Jackson Peterson:
Nice approach...
awakeningclarity.blogspot.co.at/2013/03/the-looking-glass-language-as-mirror.html?
Awakening Clarity: The Looking Glass: Language as Mirror
awakeningclarity.blogspot.com
FRED DAVIS studied and practiced Eastern wisdom for twenty-five years prior to 2006, when his seeking ended, and his true awakening commenced. He is the creator and editor of Awakening Clarity, and author of Beyond Recovery: Nonduality and the Twelve Steps, published in 2012 by Non-Duality Press. Hi... [Cut off web page preview]
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · March 19 at 6:20am
2 people like this.
Eloratea El: "Just as reflections arise within a mirror, the mirror is always standing free of what it's reflecting and yet intimate with each reflection. Each reflection arises on its very face. This Awareness itself can never truly become confused because confusion arises within it." http://www.wwzc.org/book/confusion-mother-wisdom
Confusion is the Mother of Wisdom | White Wind Zen Community
www.wwzc.org
So first of all, I would like to wish you all a Happy Prajnaparamita, Mother of Wisdom Day. What we are gathered here this morning to look into is this whole issue of confusion. [Cut off web page preview]
March 19 at 6:51am · Like · Remove Preview
Jackson Peterson: "Just as reflections arise within a mirror, the mirror is always standing free of what it's reflecting and yet intimate with each reflection. Each reflection arises on its very face. This Awareness itself can never truly become confused because confusion arises within it."
If I may, I would like to point out what I consider a 'flaw' in this analogy. We think there is an "awareness" and separate "appearance" called "confusion" that appears in it. By this analogy we consider there are two parts, awareness and confusion. Instead we could look at the nature of confusion itself. As we look at it, we will only find empty thoughts. We will discover that the empty nature of confusion is itself "knowing awareness". As we explore the nature of a specific confused state, our investigation will lead to our finding nothing at all there, yet our awareness is present. That's not a coincidence. The confusion has revealed its true nature which is our awareness. Confusion is awareness. Awareness is in the disguise of "confusion". The awareness is the empty nature of the confusion. They are not two pieces, but only one. The empty nature of all appearances is itself awareness. Hence we discover that appearances are awareness, not an energy that appears in another field or container called awareness. This is the non-dual view.
March 19 at 7:50am · Like · 2
Eloratea El: From another less dual paragraph "Clouds are not separate from the sky. Clouds are what the sky is doing. Whatever arises within awareness cannot actually obstruct awareness. It is simply how awareness is presenting itself in that moment."
March 19 at 8:06am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Better! But it is also interesting to consider there is no "thing" there called "awareness" that could be obstructed. When we look for this "awareness" to see if it is obstructed or not, what do we find? We only find "phenomena", but no "awareness". How could something that is not there, never has been there, become obstructed or clarified? Your thoughts Soh?
March 19 at 1:28pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Both awareness and phenomena are empty, so they are free of extremes. If the awareness-phenomena dichotomy is deemed inherently valid then through acceptance and/or rejection of either side of the dichotomy, myriad (implied) reifications occur by default.
That line of logic you're using is on the right track though, when one looks for awareness, awareness (as a singular autonomous quality) is not found. Rather we discover 'that' which awareness is dependent upon to be a viable designation (phenomena for example). So since only 'phenomena' is found, awareness is discovered to have been an abstraction which seemingly originated through imputation. Therefore as you said; awareness then cannot be clarified or obstructed because clarification and obstruction make no sense when applied to awareness (since awareness is discovered to be empty). Awareness at that point cannot be denied either because that denial would reify it's viability (causing it to originate) on various levels (and subsequently cause the origination of various other designations). So for that reason, awareness (in it's emptiness), is free from extremes... and is then also free to be a useful convention.
The same line of logic must then be applied to phenomena, and likewise if done skillfully phenomena will be recognized to be the same... empty and unborn.
March 19 at 3:25pm via mobile · Like · 2
Greg Goode: Fred is a friend of mine - he's writing from a sort of direct-path Advaita standpoint. I've talked to him about emptiness because he knows the stuff I've been working on. But he is happy with his approach and has no interest in learning about the emptiness approach. He doesn't expect the approaches to totally agree, and he's OK with that. Some other advaitins wouldn't be as clear and respectful of the traditional distinctions. Some of them think emptiness is Brahman, etc., and think of themselves as teaching emptiness....
March 19 at 3:35pm · Like · 2
Soh: Jackson, I like what you wrote there. Just a few comments though:
Jax: "If I may, I would like to point out what I consider a 'flaw' in this analogy. We think there is an "awareness" and separate "appearance" called "confusion" that appears in it. By this analogy we consider there are two parts, awareness and confusion. Instead we could look at the nature of confusion itself."
Yes. The nature of thought, the nature of everything... not elsewhere. There isn't a container and contained.
Jax: "As we look at it, we will only find empty thoughts. We will discover that the empty nature of confusion is itself "knowing awareness"... ...The empty nature of all appearances is itself awareness."
The way you phrase it can be confusiong. The empty nature and luminous essence (or in Dzogchen they call it another way round: empty essence and luminous nature, but I use different terminologies) is to be distinguished.
Equating them will lead to confusion, as it would mean discovering "knowing awareness" is equivalent to seeing the empty nature. This is the problem that Greg mentioned, "Some of them think emptiness is Brahman, etc., and think of themselves as teaching emptiness...."
In actual case, the Advaita are describing about the luminous essence but reified into a truly existing Self. By now you should be clear about it.
This is why luminous essence and empty nature should be distinguished even if it is inseparable in experience. For clarity sake. Luminosity is empty, and emptiness is not other than forms/luminosity (as per Heart Sutra), but luminous essence is not equivalent with empty nature.
Jax: "As we explore the nature of a specific confused state, our investigation will lead to our finding nothing at all there, yet our awareness is present. That's not a coincidence. The confusion has revealed its true nature which is our awareness. Confusion is awareness. Awareness is in the disguise of "confusion"."
This is deconstructing objectivity, the deconstruction of objectivity into Awareness will lead to the experience and insight of One Mind. All is Mind, All is Awareness, but Awareness is still seen from an inherent point of view. This is also the concluding realization in Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism. Kashmir Shaivism will say things like everything is Shiva/Consciousness, everything is Real and the disguise of that one awareness. That is subsuming all objectivity into the mere play of Shiva, seeing Awareness as everything is non-dual without subject/object division, but it still sees Awareness as an inherent and underlying one substance that pervades and 'disguises' itself as the manifold. It still sees a "one substance" that "transforms itself into the manifold" or "everything is that one awareness".
However it still does not teach on emptiness, that is the twofold emptiness of subjective self and objects. Kashmir Shaivism is still non-dual realism and posits an ultimately existing consciousness.
Insight into Anatta begins when Subject, including Awareness, is completely deconstructed and realized as empty, and your next post is more indicative of which direction to look at when coming to anatta. As luminous and vivid and self-aware as everything is, awareness/luminosity too is empty.
Jax: "Hence we discover that appearances are awareness, not an energy that appears in another field or container called awareness. This is the non-dual view."
Well said!
March 19 at 7:56pm · Like · 1
Soh: As for your next post, I think Kyle pretty much covered it. First the emptiness of subject, then look into the very idea of phenomena and how is it deconstructed and realized as dharmadhatu.
March 19 at 7:57pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: In Dzogchen the view has a lot of similarity with Kashmiri Shaivism in that "Rigpa" is a source and that the phenomena are its "play" as tsal and rolpa. However, in this case instead of Shiva we say "Rigpa as the Dharmakaya King" or "All Creating Monarch" or "Samantabhadra". Also we have a similar ontology when considering the pair of Samantabhadra in sexual embrace with Samantbhadri. Here one represents emptiness and the other, phenomena. This is like Shiva and Shakti in many ways and comes from Dzogchen's tantric origin as in the Guyagharba Tantra. Again I am always very careful to point out the ultimate empty nature of rigpa awareness. Rigpa Awareness is a Wisdom Mind or Intelligence that pervades and appears as the totality. It's forms are the expression of this dynamic pregnant emptiness. Reality is an Intelligent Field of meaning and evolutionary thrust towards the total enlightening of the Field, as primordial Bodhicitta. Our ontology is grounded in the Basis as being the perfect and omniscient Buddha Mind that is our true nature. We practice to realize this Buddha Mind.
When the luminosity is fully known, its emptiness is automatically known. When emptiness is fully known, its radiant empty forms are fully on display. The view goes into more detail than either early Buddhism or Madhyamaka. Hence its superiority. The others too often lean towards nihilism of "no self". This is why Zhangtong arose and became so popular amongst the Nyingma and Kagyu. It reveals how "yogis" experience enlightenment.
Thanks for your comments Soh!
March 20 at 3:47am via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, your responses and comments are in the style of a Buddhist logician not a practitioner. The notion of "freedom from extremes" is absent in samadhi or non -dual awareness. Your rhetoric has merit within a conceptual framework of Gelugpa dialectic, but it seems to lack the experiential flavor of a practitioner. As Buddha says: "conceiving or conceptualizing is a cancer". He says that for good reason. Rigpa is non/conceptual and clever logical maneuvering brings one no closer. Approaching this topic through intellectual grasping is itself samsara.
Mahamudra master, Saraha writes:
By examining the mind through logic,
Negating one of many substantive realities,
One will lose the mind's innate clarity
And will thereby wander through the realms of samsara.
What can be more pitiful than someone
Walking straight into an abyss in plain view?
A mind unstirred by examination remains still, like space.
This non-dwelling space transcends all conceptual definitions;
Such a non-discriminating mind need not be examined or analyzed.
Savari explains:
A critical analysis will confine the mind in bondage.
Virupa declares:
The self-nature of the mind is inexpressible.
Its essential identity remains detached from all interdependent relativity.
It can neither be examined nor analyzed
Nor can it be illustrated through an analogy.
March 20 at 4:12am via mobile · Like
Greg Goode: Soh says "This is deconstructing objectivity, the deconstruction of objectivity into Awareness will lead to the experience and insight of One Mind. All is Mind, All is Awareness, but Awareness is still seen from an inherent point of view. This is also the concluding realization in Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism."
Can't speak for Kashmir Shaivism here, but I can tell you that this is definitely not true for all kinds of Advaita. Not all types of Advaita get stuck there. In the Direct Path style that I teach and Sri Atmananda Krishna Menon teaches, there is a collapse of the entire house of cards that comes after the "All is Awareness" stage. The trick is, it's not widely taught. It happens in small groups and in texts that are not circulated widely. It's not in the popular texts. Not everyone takes it that far, but the teaching and root guru do.
So why don't we hear more about it?
One reason for this is purely pragmatic, not philosophical. The teacher might not want to encourage nihilism or spiritual bypassing. If such a powerful teaching is put forth publicly too soon, people might rush to go right there and land on it as their new inherent final truth. I know lots of Advaita seekers who turn right to the last chapter in a book. I have done that myself! They want to go straight to the “highest” part of the teaching and proclaim themselves done! So some writers of texts don't want to say something out in the open that displaces Awareness. The poor person hoping to do an end run to the highest teaching would suddenly have no tools to work with!
This is parallel to the situation one finds in Madhyamika, where the teachers don’t investigate too soon the emptiness of ethics or altruism or compassion. I have seen texts there these topics are never covered as topics of meditation. Of course they will be realized sooner or later as the student progresses, or when they reach their universal, generalized non-conceptual realization of emptiness. But before that happens, can you imagine readers saying, “Cool, ethics are empty, I can do anything I want!”
I decided to talk about this in my book "The Direct Path" at the very end. I do so in a roundabout, stealthy way, without trumpeting it as a higher realization or invoking Buddhism or emptiness. But it is a definite freedom from the fixed inherency of Awareness. I call it "joyful irony," and it sounds so non-spiritual that it will be overlooked by spiritual bypassers and most other folks who aren’t right there in their own progress. But those folks will know what I mean.
There are other advaita teachings and teachers that get past the stage of being stuck on inherency. It’s not so much in the published texts, but in the personal and energetic hints of this freedom in the teachers themselves. Sort of like the way a traditional Advaita teacher might teach something about awareness, but there might be a knowing, ironic gleam in his eye that carries the message of not landing in the midst of the “official” teaching.
Of course this also depends on the teacher too. I know some VERY prominent and famous Advaita teachers who are stuck like a telephone pole on the inherency of Awareness.
March 20 at 6:43am · Unlike · 4
Jackson Peterson: Greg Goode, this is excellent in what you wrote concerning Advaita. There is too often a tacit assumption that one is "substantializing" awareness. Who knows that unless it is explicitly stated? Here is a point that most miss: The belief in a substantial self or "awareness" is irrelevant regarding our true nature. Our root consciousness or awareness is by nature "empty". No concept or affliction or belief has any affect within or upon it. In fact those various things are themselves waves of its own creativity. That would be like saying the waves obstruct the ocean. There is indeed a naturally non-substantial, non-local, non-temporal, empty Knowingness, that is the Mind of a Buddha. It is primordially pure and can't be distorted nor substantialized. A substantialized self view is no more afflictive to our Buddha Mind than a day dream we have while taking a walk in the park. Empty beliefs can't alter empty space. The mind needs to recognize its nature at root, the Ground of Being. Again, this "Being" is not "established" as substantial nor "existing", nor not "existing" nor both and neither. Without this recognition the philosophical discussions about "emptiness" of this and that go on forever...
Mahamudra master, Saraha writes:
By examining the mind through logic,
Negating one of many substantive realities,
One will lose the mind's innate clarity
And will thereby wander through the realms of samsara.
What can be more pitiful than someone
Walking straight into an abyss in plain view?
A mind unstirred by examination remains still, like space.
This non-dwelling space transcends all conceptual definitions;
Such a non-discriminating mind need not be examined or analyzed.
Savari explains:
A critical analysis will confine the mind in bondage.
Virupa declares:
The self-nature of the mind is inexpressible.
Its essential identity remains detached from all interdependent relativity.
It can neither be examined nor analyzed
Nor can it be illustrated through an analogy.
March 20 at 6:57am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, that isn't the case at all:
"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
The most ironic part is that I only extended the logic you yourself attempted to implement. Yet because I say it, it's 'too conceptual'.
When reasoning is appropriate (like here on a forum discussing and sharing ideas), the logic of Prasangika Madhyamaka is the line of reasoning most Great Perfection masters sponsor and this fact has been repeated over and over, yet you ignore it. Freedom from extremes is the logic of emptiness, which Dzogchen never deviates from. The only difference being that yes dzogchen is completely experiential and doesn't rely on a conceptual framework. That being said, the great adepts of the past certainly had no qualms with conceptual frameworks, and being that we are here on a forum discussing and sharing ideas online, a conceptual framework is all we have available to communicate (an exercise you yourself display very well while simultaneously disparaging others for doing the same).
You again seek to explain my insight away (which is fine I don't expect your confirmation biases to allow you to listen anyways) by deeming it as not reflecting 'the experiential flavor of a practitioner' when my own practice has little to do with the line of logic being discussed on this thread (the very same line of logic that you yourself initially attempted to offer up).
'Conceiving and conceptualizing is a cancer' when you are ignorant of it's implications and allow it to dominate your experience.
If vidyā is so potent in it's non-conceptuality that it immediately thwarts the legitimacy of all logical maneuvering for the sake of conventional (online) discussion (on a forum), then I suppose you'd better throw in the towel yourself. If you check the first few responses on this thread you'll find some excellent examples of some clever logical maneuvering provided by you yourself. Or perhaps you're exempt from your own standards you project onto others?
March 20 at 7:53am via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Jackson, also, your insight into vidyā as a source of phenomena is incorrect. Dzogchen does not implement a model where phenomena are the 'play' of a source. Vidyā as the dharmakaya means being in the knowledge that phenomena have been unborn since beginningless time. The 'all creating monarch' is the afflicted mind (not vidyā and not the basis), phenomena (persons, places, things) only (appear to) arise in ignorance, when ignorance is rectified then only the five wisdom lights are experienced.
March 20 at 8:17am via mobile · Like
Dairin Ashley: WOW!!! This is a very very very interesting thread.
March 20 at 9:01am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon... as usual... No point to our debating. Of course the Dzogchen teachings say again and again, hundreds of times: "...in that "Rigpa" is a source and that the phenomena are its "play" as tsal and rolpa.... we say "Rigpa as the Dharmakaya King" or "All Creating Monarch" or "Samantabhadra". The All Creating Monarch or Kunje Gyalpo is the Ground of Being, Zhi or Dharmakaya. Samantabhadra does not represent "ignorance"... how foolish!
