Critique on Bhikkhu Bodhi's Article, Discussion on Awareness, Anatta, Emptiness, Dzogchen

Soh:

Problem with Bhikkhu Bodhi's article

First of all, I respect Venerable Bodhi's works. His translations of the Nikayas and his commentaries were excellent and I highly recommend them to everyone. I have collected a number of his books which are all excellent, and Thusness passed me a big one - the Samyutta Nikaya.

However, someone asked me to comment on one of his articles and I will do so here. Been procrastinating on this for a few days because it is a long article but hopefully it will clarify some of the misunderstandings out there.

Let me do it slowly... and... others are welcome to add their own points. Maybe Kyle Dixon has something to add as well. When this gets done I will compile my comments and hopefully others' comments (thats the beautiful thing about a group or forum like this - you can gather bits of wisdom from everyone), and send it to that person who asked me.

Here's the article: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

To start it all: the first few articles about the difference between Advaitic view on Brahman and the Buddhist view on anatta is OK. The problem starts with this paragraph:

"The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

Comments: This paragraph is erroneous. The ultimate does *not* deny the validity of conventional dualities of samsara and nirvana.

First of all, as David Loy pointed out, "Nagarjuna never actually claims, as is sometimes thought, that “samsara is nirvana.” Instead, he says that no difference can be found between them. The koti (limit, boundary) of nirvana is the koti of samsara. They are two different ways of experiencing this world. Nirvana is not another realm or dimension but rather the clarity and peace that arise when our mental turmoil ends, because the objects with which we have been identifying are realized to be shunya. Things have no reality of their own that we can cling to, since they arise and pass away according to conditions. Nor can we cling to this truth. The most famous verse in the Karikas (25:24) sums this up magnificently: “Ultimate serenity is the coming-to-rest of all ways of ‘taking’ things, the repose of named things. No truth has been taught by a Buddha for anyone anywhere.”"

What is denied is not 'conventional validity' but the real, substantial existence of dharmas in the ultimate sense. The conventional designations of dharmas are being utilized in the same way by the Madhyamika, their conventional validity are not in any way undermined at all, it is only that their status as ultimate realities (paramartha dharmas) or real existents are seen to be untenable upon analysis.

As Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm puts it:

"It is not the intention of Madhyamaka to undermine this or that conventional presentation of the skandhas, dhātus and āyatanas, but merely to show that they are not paramārtha dharmas."

"As we know, Madhyamaka adopts the conventional truth either according to the Sautrantika system, or the Yogacara system. But since it's own perspective is grounded in the Prajñāpāramitasūtras, it regards distinctions such as mind and matter to be merely conventional designations that do have any real basis apart from imputation."

To be continued...

Dhamma and Non-duality

accesstoinsight.org

One of the most challenging issues facing Theravada Buddhism in recent years has been the encounter between classical Theravada vipassana meditation and the "non-dualistic" contemplative traditions best represented by Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. Responses to this encounter have spanned th...

Like · · Share · January 30 at 12:57am near Singapore, Singapore · Edited

Lars Bansberg, John Tan, Stian Gudmundsen Høiland and 13 others like this.

Soh: BB [Bikkhu Bodhi]: "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses."

Comments: First of all we should be clear on what exactly non-duality here means.

Malcolm wrote: "It depends on what you mean by nondual. There are three kinds of non dualism. One is cognitive non dualism, i.e., everything is consciousness, for, like example Yogacara. The second is ontological nondualism, i.e. everything is brahman, god, etc. The third is epistemic nondualism, i.e., being, non-being and so on cannot be found on analysis and therefore do not ultimately exist.

The indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned is based on the third. We have only experience of conditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena like space are known purely through inference since they have no characteristics of their own to speak of. When we analyze phenomena, what do we discover? We discover suchness, an unconditioned state, the state free from extremes. That unconditioned state cannot be discovered apart from conditioned phenomena, therefore, we can say with confidence that the conditioned and the unconditioned are nondual. The trick is which version of nonduality you are invoking. This nonduality of the conditioned and unconditioned cannot apply to the first two nondualities for various reasons."

First of all, the definitive view being held by many schools especially those of the Tibetan schools is the Madhyamaka view - that is, the epistemic nondualism of being and non-being, existence and non-existence, etc.

And we need to ask, is this found in the teaching of the Buddha in the Pali canon? The answer is of course, yes. In the suttas the Buddha taught that "Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.[5]" and stated that the Dharma leads to the relinquishing of clinging for such views. In another sutta, it is stated: "Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

The four extremes, of the 'existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence' of the Tathagata after passing was also rejected in the suttas. From all these examples we can know that the epistemic non-duality that is the rejection of being/non-being is taught in the suttas.

What is not specifically stated in the suttas is the 'indivisibility of the conditioned and the unconditioned', however, this is implied naturally if the epistemic non-duality is valid.

January 30 at 1:47am · Edited · Like · 3

Soh: Now in another sense, we can also say that the non-duality that is the rejection of a Seer, Seeing the Seen (subject-action-object) is another important aspect of non-duality that is supported by the Pali suttas.

What does the Suttas say about this? We hear from Ajahn Amaro who explains on the Bahiya Sutta,

"What does it mean to say, “There is no thing there”? It is talking about the realm of the object; it implies that we recognize that “the seen is merely the seen.” That’s it. There are forms, shapes, colors, and so forth, but there is no thing there. There is no real substance, no solidity, and no self-existent reality. All there is, is the quality of experience itself. No more, no less. There is just seeing, hearing, feeling, sensing, cognizing. And the mind naming it all is also just another experience: “the space of the Dharma hall,” “Ajahn Amaro’s voice,” “here is the thought, ‘Am I understanding this?’ Now another thought, ‘Am I not understanding this?’”

There is what is seen, heard, tasted, and so on, but there is no thing-ness, no solid, independent entity that this experience refers to.

As this insight matures, not only do we realize that there is no thing “out there,” but we also realize there is no solid thing “in here,” no independent and fixed entity that is the experiencer. This is talking about the realm of the subject.

The practice of nonabiding is a process of emptying out the objective and subjective domains, truly seeing that both the object and subject are intrinsically empty. If we can see that both the subjective and objective are empty, if there’s no real “in here” or “out there,” where could the feeling of I-ness and meness and my-ness locate itself? As the Buddha said to Bahiya, “You will not be able to find your self either in the world of this [subject] or in the world of that [object] or anywhere between the two.”" - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../ajahn-amaro-on...

And we find similar teachings in the Kalaka Sutta, where the Buddha talked about how the Buddhas are free from the conceiving of a Seer and an object of sight:

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime."

Awakening to Reality: The Buddha on Non-Duality

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

This passage has been most useful to me personally. The challenge is to constant...See More

January 30 at 1:58am · Edited · Like · 5 · Remove Preview

Stephanie Marie: I love this Soh, very good!!!

January 30 at 1:56am · Like · 1

Soh: BB: "At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas propose dualism, the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent."

Comments: The suttas actually reject metaphysical dualities, such as being/non-being.

BB: "I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world."

Comments: Buddhism is certainly pragmatic rather than speculative, but it would again be erroneous to understand emptiness as if it is a 'unifying principle behind or beneath our experience'. The non-dualism of emptiness has nothing to do with a 'unifying principle behind or underneath experience'. The non-dualism of emptiness is an epistemic non-duality free from extremes, not a philosophical void (it is not a philosophical statement but the nature of one's mind/experience that can be directly realized), and the realization of this emptiness frees us from all clinging and references, which allows for the very purpose of Buddha's teachings: to lead sentient beings to the end of suffering. Emptiness is not a background of phenomena, not a unifying principle, not a principle beneath our experience, but the very nature of all phenomena/experience is to be empty of any intrinsic existence at all.

Furthermore, the dependent and empty nature of emptiness should show that there is no 'underlying emptiness behind everything'. If the emptiness of a cup depends on a cup, how can this emptiness be said to be some universal underlying principle behind all phenomena?

Greg Goode put it well:

"Emptiness Itself is Empty

Even emptiness is empty. For example, the emptiness of the bottle of milk does not exist inherently. Rather, it exists in a dependent way. The emptiness of the bottle of milk is dependent upon its basis (the bottle of milk). It is also dependent upon having been designated as emptiness. As we saw above, this is alluded to in Nagarjuna’s Treatise, verse 24.18.

Understood this way, emptiness is not a substitute term for awareness. Emptiness is not an essence. It is not a substratum or background condition. Things do not arise out of emptiness and subside back into emptiness. Emptiness is not a quality that things have, which makes them empty. Rather, to be a thing in the first place, is to be empty.

It is easy to misunderstand emptiness by idealizing or reifying it by thinking that it is an absolute, an essence, or a special realm of being or experience. It is not any of those things. It is actually the opposite. It is merely the way things exist, which is without essence or self-standing nature or a substratum of any kind. Here is a list characteristics of emptiness, to help avoid some of the frequent misunderstandings about emptiness, according to the Buddhist Consequentialists:

    Emptiness is not a substance

    Emptiness is not a substratum or background

    Emptiness is not light

    Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

    Emptiness is not the Absolute

    Emptiness does not exist on its own

    Objects do not consist of emptiness

    Objects do not arise from emptiness

    Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

    Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

    Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind"

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

Nondual Emptiness Teachings

www.heartofnow.com

Emptiness teachings demonstrate that the "I," as well as everthing else, lacks inherent existence.

January 30 at 5:00am · Edited · Like · 5 · Remove Preview

Soh: BB: "Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level."

Comments: Realization of emptiness as emphasized in Mahayana teaching has nothing to do with "a final unity" (unity with what? Brahman? Obviously not a doctrine accepted in Buddhism) and does, indeed, lead to the extinction of suffering.

And this is not just a Mahayana teaching. Look at Phena Sutta (Pali Sutta) on how the realization of emptiness leads to the release from all suffering:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../sn22/sn22.095.than.html

Excerpt:

"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?

 Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Phena Sutta: Foam

www.accesstoinsight.org

There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were flo...See More

January 30 at 3:52am · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Soh: Speaking about Greg Goode, from that same article I quoted from, there is a very relevant passage, and shows how the non-duality of emptiness has nothing at all to do with some "oneness" or "final unity":

How Is Emptiness Nondual?

The most common connotation of "nonduality" is "oneness" or "singularity." Many teachings state that everything is actually awareness; those teachings are nondual in the "oneness" sense in which there are no two things.

But there is another sense of "nonduality." Instead of nonduality as "oneness," it's nonduality as "free from dualistic extremes." This entails freedom from the pairs of metaphysical dualisms such as essentialism/nihilism, existence/non-existence, reification/annihilation, presence/absence, or intrinsicality/voidness, etc. These pairs are dualisms in this sense: if you experience things in the world in terms of one side of the pair, you will experience things in the world in terms of the other side as well. If some things seem like they truly exist, then other things will seem like they truly don't exist. You will experience your own self to truly exist, and fear that one day you will truly not exist. Emptiness teachings show how none of these pairs make sense, and free you from experiencing yourself and the world in terms of these opposites. Emptiness teachings are nondual in this sense.

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

January 30 at 3:57am · Edited · Like · 4

Soh: BB: "When we investigate our experience exactly as it presents itself, we find that it is permeated by a number of critically important dualities with profound implications for the spiritual quest. The Buddha's teaching, as recorded in the Pali Suttas, fixes our attention unflinchingly upon these dualities and treats their acknowledgment as the indispensable basis for any honest search for liberating wisdom. It is precisely these antitheses — of good and evil, suffering and happiness, wisdom and ignorance — that make the quest for enlightenment and deliverance such a vitally crucial concern."

Comments: as explained above, all these conventional dualities are not being undermined in any way. Hidden in BB's statement is the assumption that emptiness in fact undermines the 'pragmatic value' of Buddhadharma, such as the four noble truths, the path towards ending suffering, the cultivation of a virtuous life, etc.

It must be explained that Emptiness does not ever reject or deny the necessity of all these pragmatic aspects of Buddhism. On the other hand, it is precisely because of emptiness and dependent origination that there is the possibility of practicing them.

Check this out:

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew103934.htm

Nagarjuna's Critique of the Dharma

In chapter XXIV of the Karikas, NAgarjuna continues his attack on the Abhidharma philosophers by analyzing the Four Noble Truths, and argues that-like causality, impermanence, suffering, and bondage-they, too, are "empty." The problem of this chapter needs to be seen against the background of the preceding section. If the Abhidharma views of causality are "empty," as Nagarjuna says they are, and if causality is a central feature of Buddhist praxis, then Nagarjuna seems to undermine everything that is vital to Buddhism. He begins chapter XXIV by expressing the Abhidharma position in the following way:

If all of this is empty,

Neither arising nor ceasing,

Then for you, it follows that

The Four Noble Truths do ont exist.

If the Four Noble Truths do not exist,

Then knowledge, abandonment,

Meditation and manifestation

Will be completely impossible.

p.571

If these things do not exist,

The four fruits will not arise.

Without the four fruits, there will be no attainers of the fruits.

Nor will there be the faithful.

If so, the spiritual community will not exist.

Nor will the eight kinds of person.

If the Four Noble Truths do not exists,

There will be no true Dharma.

If there is no doctrine and spiritual community,

How can there be a Buddha?

If emptiness is conceived in this way,

The three jewels are contradicted.

(Garfield 1995, p.67)

In the passages above, the Abhidharma opponent is saying that if Nagarjuna is right about "emptiness," then the very practices that make Buddhism soteriologically efficacious will be destroyed. That is, if it is true that the Four Noble Truths are "empty," then there is no such thing as the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, no such thing as impermanence, "non-self," and nirvana, and the practices that supposedly lead to liberation will be destroyed. Nagarjuna responds to the opponent by saying that he has misunderstood "emptiness":

We say that this understanding of yours

Of emptiness and purpose of emptiness

And of the significance of emptiness is incorrect.

As a consequence you are harmed by it.

(Garfield 1995, p.68)

Because the opponent has taken "emptiness" to signify the nonexistence of the Four Noble Truths, he is "harmed by it"-in other words, he sees "emptiness" as destructive. But his reason for thinking of "emptiness" in this way is that he thinks that a "correct" meditation on causality, the aggregates, and the Four Noble Truths is necessary for liberation.

Nagarjuna responds to this assumption by reversing the tables and saying, in effect, that it is not "emptiness" that destroys practice, but the very idea that such things as causality, the aggregates, and the Four Noble Truths are "inherent," essential, or necessary:

If you perceive the existence of all things

In terms of svabhava,

Then this perception of all things

Will be without the perception of causes and conditions.

Effects and causes

And agent and action

And conditions and arising and ceasing

And effects will be rendered impossible.

(Garfield 1995, p.69)

p.572

Nagarjuna goes on to say that the reason essences militate against causal conditions, arising, ceasing, agency, and so forth is that the idea of essence entails independence, and if things are by nature independent then it is impossible for them to interact causally. If this is true then there is no "dependent arising," and without "dependent arising" it is impossible to make sense of the ability to cultivate a virtuous life. In other words, without the process of change the whole idea of cultivating the "fruits" of a Buddhist life is rendered nonsensical. Nagarjuna responds by saying that Buddhist praxis must be "empty" if we are to make any sense of the Four Noble Truths:

If dependent arising is denied,

Emptiness itself is rejected.

This would contradict

All of the worldly conventions.

If emptiness is rejected,

No action will be appropriate.

There would be action which did not begin,

And there would be agent without action.

If there is svabhava, the whole world

Will be unarising, unceasing,

And static. The entire phenomenal world

Would be immutable.

If it (the world) were not empty,

Then action would be without profit.

The act of ending suffering and

Abandoning misery and defilement would not exist.

(Garfield 1995, p.72)

Nagarjuna has thus shifted the debate. Whereas the Abhidharma thinker begins with the assumption that a "correct" meditation on the Dharma is a necessary prerequisite for liberation, Nagarjuna undercuts this by saying that if one takes the Dharma as essential, that is, as necessary, then the very essence of Buddhism is undermined. Like the first chapter on causation, Nagarjuna is reminding the Abhidharma philosophers here about nonattachment. The Four Noble Truths are supposed to be medicinal "rafts" that help specific sentient beings overcome their attachments, but if one becomes attached to the practices of nonattachment then one has missed the entire point of Buddhism. Thus, Nagarjuna says that the Dharma-which includes causation, impermanence, suffering, bondage, and liberation-is "empty."

Nagarjuna and the doctrine of "skillful means"

ccbs.ntu.edu.tw

Kasulis, Thomas P. 1992. "Philosophy as Metapraxis." In Discourse and Practice, ...See More

January 30 at 4:34am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Greg Goode: I find this to be a fascinating topic, like many inter-path discussions. Back in 1998 when the article was published, there weren't very many people talking about the Madhyamika. Back then, the big new path was Advaita and its various Westernized versions. Papaji's teachers were out and about. Ramana and Nisargadatta's teachings were very popular. Chinmaya Mission and Arsha Vidya Gurukulam were beginning to catch attention.

