · 4

Jackson Peterson: Kyle, those words are regarding rigpa and the seeing and hearing sense were Nyoshul's words as translated by Tulku Thondup. They were not my words or interpretation. Read the text again.

March 23 at 5:57pm via mobile · Like

Dannon Flynn: Yet, regardless of the philosphical nuances, this pointer is a provisional technique to allow the seeing and hearing to relax passively and allow Rigpa to be recognized directly through the senses. Once we are at the right place then we simply look and see if it is empty or substantial. In my opinion it is both IS/IS-NOT neither. No use in really thinking about it.

March 23 at 6:02pm · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Soh, there is no sense of an observer in rigpa, it is just the knowing observingness. It is the Buddha Mind, Bodhicitta, that intelligently Knows experience. It is a spiritual Beingness, that is empty, unestablished, all pervading, unchanging and self -knowing. It resides in the heart, its rigpa is in the brain, and its light shines out the eyes. It is the unchanging 3 Vajras that have never migrated. Samsaric experience is just like daydreams that occur without affecting the Bohdicitta, the Knower, like reflections in a mirror.

March 23 at 6:06pm via mobile · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: " there is no sense of an observer" "Samsaric experience is just like daydreams that occur without affecting the Bohdicitta, the Knower, like reflections in a mirror." contradiction

March 23 at 6:43pm · Like

Dannon Flynn: Interesting. I had studied Reiki for many years, but preferred Usui's and his students' teachings rather than the new-age ones. Usui named the Reiki energy "Child of the Great Light" which shines out the eyes, hands, and breath. Reiki is differentiated from ordinary ki (prana) by being 'universal' (rei)

March 23 at 8:04pm · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Piotr, there is no contradiction at all. This "Knower" is free from a self-reflexiveness. It's like a "knowingness as an open wisdom space". It's completely "unestablished" yet is replete with all the Buddha attributes which are eternal. The attributes are like the uncreated rays of the sun. That fill the universe unimpededly.

March 24 at 3:06am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Dannon Flynn, I would like to read more regarding "original" reiki". I have read some very interesting stuff in their teachings. It's the marketing package that really casts a new-age shadow upon some really essential teachings.

March 24 at 3:10am via mobile · Like · 1

Dannon Flynn: And the fascination with symbols as if the healing comes from them. Usui was a spiritual seeker who was into Japanese Vajrayana/ Shingon.

March 24 at 12:03pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, at any rate the point is that the text doesn't allude to 'what is looking out the eyes' etc., it simply says do you see the stars, do you hear the barking. If Patrul Rinpoche had asked 'do you recognize that which is seeing the stars?' then I would have no objection to your commentary. But he doesn't, because every sentient being feels that they are 'what's looking out the eyes'.

March 24 at 12:40pm via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, "every sentient being feels that they are what is looking out the eyes" because they are correct. Keep it simple! The truth is closer than you think my friend!

March 24 at 1:32pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: I find that to be an unskillful pointer.

March 24 at 1:53pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Who is looking out your eyes Kyle Dixon? When practicing thogal, who is looking out your eyes at the thigles? Your Aunt or Uncle? King Kong? Lol... Ya gotta laugh sometimes...

March 24 at 2:08pm via mobile · Like

Robert Dominik: Who is looking out your yes? <- There are appearances that constitute the experience of vision. There is a bodily sensation of having an eye. They are dependent but that does not mean that there is someone that sees through them eyes. At least that's my take on the matter.

March 24 at 2:35pm · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: In a practice in Dzogchen called thogal, we bring are "rigpa" to our eyes as we/rigpa consciousness "looks" out the eyes at various luminous rigpa quanta. This one looking is not a personal self or entity. It's an "unestablished" Clear Light Knowingness".

March 24 at 2:49pm via mobile · Like

Robert Dominik: Well I am a newbie in many of these things so I post here just to try to clear my confusion. Having said that - let me ask a question. Is Clear Light Knowingness something that exists apart from the eye consciousness (and or apart from what is seen) and can be said to function outside of it (i.e. it looks out the eyes)?

March 24 at 2:56pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Robert Dominik, great questions! All perceiving is Clear Light Knowing. There can be various filters "over" this Pure Eye, but there is nothing else Seeing or Knowing. I suspect there is only one Clear Light looking out of all eyes, looking at Itself.

March 24 at 3:12pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: I actually deleted the 'who is looking out of your eyes' question I originally posted to you because I was not asking out of curiosity to be honest, and I do not agree with your sentiments on that.

Yes conventionally we say the individual is looking out of the eyes and there are certain views and practices which tentatively implement this notion, but engendering such a view beyond conventionality is erring into substantiality in my opinion.

March 24 at 5:10pm · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: Jackson, the notion of a universal substratum or awareness is a non-Buddhist, Hindu notion. That would be a substantialist view. I know from experience that the deconstruction of personality makes it tempting to reify a universal source... but impersonality is just that, impersonality, but it does not mean there is some collective universal clear light shining out of everyone.

Consciousness, mind, and rigpa/wisdom is always (conventionally) an individual stream, non-dual and luminous.

http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html

Dalai Lama: "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."

http://www.atikosha.org/2010/11/rigpa-ii.html

Malcolm:

"...Now, depending on whether this consciousness without dualistic thought is defined as fundamental and over-arching, or unique and personal, we have the distinction between Hindu Vedanta and the mind-only position of Indian Buddhist Cittamatrins. It could even be the svasamvedana of the Buddhist logicians, the non-conceptual self-knowing mind.

Such definitions of vidyā above bear no resemblance to the definitions of vidyā stated by Indian masters such as Vimalamitra..."