March 20 at 9:09am · Like
Kyle Dixon: The all creating king is the mind because it grasps and clings, therefore adulterating the 5 lights into the 5 elements. The ground of being (and of all 4 extremes) is the kungzhi not the gzhi. Vidyā is the knowledge of the basis (gzhi), it is not the gzhi. Phenomena may be the play of rtsal at root but they are not expressions of wisdom. The dharmakaya as emptiness is the mind of a Buddha, completely cleansed of affliction and beyond extremes. The all creating king indeed does represent ignorance since phenomena only arise from ignorance... The all creating king is the mind... not the gzhi, nor is it the dharmakaya, nor is it samantabhadra since those 3 are never involved in ignorance.
March 20 at 9:23am via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, boy I sure don't know where you got your information from but its not Dzogchen. There is only the pure display. There is only wisdom expression. The Mind of a Buddha needs no cleansing, its primordially pure "kadag". The entire display including the Kunzhi Namshe, sem and all are the wisdom display of rigpa. It is only through the lens of "me" does it look like samsara. Samsara is absolutely pure as-is. It is only a conceptual construction to "think" otherwise. Nothing has been adulterated in the least.
March 20 at 9:31am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Yes I could say the same about your 'information'. In dzogchen there may only be pure display, but the recognition or non-recognition of that display produces either samsara or nirvana i.e. one basis, two paths.
There is not only wisdom expression, there is the expressions of ignorance as well, which is samsara... samsara is not an expression of wisdom.
The mind of a Buddha may require no cleansing but the mind of a sentient being certainly does. Sem may be a display of rtsal but it is never a display of wisdom.
Samsara is never 'pure'. Adulteration certainly occurs from the perspective of ignorance, the tantras are very explicit about the onset of ignorance and how it proliferates and sustains itself, only you ignore it.
March 20 at 9:46am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: "All appearances are understood as being Dharmakaya. We perceive everything in its natural purity, and there is nothing we can call impure. Know that all perceptions are Dharmakaya..."
"All of samsara and nirvana arises from the creative display of the spontaneous primal wisdom."
"In the same way, we will see that outer phenomena are nothing other than the play of he absolute nature (Dharmata, cho-nyid). Inner thoughts and emotions are also the play of the absolute nature. Their nature is the wisdom of the great purity and great evenness, so they must not be seen as defects or as enemies that we have to get rid of."
All quotes from Dilgo Khentse's commentary on Zurchungpa's Testament.
March 20 at 9:59am · Like
Kyle Dixon: The context of the first quote: is describing the understanding that arises once one's integration with vidyā has matured and stabilized so that the dharmakāya is fully apparent.
The second quote: As I said, samsara may be an expression of rtsal, but it is not a display of wisdom.
The third: Once one's integration has matured to that level it will be apparent that so-called outer and inner phenomena (though outer and inner will cease to apply) are empty i.e. recognition of dharmatā. Only mahamudra considers thought and emotion to be dharmakāya, dzogchen does not. Samsara is always a defect because it is the result of an error.
Context is everything.
March 20 at 10:19am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon wrote: "The all creating king is the mind because it grasps and clings, therefore adulterating the 5 lights into the 5 elements... The all creating king indeed does represent ignorance since phenomena only arise from ignorance... The all creating king is the mind... not the gzhi, nor is it the dharmakaya, nor is it samantabhadra since those 3 are never involved in ignorance."
Boy, Kyle are you wrong:
From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra: "Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"
Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."
March 20 at 11:32am · Like
Kyle Dixon: Here's a question Soh asked Malcolm awhile ago:
Soh wrote:
"Hi Namdrol,
As you mentioned about Hindu Vedanta... a question came to mind.
I was just reading someone's post half an hour ago in another forum: ( http://collectionofthoughts.com/bbpress/topic/1499/page/7?replies=200 ).
He/she ('star') states that according to Dzogchen view, everything is Consciousness, and therefore everything is real.
What is your comment on this?
Also, he/she states 'The Supreme Source' as a reference... in which I also personally have some questions regarding this book: in certain parts of the book, Consciousness is described as an all-creating agent, which sounds like God to me. How does Dependent Origination apply here?"
Malcolm wrote:
"This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.
The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.
All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.
In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being 'empty not established in any way at all'. If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.
In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins."
-------------------
And here's someone from your yahoo group having this same conversation with Jean-Luc Achard, obviously his answer was ignored...
? wrote:
"That quote above still can be interpreted the same way. The Kunjed Gyalpo says that there is nothing to do, try, search etc... Because everything is from the Supreme Source, thus perfect. There is not two sources, but one. Then what can possibly be 'perfected' ?"
Jean-Luc Achard wrote:
"Supreme Source is not a Dzogchen concept. I don’t know (well i suspect) why they choosed this title (way too New Age for me) but the original is 'All Creating' (kun-byed, lit. 'All Doing') refering to the mind. So mind creates everything, that’s the meaning, its not a reference to some cosmic source somewhere as it may sound from the english title. What can be perfected? Well one’s deluded mind can be perfected, certainly not the natural state. Nobody said the natural state has to be perfected, it’s one’s ultimate essence, but our ordinary being is not our essence, it is deluded, full of ignorance, and this is what has to be perfected."
-------------------
The 'All-Creating King' is the mind.
March 20 at 11:50am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, so as you now see both you and Malcolm were wrong as per my quotes... And JL's comments had nothing to do with our conversation. Like I said: Boy, Kyle are you wrong:
From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra: "Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"
Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."
So admit you were wrong again Kyle along with your wrong concept about "emptiness being the result of the 4th vision of thogal, and your about face regarding Zhantong. You need to get out your books again and try to memorize this stuff... or just practice.
March 20 at 12:53pm · Like
Stephen Metcalf: No one needs to be wrong. Please see my new post up above. Thanks
March 20 at 1:44pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Jean-Luc's comments had everything to do with what we're discussing, he was addressing the very fact that the 'All-Creating King' is the mind.
As for Malcolm Smith being wrong, I would disagree and it's unfortunate you'd make such a claim.
I have no issue with making mistakes from time to time and admitting it, I don't allow for my confirmation biases to blind me from seeking the truth. When I recognize that I must admit wrong in my life, I do it with pride, because that is the only way I (and others) can grow.
Petty of me to do so but, may I point out that you weren't even aware that the realization of emptiness was associated with any of the visions (and you claim to teach that practice). I really have no position on Zhantong, it appears to be no different than Advaita Vedanta, but great masters such as Dudjom Rinpoche have proclaimed that it has useful application in practice so I remain open to it. I'm fairly unconcerned with that view, that is your own interest.
March 20 at 1:58pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: Of course Malcolm was wrong. Didn't you read the quotes from the KJG Tantra and Norbu? Hello???
March 20 at 2:25pm via mobile · Like
Malcolm Smith: Wrong about what?
Sent from my iPad
March 20 at 5:59pm via · Like
Kyle Dixon: According to Jax, the following two quotes from Norbu Rinpoche's kun byed rgyal po translation refute your statement (posted below the dotted line) that the mind is the all-creating king:
From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra: "Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"
Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."
----------------
Malcolm wrote:
"This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.
The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara.
All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real.
In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being 'empty not established in any way at all'. If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real.
In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins."
March 20 at 7:27pm · Like
Greg Goode: Kyle, I am an outsider in the world of Dzogchen, but I enjoy the drama of debate when it is not ad hominem. I'm not too familiar with the terms and concepts you guys are using, but moreso, I don't see the core of the disagreement. I don't really see who said what, and what points are being disagreed with. Could you lay it out in a clearer way?
March 20 at 7:37pm · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith: Oh, well jax just has to read more carefully and thoroughly.
Sent from my iPad
March 20 at 10:32pm via · Like
Jackson Peterson: Jax has to read "what" more thoroughly and carefully? The texts I posted were quite clear and carefully read before I posted them. The discussion was "What does the Kunje Gyalpo, "The All Creating Monarch" represent?
Kyle Dixon said "The all creating king indeed does represent ignorance since phenomena only arise from ignorance... The all creating king is the mind... not the gzhi, nor is it the dharmakaya, nor is it samantabhadra since those 3 are never involved in ignorance."
Jax: Now here are the correct facts: From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra:
"Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"
Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."
I rest my case and have no further reason to argue regarding what the Kunje Gyalpo means in Dzogchen. It does not mean as Kyle said it represents "ignorance". Rather it represents our primordial State as Rigpa or perfect Buddha Wisdom Mind.
March 21 at 12:30am · Like
Dairin Ashley: I'm new here, but I'm going to give this a go...
I am not a scholar by any means, FAR FAR FROM IT, nor has the subject/object duality collapsed for me. This conversation has been fascinating because it happens to be happening while I am looking at this very thing. What is it that solidifies/reifies the dynamic energy of the Primordial Base (Dharmakaya Samanatbadhra Kunje Gyalpo) into apparently hard phenomena and how does this happen. How does the phenomenal concrete world come into being. What is seen and experienced when reification is absent. What does Buddha see. If the Rainbow Body is what happens then all must be Rainbow (the 5 lights), the pure expression, play, energy of Rigpa. Yes, I'm looking at this via intellect but also direct experience. My mind is the curious type. I'm also reading 'Supreme Source' at the moment.
I had a short conversation with someone else a few weeks ago where I said: "As a deluded sentient being, my mind is deluded by attention to thoughts, therefore my seeing, and other senses are also deluded. Therefore the world appears to be solid. When pure Rigpa is constant and all delusion gone, mind is its true essence of cognizant emptiness. There is no more solidifying through the power of karma. Therefore what is seen can not be solid. Surely."
I found what Kyle said very interesting but something didn't quite resonate. I'm going to try an articulate why. To say that the afflicted/deluded mind, which is the mind involved or distracted in thoughts, is The All-Creating-King is to be missing something essential. When the true nature of thought is seen, it is seen to be none other than the Base, the ground of all being - Dharmakaya Samanatbadhra Kunje Gyalpo. When uninvolved undistracted un-afflicted mind is seen, it is seen to be none other than the Primordial Base.
To say that because the afflicted mind solidifies the Base into apparently hard phenomena that it is therefore the All-Creating-King is to give enormous power to reification. Reification is not creating. It's like saying that mistaking a hologram or mirage to be concrete and solid is what created it. Reification created nothing. Reification, fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing. Reification generally means to make something that is abstract real, bringing it into being, or making something concrete. Without reification all is seen as it truly is, reification did not create what is now seen. Reification, the deluded/afflicted mind, did not create this.
Right now, I'm in a conundrum. What Kyle is saying could be right, I don't know. I'd remove all adulteration or impurity from the equation, because all is primordially pure and can't have a defect at all.
March 21 at 3:49am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Dairen, very well written and thought out argument or quandary! Really mean that! You are on track. There is a mythological concept that our world appears solid due to" ignorance". It actually appears solid because of our sensory perceptions not being able to function at the wavelength of "x-rays". Our world is not solid at all at any level according to quantum physics.
Dzogchen is not saying the display or mandala exists "due to ignorance" etc. Rather it says the display appears as the Wisdom Display of Rigpa or Dharmakaya. This display and all that is in it is "primordially pure".
How does this perfect mandala arise? It doesn't. It only appears to. It is the perfect luminosity of Empty Knowingness. Nothing has ever been reified, as all appearances are impermanent, in flow, in flux, interdependent. This is how it is seen to a mind in rigpa. When the exact same display is seen through the afflicted karmic mind (sem) and through the five senses it is not noticed for the pure impermanent field of perceptual sensations that it is, but rather is "processed" by the afflicted mind, in that through our labeling and conceptualizing we mentally create a world of independent and inherently existing things and persons. It is that imputed world that is samsara. The world of nature in the wild or the universe at large is pure perfection.
Imagine that the universe is like Quantum suggests, a vast aura of intersecting electo-magnetic fields with a full spectrum of frequencies or wavelengths, like a sea of energy. This sea is actually just information, again according to quantum. Think that it is like a sea of radio or tv signals. We have tv shows and all kind of music floating all around and through us everyday, every moment. We only need a decoder or processor to translate these electro-magnetic waves into tv shows or music we can hear. With a television or radio we can decode these wave easily and have that experience.
The human mind and brain is another kind of "decoder" of the electo-magnetic field. When our brain/mind is functioning normally and you open your eyes, you see the "show" that is as it is being "decoded" with the capacity of your decoder or brain/mind. Each living creature processess the field of electro-magnetic energy according to their hard-ware settings. In Dzogchen we have the notion of the "Six Lokas" or dimensions of experience: Gods,Demi-gods, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, and hell beings, and
all have their own unique experience based on their brain/mind, hardware/software settings. So there is no solid universe "out there", but there is a vast field of "information"(wisdom) that has no objective reality other than as determined by the one decoding it.
What is the nature of this energy/information field, its origin and nature? Here Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche offers his view:
"The presence of awareness in the primordial state has no bias toward enlightenment or non-enlightenment. This ground of being which is known as pure or original mind is the source from which all phenomena arise. It is known as the great mother, as the womb of potentiality in which all things arise and dissolve in natural self-perfectedness and absolute spontaneity.
All aspects of phenomena are completely clear and lucid. The whole universe is open and unobstructed - everything is mutually interpenetrating.
Seeing all things as naked, clear and free from obscurations, there is nothing to attain or realise. The nature of phenomena appears naturally and is naturally present in time-transcending awareness.
Everything is naturally perfect just as it is.
All phenomena appear in their uniqueness as part of the continually changing pattern. These patterns are vibrant with meaning and significance at every moment; yet there is no significance to attach to such meanings beyond the moment in which they present themselves.
This is the dance of the five elements in which matter is a symbol of energy and energy a symbol of emptiness. We are a symbol of our own enlightenment. With no effort or practice whatsoever, liberation or enlightenment is already here."
"Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"
Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."
Does any of this help?
March 21 at 5:48am · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith: Chnn has said more about this than is what in your citation.
Sent from my iPad
March 21 at 7:25am via · Like
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith, yes I know I have been at retreats where he explained in detail the Kunje Gyalpo and Semde. He always said "Kunje Gyalpo represents our Primordial State" (rigpa) Anyway, its not important. I don't think it wise for others to quote you when the discussion is really slightly different. But you would not agree I am sure that "The all creating king indeed does represent ignorance since phenomena only arise from ignorance" as Kyle wrote. Please clarify...thanks
March 21 at 7:53am · Like
Dairin Ashley: Yes yes yes, this is very very helpful, thank you Jackson.
Especially this, "It only appears to. It is the perfect luminosity of Empty Knowingness. Nothing has ever been reified,..." While I was writing my previous comment I wondered if I was getting confused about reification.
I fully understand the Quantum Physics view of the field and that it is decoded into the reality show or display, which is why from a Quantum point of view too, fundamentally all appearances are nothing but the field. The Buddha-field. Samantabhadra.
This is how I say it to myself...
The fundamental geometry of space is an infinite 64 tetrahedron grid in perfect balance and stability, of interfering probability holographic wave patterns in coherent superposition inherently containing unfathomable quantities of information and luminous radiating energy. We decode this geometry or web or net or interference pattern by Empty Cognizance which streams out of our eyes and the phenomenal world or vision or dream or illusion spontaneously self manifests this magical non-dual display. A very simplified analogy... very much like how a prism refracts light into the rainbow spectrum. Without Empty Cognizance nothing is displayed. All is this.
So, as you said, the human mind can be in the state of Rigpa or Sem (afflicted karmic mind). In the Sem state, duality is conjured up and all (the display) is divided into subject and object. In the Rigpa state all is non-dual and nothing is divided, and all (the display) is Samantabhadra... the All-Creating-King. Is this correct?
March 21 at 10:55am · Like
Kyle Dixon: Dairin wrote:
"I found what Kyle said very interesting but something didn't quite resonate. I'm going to try an articulate why. To say that the afflicted/deluded mind, which is the mind involved or distracted in thoughts, is The All-Creating-King is to be missing something essential. When the true nature of thought is seen, it is seen to be none other than the Base, the ground of all being - Dharmakaya Samanatbadhra Kunje Gyalpo. When uninvolved undistracted un-afflicted mind is seen, it is seen to be none other than the Primordial Base."
It isn't to be missing anything at all, it means that origination only occurs through grasping and clinging. Things don't arise from the basis, they arise from the non-recognition of the basis. The basis is likewise a convention, it isn't real, it is only the basis because it hasn't been recognized. Dzogchen is not Advaita Vedanta or other tīrthika non-dual views where everything arises 'from that as that' etc.. The basis (gzhi) is not brahman. Dzogchen does posit a 'ground of being' (ālaya i.e. kun gzhi) but that ground only arises due to afflicted grasping and clinging and therefore whatever arises from that ground is delusion.
-----------
Dairin wrote:
"To say that because the afflicted mind solidifies the Base into apparently hard phenomena that it is therefore the All-Creating-King is to give enormous power to reification. Reification is not creating. It's like saying that mistaking a hologram or mirage to be concrete and solid is what created it. Reification created nothing. Reification, fallacy of treating an abstraction as if it were a real thing. Reification generally means to make something that is abstract real, bringing it into being, or making something concrete. Without reification all is seen as it truly is, reification did not create what is now seen. Reification, the deluded/afflicted mind, did not create this."
