The Vast Transparent Dimension

Jackson Peterson
Master Hui Hai's Teaching on Sudden Enlightenment
by Jackson Peterson on Saturday, 23 February 2013 at 00:06 ·

Question: That which occurs when we are confronted by all sorts of shapes and forms is called perception. Can we speak of perception taking place when nothing confronts us?
Answer: Yes

Question: When something confronts us, it follows that we perceive it, but how can there be perception when we are confronted by nothing all?

Answer: We are now talking of that perception which is independent of there being an object or not. How can that be? The nature of perception being eternal, we ago on perceiving whether objects are present or not. Thereby we come to understand that , whereas objects naturally appear and disappear, the nature of perception does neither of those things; and it is the same with all your other senses.

Question: When there are sounds, hearing occurs. When there are no sounds, does hearing persist or not?

Answer: It does.

Question: If that is so, who or what is the hearer?

Answer: It is your own nature which hears and it is the inner cognizer who knows.
"Though it follows the current of circumstances its nature is unchanging"

Question: How may we perceive our own Buddha Nature?

Answer: That which "perceives" is your own Buddha Nature, without it there could be no perception.
Like · · November 21, 2013 at 5:44pm

    Soh This understanding is like the I AM/Eternal Witness.
    November 21, 2013 at 7:55pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Not really., it's simply describing the sentient aspect of unestablished aware presence.
    November 21, 2013 at 8:39pm · Like
    Soh it is an immediate apprehension of Awareness that is later reified into a changeless knower. Precisely what I mean by I AM/Eternal Witness
    November 22, 2013 at 7:37am · Like · 1
    Soh aware presence is everchanging knowing-known without knower
    November 22, 2013 at 7:38am · Like · 1
    Dhruval Patel Sometimes the language is ambiguous, but this is clearly a mistaken view...

    "Question: If that is so, who or what is the hearer?
    Answer: It is your own nature which hears and it is the inner cognizer who knows.
    "Though it follows the current of circumstances its nature is unchanging"

    Why separately mention an "inner cognizer" and ones true nature ?
    November 22, 2013 at 9:32am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Because our nature is pure Consciousness. It can't be "reified" into a knower. "Knower" is just a concept appearing in that which cannot be reified. Rigpa can't be reified. How does one reify empty space? It's not possible to reify aware knowing likewise.
    November 22, 2013 at 9:26pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Soh, nothing has ever been reified. Reification is an illusion. Illusions can't condition the "unborn". How does one reify empty space?
    November 22, 2013 at 9:28pm · Like · 1
    Soh That is precisely what reification is all abt...not there but reified as "there"
    November 23, 2013 at 5:22am · Edited · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson What "there"?
    November 23, 2013 at 5:23am · Like
    Soh Seeing a true self as truly there or seeing an unborn empty space as changelessly there and existing.
    November 23, 2013 at 5:48am · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson That's all imputation Soh, not direct "imputation free" Seeing. Those words describe a non- imputed, non-conceptual gnostic moment. That's the nature of reality when seen nakedly free of all conceptual constructions and free of a self-mind that imputes.
    November 23, 2013 at 7:49am · Like · 1
    Soh That nonconceptual gnostic moment will later be reified in terms of a changeless subject due to persistent strength of karmic conditioning
    November 23, 2013 at 7:55am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Yes, that usually happens doesn't it? Hence two-fold emptiness needs to be a thorough penetration of deep insight. But there should be no notion of a "changeless subject" in any case. There is no subject that "doesn't change".,,
    November 23, 2013 at 8:00am · Like · 1
    Soh But didnt you say that there is an aware presence that is what you are and doesnt change?
    November 23, 2013 at 8:04am · Like · 4
    Jackson Peterson The "aware presence" that we are is impersonal non-subjectivity Soh, as Thrangu says, we are "pure awareness". Recognizing this is rigpa. That is the 8th step in your paradigm that only includes 7 steps or levels.
    November 23, 2013 at 7:23pm · Like
    Soh By conceiving aware presence as "what you are", that is precisely reifing awareness into a subject. By conceiving aware presence as changeless, that is precisely what is meant by reifying awareness into a changeless subject.
    November 23, 2013 at 7:53pm · Like · 3
    Soh I AMness is stage 1, one mind is stage 4
    November 23, 2013 at 7:54pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Soh, you have it backwards. The insight is not conceived, as it is the absence of a conceiving mind. That conceiving consciousness is inactive in rigpa. The description comes later as attempts are made at describing the indescribable ... Do you think all Thrangu, Tulku Urgyen's , Longchenpa's descriptions of "changeless", "pure awareness" etc. are "errors" in their views?
    November 23, 2013 at 8:02pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson There is no "I am". That is an imputation. There is no "one", that too is an imputation.
    November 23, 2013 at 8:04pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Thrangu Rinpoche commenting on Lama Ganshar;

    "This is why we just rest right in the nature of mind as it is. The dharma nature is unchanging. When the great meditators of the past meditated on it, they saw that we do not need to alter it in any way. We just need to come to thoroughly know the dharma nature as it is. When we see that, this is the mind that we call clear and expansive, vivid and awake."
    November 23, 2013 at 8:29pm · Like
    Soh Btw y r u seeing stages?
    November 23, 2013 at 9:33pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson No stages, all "stages" are purely imputed diversity, conceptual constructions. Stages are like a stairway made of clouds floating in the empty sky. The one walking upward on the stairway is also a cloud formation. The stairs and the one walking ever higher are empty conceptual constructions floating in ever present Dharmakaya rigpa. Every step along the way is as empty as the previous. All empty!
    November 23, 2013 at 9:39pm · Like
    Soh All empty? What abt DharmaKaya?
    November 23, 2013 at 10:06pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Dharmakaya is empty, reification is empty , imputation is empty, self is empty, "things" are empty, all is "empty, luminously formative and self-knowing vividness".
    November 23, 2013 at 11:11pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Sogyal Rinpoche:

    "The purpose of meditation is to awaken in us the sky-like nature of mind and to introduce us to that which we really are, our unchanging pure awareness which underlies the whole of life and death."
    November 23, 2013 at 11:34pm · Like
    Soh Why cling so deeply on pure awareness?
    November 24, 2013 at 12:12am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Soh, when you are "seeing just the seeing" and "hearing just the heard", is your awareness penetrating through and beyond the heard and seen into infinite space revealing the empty and transparent nature of the "seen" and the "heard"?
    November 24, 2013 at 12:31am · Like
    Soh Is this necessary unless one is seeing "something" extra, isn't thought already transparent and empty? Isn't sound already transparent and empty? Aren't dancing sensations already always transparent and empty?
    November 24, 2013 at 12:48am · Like · 2
    Jackson Peterson Yes ! But are they dancing about in a vast and transparent dimension of pure consciousness?
    November 24, 2013 at 1:36am · Like
    Piotr Ludwiński This thread make me sad abt how people are obsessed with concepts.
    November 24, 2013 at 4:32am · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson Concepts are also the Dharmakaya...
    November 24, 2013 at 8:10am · Like
    Soh No sensations are not dancing about in a vast and transparent dimension of pure consciousness. The vast transparent dimension of pure conscious sensations are dancing about.
    November 24, 2013 at 10:07am · Like · 11
    Din Robinson there is no subject

    just IS
    November 25, 2013 at 7:53am · Unlike · 1
    Din Robinson you know, a little humility can go a long way,

    no one really knows what's going on,

    and that, to me, is the closest to stillness or emptiness, there IS

    when nothing is being claimed (to be true)
    November 25, 2013 at 12:07pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson Nicely expressed Soh!
    November 25, 2013 at 8:26pm · Like

Awareness in Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Advaita

David Boulter<
Both Dzogchen and Mahamudra inquire into the nature of awareness. Does anyone know whether the concept of awareness as spoken of by these traditions is meant in the same was as is used in Advaita Vedanta?
Like · · November 14, 2013 at 5:00am near Normanton, United Kingdom

    Justin Struble likes this.
    John Ahn http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html
    November 14, 2013 at 5:20am · Like · 3
    Soh TLDR/In short: Advaita apprehends directly unfabricated Awareness/luminous clarity, then reifies it into a truly existing Self. Dzogchen and Mahamudra also leads to direct apprehension of unfabricated Awareness/luminous clarity, then proceeds to realize its empty nature.

    In long (something I wrote recently):

    http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=14626...

    I just read one of Peter Brown's article, which is quite good in some ways and points to the immediate radiance of all senses without subject-object division and objectification and also points to the spell of karmic traces or what he calls the 'mechanism of imagination, interpretation' (what he calls - http://www.theopendoorway.org/yoga.html ) - but it is still under the framework of what I call "substantial nondualism", which is not the same as having deconstructed Subject/Self via insight (anatta) but rather seen as an undivided reality (an inherently existing Self that is nonetheless indivisible, inseparable, from all its manifestation). This substantializing of Clarity is another form of the functioning of karmic traces or "mechanism of imagination, interpretation" but it is very difficult to "see" - it appears as one's reality, the karmic traces are completely manifest as one's entire experience like a dream that seems very real so one is unable to tell, it is a blinding and powerful magical spell (the spell that conceives of inherently existing self and phenomena).