I think that the good Bikkhu Bodhi (who about at the time he wrote the article, was head of the Mahayana dharma center where I used to practice) is objecting to a specific philosophical tendency.

The tendency could be described as lumping things together into a more fundamental reality, or collapsing one part of a dualism into another part, or moving towards a monistic ontology and psychology. Some things like that happen in Pure Land, and in Jaxchen.

From BB's perspective none of those make for Buddhism. There is a lot in Mahayana that Theravada doesn't accept.

But I sometimes wonder in a sociological way, How much are these boundaries going to stay rigid going forward... People shop around a lot these days, way more than in the late 90s. It happens a lot. People mix and match paths and create new soups and salads from teachings. In many American sanghas, there is a lot of thought over "Western Buddhism." What will be kept from Asian sources? What will fall away? What new things will emerge?

I talk about "joyful irony" in my book on emptiness. For a joyful ironist, these are exciting times!

January 30 at 5:14am · Edited · Unlike · 3

Kyle Dixon: I had wrote this the other day when someone brought up 'neo-advaita' in relation to the buddhadharma:

One of the issues with so-called 'neo-advaita' is that it lacks both the dichotomies of (i) 'conventional and ultimate' and/or (ii) 'delusion and wisdom', and without those aspects of the teaching, persons, places, things etc. (what the dharma refers to as conventional designations), are taken to be truly non-existent (often because they are 'concepts'), and that subtle objectification results in the mind grasping at those notions, and you end up with a bunch of people who truly believe there is no self, etc. So it's a bunch of selves who believe they don't exist.

Traditional Advaita Vedanta is much more refined, but it still posits the existence of an unconditioned and uncaused, universal self. Though its praxis is backed by a long standing tradition, and so it doesn't have as many inconsistencies and issues when compared to the new wave 'neo-advaita'.

I don't think Dolbulpa's gzhan stong is quite the same as Vedanta.

The big differences between the Advaita view and that of the buddhadharma is that the Advaita non-duality is 'advaita', which is accomplished by subsuming relative existents into a truly established and inherently existent ultimate nature. That ultimate nature exists in relation to relative phenomena, is the source of that relative phenomena, but is not that phenomena and is beyond the relative.

The non-duality of the buddhadharma is 'advaya', which is discovered through a freedom from the extremes of existence and non-existence (and both and neither). The ultimate nature is the non-arising of the relative, and so there truly is no inherent ultimate nature. The ultimate nature in this case is inseparable from the relative, for example; when Nāgārjuna states: 'samsara and nirvana, neither of these truly exist, instead, nirvana is a complete and through knowledge of samsara'.

January 30 at 6:51am · Unlike · 5

Kyle Dixon: And here's a compilation of some of Lopon Malcolms posts on non-duality in the buddhadharma:

Malcolm wrote:

There is no actual state or condition that is free from duality. If one should think that there is, one will have not understood one single thing about Buddha Dharma.

Because people think there is a real state free from dualistic extremes, they fall into the pit of eternalism and grasping, never even recognizing emptiness correctly, let alone realizing it, and hampering their understanding of dependent origination.

Thinking there is such a thing as a real state of non-duality is precisely the Advaita Vedanta, Trika and so on.

The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

"Non-duality" is trivial in general because is just an intellectual trip.

The nature of things is "non-dual", simply meaning free from existence and non-existence. Great, now one knows this. Then what? How are you going to use this fact? How do you integrate this into your practice? Better not do so conceptually, since that will just result in taking rebirth as a formless realm god.

The purpose of emptiness is to cure views. Emptiness is not a view. "Non-duality" is a view. That is why Vimalakirti kept his trap shut.

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

Emptiness is one of three doors of liberation; non-duality is not. The other two being lack of aspiration and the signless.

There is no philosophy of non-dualism in Buddhism. This is wholly the invention of western scholars. For example, Madhyamaka rarely uses the term "non-dual".

When it is used in Yogacara, it is meant to describe lack of a real subject and object in perception (vijñaptimatra), and hence the absence of existence and non-existence in those imagined phenomena as well.

It does not get used at all in the Nikaya schools.

I think westerners are over-invested in this word.

But a word that is frequently brought up, over and over again, is anutpāda, non-origination, non-arising. This word is much more important for we Buddhists.

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

"Non-dual" in Dzogchen is no different than non-dual in Madhyamaka - it means that the categories of being and non-being are cognitive errors.

Also in Dzogchen practice one does not seek to avoid discursive thoughts. One seeks to recognize their actual state....

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

"Non-dual" i.e. gnyis med/advaya means the absence of the duality of being and non-being.

In Yogacara, it can mean absence of subject and object, but the reason for this is that ultimately there is an absence of being and non-being.

Even when we talk about the inseparability of original purity and natural formation, kadag and lhundrup, this inseparability is actually predicated on the non-duality that I mentioned above. When we talk about freedom from the four extremes, the eight extremes and so on, it is all, in the end predicated on the absence of being and non-being. That absence of being and non-being is the essence of what the term "non-dual" means in Buddhist texts.

It is not a translation or terminology issue, it is just a basic fact of Buddhist view....

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

Whatever is asti is satya (true), whatever is nasti as mithya (false), so at base, it really is about freedom from asti (being) and nasti (non-being).

January 30 at 6:56am · Unlike · 5

Kyle Dixon: Continued...

Malcolm wrote:

In general, whenever we say that something is inseperable or non-dual with emptiness, whether we are talking ka dag, dharmakāya, etc. we are talking abot the fact that at basis, there is no being and or non-being upon which all of this clarity, appearance, path, yoga, three kaȳas, you name it, etc., can be based.

And often enough translators decide to translate dbyer med as non-dual, even though dbyer med is asaṁbhedaḥ, inseparable.

I am just a bigger pain in the ass than most translators and more insisitent that translations reflect and are completely consistent with buddhist view so that crypto-hindu notions stay out of our school.

Even Norbu Rinpoche asserts that in his rdzog chen skor dris len that Dzogchen view does not go beyond Madhyamaka in terms of formal statements of the view, citing Sakya Pandita to the effect that if there would something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme, and so on.

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

"Nondual" in Dzogchen does not mean everything is the same in the one without a second (Brahman, Advaita Vedanta); it means that ontic pairs such as existence and non-existence cannot be found. What nondual really means in Dzogchen is that everything is in a state of liberation from the beginning, not the absence of diversity with respect to this and that thing.

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

Non-duality is not a thing. There is no non-dual thing or state and so on.

There is a difference between an absence of duality (Madhyamaka, and so on) and so called "non-duality".

Malcolm wrote:

The first refers to an absence of extremes. The second is advocating a philosophical position.

Malcolm wrote:

The term non-dual (gnyis med, or advaya) is used frequently in Buddhist texts. The term non-duality (gnyis med nyid, advaita) is virtually never used, showing up only one time in the entire Kengyur, in a single passage in the Kalacakra tantra (hooray for a text searchable Tibetan canon!); and nineteen times in the Tengyur, the translations of Indian commentaries.

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

One can argue from the point of view of emptiness. One cannot argue from the point of view of non-duality and remain a Buddhist.

Advaya-patita means "not broken into two parts", better to say, "...all phenomena are not divided into two, though they are not divided into two, they are not, however single".

Better translation of the title would be the dharma discourse on entering the absence of dualism.

But the absence of dualism here is the dualism of "exists" and "does not exist".

Also the absence of the tā particle in Buddhist renderings of the term advaya is significant, even though usually over looked. "Tā" bears the meaning it "ity" in English, for example, reality. Non-duality means literally, "a state of being in which there is no dualism".

Emptiness is nondual, but it is not a nondual'ity'.

The amount of trouble this simple word causes is incalculable -- the mistranslation of advaya as non-duality is responsible for huge misunderstandings....

The nice thing about śūnyatā is that you can stated that it is ultimate reality without committing oneself to an ontological position. Hence the tā suffix.

Three gates of liberation are a little different: śūnya, alakṣana, apranidhana, empty, without characteristics, without aspiration.

They are not states, they are entries. Emptiness is the bhutatā, the actual nature of the things. Also emptiness has no nature, since it is free from extremes.

This is the beauty of Madhyamaka. You can assert emptiness as a nature, and no one can fault you. If you assert non-duality as a nature you have already committed an epistemological blunder.

As Nagarjuna really said:

If I had a position, I would be at fault.

Since I alone have no position, I alone am free from fault.

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

Phenomena are free of duality, since they originate in dependence. That absence of duality also has a correlate in direct experience -- see Kaccaayanagotto Sutta i.e. "Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathāgata teaches a doctrine of the middle".

The middle way view is by necessity a non-dual view, avoiding these extremes of dualism. That is also emptiness; emptiness cures the views of existence and non-existence -- that can be correlated in one's personal experience....

It is the same, now attached, now detached; now full, now empty; now exists, now does not exist; these are all dualities.

When the basis for attachment has ceased, also the basis for detachment has ceased: detachment is also trapped in dualism....

...Non-attachment is remedial. It contains the seeds of its own defeat.

If you have attachment, then you need non-attachment. It is better to cut these things at the root, rather than the leaf.

The root is wrong views of existence and non-existence. That is dualism as defined by the Buddha. The absence of duality is when one's has no wrong views concerning "it is" and "it is not".

Every other dualistic pair stems from these two.

Finally, from the Ch'an/Zen side of things, by Ven. Huifeng of Fo Guang University:

    ----------

Malcolm wrote:

Since the position of Zen has been brought into the discussion (albeit in a rather clumsy manner), it is worth pointing out how the phrase "advaya" appears in Chinese. It appears almost always as 不二, which is again just "not two", a very clear translation of "advaya". If one wished to express "advaita" (or similar abstracted sense), then one would probably use 非二性 (Xuanzang style translation). However, while 不二 appears thousands of times throughout the Chinese canon, including the Chan (--> Zen) works, the latter term or variants, only appear once or twice from what can be found scanning the entire canon digitally.

So, the Chinese - and I'd warrant the Japanese too - most likely had a clear notion of "advaya" as "not two". Whether or not this is held out in English translations of the Chinese or Japanese works, however, is another matter. But considering that of Chan or Zen practitioners, only a tiny minority use English, one would want to avoid gross over generalizations.

January 30 at 7:02am · Edited · Unlike · 6

    

Robert Healion: Ho ho. Speaking on behalf of myself. And not in disagreement with Soh.

First take non dual, which does not mean merged, just a denial of individualism. You are not separated, which can be, thou should not be compared to dependent origination. Buddha appears to have been very careful to avoid these extremes of Vedanta. Dependent origination is also apparently a later addition to buddhas original doctrine. He refers to emptiness as empty of inherent reality.

The meaning of nirvana is complex, but my understanding is the mind no longer grasps the phenomenal world. Samsara is I assume is the reverse.

Conventional within the framework of the absolute. Firstly he is appears to be stating an objective reality of the absolute. Which he then goes on to challenge aspects of it. This is not unusual.

So Whose mind to start with. Where is it located. Samsara and nirvana are relative terms. Like children given toys we grasp these ideologies, (mental beliefs) and run around with our rocket shouting I am a spaceman. Well I do… Actually I am a cave (8th consciousness) dwelling demon (acting out my samsaric tendencies).

January 30 at 7:04am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Kyle that was great!!! It shows the importance of still working at the dharma, even though ultimately nothing has ever existed;

Not the same as I don't exist so I don't care; that is no different than a person who has no idea of the reality of thier situation!!

Thank you!

January 30 at 7:08am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Too it points that even though nothing has ever existed, it is important not to deny convention, because it to exists

January 30 at 7:10am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Robert Healion, what do you mean by that ?

January 30 at 7:12am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Cave dwelling demon...?

January 30 at 7:12am · Like

Jackson Peterson: There is a tantric understanding of "emptiness" that is more direct and experiential. It is the view of Vajrayana in general: emptiness is the space of aware emptiness, the womb from which all appearances arise. This is directly experienced in the generation and completion stages of practice. Dzogchen view regarding emptiness is the tantric view not Mahdyamaka. That is a lower view and still intellectual and conceptual. Emptiness in Dzogchen is the "empty space" from which all appearances arise. That's the legacy of Mahayoga and Anuyoga views of emptiness. "Vision arises from emptiness and dissolves into emptiness". This is the basis from which the deities arise spontaneously. Its a different emptiness paradigm completely and is not defined as "dependently originated" in Dzogchen or Vajrayana usage.

January 30 at 7:13am · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: Yes detachment is dualism!! The paradox of becoming!! Yay!

January 30 at 7:13am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Nagarjuna says: "convention is fiction".

January 30 at 7:13am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Hmmm

January 30 at 7:15am · Like

Robert Healion: Sorry no that posted in above, be more specific

January 30 at 7:16am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Emptiness in Vajrayāna is the same as emptiness in Mahāyāna, no difference. My Kagyu Lama actually spoke of this not too long ago... He said you should be aware that the 'vajra' in Vajrayāna means 'emptiness', there are many, who not understanding this, attempt to state that Vajrayāna is stating something else, or teaching something else. He said this is a huge mistake.

January 30 at 7:16am · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: I'm just gonna meditate

And know that no one is doing it. That sounds good.

January 30 at 7:19am · Like

Robert Healion: A quote from Hakuin Ekaku. I am living out of ego tendencies.

January 30 at 7:20am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Appearances [gzhi snang] arise from the basis [gzhi], but not from emptiness. Emptiness is the original purity of the basis [ka dag], which means the basis is unreal, non-arisen and free from extremes... meaning the appearances of the basis [gzhi snang] and the apparent dynamism of the basis [rtsal], along with all of its expressions, are equally unreal, non-arisen and free from extremes.

January 30 at 7:22am · Edited · Like · 6

Stephanie Marie: Cool, cause emptiness is not a place right? It's a concept that describes how dependant arisings never really arise, but not that they are non existent or even in between right?

January 30 at 7:22am · Like

Stephanie Marie: What is the basis? Just compounded cause and effect? But one can never find a first cause right?

And then taken apart we find they never really existed to begin with, like a mirage?

January 30 at 7:24am · Like

Stephanie Marie: The clear light space, that's not emptiness right? Just what the mirage dream is made of?

January 30 at 7:25am · Like

Robert Healion: Emptiness is an attempt to describe an objective phenomena not posited in conventional reality. The reality from which language operates. Objective in that it is experienced in Prajnaparamita.

January 30 at 7:26am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Gah, I'll go back to meditating on sutras and trying to focus but not too hard. Guess it will happen when it does. Thanks Jackson , Kyle Robert

January 30 at 7:26am · Like

Robert Healion: Clear light I assume references knowledge. Visualization as well as mental understanding are mental ideation hence not absolute reality. But we communicate via the relative. So words, endless words..

January 30 at 7:28am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Oh. I thought it was an experience, I have been sitting here waiting to stare death in the face lol

January 30 at 7:29am · Like

Stephanie Marie: I do want to clear up though, there is not now, nor has there ever been a self, except with identification to it right?

January 30 at 7:31am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Emptiness and dependent origination are not necessarily synonymous in Dzogchen. Dependent origination applies to the twelve-fold chain of dependency which arises due to non-recognition of dharmatā. Emptiness on the other hand simply means 'non-arisen', 'free from extremes', 'lacking inherency', so while the basis is not dependently originated it is still utterly empty.

So emptiness is exactly the same in Dzogchen and Madhyamaka, this is why Prasanga is considered a definitive view by Dzogchenpas. The only difference is that Madhyamaka is analytical whereas the Dzogchen praxis is not. But they both champion a freedom from extremes.

January 30 at 7:36am · Like · 5

Stephanie Marie: Thanks Kyle, a lot!! Very much

January 30 at 7:37am · Like

Jackson Peterson: I said "Mahdyamaka" not Mahayana. Mahayana is too broad a category to be used as a standard "view of "emptiness". Madhyamaka and early Buddhism understand emptiness as "dependently originated". Emptiness in Dzogchen is the "space of aware knowingness, the zhi or basis of all arisings... the Dharmakaya... "empty space suffused with knowing awareness" to quote Tulku Urgyen. Dzogchen view is not the same view as the lower yanas regarding emptiness. It can't be because the lower yanas never get beyond a conceptual or inferential understanding of emptiness. Malcolm says emptiness is not fully known until the third vision of thogal, so obviously the lower yana view of emptiness is lacking... indeed it is. The tantric view is the correct paradigm. Not understanding this is a great mistake... but is typical for those bound up with lower yana views of emptiness.

January 30 at 7:42am · Like · 3

Ville Räisänen: Wonderful! Thank you Soh, Kyle and Malcolm!!!

January 30 at 7:45am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Madhyamaka doesn't understand emptiness as dependent originated. Dependent origination is simply correct conventional understanding, which leads to the correct ultimate i.e. emptiness.