Yes there is immense power in ignorance and reification, the analogy of water to ice is often used. Reification is creating because without it there would only be the unestablished appearance of the basis which is simply the five lights. That which appears to arise does so as a result of reification:
[per Malcolm]: "Vimalamitra states in The Lamp Summarizing Emptiness:
Now then, the emptiness of dharmatā: natural dharmatā is the emptiness of the non-existence of a primal substance. Thus, all appearances were never established according to the eight examples of illusion. When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā. Furthermore:
Everything arose from non-arising;
even arising itself never arose...."
and
"There is not object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Discriminating wisdom does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything."
- from The Unwritten Tantra [per Malcolm]
-----------
Dairin wrote:
"Right now, I'm in a conundrum. What Kyle is saying could be right, I don't know. I'd remove all adulteration or impurity from the equation, because all is primordially pure and can't have a defect at all."
It doesn't matter if it's primordially pure, what matters is the recognition or non-recognition of primordial purity and the consequences of recognition/non-recognition. Sentient beings are confused about the appearance of the basis, buddhas are not, when sentient beings are no longer confused they are buddhas.
March 21 at 11:44am · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Dairin Ashley, great stuff! Interesting analogies! There is no "dualism" at all. That's only a mental illusion. The holographic field is one holomovement. Everything is embedded within each part. Actually according to quantum there isn't even "energy", there is only information that arises from emptiness without prior cause.
The Dzogchen view has two separate aspects. The five lights that arise as all appearence are what we are seeing all around us. But there is also sound. We can recognize this world as the ornament of the Dharmakaya. It's not arising from our "mind". Hence the world is not our mind. Our mind creates imputation upon these organic patterns of sound and light that arise as spontaneous perfection, lhundrub. So we have the macro-world which is "tsal" and "rolpa" and our micro-world which is karmic mind and is made of thought. Ignorance ONLY pertains to the personal micro-world, not the spontaneous luminosity that we call the universe. Again, the five lights are only information as wisdom display. How that information is decoded is what determines your experience. Ignorance is the absence of decoding the information correctly. The karmic mind doesn't "decode" but rather "imputes" or assumes, hence illusory experience as samsara.
March 21 at 1:25pm via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Actually confusion about the basis as the source of the five lights is not the point. Enlightenment is when this current consciousness (shes pa) recognizes itself to BE the basis as Dharmakaya.
March 21 at 1:28pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Greg, There's a few areas of controversy but overall the essential disagreement between Jax and I is about the nature and function of the dzogchen model.
In Jax's opinion, the Dzogchen model accords with the type of model you'd find in a tradition like Advaita where (much like Brahman is a source of all phenomena), Jax upholds that rigpa is a source and that phenomena are is expression. So Jackson is asserting that rigpa (as the Dharmakāya) is the 'kun byed rgayl po i.e. kunjed gyalpo which means 'all-creating (or doing) king'... so according to Jax; rigpa (much like the Brahman) acts as a 'ground of being' which phenomena arise from and return to, as expressions of that ground. Therefore Jax disagrees that phenomena arise from ignorance because in his opinion, all phenomena are the pure expression of rigpa. The implications of Jackson's view are, just as he has said in this thread, that 'samsara is absolutely pure as-is', ergo nothing need be done because (as Jax claims) 'nothing has been adulterated in the least'. Jax provided a few quotes which he feels affirm his view and opinion and has thus stated the other views being proposed on this thread are incorrect.
In my opinion, the Dzogchen model is set-up in a way that accords with a traditional soteriological system which allows for both bondage and liberation, the difference with Dzogchen however is that it's model is essentially structured as 'one basis, two paths'.
The basis, which isn't an actual 'ground of being' like Brahman, has certain attributes and functions. The basis is primordially pure which means it's incapable of ignorance (or adulteration) and it is a spontaneous and natural formation which displays itself in only one way.
The two paths, which are ignorance and knowledge (or wisdom), come into play in relation to the basis. Knowledge (Skt. vidyā, Tib. rig pa) is recognition of the basis. Ignorance (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa) is non-recognition of the basis. Throughout the dance of recognition and non-recognition the basis itself is never effected in any way but merely performs it's function which is displaying five lights.
There is a more in depth technical explanation of how the whole process comes about, but essentially samsara is the result of an error, which is not recognizing the appearance of the basis (avidyā). As soon as that non-recognition occurs it's said that both samsara and nirvana arise, the 12 links of dependent origination (which you're familiar with) start up and all the conditional phenomena such as persons (sentient beings), places (universe and world), things, time, spatiality, sensory modalities and fields etc... apparently arise. Even though the structures of dependent origination (and ignorance as a whole) are in truth illusory, the ignorance which attributes them inherency does not recognize that, and as a result suffering and cyclic existence arise (samsara) which is simply the habitual tendency to reify afflictive patterning.
In contrast, when the appearance of the basis is recognized, then one understands their natural state and the knowledge (Skt. vidyā, Tib. rig pa) which results from that recognition then serves as the foundation for one's practice (which is integration with that knowledge). When one has fully integrated with that knowledge, has realized emptiness etc.. then they are a Buddha. At that point the basis is no longer the basis but is then simply the highest wisdom.
March 21 at 1:28pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, has not clearly expressed my "view". But also he is not that far off. In my view there is a vast and infinite Intelligence that appears as all experience. You can see this vast Intelligence functioning on all levels in nature. The closest thing to this pure Intelligence is a mind or consciousness with sentience because it has the ability to know this intelligence directly. A common denominator of all aware consciousness is the ability to perceive. In Dzogchen we point out that this innate "perceiving" awareness is this perfect and flawless infinite "Intelligence". This is why there is no ignorance or impurity that needs fixin'. Our always present "knowingness" or "observingness" is this Intelligence. We don't need to learn about "five lights" or any information at all. We simply recognize that our ability to be conscious and aware is this primordial Intelligence. This recognition is called "rigpa", gnosis or enlightenment. In Buddhism this Primordial Intelligence is the omnipresent and omniscient Buddha, our actual nature as its been all along. Our intelligent unchanging perceiving Awareness is not improved in recognition nor is it something less in non-recognition. It is always completely "unestablished". The "empty aspect" is self-knowing. The luminous aspect is the mind.
March 21 at 1:52pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: And in my opinion, dzogchen would point out that 'innate perceiving awareness' as a support for cutting through the afflictive patterning of mind. If that is done successfully (via skillful means since it cannot truly be produced causally) then there is potential to recognize the nature of mind. The subsequent knowledge which arises from that recognition is then the foundational support for one's practice (which is unerring continual familiarity and integration with that knowledge i.e. vidyā/rigpa).
So there certainly is ignorance, if there weren't then the original Dzogchen tantras wouldn't have wasted immense amounts of time explaining how ignorance comes into being, how it abides, and the ways to sever it.
Jackson upholds that one's neutral undifferentiated present awareness is vidyā, and in contrast, I attest that vidyā is actually a precise species of knowledge which understands it's basic nature that must be definitively recognized. Via that recognition it becomes explicitly apparent that our actual nature was that 'all along', however without that recognition, simply deciding that our present neutral undifferentiated awareness is 'pure' (implying nothing need be done) is tantamount to simply advocating for delusion.
As Malcolm's said before:
"The appearance of the basis is not a fault; the non-recognition of those appearances is. That is where samsara comes from. And, as long as you have samsaric vision, karmic vision, you can be sure that you are not seeing the appearances of the basis as they are, but are viewing them through traces of affliction and action. In other words, the gnas lugs, how things are, and snang lugs, how things appear are dissonant because of ignorance., etc.
This is why many fake Dzogchenpas resort to the opposite of Garab Dorje's three words i.e. they introduce as many people as they can to to their own delusion, convince them that delusion is perfectly ok, and they all continue in samsara for ever."
March 21 at 2:06pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Kyle, not quite... I am saying that the intrinsic primordial awareness of the Dharmakaya simply recognizes itself at some point. A direct introduction can do that. Nothing has changed, but only is recognized. If we are addressing "ignorance" then we are addressing sem or karmic mind as well as the Kunzhi Namshe as though there is an obstacle within the mind that needs to be overcome before we can recognize. That's fine, but that is not Dzogchen or Mahamudra. In Dzogchen we go directly to pointing out rigpa, by-passing the mind completely. Kyle likes to address the mind and its ignorance as his approach and misinterpretation of Dzogchen is intellectually grounded. None of this theory regarding the "five lights" etc. is necessary, its actually distraction from recognizing the essence, which is primary.Rigpa needs no educating nor information from scriptures or texts. How do we bring about this "recognition"? We make a radical differentiation between rigpa or primordial presence and mind (sem) in our current mind-stream.
March 21 at 2:18pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Yes habitual tendencies and karmic propensities obstruct vidyā and the stability of vidyā (ability to firmly rest in vidyā) once recognized.. and yes therefore there are indeed obstacles. That precisely is Dzogchen, just not the interpretation of Dzogchen you are partial to.
Yes the point is to directly introduce vidyā, but vidyā is not simply neutral undifferentiated awareness, the stillness of mind (neutral undifferentiated awareness) doesn't bypass the movement of mind (thought, sem, karmic mind), they are both ignorance.
You can cast all the aspersions you'd like that I misinterpret the teaching and that my understanding is intellectually grounded, you are welcome to sing that song all day if you'd like.
March 21 at 2:30pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Actually rigpa is always stable... mental events come and go, not rigpa. Its like sitting and daydreaming. When you cease daydreaming you are seeing clearly. That "seeing clearly" is always seeing clearing, and when day dreaming it is seeing the day dream "clearly". This "clear seeing" is never absent. Recognizing that is "rigpa". As resting as rigpa there is nothing to do except to continue resting in rigpa. It would be better to talk less from "scriptures" and more to share what we experience in practice... It may be more useful for the audience as well. I mention your intellectual proclivity as being a "cause" for your style of polemic. These discussions are dry and useless except for others grasping for intellectual understanding.
March 21 at 2:36pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: I am interested in presenting these teachings in a way that actually works. The traditional approach has not been successful in the West.
March 21 at 2:40pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Rigpa is not always stable, if it were, there would be no need for the dharma. Neither of us are teachers, but teachers should speak from experience and not talk openly about their own experience. Even at that, we do have some teachers here including Malcolm La who you just asserted was in the wrong.
In truth, my alleged 'intellectual proclivity' is merely distaste for what I say because It doesn't match your own concepts and ideas. When someone else offers up a description which matches your own you praise it. These discussions, as dry and useless as they are in your opinion, are merely to offer a different perspective so that your own proclivities do not dominate this space.
Western life and conditioning is vastly different than the areas these teachings originate from.
March 21 at 3:03pm via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Ponlop Rinpoche: ""Our mind is primordially in the state of Rigpa . Whatever state of mind we go through, whether it is a very heavy experience of ignorance or a very outrageous emotion of anger, we have never moved from the state of rigpa. Our mind has always been in the state of rigpa, but we don’t realize it all the time."
March 21 at 3:13pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Yes it is not realized.
March 21 at 3:15pm via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: “Rigpa abides as the aspect which is aware under
any and all circumstances, and so occurs naturally,
without transition or change”
- Longchenpa
March 21 at 3:15pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Yes the basis is a primordially pure natural formation, yet it isn't recognized.
March 21 at 3:20pm via mobile · Like · 2
Jackson Peterson: From 19th century Dzogchen Master, Shakya Shri Jnana's The Vital Essence
Selected quotes:
"In every instance there is an aware quality that is both empty and cognizant and neither altered nor corrupted by any thoughts. Simply keep this natural state and remain without straying from it."
"The Great Perfection does not require analysis nor cultivation. Rather, it is merely a matter of recognizing, as your own nature, this very wakefulness of natural knowing that is self-existing and spontaneously present throughout samsara and nirvana."
"According to this king of views, our Dzogchen tradition, whether expressions of thought movement occur, remain, or dissolve, the essence does not change but remains a fresh, basic state of naturalness. No matter the variety samsaric or nirvanic displays that may arise, there is nothing else to be attained apart from or superior to this unchanging essence suffused with awareness, which transcends being liberated, even though the labels "Buddha" or "fruition" may be given to it. Since this essence has never been tainted by confusion, it is free from the seeds for taking rebirth... Primordial purity (kadag) means that the basic nature of awareness belongs to neither samsara nor nirvana, and therefore its identity is primordially pure. No type of virtuous karmic cause and effect improves this primordial purity, nor does any type of unvirtuous karmic cause and effect worsen it. This primordially pure identity of awareness can be neither improved nor harmed by anything whatsoever. It is an unchanging openness of awareness that continues throughout the day and night."
Quotes from Quintessential Dzogchen Rangjung Yeshe Books
March 21 at 3:21pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: "Even the thought that freedom comes about through direct introduction is deluded.
One strives to free this essence from whatever binds it, but nothing need be done to free it, for unobstructed Awareness, which has never existed as anything whatsoever, does not entail any duality of something to be realized and someone to realize it.
There is equalness because nothing is improved by realization or worsened by it's absence, so there is no need for any adventitious realization.
And because there never has existed anything to realize- for the ultimate nature of phenomena is beyond ordinary consciousness- to speak of realization on even the relative level is nothing but deluded.
What can be shown at this point is the transcendence of view and meditation, in which nothing need be done regarding realization, nothing need be directly introduced, and no state of meditation need be cultivated. So there is the expression 'it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization'." - Longchenpa
March 21 at 3:26pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Yes it is a matter of recognition. Shakya Shri's first quote states that the capacity one is seeking to recognize is always present (empty and cognizant), uncorrupted etc., yet that natural state must be recognized. This is Shakya Shri's exposition on Trekcho.
The second quote again states it is merely a matter of recognition and it describes the self-existent and spontaneous vidyā one integrates with.
As for the third, yes the essence (ka dag) of the basis is never defiled. He is speaking of vidyā and not neutral undifferentiated awareness. Vidyā is the basis for trekcho, neutral awareness may be implemented as a support for practice but the point is to integrate with vidyā.
March 21 at 3:34pm via mobile · Like · 2
Jackson Peterson: Kyle your comment about not being a "teacher" is true for you I know. but I have been teaching meditation classes twice a week for over 5 years. I have also taught several retreats in the U.S. and Europe and will be teaching another in Sweden in May. I have personally taught and worked with well over 100 students in the last 5 years. I was authorized to teach by my Chan or Zen teacher in China since 1978.
March 21 at 3:36pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: That last Longchenpa quote you posted was clarified by Malcolm on dharma wheel (when you posted it there claiming Longchenpa was stating that direct introduction was unnecessary). I don't have the explanation at the moment but I will post it later if you want to revisit it.
March 21 at 3:36pm via mobile · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Yes, neither of us are teachers of dzogchen.
March 21 at 3:39pm via mobile · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: No, Kyle Dixon, Longchenpa's point is much more subtle and sublime that both you and Malcolm missed. There may occur a "recognition" event, but that is still on the conventional side, a mind event. To understand that this rigpa awareness is primordially as it is means no event like "recognition" would be relevant. Why not? Because there is "no one" to recognize rigpa. Who or what is there outside of rigpa to recognize rigpa other than a projection of sem or deluded mind? Rigpa is primordially self-knowing and doesn't forget. Seeing the necessity of "realization" includes two errors. 1. that there is separate entity to realize rigpa. 2. that rigpa is the result of "cause and effect" actions like a "direct introduction". Very rarely do Dzogchen teachers have the capacity to see and explain this.
March 21 at 3:44pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon: Not the case at all.. I will post the response shortly.
March 21 at 3:47pm via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Realization is merely a mental event, an experience. Rigpa is not an event, insight or experience. It is completely "unestablished".
March 21 at 3:48pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: I am off to bed... we'll pick this up tomorrow!
March 21 at 3:50pm · Like
Malcolm Smith: Jax,
That perspective does not go beyond yogacara.
Sent from my iPad
March 21 at 3:57pm via · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith: It is more accurate to say that many westerners have not been successful in the traditional approach.
Sent from my iPad
March 21 at 3:59pm via · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon: The Longchenpa Quote:
Jax quoting Longchenpa:
"Even the thought that freedom comes about through direct introduction is deluded..."
Malcolm wrote:
Correct, the basis is always intriniscally liberated.
Jax quoting Longchenpa:
"..One strives to free this essence from whatever binds it, but nothing need be done to free it, for unobstructed Awareness, which has never existed as anything whatsoever, does not entail any duality of something to be realized and someone to realize it..."
Malcolm wrote:
Correct, since the basis is always intriniscally liberated.
Jax quoting Longchenpa:
"...What can be shown at this point is the transcendence of view and meditation, in which nothing need be done regarding realization, nothing need be directly introduced, and no state of meditation need be cultivated. So there is the expression 'it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization'..."
Malcolm wrote:
This is where you deviate in your understanding. The Tibetan text does not use the term 'need'. It says quite simply:
"Here, since it is demonstrated there is nothing to be realized, nothing introduced, beyond view and meditation, it is called 'beyond realization and non-realization'".