    There comes a time when by self-inquiry, or other methods, that one is led to a direct immediate apprehension of the very Presence of one's Consciousness, the very realness of Existence, of luminosity.... where Consciousness/Awareness/Unfabricated Clarity in its glory and bliss draws complete attention onto itself without any extra thoughts and there is direct realization and complete certainty of one's luminous essence. There is direct realization of the Luminous Essence as the very Pure Presence or Consciousness itself that is more real, more certain and undeniable than anything. One touches the very core of consciousness itself. This is actually a correct realization and concerns the luminous clarity aspect of our Buddha-nature. The problem is not with the direct apprehension of the Luminous essence itself - the problem is that after that moment, due to ignorance and failure to realize the empty nature of luminous clarity, it is immediately being reified and wrongly understood, so it turns into a transcendental, metaphysical Self (with the capital 'S' in contrast to the egoic small letter 's' small self) behind everything. This metaphysical Self is seen as the Ground of Being - the substratum or container from which all phenomena arise and subside to, leaving the noumenon itself unaffected and unchanged, like the depths of the ocean. It is seen as an ultimate Source from which all objects owe its existence to - like the Sun and the reflected planets/objects in space.

    When there is complete certainty of Pure Knowing-Presence/Beingness, which is at first the direct realization of the luminous presence of the formless aspect of mind, one later investigates all the other sense fields, penetrate any illusions of a subject-object division until one sees everything as the manifestation of an undivided field of awareness without any objects (apart from being the non-objective expressions of field of consciousness itself, i.e. All is Self).

    Luminous essence is now no longer seen dualistically as in "I am I/Consciousness is Consciousness but everything/phenomena is external to consciousness/Consciousness is the eternal witness of phenomena". Rather than conceiving of Consciousness as a dualistic witness behind everything, consciousness is then seen as the source and substance from which everything manifests in and AS that consciousness itself, and consciousness is both the ocean (noumenon) and its waves (phenomena). Even though the view of subject-object duality may be seen through (but not really - it is an incomplete dissolving of subject-object view) in an insight into non-duality and the radiant clarity experienced in all senses, the view of inherency continues so one still conceives of Consciousness as truly and inherently existing as a metaphysical absolute or source and substance which is expressing indivisibly as every sight/sound/etc without subject-object division (this is where Peter Brown is at). This causes a continual subtle referencing back to a Self by subsuming all experience to be Self (as expressions of Self). I call this phase "one mind". This is the furthest that Advaita (both neo and traditional) has went to. Despite experiencing and realizing undivided clarity, there is strong attachment to a metaphysical, changeless, independent, inherently existing Absolute.

    Then hopefully with direct contemplation into no-self (with help of pointers and teachings, such as bahiya sutta), there can be a breakthrough into the seal-insight of anatta: always already, in hearing just sound hearing (hearing is the sound!) never a hearer, so complete, so gapless, the entirety of your reality (except there is no 'you') is fully just sound... in seeing only always just scenery, never a you seeing or seer... your entire reality is only and completely this whole universe (experiential universe, a.k.a. the seamless total exertion of seeing-hearing-smelling-tasting-touching-thinking as one whole marvelous limitless foreground activity giving its best to make this entirety) seeing itself, tasting itself, touching itself. It's like the behind (self/Self) is totally lost (it never existed! but certainly was a very strong delusion until seen through) and what's left is only the limitless and brilliant in front (whatever's appearing) which is your entire reality but there is no more in front or behind or up or down because there is no more a reference of a center or a boundary. Even this is not the end and there can be further deconstruction, and penetration, into the emptiness and non-arising of phenomena.

    After realization of no-self (anatman), one is freed from that "dual and inherent spell", there is no denial of luminous clarity and instantly one is in a non-dual state in six entries and exits, where scenery, sound, thought, scent is radiant (vivid, clear, bright, aware, alive) as itself without ground and references. There is no skewing to the luminosity of formless mind nor is non-dual clarity reified into a "All-Self" like in One Mind. One understands, as Ted Biringer said, "...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind."

    xabir

    Posts: 158
    Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:14 pm
    Re: Peter Brown and Dzogchenby lama tsewang » Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:17 am hmm , another person... - Dh
    www.dharmawheel.net
    November 14, 2013 at 9:47am · Like · 3 · Remove Preview
    Kyle Dixon Jackson will say yes. But no, and often when you see 'awareness' in Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā it's actually a translation of rig pa [skt. vidyā] which isn't 'awareness' in the way we usually think of the term. Some translate rigpa as knowledge, some as discernment, some leave it untranslated.
    November 14, 2013 at 11:21am · Unlike · 2
    Kyle Dixon Nosta wrote:
    After all what exactly is rigpa? Whats the difference between rigpa and nirvana?

    Malcolm wrote:
    Rigpa is just your knowledge of your primordial state.

    --------

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    Tashi delek,

    Rigpa could also be awareness about the / "our" Natural State?

    Best wishes
    KY

    Malcolm wrote:
    There can be awareness without knowledge but there cannot be rigpa without knowledge. So no, rig pa is knowledge of our state, whatever adjective you wish to use to describe it.

    --------

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    Tashi delek,

    - First how is knowledge seen of a State which is without recognizing or is more experienced in the sense of " self-iluminating "?
    - So i guess that "knowledge" has the meaning of be aware of that State by study or by realisation of the Natural State which is without "knowledge" of that State.
    So Rigpa can/ has also here above mentioned, the meaning of the knowledge which one must have to be able to regognize a certain degree in the Dzogchen Yogas / "meditations".

    Further is English sometimes not good enough to make some uusefull Dzogchen translations.

    KY

    Malcolm wrote:
    Knowledge comes from recognition. Without recognition, no knowledge.

    English is actually a very good language for Dzogchen translations -- it is very precise.

    N

    --------

    muni wrote:
    Awareness with an added word. Like Selfsprung Awareness, Pristine Awareness, 'inner Pure Awareness and Knowledge', and other to express completedness.

    Malcolm wrote:
    I know what Sogyal says, and translating rig pa as "awareness" is passe.

    Further, just as a simple point of Tibetan grammar, rang gi rig pa means "one's own rigpa", not self-awareness.

    rang byung rigpa means "knowledge that comes from oneself i.e. it is based on one's own direct experience.

    Ye shes is normally translated as wisdom or primordial wisdom, but some people these days, following John Pettite and Richad Baron are liking primordial awareness for this.

    I back translate rigpa in Sanskrit generally, as vidyā unless it is being used as a verb "to know". Adriano Clemente has stopped translating it altogether, which I approve of. However, since we use terms like dharmakāya, etc., for Buddhist Dzogchen texts at any rate, vidyā is another word that is preferable.

    On the other hand, we are still very much in the experimental stage and every translator and and so on has their own ideas based on what they understand about the teachings.

    --------

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    Tashi delek,

    Yes the term Rigpa, is a very difficult word to translate, sure when it is related to awareness.
    Also is it clear that Rigpa could also be inteligence, that was also one of my earlier suggestion.

    Malcolm wrote:
    In my opinion, translating rigpa as "awareness" is simply wrong. Intelligence is also not good, again IMO.

    In this case, knowledge is best. Why? Because rigpa is opposite to ma rig pa. Knowledge is the opposite of ignorance.

    N

    --------

    muni wrote:
    Yes, the word what can help the most clear to express its' meaning, is what one can apply. No idea make wholes in "naked awareness", a word of Lama Surya Das.

    Malcolm wrote:
    IMO opinion the word "vidyā" does not mean "awareness", as I have explained. The term "shes pa" can mean awareness depending on context. It can also mean "to recognize" depending on whether it is being used as a noun or a verb.

    Having translated and read thousands of pages of Dzogchen texts, I am very dissatisfied with the use of awareness for rigpa. It should be deprecated, like HTML 1.0.

    --------

    tamdrin wrote:
    ...but I never saw you say anything about Namkhai Norbu's translation of rigpa as "presence" which is really a lackluster tranlation, many will agree.

    Malcolm wrote:
    He does not translate rigpa as presence, as I have explained before. The word he is translating for presence is dran pa, mindfulness.

    The word he uses for rig pa is knowledge.

    Why do I know this? Because I frequently follow him with the Tibetan text he is teaching in hand.

    But I am not saying that knowledge is the best translation for rig pa in general because he is using it. It is because I have been reading Dzogchen texts for 20 years and finally concluded on my own that "knowledge" was best.

    --------

    tamdrin wrote:
    While many of his other students who post around here think that he does translate rigpa as presence. Again awareness can be of relative objects (i.e. being aware of some object).. knowledge can also be of relative objects, having knowledge of such and such field of knowledge.

    Malcolm wrote:
    In this case, he is using the term rig pa to describe one's knowledge of the basis i.e. essence, nature and energy/compassion. When you have that knowledge (vidyā/rig pa) you no longer wander in samsara. When you do not have that knowledge (avidyā,ma rig pa) then you wander in samsara endlessly.

    As far as what other people may say who do not know Tibetan, and do not follow his teachings with text in hand, all I can say is that they are mistaken.

    Sometimes Rinpoche will translate "shes pa skad gcig ma" as "instant presence", because this uncontrived momentary awareness is the basis of tregchö etc. Then in this case one uses mindfulness as a support for uncontrived momentary awareness do that you do not wander in distraction. In this respect, there is basically difference between mahāmudra meditation, dzogchen and the Sakya "khordey yerme" i.e. the view of inseparability of samsara and nirvana -- they all are talking about the same thing in this respect tha mal gyi shes pa so called "ordinary mind" or "basis awareness".

    But rigpa is something else. Rigpa is the knowledge of your state. When you have recognized uncontrived momentary awareness, the knowledge that ensues from recognition is rigpa. When you have recognized the meaning of sound, lights and rays, the knowledge that ensues from recognition is rigpa. Why, because you are no longer in a state of ignorance. The opposite of ignorance is knowledge. The opposite of ma rig pa is rig pa, the opposite of avidyā is vidyā.

    Also rig pa can mean knowledge. As a verb, it means "to know" when it is used as a verb in Tibetan, never "to be aware". Then there is the rig gnas lnga i.e. the five sciences, the pañcavidyāsthana.