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

Thusness, on Stage 4:

...The tendency to extrapolate an Ultimate Reality or Universal Consciousness where we are part of this Reality remains surprisingly strong. Effectively the dualistic knot is gone but the bond of seeing things inherently isn't. 'Dualistic' and 'inherent' knots that prevent the full experiencing of our Maha, empty and non-dual nature of pristine awareness are two very different 'perceptual spells' that blind...

..........

The notion of a universal source is also refuted in Shurangama Sutra: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html

Dalai Lama Answers Questions on Various Topics

hhdl.dharmakara.net

A: I understand the Primordial Buddha, also known as Buddha Samantabhadra, to be...

March 24 at 5:51pm · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Soh: The notion that awareness 'looks out of the eyes' is also very dualistic in my experience. In my experience and insight, seeing is happening at seeing, which is to say nowhere, because there is no fabricated vantage point of an observer being located somewhere behind the eyes in relation to perceived objects in which location could be measured. That notion of an abiding observer has been completely seen through via insight. Awareness is not denied, but the dualistic and inherent view of Awareness. Feeling is just tactile sensations (which is also empty and luminous), hearing is just sounds (sound is also empty, like echos, yet luminous and vivid), never an agent/feeler/hearer. The whole construct of a subject, object, and even a mind-body has dropped off and experience is just pure manifestation inseparable from conditions, empty of subject and object, centerless and boundless. This is pure transparency.

March 24 at 6:15pm · Edited · Like · 1

Dannon Flynn: Right, it is more like an empty tornado of sensations that spin around a hollow core. Not that the core exists independently of the tornado.

March 24 at 5:57pm · Like · 1

Soh: In fact even Advaita non-dual (not anatta) should stop the refication of "light flowing through the Eye", as Thusness pointed out in June 2009:

(6:08 PM) Thusness: until u r so clear in real time experience that the observer and the observed are one. Then u further investigate this experience if they are always one, why is there any separation in the first place?

(6:09 PM) Thusness: why experience occasionally appears split?

(6:09 PM) AEN: propensities?

(6:09 PM) Thusness: continue this investigation and experience the split as well as the non-dual.

(6:11 PM) Thusness: till u r thoroughly clear that observer and observed is merely an assumption. There is always only observation. Just one pure witnessing.

(6:11 PM) AEN: oic..

(6:14 PM) Thusness: This is the non-dual experience that u must have in order to understand the Advaita witnessing. One whole Experience. You do not say it is flowing through the Eye, there is absolutely no difference between the light and everything. The light is the everything. U must have this experience first.

(6:14 PM) AEN: icic..

(6:16 PM) Thusness: After this do not extrapolate, do not reify, do not abstract anything further. Any urge to go beyond, see with clarity it is the tendency...until u are able to rest completely first.

March 24 at 6:12pm · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: Kyle Dixon, Jackson is pointing to the I AMness. That I AMness is an important insight insofar as it reveals the 'unconditioned clarity' that is also the basis for practicing Dzogchen. However that 'unconditioned clarity' that is the knowing aspect in the mind/thought (I don't mean concepts/images) realm, i.e. the subtlest aspect of clear light mind or activity, should also be discerned correctly.

Nonetheless having direct insight into this pure instant presence or knowingness which may feel like the core of existence or being is also an important insight in my experience. After this insight there is not much danger of 'nihilism' or 'conceptual understanding' and one is being led by the 'taste' to try and bring it to perfection. With wrong understanding, one experiences this 'taste' only in the thought realm, forms an identity out of it, and is stuck trying to abide in a formless samadhi day and night. Then there is entry and exit as it becomes a state to be achieved. With correct understanding, one gradually brings this taste to perfection in all and every manifestation (seeing 'same taste/one taste' in all sense doors throughout the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep) through non-dual and emptiness insights.

March 24 at 6:14pm · Edited · Like · 2

Dannon Flynn: I think the idea "clear light flowing out the eyes" or "the one seeing out the eyes" is conventional speech. I think it is fine to reference it this way as a way to communicate experience. Technically speaking, the clear light is a term for the intelligent lucidity of emptiness, and of course is not a substance or self or anything established.

March 24 at 6:15pm · Like

Dannon Flynn: I think that it is useful in certain yogic practices and healing practices like Reiki to treat the clear light as if it were an energy or substance, and I think that some tantras explain it that way for that reason.

March 24 at 6:19pm · Like

Soh: It would be a better conventional speech to say "clear light is the myriad manifestation arising inseparably from causes and conditions that give rise to that moment".

Ultimately, clear light is empty, non-arising, etc.

March 24 at 6:19pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Soh, I definitely do agree that it's useful... my objection was really directed towards the reification of that capacity.

Maybe you didn't mean to imply that IAMness is the basis for dzogchen practice at all (and in that case you can disregard this whole post! Ha). But I'm not quite sure if the IAMness can be said to be the basis for one's dzogchen practice since vidyā is the basis for practice. But I do agree that IAMness as it's uses as a tentative foundation for discovering vidyā (perhaps that's what you meant by IAMness being an 'important insight insofar as it reveals the unconditioned clarity that is also the basis for practicing Dzogchen').

The knowing aspect of the mind needs to recognize it's essential nature for it to become vidyā... if it's left in it's relative state then it is simply the stillness of mind.

I'm probably misreading what you wrote though

March 24 at 6:39pm · Like

Soh: To be more precise: I'm referring to recognition of rigpa as a recognition of one's luminous clarity as the basis to begin practicing trekchod. At this point non-duality and emptiness can still remain as an inference or unknown. The description of Malcolm as recognition of clarity is not really different from what I call "I AM" insight. But as discussed, practicing trekchod is not the same as realizing trekchod. Likewise recognition of rigpa is not equivalent to realization of rigpa.