But the context of the sentence above is provided in the previous sentence:
"Because an object to realize is not established since that ultimate dharmatā is beyond mind, a so called 'realization' in the relative is described to be solely a deluded concept."
This passage is not saying that introduction is unnecessary. It is saying that from the ultimate point of view, there is nothing to introduce. But from an ultimate point of view not only are there no sentient beings, there are also no buddhas. This point of view is not especitally profound. Even the Perfection of Wisdom sutras makes this point. So what?
Longchenpa is not saying that introduction is unnecessary. The context of this statement in general, in terms of the commentary as whole, comes after his description of the two types of transference, those of best capacity and those of medium capacity. Following this, he moves into a description of why Ati is considered unreasonable by those in lower vehicles since Ati is beyond cause and result.
But nevertheless, this does not mean that he considers introduction unnecessary. Quite the opposite in fact, given the shear number of introduction texts he wrote.
Incidentally, on his deathbed, Longchenpa never said 'After I die, rely on chos dbyings mdzod'. What he said actually was 'After I die, rely on the Yangthig Yidbzhin Norbu' a.k.a. the Lama Yangthig.
N
March 21 at 9:55pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Addressing the assertion that there is no one to realize anything:
Jax wrote:
Dechen please hang in here with me a second. There is no one who attains or maintains the natural state or rigpa. There is no entity to rest in the natural state. The one who would recognize or rest is just the assembly of five skandhas, sem. The skandhas are arisings in that uncaused Dharmakaya, who you are. There is no self to realize Rigpa, that's a contradiction of terms.
Malcolm wrote:
There is no self to realize period in Dharma as a whole. Again, this is simple sutrayāna 101 stuff.
Jax wrote:
It's not that there is nothing 'to do', but rather there is no one to do it.
Malcolm wrote:
So far you have shared nothing with us from Dzogchen teachings themselves. You have just shared a bunch of sutrayāna perspectives. The idea that there is really nothing to introduce is Sakyapa and Gelug idea, one the ChNN regularly laughs at. In Dzogchen there is something to introduce.
Your problem is that you are still hung up on the relative/ultimate dichtomy like a first year Zen student.
March 21 at 9:58pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: And to further address the Longchenpa 'direct introduction' quote:
Jax wrote:
Isn't Longchenpa pointing to the fact that Awareness (rigpa) cannot be attained by training, practice or any efforts of any kind? He says that because Awareness is fully present right now. Its not hidden. He even says in the same text that no "direct introduction" or realization is necessary. Your cognitive presence that is experiencing, is the experience, of the five senses, as well as your thoughts and emotions...is this timelessly present Knowingness, that Norbu call pure "noticing". It's not more present after practice or study or transmission. Its the clear unchanging Awareness that appears as everything. Is it really so hard to notice that the Awareness he is speaking of is your present open and clear awareness just as it is?
Malcolm wrote:
No actually, what Longchenpa is talking about vidyā as dharmakāya.
Because vidyā is essenceless, because a substantial active agent is contradicted in the real state, and because it has always been naturally formed, there are no stages to train on, paths to traverse, mandala to create, empowerment to receive, path to meditate, commitments to protect, activities to accomplish and so on. There is no need create again what has already formed naturally. If it were necessary, conventionally designating natural formation as unconditioned would be invalid. Consequently, the dharmakāya would be perishable because it would be conditioned, and because it would have been made by causes and conditions.
The purpose of this statement is to point out that in reality there are no agent and actions so therefore these following things do not exist in vidyā, the dharmakāya. It does not mean that there is nothing to do. Most people are unaware that lhun grub means "not made by anyone". It means that vidyā cannot be fabricated, only recognized.
But Longchenpa does not say that introduction is unnecessary. On the contrary, chapter nine explicitly teachs introduction:
"From the two systems in which naked vidyā is suddenly recognized, this is the introduction which does not depend on critical points. Since that stark, uninterrupted and uniform awareness (which does not move outwardly, grasp inwardly, rest in middle, is not fabricated with the mind and is without conceptual movement) exists at all times, by introducing it's naked arising within the state of the blessing at the time when the master and student are momentarily in the same state, starkness is seen nakedly. That alone can generate confidence in dharmakāya. The critical point is to sustain that state without meditation and without distraction."
Then of course there is the system of introduction that depends on six critical points.
However your contention "He even says in the same text that no 'direct introduction' or realization is necessary." is proven to be false.
N
March 21 at 10:00pm · Like
Jackson Peterson: Actually, several points are not true. I am sharing the words of Longchenpa. If someone wants to argue with Longchenpa, please feel free! I made my position clear: Rigpa, which is an awareness and a perspective, a different way to see and know reality, is always functioning as our current experience. When we see this its seen as to how its always been. Its that shift from "guest" to "host" position. Hence we can say it didn't require a "realization" because the realizer (guest) is just a projection of mind. Rigpa can also become fully present when the "condition" of anatta occurs as the subconscious mind ceases projecting the ego-me-self-story suddenly. Rather than there being a conscious "realization", there is simply and suddenly a "dropping away" which reveals the fullness of the "unestablished".
But indeed some sort of realization occurs for some as well, but not as though it was necessary. And this is seen as part of the realization! Its like a dog is chasing his tail and is causing all kinds of suffering for itself and eventually he catches on that he has been chasing his own tail and finally stops. Was it necessary for him to chase his tail in the first place in order to just "stop" and enjoy the relaxation that was always available? As in Mahamudra, we can just "stop" and see the obvious. Nothing "needs" pointing out. This is certainly the case in Soto Zen shikentaza. Is the pointing out the key to it all? I would say not. The key is relaxing into what is always here without meddling with it. It will reveal it own wisdom naturally. This is the same as shamatha blossoming into vipassana naturally. Many have received the "introduction" and have no great change as a result. The realization is not definitive. The cessation of the causes of apparently "not being in rigpa" is definitive.
Longchenpa: ""Even the thought that freedom comes about through direct introduction is deluded.
One strives to free this essence from whatever binds it, but nothing need be done to free it, for unobstructed Awareness, which has never existed as anything whatsoever, does not entail any duality of something to be realized and someone to realize it.
There is equalness because nothing is improved by realization or worsened by it's absence, so there is no need for any adventitious realization.
And because there never has existed anything to realize- for the ultimate nature of phenomena is beyond ordinary consciousness- to speak of realization on even the relative level is nothing but deluded.
What can be shown at this point is the transcendence of view and meditation, in which nothing need be done regarding realization, nothing need be directly introduced, and no state of meditation need be cultivated. So there is the expression 'it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization'." Longchenpa
Gotta luv it!
March 22 at 1:03am · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: Kyle, wrote:
" Things don't arise from the basis, they arise from the non-recognition of the basis."
"The basis is likewise a convention, it isn't real, it is only the basis because it hasn't been recognized."
You're confusing me, because you talk about the basis and then say Dzogchen doesn't posit a 'ground of all being'.
How can non-recognition of the basis cause things to arise?
How can the basis arise because it hasn't been recognized?
"Reification is creating because without it there would only be the unestablished appearance of the basis which is simply the five lights."
Are you saying there is a basis or that there is no basis, regardless of whether it is un-established or reified into appearances?
"but that ground only arises due to afflicted grasping and clinging and therefore whatever arises from that ground is delusion."
Are you saying that afflicted mind causes the base to arise and thereafter deluded appearances arise?
Are your saying there is a ground, but it only arises due to afflicted grasping and clinging?
To be honest at this stage I not sure I understand the part you quoted - from The Unwritten Tantra [per Malcolm].
I agree, " what matters is the recognition or non-recognition of primordial purity and the consequences of recognition/non-recognition"
I totally agree, "Sentient beings are confused about the appearance of the basis, buddhas are not, when sentient beings are no longer confused they are buddhas."
To me emptiness and arising of apparent appearances are one and the same.
I disagree that Dzogchen accords with a soteriological system.
In my understanding, the basis has no 'certain attributes and functions'.
"...but essentially samsara is the result of an error, which is not recognizing the appearance of the basis (avidyā). As soon as that non-recognition occurs it's said that both samsara and nirvana arise, the 12 links of dependent origination (which you're familiar with) start up and all the conditional phenomena such as persons (sentient beings), places (universe and world), things, time, spatiality, sensory modalities and fields etc... apparently arise."
Kyle, what is the "appearance of the basis"?
Are you saying the appearance of the basis is recognition of the basis?
I totally agree with " In contrast, when the appearance of the basis is recognized, then one understands their natural state and the knowledge (Skt. vidyā, Tib. rig pa) which results from that recognition then serves as the foundation for one's practice (which is integration with that knowledge). When one has fully integrated with that knowledge, has realized emptiness etc.. then they are a Buddha." I'm not certain about this part though, "At that point the basis is no longer the basis but is then simply the highest wisdom."
You quoted Malcolm here (below) where he says "you can be sure that you are not seeing the appearances of the basis as they are" and said THIS way I completely understand it.
"As Malcolm's said before: "The appearance of the basis is not a fault; the non-recognition of those appearances is. That is where samsara comes from. And, as long as you have samsaric vision, karmic vision, you can be sure that you are not seeing the appearances of the basis as they are, but are viewing them through traces of affliction and action. In other words, the gnas lugs, how things are, and snang lugs, how things appear are dissonant because of ignorance., etc."
The basis and the appearances of the basis are inseparable. Yes? No?
You wrote "Rigpa is not always stable"
And you quoted "When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā." Doesn't this quote "dharmatā does not shift" mean that Rigpa is stable? What shifts/moves is the thinking mind.
Is there a difference between "neutral undifferentiated awareness" and vidya? If I've understood what you've said, you say that Vidya is a specific species of knowledge. Is this the knowledge of the true nature of mind?
Isn't this exactly what recognizes itself?
March 22 at 4:24am · Like
Dairin Ashley: A question to help my understanding and meditation. If this is the wrong place to ask this please let me know.
Once recognition has occured, is it a matter of "So the practice is many small glimpses of recognition until it all kind of opens up or falls apart." until the subject/object duality totally collapses?
March 22 at 4:29am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Dairin great questions for Kyle... First off Kyle is confusing you because he is using one term for two types of "basis". The primordially pure Base is called "Zhi", its the ultimate Ground so to speak. Everything comes out of that Ground. Its ultimate pregnant Emptiness. That Ground is Samantabhadra. As energy first arises out of that Ground the Wisdom of Mirror-like Awareness arises in the center position of the Five Buddha Mandala as Vairocana Buddha. Actually Samantabhadra transforms himself into Vairocana as a symmetry transformation. It is from the position of Vairocana that we perceive our mandala of experience. All things, appearances gather in the awareness of Vairocana like reflections, as he is the "Mirror Like Wisdom".
The consciousness of Vairocana can either "recognize" the origin of itself and the mandala, to be the display of Samantabhadra or not. Its not "recognizing", is called "marigpa" or ignorance. At that moment of "non-recognition" the consciousness of Vairocana transforms into the consciousness of the "Fifth Skandha", nam shes, or vijanana, as the samsaric "subject" who now sits at the middle of the samsaric mandala of "Five Skhandas. This is the real reifiecation of the "subject/object" split.
All the karmic acts and traces are now "stored" in a "storehouse" called the alaya vijnana or kunzhi namshe. This is also called a "basis", "ground" as "ground of all karmic propensities", "bag-chag" etc. Kyle switches back and forth using the one "basis" or "ground" without clarifying which one he is referring to: Zhi or Kunzhi Namshe.
The original Clear Light Knowing of Samantabhadra was never lost in the downward spiral of symmetry transformations of his consciousness. We are always seeing through the Light of Samntabhadra, or it is always Samantabhadra that is "Seeing". No "ignorance", karma, or blockages can obscure that Pure Seeing. That pure Seeing pervades every perception and experience. A "direct introduction" or" pointing-out", points to that ever present Pure Seeing of Samantabhadra. Nothing impedes that Clear Light. Recognizing that Pure Clear Light Seeing as being in fact "our seeing" is rigpa. But also ontologically one can say that the Pure Clear Light Seeing is itself rigpa. And actually "rigpa" is not really a "knowledge" at all. If we look at the Sanskrit word "vidya" the "vid" is also the vid in video, as the root "vid" also implies a "seeing". Knowledge implies data or information. In experience when as in "rigpa", its not that one "knows" something special but rather one is "seeing" from a completely different and unexpected perspective. Rigpa is the seeing from that enlightened perspective. Its the view as seen through the eyes of a Buddha. It is already the Buddha that is doing your seeing, that's why Longchenpa says no "Direct Introduction" or "realization" is necessary. Only Samantabhadra or Buddha is seeing, there is no one else at home. Makes some better sense?
March 22 at 6:13am · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith: Jax, you should learn how to listen.
Sent from my iPad
March 22 at 7:41am via · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith: There is a difference between neutral awareness and vidya.
Sent from my iPad
March 22 at 7:43am via · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith: Jax,
Loncgchenpa never says direct introduction is not needed. You are misreading longchenpa.
Sent from my iPad
March 22 at 7:45am via · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm, you are not sharing anything new here... I understand where you are coming from.
March 22 at 8:11am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm, Longchenpa is making an important point. Please read what he wrote more carefully and try to understand his point.
March 22 at 8:14am via mobile · Like
Malcolm Smith: Hi jax,
I have, and in directly in tibetan. He is not making the point you think he is. He is making a different point. But i am in mexico and it is little hard to spend time to further clarify.
Sent from my iPad
March 22 at 8:18am via · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: I am NOT saying "direct introduction" and "pointing out" are wrong. They can appear to be most helpful. We just have to figure out who or what they are benefiting. If we say the "person", then I have to say that I can't find that person. I only find empty, brilliant, self-knowing Clear Light!
March 22 at 8:23am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: Have a margarita for me please, salt on rim please! Enjoy!
March 22 at 8:26am via mobile · Like
Soh: Hi Malcolm, an unrelated qn: alwayson said "Two fold emptiness is not something to be realized as part of trekcho"
Is this correct or not?
March 22 at 10:22am via mobile · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith: Hi Jax:
In the statements from Kyle quoting my response to you earlier, this is addressed directly citing Longchenpa himself.
Relatively speaking there is a person. Ultimately there is not. Relative and ultimate are not the same thing in Dzogchen and madhyamaka however. Here, relative means from the point of view of not knowing one's real state. Ultimate means from the point of view of knowing or seeing (however you wish to parse vidyā) one's real state, there is no person. When people do not know their real state, then there is something to introduce and someone to whom it is introduced. After than point, then it becomes moot. But you need to be careful that you do not confuse these two perspectives in your discourse. If you spend too much time talking from the "result" side, you will not properly express the meaning of the base or the path. The basis is only the basis from the point of view not having been introduced to one's real state. When you have been introduced to it, it becomes the path and the result without changing or being modified one little bit.
Most of this conversation has consistent of persistent misunderstandings and talking past one another. You and Kyle are often talking past one another, and in my opinion, you in particular seem to have a hard time listening to what other people are saying and therefore, you do not understand or respond to what they are actually saying because you are merely hammering on your "talking points". Please try to take a little time to relax and try not to use the word "wrong" so much.
M
March 22 at 11:35am via · Like · 5
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith Good advice but I think the only real examples of my not appearing to be "listening to" are you and Kyle. We have a history of over a year now , all three of us banging it out at Dharma Wheel and at FB. I respect your knowledge and often don't agree. We are arguing over the exact same points for over a year. Perhaps we can private message over our points of controversy. Perhaps when we don't agree we can ask the other to just clarify. I "listened" or read your every word carefully. My responses were based on that. Kyle just loves to disagree with everything I write that he has some familiarity with. It's guaranteed, I just wait to read his "critique". I never claimed to be a Dzogchen master. But I have been an avid student since 1978. I have received all the important transmissions and have practiced extensively. A lineage Lama has approved my understanding and felt I am teaching the "view" correctly. So at times I do disagree from my experience regarding our topics. I have no interest in arguing over "scriptural texts" and points of scholarship. I am interested in helping others to catch glimpses of their potential in immediate experience. I have many people contacting me daily sharing some recently triggered new insights. That makes it all worth it... Doesn't it?
Ok, I won't say you are "wrong" even if I think so. Ok, so lets move on and enjoy Soh group further...
Also, Soh asked you about realizing "two-fold emptiness" or not at trekchod. I would say if not then rigpa hasn't been recognized. Two-fold emptiness are intrinsic wisdom of Rigpa. If that's not realized, then rigpa hasn't been realized. If rigpa hasn't been realized, then trekchod is not complete. Your comments?
March 22 at 2:27pm via mobile · Like
Malcolm Smith: Hi Jax:
Also a lineage lama signed off on my understanding and experience, a very high terton and a dzogchen master and further, encouraged me to teach Dzogchen.
So what? This fact is pretty meaningless to anyone but me.