    The use of the term vidyā as the opposite of avidyā is very deliberate in Dzogchen texts and relates to the beginning of the cycle of dependent origination. When Samantabhadra knew his own state, the chain of dependent origination, which begins with ignorance, never started for him.
    November 14, 2013 at 11:36am · Unlike · 4
    Soh I believe Jax no longer holds the view that Advaita is the same as Dzogchen recently
    November 14, 2013 at 11:39am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Ah well that's good.
    November 14, 2013 at 11:40am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Some more:

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    Rigpa in the sense of intelligence, could be equal to knowledge and this is the oposite to no intelligence,

    Malcolm wrote:
    The opposite of intelligence is absence of intelligence or in this sense, the insentient, the inert.

    kalden yungdrung wrote:
    But i cannot help it that many Geshelas, Khenpos, Lopons, Rinpoches etc. maintain the meaning of Awareness when in the Natural State as a word to express Rigpa

    Malcolm wrote:
    Sure, they do. They are not native English speakers. Not their fault. They do the best they can. The reason every one in the bon po world uses awareness is mainly due to John Reynolds.

    But now more and more people are moving away from that translation, in the Buddhist world at any rate.

    The bon world is much smaller, and therefore, it will more resistant to change. Also fewer western translators.

    ------

    muni wrote:
    Rigpa on it; knowledge for schoolstudents. There are many Rigpa's and combinations.
    In 'naked awareness' I see clear as emptiness and awareness. Pure awareness as Rigpa here.
    Maybe self-"arising" (already is) gnosis= empty awareness.

    Ma Rigpa = state sentient being. (not knowing)
    I think the linguistic meaning is less important. Also nature is not in text revealing.

    Ah.

    Malcolm wrote:
    HI Muni:

    One of the problems you will face if you insist on translating rigpa as a awareness, is that you will be able to differentiate Dzogchen, etc. from the hindus who are always waffling on about "pure awareness". In reality, "awareness" is a word in english which requires an object.

    "Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event."

    I know you are not a native English speaker, and so you may not be tuned into usage of English terms. Awareness is always an awareness of something. The basis is not a something. If you are aware of the basis as a something, then you immediately fall into samsara. This is the problem with using the term awareness for rig pa.

    Knowledge in the other hand is more ambiguous word in English which actually involves real philosophical issues hence the discipline of epistemology i.e. the study of knowledge qua knowledge.

    Rig pa in every sense of the word as it is used in opposition to ma rig pa has to do with knowing as opposed to ignorance. Some have described as the intersection between belief and truth, or "a justified true belief."

    In this case, rig pa is justified, because it is based on a personal experience, true, because that experience can be verified by anyone, and a belief because in this case personal experience has lead us to a state personal verification of something that before hand be merely believed.

    Anyway, people are free to believe what they wish, justified or not. It is my belief, one I think justified and true, that the English word awareness is not an adequate translation of rig pa almost every case.

    The problem is that you and mudra do not fully understand what term "awareness" really means in English. So therefore, you are stuck on an obsolete translation.

    So, there is no point in further discussion.

    As long as you understand what rig pa means for yourself, you can call rig pa "george".
    November 14, 2013 at 11:47am · Like · 3
    Jackson Peterson Soh, I never saw the views as the same, because Advaita uses a term "Self". That "Self" is ok if it points to the spiritual nature of all experience as Self , without the sense of a background entity. Vairocana and Dzogchen Tantras refer to "Great Self" (Mahatman), Dagnyid Chenpo. But that "Self" is the result of insight into two-fold emptiness that finally reveals the empty and unestablished rigpa or wisdom consciousness as yeshe. It is a Buddha which is essence, nature-clarity and reflexive resonating concern. Leaving this Buddha unestablished and empty is the unique perspective of Dzogchen, Zen and Mahamudra without bias toward eternalism nor to nihilism.
    November 14, 2013 at 11:19pm · Like
    Kyle Dixon This just came up yesterday:

    Malcolm wrote:
    There is a long section discussing lhun grub in various ways in the fourth chapter of the klong drug commentary.

    "Natural" [lhun] is the state [ngang] because it is uncontrived; it is the primal nature [rang bzhin] because that never stirs; it is the absolute identity [bdag nyid chen po] because of abiding in that. "Perfected" is the the result since there is not need for accomplishment [bsgrub]; since that is not fabricated, it is the basis; and because there is no ground of change from that, it is the path."

    This is the section that caused me to change my mind.

    BTW, these three terms, state, primal nature and absolute identity are very important concepts in interpreting the bodhicitta texts.

    udawa wrote:
    Quote:
    absolute identity [bdag nyid chen po]

    Malcolm, could you say a bit more about 'absolute identity?' Presumably a more literal translation would be something like 'great self'?

    D

    Malcolm wrote:
    The reason I use the term "identity" rather than "self" is to avoid confusion with nonbuddhist tenets. ChNN glosses this as "total state".
    November 15, 2013 at 12:04am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Mutsuk Marro wrote:
    The view of "great self' is discussed at length in the bSam-gtan mig-sgron, and on at least one occasion, it is glossed as "rig pa". A interlineary note also says that, among the nine views of the Basis, this "great self" is the view maintained by Vairocana.

    According to Nubchen, it seems that the expression is also used in a similar manner in Mahayoga tantras.

    Malcolm wrote:
    There is nothing controversial about this. Nubchen comments:

    "Grasping to appearances as self and other is purified by nature (ngang gyis dag pa); the great I without an I (nga med pa'i nga chen) is the great self (bdag nyid chen po)"

    dzogchungpa wrote:
    From "Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi":
    Quote:
    D.: If ‘I’ also be an illusion, who then casts off the illusion?
    M.: The ‘I’ casts off the illusion of ‘I’ and yet remains as ‘I’. Such
    is the paradox of Self-Realisation. The realised do not see any
    contradiction in it.

    Malcolm wrote:
    It is not the same. Maharshi's comments make sense in the context of Samkhya/Yoga where there is a total cessation of citta vrttis, and yet Purusha remains. People deify Maharshi, but since they do not have a basic grasp of the Samkhya Yoga tradition, they really do not understand the context of his statements such as the above.

    Dzogchen teachings are not stating that there is an existing atman which is free from cittavrttis.

    Generally, we must not take such terminologies as implying something they are not. Otherwise, the Dzogchen tantras and upadeshas detailed refutations of the views of self found outside Buddhadharma will be rendered senseless.
    November 15, 2013 at 12:16am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Malcolm wrote:
    What I am saying is that people are incapable of perceiving the difference in meaning between the two terminologies because they are unfamiliar with the basic premises of which underlie Ramana Maharshi's statements in general. I am sure they are not the same because I have received teachings in Dzogchen and I have received teachings in Yoga sutras, etc. And the premises underlying Ramana Maharshi's practice and realization and the premises underlying Dzogchen practice and realization are not the same.

    For example, these extracts are taken from the section of Nub's review of different views held by different Dzogchen masters enunciated. bDag nyid chen po is Vairocana's favored way of expressing Dzogchen view. Vimalamitra's was called gza' gtad dang bral ba, "freedom from reference points", Garab Dorje's view, so he says, was lhun grub., and so on.

    So the "great self" approach is one facet; the lhun sgrub view is another facet, etc. But one cannot get stuck on these views because it is very clearly explained in such tantras as sgra thal 'gyur and others that there are seven positions about the basis [gzhi] and only one of them (i.e. the basis is ka dag) is in the final analysis utterly faultless.

    Please do not lose sight of the fact that these views are partial attempts to describe the view of Dzogchen. So when we see things like the above citation we mustn't rush off and start proclaiming to everyone that Dzogchen teaching teaches the same things as Ramana Maharshi. We have to understand that Ramana is coming from the Samkhya/Yoga tradition. He says nothing that cannot be found in the Yoga sutras as interpreted by Shankaracarya.

    I am also pointing out that there is a long standing commentarial tradition based on the Dzogchen tantras own statement that will not allow one to interpret such terms as bdag nyid chen po as being in any way similar in intent to the sentiments of RM that you cite above.
    November 15, 2013 at 12:16am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon dzogchungpa wrote:
    So, are you saying that purusha is 'I' according to Ramana and the yoga tradition, and that the difference between this and the bdag nyid chen po discussed earlier is that the latter is not considered to be existent in the same way as the former?

    Malcolm wrote:
    Yes, I am saying that purusha is the self, according to Ramana and Advaita. The main difference between Advaita and Yoga is Advaita asserts there is only one self or purusha, but SamkhyaYoga asserts there are many -- otherwise, the path taught in Yoga and the path taught in Advaita are the same. When you look at Ramanas remarks about pratyakasha for example, these remarks are completely consistent with the way pratyaksha is treated in the Yoga sutras.

    You also have to understand that purusha excludes all phenomena from itself. It is pure consciousness, but prakriti is not part of purusha. Advaita too keeps the prakriti purusha duality in terms of relative truth, but rather than asserting that prakriti is real, it asserts that prakriti is actually unreal (maya). However, cit, is real, is brahman. Here, they understand that purusha actually means brahman.

    bdag nyid chen po in Dzogchen pretty clearly refers to the basis, not any kind of personal identity, transcendent or otherwise, which is why ChNN translate it as "the totality of one's state".
    November 15, 2013 at 12:17am · Like · 1

Mindfulness, Primacy of Brain?