I posted this about two weeks ago:

Joel Agee, there are different degrees of recognition and realization of rigpa. Rigpa is knowledge, and there are different degrees of knowledge so to speak. The recognition of unconditioned clarity is a recognition of rigpa. But it is not full realization.

Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm Smith pointed out this as well years ago:

"Rigpa is the union of original purity [ka dag] and natural formation [lhun grub].

The realization of emptiness is not necessary in order to recognize rigpa. This point is really not well understood even by many so called "Lamas".

I don't have the whole conversation of e-sangha with me now and the forum's gone but basically, he said that it is easier to recognise rigpa than realize emptiness, but recognition of rigpa is not the same as realisation of rigpa, and one can realise emptiness without realising rigpa since rigpa is inseparability of ka dag (emptiness) and lhun drub (natural formation).

In more recent discussions http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=5261

Malcolm wrote:

"No, the reason is that one does not need to realize emptiness in order to properly practice tregchö, emptiness may remain an inference. But one must have experience of this unconditioned clarity in order to practice tregchö. Eventually, if you practice tregchö long enough you will realize emptiness because that insight will automatically arise within your meditation, and this is predicated on understanding the view of original purity .

"recognizing rigpa and realizing emptiness are different.", "The first means you are a practitioner; the second means you are an awakened person." "There are two levels of realizing emptiness, the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of phenomena (that includes all material and mental phenomena)." "rigpa is also empty."

"I did. It is pretty straight forward. To put it another way, when a person ceases to reify phenomena in terms of the four extremes, that is the direct perception of emptiness. Until that point, their "emptiness" remains an intellectual sequence of negations; accurate perhaps, but conceptual nevertheless.

The "recognition" of rigpa, which is simply the knowledge (rig pa) about one's state as a working basis for practice, does not require realization of emptiness as a prerequiste, and can't -- since if it did, no one could practice Dzogchen. '

In terms of the four visions, for as long as one continues to reify phenomena, for that long, one will never reach the third vision. This is the principal reason in modern Dzogchen practice, emphasis is placed on the basis through tregchö, rather the path, tögal. If you are a first stage bodhisattva and so on, then the four visions in Dzogchen will be very, very rapid. However, there is no gaurantee that one will realize emptiness merely through practicing tregchö. Of this reason then, practices such as tummo, etc. are also recommended.

Malcolm's explanation of 'recognizing clarity' is also very similar to what Jackson has been talking about all along, imo, and this is also an important point in ChNNR's guru yoga instructions (i.e. he says when everything [i.e. the visualization, etc] dissolves, notice who is being in the presence of the white A). That recognition of clarity is what I call the "I AM" recognition or realization (though I differentiate between having an 'experience'/'recognition' and a 'realization'), and that was also an important insight in my path. And ChNNR does use the term instant presence to refer to this, at least in some of the instances I read.

Malcom said, ""Clarity" means the fundamental aspect of the mind that illuminates objects for the mind separate from the content of the mind. That clarity is very difficult to discover."

"Clarity is the cognitive aspect of the mind that knows objects. So in sense, what one is trying to see is the knowing knower itself, apart from what it knows."

"The difficulty is that a knower is conditioned. This clarity is unconditoned."

However in another thread he also made clear that this clarity should not be reified and is empty in nature:

"What you are talking about is called "clarity". The mind can take it's own awareness as an object.Indeed, in all Mahamudra and Dzogchen meditation, this is precisely what is taken as the object. You may not be able to "get rid" of this clarity, but you will never find it or be able to say "This is it, this is not it". This clarity is also dependently originated since the mind is dependently originated. There is no awareness or clarity seperate from the mind. The characteristic of the mind is clarity. The essence of the mind is emptiness. These two are non-dual, and that is the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness.

Dharma Wheel • View topic - Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

www.dharmawheel.net

March 24 at 6:50pm · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: I agree recognizing the clarity of mind is important. In ChNN's Guru Yoga instructions I would say his point in asking you to notice who is in the presence of the white A is to bring about the realization of the mind's nature. 'Instant presence' is Norbu Rinpoche's translation of vidyā, instant presence may appear to be pointing to the clarity of mind but it isn't.

Vidyā is knowledge of the gzhi which doesn't have anything to do with the mind. Clarity may be implemented as a foundational support for discovering vidyā but if the mind's clarity isn't recognized as empty, meaning that the foundation for the mind is ascertained to be unfounded via recognizing the nonduality of stillness and movement, then one hasn't recognized vidyā.

I do agree that the recognition of the mind's clarity is equivalent to the recognition of IAMness, however in recognizing that capacity it is still reified as an abiding substratum. The substratum has to fall away via the recognition of the mind's emptiness in order for vidyā to dawn. That is done when the mind's clarity is experientially recognized to be precisely what was previously misunderstood to be phenomena which stood apart from it, that is why it is referred to as 'self-knowing primordial wisdom' etc., it knows itself, by itself. Instead of a knower behind the movement of thought, it must be seen that the knower is only a thought (the knowing of phenomena is precisely phenomena), thus recognizing the clarity to be empty. Clarity may be tentatively used in tregchö, but in order to truly be practicing tregchö one must know vidyā and allow tregchö to be a deepening and relaxation into vidyā. Tregchö is the basis, thögal is the path and the result is one of the few forms of death. I agree that Jackson discusses the recognition of clarity, clarity is not vidyā.

March 24 at 7:27pm · Edited · Like · 2

Dannon Flynn: " the result is one of the few forms of death."