As far as agreeing goes -- your theoretical soundings often simply does not jibe a) with my experience b) what I have been taught by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and Kunzang Dechen Lingpa, etc. c) what Dzogchen tantras actually say. Hence, we sometimes disagree. Since I read these texts directly in Tibetan, I am not inclined to favor the way you are reading them in translation.
Otherwise, carry on.
M
March 22 at 4:17pm via · Like · 1
Soh: Hi Jax:
As Malcolm pointed out, recognition of rigpa is recognition of clarity. This is then the basis for practicing trekchod. Recognition of one's luminous clarity is not the same as realizing emptiness which occurs in the third vision of thodgal. Recognition of rigpa does not equal to realization of rigpa (the three wisdoms in entirety).
However, I am not sure if alwayson is right in saying that realizing emptiness "is not something to be realized as part of trekcho".
In Dzogchen, does practicing trekcho result in realizing emptiness, or does one have to proceed to thodgal? That's something I hope Malcolm can clarify.
March 22 at 7:29pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: There's a thread on here which was pretty recent where that came up and I think Malcolm addresses that, though I could be wrong. I'll check my files and repost the discussion if it does.
March 22 at 7:48pm via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Malcolm wrote:
In Dzogchen, the realization of emptiness occurs when one accomplishes the third vision. Prior to this, emptiness is merely correct inference. Khenpa Ngachung explains this as one of the superiorities of Dzogchen i.e. that one can discover one's real nature prior to the realization of emptiness. This feature allows one to eradicate the coarse obscurations even while below the path of seeing, where traditionally, in Mahāyāna systems, it is held to be impossible.
---------------------
Jax wrote:
Interesting Malcolm Smith, hadn't heard that. However I can cite many examples that equate realization of Kadag at trekchod with realization of emptiness. Are there even more varying opinions beyond these two?
also trekchod is equated with realization of Mahamudra. Surely you concede Mahamudra realization is also the full realization of emptiness... No?
Malcolm wrote:
Hi Jax:
Realizing treghö and practicing tregchö are two entirely different things. One practices tregchö until realization. The practice of trencho however is only possible when one is free from doubts about one's primordial state i.e. the basis [gzhi].
---------------------
Malcolm wrote:
Tregchö is a practice. It has a result. The practice of Mahāmudra, Lamdre and Tregchö is basically the same i.e. equipoise in an instant of uncontrived awareness.
Jax wrote:
Yes, Malcolm, I know that. But I am saying when the fruit of trekcho view is realized, that is the same as Mahamudra. Since that is the "same" as Mahamudra, and realization of Mahamudra contains the full realization of two-fold emptiness, then trekchod realization contains full realization of two-fold emptiness as well. Hence practice of thogal is not necessary for realization of two-fold emptiness.
Malcolm wrote:
Hi JAx:
No one every said that thogal was necessary for realizing twofold emptiness.
---------------------
Jax wrote:
Is there another emptiness realized beyond two-fold emptiness at the third thogal vision?
Malcolm wrote:
Hi Jax:
No, there is not.
---------------------
Jax wrote:
then the Third Vision of Thogal realization of emptiness is not superior to the two-fold emptiness realized upon realization of Kadag at trekchod?
Malcolm wrote:
The answer to your question is no, it is not superior. The third vision is basically the equivalent of the first bhumi in the sutra system.
However, in tregchö one does not eradicated the coarse obscurations prior to realization of emptiness.
March 22 at 7:50pm · Like · 1
Soh: Yes I've read that post the previous days. So is it right to say that, realization of trekcho = realization of emptiness as well/the three wisdoms in entirety? Hence, trekcho does lead to realization of emptiness?
March 22 at 7:53pm · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith: Ka dag yes, but not ka dag chen po.
March 22 at 9:42pm via · Like · 1
Soh: Thank you. Is realizing ka dag chen po = realizing the inseparability of the three wisdoms in contrast to mere kadag?
I found a description of ka dag chen po online in tsadra.org, "open dimension of primordial purity. Here, 'open' meaning unbounded and without center. beyond any particularization or localization."
Would you say this is an apt description?
March 22 at 9:50pm · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith: ka dag chen po means realizing non-dual ka dag and lhun grub
March 22 at 9:52pm · Like · 2
Logan Truthe: thanks Malcolm and Soh, for giving me some understand of the link between the sutra two-fold emptiness and trekchod. Anyone knows where i can find more about this 'link' in more detail, in english translation
March 22 at 11:58pm · Like
Logan Truthe: Malcolm says : There is a difference between neutral awareness and vidya.
This is a standard deviation, all practitioners should look out for this carefully
March 22 at 11:59pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Great continuation of the thread, right on topic! I make a different point: when we are "seeing-knowing" in a moment of rigpa, two-fold emptiness is the way we see or experience the luminosity. (Total experience). If that is not our actual experiential way of Seeing then we are not talking about rigpa, but rather some other "experience" as clarity, bliss or a non-conceptual state. For me I find this useful in sorting out what is a "clarity state" of the alaya, versus the wisdom-insight of rigpa.
Actual rigpa is Seeing through the eyes of a Buddha. In thogal we are able to do this almost immediately as is obvious in practice, hence thogal's superiority over trekchod. Thogal and trekchod should be practiced together as they are supports for each other. One may even experience the four visions of thogal in trekchod alone. The body will disappear as well but in a different mode without a Light Body, as one goes straight to Dharmakaya. Vimalamitra taught that in trekchod the Four Visions or levels will occur the same as in thogal but in reverse order.
March 23 at 1:00am via mobile · Like
Dairin Ashley: Thank you so much Jackson, your reply to my last comments is extremely helpful.
March 23 at 3:33am via mobile · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: Need to catch up with the rest of this great conversation. What a privilege.
March 23 at 3:34am via mobile · Like · 1
Soh: Hi Malcolm,
I told Alwayson what you said about the difference between practicing and realizing trekcho, and trekcho leading to realization of ka dag and thodgal leading to ka dag chen po, but he thinks that the 'kadag' you are saying is not 'actual emptiness' and could be different from realizing twofold emptiness. My understanding of 'kadag' is that it is in fact 'actual emptiness'. Is realization of kadag also equivalent to realization of twofold emptiness?
March 23 at 8:48am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Interesting reading recently. It seems Dzogchen may not have always followed the theory of the "alaya vijnana", or "Ground Consciousness", "kunzhi namshe".
This "theory" which is just a theory, comes from Yogacara school or "vijnanavada". Not all schools believe in this theory. It seems in earliest Dzogchen texts its not mentioned outside the basis being "Bodhicitta" as a pure basis. This Yogacara concept creeped in later. We must remember that this curious theory is understood differently in different schools. My theory is that our "ground of traces" exists in our energy field that is associated with our subtle Light Body of chakras that is the body of our rigpa awareness. The "karmic traces" stay in quantum "super-position" until triggered by similar events as as initiated by a "contracting" strong "me" moment. It seems to work that way. Many just take these various Buddhist psychological theories as "truth".
For instance I recently heard the Dalai Lama say at a science conference that "neuro-science has proven the Abhidarma theory is not correct. We must be willingly to be open to greater understanding that scientific research reveals. Buddha would have supported this scientific research."
March 23 at 10:07am via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: The ālaya (kungzhi) is not the same as the ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes).
March 23 at 10:09am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Of course Kyle... I'm addressing the theory of the Yogacara theory of the "Store house consciousness" "Alaya Vijnana" as KunZhi Namshe. This is now the theory in Dzogchen. This "store house consciousness" was not discussed in "Samtan Migdron" nor in sBas pa rgum chung. This had been a hot topic for centuries.
March 23 at 10:19am via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Yes it's one of the eight consciousnesses.
March 23 at 10:22am via mobile · Like
Jackson Peterson: It's also interesting how later Dzogchen considered the "Zhi" to be in the form of the "Youthful Vase Body" (gzhon nu bum sku). The Zhi is considered to have a form like a vase with its "rigpa" is likened to a butter lamp placed in the vase and its luminosity, the light of the butter lamp. The Light Body is the vase, the lamp is the heart, the rigpa is in the brain as a "light ball" and its light shines out the eyes. It's called youthful because it doesn't change in time.
March 23 at 10:37am via mobile · Like
Malcolm Smith: Ka dag is emptiness. Not only is it emptiness, it refers to the purity of the basis.
Sent from my iPad
March 23 at 11:43am via · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith: Which again is not the same thing as the basis i.e. gzhi or sthana.
Sent from my iPad
March 23 at 11:44am via · Like · 2
Soh: Thank you again, Malcolm. It seems I may have misinterpreted his statements. He isn't suggesting kadag is not emptiness but suggesting that there are two levels of emptiness - one being the "actual emptiness/twofold emptiness" the other being the "emptiness of the inseparable clarity and emptiness", what do you think about this:
"Right, the emptiness of inseparable clarity and emptiness refers to the fact that you cannot point to clarity with your finger. You cannot find clarity, nor get rid of clarity.
This has nothing to do with kadag."
He also asked "Ask Malcolm if you can realize emptiness through trekcho alone. "
March 23 at 6:07pm · Like
Malcolm Smith: Alwayson is correct in this instance. This is a general statement about the nature of the mind common to all mahayana traditions. We can find ka dag in the sutras such as perfection of wisdom, but this is a quite limited and indirect reference.
Sent from my iPad
March 23 at 6:18pm via · Like · 1
Soh: Thanks, so is it the case that one starts with recognizing "inseparable clarity and emptiness" in trekchod practice and then proceed to realizing trekchod which entails realizing kadag being the actual emptiness/twofold emptiness and the purity of basis?
He seems to think that in Dzogchen, one can only realize emptiness in Thodgal even though I showed him what you said.
"Indeed Malcolm says in the beginning that emptiness is an inference. But that emptiness is realized in thogal, not trekcho.
""In Dzogchen, the realization of emptiness occurs when one accomplishes the third vision. Prior to this, emptiness is merely correct inference."
Malcolm never said you realize emptiness during realization of trekcho."
March 23 at 6:20pm · Like
Malcolm Smith: Generally speaking, tregcho means relaxing into one's knowledge of the basis.
Sent from my iPad
March 23 at 6:50pm via · Like · 1
Logan Truthe: Soh: yes, the third vision is equated to reaching the first bhumi.
March 23 at 8:02pm · Like
Soh: Yes indeed third vision is 1~7 bhumi, but is realizing tregcho = first bhumi as well?
March 23 at 8:26pm · Like
Logan Truthe: i think so, in the mahamudra 4 yogas, i think the second yoga is equated to 1st bhumi already and trekcho is similar to mahamudra in many sense according to Trungpa Rinpoche
March 23 at 8:44pm · Like
Soh: Okay, good to hear that... Alwayson seems to think trekcho doesn't lead to realizing twofold emptiness or first bhumi, so I'm just checking things out here.
March 23 at 8:45pm · Like
Logan Truthe: i saw a quotation somewhere that the intent of trekcho does not depart from the final analysis of madhyamika, i think Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche expressed that. if that is so, what else could be realised besides the two-fold emptinesses?
March 23 at 8:47pm · Like · 2
Logan Truthe: actually we are often trapped in all these terminologies
March 23 at 8:47pm · Like · 1
Logan Truthe: Trungpa Rinpoche : "Trekcho is the sudden path, achieving realisation of the alaya (basic ground, rikpa), without going through the six paramitas... it is the negative aspect of nirvana at its highest level...Mahamudra is a form of Trekcho..." Rinpoche also characterised Togal as the 'positive aspect of nirvana at its ultimate level."
March 23 at 8:54pm · Like · 1
Jaro Majer: All realization is contained in the direct insight of dependent origination, not in reifying a basis, neither through mis-interpreting a direct non-conceptual experience or through projecting monistic idealism onto the concept of Dharmakaya. Yogis turn the Alaya vijnana into the experience as dharmakaya, it's not an inherent thing... it's all inter-dependent and empty, both conceptually and experientially. It seems that people are still trying to attach a supreme Self to existence, clinging to some type of ultimate ground of being that Self exists.
March 23 at 10:28pm · Like · 3
Soh: Jaro, yes indeed... not reifying but also not rejecting the vivid luminosity of forms
March 23 at 10:29pm · Like · 3
Jaro Majer: Yes, it's not Nihilism...
March 23 at 10:32pm · Like · 2
Dairin Ashley: Deify and reify are different.
March 23 at 10:49pm via mobile · Like
Jaro Majer: Still, reification of anything, even realization or Buddhahood is antithetical to Buddhahood. Buddhists deify plenty... but to reify is not the way of the awakened ones.
March 23 at 10:53pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Did I read that someone said that they thought "kadag" and "emptiness" were separate aspects? Kadag is emptiness. The primordial purity is Emptiness. Realization of kadag is realization of emptiness. Original nature is pure because of its emptiness.
March 24 at 4:46pm via mobile · Like
Kyle Dixon: Ok Dairin finally got to respond to these questions... I think I answered them all. I'm not a teacher nor am I trying to present myself that way so I hope Malcolm will correct me if I've made any errors.
Dairin Ashley wrote:
"Things don't arise from the basis, they arise from the non-recognition of the basis."
"The basis is likewise a convention, it isn't real, it is only the basis because it hasn't been recognized."
"You're confusing me, because you talk about the basis and then say Dzogchen doesn't posit a 'ground of all being'. How can non-recognition of the basis cause things to arise? How can the basis arise because it hasn't been recognized?"
"Reification is creating because without it there would only be the unestablished appearance of the basis which is simply the five lights."
Are you saying there is a basis or that there is no basis, regardless of whether it is un-established or reified into appearances?
"but that ground only arises due to afflicted grasping and clinging and therefore whatever arises from that ground is delusion."
Are you saying that afflicted mind causes the base to arise and thereafter deluded appearances arise?
Are your saying there is a ground, but it only arises due to afflicted grasping and clinging?
"Reification is creating because without it there would only be the unestablished appearance of the basis which is simply the five lights."
Are you saying there is a basis or that there is no basis, regardless of whether it is un-established or reified into appearances?
"but that ground only arises due to afflicted grasping and clinging and therefore whatever arises from that ground is delusion."
Are you saying that afflicted mind causes the base to arise and thereafter deluded appearances arise?
Are your saying there is a ground, but it only arises due to afflicted grasping and clinging?
---------------------------
The basis (Skt. sthana, Tib. gzhi) is not a ground of being, dzogchen does indeed posit a ground of being, however the basis (gzhi) is not it. For dzogchen, the all-basis (Skt. ālaya, Tib. kun gzhi) is the 'ground of being' but it's also the ground of all four extremes (being, non-being, both & neither). The ālaya is synonymous with ignorance (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa) and the reason for this is because the idea that phenomena only arise as a result of our habitual tendencies (of grasping and clinging) is a very important aspect of the buddhadharma which separates it from the Vedantic traditions. Teachings such as Advaita Vedanta and the like posit a transcendental ground-of-being (Brahman) from which phenomena arise and subside as expressions of that ground, but this is not the model that Buddhism employs, nor is it the model that dzogchen uses.
Non-recognition of the basis (gzhi) essentially means that the basis' appearance (the five lights) are not recognized to be self-display. Non-recognition means that the basis' own radiance is not recognized and is therefore apprehended as 'other'. That error causes the illusion of subjectve/objective phenomena to arise and through the habitual reification of afflictive patterning such as imputation, the unborn display of the basis then becomes a sentient being and it's respective environment. This process of adulteration is represented quite well by the 12 Nidānas which (in the dzogchen model) are set into motion by the third ignorance (imputing ignorance), creating a basis for the proliferation of habitual tendencies i.e. the ālaya. The ālaya acts as a reservoir in a sense, collecting imprints and serving as a substratum for all the myriad forms of designations and actions which are mistaken as inherent aspects of experience.
The Reverberation of Sound Tantra explains the etymology of 'all-basis':
"The etymology of 'kun' (all) lies in it's subsuming everything.
The etymology of 'gzhi' (basis) lies in it's accumulation and hoarding (of karmic traces and propensities)."
The Reverberation of Sound states:
"Here I will explain the all-basis to start off:
It is the ground of all phenomena and non-phenomena."
Therefore the ālaya acts as the basis-of-all, meaning that it is the foundation for conditioned phenomena (phenomena which accord with any of the four extremes, i.e. existence, non-existence, both and neither) and the afflictive habitual patterning which sustains ignorance. So Dzogchen does have a ground-of-being, however that ground is only ever one's own ignorance.
The Tantra of the Self-Arisen Vidyā states:
'The all-basis (Skt. ālaya, Tib. kun gzhi) is adulterated by diverse cognitive processes
By force of it's sustaining neurotic conceptuality;
The all-basis is the real ignorance (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa)'.
In some traditions (dzogchen included) the skandha of consciousness has an eightfold network of primary consciousnesses, one of them being the ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes) which accumulates the subtle traces and imprints which transmigrate. The ālaya (kungzhi) discussed above is not the same as the ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes), the ālaya is merely the abiding substratum of ignorance which allows for all of these proliferations to occur.