David BoulterI would appreciate any advice you guys have on the practice of mindfulness. Specifically, where is the most effective place to focus the attention: in the body or out into the environment?
Like · · December 7, 2013 at 10:39pm near Normanton, United Kingdom

    Soh I think starting with the breathe is one of the easiest ways. That can be your main focus for sitting meditation first. Then extend mindfulness to everything experienced at every moment...
    December 7, 2013 at 10:51pm · Edited · Like · 1
    David Boulter My meditation practice is reasonably well established. My question was more about mindfulness in daily life.
    December 7, 2013 at 10:54pm · Like
    David Boulter But do I gather from your response, Soh that mindfulness is most effective if it encompasses bodily sensation AND everything else outside the body that one becomes aware of.
    December 7, 2013 at 10:58pm · Like
    Soh Yes all and everything. When eating fully experience the taste with mindful alertness... when walking being mindful of each step and the environment mindfully... each moment has a unique experience that can be mindful of.
    December 7, 2013 at 11:02pm · Like · 1
    David Boulter Great. Thank you.
    December 7, 2013 at 11:10pm · Like
    Faraz Ahmed I think it is also important to keep seeing defilements as they arise. ajahn brahm says that we should be focused on the space between observer and observed,because that is where the 5 hindrances come up.
    so if I notice pain, I also notice the aversion I have to the pain and put peace and stillness there.
    and I should keep doing this throughout the day. so my focus should be on seeing the hindrances/defilements arise and to put peace there instead. Ofcourse, it's difficult to do but I am trying to do this as much as i can.
    December 7, 2013 at 11:40pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson David Boulter, there is "nothing outside the body". All perceptions occur within your brain and skull. No one has ever experienced anything "out there". That means being mindful to the occurrences of the five senses and arising of thoughts. First stage: mentally note: "seeing red", "feeing pressure In my feet", "warmth on my fingers", "sound of a car", "thought arising".. Etc. Then more general: "seeing", "hearing", "feeling/pressure", "tasting", "smelling", "thinking", "walking", "talking", "eating", "washing" etc. then just being present to experience consciously without mental notation.. Then no mindfulness affected at all..,
    December 7, 2013 at 11:46pm · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson David Boulter, I feel mindfulness of mental phenomena as they arise, can reveal how the mind goes about weaving its fictitious stories that are the source of all suffering.
    December 7, 2013 at 11:56pm · Like · 1
    John Ahn Ok, Jackson wrote--&gt;"there is "nothing outside the body". All perceptions occur within your brain and skull. No one has ever experienced anything "out there." Jackson can't read my posts because he has blocked me, so if someone can copy and paste this it'd be good, but anyway it's not necessarily written towards him.
    December 8, 2013 at 1:40am · Like · 1
    John Ahn When we have this idea, there is "nothing outside the body" and that all perceptions "happen in the body"/i.e. skull and brain, actually it is a very contradictory statement. According to this line of reasoning, since your body is also a part of your perceptions, there is no grounds for you to establish that in fact there is a skull and brain/body in which these perceptions occur. So this is a very dangerous line of inquiry that can lead to solipsism.
    December 8, 2013 at 1:44am · Edited · Like · 1
    John Ahn As my friend once put it: "Experiences don't happen in the brain. That's just your assumption. You should question that assumption. One good question you can ask yourself is this: if experiences happen in the brain, where does the brain happen? If the brain is a container for experiences, then it must be external to the experiences it contains. If the brain is outside experience, then how do we know about the brain?"
    December 8, 2013 at 1:52am · Like · 1
    David Boulter John Ahn write this and asked for it to be copied.

    Ok, Jackson wrote--&gt;"there is "nothing outside the body". All perceptions occur within your brain and skull. No one has ever experienced anything "out there." Jackson can't read my posts because he has blocked me, so if someone can copy and paste this it'd be good, but anyway it's not necessarily written towards him.

    When we have this idea, there is "nothing outside the body" and that all perceptions "happen in the body"/i.e. skull and brain, actually it is a very contradictory statement. According to this line of reasoning, since your body is also a part of your perceptions, there is no grounds for you to establish that in fact there is a skull and brain/body in which these perceptions occur. So this is a very dangerous line of inquiry that can lead to solipsism.

    As my friend once put it: "Experiences don't happen in the brain. That's just your assumption. You should question that assumption. One good question you can ask yourself is this: if experiences happen in the brain, where does the brain happen? If the brain is a container for experiences, then it must be external to the experiences it contains. If the brain is outside experience, then how do we know about the brain?"
    December 8, 2013 at 1:54am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson My response to John and his friend is that neuro-science has proven that our "experience" only occurs in the mind-brain. Nothing "outside the body" doesn't mean there is not a vast universe "out there", but we only experience what's "out there", in our skull. Perceptions come in through the body's senses, and then those signals are processed and the brain then creates the 3D movie that plays in our head. This is not new neuro-scinece. The rest of the comments are just "magical thinking"...
    December 8, 2013 at 2:00am · Like
    David Boulter I'll do this one more time for the sake of communication...

    Jackson wrote: My response to John and his friend is that neuro-science has proven that our "experience" only occurs in the mind-brain. Nothing "outside the body" doesn't mean there is not a vast universe "out there", but we only experience what's "out there", in our skull. Perceptions come in through the body's senses, and then those signals are processed and the brain then creates the 3D movie that plays in our head. This is not new neuro-scinece. The rest of the comments are just "magical thinking"...
    December 8, 2013 at 2:07am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Wrote this on another forum from before:

    If experience, or visual consciousness, is a representation created in the brain, meaning that seeing, hearing, tactile sensation etc., are located in the brain; how do you get around the fact that the brain itself is likewise only apprehended via those very same faculties?

    The implications that there is an external universe which is apprehended via the senses and translated by a brain are quite damning. If that is the case, since experience would never transcend its translation, there is no way to access or prove the existence of such an external universe, and so the logic would negate the initial premise. The other issue would be that the very 'brain' experience is apprehended by, would likewise only be accessible and apprehensible from within the very experience it (the brain), itself apprehends. If experience goes on inside the brain, and the brain goes on inside experience; establishing an ontological hierarchy which maintains that experience occurs in a brain (or is generated by a brain) is impossible. Therefore no brain which could possibly contain visual (or any other type of) consciousness has ever been encountered.

    This is akin to saying 'the chicken is an interpretation which only ever occurs inside the egg' ...but the egg was laid by a chicken, which itself hatched from an egg... which was laid by a chicken.

    Most of the modern world believes that their conscious experience is generated by their brain, which interprets an external and pre-existing universe that is separate from it. This is not the view held by Dzogchen, and even tīrthika non-dual traditions do not hold the brain to be fundamental to experience.

    The notion that the brain is first and foremost is a byproduct of a long running paradigm, predicated on a materialist and physicalist interpretation of the universe. Science will tell you outright that the brain runs the show and generates consciousness, yet they have no idea how it performs such a feat... it is nothing more than a theory.

    I think anyone would be forced to agree that from the first person perspective, our own brains are surely not obvious.

    The implications of that, is that our personal brain based experience is an inference or logical deduction, a conclusion we arrive at. It's a sound conclusion and there's certainly evidence for it, but it's also open to scrutiny.

    The same principle from above still applies as well; if we only have access to the 'objective' brains (belonging to others) that we base our conclusion (about our own brain) on, (and this occurs) from within the confines of our own alleged brain; we're still only accessing the brain from within experience. That isn't to say one account is ontologically superior to the other, but it causes some inquiry, specifically, where and how do we draw the line? And once we draw that line, isn't it obvious that we're creating that line?

    Things start to look rather arbitrary, and we find that instead of our previous conviction; that we're indeed referring to a pre-existing structure - we instead seem to be inferring that structure.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:07am · Like · 1
    John Ahn Hey David, I can see Jackson's posts. He just can't see mine. But thanks!
    December 8, 2013 at 2:08am · Like · 1
    David Boulter Which is how you saw what he wrote earlier. D'oh!
    December 8, 2013 at 2:10am · Like
    Kyle Dixon Jax's insistence of importing neuro-science into the dharma simply clouds and obfuscates the types of insights the dharma is capable of revealing. It's rather extraneous and unnecessary in my opinion.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:12am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Same with me, I can see Jax's posts but he can't see mine. John and I are in the blocked 4 life crew.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:13am · Like
    John Ahn Hi Jackson, I'm glad I've been unblocked. Thank you! I think you are overestimating the extent to which neuroscience understands experience. For instance currently there is no understanding of how memory works via the brain. And only recently they have begun to understand the functions of sleep, and it is very elementary that we now understand sleeping give the brain the time to recover from toxins. Also traditional view of neuroscience which have split functions via left and right hemispheres are being thrown out as we speak. No neuoroscientist with peer reviewed research as come up with any conclusions about conscious experience or how awareness is generated either. So when there are so many developments happening in brain research, it's too early to place all of one's faith in a few theories in the field, of which the model you wrote about is just one model.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:16am · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson Huh?
    December 8, 2013 at 2:15am · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson David Boulter you had said "everything else outside the body that one becomes aware of". My point is that the "aware of" occurs "in the body and brain". Just playing off of your comment...
    December 8, 2013 at 2:24am · Like
    John Ahn No spiritual tradition, perhaps only minor sects like Actual Freedom, holds that awareness is brain based, because this denies reincarnation. Since the main goal of Buddhism and Hinduism is to be liberated from reincarnation, holding physicalist views as some Western teachers are doing nowadays, led by popular writers like Stephen Batchelor, is not in line with the dharma, Buddhism, Hindu, Christian, Taoism, or whatever.
    December 8, 2013 at 2:29am · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson Oh...
    December 8, 2013 at 5:47am · Like
    Michael Zaurov Kyle Dixon I found your post pretty interesting. I studied philosophy and psychology in undergrad, so I've heard similar arguments before, and I've always been interested in this question. Though I do assert that there is no actual, empirical way to prove one way or another until death occurs, I am open to the Buddhist view and hope that materialism is not the case. I am curious if you've ever been under anesthesia? It's certainly valuable to ponder about these things, but it's wholly another matter to experience chemical changes to the brain and directly see the results. When I went under anesthesia for a minor operation, my awareness literally stopped. It was like blinking an eye, one second I'm in the operating room and the next I am in the recovery room. If my awareness was more than brain, wouldn't there still be a conscious existence in the interval between those two moments?