Hmmm?

March 24 at 7:28pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Granted there are different types of rigpa, and the basic knowing of the mind is one of them but the rigpa/vidyā which is the basis for ones practice must be the type which is able to properly discern mind from vidyā. Even if it is unstable and one resorts to mainly using clarity as a foundation for practice it is important to have some semblance of what vidyā entails, either through glimpses or the like, otherwise it's like searching for a light switch in a dark room you're unfamiliar with.

March 24 at 9:02pm via mobile · Like

Soh: Hi Kyle, if I'm not wrong, you're implying that recognizing vidya/rigpa is equivalent to realizing its empty nature, but it is quite clear to me that Malcolm is saying that recognizing rigpa does not entail realizing its empty nature which happens at either the third vision of thodgal or the realization of trekchod.

Malcolm says the recognition of unconditioned clarity = recognizing rigpa. So it is also a form of vidya so to speak. It is also rigpa/vidya insofar as it concerns knowledge of an aspect of the basis - its luminous clarity. Just not a complete knowledge. Maybe Malcolm Smith can clarify.

Malcolm in E-Sangha:

"Let us put it this way. The practice of the Dzogchen path requires that one recognizes rigpa. All real Dzogchen practitioners have recognized rigpa. Not all real Dzogchen practitioners have realized emptiness. Therefore, simply put, recognition of rigpa does not depend on the realization of emptiness."

March 24 at 9:52pm · Edited · Like

Soh: Also, I've read descriptions of instant presence by ChNNR that I'm pretty sure was a direct pointer at the clarity aspect, the "I AMness" as I call it. So I got the impression that it is the main focus, at least for beginners starting on the path of Dzogchen.

The "who is being in white A" also seems like a self-inquiry pointer to me, and that was the kind of practice that led to my realization of I AM.

Malcolm said the understanding of emptiness is at an inferential level in trekchod practice and only becomes realized later. At the level of trekchod practice the main importance is the recognition of clarity and the practice is to remain in unfabricated awareness. I'd say however this inferential understanding is also important as it becomes at least a guide that with further contemplation and practice the prajna wisdom of emptiness arises, otherwise one becomes no different than an Advaitin (if one clings to wrong views about clarity).

As Malcolm said: "Eventually, if you practice tregchö long enough you will realize emptiness because that insight will automatically arise within your meditation, and this is predicated on understanding the view of original purity ."

March 24 at 10:11pm · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: Malcolm, Dharma Wheel:

He calls rigpa instant presence because in tregchö the essence is ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma i.e. a moment of unfabricated awareness. ma bcos shes pa skad gcig ma is not mind, it is beyond mind, thoughts and concepts.

March 24 at 10:05pm · Edited · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Yes I would interpret 'unconditioned clarity' as the clarity of the natural state as opposed to the 'conditioned clarity' of mind. Otherwise vidyā would be no different than neutral awareness and would be equivalent to the ālaya. Vidyā is self-discerning so it's able to discriminate itself from the ālaya. Perhaps this is an issue which stems from the different types of vidyā I'm not sure. If you look at that 'Practice Of Contemplation' book by Norbu Rinpoche he discusses the same insight of first differentiating the stillness of mind from the movement with the metaphor of a fish jumping out of the water. According to him, until one reaches the point where the water jumps with the fish i.e. the nonduality of stillness and movement is recognized, one is yet to be a dzogchen practitioner. That insight implies that the minds clarity is recognized to be empty.

March 24 at 10:05pm via mobile · Like · 1

Soh: Interesting point Kyle. I wonder what Malcolm has to say about this.

March 24 at 10:14pm · Like

Soh: I would add that what I refer to as "I AM" experience/realization is actually not dualistic or inherent - it is simply an experience/recognition/realization of one's clarity in a moment of "unfabricated awareness". It is seeing the knowing/radiance aspect of rigpa. The experience itself is non-dual without subject/object duality, as pure instant presence. However, whether it is realized to be non-dual and empty by nature is another matter...

In "I AM realization" there is simply doubtless certainty of one's luminous nature as instant pure presence and knowingness.

March 24 at 10:25pm · Edited · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: I've always interpreted 'beyond mind' or 'transcending mind' as apperceiving the mind's essential and unfounded nature i.e. the nature of mind. As opposed to designating mind as the movement of thoughts and the background stillness as beyond mind. There is that quote 'the blank state of not thinking anything is itself the cause of confusion', I've always been under the impression that recognition of the mind's nature was a requirement. But yeah it's interesting the differences in interpretations and experiences.

March 24 at 10:43pm via mobile · Like

Logan Truthe: i think i remember CNNR saying that instant presence is not the same as primordial wisdom or something like that... maybe Vidya is primordial wisdom... Primordial wisdom definitely includes a realisation of emptiness...

March 25 at 12:17am · Like

Logan Truthe: Just by recognising clarity, you cannot liberate thoughts. Many people are mistaken about what they deem to be 'self-liberation of thoughts' It is the nature of thoughts to dissolve when attention shifts but that is not the same as self-liberation of thoughts in Dzogchen.

March 25 at 12:21am · Like

Soh: Realizing I AM is not the same as "background stillness" or a state of stillness, it is simply a realization of one's intrinsic luminous clarity. Just like what Malcolm said, "If thoughts occur, it doesn't matter, since thoughts do not exist outside of this state. If there are no thoughts, it doesn't matter, since this radiance is not product of stillness, no more than the lustre of clear water is a product of the settling out of detritus."

What matters is not stillness or not but the realization - the complete certainty of luminous presence, pure unfabricated awareness, as the essence of mind.