So to clarify and refute Jackson's claim that I'm talking about the ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes) when I mention the ālaya (kungzhi), I am not. The ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes) and the ālaya (kungzhi) are not the same.
I'm never referring to the ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes) when discussing the ālaya (kun gzhi).
As for the basis (Skt. sthana, Tib. gzhi) [not the all-basis], when discussing it's application from a purely conventional standpoint in reference to the dzogchen model; the notion of a basis does indeed appear due to non-recognition (but this is only because it is merely a skillful way to conceptually define self-originated primordial wisdom). Within the model itself the basis is never the result of anything nor is it ever subject to affliction or adulteration. There are a great deal of safeguards which are implemented to ensure that the basis isn't reified in a manner which is counterproductive. Meaning, that the way the basis is portrayed (the compositional attributes and characteristics which constitute the basis, such as the three kāyas etc.) signifies a constitutional structure which serves to reveal how primordial wisdom contradicts delusion by design. So the description of the basis attempts to 'tread lightly' so to speak, in order to ensure that the very notion of a 'basis' doesn't promote further afflictive patterning i.e. grasping at extremes... but even at that, the basis is still an idea which is being conceptually delineated and it therefore does not transcend conventionality.
The basis is only the basis because it hasn't been recognized. Once recognition has occurred, the basis is no longer the basis but then simultaneously becomes the path and result. After recognition one's direct experiential knowledge of the basis (Skt. vidyā, Tib. rig pa) serves as the foundation for one's practice. When one's knowledge of the basis comes to it's full measure, then the basis and one's vidyā are no longer differentiated and the basis simply becomes the highest wisdom.
March 24 at 6:19pm · Like · 4
Kyle Dixon: Dairin Ashley wrote:
To be honest at this stage I not sure I understand the part you quoted - from The Unwritten Tantra [per Malcolm]:
["There is not object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Discriminating wisdom does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything."
- from The Unwritten Tantra]
The quote is describing the view form the perspective of primordial wisdom, emptiness free from extremes. Following the logic discussed above, the list of qualities, characteristics etc., elucidated in the quote above, only appear to arise as viable designations from the perspective of ignorance (avidyā).
---------------------------
Dairin Ashley wrote:
I disagree that Dzogchen accords with a soteriological system.
In my understanding, the basis has no 'certain attributes and functions'.
Dzogchen is concerned with addressing bondage, suffering and the causes of ignorance so that one can become liberated. As a system, even though primordial wisdom is divested of samsara and nirvana (as the quote from the Unwritten Tantra states above), the very release from the delusion which gives rise to samsara and nirvana is itself liberation, which means that samsara and nirvana are not contradicted. Ergo, Dzogchen is a soteriological system.
---------------------------
Dairin Ashley wrote:
Kyle, what is the "appearance of the basis"?
Are you saying the appearance of the basis is recognition of the basis?
The five wisdom lights which are the expression of the basis' nature as a spontaneous natural formation (lhun grub). Recognition and/or non-recognition are not an appearance of the basis.
---------------------------
Dairin Ashley wrote:
The basis and the appearances of the basis are inseparable. Yes? No?
Yes it's just two ways of discussing a singular nature (though not singular in truth because even 'singular' doesn't apply).
---------------------------
Dairin Ashley wrote:
You wrote "Rigpa is not always stable"
And you quoted "When appearances spread, that basis of the emptiness of dharmatā does not shift whatsoever, never transcending the emptiness of dharmatā." Doesn't this quote "dharmatā does not shift" mean that Rigpa is stable? What shifts/moves is the thinking mind.
Dharmatā is the authentic nature of reality which is emptiness free from extremes. The empty nature of reality is likewise empty and unfounded because it only applies to 'reality'. Vidyā (rigpa) in the context of dzogchen, is one's knowledge of the basis and so no, it is not always stable (unless one is of the highest capacity where their vidyā is effortlessly stable from the very moment of recognition).
Most individuals need to familiarize themselves with vidyā and integrate with that knowledge. I think there are a lot of misconceptions as to what vidyā actually is, and unfortunately with it being widely translated as 'awareness', vidyā is often mistaken for our always present and neutrally undifferentiated awareness. Misunderstanding like this often leads one to grasp at the stillness of mind as opposed to the movement of mind (as you've sort of implied with stating that the thinking mind is the only thing which shifts). That would make perfect sense if vidyā was one's neutral awake cognizance because yes that quality is unsullied by conceptualization and the movement of thought, however vidyā is not that. So those who believe that they are innately liberated without having to do anything simply because their neutral awareness is 'undefiled' by thought are unfortunately only deluding themselves. The 'instantaneous individual' with the highest capacity which is stable in vidyā from the first moment of recognition is called a chikcharwa (cig-car-ba), and from what I've read there hasn't been any chikcharwas in any lineage of Dzogchen for centuries. So every practitioner alive today has had to go through the process of intimation and familiarization with their natural state and if they say otherwise they are confused about Dzogchen.
March 24 at 6:20pm · Like · 5
Soh: Wow Kyle. Your presentation of Dzogchen view is excellent.
March 24 at 6:28pm · Like
Dannon Flynn: Haha, in the first moments of recognition, I thought that I would be a chikcharwa! I didn't know of that term, but I thought from here on out everything will be smooth! lol.
Kyle, I have been meditating on your issue with the word "awareness" and I see your point. "Instant Presence" is not quite the same thing as undifferentiated awareness, yet for lack of a better word 'awareness' is used. "Presence" might be a better word, but without denying awareness somehow.
But the point is that "Knowledge". With undifferentiated awareness there is not that knowledge. And somebody would have to be dishonest with himself to think it is 'knowledge'. So the question to ask myself when recognizing Rigpa would be "Is this true knowing?"
March 24 at 7:25pm · Like
Dairin Ashley: Just seen Kyle's posts, haven't read anything yet, just starting my work day here. Thank you Kyle. Can't wait to read.
March 25 at 12:33am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Highly analytical discussions are not the way Dzogchen is taught. This type of approach engages the "sem" (dualistic mind) in its effort to gain understanding. That is why Dzogchen masters never engage in this type of polemic when transmitting Dzogchen directly.
The manner is very down to earth and gutsy. They left these dry discussions for the their books and texts.
To really have an effective "Direct Introduction" it is best if the student has no intellectual framework to work with. Because that will only get in the way. That's why it is said that Dzogchen can be transmitted to an uneducated farmer as well as to an educated person. (probably easier!)
Rather our learning needs to come from looking at our own condition. What is this awareness that is aware of this moment of experience? Does it have color or shape? Can it be located? Is it just blank or does it have a vivid intelligent capacity of knowing?
What are our thoughts? Do they have substance? Where do they come from? Where do they go to? Who or what is noticing these thoughts? Are they self-aware? Between two thoughts, what is that presence that is still aware even though there is no object of thought? Is that same knowing presence, present during thinking as well? When the mind is perfectly still, is the aware presence the same? Is that awareness dependent on the mind being still? What is knowing the "still state"? What is "knowing" the state of mental movements'? What is knowing this "knowing awareness"?
When just sitting in a quiet moment, notice your sense of self or "I am"? Is it ever present when your mind is totally empty? Perhaps if that sense of self is present when your mind is empty, it really isn't empty. Is your sense of self anything more than a thought or feeling? If the "I" is just a thought, can't it think other thoughts? Can a thought "do" anything? Like the thought marmalade, can it do anything? The "I" thought is just the same. Its an "object" not a "subject". Look into this... When the sense of self is present, is that present awareness still present? Is the present knowing awareness less knowing when the "I" thought is present? Does any thought, feeling or perception obstruct that ever-present knowing awareness?
I suggest that spending time with this type of vipassana inquiry will be much mpre fruitful than trying to analyze the view intellectually.
March 25 at 8:36am · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: We aren't discussing the way dzogchen is taught, we're discussing the model and addressing the questions Dairin had.
March 25 at 11:19am via mobile · Like
Dannon Flynn: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Or in this case ignorance. Seeing ignorance, hearing ignorance, and speaking ignorance then there is ignorance. Seeing no ignorance, hearing no ignorance, and speaking no ignorance then there is no ignorance. If ignorance is what creates the phenomenal world then why argue over who is ignorant? That would be the epitome of ignorance. To the degree that one believes in ignorance is the degree that they are ignorant. Those who insist on ignorance never try to own it, but use it to try to appear knowledgeable. lol. Holding grudges in the heart is one of the most ignorant things to do. Those who change their tune depending on who they are speaking to, who they respect or don't etc, are showing that they don't have a credible understanding, but allegiances. They agree with certain people no matter what is said and disagree with others no matter what is said, it is reminiscent of political debates and does a disservice to the dharma. Who gets to decide what the thread is about? More ad hominems... sigh.
March 25 at 1:37pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Didn't mean to imply I was dictating what the thread was about, just clarifying that what I wrote is a purely intellectual description of the model and that it isn't meant to be a description or prescription for actual practice in any way. Though it may be beneficial in that it shows the differences between dzogchen and the tirthika models.
March 25 at 1:46pm via mobile · Like · 3
Dairin Ashley: Kyle, thank you so much for responding so thoroughly to my questions. Major major gratitude.
So, from my direct experience and from very limited current understanding, please forgive me as I clumsily try to articulate this, in this list like manor.
Emptiness means there is no independent entity
Emptiness means there is no substance
Emptiness means free of ignorance
Emptiness is nondual
Emptiness is unoriginated, uncaused
As far as I have understood ‘Rigpa’ is Tib. and ‘Vidya’ is Skt.
This is how I have understood Rigpa.
Rigpa (Vidya) is the knowledge of recognizing one’s true nature
ie true knowledge or clarity.
The knowing inherent in recognizing true nature,
not information about true nature.
Marigpa (Avidya) is the lack of knowledge of true nature
ie ignorance
The inherent knowing is not operating, is off, is obscured
Rigpa is Empty Cognizance
Rigpa is pure intrinsic knowing and is self-knowing
Rigpa is immediate instant pure presence
Rigpa is pure clear light clarity
Rigpa is absolute intelligence
Rigpa is vast open aware empty luminous ‘space’
Rigpa is unoriginated pure nondual awareness
Rigpa has no observer or witness
Rigpa is always on, always here, never moves, never changes
Ignorance is lack of recognition of our true nature
Ignorance is mind involved in thoughts that has not recognized itself
There is mind that is in ignorance
There is mind that is free of ignorance
There are not two minds. There is only singularity ie no other
Mind is not an entity
Mind that is only free of thoughts is not Rigpa mind
Rigpa is the mind that recognizes/knows itself.
That which recognizes itself is Empty Cognizance
Empty Cognizance is Rigpa
Ignorance is total involvement in thoughts
Ignorance is clinging, grasping, attachment, reifying, deifying,
involvement, interpreting, fabricating
Ignorance is a belief in a separate autonomous independent entity with will and control
When ignorance is operating phenomena arise, made into separate other things that are concrete
When ignorance is dropped phenomena is known to be nondual Empty Cognizance
There is no substratum that phenomena arise out of.
There is only Empty Cognizance appearing as phenomena.
Empty Cognizance is unestablished, unoriginated and uncaused
Rigpa = Pure Light Mind = Phenomena
Phenomena = Pure Light Mind = Rigpa
Phenomena is a self-display of Rigpa (Vidya) Mind
Ultimately there is only Empty Cognizance
In my experience it’s not Rigpa that is unstable, it's ignorance that is unstable, and ignorance that drops away in levels and degrees.
I realise that I may have a wrong understanding of Rigpa, and your last paragraph defining Vidya certainly made me pause.
I realise that I have probably made Rigpa synonymous with Dharmata, the intrinsic nature of everything, the essence of things as they are. The naked, unconditioned truth, the nature of reality, or the true nature of phenomenal existence.
March 25 at 1:51pm · Like
Dairin Ashley: I've truly benefited from true knowledge. Because I don't have access to a real live teacher I am not always certain. But when I do read or hear true knowledge it helps me to verify what's going on in my meditation becaue I recognise my experience when it read it. This gives me certainty to continue.
March 25 at 1:58pm · Like
Dairin Ashley: Jackson, thank you so much for what you wrote. I practice zazen (shikantaza) and short moments of presence and the deep inquiry.
March 25 at 2:07pm · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: One last thing to add to my list...
Ripga is pure seeing knowing presence
March 25 at 2:09pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: I've seen Jean-Luc Achard address the association of vidyā with 'presence' and he said that since presence belongs to the aggregate of sensation, vidyā cannot be said to be equivalent to presence. I'll post the text when I get to a place I can access it.
March 25 at 2:14pm via mobile · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: Thanks Kyle
I can see that there are many subtleties, which I may be misunderstanding. Right knowledge dispels ignorance.
March 25 at 2:16pm · Like
Piotr Ludwiński: http://www.sendspace.com/file/m3y1tl here is the text mentioned by Kyle Dixon
Download rig.pdf from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way
www.sendspace.com
rig.pdf | Free file hosting. Email large files for free. [Cut off web page preview]
March 25 at 2:21pm · Unlike · 2 · Remove Preview
Dannon Flynn: Maybe there isn't a word for it that everybody can agree on since words are phenomena and can only describe phenomena. If for example one tries to describe Rigpa as 'presence' that word 'presence' refers to a phenomena as well. Any word can be criticized for meaning something less than Rigpa, since phenomena is the origin of words.
March 25 at 2:22pm · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: Haha!! Dannon I'm so aware of this thing that happens with words. There are no words that can describe this, words fail miserably.
March 25 at 2:24pm · Like · 1
Dannon Flynn: And that is why we can always argue about words, because of their emptiness.
March 25 at 2:24pm · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: I think that the Tibetan and Sankrit language has inherent meaning that our Western languages do not.
March 25 at 2:24pm · Like · 2
Dairin Ashley: If only this could be a pure language free transmission. Which is why I wish I had a real live teacher!
March 25 at 2:26pm · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: ah well... text it is lol
March 25 at 2:26pm · Like · 2
Dannon Flynn: It is easy to say that somebody doesn't know what Rigpa is based off of their words. The danger is that we can present Rigpa as some enigma that is impossible to understand or have an experience of except by exalted yogis and lamas. The fact that it is difficult to put into words in no way means that it is some rarefied experience only available to Tibetan scholars who have studied the subtleties of Tibetan philosophy their whole lives since children.
March 25 at 2:28pm · Like · 2
Dairin Ashley: Many thanks Piotr
March 25 at 2:28pm · Like
Piotr Ludwiński: Looking at how deluded was my "self-taught" interpretation of Mahamudra/Dzogchen, I fully support you on the quest of finding and meeting lineage holder
March 25 at 2:30pm · Like · 1
Dannon Flynn: But if you experience Rigpa, you know it.
March 25 at 2:31pm · Like · 2
Dairin Ashley: That's right Dannon. It's available to everybody, it's already intrinsic, just gone un-noticed.
March 25 at 2:32pm · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: Yes!!! when you know you know.
March 25 at 2:32pm · Like · 1
Piotr Ludwiński: Or you can experience something which you call "rigpa" afterwards because of your delusion in contact with reading about dzogchen - in other words one can experience some state/gain some insight and seeing concept of "rigpa" one can adjust it to one's own delusion.
March 25 at 2:33pm · Like
Dairin Ashley: You're right Piotr, which is why I suppose it's fortunate to have a true teacher to verify it.
March 25 at 2:35pm · Like
Dannon Flynn: That is true Piotr. But if one is honest with one's self (which is essential) one will know if one knows or not. Can you look death in the face and know it is an illusion? Just like becoming lucid in a dream, one knows that one is dreaming. No dream character can convince you otherwise. Of course it is possible to dream that you know you are dreaming, without actually knowing that you are dreaming! lol. If we stay with total honesty and follow the only thing we know for sure, then we will not stray from the truth.
March 25 at 2:37pm · Like · 1
Piotr Ludwiński: Which is precisely the problem mentioned in text about rigpa vs "presence". For example people who realized "I Am" will probably think "emptiness, spontaneous presence, natural state... yeah I know it, I experience it!". But this is precisely not the case.
March 25 at 2:37pm · Like
Dairin Ashley: Which is why if you have true knowledge, there is more liklihood of clear discernment. It does require massive doses of radical self honesty as well.
March 25 at 2:41pm · Like · 1
Piotr Ludwiński: The problem with deepening of insight/realization is this trap to think that one's own experience, understanding and realization are "final". Many people speak about "true knowledge" which is just some partial experience and partial insight. How would you know that your experience is true knowledge? What measurement would you use to discern this?