January 30 at 7:49am · Like

Kyle Dixon: You're welcome to your opinion that emptiness in Dzogchen is a space of aware knowingness, but I will have to respectfully disagree.

Emptiness in Dzogchen is dharmatā i.e. the non-arising of dharmins [phenomena].

Since dharmakāya is emptiness, nothing arises from dharmakāya, not even dharmakāya itself.

Ones rigpa does not reach maturation until the realization of emptiness. But that realization can occur various ways in Dzogpa Chenpo, in both klong sde and man ngag sde practices of various kinds.

January 30 at 7:54am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: The problem is like when people don't come to Dzogchen through Mahayoga and Anuyoga... they carry a lower view of "emptiness". You get familiar with ground emptiness when you do the tantric visualizations. You experience the empty ground directly when the visualization is dissolved back into the bija and then the bija dissolves into empty space. Only "aware empty knowingness" remains. Norbu teaches the same with the three "Ah's" visualization and dissolution practice. That is actually a "direct introduction" into the empty nature of rigpa or Dharmakaya... the pregnant empty space of all potential arisings, samsaric and nirvanic.

January 30 at 8:02am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Thank you guys so much!

January 30 at 8:05am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: They're just different paths. Perhaps the difference you're pointing out is that Madhyamaka does not address lhun grub or thugs rje. But the treatment of emptiness is identical.

January 30 at 8:07am · Like

Kyle Dixon: What you're pointing out is that dharmakāya is inseparable from the sambhogakāya and nirmanakāya. Dharmakāya is always the emptiness aspect though. The non-arising and lack of inherency. Buddha mind.

January 30 at 8:11am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Yes, Kyle... but emptiness in Madhyamaka is realized based on the insight into "dependent origination". Things are seen to be empty because of their dependent origination which voids any possibility of independent and inherent existence. Whereas in in Dzogchen and Tantra, things are known to be empty because they have no core, like empty clouds due to the insight into "impermanence". That is the whole principle of "self-liberation". Self-liberation is an energetic release of formations upon the arising due to their impermanent nature, not because of insight into their dependent origination.

January 30 at 8:22am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: transparent, luminous, knowing, aware-unobstructedness... fertile voidness.

emptiness in dzogchen to me emphasizes primordial freedom and is inseparable from primordial awareness.. the all permissive, unobstructed expanse of the dharmadhatu ..

ultimately this emptiness is the same empty nature of all phenomena, dependently originated, as well as the emptiness of the unconditioned.

for me the emphasis in dzogchen is the direct experiential one "taste" of samsara & nirvana, rather than a focus on intellectual dependent origination, or even experiential insight into co-dependent origination of sense impressions;

with primordial freedom emptiness inseparable from primordial awareness, emptiness is that primordial, unobstructed freedom...

the "emptiness" of dependent origination is only known in relation to phenomena, whereas the emptiness of the dharmakaya is totally unconditioned / unfabricated and just IS..

January 30 at 8:37am · Edited · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: There's no so-called 'independent' existence in Dzogchen either, and definitely no inherent existence.

Dependent origination means phenomena have no core. No essence or being. There is coarse and subtle impermanence, both apply in Madhyamaka and Dzogchen.

Self-liberation [rang grol] occurs because in the absence of a mind that grasps, empty dharmas, being non-arisen are unmediated and so there is no clinging. It also points to the fact that dharmas are liberated of an essence, core or being i.e. self.

January 30 at 8:38am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The emptiness arrived at via application of dependent origination and the emptiness that is dharmakāya realized in Dzogchen are no different. The former simply takes longer because it is analytical and therefore the mind is the path, whereas in Dzogchen the path is vidyā [rig pa].

January 30 at 8:42am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The emptiness known in Dzogchen is only known in reference to phenomena as well. If you think there is some separate emptiness that lies unconditioned apart from phenomena then you have erred into an eternalist view, and have deviated from the meaning of Dzogchen.

January 30 at 8:46am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: the experiential wisdom, which arises when one penetrates dependently originated sense impressions, which is thus dependent upon the clear seeing of the nature of dependently originated sense impressions, aka;

"Emptiness is the 'nature' of all experiences. There is nothing to attain or practice. What we have to realize is this empty nature, this ‘ungraspability’, ‘unlocatability ’ and ‘interconnectedness’ nature of all vivid arising. Emptiness will reveal that not only is there no ‘who’ in pristine awareness, there is no ‘where’ and ‘when’. Be it ‘I’, ‘Here’ or ’Now’, all are simply impressions that dependently originate in accordance with the principle of conditionality."

the "interconnectedness" of vivid arising ( of dependently originated sense impressions ) is a distinct knowledge, from the perfected wisdom of the emptiness of the kayas, which is knowledge of the unoriginated primordial freedom of the dharmakaya .. the former arises only on condition of the arising of dependently originated sense impressions, while the later is first known in the fruition of the total cessation of all dependently originated sense impressions...

ultimately speaking, the unoriginated primordial freedom emptiness of the kayas is the one taste of both samsaric and nirvanic experience, so is the ultimate nature of dependently originated phenomena as well.. yet the knowledge / wisdom can be said to be distinct in terms of depth of realization.

"It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised."

January 30 at 8:48am · Like · 4

Justin Struble: as Jackson posted not long ago:

Tulku Urgyen:

“When you say original wakefulness, yeshe or wisdom, it by definition means a knowing for which there is no object. When you say thought, or namshey, it means a knowing with structure of subject and object. Yeshe is a knowing that doesn’t fixate in a dualistic way, whereas our ordinary knowing is dualistic fixation. Dualistic fixation should be destroyed. That’s the reason we strive so diligently in meditation and recognize mind essence. Yeshe is primordial knowing.”

“That state of realization of all the Buddhas, on the other hand, is a primordial knowing that is independent from an object. Trekcho training reveals this state of realization”

“Knowing without an object” is similar to the Buddha’s description of a consciousness that “doesn’t land”. It is that “knowing” that is the unconditioned and unestablished nature of nirvana.

January 30 at 8:55am · Like · 4

Justin Struble: "The emptiness known in Dzogchen is only known in reference to phenomena as well. If you think there is some separate emptiness that lies unconditioned apart from phenomena then you have erred into an eternalist view, and have deviated from the meaning of Dzogchen."

the emptiness of the kayas that is realized in dzogchen is not known in reference to any phenomena whatsoever, and if you think it is dependent upon being known in reference to phenomena, you have deviated from dzogchen.

January 30 at 8:56am · Like · 4

Justin Struble: to assert this is not to fall into forms of extreme view, because that which is unoriginated, unestablished, unconditioned, unfabricated, is not subject to either the dualistic extremes of existence, non-existence, both, or neither.

January 30 at 8:58am · Like · 3

Justin Struble: worth repeating:

"It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised."

January 30 at 9:00am · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Thank you for clarifying that Justin Struble!!

January 30 at 9:05am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Justin, since dependently originated phenomena are non-arisen by definition therefore there is no cessation of dependently originated phenomena, all that ceases is ones delusion.

The only reason the depth of Dzogchen realization can be said to be such in comparison to Madhyamaka, is that Madhyamaka realizes perfectly unobscured Buddha mind, but because it does not have a praxis which addresses lhun grub and so on, its realization of buddha speech and body is not to the same extent, as Dzogchen, which realizes the unobscured trikāya in its entirety.

January 30 at 9:13am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: kyle, when delusion ceases, dependently originated phenomena, which arise on dependence of delusion, also cease.

January 30 at 9:15am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Justin, you are misunderstanding that Tulku Urgyen quote. It is not saying that ye shes abides separately from objects, but that ye shes is knowledge of objects as non-arisen and therefore that knowledge does not arise in dependence on an object.

There is no wisdom which exists separately from so-called phenomena in Dzogchen.

Mipham Rinpoche explains this succinctly here:

"Without finding certainty in primordial purity [ka dag], just mulling over some 'ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent' will get you nowhere. If you apprehend this basis of emptiness that is empty of both existence and nonexistence as something that is established by its essence separately [from everything else], no matter how you label it - such as an inconceivable self, Brahmā, Viśnu, Īśvara, or wisdom - except for the mere name, the meaning is the same. Since the basic nature free from the reference points of the four extremes, that is, Dzogchen - the luminosity that is to be personally experienced - is not at all like that, it is important to rely on the correct path and teacher. Therefore, you may pronounce 'illusion like,' 'nonentity,' 'freedom from reference points,' and the like as mere verbiage, but this is of no benefit whatsoever, if you do not know the [actual] way of being of the Tathāgata’s emptiness (which surpasses the limited [kinds of] emptiness [asserted] by the tīrthikas) through the decisive certainty that is induced by reasoning."

January 30 at 9:16am · Like · 4

Justin Struble: as empty primordial awareness is the ultimate nature of all experience, conditioned / dependently originated, and unconditioned... it cannot be said to be separate. but neither is it dependent / dependently originated.

i don't recall ever suggesting anything existing separately anywhere.

January 30 at 9:20am · Edited · Like

Justin Struble: Tulku Urgyen is extremely clear in the quote in question, maybe you are misinterpreting it.. in order to try and force it to fit your view of dependent origination.

January 30 at 9:20am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Justin, awareness has nothing to do with it. 'Awareness' is an unfortunate byproduct of some translators. There is no primordial awareness in Dzogchen.

January 30 at 9:24am · Like · 3

Justin Struble: "Without finding certainty in primordial purity [ka dag], just mulling over some 'ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent' will get you nowhere. If you apprehend this basis of emptiness that is empty of both existence and nonexistence as something that is established by its essence separately [from everything else], no matter how you label it - such as an inconceivable self, Brahmā, Viśnu, Īśvara, or wisdom - except for the mere name, the meaning is the same. Since the basic nature free from the reference points of the four extremes, that is, Dzogchen - the luminosity that is to be personally experienced - is not at all like that, it is important to rely on the correct path and teacher. Therefore, you may pronounce 'illusion like,' 'nonentity,' 'freedom from reference points,' and the like as mere verbiage, but this is of no benefit whatsoever, if you do not know the [actual] way of being of the Tathāgata’s emptiness (which surpasses the limited [kinds of] emptiness [asserted] by the tīrthikas) through the decisive certainty that is induced by reasoning."

i don't disagree with this quote at all, but maybe we view the quote differently.

January 30 at 9:24am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: "Justin, awareness has nothing to do with it. 'Awareness' is an unfortunate byproduct of some translators. There is no primordial awareness in Dzogchen."

I disagree.

January 30 at 9:25am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: I haven't promulgated a view of dependent origination. You clearly aren't understanding, but that is okay.

January 30 at 9:25am · Like

Kyle Dixon: What is unoriginated, unestablished, unfabricated and free from extremes is emptiness.

January 30 at 9:26am · Like

Justin Struble: "Justin, you are misunderstanding that Tulku Urgyen quote. It is not saying that ye shes abides separately from objects, but that ye shes is knowledge of objects as non-arisen and therefore that knowledge does not arise in dependence on an object."

this appears to be a distortion / misinterpretation of the Tulku Urgyen quote on your part.

January 30 at 9:26am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: i've stated multiple times that yeshes is not "separate from objects" .. and don't recall ever saying otherwise or implying it. it appears to me you are misinterpreting my statements.

January 30 at 9:27am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: what i have asserted is that the:

"[actual] way of being of the Tathāgata’s emptiness (which surpasses the limited [kinds of] emptiness [asserted] by the tīrthikas) through the decisive certainty that is induced by reasoning."

is realized directly and is not dependent upon phenomena whatsoever.

January 30 at 9:29am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: It appears to be a distortion from your perspective.

However the formula is quite simple;

When knowing arises concomitantly with an object, that is mind.

When knowing recognizes that objects are non-arisen, that is wisdom [ye shes].

Ye shes is also empty.

January 30 at 9:31am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: There are no Dzogchen texts which posit an 'awareness', only translations which decided that was an appropriate term, and as a result we have many closet eternalists running around mistaking Dzogchen for Vedanta.

January 30 at 9:33am · Like · 3

Justin Struble: Tulku Urgyen clearly asserts in no uncertain terms:

“When you say original wakefulness, yeshe or wisdom, it by definition means a knowing for which there is no object."

January 30 at 9:33am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: Trying to twist this any other way is simply an attempt to distort it to fit one's views.

January 30 at 9:34am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The fact that you think I'm pushing a view of dependent origination means you either haven't read, or don't understand anything I've said.

January 30 at 9:34am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Right, no object, because ye shes is the wisdom which knows uncontrived dharmatā i.e. the non-arising of objects.

January 30 at 9:37am · Like · 3

Justin Struble: to put this together, when you take Tulku Urgyen's statement:

“When you say original wakefulness, yeshe or wisdom, it by definition means a knowing for which there is no object."

the "[actual] way of being of the Tathāgata’s emptiness (which surpasses the limited [kinds of] emptiness [asserted] by the tīrthikas) through the decisive certainty that is induced by reasoning." can only be realized directly by knowing for which there is no object... this means that it cannot be realized in dependence upon any phenomena or object whatsoever .. this realization is non-dual, free from any duality whatsoever.. it is buddha nature which knows itself , that is primordial wisdom unmediated by any object or phenomena.

January 30 at 9:39am · Edited · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: That wisdom can only be known directly through recognition of the nature of mind [sems nyid].

January 30 at 9:42am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: sems is dualistic mind. when sems undergoes cessation and collapses, dharmata is self-recognized, dharmata IS primordial wisdom which knows itself. this recognition is NOT mediated by dualistic mind / phenomena.

January 30 at 9:45am · Like · 3

Justin Struble: the dualistic realization of the nature of sems, is a distinct realization from primordial wisdom which knows itself.

January 30 at 9:46am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: the former is dualistic, and dependent upon the phenomenal object of sems, the latter is true non-dual awareness, which directly knows itself without being dependent on any object whatsoever.

January 30 at 9:47am · Edited · Like · 2

Justin Struble: the latter is true rigpa.

January 30 at 9:47am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: That is correct. Though it is not a truly established knowledge, it is simply knowledge of emptiness.

January 30 at 9:47am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Rig pa [vidyā] is knowledge of dharmatā.

January 30 at 9:48am · Like · 2

Justin Struble:

January 30 at 9:50am · Like

Justin Struble: this is pointing to the same thing:

"In the Dzogchen teachings it refers to the dissolution of the dualistic consciousness in nondual awareness, so that this nondual awareness, rather than manifesting as nondual awareness (of) dualistic consciousness of object, reveals its true condition in a nondual, nonconceptual way (and therefore in this case it is not permissible to speak either of reflexivity or of apperception, for there is no dualistic, conceptual perception [of] which nondual awareness may be aware)."

    ...

"However, there is a radical difference between nondual awareness (of) the dualistic consciousness that is the core of saṃsāra and the nondual awareness in question fully revealing its own nature in nirvāṇa (the former involving reflexivity [which implies the subject-object duality] and apperception, the second being nondually aware [of] itself and [of] its true condition)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa#Misc.

Rigpa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

In a DzogchenMenngagde context, rigpa (Skt. vidyā; Tibetan: རིག་པ་, Wylie: rig p...See More [cut off website preview]

January 30 at 9:52am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Recognition of the nature of mind [sems nyid] is not a distinct realization from wisdom, rather it is what reveals wisdom.

January 30 at 9:54am · Like

Justin Struble: "However, there is a radical difference between nondual awareness (of) the dualistic consciousness that is the core of saṃsāra and the nondual awareness in question fully revealing its own nature in nirvāṇa (the former involving reflexivity [which implies the subject-object duality] and apperception, the second being nondually aware [of] itself and [of] its true condition)."

January 30 at 9:55am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Non-dual awareness is a very dangerous term, quite misleading and open to all kinds of misinterpretations. The only reason wisdom is non-dual is that the duality of existence and non-existence in relation to so-called phenomena has ceased via recognition of non-arising. There is no actual 'wisdom' as an established capacity.

January 30 at 9:57am · Like · 4

Kyle Dixon: You should cite the author of quotes you are posting.

January 30 at 9:59am · Like

Kyle Dixon: I would not turn to Wikipedia for information on dzogchen, since any fool can post their misconceptions there.

January 30 at 10:00am · Like · 5

Justin Struble: i wouldn't post those excerpts from wikipedia if they didn't correspond to my own experience / what i'm trying to get across. i'm not speaking hypothetically or trying to debate conceptually, i'm speaking from experience, and trying to clarify.

in my experience, when sems collapses in fruition .. when duality collapses, when dependently originated phenomena all collapse, in realization / vidya .. there is just the unconditioned kayas laid bare, the total extinction of dependently originated phenomena .. in this realization there is intrinsic awareness, primordial awareness .. and it is non-dual in that it is a knowingness, that knows itself directly... non-dually.

January 30 at 10:04am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: that is exactly what rigpa / dharmakaya really is.