    "The implications that there is an external universe which is apprehended via the senses and translated by a brain are quite damning. If that is the case, since experience would never transcend its translation, there is no way to access or prove the existence of such an external universe, and so the logic would negate the initial premise"

    I do not see this as a valid argument. The fact that the external universe is a brain created symbol does not negate the initial premise that there is a universe which the senses perceive. The mind creates the universe, but there is still data being received by the senses. Whether or not you call that "external universe" or just vibrations, there is still something there, and that cannot be negated with any certainty.

    " Science will tell you outright that the brain runs the show and generates consciousness, yet they have no idea how it performs such a feat... it is nothing more than a theory."

    A theory with a lot of evidence. When the brain is functioning, we have a show. When the brain is not functioning, there is no show. Just because scientists do not know how consciousness is generated does not negate the evidence we have. There is a clear relationship between this electrified fatty meat in my skull and my experience. if you assert that your experience is not generated by the meat, then you could design a valid experiment to prove it. You could change the face of history. Maybe designing such an experiment is impossible, in which case one should not be so confident about their views, not until you die and actually find out directly what is the case.
    December 8, 2013 at 6:50am · Edited · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Michael, I'm of course not making any definitive statements, just some friendly inquiry. But for the sake of the discussion since it's very interesting; how would the external universe be proven? Or likewise an internal experience? I see what you're saying and it's a valid argument, I just personally feel that a model of that nature depends on a few presuppositions. Mainly, the inherency of sensory organs, fields and objects, objective and subjective experience, a sentient being and a universe, etc. It seems to me that these varying aspects of the equation are themselves open to scrutiny (something the dharma specializes in), and if those constituent aspects can be found to lack inherency, how would the model itself maintain its validity?

    Again, not saying anything is certain, but my personal experience has brought me to question the validity of these paradigms.

    The dharma definitely understands that the brain is special and maintains the integrity of certain functions. But the dharma in general does not accept that experience is generated by the brain, or I should say, it does not accept that the mind is relegated to (or product of) the brain.
    December 8, 2013 at 11:10am · Like · 2
    Dannon Flynn it seems that for every seemingly non-physical thing there is a seemingly material representation. There are chemicals that go with the experience of love, there are brain chemicals that go with every emotion, etc.... There are hormones that go with lust, passion. All we know is: when this arises, that arises. We know that they are related, but we cannot jump to the conclusion that the brain is the cause of experience. We simply know that they go together.

    We might assume that the radio receiver is singing the song we hear, when in fact it is only receiving radio waves that are broadcast from some remote location that carry the song. Yet we still need a radio to listen to it.

    Perhaps the brain is like a radio. If, when the brain dies, another brain will be born tuned to the same radio station that will be able to pick up the same signal.
    December 8, 2013 at 11:58am · Like · 2
    Ram Jayaram Keep it simple. Focus on the body's responses to the environment.
    December 24, 2013 at 12:02am · Like · 1</div>

Return to Awareness? This?

Din Robinson
from Peter Fenner's latest newsletter:

"When I write that the essence of Radiant Mind is “this,” you know what I mean. You know, for example, that “this” isn’t anywhere, and that we can’t realistically think about “this” because it isn’t a thing. We are on the same page together right now, the invisible page that encompasses everything and is the essence of Radiant Mind.

There is really nothing else to be doing but engaging with "this." The most significant thing is to stay connected with awareness and continue to develop our capacity to go beyond the singular events of pain and pleasure that accompany each day, and return more regularly and reliably to pure, timeless awareness."

when he says there's really nothing else to be doing but engaging with "this", he's still meeting you in the noise of your mind, what the more accurate truth is, is that there is nothing but this and within this arises the impression of a someone who can engage with this
Like · · December 25, 2013 at 11:50pm

    Soh Seeing an awareness to return to from singular events is to fail to see the true face of awareness that is not anything besides singular events... and singular events too are unborn, groundless and ungraspable. And any beyonds are delusions. Not seeing the empty nature of awareness.. awareness becomes another ground for grasping. Seeing the truth of anatta and actualizing the total exertion of events and action, there is effortlessly the full intimacy that is gaplessly arising as a radiant sound, radiant sight and completely alive and gapless action as there is absolutely no self or observer or actor besides these vivid experiencing/action. There is no one engaging with something else... nor is there someone passively watching things flow by in a state of dissociation. Instead there is only the full engagement and total action that is the activity of the whole (seamlessly interfusing activity) without an agent or self. Or a gap between doer and deed. This is not just a passive state of nondoership where things just happen but "you" arent engaging in it, which is kind of dissociative.
    December 26, 2013 at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 3
    Greg Goode I don't feel he's meeting me anywhere, but rather constructing a brand of his own and saying that I am already his brand. I also agree with Soh that it is unnecessary to add a "THIS" container on top of the clarity of events. It's also ironically counterproductive. Whenever you have a "this" you have a "that," which carries you right back to events anyway. Why bundle things into a single container with a leak in it?
    December 26, 2013 at 12:38am · Unlike · 5
    Din Robinson I'd like to repeat here what Shinzeng Young said in the video below:

    "It's good to have a practice that involves no choices whatsoever. Not even a choice as to directing what's happening in attention. Some people call this choiceless awareness, some people call it just sitting, some people call it the great perfection in tibetan dzogchen, or, the grand symbol in sanskrit mahamudra. There's different ways of describing it. I like to call it "do nothing", that's just my name for it."

    ~Shinzeng Young

    the whole point for me, is complete freedom, from any need to do, to understand, to express, but just to simply be... this involves not having or needing any preconceptions about life
    December 26, 2013 at 1:03am · Like
    Din Robinson I really like what you guys are saying about not adding a "this" unto the simplicity of what already is, the sounds, sights, smells...

    a "this" is just more conceptualizing...
    December 26, 2013 at 1:17am · Edited · Like
    Din Robinson that's why it's fun to share, happy holidays everyone
    December 26, 2013 at 1:14am · Like

Emptiness, Interdependence

Serene Blue

So I've been reading Bill Bodri's What is Enlightenment and have just come away more confused. He says Enlightenment is realizing this Pristine Awareness (is this the same thing as what Tibetans call the Clear Light of Mind?) that never changes and is not different from the forms that come and go within It. Nothing is outside of It he says, nothing is other than It and this IT is what you really are when there is no more clinging.

Odd thing to me is that he sounds like he's positing some sort of Eternal Luminous Awareness. I'd swear that's exactly how he keeps phrasing it. I get the strong impression he's positing that there is this True...well Something I guess that never changes. Another thing...he's quit using a Buddhist framework to explain things and the book is full of things like this Empty Awareness is your True Self. He's using mostly Advaita terms but insists Advaita isn't teaching something different from Buddhism.

I read Bernadette Peter's explanation of "What is No-Self" and it sounds *nothing* like what True Self-ers (or Bill Bodri) describe. Bernadette says that the teaching of No-Self (which I take from her explanation of it she actually means it as "No-True-Self") is the major difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

I then went back and read an old Xabir post and he pointed to a post on another board - something about a Senkya heresy (Xabir didn't actually make that post - he just merely linked to it as I recall). And for all the world the description sounds much like what Bill Bodri's book is positing is Enlightenment. Albeit Bodri did talk about how one has to discover the emptiness of phenomenon. Otherwise - he says until one discovers the emptiness of phenomenon then one still has subtle clinging going on.

But to me if the world is not other than this primordial awareness then duality (coming and going) is the very thing I am not "seeing" correctly. That there never has been a 'mirror reflecting" and there has never been a "Mind" in which all things are born or die and get reborn within again.

Does that make sense? I guess it's because I can come to no other conclusion upon reading the Heart Sutra. If things neither exist (permanence) nor don't exist (void) - then how can one posit a Mind that sits outside of time and space and acts like a big amphitheater for all the flux that goes on within it like what Bodri seems to keep implying? Then again - he seems to have shifted into using Vedantic terms to describe Enlightenment whereas his earliest books stuck strictly to a Buddhist framework. I wonder if this is because his original teacher, Master Nan Huai-Chin is now dead. BTW - can Enlightenment be described? I once read Master Nan Huai-Chin say it takes an incredibly vast accumulation of merit to be able to hear the very highest Dharma explained and yet experience no fear.
Like · · December 28, 2013 at 6:31am near Dallas, TX, United States