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche also points out, "The gap between two thoughts is essence. But if in that gap there is a lack of presence, it becomes ignorance and we experience only a lack of awareness, almost an unconsciousness. If there is presence in the gap, then we experience the dharmakaya [the ultimate]."

However the main point here is not "the gap between thoughts" (a state of thoughtlessness does not necessarily imply discovery of Instant Presence) but the "presence" that the gap may serve as a condition to reveal - the Pure Instant Presence is the key. And even if there is thought, the Radiance is still 'present' as it is not the product of stillness and so one simply relax into instant presence. Sustaining this "Pure Presence" or "radiance" after recognition is the key of Trekchod practice.

And therefore as Malcolm points out, "When one can "see" the radiance of awareness even in the midst of the chaos of concepts, then one's tregchod is moving ahead." - http://nyima108.blogspot.com.au/2006/08/words-of-advice-by-loppn-namdrol.html

When Jackson say things like 'your nature is perfect despite ego etc' he's just saying that "this radiance is not product of stillness, no more than the lustre of clear water is a product of the settling out of detritus". It is not "realized" as a result of settling out the detritus and neither is it a product of stillness, etc. But taken to the extreme it could be mistaken to mean that no wisdom is necessary or that ignorance/suffering is ok. Recognizing clarity does not mean that all of mind's delusion or ignorance has been uprooted, it does not mean emptiness has been realized.

Nyima's blog: Words of Advice by Loppön Namdrol

nyima108.blogspot.com

March 25 at 1:39am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Yes I didn't mean to make it seem as if I was equating anything to stillness or favoring stillness over anything else. Also was not implying that clarity was a product or result of anything.

March 25 at 2:19am · Like

Logan Truthe: Self-liberation of thoughts is not due to trying to achieve a state of stillness. It occurs because it is realized that the nature of thought is empty. In my understanding, thought is allowed to continue but one is liberated from its shackles or clinging to it. Enlightened qualities and wisdoms manifest like an illusion. If just trying to attain a state of stillness, where would wisdom come from?

March 25 at 2:30am · Like

Logan Truthe: But thanks Soh, your posts and Thusness writings really help so much in clarifying and removing subtle doubts and misconceptions.

March 25 at 2:32am · Like · 1

Logan Truthe: Soh said : Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche also points out, "The gap between two thoughts is essence. But if in that gap there is a lack of presence, it becomes ignorance and we experience only a lack of awareness, almost an unconsciousness. If there is presence in the gap, then we experience the dharmakaya [the ultimate]."

I'm just curious about this, can there ever be non-awareness or non-presence?

March 25 at 2:41am · Like

Soh: Radiance is never lost but it does not mean it is consciously recognized.

March 25 at 2:46am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: I think that Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is speaking about danger of pseudo-meditative trances which are like unconscious inertia.

March 25 at 2:59am · Edited · Like

Logan Truthe: Piotr, i think so too

March 25 at 2:47am · Like

Soh: Yes, or just a dull state of stillness, which is no different from sleep

March 25 at 2:47am · Like

Logan Truthe: Soh: Is recognizing radiance dualistic?

March 25 at 2:47am · Like

Soh: No it is not. The actual experience of radiance is non-dual. However in my experience it is not the same as realizing the non-dual, and empty, nature of radiance.

March 25 at 2:48am · Like

Soh: I.e. Your direct realization of luminous clarity, at that very instant of experience and realization is non-dual, but latent misunderstanding and framework of duality and inherency may still remain intact after realizing it

March 25 at 2:49am · Edited · Like · 2

Logan Truthe: it is strange and contradicting that i read in some texts that non-duality can only be truly realized in the 8th bhumi

March 25 at 2:49am · Like

Logan Truthe: so in that moment of non-dual instantaneous recognition of radiance, one can still get stuck in some form of sustaining it as inherent?

March 25 at 2:51am · Like

Piotr Ludwiński: When we construct super infinite ego which is reified as "ultimate subject and source", then this dualistic view can make us unable to recognize self-knowing aspect

March 25 at 2:51am · Like

Soh: It all depends on whose map. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal and Thrangu Rinpoche disagrees with the (rather common, I think) interpretation of one taste as being 7th or 8th bhumi, instead they place 'one taste' as equivalent 1st bhumi. I'm not sure how 'one taste' realization relates to Dzogchen in terms of stages or visions etc, although of course it is just as important in Dzogchen.

Also to take note is that the 'one taste' or non-duality in Mahamudra is not the same as Advaitic kind of non-duality, as Mahamudra is realizing non-duality of subject and object through mind's and object's empty nature and realizing all as mind, while Advaita subsumes objects into an inherent subject thus seeing oneness.

March 25 at 2:52am · Edited · Like · 1

Logan Truthe: no, the non-duality i am referring to is not particularly linked to one-taste, but the collapse of subject and object is fully experienced at 8th bhumi.

March 25 at 2:52am · Like

Logan Truthe: i remember thusness in one of his convos, said that he overcame some last subtle viewer or clinging i think sometime in 2007

March 25 at 2:53am · Like

Soh: Logan, in Mahamudra, One Taste is the collapse of subject and object.

March 25 at 2:55am · Like

Logan Truthe: Soh, i'm not too sure about that, in simplicity i believe duality should have collapsed too. Because one realizes emptiness directly then

March 25 at 2:56am · Like

Soh: Not really. As I understand it, there is some understanding of emptiness in Simplicity, but the texts clearly describe One Taste as proceeding into the realization of non-dual luminosity and the collapse of subject and object. Simplicity description does not indicate non-dual insight.