January 30 at 10:10am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: suchness, dharmadhatu .. "the bare non-conceptualizing awareness" of Śūnyatā, the universal substrate of the other four jñāna.

January 30 at 10:07am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: Tathatā-jñāna

January 30 at 10:08am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: There is no truly dependent originated phenomena. There is conditioned phenomena perceived from the perspective of ignorance, and dependent origination is a method used to recognize that those figments of mind are non-arisen. All that collapses is ignorance.

January 30 at 10:10am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: when ignorance collapses/ceases, the conditioned phenomena perceived from the perspective of ignorance also collapse/cease. the whole mass collapses / is extinguished.

January 30 at 10:12am · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: This is a very informative convo thank you

January 30 at 10:12am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: it is not merely that one still experiences dualistic phenomena, but recognizes them as empty / non-arisen.. in true vidya there is a total collapse ... and tathata-jnana is laid totally bare.

January 30 at 10:13am · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: The point is that there truly is no conditioned phenomena to collapse. There's only ignorance and wisdom.

January 30 at 10:13am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: yes it is re-stating the obvious that there never was any phenomena, but that is not obvious from the perspective of ignorance.

January 30 at 10:16am · Edited · Like · 4

Kyle Dixon: And recognition of wisdom is not the extinction of ignorance, traces remain latent until buddhahood.

January 30 at 10:14am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: in true vidya, at least some traces are totally extinguished / uprooted .. the four paths .. stream entry etc .. describe the degree of what fetters are totally and finally uprooted.

January 30 at 10:15am · Like

Justin Struble: speaking from the relative perspective; in a true path moment, ignorance is totally extinguished at least temporarily.. latent traces may later re-assert themselves, but for the moment of vidya .. tathata-jnana is laid bare when one breaks through to nibbana. but you are correct, it is not until the total extinction of ignorance / traces / karmic propensities that buddhahood is attained... however the tathata-jnana realized in a path moment is exactly the same as that of the buddhas

January 30 at 10:19am · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: At any rate, this discussion seems to have deviated into some sort of dick measuring contest arguing over semantics and talking past one another.

January 30 at 10:21am · Like

Justin Struble: *shrug* that wasn't my impression, but i suppose we can call it quits.

January 30 at 10:22am · Like

Stephanie Marie: You guys sure helped me thank you both so much!

January 30 at 10:23am · Like

Justin Struble: the way i see these discussions is something akin to ping pong noting .. it directs all involved to engage the faculty of discernment and it benefits everyone in refining the view.

January 30 at 10:23am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Yes the essence of jñāna is primordial purity [ka dag]. Śūnyasvabhāva. But ignorance is not totally extinguished in a recognition event, there is merely a lapse because uncontrived dharmatā is directly apperceived. Ignorance is habitual patterning, extinction of ignorance is synonymous with the extinction of karmic traces.

January 30 at 10:44am · Like · 5

Justin Struble: we can call it a lapse of ignorance, i'd agree with that.. certainly it is not the total exhaustion of ignorance / karmic propensities, which i agree is what buddhahood entails

January 30 at 10:46am · Edited · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: For instance, delusion remains intermittent in sleep until the path of no more learning, which is essentially buddhahood. So latent traces produce adverse effects until they're exhausted.

January 30 at 10:53am · Like · 4

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Justin is presenting something which for me has become a brightly shining guiding star.

We could discuss it endlessly, yet it is so simple, so thorough. We could go on and on about the facets, aspects, qualities, characteristics, etc. and through all of that we'd be engaged in continually missing it.

I see the tendency to refine conceptual categories as if that will somehow make them more accurate, precise or correct. What a misunderstanding that is...

Advaya vs. advaita, emptiness vs. awareness, correct vs. incorrect, blah vs. blerh... Have you learned nothing?

January 30 at 10:54am · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: In my direct experience, by the brightness of presence, there was a complete cessation of phenomenal projection. At the time of cessation of sankhara, there was complete shut-down of all links of specific, "corrupted" dependent origination.

To the degree that something can be stated as a "fact", this is one of those.

Anyway, Greg said something that caught my eye:

> But there is another sense of "nonduality." Instead of nonduality as "oneness," it's nonduality as "free from dualistic extremes." This entails freedom from the pairs of metaphysical dualisms such as essentialism/nihilism, existence/non-existence, reification/annihilation, presence/absence, or intrinsicality/voidness, etc. These pairs are dualisms in this sense: if you experience things in the world in terms of one side of the pair, you will experience things in the world in terms of the other side as well. If some things seem like they truly exist, then other things will seem like they truly don't exist. You will experience your own self to truly exist, and fear that one day you will truly not exist. Emptiness teachings show how none of these pairs make sense, and free you from experiencing yourself and the world in terms of these opposites. Emptiness teachings are nondual in this sense.

January 30 at 11:02am · Edited · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: According to the buddhadharma the difference between advaita and advaya is the difference between remaining lost in samsara and liberation. So the difference is quite important, and far from blah, blah.

January 30 at 11:04am · Unlike · 4

Kyle Dixon: Greg was also pointing out the difference between non-dual in the sense of advaita, and non-dual in the sense of advaya.

January 30 at 11:06am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Right view is exceedingly important, hence why it is first and foremost in the noble eightfold path. If you don't have right view, even in the initial conceptual sense, your path is destined to be problematic.

January 30 at 11:09am · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The difference is empty—freedom from an actual difference. Liberation is non-referential.

The reason I particularly liked that part of what Greg wrote was the emphasis on freedom from the structuring of dependencies—quite different from mere balancing of dualities; Freedom from reference.

January 30 at 11:09am · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The view and path is empty of view and path. Right view is no view is suchness. Importance is especially empty, haha!

These things work quite well by themselves; They don't need to be upheld, maintained or sustained, i.e. attributed actual causal efficiency.

January 30 at 11:11am · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Cool

January 30 at 11:16am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Stian, what difference is empty? The difference between cycling and samsara and liberation? You can't be serious.

January 30 at 11:21am · Like

Kyle Dixon: The difference is empty from the ultimate perspective, however, there is no use in stating that, and much less believing it.

January 30 at 11:22am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Stian, this rhetoric sounds very nihilistic.

January 30 at 11:22am · Like

Stephanie Marie: You can't just go being yourself you mean right? You should work to rid yourself of this?

January 30 at 11:23am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Justin, here are some quotes which explain what I was referencing in regards to wisdom and its relation to objects:

"Thus, the energy of compassion moves from self-originated wisdom, that cognition arisen towards an object is called 'play arising from energy'. That [cognition] is not self-originated wisdom because of the difference between the existence and non-existence of the object."

- Longchenpa | chos dbyings mdzod

"Self-arisen wisdom [rang byung ye shes] is the primordial nature of vidyā [rig pa]; wisdom that realizes an object, because it arises from that object, is not self-arisen."

- kun byed rgyal po

This is the difference between mind and wisdom.

January 30 at 11:24am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Of desire I mean, and the desire to have no desire? Or since you know it's like a reflection you see there is not much you can do?

January 30 at 11:28am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Yes, the difference between samsara and liberation is empty. There is no inherent identity to samsara and/or liberation. There being no such identity, no such self-sameness to reference by those designations, how could they be different?

The lack of difference is from the ultimate perspective which is precisely the relative perspective and is just as conventionally valid.

Yeah, it sounds nihilistic, but it's not. Most are scared by emptiness; What makes one think one is of those few ones who are not scared by it?

January 30 at 11:31am · Edited · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Ok I was just going to ask that, because if one sees it's all appearences of sense and reasons to thier emptiness, what can I really do, who is doing it?

I can see using the ultimate perspective as a tool conventionally , to not attatch to things...or to detatch from enjoyment in detatchment

But again, ultimately who is doing it ?

January 30 at 11:33am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Then Lama Zopa Rinpoche says not to be yourself, and I see why that's a great tool

But unless you know no one is doing it what's the point?

January 30 at 11:35am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Also who is not being themself?

These are real questions from experience not just reading, just doesn't stick but I speak poor mans English here

January 30 at 11:36am · Like

Stephanie Marie: I'm not saying that anything the monastery does isn't valid or isn't absolutely the best way I agree it is

And the buddha dharma is beautiful and amazing, but I'm not in a position to go to Tibet to become a nun

January 30 at 11:39am · Edited · Like

Stephanie Marie: I'm asking if I'm seeing things from the same perspective...

January 30 at 11:42am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Renouncing enlightenment breaks the duality of enlightenment-and-unenlightenment. The absence of unenlightenment, which is co-incident with the absence of enlightenment, is the enlightenment spoken of—the middle way.

January 30 at 11:48am · Edited · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Thanks Stian Gudmundsen Høiland, I need stuff spelled out plainly over here thank you

January 30 at 11:44am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Hmm... I don't think I understand what you're asking, Stephanie.

January 30 at 11:46am · Edited · Like

Stephanie Marie: Oh. I was making fun of myself lol

January 30 at 11:47am · Like

Stephanie Marie: It takes a few hammers before the nail sinks in

January 30 at 11:47am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Stian, that is akin to simply throwing everything out at once.

January 30 at 11:47am · Like

Kyle Dixon: The emptiness of these designations does not mean they are arbitrary.

January 30 at 11:48am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: I would say Buddha recommend going to solitude with good reason, and meditation is also important

January 30 at 11:50am · Like

Stephanie Marie: But I'm just a lay person I just come here to learn

I do appreciate all of this very much

January 30 at 11:52am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The designations themselves are empty. They reference no self-same unity with corresponding, attributed value or meaning.

Yes, throw is all out. Why not? You can't have anything anyway, so why try to hold on to it? Transience is utter

January 30 at 11:55am · Edited · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: That's a good point

January 30 at 11:57am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Because throwing them all out is a mere intellectual trip and is nothing more than nihilism.

January 30 at 11:59am · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: Can we use them as tools? I usually think of myself as a person, until I remember I'm not . Very useful for that

January 30 at 12:00pm · Like

Stephanie Marie: I get ultimately I have no control over this, trying so see what's what but I guess I have to ?

January 30 at 12:01pm · Like

Stephanie Marie: Thank you guys.

January 30 at 12:01pm · Like

Justin Struble: the 8 fold path is the path to enlightenment, you don't throw out the vehicle before you arrive at the other shore.

i think direct path teachings are great and profound and while pretty much everyone has the potential to glimpse / recognize their nature with pointing out instruction from a realized teacher, it is my opinion that nearly all practitioners must practice a gradual path in order to awaken / ripen. there is a proper context for dropping all striving; once one is adept.

to advocate in general to people that "nothing to do, nothing to accomplish" is unskillful and will lead most people astray.

January 30 at 12:02pm · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The danger of nihilism is not in detaching too much. The danger is actively pushing things away, denying, attributing negative value instead of abstaining from (e)valuation. That would lead straight to one of the hells.

In a certain sense, "throwing it all out" suggests such an active denial—nihilism—but given the context of this discussion I don't think we're erring on the side of aversion at all: Rather, there is too much attachment.

January 30 at 12:02pm · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Cool thank you again!!

January 30 at 12:03pm · Like

Robert Dominik: Jax wrote: "Not understanding this is a great mistake... but is typical for those bound up with lower yana views of emptiness." <- What is this? Some kind of higher yana elitism? If the lower yanas were so bad and erroneus and in such fundamental way inconsistent with the higher yanas, then they wouldn't be nirvanic and wouldn't be called yanas lol (well maybe in the 9 yanas model they would be then incorporated into the yana of the devas and humans) xD

January 30 at 12:04pm · Edited · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: One should just calmly apply a remedy right ? Like oh , look at this pain, it's not real, and analyze it with emptiness right ?

January 30 at 12:04pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: I used to do the same thing, I'd argue non-stop with my mentor about how none of it was valid and everything is empty and a waste of time. Samsara is nirvana, there's no such thing as right view, everything's already perfect. All that talk. Luckily he was patient and I was able to see through that nonsense after some true insight dawned.

January 30 at 12:06pm · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Or see it as an appearance? Oh I'm sad, there is no me, if that is seen , and is it really sadness or just a sense impression, like touch, that too right ?

January 30 at 12:06pm · Like

Stephanie Marie: I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing; hell may be empty but I don't want to see it.

January 30 at 12:08pm · Like

Stephanie Marie: Okay I'll keep going

January 30 at 12:09pm · Like

Robert Dominik: There is a quote from Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche that is quite good concerning the attitude of *just forget these lower yanas*: "A person who approaches the Dzogchen teaching must precisely discern the fundamental principles of the path taught in the sutras, and without allowing such knowledge to remain merely theoretical must succeed in also attaining precise personal experience of each of the practices described..."

January 30 at 12:10pm · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The bind of the "direct" approach is that its efficiency is dependent on apriori acceptance of the inefficiency of the "gradual" approach. In other words, "it doesn't work unless it works".

Opening up to the possibility that the "gradual" methods are completely ineffective is a non-negotiable requirement for the effectiveness of the "direct" approach.

January 30 at 12:10pm · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: I'm going to hell gah!

January 30 at 12:11pm · Like

Justin Struble: "here are some quotes which explain what I was referencing in regards to wisdom and its relation to objects:

"Self-arisen wisdom [rang byung ye shes] is the primordial nature of vidyā [rig pa]; wisdom that realizes an object, because it arises from that object, is not self-arisen."

    - kun byed rgyal po

This is the difference between mind and wisdom."

yes, and self-arisen wisdom is intrinsic primordial awareness, primordial wisdom... self-arisen because it is not dependent upon any object, it is non-dual self-knowingness..

January 30 at 12:13pm · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Stephanie, there's a gazillion-and-one practices, techniques, methods, each with at least as many ways to present it, but to me there is a remarkable underlying consistency.

At the moment I particularly like this:

— Multi-directional being: fragmented, confused, entangled, indecisive, apprehensive, etc.

— Single-directional being: focused, concentrated, mindful, present, etc.

— Non-directional (undirected): free, spontaneous, unbound, indeterminate, nondeliberate, etc.

Go from the push-and-pull of the messy, desirous, noisy, driven mode to the easefully mindful, present and relaxedly focused mode.

At times when there is singleness of mind, solely sitting and equanimity, there will be an inclining towards non-volitional cessation, perfected equanimity. Then, spontaneous, traceless non-abiding will become brightly clear.

January 30 at 12:26pm · Edited · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: This is why Jigten Sumgon states that the so-called high teachings such as Madhyamaka, Dzogchen, Mahāmudrā and so on, are not the highest teachings. Rather, the preliminaries are the highest. One would not build a house without first laying a strong foundation, and that house would be nothing without that foundation. The same applies in the dharma.

January 30 at 12:15pm · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: Thank you guys, very very much!

January 30 at 12:15pm · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: Also I'm looking at the Part Two ('The Three Dharmas of the Path"), Chapter V ('Establishing the View") of Norbu Rinpoche's Precious Vase. To be more precise I'm looking at "The Differences Between the Sutras and Tantras" section of this chapter. There is nothing there about higher vehicles having fundamentaly different views about emptiness than the lower vehicles... There is just something about different methods, capacities, yidams etc.

January 30 at 12:22pm · Edited · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: That's a great explanation Stian Gudmundsen Høiland. Thank you

January 30 at 12:18pm · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: Thank you too Kyle and Justin and everyone

January 30 at 12:20pm · Like

Justin Struble: there is validity in discussing the realization of the self-arisen wisdom of dharmakaya emptiness, primordial purity / primordial freedom, as a distinct realization compared to penetrating the interconnected, codependent nature of fabricated phenomena...

the former realization is non-dual, direct, and self-arisen, the latter realization, is a type of insight dependent upon objects / phenomena..

ultimately, there is no separation, yet it can be useful to point out distinct realizations.

January 30 at 12:21pm · Like · 1

Justin Struble: there are many facets to wisdom.

January 30 at 12:22pm · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Definitely thank you so much!!!

January 30 at 12:22pm · Like

Justin Struble: we could say in terms of the five wisdoms that the former is the realization of Tathatā-jñāna, while the latter involves

"Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna"

January 30 at 12:26pm · Like

Justin Struble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_wisdoms...

Five wisdoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Five Wisdoms (Sanskrit: pañca-jñāna; Tibetan: ཡེ་ཤེས་ལྔ, Wylie: ye shes lnga...See More

January 30 at 12:29pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Robert Dominik: (not)Suprisingly the first thing that I encountered when I opened Precious Vase tonight was the section about the Prajnaparamita (the Paramita of Discriminating Wisdom), which deals with the things that this thread is about (relative, absolute, emptiness. If anyone thinks that it would be a good idea for me to quote THE WHOLE section here (it's only 7 pages - what do I care), then like this post (there is a minimum number of likes required that I will not share )

January 30 at 12:36pm · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I find there's a noticeable gap in the continuum of learning on the path. Some teachers can get quite extreme about it, seemingly denying the efficiency of their own path.