    Stuffs RedTurtle and Carole Luby like this.
Jaro Majer The problem most people have I think is with the language and misunderstanding the intention of the words used. As an example, one could say, in a Buddhist sense, that a person can have a constant realization of no-self and that in turn becomes the individuals constant, or permanent state of self reference... so in that sense, one can say, it is the "true Self" of all, without positing a self existing, eternal and transcendent cause of all. I'm merely stating that because all things have no-self as their true nature, that in turn is the Self of all, so in explanation it's going to sound a little paradoxical and it can be confusing, which is why all the great Masters say to rely on direct experience, not on discursive thought or written explanations. But, until that... of course we're going to have to try our best with discursive thought and written explanations. I hope this helps!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:43am · Like · 2
Jaro Majer I'm not at all familiar with Bill's works, by the way.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:48am · Like
Craig Nichols Re confusion are you looking for some kind of single highest and most correct Truth, perhaps with an assumption that if such Truth exists then everyone Truly Enlightened should agreed on what It Is?
    December 28, 2013 at 9:21am · Like
Craig Nichols For me everyone has a somewhat different take on things, conditioned by their experience and learning. So each teacher is sharing their own form of Enlightenment unless they're in a formal teaching framework eg a form of buddhism (and even then to some degree). Look long enough in a particular way and you will come to see things that way. Which way is best? Each of us has to choose for ourselves. And that choice will likely change over time. So no highest truth and no single authority other than our own experience.
    December 28, 2013 at 9:28am · Like · 1
Mr. J.C. The Buddhist view will get your further, for now. Later on, when you have realized all of this experientially, you'll see where the Advaita language comes from and how its not that bad.
    December 28, 2013 at 10:14am · Like · 2
Serene Blue Thx Jaro - your answer makes a lot of sense.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:39pm · Like · 1
Soh Bill bodri has always been speaking from one mind perspective. Anyway realization of Awareness is an important realization... though not an end. Mind is empty of mind but this fact does not deny the luminous clarity of Mind... that is the natural unfabricated pure knowingness and presence. One can realize Mind first then realize the empty nature of mind
    December 28, 2013 at 12:48pm · Edited · Like · 4
Serene Blue If Mind is empty of mind then why bother calling it Mind? Is this Mind experienced? If it's experienced doesn't that mean discrimination is involved? If one experiences doesn't that mean there's still an idea lurking about?
    December 28, 2013 at 12:54pm · Like
Soh No Mind should not be mistaken as denying the luminous depths of Mind but rather is pointing out the emptiness of inherent existence and dualities
    December 28, 2013 at 12:56pm · Like · 3
Soh Mind can be directly realized but only in the absence of all discriminations and conceptualizations
    December 28, 2013 at 7:43pm · Edited · Like · 2
Serene Blue Then my next question is - the very thing we experience - that is >CHANGE< - this Changing in fact does not change (things neither arise nor disappear) but it's the thinking/experiencing it as change that makes it 'delusion' or 'ignorance'.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:59pm · Like
Serene Blue Hmm...upon re-reading the above I'm not sure if I'm stating my question clearly. It's kind of hard to get across what I'm getting at.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:59pm · Like
Albert Hong The delusion is the whole structuring and appearance of change.

    For instance we usually say the tire is changing. A tire is undergoing erosion via use hence changing. So a thing is changing. There the entity and it is changing. See how the noun and verb seem
    Distinct.

    The delusion is the inherently existent tire. What's left is the fluxing of clarity, which doesn't
    Amount to anything because it is the exact of itself with nothing prior or during it.

    So most of dharma is trying to see through these reference points that we impute.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:05pm · Unlike · 2
Albert Hong An obvious example is these characters on facebook. They aren't inherently anything within themselves but are intimately linked with how we interpret and impute.

    So we can step back a little and defocus and its all just black shapes meeting a white background. These words don't actually formulate something or a complete existent picture. Just symbols relating to symbols but again you have to interpret that view within the context of all symbols.

    Or just step back. Colors, visual field, expanse of colors meeting other colors.

    Step back more and forget about colors, forget about really anything. Just mystery.

    What about location? Gone. What about thingness? Gone. Relationships between other aspects? Gone.

    See how far experientially you can go with that.

    Then do the exact opposite. Fabricate experience and concepts together. See what occurs then. Oh this is an iphone and it has this and this history.
    Its my iphone, i bought it. And i am typing this out and using these signs which in turn allows me to converse with others.

    See and feel how perception is weaves energetically by the patterning of how concepts frame reality. Especially the bond of i am and the bond of independent existence for objects.

    Its magical how it works, how strong the illusion is.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:16pm · Unlike · 7
Soh Well said!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:25pm · Like · 1
Albert Hong I love how the diamond sutra approaches this whole dilemma. The tree is not a tree,
    Hence a tree.

    How beautiful!

    That requires quite the journey.

    Mountains are seen to be actually empty of mountainness. Hence they are called mountains.

    We look at a mountain and we see that alright this is a visual appearance. It is dependent upon the condition of a working eye and sense object. Then we have the visual consciousness. On the basis of all that we say mountain. So from that we can easily see that the mountain is a built appearance arising due to certain conditions.

    At the same time the mountain is free from being a mountain. One can look at it as earth, or rocks, or pebbles. The mountain is infinitely divisible into infinite parts over and over again. We can see how the mountain on all aspects is dependent upon other things that are not the mountain.

    In each case we are loosening this intuition we have about the mountain. That there is an independent, singular, inherently existent mountain that would be there if you took everything away.

    But we easily can examine that not to be the case. With every fiber of our beingness we examine the mountain. Where is it???

    And we recognize oh yes its a convention on the basis of certain experience lining up.

    Alright something to ponder over.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:26pm · Unlike · 5
Soh Mind too is such a convention.. to answer sereneblue
    December 28, 2013 at 6:37pm · Like
Thomas Arta Really appreciate the clarity Albert, thanks!

    The idea of fabricating and exaggerating what we are trying to see through I have found very helpful in enquiry. What is a sense of inherency? What is a sense of ultimacy? Can I really get a feel for this so that I can sensitize to its arising and fluctuation? These can be really profound doors of enquiry. Cheers!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:41pm · Like
John Tan That is a very good presentation, Albert. Notice also how the mind is able to release and relief itself not from being non-conceptual but by seeing through "thingness" and realizing dependencies.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:26pm · Unlike · 4
    Amir Mourad "Nothing is outside of It he says"

    That is true, but only as far as one's experience is concerned. And the universe is not centered around human experience anymore than it is centered around the Earth.

    "nothing is other than It and this IT is what you really are when there is no more clinging."

    Ultimate reality is inseparable from one's own consciousness, yet it is also inseparable from one's own unconsciousness. It is inseparable from suffering, and it is also inseparable from liberation. It is impossible to escape from the inescapable.

    But - some people are so desperate that ultimate reality has to fit into human understanding, that it is very common to become blinded by the idea that it is equivalent with your own awareness.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:26pm · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson Yes, indeed... the mountain can't be identified. Where does the "mountain" begin? The foothills and terrain leading up to the "mountain" have no line of demarcation or sign that says "here is the beginning of mountain". If we notice, this is true of all appearances... they have no independent point of description.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:34pm · Like

Emptiness, Interdependence

Serene Blue

So I've been reading Bill Bodri's What is Enlightenment and have just come away more confused. He says Enlightenment is realizing this Pristine Awareness (is this the same thing as what Tibetans call the Clear Light of Mind?) that never changes and is not different from the forms that come and go within It. Nothing is outside of It he says, nothing is other than It and this IT is what you really are when there is no more clinging.

Odd thing to me is that he sounds like he's positing some sort of Eternal Luminous Awareness. I'd swear that's exactly how he keeps phrasing it. I get the strong impression he's positing that there is this True...well Something I guess that never changes. Another thing...he's quit using a Buddhist framework to explain things and the book is full of things like this Empty Awareness is your True Self. He's using mostly Advaita terms but insists Advaita isn't teaching something different from Buddhism.

I read Bernadette Peter's explanation of "What is No-Self" and it sounds *nothing* like what True Self-ers (or Bill Bodri) describe. Bernadette says that the teaching of No-Self (which I take from her explanation of it she actually means it as "No-True-Self") is the major difference between Buddhism and Hinduism.

I then went back and read an old Xabir post and he pointed to a post on another board - something about a Senkya heresy (Xabir didn't actually make that post - he just merely linked to it as I recall). And for all the world the description sounds much like what Bill Bodri's book is positing is Enlightenment. Albeit Bodri did talk about how one has to discover the emptiness of phenomenon. Otherwise - he says until one discovers the emptiness of phenomenon then one still has subtle clinging going on.

But to me if the world is not other than this primordial awareness then duality (coming and going) is the very thing I am not "seeing" correctly. That there never has been a 'mirror reflecting" and there has never been a "Mind" in which all things are born or die and get reborn within again.

Does that make sense? I guess it's because I can come to no other conclusion upon reading the Heart Sutra. If things neither exist (permanence) nor don't exist (void) - then how can one posit a Mind that sits outside of time and space and acts like a big amphitheater for all the flux that goes on within it like what Bodri seems to keep implying? Then again - he seems to have shifted into using Vedantic terms to describe Enlightenment whereas his earliest books stuck strictly to a Buddhist framework. I wonder if this is because his original teacher, Master Nan Huai-Chin is now dead. BTW - can Enlightenment be described? I once read Master Nan Huai-Chin say it takes an incredibly vast accumulation of merit to be able to hear the very highest Dharma explained and yet experience no fear.
Like · · December 28, 2013 at 6:31am near Dallas, TX, United States