As I stated elsewhere, some people may only realize non-dual luminosity after emptiness, there is no strict hierarchy of insight*.

Have you read Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's 'Crystal Clear' or 'Mahamudra: The Moonlight'? Highly recommended. (you can start with the first one if you haven't though you probably already did)

*Like this lama says he realized nondual luminosity only after the other insights:

tsultrim serri:

(Mind has often been likened to a mirror, but the analogy goes only so far, because mirrors exist and mind doesn't, well let's say that one can touch mirrors. What existence means, particularly at these levels, would be a fruitful topic, but one that i will not cover. Also , mind doesn't really reflect phenomena, it is the phenomena themselves. This is covered further down in these 4 prajnas, but for clarity i thought i should mention that.

"Thusness' or "suchness" is what one feels with the experience of emptiness. It is a solid sense of being (yes, emptiness has a solid or one could say rich feeling). The luminescence of mind can be compared the the surface of a mirror. If the mirror is dirty it doesn't have a bright surface, and if mind is filled with obscuration its awareness is dimmed. With the experience of emptiness, phenomena become more vivid. It is said in the post that this confirms one's entrance into Zen. In the vajrayana, this vividness of mind is called "osel" in Tibetan, and it is a sign that one has entered the vajrayana. In my experience, this is quite far along the path. To get to this point, one would have to experience egolessness of self, egolessness of other, nondualty, emptiness, and only then luminosity.)

"Exist is a tricky word in Buddhism. Mind does not exist in the sense of being a thing, but it does exist as well, otherwise how would we be able to see, hear etc.

Having said that, for an individual, there is nothing "outside of awareness." Everything that happens to us happens in our awareness(it's not ours, but so what). Furthermore, we are literally everything that happens in our awareness. There is no self; we are simply the world. if we see a chair in our kitchen, that is what we are at that moment since there is no separation between phenomena and mind. Phenomena are mind and mind is phenomena.

"In a post above, i distinguished between the two. I know you asked Matylda, but until she replies, if she does, possibly i could be of help.

Prajna is the tool that sees emptiness. It is actually an expansion of awareness, using awareness in the context of mindfulness/awareness. Awareness gets to a point where it discovers the nature of mind which includes emptiness. At that point, awareness transforms into prajna. There are lesser stages of prajna as well, but i would have to review them.

Prajna has been likened to the mother of all the Buddhas, because through its activity the mind that becomes the Buddha mind is born. Actually, it has always been there, and is unborn, but let's not quibble.

So, prajna sees emptiness. When first seen, however, one feels emptiness as separate from what has discovered it. There is still a slight trace of dualism. We experience this dualism as a seeking for emptinesss ie there is a seeker and something sought. At the realization of jnana, this duality melts, so to speak, and emptiness exists or doesn't exist without a sense of something observing it. Also, one attains wisdom when emptiness arises, not wisdom about anything, simply being in the state of wisdom. With prajna, one observes that wisdom; with jnana, one becomes it.

Tsultrim

March 25 at 3:11am · Edited · Like

Soh: By the way I remember Thrangu Rinpoche explaining that in Simplicity, the meditator is in a state of non-dual experience in meditative equipoise but when he gets out of meditation his world is seen as dualistic.

In One Taste, as one realizes the single taste in all perceptions/thoughts etc (and non-duality of subject/object), his daily life is also experienced non-dually.

Sorry I can't produce the text now and I may be wrong on this.

March 25 at 3:14am · Like · 1

Logan Truthe: haven't read crystal clear, just found the website to download

March 25 at 3:18am · Like

Soh: On simplicity and one taste, Thrangu Rinpoche: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yfuv-zFB1PoC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=thrangu+rinpoche+one+taste+perceiver+perceived&source=bl&ots=5wn9k-eWX4&sig=YnHrXvdsVRHoj1wR5nyPWz-tGfo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gx5QUZL7AeaaiQf7u4CADQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=thrangu%20rinpoche%20one%20taste%20perceiver%20perceived&f=false

King of Samadhi

books.google.com.au

King of Samadhicontains two commentaries given by His Eminence Khenchen Thrangu ...

March 25 at 3:23am · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Jackson Peterson: Neat stuff Soh and all. Way too conceptual for my taste though. To clarify once and for all, Soh is a bit more accurate regarding my "view". For me rigpa is not a "knowledge" or information that enlightens your view, rather you are suddenly IN a new view or perspective. It's like you were sitting at a table and suddenly you appeared in a different chair thus seeing the table and room from that new perspective. You are rigpa view, not an owner of new knowledge. I call this "guest" and "host", relative and absolute, suddenly shifting positions. You are now seeing from the absolute position. Automatically you see experience devoid of self and thingness. If not, the shift has not occurred, in my direct experience and opinion.

Next, the "Presence" I am referring to is only "unconditioned awareness" and "unconditioned clarity". It is completely "unestablished". In some Dzogchen texts it is referred to by Vairocana as the "Great Self" (Dag Chenpo), as Nubs mentions in Samtan Migdron".

Unconditioned clarity is the uncreated, non-dependent, all pervasive Clear Light. It pervades the Dharmakaya and all states of samsara, like light pervading space unimpededly, zangthal.

Intelligent awareness/consciousness as shes pa, can appear in three modes: 1.when aware of its self-nature as all pervasive Dharmakaya, 2. as a Sambhogakaya central viewpoint observing its self-manifesting mandala as the Buddha Vairocana ( rigpa)located as the Mahasukha Chakra in the center of the skull, 3. or as the shes pa, as the fifth skandha vijnana or "namshe" situated just behind the third eye, min sam, as active sem or dualistic mental processing. This is the scheme as described in the a guyagharba tantra. As Vairocana, the consciousness is a pure wisdom awareness called "the mirror-like wisdom". All experience gathers here like images in a mirror. There is a definite sense of the wisdom consciousness being "located" in the skull "looking out the eyes", yet also non-locational at the same time. (Particle/Wave quantum state).