March 25 at 2:44pm · Like
Dannon Flynn: Soh said that the I AM is the beginning of Rigpa. But in any case, I AM is not separate from rigpa. Fear is a symptom of ignorance. If there is still fear of death or suffering or pain then it isn't Rigpa. The goal for me is not to achieve a 'state' or experience or any 'attainment' for the ego to aspire to (as in being a great Yogi who knows rigpa) but to be free of suffering, fear, sadness, etc... If we are eager to name a state "Rigpa" so we can claim special understanding, then we are losing sight of the real point. Does this knowledge eradicate doubts? If the knowledge eradicates doubts and fears and ignorance, then it is good.
The eradication of all suffering is how I would measure that knowledge is true. Like in a lucid dream. If I know without a doubt that the dream tiger cannot hurt me because this is a dream, then I would know that this is final, as there is nothing left that binds one.
March 25 at 2:47pm · Like · 1
Dairin Ashley: What I mean by 'true knowledge' is reading or hearing it from the highest source, and verifying it in your own direct experience.
March 25 at 2:47pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Here's Jean-Luc Achard addressing 'presence':
Q: I see your point:one could think they were fully 'present' yet still as subject or agent being present to the object still totally in a dualistic condition... thinking one is in Rigpa as Presence, right?
Jean-Luc wrote:
Oh yeah, that's it but not only. Presence is just a mental sensation, an inner feeling which can be with thoughts ("Oh that's it, i'm in presence") or without thoughts (just a mental sensation of quietness and perception of the "presence" of things around us and of one's "presence" among them, "presence" in the sense of there being something which knows it is present, etc.). People think this is to be in the state of the mirror. Well, when they say presence, they are in the state of the reflexions appearing on the mirror, the mirror itself is said to be ka-dag, so there is nothing arising there, just the infinite potential for reflexions. These reflexions are the clarity aspect but it is not really different from the empty aspect of ka-dag because these are just like water and wet, they always go together. Presence is just the reverse of absence and for most it's often the "presence" of a slight subtle discursiveness that is at work in the consciousness. This is not Rigpa.
---------------
Q: Hi Jean Luc ,in every text to talk about rigpa ,there is the presence .There's the presence in "present time" (not to think about the future or past). The presence it is "transformed" automatically into rigpa? In Other words, If we must maintain the presence to be in rigpa? I've heard that we have many type of rigpa. It's true? Can you tell me more about this? Why we have many type of rigpa?
Thanks
Jean-Luc Wrote:
Hi Daygo,
It's a subject that we've been discussing quite a lot in other Yahoo lists. I personally think that "Presence" is the worst word ever to use in order to translate Rigpa. Presence is a sensation, so it belongs to the agregate of sensations. It, of course, involves consciousnesses (both sensory and mental) and that's precisely where the problem lies. Rigpa is beyond sensations and consciousnesses. It does not depend on these. It is the knowledge of the natural state. What does that mean really ? It means that the Natural State has two qualities : Emptiness and Clarity. Emptiness means absence of inherent existence and Clarity means that this state is self-discerning ("it knows itself by itsel", as Lopon often puts it). In other words, the Clarity of the natural state corresponds to what Rigpa is. This Rigpa is that through which one knows the natural state (when being introduced to it by the master) and that through which our natural state knows itself (just like a lamp illuminates both itself and what is around). And how does it knows itself since it's not a mental consciousness? It precisely discerns (rig) itself from the ordinary mind (sems), from consciousness (rnam-shes), intellect (blo), intelligence (blo gros), mental (yid), etc. So when you are in the state of Rigpa, you clearly discerns (rig) what pertains to Mind (sems-nyid, the ultimate nature of Mind) from what pertains to ordinary, conditioned mind (sems). In Thogel context, Rigpa corresponds to the fourth Lamp — the Lamp of the Self-Arisen Sublime Knowledge (shes-rab rang-byung gi sgron ma) — which is, precisely, the Sublime (rab) Knowledge (shes) corresponding to the state of Trekchö. In all of this, there is a very active and dynamic aspect of total Discernment (rig-pa) or real Knowledge (shes rab) of the natural state, not a mere state of sensing a presence (of what by the way?).
The use of Presence apparently came up about 15 years ago (in printed material, it must have been there orally sometime before, i actually don't know) in the context of the Dzogchen Community from some "translator" (known for indulging quite a lot in the use of smoking illegal substances and in mixing the teachings with other non-buddhist/bon traditions) who put this essentially "New Age" concept into the brain of the masters. The success of the word is actually tragic: people identify inner sensations of quietness and pervasiveness as a state of Presence which they think is Rigpa. This is really far from what Rigpa is.
There exists 15 forms or modalities of Rigpa (which we may discuss in another post, right now i lack time to enter details), but basically when explaining what it is in Bon, we use mainly these three modalities :
1. Khyab-rig (All-Pervasive Discernment) which is the same as the Sugatagarbha, the potential for Buddhahood (it is nothing else, just this potential). What it pervades is the heart of all beings; in other words, all beings have this Pervasive Discernement which embraces each being endowed with a mind;
2. bSam-rig (Knowing Discernment) which is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you Knowing Discernement is developed);
3. Ye-rig (Primordial Discernment) which is, precisely, the Rigpa that is referred to in Dzogchen texts. There exists three modalities indicating whether or not you are in this state : an outer one, an inner one and an intermediate one. According to the outer one, you know (you realize, you discern) that the outer manifestations are really non-substantial (you realize their absence of tangible reality). According to the inner one, you are in the experience of Mind itself (sems-nyid) and you realize it as being devoid of self (bdag-med). In other words, you discerns your real nature as being empty of a conditoned self. Then according to the intermediate one, all discursive thoughts arise as Wisdoms. It does not mean that thoughts disappear; on the contrary they continue to arise but they are left as they are and we do not follow after them. At that time they simply arise but are seen as empty. Still their potential for arising is there and since it is not tainted by ego-grasping, then this potential manifests its enlightened side which is that of Wisdoms. In other words, thoughts arise as Wisdoms. They are exactly the same as before, exactly and precisely the same as before, with the cosmic exception that there is no grasping at them anymore.
All this comes from the teachings of Shardza Rinpoche and the oral instructions associated with the Trekchö section of the Kuzang Nyingthik.
March 25 at 2:52pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Q: How ever many Westerners fail to enter the rigpa? What's wrong on they?
Jean-Luc wrote:
Well i don't know if they fail, it's actually pretty easy to enter the experience of Rigpa but more difficult to cultivate it without artifice, outside of a retreat context. Most of the westerners i know do not do any retreat. They go to teachings when a lama is there and they call it a retreat. This is not like this that things have to be done. In particular with Dzogchen teachings. I've received a lot of teachings in TIbet and none of the masters ever said a word about integration into daily working life. This is something that a few tibetan masters have made for the West. Traditionally, when you receive a Dzogchen teaching, you then go into retreat and generate some experience. This takes months at best. Then you come back to the master and relate your experience. Then you get further details on more adanced practice, etc., and you go to another retreat. So not doing any "real" retreat is probably a drawback that affects most people. For instance, the retreat of Trekchö in the Kunzang Nyinghtik (it's the same for those who follow the Yeshe Lama for instance) does not last less than 18 continuous months in a traditional context.
Another point that is related is misunderstanding some key point in Trekchö. For instance, all our masters repeat that once you have entered the state of Trekchö, then you must not do anything. And you consequently have people not doing anything for years ! They just remain like that, glued in a state of total blankness, using vague words like "presence" to describe the actual fogginess of their experience. Actually, what texts say is that you don't do anything at first, not continually. "At first' means that it's simply the threshold of Trekchö practice. What you actually have to do is once you don't doubt anymore regarding the actual "flavor" of this state, then you have to cultivate it with artifice during specific sessions (that's the purpose of the 18 months mentioned above) after which you are quasi-certain to reach a non-regressive stability in this state. Most of the time, this stability is reached quite earlier during the retreat. It's actually easier to succeed in this during a retreat than during the daily working life when you have all the distractions of your ordinary social life. So during the retreat, at a certain stage, you train in integration. There are four things to integrate : 1. the activities of the 3 doors, 2. the activities of the six associations of consciousnesses, 3. specific intellectual activities of the mind, and 4. the variety of circumstances that life puts on your path. So the "doing nothing" is really something for beginners in Trekchö. Most people i know mistake it for the real practice. That's the worst mistake to make because one is never going to make any progress if one goes on like this.
-----------------
Q: Hi Jean -luc,
when I try to suspend the continum inner discourse ,there is an empty state (it doesn't last for a long period) and a new inner discourse come into my mind. I try to observe this new one and there is another empty state.
If i observe my present thoughts (observing,not judging) without going in the future or the past,and when my mind is empty ,is a bad training for discovered the rigpa? Thanks
Jean-Luc wrote:
Hi, It does not really look like a bad training to me but you have a finer, better, easier method. In the ZZNG (but also in other Bon Dzogchen cycles), you first start by creating an inner condition of quietness and calm through fixation on a white A. This is the Shamatha aspect. With this practice, you create a kind of condition in which no thoughts are allowed to arise (it's actually easier than it looks and it just takes a little time to succeed). Of course, this does not last very long (at best a few minutes, really at best). Then, within that state, you allow a thought to arise or instead of allowing it, you just wait for a thought to arise spontaneously. As soon as it arises you look directly at it, which means you try to "turn" the mind back on itself, as if to see the thought arising. When you do this, you (the observer) and the thought (the observed) both vanish instantaneously (because they are the same thing) and you suddenly find yourself in a state of total, pure, limpid, vivid, fresh knowledge. It is a "knowledge" in the best sense of the word: it discerns (rig) itself and it also discerns the further thoughts and emotions that are likely to arise then (it's one of the reasons why "presence" is completely out of context in Dzogchen). What has happened is that you have shifted from a point of reference in whcih you were identified to the thoughts in a continuous ego-grasping/dualistic mode, to a point of reference (it's actually not a point nor a reference but language limits the description...) which is the real nature of the mind. When doing so very carefully, you'll see that it's very, very, very easy to recognize this state. One sign that indicates a correct recognition is an indescribable "feeling" that one already knows that state. During the direct introduction, the master explains all this in more details and you get explanations on the real meaning of Emptiness and Clarity, but the actual procedure you have to follow after that is basically that described above.
I'm not breaking any seal of secrecy here, it's written in zillions of Dzogchen texts without any restriction to sincerly interested practitioners. There are also further aspects in the direct introduction that, this time, should be reserved for the occasion when the master gives it. In particular, in Thogel context, you have a set of 21 special introductions which are really important things. I'm not sure we can discuss these here. It's better if a master explains them to you when it's time for it.
March 25 at 2:53pm · Like
Piotr Ludwiński: If I know without a doubt that the dream tiger cannot hurt me because this is a dream, then I would know that this is final, as there is nothing left that binds one. <- that knowledge itself can be another bind. For example in realization of "eternal unmoved witness" one can discard everything as dream/illusion. But this discrimination itself is another delusion, craving which is disguised as letting go, bondage disguised as liberation etc.
March 25 at 2:55pm · Like
Dairin Ashley: Damn I have to go to sleep, gonna have to catch up tomorrow. Thanks Kyle.
March 25 at 2:57pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Dannon, I would still say that the IAMness is recognition of the clarity of mind, and can be used for a foundation for ones endeavors practice-wise, but it is still yet to be the vidyā which is implemented as a basis for one's practice in the context of dzogchen.
March 25 at 2:59pm · Like
Dannon Flynn: Yes a witness is a delusion and that would still be identifying with the dream character in the dream. Thinking that the character in the dream is dreaming. That is what I mean by dreaming that we are dreaming. Really, the character that we play in the dream is not the one dreaming the dream. In Rigpa there is true knowledge where suddenly everything makes sense and one realizes what all teachers have been pointing out forever. Of course, until authentic Rigpa dawns one is likely to mistake other experiences for Rigpa if one has a concept of Rigpa that one is trying to realize. For me, I had not heard of Rigpa or studied Buddhism seriously. So it was very interesting taking part in these discussions after the fact.
Kyle, I was just referencing what Soh Wu Wei said to you regarding I AM being a gate into Rigpa in trekcho (or however it is spelled) practice. Saying things like "this is not rigpa and that is not rigpa" is great to discern what rigpa is, but these things cannot be denied either as they are not separate from rigpa and are not obstacles to rigpa, since, like you say, they are a foundation for practice. And the practice is no-practice. Everything is whole and holistic rather than a linear schema (in my schema anyway).
March 25 at 3:04pm · Like
Kyle Dixon: Yeah I'm not denying those things, I don't mean to make it appear as if I am so if it comes off that way I apologize. My only point was that the clarity or IAMness is acceptable for a foundation which aids in leading to that recognition (just as you said) but it isn't yet that recognition. I don't say that to disavow clarity or make it seem as if it's not important because, it is, and I agree with you.
March 25 at 3:10pm · Like · 1
Dannon Flynn: And if somebody does mistake a lesser state for Rigpa, it isn't the end of the world. One starts out in ignorance and delusion and one will continue in ignorance and delusion until Buddha-hood. But it is not unheard of for rays of light to penetrate the clouds every now and then. Rigpa is not some elusive rare thing, it is common to all of us. So we should be careful not to fetishize it as some exotic state. It is present all the time either recognized or not. It is in direct experience.
March 25 at 3:38pm · Like · 1
Dannon Flynn: Kyle, I think that it is funny that now you are speaking out against the word "presence" when just last week you were advocating that word and speaking out against "awareness"! Any word has limitations. We cannot create Rigpa out of words. Eskimos have 100 words for snow. If you held up a handful of snow and said "this is snow" they could correct you. It still doesn't mean that you don't know what snow is. Likewise Tibetans have many words for different things, and when we use a word like "awareness" or "presence" it is more of a blanket term for a whole spectrum rather than each subtle degree.
March 25 at 3:44pm · Like · 1
Jackson Peterson: Just letting people know: many advanced practitioners don't agree with Jean Luc's opinions regarding many Dzogchen topics. Malcolm also is not impressed, I am sure he could tell you more. But he is quite wrong about "instant presence" being simply an aspect of "sensation" aggregate. Presence is the flip-side of emptiness, it occurs authentically after "kadag" as the empty aspect. It is the "luminous" aspect. The effulgent energy of rigpa has blissful and clarity vividness that has nothing to do with the "feeling" aggregate! It's the non-dependent spontaneous radiance of emptiness appearing as the Sambhogakaya. The clarity aspect can be referred to as "sheer transparency" zangtal, or Zangtal Chenpo, Great all-penetrating Transparency. These spontaneous aspects of clarity and bliss are hallmarks of rigpa. They are intrinsic Sambhogakaya manifestations. Sambhogakaya means "Enjoyment Body". Jean Luc is still at the "emptiness" stage. He disagrees with Norbu on other points as well. Go with Norbu on this... His bizarre criticism of those people who started using "presence" is off the wall.
Also, when you are in actual rigpa, part of being in rigpa is total certainty while in the state. It's total clarity on the nature of reality. You recognize your ever present "knowingness" has always been independent of all conditioning and defilements because you are so fucking "empty" and transparent that nothing makes contact, yet everything is what you are, the non-duality of emptiness and luminosity... and it indescribably delicious, vivid and delightful for no reason.
March 25 at 4:14pm via mobile · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith: "Presence" is a translation of dran pa, mindfulness.
Sent from my iPad
March 25 at 4:49pm via · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith: There is no I AM (aham) in Dzogchen.
Sent from my iPad
March 25 at 4:52pm via · Like · 1
Logan Truthe: Jackson: Jean Luc is talking about "Presence" being a poor translation of Rigpa. I think he doesn't know that CNNR translates it as "Instant Presence" instead. BTW, i quite agree with his opinion on the need for training in sessions and if possible, retreat
March 25 at 5:00pm · Like
Albert Hong: How does self liberation and the state of contemplation relate? Or are they the same thing?
March 25 at 5:00pm via mobile · Like
Malcolm Smith: jla is wrong, presence is chnn's translation of dran pa, not rig pa.
Sent from my iPad
March 25 at 5:07pm via · Like · 1
Malcolm Smith: Any self identification is a form of ma rig pa dualism.
Sent from my iPad
March 25 at 5:10pm via · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith: Hi JAx:
HHDL was only referring to the Meru Cosmology in the third chapter.
March 25 at 5:50pm via · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Dannon, I don't recall advocating for the term 'presence' but if I had it was most likely in the context of a different conversation, I'm not quite sure? It's not a word I use very often... I may have brought up that 'instant presence' is ChNN's translation of vidyā, perhaps that is what you remember?
And to clarify about 'awareness' I was only speaking out against awareness being an accurate translation/representation of vidyā. I'm not against the use of the term 'awareness' in general. I apologize if that wasn't clear.
March 25 at 6:29pm · Like
Soh: Hi Kyle,
I cut and pasted what Jean-Luc wrote to Thusness, and he asked me, without any discursive thought, how is sensation known as sensation?
March 25 at 6:45pm · Like
Malcolm Smith: it isn't
March 25 at 6:46pm · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Then Jean-Luc is incorrect and you can disregard that post, glad that was clarified!