From a students side (in the extreme cases) it is quite perplexing, bewildering, frustrating. The teacher is obviously renouncing what seems to have brought them to the place of genuine renunciation and freedom.

From the teacher's side, it was just the renouncing of actual casual efficiency that lead to freedom—the path was the bondage; freedom was already here; obscured by the path, obscured by the notion of bondage-and-freedom, but never absent.

January 30 at 12:39pm · Edited · Like · 2

Robert Dominik: Come to think of it... In December I promised (but haven't done that) to Jackson Peterson that I will quote the part of Precious Vase from Rinpoche that deals with differences between the views of Buddhadharma and the other views and that lists and describes the views that are inconsistent with Buddharma. The said part is largely based on Padmasambhava's "Garland of Views" and the commentary by Rongzompa...

January 30 at 12:47pm · Edited · Like · 2

Robert Dominik: So (every separate excerpt will start with ~):

    ~

"'The Garland of Views' ('Man ngag lta ba'i phreng ba') by Padmasambhava states (op. 21, A: p. 160, 2; B: p. 17, 1):

'In the world there are countless mistaken views upheld by sentient beings, but we can subsume them in four types: (those of) the Chalpas, the Gyangphenpas, the Murthugpas and the Mutegpas.'

Thus basically all samsaric views can be subsumed in these four schools."

    ~

"From 'The Garland of Views' (op. 21, A: p. 161, 2l; B: p. 18,4):

'The Mutegpas [In Sanskrit tirthika, a name probably derived from the Hindu custom of going pilgrimage to sacred places called tirthas], on the basis of their analysis of the totality of phenomena, uphold the existence of an eternal self. Among them in particular some affirm the existence of an effect but not of a cause; others misconstrue the law of cause and effect; others again sustain the existence of a cause but not of an effect. These are opinions that derive from ignorance.'"

    ~

"'The View that Refutes the Cause but Affirms the Effect'

Let us read Rongzompa's commentary ('Rong zom lta 'grel') to 'The Garland of Views' (op. 31: p. 189, 4):

'(Here it is maintained that) what is called 'nature' does not depend on primary and secondary causes, has no form, is not produced by the mind, cannot be decomposed into sundry aspects and particularities, but is (instead) deemed immutable and eternal. This does not mean that nature is a kind of cause whence other things derive as effect: in fact they believe that all animate and inanimate phenomena are this very nature itself. They define everything that we experience as impermament, being tied to cause and effect, growth and decay etc., as the 'provisional property' (of this nature), but no separation exists between nature and its provisional property. In this regard they cite the example of gold, that when covered with mercury changes its colour but not its nature.

This (view) is also called 'belief in the single self' or 'belief in a concrete substance'. In fact they believe that all material reality exists from the beginning without ever having had a cause, thus this is also defined as the 'view that refutes the cause but asserts the effect'.

If one were to object: "But how can you maintain an effect without a cause?" (they reply that) when they explain that existence is not an effect this is (to be understood as) like the sky that exists from the beginning."

January 30 at 1:05pm · Edited · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I don't quite see what we're holding on to here. Renouncing the structures of experience—what's wrong with it?

Subject-object, sameness-difference, presence-absence, love-hate, self-other, significant-apathetic, useful-useless, arbitrary-meaningful, skillful-stupid, heaven-hell, ultimate-conventional, wisdom-ignorance.

Why are we holding on to some of those, but renouncing other ones? That pretty much amounts to madness!

What are we afraid of? Do we think we actually need to endeavor on behalf of the universe, to keep it on the straight and narrow, the loving and compassionate, the present and sober? To carefully, meticulously separate the wheat from the chaff? Really?

Fuck that shit!

That is exactly the kind of interference, the grasping for control and dominance, the measurement and appropriation of spontaneity that leads to the arising of the disharmony and imbalances that create our desires and drives towards resolution, release, enlightenment. It is exactly the deviation from the natural, innate, unobscured state.

The constraints of our freedom are non-existent: Nothing to stray from, nothing to aspire to. There's no chaff, it's All-Good.

No self, no compassion, no wisdom, no awareness. No one gets to keep only one side of the stick!

But this isn't nihilism—all that stuff will be there just fine, doin' its thang; Whatever—that's beside the point!

Apprehensiveness and appropriation comes from our obsessive fixation, the incessant bringing-into-being-or-non-being of these topics.

None of them are correct, accurate or precise. Just leave 'em, just forget about them.

January 30 at 1:23pm · Edited · Like · 3

Robert Dominik: Continuing about Mutegpas and their views:

~ " 'The View that MIsconstrues the Law of Cause and Effect'

From Rongzompa's commentary (op. 31: p. 190, 4):

'(The texts) that uphold the view that maintains Ishwara [Here Isvara (dbang phyug), one of the fundamental concepts of Indian philosophy, is synonymous with Siva in the sense of a supreme individual entity] as the prime cause state:

Ishwara alone leads

To the abyss or to the higher states.

This Ishwara is deemed an individual that exists since primordial time, is eternal, magically emanates and dominates all phenomena and so on. Thus, while Ishwara is deemed eternal his emanation is impermament. As (his disciples) believe that physical happiness and suffering too depend on whether or not Ishwara is propitiated, in order to propitiate him they perform non-virtuous acts such as sacrificing animals in fire, believing that in such a way they are able to attain happiness of the higher states. Therefore their view is said to misconstrue the law of cause and effect.' "

    ~

"'The View that Affirms the Cause but Refutes the Effect'

From Rongzompa's commentary (op. 31: p. 191, 3):

'(The texts) that uphold the view that maintains that a creator is the prime cause state:

Self is eternal, mind is changeable.

Just as a little bird flies out when its cage breaks,

That which is reborn is eternal,

The size of a thumb or mustard seed,

In this ways they explain that the 'self' creator exists in all sentient beings, free, eternal and immutable, (commonly) denominated 'sentient being', 'person', 'individual' and so on. In conformity with the size of the body it inhabits it too can be large or small, and (furthermore) it is precisely that which transmigrates from one body to the next.

In this regard, some maintain that it is similar to a pure crystal; others that it is an individual endowed with infinite light reciting the 'Vedas'; still others that it miraculously assumes the guise of the body (it is inhabiting) and is thus born as a sentient being. There exist these and various other theories.

This (view in any case) is based on three considerations:

- The eternal self only carries out the act of creation as cause.

- The nature of the effect, the aggregate created therefore, is impermament and changeable.

- This effect can manifest once only and cannot produce other aggregates, hence it dissolves.' "

January 30 at 1:20pm · Edited · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Stian, you've been reading too much gnas lugs mdzod or something.

January 30 at 1:30pm · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Is that even possible?

January 30 at 1:31pm · Like · 2

Robert Dominik: In case if anyone wondered about the views of the Chalpas, the Gyangphenpas, the Murthugpas... I decided that they're irrelevant to this thread. These three groups focus on pursuing the goals of this life alone and are ignorant or don't really care about such things as future rebirth and merit, liberation etc.

January 30 at 1:34pm · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: Well it's one thing to read it, and another to misinterpret an exposition delivered from the highest wisdom for an explanation of ones relative condition.

January 30 at 2:02pm · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: Justin, this dichotomy you're creating between the emptiness realized in Dzogchen and the emptiness realized in Madhyamaka is inaccurate and misleading.

Asserting that the latter realization is dependent upon objects is utterly false. Both are the realization of non-arising in phenomena. If this alleged dichotomy you are advocating for was indeed true, then there wouldn't be several key figures in Dzogchen stating that the Prasangika view is definitive.

January 30 at 2:14pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Justin, it is self-arisen for two reasons: (i) because it arises from oneself, meaning; it is your own rigpa, and (ii) it is the wisdom which knows dharmatā, therefore objects have been pacified.

It is not that there is an actual wisdom which exists independently of objects.

Again, there is no such thing as 'primordial awareness'.

January 30 at 2:28pm · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Justin, As Malcolm has pointed out here, the Shantideva quote explaining the Madhyamaka view and the Self-Arisen Vidyā explaining the Dzogchen view, should both be understood to be conveying the same insight:

Malcolm wrote:

...Shantideva points out:

"When an existent or a nonexistent

does not exist in the presence of the mind,

at that time since there is no other aspect

[concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support [dmigs pa, ālambana]."

gad rgyangs wrote:

yes, rigpa resolves all questions about the nature of reality, but there ain't no rigpa in Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:

Actually, Shantideva's quote above shows that there is vidyā in Madhyamaka, as the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states:

"The Dharma free from the extremes of conceptual grasping.

is directly perceived without dwelling on an object."

These two statements should be understood to have the same import.

January 30 at 2:31pm · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: I find it interesting that so many people when faced with the name "awareness" (or something similar) instantly assume that it stands for some ultimate, global, all pervading Self, source, substance etc and not for let's say... a way of perceiving things (like awareness of the fact that the Mount Everest is the highest mountain) xD I mean just look at this simple case that illustrates just how easily different interpretations and misunderstandings might appear due to there being several possible ways of using and relating to a word xD Let's coin the phrase "Pure Awareness" for the purpose of this argument. One could assume that this phrase points to formless awareness that is beyond all concepts and is the ultimate source/essence of everything. Someone else could assume that this phrase points to a way of perceiving things that is free from all ignorance and all the imputations such as the threefold structure. This is just an example - it isn't directly related to any particular post here

January 30 at 2:40pm · Edited · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: As far as I've gathered, there's no prasangika view—no assertion of emptiness, not even assertion of lack of inherent existence [in the singular].

But the school do negate specifically stated claims of inherent existence.

Svatantrika asserts that emptiness is ultimate reality.

In summary, the actual view of prasangika is viewless, i.e. (nonconceptual) realization of the impossibility of a conceptually defined essence (i.e. an 'extreme').

January 30 at 2:35pm · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: "The Dharma free from the extremes of conceptual grasping.

is directly perceived without dwelling on an object."

Exactly.

January 30 at 2:59pm · Edited · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: "When an existent or a nonexistent

does not exist in the presence of the mind,

at that time since there is no other aspect

[concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support [dmigs pa, ālambana]."

Mmmm, yummy!!

January 30 at 2:38pm · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland Do you think such a mind has any notions? Any at all? Like the ones we've been discussing here? Samsara/nirvana, arbitrary/meaningful, precise vs. inaccurate Dharma, etc...

I mean this in a most sincere and practical way!

January 30 at 2:44pm · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: Stain, no assertion of emptiness where? No lack of inherent existence where?

The actual view of prasangika is emptiness, which is viewless because it is the pacification of views, due to an inability to find any phenomena which accord with an extreme.

January 30 at 2:45pm · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Jñāna is originally pure and therefore free of these notions, theses notions are only applicable in mind, samsara and nirvana occur to the mind.

The individual is not jñāna. The individual either has knowledge of jñāna, or ignorance of jñāna, that is what these systems are concerned with.

January 30 at 2:48pm · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I can't point to where something that hasn't happened hasn't happened.

Again, as far as I've gathered, the prasangika school does not assert emptiness.

January 30 at 2:49pm · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: I'm beginning to suspect you aren't grasping what emptiness means.

January 30 at 2:51pm · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Right. Individual, knowledge and ignorance are such notions, too. So, seeing as there's an implicit intention in this discussion of realizing that which lacks these notions, why are we continually enforcing, refining, sharpening, quarreling over them?

January 30 at 2:58pm · Edited · Like

Greg Goode: Stian, I'm not sure what you mean here. If prasangika is a school, what are they doing?? What do you mean by assert? Did they not talk to people, make statements, compose documents?

January 30 at 2:54pm · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The school doesn't assert emptiness as ultimate reality. Instead, it (merely) engages in specific refutation of specific statements asserting specific inherent existences.

January 30 at 2:56pm · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: This is what I've understood. I just checked wiki for reference and it verifies this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasaṅgika#Svatantrika_debate

Prasaṅgika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Prasaṅgika Emptiness" is the theory that all things and phenomena lack (or are ...See More

January 30 at 2:57pm · Like · Remove Preview

Soh: Wow, so much discussions when I've left!

BB [Bikkhu Bodhi]: "At the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the conditioned and the Unconditioned: samsara as the round of repeated birth and death wherein all is impermanent, subject to change, and liable to suffering, and Nibbana as the state of final deliverance, the unborn, ageless, and deathless. Although Nibbana, even in the early texts, is definitely cast as an ultimate reality and not merely as an ethical or psychological state, there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara. To the contrary, the Buddha's repeated lesson is that samsara is the realm of suffering governed by greed, hatred, and delusion, wherein we have shed tears greater than the waters of the ocean, while Nibbana is irreversible release from samsara, to be attained by demolishing greed, hatred, and delusion, and by relinquishing all conditioned existence."

Comments: I do not have problems with this statement except for the equation of Nibbana as "an ultimate reality". While certain early texts - particularly the Theravadin abhidhamma, would consider all such dharmas (not limited to Nibbana) as paramartha dharmas (ultimate realities), it is not the case for all early texts. That's the only problem I have with that statement, as Malcolm said earlier, all the conventional presentation of dharmas (including samsara and nirvana) are not undermined, only their status as paramartha dharmas (ultimate realities) are negated.

Geoff/jnana wrote:

http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.sg/.../nirvana-in...

"For the Theravāda, nibbāna is an ultimately real dhamma (paramatthadhamma) and the only dhamma that is not conditioned (asaṅkhata). It is an object of supramundane cognition (lokuttaracitta) and is included in the mental phenomena sensory sphere (dhammāyatana) and the mental phenomena component (dhammadhātu). The four paths, four fruits, and nibbāna are classified as the unincluded level (apariyāpanna bhūmi), that is, not included in the sensual realm, the form realm, or the formless realm. According to the Visuddhimagga, nibbāna "has peace as its characteristic. Its function is not to die; or its function is to comfort. It is manifested as the signless; or it is manifested as non-diversification (nippapañca)."

According to the Sarvāstivāda, nirvāṇa is an analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha) that is a disjunction from impure dharmas that occurs through analysis (pratisaṃkhyāna), which is a specific type of discernment (prajñā). This analytical cessation is substantially existent (dravyasat) and ultimately exists (paramārthasat).

For Sautrāntika commentators nirvāṇa as an analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha) is a merely a conceptual designation (prajñapti) and doesn't refer to an entity or state that is substantially existent (dravyasat). It is a non-implicative negation (prasajyapratiṣedha), that is, a negation that doesn't imply the presence of some other entity. Therefore nirvāṇa simply refers to a cessation that is the termination of defilements that are abandoned by the correct practice of the noble path.

According to the Yogācāra, for those on the bodhisattva path, nirvāṇa is non-abiding (apratiṣṭha nirvāṇa). The dependent nature (paratantrasvabhāva) is the basis (āśraya) of both defilement and purification. The all-basis consciousness (ālayavijñāna) is the defiled portion (saṃkleśabhāga) of the dependent nature. Purified suchness (viśuddhā tathatā) is the purified portion (vyavadānabhāga) of the dependent nature. Synonyms for purified suchness are the perfected nature (pariniṣpanna) and non-abiding nirvāṇa. Non-abiding nirvāṇa is the revolved basis (āśrayaparāvṛtti) that has eliminated defilements without abandoning saṃsāra.

Madhyamaka authors accept the notion of non-abiding nirvāṇa, but they don't use the three natures model used by the Yogācāra. Rather, they simply consider all things to be conceptual designations (prajñapti) that are empty of nature (svabhāva). For them, conceptual designations are relative truth (saṃvṛtisatya) and only emptiness is ultimate truth (paramārthasatya).

Zen, Pure Land, Vajrayāna, etc., are practice traditions more so than doctrinal schools, and authors writing from any of these perspectives would generally rely on Yogācāra or Madhyamaka śāstras or a specific Mahāyāna sūtra."

Dmytro asked: "Hi Ñāṇa,

And how you would put the Buddha's description of Nibbana in relation to said above?"

Geoff replied: "Given the definition given in SN 38.1, SN 43.1-44, and Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga 184, I would say that it's a designation (paññatti, prajñapti) referring to the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. Or with regard to the four paths (stream-entry, etc.), a designation referring to the elimination of fetters terminated by each path. This is similar to the Sautrāntika interpretation."

And yes, I do find myself leaning towards the Sautrāntika interpretation of Buddha's nibbana, over the Theravada's substantialist interpretation of nibbana.

Dharma Connection: Nirvana In The Different Schools Of Buddhism

dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com

January 30 at 3:08pm · Edited · Like · 4 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Stain, refuting inherency is revealing emptiness.

January 30 at 3:04pm · Like

Greg Goode: But they don't "renounce the structures of experience." That urge to wipe everything away is what Bikkhu Bodhi was complaining about. It's kind if a nondualistic oversimplification.

Refuting inherencies not only leaves conventional truths, but it (1) depends on them, and (2) liberates them. Structures are not abandoned, just liberated from conceptions of inherency.