    Stuffs RedTurtle and Carole Luby like this.
Jaro Majer The problem most people have I think is with the language and misunderstanding the intention of the words used. As an example, one could say, in a Buddhist sense, that a person can have a constant realization of no-self and that in turn becomes the individuals constant, or permanent state of self reference... so in that sense, one can say, it is the "true Self" of all, without positing a self existing, eternal and transcendent cause of all. I'm merely stating that because all things have no-self as their true nature, that in turn is the Self of all, so in explanation it's going to sound a little paradoxical and it can be confusing, which is why all the great Masters say to rely on direct experience, not on discursive thought or written explanations. But, until that... of course we're going to have to try our best with discursive thought and written explanations. I hope this helps!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:43am · Like · 2
Jaro Majer I'm not at all familiar with Bill's works, by the way.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:48am · Like
Craig Nichols Re confusion are you looking for some kind of single highest and most correct Truth, perhaps with an assumption that if such Truth exists then everyone Truly Enlightened should agreed on what It Is?
    December 28, 2013 at 9:21am · Like
Craig Nichols For me everyone has a somewhat different take on things, conditioned by their experience and learning. So each teacher is sharing their own form of Enlightenment unless they're in a formal teaching framework eg a form of buddhism (and even then to some degree). Look long enough in a particular way and you will come to see things that way. Which way is best? Each of us has to choose for ourselves. And that choice will likely change over time. So no highest truth and no single authority other than our own experience.
    December 28, 2013 at 9:28am · Like · 1
Justin Chapweske The Buddhist view will get your further, for now. Later on, when you have realized all of this experientially, you'll see where the Advaita language comes from and how its not that bad.
    December 28, 2013 at 10:14am · Like · 2
Serene Blue Thx Jaro - your answer makes a lot of sense.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:39pm · Like · 1
Soh Bill bodri has always been speaking from one mind perspective. Anyway realization of Awareness is an important realization... though not an end. Mind is empty of mind but this fact does not deny the luminous clarity of Mind... that is the natural unfabricated pure knowingness and presence. One can realize Mind first then realize the empty nature of mind
    December 28, 2013 at 12:48pm · Edited · Like · 4
Serene Blue If Mind is empty of mind then why bother calling it Mind? Is this Mind experienced? If it's experienced doesn't that mean discrimination is involved? If one experiences doesn't that mean there's still an idea lurking about?
    December 28, 2013 at 12:54pm · Like
Soh No Mind should not be mistaken as denying the luminous depths of Mind but rather is pointing out the emptiness of inherent existence and dualities
    December 28, 2013 at 12:56pm · Like · 3
Soh Mind can be directly realized but only in the absence of all discriminations and conceptualizations
    December 28, 2013 at 7:43pm · Edited · Like · 2
Serene Blue Then my next question is - the very thing we experience - that is >CHANGE< - this Changing in fact does not change (things neither arise nor disappear) but it's the thinking/experiencing it as change that makes it 'delusion' or 'ignorance'.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:59pm · Like
Serene Blue Hmm...upon re-reading the above I'm not sure if I'm stating my question clearly. It's kind of hard to get across what I'm getting at.
    December 28, 2013 at 12:59pm · Like
Albert Hong The delusion is the whole structuring and appearance of change.

    For instance we usually say the tire is changing. A tire is undergoing erosion via use hence changing. So a thing is changing. There the entity and it is changing. See how the noun and verb seem
    Distinct.

    The delusion is the inherently existent tire. What's left is the fluxing of clarity, which doesn't
    Amount to anything because it is the exact of itself with nothing prior or during it.

    So most of dharma is trying to see through these reference points that we impute.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:05pm · Unlike · 2
Albert Hong An obvious example is these characters on facebook. They aren't inherently anything within themselves but are intimately linked with how we interpret and impute.

    So we can step back a little and defocus and its all just black shapes meeting a white background. These words don't actually formulate something or a complete existent picture. Just symbols relating to symbols but again you have to interpret that view within the context of all symbols.

    Or just step back. Colors, visual field, expanse of colors meeting other colors.

    Step back more and forget about colors, forget about really anything. Just mystery.

    What about location? Gone. What about thingness? Gone. Relationships between other aspects? Gone.

    See how far experientially you can go with that.

    Then do the exact opposite. Fabricate experience and concepts together. See what occurs then. Oh this is an iphone and it has this and this history.
    Its my iphone, i bought it. And i am typing this out and using these signs which in turn allows me to converse with others.

    See and feel how perception is weaves energetically by the patterning of how concepts frame reality. Especially the bond of i am and the bond of independent existence for objects.

    Its magical how it works, how strong the illusion is.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:16pm · Unlike · 7
Soh Well said!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:25pm · Like · 1
Albert Hong I love how the diamond sutra approaches this whole dilemma. The tree is not a tree,
    Hence a tree.

    How beautiful!

    That requires quite the journey.

    Mountains are seen to be actually empty of mountainness. Hence they are called mountains.

    We look at a mountain and we see that alright this is a visual appearance. It is dependent upon the condition of a working eye and sense object. Then we have the visual consciousness. On the basis of all that we say mountain. So from that we can easily see that the mountain is a built appearance arising due to certain conditions.

    At the same time the mountain is free from being a mountain. One can look at it as earth, or rocks, or pebbles. The mountain is infinitely divisible into infinite parts over and over again. We can see how the mountain on all aspects is dependent upon other things that are not the mountain.

    In each case we are loosening this intuition we have about the mountain. That there is an independent, singular, inherently existent mountain that would be there if you took everything away.

    But we easily can examine that not to be the case. With every fiber of our beingness we examine the mountain. Where is it???

    And we recognize oh yes its a convention on the basis of certain experience lining up.

    Alright something to ponder over.
    December 28, 2013 at 6:26pm · Unlike · 5
Soh Mind too is such a convention.. to answer sereneblue
    December 28, 2013 at 6:37pm · Like
Thomas Arta Really appreciate the clarity Albert, thanks!

    The idea of fabricating and exaggerating what we are trying to see through I have found very helpful in enquiry. What is a sense of inherency? What is a sense of ultimacy? Can I really get a feel for this so that I can sensitize to its arising and fluctuation? These can be really profound doors of enquiry. Cheers!
    December 28, 2013 at 6:41pm · Like
John Tan That is a very good presentation, Albert. Notice also how the mind is able to release and relief itself not from being non-conceptual but by seeing through "thingness" and realizing dependencies.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:26pm · Unlike · 4
    Amir Mourad "Nothing is outside of It he says"

    That is true, but only as far as one's experience is concerned. And the universe is not centered around human experience anymore than it is centered around the Earth.

    "nothing is other than It and this IT is what you really are when there is no more clinging."

    Ultimate reality is inseparable from one's own consciousness, yet it is also inseparable from one's own unconsciousness. It is inseparable from suffering, and it is also inseparable from liberation. It is impossible to escape from the inescapable.

    But - some people are so desperate that ultimate reality has to fit into human understanding, that it is very common to become blinded by the idea that it is equivalent with your own awareness.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:26pm · Edited · Like
    Jackson Peterson Yes, indeed... the mountain can't be identified. Where does the "mountain" begin? The foothills and terrain leading up to the "mountain" have no line of demarcation or sign that says "here is the beginning of mountain". If we notice, this is true of all appearances... they have no independent point of description.
    December 28, 2013 at 7:34pm · Like

Crystal Clarity, Non-meditation, Sudden vs Gradual

Jackson Peterson
I noticed often when just sitting in mindful, aware meditation for very long periods of time, like three hours at a stretch, just observing without avoiding, following or engaging, all these thoughts, stories and emotions come and go, come and go. Eventually there seems to be no owner to any of it rather it just seems like meaningless brain chatter. It finally runs its course and a great stillness arises. The mind becomes crystal clear and the emotional tone becomes serene and content for no reason. Leaving the mind as it presents itself without judgment, it relaxes on its own. I guess all the "important" beliefs and self-image stories are really all just empty conditioning exhausting their agitation naturally.

When the sediment swirling in a jar of water slows down and settles naturally to the bottom, we find the crystal clear clarity of the water. I think this is interesting on how the nervous system and brain can relax into a calm state of equilibrium when truly left alone.
Like · · December 29, 2013 at 4:18am

    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, Viorica Doina Neacsu, Greg Goode and 14 others like this.
    Joel Agee Yes,the same experience here.
    December 29, 2013 at 4:49am · Like · 3
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland I sometimes use the image of a wind-up toy. You know the ones with that key on the back that you turn around a couple of time, and then set the toy down on the floor to do whatever mechanical movements it's been constructed to do.

    Eventually the toy unwinds and comes to stillness.
    December 29, 2013 at 5:25am · Like · 2
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland In the past I experienced advanced progress along the traditional stages of shamatha (though I had no clue about stages then). In the Tibetan map I was hovering around 8-9, which is the very end.

    The amount of calm, serenity, clarity, contentment, emotional stability, patience, etc. seemed out-of-this-world. At the time I was not pursuing structured contemplation of causes and effects, yet insights just fell into my lap. "Spiritual powers" started manifesting out of the blue.

    I'm telling this story in the spirit of caution.

    Since that time, I have regressed severely from such mental spaciousness and clarity. I don't have full understanding of the conditions and causes leading to both the increase and decrease of my personal shamatha. I especially long for the emotional stability and patience with which I could afford other people in my life the space and security that they seemed to appreciate so dearly.

    Though shamatha have had these and other fantastic effects, I have come to personally experience the inherent instability and impermanence of even such godly comfort. Shamatha may serve many noble intentions, but true freedom is not found even in this, the highest of places.
    December 29, 2013 at 5:45am · Edited · Like · 5
    Jon Norris Jackson Peterson, I think that’s exactly right. Repeated sessions of sitting in the 7-point posture of Vairocana, “just observing without avoiding, following or engaging”, reconfigures the neuronal network in the brain. It’s the opposite of a child ‘building up’ those networks; sitting ‘releases’ the contraction and restores the plasticity of the cortex. The non-intuitive part of dwelling in this intrinsic awareness (rigpa) is that it doesn’t make you more stupid; rather it frees up the circuits to form a quantum integration with primordial consciousness.

    Unless I am mistaken, what you are describing is the Mahamudra version of shi-né, (not a dualistic fixation between a subject and an external object), but rather turning awareness back on itself in an objectless meditation. This leads to the first naljor called ‘one-pointedness’ (rtse-gcig), maintaining presence of awareness in the absence of mental contents. The next step is to maintain that same presence while re-introducing mental contents. This is the Mahamudra version of lhag-thong, which achieves the second naljor, ‘simplicity’ (spros-bral).