March 25 at 7:02pm · Like · 1
Soh: Hi Malcolm, I agree completely with "Any self identification is a form of ma rig pa dualism."
As I understand the term "I AM" is not only absent in Dzogchen, it is in fact, absent in all or most forms of Buddhism as far as I know (perhaps the closest equivalent term would be 'self-nature', or 'true self' in those influenced by Tathagatagarbha teachings). In the early teachings in fact term "I AM" is equated with asmi mana or the conceit of I AM being one of the fetters removed in arahantship.
However, the term "I AM" that I am using is more closely linked with the Advaita tradition, and even they may have slightly differing terminologies (I think "I AM" is used more in early upanishads). I used the term as coined by Thusness himself. It is not aham, or the 'I thought' either - it is rather that when aham or 'I thought' has dissolved and what's revealed as pure consciousness (or luminous clarity), which is then called the "Self" in Advaita but it is not aham and is non-conceptual.
In Buddhism/Dzogchen/etc luminous clarity is never equated with an "I" as that could all too easily lend into the Advaitic kind of reification... but I am simply using the term "I AM realization" here as a term to denote a direct realization of coming face to face with "Awareness" or "unconditioned luminous clarity" or whatever you want to call it. It's just a realization of that luminosity directly without intermediary. In that moment of what I call "I AM realization" there is in fact no I AM-idenfication, no being, no subject-object duality, no concepts, emotions or thought.... instead there is complete stillness, and there is complete certainty and doubtlessness about one's presence of knowingness. However due to lack of clarity on its empty nature after the realization, a subtle identification may form as discovering the luminous clarity does not imply the realization of emptiness.
March 25 at 7:08pm · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon: Malcolm, would you say Jean-Luc's exposition posted above is lacking in general? I would rather remove those posts if they are misleading... I only ask because I trust your judgement and would rather not condone the distribution of unhelpful information.
March 25 at 7:28pm · Like
Malcolm Smith: It's a bad moniker. Is this pure consciousness single or multiple? If it is the former, it is susceptible to all of the faults of Advaita. Also things are luminously clear, so why restrict this to mind?
Sent from my iPad
March 25 at 7:29pm via · Like · 2
Malcolm Smith: Hi kyle' JLa is incorrect to say that "presence", the way Chnn uses the term, is part of the sensation aggregate, since Chnn means "dran pa" or mindfulness. Dran pa belongs to the formation aggregate (samskara skandha) and also is one of the five indriyas of the path, along with "faith" (sraddha), etc.
March 25 at 7:41pm via mobile · Unlike · 3
Kyle Dixon: Ok thank you for clarifying!
March 25 at 7:46pm · Like
Malcolm Smith: Jla has a kind of austere approach to things. It might be helpful to some, perhaps not. His taking pot shots at reynolds is a little sad, but that is his problem, not mine.
Jla's criticism of teachers like Chnn is just his limitation and should not be taken seriously. I
March 25 at 7:49pm via mobile · Unlike · 2
Jackson Peterson: Malcolm Smith, excellently expressed on all points. I have always felt that the "presence" aspect of luminosity had no connection to even a slight "I am" experience. That slight quiver, no matter how slight, is "sem" and the seed of ego.
It's funny how in later years even Nisargadatta refined his view by saying the "I Am" is not the Final state but is a "concept" that has to be dissolved. I feel many of these tradition masters are discovering emptiness of self and things but reify the luminosity as being some entity-like self according to their cultural and religious conditioning. Leaving the "unestablished" unestablished is tricky because of the vivid clarity of the luminosity being so obviously "present". Missing the utter emptiness of that luminosity is the cause for continuation of the karmic self-imputing. We call it God or Self or "I Am", which of course is just another futile attempt at the conceptual reification of emptiness itself!
March 26 at 4:06am via mobile · Like
Dannon Flynn: The Buddha sees the world as emptiness and luminosity of his own nature, right?
March 26 at 7:37am · Like
Malcolm Smith: When that neutral awareness recognizes the appearances of manifestation of the basis as its own state, then it is called prajna or vidya. If it does not, then it is called ignorance. When the basis is not in a state of non-manifestation, at the time there is neither vidya or avidya, no rig pa, no ignorance, etc.
Sent from my iPad
March 26 at 9:08am via · Like · 1
Kyle Dixon: Dairin wrote:
"Kyle, as I understand from what you wrote, there is 'the basis' and the 'all-basis'.
'The basis', Tib. Gzhi
The 'all-basis', Tib. kun gzhi is the 'ground of all being' and is ignorance.
The 'all-basis' (Skt. ālaya, Tib. kun gzhi) = (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa) = ignorance
There is no 'ground-of-all-being'. There is only 'the basis'."
Yes, and it's not that there is (or isn't) an ālaya, it simply appears as a result of not recognizing the basis (gzhi). A good metaphor for it is the illusion of a circle of light created by a lit cigarette moving in a circular motion in the dark, there isn't truly a circle there, however it appears as if there is. In the same way, there isn't truly a 'ground-of-being' (ālaya), but one's ignorance (avidyā) creates the compelling illusion that such a ground does indeed exist. When the ālaya is recognized to be empty then it's understood that it has been unestablished and primordially non-arisen since beginningless time. Because the ālaya is ignorance (and it's structuring is ignorance), it cannot truly exist nor not-exist. When that ignorance is resolved, the ālaya is also resolved and therefore any way to characterize the ālaya (i.e. existent, non-existent, both, neither) no longer applies. In recognizing the emptiness of the ālaya, it is understood to have been a misconception to begin with, thus rendering it a complete non-starter and diffusing any view which relates to it. Therefore we can say the ālaya is an illuison (just like the circle of light created by the lit cigarette in the dark)... though if it isn't definitively recognized to be illusory, the fact that it is an illusion makes no difference.
--------------------
Dairin wrote:
Kyle says, the basis (gzhi) is ???.
Are you saying 'the basis' (gzhi) is Primordial Wisdom free of all kun gzhi?
Are you saying Primordial Wisdom is Dharmatā?
'The basis' (gzhi) = Dharmatā?
Kyle wrote "Within the model itself the basis is never the result of anything nor is it ever subject to affliction or adulteration.
and " When one's knowledge of the basis comes to it's full measure, then the basis and one's vidyā are no longer differentiated and the basis simply becomes the highest wisdom."
and " The quote is describing the view form the perspective of primordial wisdom, emptiness free from extremes."
and "Dharmatā is the authentic nature of reality which is emptiness free from extremes."
The basis is primordial wisdom as the three kāyas, and yes since the basis is primordially pure (ka dag) it is incapable of ignorance. Ignorance is not recognizing the appearances of the basis to be self-display.
As Malcolm stated directly above:
'When that neutral awareness recognizes the appearances of manifestation of the basis as its own state, then it is called prajñā or vidyā. If it does not, then it is called ignorance. When the basis is not in a state of non-manifestation, at the time there is neither vidyā or avidyā, no rig pa, no ignorance, etc.'
Dharmatā (Tib. chos nyid) is the authentic nature of designations (in the case of Buddhism; dharmatā usually represents reality's basic nature as emptiness free from extremes). In general dharmatā is a term which means 'the way that something is', i.e. it's actuality or true nature. All dharmas' (phenomena's) basic nature is dharmatā i.e. a non-establishment which accords with a freedom from the four extremes.
--------------------
Dairin wrote:
Kyle wrote: "The ālaya (kungzhi) discussed above is not the same as the ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes),"
ālaya (kungzhi) = ignorance
ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes) = ???
Are you saying ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes) is Primordial Wisdom/ Dharmatā?
The ālayavijñāna (kungzhi rnamshes) is one of the eight consciousnesses, the ālaya (as ignorance) is the foundation for the eight consciousnesses.
--------------------
Dairin wrote:
"Dzogchen accords with a soteriological system"
Soteriological means 'The theological doctrine of salvation as effected by Jesus.'
I understand that Dzogchen Atiyoga is 'self-liberating', there is no agent of liberation.
Perhaps I totally don't understand the word 'soteriological'.
Soteriology is the study of systems (usually religious) which are concerned with salvation or liberation. So because the goal of Dzogchen is liberation, it is a soteriological vehicle.
--------------------
Dairin wrote:
"In my understanding, the basis has no 'certain attributes and functions".
If 'the basis' is Primordial Wisdom/Dharmatā which is absolute emptiness, how can this have 'certain attributes and functions'?
The basis (gzhi) is empty in essence, and it's emptiness allows for it's dynamism. If it weren't empty (meaning it existed inherently), then it could not display it's appearance as the five lights etc. It's attributes are the three kāyas, so in the same way you might say that a basketball is round, spherical and orange, that collection of attributes constitutes the basketball. Likewise, the basis (gzhi) is (i) primordially pure in essence (ka dag) which corresponds to the dharmakāya, (ii) spontaneously and naturally formed in nature (lhun grub) which corresponds to the sambhogakāya and it is (iii) unceasing and radiant in it's compassion (thugs rje) which corresponds to the nirmāṇakāya. The inseparable three kāyas is the basis (gzhi) which is one's natural state as absolute bodhicitta.
-------------------
Dairin wrote:
I'm confused...
If 'the basis' is Primordial Wisdom/Dharmatā, how can this 'appear'?
Are you saying that 'appearance/s' (phenomena) is Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa? Are you saying 'the base' never actually appears and only appears as the 'all-basis' or ignorance?
This goes right back to my very original question, what does the Buddha see?
Does phenomenal world disappear?
Guess I'll have to find out for myself lol
The basis (gzhi) displays itself as the five lights. One 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).
The basis does appear as the pure wisdom display of the five lights.
A buddha knows his/her state as primordial wisdom and emptiness free from extremes, therefore 'seeing' isn't established. The 'phenomenal world' is recognized in it's basic state as the pure and non-arisen wisdom display of emptiness. Sentient beings are deluded and confused about their nature, Buddhas are free of that delusion.
-------------------
Dairin wrote:
Kyle wrote:
"That would make perfect sense if vidyā was one's neutral awake cognizance because yes that quality is unsullied by conceptualization and the movement of thought, however vidyā is not that."
Are you saying ' one's neutral awake cognizance' is Primordial Wisdom/ Dharmatā?
The natural state of one's cognizance is primordial wisdom, however that must be recognized and integrated with due to the presence of the myriad forms of affliction which obscure that wisdom.
March 27 at 8:19pm · Like · 3
Dairin Ashley: Many many many thanks Kyle. I deleted my questions from this thread because I suddenly felt that my very basic questions were inappropriate for this advanced group, and also didn't want to bother you further, so I really do appreciate the time you've taken to answer all of them so clearly.
I'm VERY CLEAR now and understand the terminology you've been using.
I've clearly been reading in the Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism where Atiyoga is synonymous with Dzogchen. I was introduced to Dzogchen when I read 'Natural Perfection' - Longchenpa, translated by Keith Dowman in December last year, which instantly resonated. Then I read "As It Is Vol 2' by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche and now I'm reading The Supreme Source - Chogyal Namkhai Norbu.
I practice Shikantaza (bright clear alert attention free of thoughts) from Soto School of Zen Buddhism which I relate to Vipashyana, but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, I've ordered 5 books on Mahamudra for practical guidance:
• Pointing Out The Dharmakaya: Teachings On The Ninth Karmapa's Text. •The Ninth Karmapa's Ocean Of Definitive Meaning. •Essentials of Mahamudra: Looking Directly at the Mind. •Crystal Clear: Practical Advice for Mahamudra Meditators. •Confusion Arises as Wisdom: Gampopa's Heart Advice on the Path of Mahamudra
I've suddenly realised that you may come from the Yogacara school (Mahayana or Chittamatra or Svatantrika-Madhyamika schools, not sure if these are all different or all the same) of which I know nothing. You've used Tibetan terminology that I've not yet read, so this clarification of terminology and what the terminology is pointing to has been very very good to help me integrate the Tibetan words and meanings that I've come across with yours and relating it all to my direct experience.
I have one more question.
Kyle wrote: "(iii) unceasing and radiant in it's compassion (thugs rje) which corresponds to the nirmāṇakāya."
I've read about this 'compassion'. It's obvious that it's not the conventional compassion which is as per dictionery, noun, Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others: "the victims should be treated with compassion". RigpaWiki says Nirmanakaya is "the dimension of ceaseless manifestation' Have I understood? It's got nothing to do with conventional compassion.
March 28 at 12:54am · Like · 1
Soh: Nothing is too basic here! This isn't an 'advanced group'... Don't hesitate to ask anything.
March 28 at 3:13am · Like · 3
Soh: Kyle practices Dzogchen and is speaking from the perspective of Dzogchen teachings, not Yogacara.
March 28 at 3:14am · Like
Jackson Peterson: Dairin Ashley The theory of the "alaya vijnana" or "kunzhi namshe" is pure yogachara. It's just a theory. The Buddhist philosophers struggled regarding where the karmic traces were "stored". So they invented this conceptual model. This model was not taught by the Buddha. But its interesting. And it is a big topic of conceptualizing. But practitioners have no need to know the various philosophical models. Your Soto practice is much more direct and to the point. It's easy to turn Dzogchen "modelizing" into an intellectual distraction. It's better to first "recognize" without frameworks and express models from your new wisdom perspective. Maybe you will see it differently...
March 28 at 3:25am via mobile · Like
Dairin Ashley: Thanks Jackson, finding out for myself is really the only true knowing I'll ever know.
March 28 at 10:30am · Like · 3
Dairin Ashley: Many thanks to everyone
March 28 at 10:30am · Like · 2
Kyle Dixon: Dairin wrote:
I have one more question.
Kyle wrote: "(iii) unceasing and radiant in it's compassion (thugs rje) which corresponds to the nirmāṇakāya."
I've read about this 'compassion'. It's obvious that it's not the conventional compassion which is as per dictionery, noun, Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others: "the victims should be treated with compassion". RigpaWiki says Nirmanakaya is "the dimension of ceaseless manifestation' Have I understood? It's got nothing to do with conventional compassion.
Compassion is an innate aspect of the basis (gzhi) which manifests spontaneously for the benefit of beings, so thugs rje actually has very much to do with what we define as conventional compassion. Thugs rje appears outwardly in the form of a constant emanation of altruistic 'deeds' which function through the natural discernment of vidyā in order to liberate beings from samsara. These deeds are empty expressions of compassion (meaning; they lack inherent existence) and thugs rje represents an infinite potentiality for their expression. As an attribute (wisdom) of the basis, thugs rje is the unceasing responsiveness of primordial wisdom which corresponds to the nirmāṇakāya i.e. form body (body meaning; dimension, realm etc.). So thugs rje (via it's energetic display and compassionate resonance i.e. rtsal), is the capacity of the natural state which 'appears' and is directly experienced by beings, manifesting as both pure and impure phenomena. Thugs rje is unlimited and boundless in it's functionality, so it isn't confined solely to the scope of vidyā and can also embrace all beings manifesting as our own innate compassion and empathy we feel towards others. Compassion is therefore an innate quality to all beings and through recognizing and integrating with our nature, that compassion is able to express itself unceasingly and naturally (without contrivance) for the benefit of all beings. Thugs rje translates to Lord (rje) of the Heart (thugs).
----------
Malcolm wrote:
(In response to thugs rje being translated as 'energy')
"It's a meaning gloss. On the other hand, 'energy' does not fully express the nirmanakāya activity of benefitting sentient beings, of which it is the base (hence the reason the wisdom of the basis is described as thug rjes or karuna). So I prefer to translate it as compassion, save energy for 'rtsal'. 'Energy', in my opinion is too vague since it does necessarily included the fact that nirmanakāyas manifest to guide sentient beings.
Someone who understands Dzogchen teachings will then understand the unpacked meaning of thugs rje with the seen the three wisdoms described. ChNN these days tends to translate it as 'primordial potentiality'. No matter what, when ever it is explained, you always have to mention that it literally means 'compassion'."
----------
Malcolm wrote:
"One of the main functions of the third primordial wisdom of the basis, called thugs rje, and translated in various ways to emphasize different aspects, is to provide the basis for working for the benefit of sentient beings after samsara and nirvana 'turn their backs on one another'. When we consider this from the point of view of its function, we call it rtsal -- and this rtsal is what is visible to ordinary sentient beings -- everyone can experience rtsal directly through their six senses. In fact, the operation of rtsal through their six senses is what gives rise to sense consciousnesses and so on."
----------
Malcolm wrote:
"...In Dzogchen, there is little need to 'cultivate' compassion since compassion is recognized a) to be innate b) will be expanded up by recognizing your own state...
...We all have compassion. So the way to increase it is to simply see that we have it, and exercise that muscle a bit more.
Then, when we recognize our true condition, our compassion will burst out like the sun behind a cloud."
March 28 at 7:10pm · Like · 4
Dairin Ashley: YES! YES! This makes total sense. Thank you Kyle.
March 29 at 2:55am · Like · 1
No comments:
Post a Comment