January 30 at 3:05pm · Unlike · 6

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: That is exactly the svatantrika view as far as I understand, Kyle.

January 30 at 3:05pm · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Renouncing the structures of experience is the willingness to concede the emptiness of those structures. When the structures are thus rendered baseless they fall away, cease naturally, as described by dependent origination alá the Pali Canon.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/dharmaconnection/permalink/810023392358212

Dharma Connection

In the absence of an objective field, everything equalized, No discernable point...See More

January 30 at 3:17pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The urge would be a big issue, yes, there's no "wiping everything away", it is not nondualistic, but it is simple.

January 30 at 3:12pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Renouncing structures of experience would not concede the emptiness of said structures, because it would be akin to rejecting those structures. Thus still seeing structures that can be truly accepted or rejected. Missing the point of emptiness completely.

January 30 at 3:19pm · Like · 1

Soh: Hey Justin Struble,

Have you seen this presentation on primordial awareness by Daniel? That is the realization of MCTB Arhat and what I call realization of anatta. (even though he may not be using the term 'rigpa' as 'knowledge')

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../rigpa-and...

Awakening to Reality: Rigpa and Aggregates

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

Padmasambhava says that the mind is neither the same nor different from the 5 aggregates, yet the advice is to take everything as the 5 aggregates.

January 30 at 3:23pm · Edited · Like · 3 · Remove Preview

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Hmm... That seems a little insincere to me, Kyle.

The structures are explained to fall away and that is exactly how they are not "truly accepted or rejected".

The Buddha is recorded to have used a similar expression in an attempt to formulate what (is) when "is-and-is-not" (is not) there. Paraphrasing: "seeing the cessation of the world, "is-not" is abandoned". In other words, by the falling away of something, it's true existence is seen through.

January 30 at 3:27pm · Edited · Like

Greg Goode: Stian, the realization of emptiness is much deeper and more earth-shatteringly powerful than a mere concession. Though a concession is a good start as one seeks to deepen one's understanding of emptiness. One's understanding gets deeper, from conceding a possibility, through belief, then inferential realization, and the nonconceptual, direct realization. But one can't do this without the structures. One needs the conventional truth to realize the ultimate truth, the the realization of the ultimate truth for the analytic cessation.

But then one is not in a featureless, monistic, nondual bubble world totally devoid of distinctions. But the distinctions have lost the ability we thought they had to truly divide the world.

January 30 at 3:27pm · Like · 5

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: This is from a not-so-old discussion on here:

The very notion that there is *something* that can be circumscribed, described, designated, abstracted—whether by its presence or by its absence [is the very basis of delusion].

Absence is not actual absence. Absence is the presence-of-absence. It is "being non-being".

Beyond the notions of abstraction and designation such as "appearance" or "empty" is freedom.

In the true absence called freedom, the notion of absence is truly absent (and so presence co-terminates).

    __

Denying appearances would be to invoke the presence of its absence (non-being).

The absence of anything is always only known by reference to its presence. The absence of my wallet in my pocket invokes the presence of it (*being* somewhere else).

I'm not talking about denying appearances, I'm talking about non-arising of appearances. It is like knowing neither presence nor absence.

    __

Try to see if you can know the absence of anything other than by reference to its presence.

The "presence of its absence" is not independently created—it co-arises with "presence". You can't have presence without absence. You can not pick up the stick of presence without also picking up its other end: absence.

Absence can only shine in the light of presence.

Therefor, "appearance" is technically erring in eternalism, which is why, when it is inseparate with emptiness, that is the nonarising of both.

    __

It is like not knowing, because the notion of knowing does not arise, because there is no unknown.

It is like absence, because the notion of presence does not arise, because there is no absence.

    __

What is there, then, when all the notions, both explicit and implicit, like object vs. space, like event vs. time, like object vs. subject, even causality, vanish?

When all reference points, ALL OF THEM, are gone, what is there by which to measure "appearance"? What is there by which to measure "empty"?

When the basis for imputation of appearance disappears, so does the basis for imputation of emptiness. The absolute non-difference of both sides of the equation (emptiness is form, form is emptiness), actualized only when "not separating appearance and emptiness", unbind and cancel the whole of existence—ineffable.

January 30 at 3:32pm · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The cognizer perceives the cognizable;

Without the cognizable there is no cognition;

Therefore why do you not admit

That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?

The mind is but a mere name;

Apart from it's name it exists as nothing;

So view consciousness as a mere name;

Name too has no intrinsic nature.

Either within or likewise without,

Or somewhere in between the two,

The conquerors have never found the mind;

So the mind has the nature of an illusion.

The distinctions of colors and shapes,

Or that of object and subject,

Of male, female and the neuter -

The mind has no such fixed forms.

In brief the Buddhas have never seen

Nor will they ever see [such a mind];

So how can they see it as intrinsic nature

That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?

"Entity" is a conceptualization;

Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;

Where conceptualization occurs,

How can there be emptiness?

The mind in terms of perceived and perceiver,

This the Tathagatas have never seen;

Where there is the perceived and perceiver,

There is no enlightenment.

Devoid of characteristics and origination,

Devoid of substantiative reality and transcending speech,

Space, awakening mind and enlightenment

Posses the characteristics of non-duality.

- Nagarjuna

https://www.facebook.com/groups/dharmaconnection/permalink/665130876847465

Dharma Connection

The cognizer perceives the cognizable; Without the cognizable there is no cognit...See More

January 30 at 3:48pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Stian, the cessation of the world is recognition of the emptiness of the world. Recognition of the non-arising of the world means is and is-not (along with other implied extremes) are inapplicable.

The structures inherency falls away through recognizing the emptiness of those structures.

January 30 at 3:49pm · Like · 1

Greg Goode: Stian, I know that you like to be creative and find your own way to say things. I actually like that a lot! I like to do the same thing!

But in this case, it seems that you are reading some moves from Dzogchen or advaita back into prasangika. "The light of presence." Prasangikas just don't talk like that. Sure, other schools do,

When one realizes the emptiness of X, X doesn't disappear. It doesn't need to. It's our ignorant exaggerations about X that cease. Then X is transformed for the very reason that there is nothing fixed about X. When it really hits home, our world is one of non-referential ease.

January 30 at 3:56pm · Edited · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle, seems like you are repeating. Do we agree, then?

Greg, the sentence "the light of presence" was a turn of phrase. Only by presence can absence be known—simple as that. No allusion to consciousness or awareness, neither by the word light nor presence.

January 30 at 3:55pm · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I'm seeing some disagreements between your comment, Greg, and these stanzas from Nagarjuna. Do you?

January 30 at 3:57pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Stain, I can't really tell to be honest!

January 30 at 3:58pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: The cognizer of emptiness is the conventional self. It's also sometimes said that prajñā is the cognizer of emptiness, but prajñā is merely a convention as well, as is emptiness.

There's really no necessity to posit a 'presence', but to each their own.

January 30 at 4:04pm · Like

Greg Goode: One thing I really like about Madhyamika is that it doesn't privilege presence over absence. They are co-dependent.

No disagreement with Nagarjuna. He doesn't eradicate conventional truths, which is my main point.... All of which is possible without needing to hold views.

January 30 at 4:04pm · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle, the presence mentioned in my comment is the opposite of absence as a dualistic pair, not a metaphor for awareness.

January 30 at 4:06pm · Edited · Like

Greg Goode: Presence can't be made prior to absence, but actually depends on absence. They are mutually implicated...

January 30 at 4:12pm · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Shameless editing:

That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?

The mind in terms of perceived and perceiver,

This the Tathagatas have never seen;

The mind is but a mere name;

Apart from it's name it exists as nothing;

So view consciousness as a mere name;

The distinctions of colors and shapes,

Or that of object and subject,

Of male, female and the neuter -

The mind has no such fixed forms.

The conquerors have never found the mind;

So the mind has the nature of an illusion.

In brief the Buddhas have never seen

Nor will they ever see [such a mind];

Devoid of characteristics and origination,

Devoid of substantiative reality and transcending speech,

Space, awakening mind and enlightenment

Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;

Where conceptualization occurs,

How can there be emptiness?

    ___

I dunno what to say if this doesn't *at least suggest* radical deconstruction and dissolving of structure.

January 30 at 4:22pm · Edited · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Why are you commenting that Greg? Maybe I did not make it abundantly clear about co-dependency of presence-absence?

Dualistic pair, opposites, co-termination, one known only by the other, not independently created, co-arises, can't have one without the other, picking up one end of the stick also picks up the other end...

January 30 at 4:18pm · Edited · Like

Greg Goode: I agree with you about the last Nagarjuna post!

January 30 at 4:20pm · Like

Greg Goode: Light of presence ... Sounded so Advaitic! Please give Kyle and me a few hours to get the shock out our systems !!!

January 30 at 4:23pm · Like

Amir Mourad: "One thing I really like about Madhyamika is that it doesn't privilege presence over absence. They are co-dependent. "

Even a Middle Path view is in itself a view - and like any view, it is being expressed from a certain one-sided perspective.

Too much dependency on teachings only reinforces the same type of ignorance which the teachings themselves have warned about again and again, yet without being exposed to such teachings, it is highly unlikely that anybody would begin to gravitate towards the spiritual process in the first place.

There should be a simple and pragmatic approach for every seeker - that whatever is not verified as a living reality out of one's own direct experience, should only be seen as a hypothesis - no matter what the source of one's knowledge. And that is the problem with too much overenthusiastic rambling about the teachings - it means that you are willing to give far too much importance to a hypothesis without verifying it for yourself, and continue talking and talking about it for hours - with this great delusion that speaking about it will somehow bring you closer to the reality. Speaking about it without verification will in fact only scatter your energies in confusion. In such a case, this is not the time for talk. This is the time for entering deeper into your own practice.

Definitely, if such realms were in fact verified out of your own experience, then too you would no longer need to continue referring to the teachings as a support - your own inner wisdom becomes a completely self sufficient light to itself.

January 30 at 4:23pm · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Greg said:

> But then one is not in a featureless, monistic, nondual bubble world totally devoid of distinctions. But the distinctions have lost the ability we thought they had to truly divide the world.

This puzzles me. It seems a little insincere. Why are you listing features and distinctions of a state that is supposedly featureless and devoid of distinctions?

And are not the 'weakened' distinctions mentioned here thoroughly contested by the quoted verses by Nagarjuna?

January 30 at 4:29pm · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: All right, "light of presence" does have that schwung to it

January 30 at 4:30pm · Like

Goose Saver: Neologisms are often directly attributable to Schizophenics or mystics. As such we find one in Maitripa's "Ten Verses On True Reality" it states:

"Those who wish to know true reality

[See} that it is neither with aspect nor without aspect.

Not adorned with the guru's instructions.

The middle path is only middling."

It would take a full paragraph just to explain this one verse, so I'll leave "middling" for right now. But promise to return to it.

I'm a big fan of summaries and re-edits of summaries, and believe it or not I like to keep things very simple when possible. So please put out some simple summaries anyone, if you have them on emptiness.

So far, we know that there is no word of nonduality in Pali texts. However, if you look into the meaning of nonduality, there is such a thing called nonduality. What we do find in these texts is a "showing" of nonduality, however the concept of nonduality is empty, in the sense, it is not present in the texts.

Pali and Mahayana text mention that reality is free from 4 extremes:

1. Existence

2. Non existence

3. Existence and non-existence

4. Neither existence nor non-existence.

Are these not examples of nonduality?

Manjusri states:

"The emptiness of analyzing all aspects

Is without a core, just like a banana tree.

The emptiness endowed with the supreme of all aspects

Will never be like that."

Very profound and love the analogy, and it engages all our misunderstandings, and in the end we have Manjusri demonstrating the unity of wisdom and emptiness, which never changes into anything other than just unity. This is quite different from an emptiness of inherent nature or nonduality. Manjursi, is very wise indeed and his characterizations of emptiness are very bright. In the "The Demonstration of the Inconceivable State of Buddhahood Sutra" there is a great line: "The god Suguna said to the Buddha, "How rare, World-Honored One! Manjusri has such a command of samádhi and of miraculous power that in an instant he has caused this entire assembly to appear to be in the palace of the Tushita Heaven." Again, this great sage is "showing" emptiness by way of demonstrating the experience of it. Just brilliant!!

Emptiness comes with a lot of baggage, for example, we have Nagarjuna's "Seventy Verses on Emptiness" and we see how "real existence" constitutes the type of ignorance that is an afflictive obscuration. In his Seventy Stanza on Emptiness it says:

"These conceptions about the actual existence

Of entities that depend on causes and conditions

Are ignorance, the Teacher said.

From them, the twelve links originate."

This is no negation found in Nagarjuna as he says in his Precious Garland:

Through destruction or a remedy

Being existent would become nonexistence.

[However] since [real] existence is impossible,

how could there be [its] destruction or remedy.

In Kamalasila's commentary on the Heart Sutra, it is quite fascinating to see how he just passes over the most famous passages of the sutra without comment, that is, ignoring the "form is empty, emptiness is form" line. He does not attempt to provide a methodical exegesis of the doctrine of emptiness because he is more concerned about what leads us to that and focuses only on what it means to see. He describes five paths that are elaborately designated and are no where to be found in the sutra. It is through the profound realization of this sutra that leads to the hidden teaching of the path and why it is the "mother of all Buddhas."

In his "Chariot of the Tagbo Siddhas" the Eighth Karmapa follows the explanation of Candrakirti that presents twenty emptinesses (and some see 20 as just 16 emptinesses). I won't list them here but they are a soup-list of emptinesses from the emptiness of emptiness to the emptiness of nonentities (ah, the obliteration of my childhood imaginary friend--damn that emptiness category)! So does anyone see the humor in the lost-identity of emptiness?

Personally, I am of the view that the Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, whereas the Dzogchen view is not. But the "emptiness" is the same in both. Techniques along the path are many and varied.

But if someone wished to say: There is

Something common to all these constructions--namely the disjunction of all common properties"--I should reply: Now you are only playing with words. One might say: "Something runs through the whole tread--namely the continuous overlapping of those fibers."

Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations.

Thus, is the nature or non-nature of middling. LOL

January 30 at 4:33pm · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: .

"Something runs through the whole tread--namely the continuous overlapping of those fibers."

Love it!

Earlier today, me and my girlfriend were driving on the highway. She said: "It's strange how it looks like the cars in front of us are not moving fast at all!"

January 30 at 4:41pm · Edited · Like · 1

Goose Saver: I wish the planes would move fast. I'm packed and ready to go...

January 30 at 4:44pm · Like

Greg Goode: Going to bed now (way late). I'll write more on this tomorrow... Nice discussion!

January 30 at 5:23pm · Like · 3

Soh: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../critique-on...

Awakening to Reality: Critique on Bhikkhu Bodhi's Article "Dhamma and Non-duality"

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

January 30 at 6:51pm · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

 Soh: BB: Thus the Theravada makes the antithesis of samsara and Nibbana the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance. Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of samsara and the attainment of liberation in Nibbana. Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahayana schools, which also start with the duality of samsara and Nirvana, is in its refusal to regard this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality. From the standpoint of the Pali Suttas, even for the Buddha and the arahants suffering and its cessation, samsara and Nibbana, remain distinct.

Comments:

What Greg Goode said here basically sums it up:

“That urge to wipe everything away is what Bikkhu Bodhi was complaining about. It's kind if a nondualistic oversimplification.

Refuting inherencies not only leaves conventional truths, but it (1) depends on them, and (2) liberates them. Structures are not abandoned, just liberated from conceptions of inherency”

January 30 at 7:04pm · Like · 1

Soh: BB: Finally, in the domain of wisdom the Ariyan Dhamma and the non-dual systems once again move in contrary directions. In the non-dual systems the task of wisdom is to break through the diversified appearances (or the appearance of diversity) in order to discover the unifying reality that underlies them. Concrete phenomena, in their distinctions and their plurality, are mere appearance, while true reality is the One: either a substantial Absolute (the Atman, Brahman, the Godhead, etc.), or a metaphysical zero (Sunyata, the Void Nature of Mind, etc.). For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew.

    Comments:

First of all, there is nothing metaphysical about emptiness. Emptiness is the very nature of appearance itself, it does not swallow up appearances and distinctions.

As Greg puts it: “Stian, the realization of emptiness is much deeper and more earth-shatteringly powerful than a mere concession. Though a concession is a good start as one seeks to deepen one's understanding of emptiness. One's understanding gets deeper, from conceding a possibility, through belief, then inferential realization, and the nonconceptual, direct realization. But one can't do this without the structures. One needs the conventional truth to realize the ultimate truth, the the realization of the ultimate truth for the analytic cessation.

But then one is not in a featureless, monistic, nondual bubble world totally devoid of distinctions. But the distinctions have lost the ability we thought they had to truly divide the world.”