When this Wisdom-consciousness fails to maintain self- recognition, it becomes the fifth skandha, namshe. Both of these states of consciousness are localized and seem to be looking out the eyes.

When we reverse the process in practice, "rulog", the fifth skandha transforms back into the "mirror-like wisdom" of Buddha Vairocana. (Rigpa)Then the wisdom mind of Vairocana transforms into the wisdom of the Dharmakaya. At this symmetry transformation, all localization is lost, and there is no sense of "looking out the eyes". There is just one unbroken self-knowing, unestablished Reality Field, called the Thigle Chenpo, like an all inclusive vast Hologram. "All pervasive rigpa as the field" It's is this effulgent all pervasive rigpa Clear Light that exists in all samsaric states and nirvanic. Direct Introduction" is simply orienting one to this rigpa that is present right now in one's current state, as it always is.

I would also like to clarify that in the experience here of "unestablished rigpa" there is no sense of a self or "presence" or an "I am". If there were it would just appear as a "thought", not as some eternal principle that persists. The emptiness revealed in the rigpa perspective, is so vast and "unestablished", any notion of "I amness" would be impossible.

I hope this is clear.., comments?

March 25 at 8:55am via mobile · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: Also: From the Dzogchen Tantra: The Heaped Jewels

"Since this rigpa is naturally free in and of itself, It looks through my eyes.

When directed outward, the mind's attention is my naturally pure sublime knowing.

If there is no further analysis of it, it hears my sounds."

Lonchenpa comments on this quote: "In this case, you put into practice the fact that sensory appearances and consciousness of them are of one taste in non-dual unity.

March 25 at 4:43pm · Like

Soh: E-sangha, taken down by Chinese hackers a few years ago.

March 26 at 6:31am · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Jackson, there must be some serious blind spots for you to call what Soh posted "way too conceptual", and then turn around in the same post and write what you did.

Soh, where did you get that quote of Tsultrim Serri? Seems very lucid to me.

(Whoops! Accidentally deleted this post. Now it's back :))

March 26 at 6:33am · Edited · Like

Jackson Peterson: I did not mean what Soh wrote, but the discussion along those lines can be too intellectual... I was really referring to another person.

March 26 at 8:34am via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Serious blind spots.

March 26 at 8:46am via mobile · Like

Logan Truthe: Haha, everyone has some of those, unless you develop 360 degrees vision

March 26 at 8:47am · Like

Kyle Dixon: True.

March 26 at 8:49am via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Lol...

March 26 at 8:50am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: What quote of Tsultrim Serri?

March 26 at 8:51am · Like

Soh tsultrim serri:

"Exist is a tricky word in Buddhism. Mind does not exist in the sense of being a thing, but it does exist as well, otherwise how would we be able to see, hear etc.

"In a post above, i distinguished between the two. I know you asked Matylda, but until she replies, if she does, possibly i could be of help.

Tsultrim

March 26 at 8:53am · Like

Malcolm Smith: Only in outer dzogchen teachings are phenomena taken to be mind. This idea is similar to shantarakshita's yogacara madhyamaka.

Sent from my iPad

March 26 at 9:11am via · Like

Soh: Interesting Malcolm, how does the main dzogchen teachings relate mind and phenomena, how does it differ from the outer dzogchen teachings?

Also is this one of the differences with Mahamudra teaching? Mahamudra teachings position seems to be "phenomena is mind" and "mind is empty".

March 26 at 9:15am · Like

Jackson Peterson: yea, phenomena are the "tsal" (energy) of rigpa, our thoughts about those appearances is sem( mind).

March 26 at 9:16am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: The lights are the rtsal display, once unrecognized the lights become the elements. You could call the lights phenomena but since they're never actually established in any way, categorizing them as phenomena is a slippery slope. Phenomena truly becomes phenomena through non-recognition. Or one can technically also say there is the conditioned phenomena of impure vision (avidyā) and the unconditioned phenomena of pure vision (vidyā). In general though the term 'mind' constitutes more than just thought. Thought (imputation) is the culprit but once that cycle of ignorance begins the term 'mind' represents the entire illusory structuring of avidyā. The structuring of mind is rtsal at root, however it is not a wisdom display and therefore the fact that it is rtsal at root is of no benefit unless recognized.

March 26 at 11:32am via mobile · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: All levels of display are pure in nature. By recognizing the empty nature of samsara we realize its wisdom nature.

March 26 at 12:29pm via mobile · Unlike · 2

Kyle Dixon: As I just said.

March 26 at 12:44pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: Their purity in nature isn't what matters though, recognition and non-recognition are the deciding factors which make the difference. You have to recognize the empty nature of samsara, samsara is not pure in and of itself, it is ignorance.

March 26 at 12:49pm via mobile · Like

Jackson Peterson: Samsara is just "thoughts". Outside of thoughts where can samsara be found? Discovering the empty nature of thoughts is realizing the empty nature of samsara and nirvana.

March 26 at 1:49pm via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: I would say samsara is put into motion and sustained by habitual tendencies which involve conceptualization. But those tendencies create latent propensities which are in the form of suppositions, perceptions, assumptions etc., a whole network of afflictive patterning becomes 'subconscious' I suppose you would say. Through constant reification, those projections become solidified to the point that the process no longer depends on thought alone. The individual mistakenly takes themselves to be an inherent aspect of experience by force of their conditioning, so whether thought is present or not the subject still feels they are indeed a subject relating to objects.