    From that base, one taste and non-meditation can arise effortlessly. It is really not so different from the four chög-zhag of Dzogchen; it is just a little more structured at the beginning, and perhaps a little more stable for some. I think the reconfiguring of the brain is what achieves the stability. It would take a remarkable brain to achieve a stable lhun-drüp without it.
    Good stuff!
    December 29, 2013 at 6:31am · Like · 5
    Jackson Peterson Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, I would follow Jon Norris's advice as his above comment. In the Soto Zen tradition we stay just with this vividly aware empty presence noticing the phenomena of every kind. The mind state you describe is just more mind waves. Sit and notice for about 1hour, two is better, just like the OP. Do nothing but notice until the mind becomes brilliantly clear. Then rest in that brilliant clarity. This will rewire the brain and the brain waves will resonate to the frequency of Clear Light: then rigpa arises.
    December 29, 2013 at 7:07am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon For the four yogas of essence Mahāmudrā / four rnyal 'byors and four ting nge 'dzins of Dzogchen sem sde; non-duality does not arise until the third stage of each [ro gcig, nyis med or mnyam nyid], up until that point it (the nondual view) is merely an accurate inference.

    The four chög bzhags are 'continuations' and are predicated on the insight acquired in the third stage of the four fold systems mentioned above. So they are technically not the same as the aforementioned 'stages', but are more so four aspects (or qualities) of a single view
    December 29, 2013 at 7:44am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Kyle.. you talk from your reading not from experience, it seems you like to show us how much you read? However you are quite wrong in this case: Essence Mahamudra does not have the progressive system of the gradual Mahamudra of Gampopa. There is no "practice" in Essence Mahamudra, just resting in the Natural State that is present in every moment.
    December 29, 2013 at 7:48am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Ponlop Rinpoche explains Essence Mahamudra:

    "On this path, there is no need for either the elaborate methods of Mantra Mahamudra or the gradual training of Sutra Mahamudra. In Sutra Mahamudra, there are still some forms; for example, the practices of shamatha and v ipashyana meditation, as well as the practices of bodhichitta are retained. There is also a great deal of formal study. In Mantrayana Mahamudra, there is also a certain formality of method that can be seen in its reliance upon ceremony and ritual; for example, there are extensive liturgies, visualizations and mantra recitations. Thus, in this sense, Vajrayana Mahamudra is also a very formal way of introducing the nature of mind . In contrast, the Essence Mahamudra path is totally formless. The transmission happens instantaneously.

    Essence Mahamudra is nothing more than one’s naked, ordinary mind resting in the unfabricated state.

    In the Essence Mahamudra tradition, all conceptual clinging, such as clinging to ideas of “sacred and profane” or “virtuous and non-virtuous, ” is cut through and we work directly with the experience of mind and its nature . The lineage guru points out the nature of mind to us, directly and nakedly. This kind of pointing out instruction is very genuine. It is not something that we can mimic or repeat. We cannot “try it out” one time and say, “That was just a rehearsal. It did no t work out, so okay, let’s do the same thing again.” That is not how it works. In the tradition of this lineage, we get one direct and naked pointing out, which has an effect. Throughout the history of Essence Mahamudra, pointing out has always happened in a very simple and ordinary way. This type of pointing out typifies the Essence Mahamudra approach, where we are working directly with our experiences of ordinary, worldly life, as well as our experience of the nature of mind."
    December 29, 2013 at 8:05am · Like
    Kyle Dixon That's okay Jax we can have differing opinions.

    The formula for these are essentially identical; (i) cultivation of stillness, (ii) familiarization with movement in relation to stillness, (iii) recognition of the non-duality or non-arising of stillness and movement, (iv) continuation.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:06am · Like
    Jackson Peterson Kyle Dixon... Didn't you read the text from Ponlop. You are not describing Essence Mahamudra again... Its not an opinion... You are just plain wrong!
    December 29, 2013 at 8:08am · Like
    Kyle Dixon I did read it. It did not contradict what I wrote, but we can agree to disagree, that is the beauty of opinions.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:11am · Like
    Kyle Dixon As he said, the system works directly with the mind (the first two yogas), and its nature (the latter two yogas).
    December 29, 2013 at 8:15am · Like
    John Tan Does "no-practice" in essence Mahamudra or Dzogchen mean resting in natural state? "No practice" to me does not mean "resting in any natural state" but "resting" now turns into natural expression of suchness in activities and action...encounter and meet situations.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:24am · Like · 3
    Jon Norris Jackson Peterson, actually Gampopa taught both a pure form of Essence Mahamudra and a Four Yogas form also under the heading of Essence Mahamudra. He seemed to tailor the pointing out to the student's level. We shouldn't put too fine a point on it. Both versions bypass all the lower sutric and tantric methods. For me, an absolutely pure Essence Mahamudra has the same problem as a pure trekcho, and that is it could result in a spaced-out condition. The student could be totally enlightened, but has no reference point for enlightenment, and thus can soon lose it without knowing he has lost it! Without going through the four naljors, the brain never got reconfigured, so the state of enlightenment is almost impossible to stabilize. Does that make any sense?
    December 29, 2013 at 8:27am · Like · 1
    Kyle Dixon Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche says the same; the stabilization of the definitive view rides off the heels of the stabilization acquired in zhi gnas [śamatha] and lhag mthong. If that stabilization is not present then there is little hope for maintaining the definitive view.

    Dudjom Lingpa also says this.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:32am · Like · 1
    Jon Norris Yes Kyle Dixon, I recently posted a piece by Norbu in the Dzogchen Discussion Group where he talks about his own struggles with shamatha. He was quite honest about how long it took him to 'get it', but how important it was for taming the mind..
    December 29, 2013 at 8:36am · Like · 2
    Kyle Dixon John, practice is a big part of 'resting in the natural state', and generally situations are encountered and integrated with by training in the three doors; body, speech and mind.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:41am · Like · 1
    Jon Norris The ‘sudden’ versus ‘gradual’ controversy is as old as Buddhism. It has haunted Tibetan Buddhism ever since the famous debate between Heshang Moheyan of the Northern Chán School and Kamalaśīla of the Indian Madhyamaka School. No less than the Tibetan Emperor, Trisong Detsen, presided over the debate, and when Kamalaśīla was declared the winner, the emperor had Moheyan’s books burned! Centuries later we discover that the Dalai Lamas were practicing Dzogchen in secret. This sort of hypocrisy serves no purpose, not then and not now. I am convinced that 99.9% of all practitioners will benefit from a combination of gradual practice and sudden leap. They are both necessary. Neither works well in isolation. By itself, the gradual path can become a subtle trap substituting religious credentials for realization. By itself, the sudden path can become another sort of trap substituting esoteric experiences for realization. Yet, by working together, the gradual path creates a favorable karmic environment in which the sudden path can manifest, and the sudden path provides those glimpses of the changeless nature of spontaneous presence that cut through the dualistic limitations of the gradual methods. It is that combination of perspectives that helps us avoid falling into extremes.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:55am · Like · 6
    Jackson Peterson Great comments Jon! My point is that the "sudden school" is a valid teaching. A good teacher doesn't compromise with resorting to gradual methods. The student returns and returns but the master remains in the Natural State. It brings about a complete transformation in the mind/brain the student, like hitting the "reset" button. That reset button gets hit again and again with each encounter until it "self-refreshes". The view is really that of the Prajnaparamita teachings. My first Kagyu master of Mahamudra was Sachyu Tulku at Swayambhu in Nepal in 1978. He transmitted this "essence" by his simple presence of being the Natural State. My "sudden enlightenment" Chan teacher in China transmitted this same Dharma to me via questions and responses that obliterated my discursive mind. The Natural State was fully and nakedly exposed. I have never met a Lama or teacher, including Norbu and all my other Dzogchen teachers that had that capacity. I would say Norbu is more a teacher coming from the Sambhogakaya approach. Sudden Enlightenment teachers are purely Dharmakaya approach.
    December 29, 2013 at 8:29pm · Edited · Like · 1
    Jackson Peterson I am not "against" the gradual approach, I am simply saying that the "sudden approach" is its own teaching method. Often I employ both together, but not out of necessity, but because of time limitations, especially when teaching a group. Its a "one on one" transmission.
    December 29, 2013 at 7:06pm · Like · 1
    Jon Norris Jackson Peterson, I understand and appreciate your efforts. I guess I worry too much about the fact that this just a Face Book page and we really don’t know how experienced and realized the group members are. For me, there are two aspects to realization:
    1. ‘Being’ in the natural state
    2. ‘Awareness’ of being in the natural state

    By oscillating back and forth, one develops a sentience about when one is ‘in’ and when one is ‘out’ of the natural state. Then we can ‘train it up’ by dealing with ‘outflow’ (zag pa) etc.

    In a recent post, you wrote: “Primordial awareness is a sentient cognizance that is not witnessing experience, nor is it an element within experience as the cognizant ‘part’. Rather experience IS cognizant sentience.”

    I agree completely, but I always worry when I see statements like ‘This is it!’ or ‘There is no practice.’ that someone will read this and just assume they are enlightened and wander off in a fool’s paradise.
    The irony is, I once argued with Chogyam Trungpa about his being 'too gradual' and now it's me that has cold feet! Guess I'm getting old.
    December 29, 2013 at 9:27pm · Like
    Jackson Peterson Lol Jon Norris, I love your comments! It's the "sweet grandmother" aspect that makes us think other's may just go off in some "false paradise". But I have visited there and can tell you, no one is there! Its a very "short stay" hotel. They are back here working diligently on the gradual path! Lol!
    December 29, 2013 at 10:34pm · Like · 1