“When one realizes the emptiness of X, X doesn't disappear. It doesn't need to. It's our ignorant exaggerations about X that cease. Then X is transformed for the very reason that there is nothing fixed about X. When it really hits home, our world is one of non-referential ease.”

Also, as I wrote previously,

“No, in direct Gnosis here, emptiness is seen directly as the non-arising taste of appearance that is all vivid thoughts and sense perceptions - completely equivalent to a magician's trick, mirage, and so on, without coming from anywhere, abiding anywhere, ceasing anywhere, utterly unfindable and unlocatable, without arising/abiding/ceasing.

An "emptiness" divorced from appearance is simply an intellectual (in fact, incorrect) understanding of emptiness. Emptiness is the nature of appearance - being completely devoid of substance (just as Buddha described), illusory (just as Buddha described with so many analogies), and non-arising. It is precisely by realizing emptiness that everything becomes actualized with the taste of being mere-appearance, like a reflection.

The problem is that you are denying appearance. But my insight and experience does not deny appearance. Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. i.e. Appearance is Emptiness, Emptiness is Appearance. Only the deluded cognition/appearance ceases in wisdom, not the appearance that is wisdom-display. We simply realize and actualize the true nature of phenomena/appearance/elements/etc to be inseparable luminosity and emptiness.

And as Malcolm said:

"I would not put it this way because it make it seems like the five elements are extraneous to wisdom. They are not. The nature of the five elements is wisdom. It is like the front and back of one's hand. You only have one hand, but it appears differently based on perceiving its front or its back. As Magnus implies, it is when we rectify our perception of the elements that they then appear as wisdom.

Also the cause of ignorance is the wisdom of the basis itself. So vidyā becomes avidyā, lights become elements, and so forth simply due to our ingrained traces of ignorance built up over countless lifetimes.

In order to reveal the wisdom light that is the empty substance of the universe and living beings, we have to purify our perception of our personal elements. This is done through togal or klong sde practice."

"The elements are wisdom, they simply are not recognized as such. There is a Bon logic text, very nice, that proves appearances are dharmakāya. The objection is raised, if appearances are dharmakāya why isn't everyone liberated instantly? The answer is that those who recognize appearances as dharmakāya are liberated instantly since instant liberation is as desiderata. Those who are not liberated instantly are those who have not recognized appearances as dharmakāya.

Upon what does recognition of appearances as dharmakāya depend? Introduction. Without having been introduced to appearances as dharmakāya, one will not recognize appearances as dharmakāya, just as if one has been sent into a crowd to find a person one has not met, even when one sees them face to face they are not recognized.

So the elements are wisdom. Vidyā and avidyā is the deciding factor in recognition. That recognition depends on an introduction, just as our recognition of a face in the crowd depends upon whether we have been introduced to that face or not."

http://www.bodhionline.org/ViewArticle.asp?id=144 -

In the first verse, which explains the view of Mahamudra, Milarepa sings:

Do you know what appearances are like?

If you don’t know what appearances are like

Whatever appears is an appearance

Not realized, they are samsara

Realized, they are Dharmakaya

When appearances as Dharmakaya shine

There’s no other view to look for

There’s no other view to find

Milarepa first questions Loton when he sings, “Do you know what appearances are like?” In other words: Do you know what the nature of these appearances is that you take to be real? Do you know that you are attached to them as real? Then Milarepa answers the question by saying that, for those who are not realized, whatever appears in samsara and nirvana appears as samsara. However, for those who are realized, who recognize that while a thing appears, it is empty, and while it is empty it appears—all appearances are the Dharmakaya, appearance and emptiness undifferentiable.

And furthermore, Loppon Namdrol/Malcolm said:

“The difference is that we do not posit some substratum like the ālayavijñāna to account for those appearances. Nor are we denying the appearance of external objects. We are merely stating the obvious i.e. that those appearances are not real, and hence are completely equivalent with illusions. The charge of nihilism is not appropriate because we are not denying appearances. The charge of eternalism is not appropriate because those unreal appearances cannot be found on analysis. We are saying that appearances are not false, because they appear, but they are not true, because they cannot be found, just like the appearance of a moon in the water. We are saying that all phenomena are like that. Similarly illusions too are not false, because the elephants, and so on of the illusion appear, but they are not true, because when examined they cannot be found. This approach to the two truths is called the upadesha transmission of Madhyamaka. It is much superior to the Madhyamaka of analysis which is focused on rejecting wrong views of the lower tenet systems.

In fact, according to Rongzom, the purpose of the affirming negation is reject the views of an opponnent, while affirming your own, in the form of a proof. The purpose of the non-affirming negation is merely to eliminate the point of view of an opponenent.

Madhyamaka only has non-affirming negations, and does not make use of affirming negations at all.”

BB: Spiritual systems are colored as much by their favorite similes as by their formulated tenets. For the non-dual systems, two similes stand out as predominant. One is space, which simultaneously encompasses all and permeates all yet is nothing concrete in itself; the other is the ocean, which remains self-identical beneath the changing multitude of its waves.

Article: Bodhi 5-4 - Bodhionline

www.bodhionline.org

Milarepa’s Six Words that Sum it all up, Sung to Loton GendunThe King of Yogis, ...See More

January 30 at 7:04pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Soh: BB: Spiritual systems are colored as much by their favorite similes as by their formulated tenets. For the non-dual systems, two similes stand out as predominant. One is space, which simultaneously encompasses all and permeates all yet is nothing concrete in itself; the other is the ocean, which remains self-identical beneath the changing multitude of its waves.

Comments:

Those simile of an underlying source and substratum that is an ocean which remains unchanged beneath its waves is definitely more appropriate for the substantialist non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta that is erring into the extreme of eternalism, not the Mahayana Buddhist understanding of emptiness free of extremes.

Even the analogy of space should be used with caution and requires clarification, as Kyle Dixon wrote before:

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

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

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

Dharmakāya is the epitome of emptiness, but also signifies the condition of a Buddha. It is a total freedom from extremes so we cannot say it is the 'fundamental nature of being as awareness', if dharmakāya was 'being' it would be conditioned, so free from extremes.

January 30 at 7:05pm · Like · 1

Soh: BB: The similes used within the Ariyan Dhamma are highly diverse, but one theme that unites many of them is acuity of vision — vision which discerns the panorama of visible forms clearly and precisely, each in its own individuality: "It is just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, limpid, undisturbed, so that a man with good sight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. He might think: 'There is this lake, clear, limpid, undisturbed, and there are these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about and resting.' So too a monk understands as it actually is: 'This is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.' When he knows and sees thus his mind is liberated from the cankers, and with the mind's liberation he knows that he is liberated" (MN 39).

Comments:

The wisdom of emptiness in fact does lead to discerning “the panorama of visible forms clearly and precisely, each in its own individuality” and its non-arising, empty nature. Why? The emptiness of a particular appearance does not negate that distinct appearance, it merely negates the real substantial existence of it. Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

For example, when we look into the mirror we don't have the sense that another self of mine becomes born in that mirror, or that when the mirror reflects a tree then a tree becomes born in that mirror. Nothing can be asserted to have come into existence despite that reflection/appearance, and no matter what is being reflected that is just more co-dependently arisen, empty and unborn reflections. We are not diminishing the ability to discern or even conventionally distinguish various appearances, we are simply rejecting the notion that there is something truly existing in the mirror, that has come into existence, abide and later ceases to exist. Our whole life - all dharmas - are like these, unborn reflections. Yet we still discern the appearing diversity of life, the appearing pain and suffering of life, and so forth... without reifying them.

As Ted Biringer wrote regarding the Yogacara's elucidation of the four prajnas:

“...The third prajna is the Observing Prajna. Also called “subtle analytic knowledge,” “profound observing cognition,” “all-discerning wisdom,” and so forth. The Observing Prajna is the actualization or the function of the enlightened mind. By employing this prajna, enlightened wisdom is deepened and refined, and the spiritual methods and techniques or the “skillful means” of Zen are cultivated and mastered. The Observing Prajna is the active Buddha. Realizing the equal or, empty nature of all things should not make you turn away from the world of differentiation, but instead, use your realization to act within the world...”

    “...Learned audience, many popular “Zen” books advocate the experience of the Universal Mirror Prajna, but fail to acknowledge, much less encourage students to realize, the deeper levels of wisdom beyond this partial aspect of the enlightened mind. The authors of such books sometimes assert that progress on the path of Zen consists only in expanding the duration that this condition can be sustained.

Such aberrant teachings, by failing to recognize the wisdom of differentiation, can effectively bar students from the true wisdom of the Buddhas and Zen masters. The overall effect of practicing such teachings actually fosters a non-Buddhist disdain for the world of things and events. If such teachings were true, the highest realization of Zen would consist of nothing more than living in a detached state of pure awareness all the time. To become fixated on this aspect of the enlightened mind is to abstain from the zeal, the passion, the joy and the heartache that gives life its flavor.

Good friends, the realization of emptiness, equality, or oneness is a necessary first step into the vast and fathomless realm of the Buddha-Dharma, and should be continuously deepened and refined. However, there is much more to Zen Buddhism than the experience of “pure awareness.” The practice and enlightenment of Zen includes the wisdom of differentiation, infinite variety, and joyful participation in the world....” - http://flatbedsutra.com/flatbedsutrazenblogger/?p=12

Also, in http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/Yogacara/basicideas.htm, we find this explanation on the four wisdoms:

Although the enlightened mind is one, it is useful to classify its activities into four types of enlightened wisdom which are the functions of the Buddhic mind. These reflect the transformation of the eight consciousnesses [8] into fundamental wisdom [3] : 1. The five perceptual consciousnesses [13] become the wisdom of Successful Performance. "This wisdom is characterized by pure and unimpeded functioning (no attachment or distortion) in its relation to the (sense) organs and their objects." 2. The sixth consciousness [10] becomes the wisdom of Wonderful Contemplation which "has two aspects corresponding to understanding of the emptiness of self and of the emptiness of dharmas [7]." With this wisdom the Buddha knows all dharmas, without distortion or obstruction, and, in that way knowing the mental and physical condition of all beings,...[can] teach them most effectively." 3) The seventh consciousness [9] becomes the wisdom of Equality. which "understands the nature of the equality of self and other and of all beings." 4) The eighth consciousness becomes the Great Mirror wisdom. This wisdom reflects the entire universe without distortion. Although the four wisdoms do not manifest completely until enlightenment, aspects of Wonderful Contemplation and Great Mirror wisdom begin to function in a lesser degree before enlightenment.

From all these examples we know that the wisdom of emptiness does not in any way diminish, but in fact increases, the knowledge of all distinct dharmas “without distortion or obstruction”. And as Greg wrote earlier: “But then one is not in a featureless, monistic, nondual bubble world totally devoid of distinctions. But the distinctions have lost the ability we thought they had to truly divide the world.”

“When one realizes the emptiness of X, X doesn't disappear. It doesn't need to. It's our ignorant exaggerations about X that cease. Then X is transformed for the very reason that there is nothing fixed about X. When it really hits home, our world is one of non-referential ease.”

FLATBED SUTRA » The Four Prajnas – Excerpt from chapter 3 of The Flatbed Sutra of Louie Wing

flatbedsutra.com

…Having pointed out the dangers of becoming attached to doctrines or failing to ...See More [Cut off website preview]

January 30 at 7:05pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Soh: Done and compiled: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../critique-on...

Awakening to Reality: Critique on Bhikkhu Bodhi's Article "Dhamma and Non-duality"

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

January 30 at 8:08pm · Like · Remove Preview

Jackson Peterson: All these arguments over words and meanings have no direct contact with Truth. They are all inferential imputations and chatterings of karmic mind, sem. Only in "contemplation" (ting'e dzin) or non-dual samadhi, moments of rigpa; is the Truth self-known, gnosis. The Truth can't be understood by a fine tuning of subtle intellectual views... Real yogi's would laugh at these silly philosophical ramblings... lol...

January 30 at 8:16pm · Like · 3

Soh: The point is not non-dual samadhi, which does not necessarily imply wisdom of emptiness or non-arising.

Wrote in https://www.facebook.com/notes/soh-wei-yu/the-movie-of-isness/10153753749825226 :

In deep contemplation, it can become apparent in direct experience and insight that all appearances are merely appearances, nothing arising or staying or ceasing... there is no actual birth of anything. Just like no matter what images appear on the movie or in a dream it will never amount to anything more than an appearance, without anything that truly come into existence. This is different from resolving non-arising through being-time. Lastly it is not that things are mental projections but that they are dependent arising.. what dependently originates is empty and nonarising appearance... momentary suchness, but still as vivid.

It is with some reluctance that I'm sharing this... I'm afraid that writing this might be a disservice to readers. I shall refrain from posting and discussing further about this. I do not wish this to become merely something to talk about, it has to be seen in direct taste and insight... so that one knows what the experience is like and what the realization is. Spouting big words or philosophizing about this do not mean anything.

    ....

Gary Kwok Wing Chan Is it something like the appearance related to some factors wich are dependent on each others. This factor called "Cause 因" glue it together. .so as title said- All appearances are merely apperances...Without 因緣 the apperances are not existence. ..

January 12 at 6:18pm · Like

Soh: Yeah you can understand it that way... for example we think whatever we experience are reflections of the attributes of inherently existing objects. An appearance of redness in a flower seems to be truly existing attributes of an objectively existing flower. In actuality it is not so. We know that a dog will only see a black flower, and if we investigate the 'quantum structures' we will find almost complete voidness. Whether we perceive it as a red object, or a black object, or a wavelength or particle or void, none of those attributes are intrinsic to the object, they’re only the result of our particular ways of experiencing and investigating it, it is the causes and conditions that give rise to a momentary appearance. They are dependently arisen appearances but not intrinsic attributes of a truly existing object, empty. That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena. Having this view is important.

However what I'm talking about is more about the non-arising, non-abiding, and non-ceasing nature of appearance. This requires first deep penetration of anatta by realizing that there is no background observer or agent behind the appearance (be it sense perceptions or thoughts). At this point, even without a thinker or seer behind appearance, there can still be a sense that thoughts or perceptions arise, abide and ceases. But when we investigate further, the non-arising, indestructible and illusory nature of appearance becomes apparent. It is an inseparability of lucidity and emptiness. This aspect is not to be intellectually understood... trying to grasp it intellectually only serves as a hindrance later, and this is what I worry. So there is not much use for me discussing this indepth...

January 12 at 6:54pm · Edited · Like · 2

The Movie of Isness

In deep contemplation, it can become apparent in direct experience and insight t...See More

By: Soh

January 30 at 8:26pm · Like · 3 · Remove Preview

Stephanie Marie: It absolutely helps me, all of this . When I was a kid I first experienced that our world may not be what we think, and I have been contemplating this for 20 years. I played this interactive video game called virtual reality , and all of the sense functions except smell and taste where simulated, but felt very real. In the past ten years I have read scattered buddhist teachings that upheld this discovery; now more so, and when investigating no self, I lost my body and was left with only a sensation I was focusing on. This was very weird, and what Soh describes as peak experience. Currently I am stuck in a rather solipsistic view, only I can't find and I, and this became very evident while reflecting on Lama Zopa Rinpoches Virtue and Reality.

So for me , this conversation in it's entirety from all contributors has been extremely beneficial.

Now I'm off to watch Jackson's videos.

January 30 at 9:50pm · Like

Stephanie Marie: Infact, where I have recently understood through Nagarjuna the meaning of emptiness with help from this board, I find these discussions extremely comforting; it is not so easy for everyone to find they are like a mirage and do not really operate on thier own accord . I find this very helpful

January 30 at 9:52pm · Like · 1

Greg Goode: Jackson, " Real yogi's would laugh at these silly philosophical ramblings... lol."

Do the Tibetan monks in their courtyard debates count as real yogis? That is a very strong tradition.... Does it disqualify them? For the Gelugpas, it is part of their meditative inquiry. They also do Dzogchen...

Maybe real yogis might laugh at *attaching* to intellectual ideas.

January 30 at 10:12pm · Like

Jackson Peterson: Greg Goode:

The monks you are referencing are not "yogis". Intellectual debate obscures the Natural State that is already present before the intellectual debate begins. The true Dharma is all but lost today. Studying the Buddha's words is not the Buddha's path. His path was deep samadhi. All these discussions are at best entertainment and at worst distraction. But then "entertainment" of this type is sheer distraction from the always present Natural State. Stian Gudmundsen Høiland and Justin Struble are manifesting this deep clarity more and more as others remain buried in their useless honing of intellectual "Buddhist" trivia...

January 30 at 10:38pm · Like · 2

Stephen Stark: Greg Goode Same here. There is something very very calming to me about having an awareness of absence. I feel it's generally seen as nihilistic,which is a shame.

The image of the tao with it's mutually supporting halves one reflected in the other jumps to mind when thinking about presence vs absence.