I totally agree that thought and imputation is the culprit, and that within the confines of ignorance nothing has truly ever originated. But those habitual tendencies and compulsions do begin to transcend thought, or they appear to at least. That's the whole idea of the ālaya being reservoir-like, it collects and amasses those latent propensities which simply build on top of one another perpetually.

I agree that discovering the empty nature of thoughts equates to realizing the empty nature of samsara and nirvana, but that isn't a case of simply deciding that thoughts are unfounded, because all that is, is a thought deciding that thoughts are unfounded. The penetration into thought has to be a genuine and complete realization. An epiphany which reveals that the web of ideation and conceptualization has been unfounded since beginningless time. Only then is the ignorance which maintains samsara and nirvana severed... and even at that, if one isn't disciplined the habitual tendencies may lead to one being (apparently) resubmerged in the throes of confusion, though at least if that occurs they will have a firm understanding as to the nature of their predicament.

March 26 at 2:10pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Not bad! But ignorance or samsara is just "one thought at a time" hence the necessity for fully developed shamatha before vipassana. The mind has to slow way down to the point of being able to see each "mind moment". Samsara only exists in that mind moment, not in between. Complex layers still are fully contained in only this immediate mind moment. I think the pulse-wave mind-moments have been measured to be about at 45 hrz for meditating monks per EEG. So when the mind moments are seen individually the movie film of samsara is seen as individual frames. The samsaric story falls apart. The skandhas lose their linkage. When we then see the mind moments to be "empty" we self-liberate samsara from moment to moment. Realizing this is vipassana. We discover the true nature of the mind to be empty. Upon this discovery the luminous nature arises as rigpa, the wisdom nature of the mind. This is the purpose of shamatha and shikentaza.

March 26 at 2:51pm via mobile · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Yes but it 'appears' to exist in between the mind-moments... and the complex layers appear to transcend the immediacy. I'm not saying they actually do, I'm saying that ignorance causes experience to take on the appearance of being structured that way. And depending on how deeply engrained those tendencies are, the more difficult it may be for the practitioner to recognize it's an illusion.

March 26 at 2:58pm · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Right... And such a burdened case needs more shamatha... Until the heavily burdened contraction loosens up through the gaps between thoughts becoming more easily recognized and the hypnotic trance of continuous daydreaming is broken.

This is no fun Kyle, we are beginning to agree! I am sure we can find something to argue about, I think some in the reading audience enjoy the drama..

March 26 at 3:05pm via mobile · Like · 1

Dannon Flynn: Yes guys, cut it out!

March 26 at 4:03pm · Like · 1

Serge Sönam Zaludkowski: buzzing a lot ... words and words and words !

March 26 at 4:24pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Though the assumption that there is a gap between thoughts (which becomes more apparent) would still be a subtle byproduct of ignorance.

March 26 at 4:46pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: There ya go Kyle... The gap is like a free space that is not so claustrophobic. Whether it is wisdom or ignorance is not the point. When the mind recognizes these gaps it allows for a break in the intensity of the contraction sensation. The mind and body relaxes. Suffering is less. This means our practice is moving in the right direction. If we continue noticing these gaps between thoughts, that gap appears as Dharmakaya and rigpa, per Dudjum Rinpoche, Norbu and many others. This is a natural development of shamatha into vipassana. The Dharmakaya rigpa is ever present and all pervasive in all states of mind. Recognizing this all pervasive Dharmakaya Clear Light is rigpa. This is how in Semde the use of shamatha can be quite skillful. I believe the entirety of Dzogchen can be contextualized within the framework of shamatha and vipassana, also mahamudra. Shamatha is emptiness or kadag, and vipassana is lhundrub or luminosity. This is why Soto Zen shikentaza is a complete path.

March 27 at 3:20am via mobile · Like

Kyle Dixon: That assumes that thoughts sequence consecutively in a linear fashion and that they arise and fall. The gap isn't Dharmakāya. Dharmakāya is recognizing the non-arising of thoughts and gaps.

Achieving a stable śamatha is important to sever (or decrease) the compulsory habit of conceptualization, but simply increasing that space between thoughts is nothing more than a stable śamatha. Yes you marry the śamatha with vipaśyanā but whether it is wisdom or ignorance makes all the difference. The true vipaśyanā is resting in vidyā (as you know because I've seen you mention it).

Thoughts sequencing consecutively with gaps in between is still a subtle structuring of ignorance. The illusion of a space abiding between apparent occurrences is partly responsible for the idea of an entity (or capacity) which exists in time and is subject to experiences in the first place. When mentation is recognized to be the immediate and disjoint clarity itself, then it's suddenly realized there was never a space between thoughts (beyond conventionality) and the foundation for the chain of conceptualization (and cyclic existence) is undone. Only then does the primordially non-arisen display of wisdom become fully apparent.

"Were that which is apprehended through the intoxicated conceptual-constructions of sentient beings factually true, then they would be on a par with the liberated Arhats who conceive not of this 'Existence.' Since, however, they are tormented by suffering and slain by time, it is obvious that they are [caught up] in something false."
- Mañjuśrīmitra
March 27 at 2:17pm · Like · 1

Dannon Flynn: It could be like distinguishing between a thought of a gap and what is actually there all the time whether or not the flow of thoughts/gaps is there or not. A gap between thoughts could be a thought itself, depending on the illusion of a thinker or meditator being present.

March 27 at 4:10pm · Like

Dharma Connection

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Nyoshul Lungtog's Instant Realization

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Contributors

Blog Archive