January 30 at 10:40pm · Edited · Like · 1

Soh: Abiding in nondual samadhi but not realizing completely the insubstantiality of that so called nondual awareness is the path to be long lived gods but no liberation. It leads to more grasping than release.

January 30 at 11:06pm · Edited · Like

Greg Goode: Not disagreeing with you, Jackson - many of the same monks (but not all) also do samadhi practices of different types. It is the same for us here. We don't have to do just one thing, though we certainly can. Sometimes either/or for them, and sometimes they specialize. That isn't too different from us, either.

January 30 at 11:13pm · Edited · Like

Soh: In fact after realizing anatta, non-dual samadhi should be very natural and effortless in all manifestation, there will be natural absorption. And no longer is it a matter of resting in some sort of 'Awareness'. That would be an illusion. There is no resting state. As Thusness said last year: "Awareness aware of itself soon becomes dead. The measure of one's depth is in the ineffability and marvelous manifestation in activity. Anatta and emptiness cannot be dead."

And wrote in 2009:

In the most direct path, Awareness is already and always at rest. In the most direct path, whatever manifests is Awareness; there is no "in Awareness" and there is no such thing as going deeper in Awareness or resting in Awareness. Anything "going deeper" or "resting" is nothing direct. Nothing more than the illusionary appearances of 'hierarchy' caused by the inherent and dualistic tendency of understanding things. It is more 'gradual' than 'direct'. Therefore have the right view first before we talk too much about the direct path so that we do not fall into such views. Next clearly understand the cause that blinds us then have direct authentication of our pristine nature so that we will not be misled.

By the way, non-discrimination does not deny us from clear discernment. An enlightenment person is not one that cannot differentiate 'left' from 'right'.

When we say 'rest in the natural state', we must not postulate as if there is 'state' where the mind can access and rest. There is no such state. There is no entry and exit point nor is there a behind background for us to rest our mind. We are talking about a direct realization of our luminous yet empty nature. It defies all subject-object and inherent view. If we want to bypass 'this step of firm establishment of right view', just make sure we are able to correctly understand our pristine nature when glimpses of our nature dawn; it is easily distorted and misinterpreted and that is why dependent origination is taught.

Dependent Origination demolishes hierarchy; brings the absolute to the same level as the transience. See the absolute as nothing more special than an arising thought ,a subsiding sound, a passing scent. It opens up all sense doors and see all moments, any time and anywhere as entry point to our Buddha Nature. It flattens the 3 states of waking, sleeping and dreaming and see movement and stillness as one.

And

That is what 'Natural State', 'No Mind' and 'One Taste' are about. We do not on one hand talk about natural state, naked awareness and on the other hand talk about a resting state or access to a higher samadhi. There is no resting place and no deeper samadhi to access. All states are equally pure, pristine and empty, therefore no preference, no movement and nothing gain. Such is the direct path, anything other than that is 'gradual'.

January 30 at 11:27pm · Edited · Like · 3

Justin Struble: Malcolm wrote:

...Shantideva points out:

"When an existent or a nonexistent

does not exist in the presence of the mind,

at that time since there is no other aspect

[concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support [dmigs pa, ālambana]."

gad rgyangs wrote:

yes, rigpa resolves all questions about the nature of reality, but there ain't no rigpa in Madhyamaka.

Malcolm wrote:

Actually, Shantideva's quote above shows that there is vidyā in Madhyamaka, as the Self-Arisen Vidyā Tantra states:

"The Dharma free from the extremes of conceptual grasping.

is directly perceived without dwelling on an object."

These two statements should be understood to have the same import.

these statements are understood to have the same import here, however i still get the impression that others have a different interpretation of them.

"the ultimate nature of appearances is dharmakaya ... appearances ARE dharmakaya" ... yupp, agreed.

however, what i am refuting is the notion that the realization of primordial wisdom is dependent upon "appearances" .. more specifically... that dependently originated phenomena are the so called means or medium, that prajna is necessarily realized through via the mediation of phenomena. that is not the case at all. such an assertion still falls into subtle dualistic views; it is the inferential knowledge still arising based on subject / object dichotomy and has failed to bring the whole mass of samsaric projections to collapse. ie;

"when an existent or a nonexistent does not exist in the presence of mind,"

the above is referring to the total pacification of all deluded projections, "phenomena" have ceased in cessation and are totally pacified.. continuing..

"at that time since there is no other aspect

[concepts] are fully pacified as there is no objective support [dmigs pa, ālambana]."

this is pointing to the fact that self-arisen prajna is laid bare when phenomena and all deluded / samsaric projections have been totally pacified. this is why one can assert that self-arisen vidya is not dependent upon being realized by means of or through the mediation of dependently originated phenomena. self-arisen vidya being unconditioned, unoriginated, and unsupported; it is not dependent upon phenomena to be realized, that is why it is called primordial wisdom.

this is not a contradiction with the truth that this primordial wisdom IS the ultimate nature of all phenomena. I do not dispute this, there is no separation there... the only notion I am refuting, is that phenomena must be appearing for self-arisen vidya to be realized, this is false.

while it is true that from the ultimate perspective dependently originated phenomena are the dharmakaya itself .. and that there is no rigpa, no primordial awareness, no dharmakaya that stands apart or separate from the deluded activity of samsaric phenomena ....

nevertheless self-arisen vidya is not dependent upon phenomena whatsoever. while from the perspective of the ultimate, one can say that phenomena themselves arise as the appearances / display of wisdom ... neverthless it is still false to state that the realization of self-arisen vidya is dependent upon this display.

January 30 at 11:23pm · Like · 2

Justin Struble: all along i have never been asserting a rigpa that is substantial, that falls into the extremes of dualistic / inherent existence, non-existence, both or neither. i have been asserting the meaning which this quote points to:

"It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised."

In response to Soh,

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../rigpa-and...

"Assume something really simple about sensations and awareness: they are exactly the same. In fact, make it more simple: there are sensations, and this includes all sensations that make up space, thought, image, body, anything you can imagine being mind, and all qualities that are experienced, meaning the sum total of the world.

In this very simple framework, rigpa is all sensations, but there can be this subtle attachment and lack of investigation when high terms are used that we want there to be this super-rigpa, this awareness that is other. You mention that you feel there is a larger awareness, an awareness that is not just there the limits of your senses. I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition, and so some very subtle sensations are tricking you into thinking they are bigger than the rest of the sensate field and are actually the awareness that is aware of other sensations.

Awareness is simply manifestation. All sensations are simply present.

Thus, be wary of anything that wants to be a super-awareness, a rigpa that is larger than everything else, as it can't be, by definition. Investigate at the level of bare sensate experience just what arises and see that it can't possibly be different from awareness, as this is actually an extraneous concept and there are actually just sensations as the first and final basis of reality."

I am not asserting a rigpa or super-awareness that is separate from anything else. i agree with daniel that

"I would claim otherwise: that the whole sensate universe by definition can't arise without the quality of awareness by definition"

however I am not implying sensations of awareness are not equal to or stand apart from anything else, or that are aware of other sensations as an observer / witness / etc ...

the rigpa I am referring to is the self-arisen, primordially pure, primordially free rigpa that is totally non-dual.

Awakening to Reality: Rigpa and Aggregates

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

Padmasambhava says that the mind is neither the same nor different from the 5 aggregates, yet the advice is to take everything as the 5 aggregates.

January 30 at 11:30pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Justin Struble: to me "phenomena" in buddhism refers specifically to "volitional formations" ; "fabrications" .. ie; conditioned phenomena... which are dependent upon delusion.

if one asserts that self-arisen vidya can only arise on dependence of fabricated phenomena, then one falls into the error of saying that self-arisen vidya is only realized through dependence on ignorance / delusion and it's concomitant deluded fabrications. this contradicts the dharma in a very basic way.

rather i assert that it is clear, that when fabricated phenomena are totally pacified, that the realization of self-arisen vidya is in no way dependent upon deluded fabricated phenomena whatseover .. rather self-arisen vidya is only revealed to be self-arisen due to the cessation / total collapse / absence of fabricated phenomena; the implication here being that self-arisen vidya can only be realized to be self-arisen through penetrating to nibbana and recognizing the nature of nibbana.

January 30 at 11:38pm · Edited · Like · 2

Soh: First of all we have to be clear what "appearance" here means. I do not use it to mean only afflictive phenomena or conceptual phenomena. I mean everything, including 'wisdom display'. Also I will not use the term "vidya", I will rather use the word "awareness" in this context, because "vidya" has connotation like "wisdom" or "wisdom of emptiness/non-arising" etc and furthermore there are five kinds of vidya, some are using it to refer to clarity, some to something else etc, which makes usage complicated and confusing unless it is clearly explained according to context.

I'm going to just use the word "awareness" as it is easily understood and not tradition-bound. The undeniable luminous presence of awareness.

It will certainly be 'dualistic' if we consider that "awareness" is something that exists but requires "reflection" to reveal itself. Or in Thusness's words, it is non-dual but distorted by inherent seeing. (see Thusness's second case of non-dual*)

On the other hand it would again be dualistic if we consider "awareness" to be something that exists in and of itself, that is aware of itself, independent of all reflections. That is the I AM understanding. Or that it is like a self-aware mirror that is independent of reflections but reflects reflections. (first case*)

The anatta understanding is that, as Daniel puts it, "they are exactly the same". Even after that, in my experience to penetrate it further through realizing the viewless view of dependent origination (general principle of D.O., not afflictive D.O.) and emptiness will lead to further breakthrough

* http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../three-levels-of...

Thusness/Passerby's reply to me (slightly edited based on references to another post):

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

What I said here, is not really correct. Thought is, but no thinker. Sound is, but no hearer. Awareness cannot be separated from thoughts and manifestation.

Yes but what said can still have the following scenario:

1. There is an Awareness reflecting thoughts and manifestation. ("I AM")

Mirror bright is experienced but distorted. Dualistic and Inherent seeing.

2. Thoughts and manifestation are required for the mirror to see itself.

Non-Dualistic but Inherent seeing. Beginning of non-dual insight.

3. Thoughts and manifestation have always been the mirror (The mirror here is seen as a whole)

Non-Dualistic and non-inherent insight.

In 3 not even a quantum line can be drawn from whatever arises; whatever that appears to come and goes is the Awareness itself. There is no Awareness other than that. We should use the teachings of Anatta (no-self), DO (dependent origination) and Emptiness to see the 'forms' of awareness.

Awakening to Reality: The Three Levels of "Understanding" of Non-dual Awareness

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

What I said here, is not really correct. Thought is, but no thinker. Sound is, b...See More

January 30 at 11:57pm · Edited · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Stephanie Marie: Soh Wei, you posted an article about Ariyan Buddhism

In one of Buddha's biographies, one that was heralded as the story closest to the true story, in a scene between Buddha and Mara, when Mara asks how someone of such high morals could leave his wife and son, Buddha says to Mara

"Who can I call ancestor but the Aryans?"

Not the Aryas, but the Aryans. I have also come across Aryan Buddhism. I wanted to link the page but it has unfortunately been taken down. I don't want to confuse this with Hitler's Aryans, because though he may have been referring to the same Aryans, he used this knowledge to try and kill off and torture an entire race of people, and half the world, and in fact took the swastika from these old texts and perverted it. The swastika, once a symbol for unity, is now a symbol for hate. Hitler was into all kinds if occult magick, and even carried a mandrake root.

Do you know what Aryans buddha was referring to?

Are these the Aryan "God's" some now refer to as interdimensional beings, or alien?

January 30 at 11:57pm · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: I would say that rigpa's self-recognition is not dependent on cessation of dualistic mind or sem. That's the unique path of Dzogchen: the 3rd Dodrubchen and the Dalai Lama pointed out that rigpa is able to be be recognized in the midst of samsaric or karmic mental activity. It's all pervasive beyond any confines of space or time. It's not dependent on conditions and is never not present as conditions, transience; but is not mere "transcience". There is no entity to recognize this as there is only an empty stream of thoughts about a"recognizer". Rigpa is like changeless "space suffused with knowing awareness" as Tulku Urgyen stated. It's completely untouched by its own display... always pure. Moments of rigpa reveal this... with total certainty. The rest is just more blah, blah blah...

January 30 at 11:58pm · Like · 4

Stephanie Marie: Great video Jackson!! Really great! So clear thank you so much! Loved the Gamma stuff

January 30 at 11:59pm · Like · 1

Justin Struble: I agree Jackson, that Rigpa's self-recognition is not dependent upon the cessation of dualistic mind or sems. I was merely illustrating that the self-arisen vidya of rigpa is present in cessation to demonstrate that the self-arisen vidya of rigpa is not dependent upon objects / phenomena, which seems to be a misunderstanding some hold.

January 31 at 12:05am · Like · 4

Stephanie Marie: I'm asking just out of interest, I've never seen an alien, lol, and sure most of it is lore, but very interesting how this stuff relates. Jackson is very accurate when he states the parallels to other religions. There IS an underlying unity to all of this from Christianity to Buddhism to Judaism and even more esoteric views like the occult and thelema or the Golden Dawn. Buddhism perhaps goes further because of emptiness, but most of the religions have an underlying theme.

?

Thoughts?

January 31 at 12:06am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Soh, thoughts and manifestation are not necessary for aware knowing to know itself. That's the flawed Gelugpa view. That "knowing" is an intrinsic and inherent quality of the omniscient Buddha Mind. The Buddha Mind is an inconceivable pure "Knowing Awareness" that is beyond all categories and extremes. It knows Itself.

January 31 at 12:06am · Like · 3

Soh: Jackson, first of all I never said "thoughts and manifestation are necessary for aware knowing to know itself". That is the second case of non-dual in Thusness's 3 types of non-dual. This still implies there is an "inherently existing aware knowing" but "borrows" the phenomena or reflections to reveal itself. That is not yet even anatta understanding.

My point is that aware knowing empty of being some hiding entity in and of itself and is always only manifestation, i.e. thought and manifestation.

I know you will say that in your direct realization there is an (apparently) contentless awareness being aware of itself. Trust me I have realized this. I am not denying it.

However, in my vocabulary, even that so called "thoughtless beingness" or "I AMness" that is apparently formless, is also a thought. I and Thusness call this "non-conceptual thought". It is not beyond manifestation. To see that as some Absolute beyond manifestation is a strong view of inherency. That too is another manifestation and is no more special and ultimate than a self-luminous thought and self-luminous sound. It is not a background of phenomena, it is not some ground of being out of which phenomena arise from. All hierarchies are abolished when anatta is realized needless to speak of D.O. and emptiness.

January 31 at 1:03am · Edited · Like

Stephanie Marie: The only thing I can find on it is a lot of ignorant hatred, and I doubt very much that Buddha, or anyone involved would propagate such hateful nonsense, so it can't be what I find now.

Gah, I so loathe racism and the idiots that pick and choose what they want to use to propagate their ignorant and limited views, it can't be that, there has to be more to that story

January 31 at 12:14am · Like

Stephanie Marie: ? No one? I guess ill never know

January 31 at 12:17am · Edited · Like

Stephanie Marie: I've read the Aryans were a race of conquerors in India, they are also mentioned in the bible as being or living with Giants;

There is an odd parallel between this, the anunakki, and the Nephelim mentioned in Enochs prophecy, the book of Enoch, which was found amidst the dead sea scrolls. This also has a link to the Yazidi Muslim tradition, who also have kundalini practice

?

January 31 at 12:25am · Like

Soh: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../on-anatta...

For those masters that taught,

“Let thoughts arise and subside,

See the background mirror as perfect and be unaffected.”

With all due respect, they have just “blah” something nice but deluded.

Rather,

See that there is no one behind thoughts.

First, one thought then another thought.

With deepening insight it will later be revealed,

Always just this, One Thought!

Non-arising, luminous yet empty!

Awakening to Reality: On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and Ordinariness, and Spontaneous...

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

Simple brilliance~thank you for this insightful sharing that is mirrored innerly...See More

January 31 at 12:28am · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Soh: Stephanie: there are mystical traditions in all major religions. They are a minority. Their realization are often quite similar. But yes, emptiness is unique in Buddhism.

January 31 at 12:30am · Edited · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Nothing known about who the Aryans are though Soh?

I am very interested, and also would like to debunk some of this racist idiocy. It perverts the buddhist teachings on tolerance , and compassion, and humanity in general

January 31 at 12:33am · Like

Soh: Not too sure, sorry. Buddha doesn't give a heck about race or classes. Some of his top students were outcastes. He accepted women into his sangha, which was shocking in those days. He was way ahead of his times.

January 31 at 12:40am · Edited · Like · 2

Soh: The Buddha said,

"Your majesty," the Buddha replied, "I now belong, not to the lineage of my family, but to the lineage of the noble ones. Theirs are the customs I follow."

The "noble ones" here refer to awakened beings, i.e. the Buddhas.

January 31 at 12:46am · Edited · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: I agree, which is why I hate the idiots that are selling this shit. Oh well, thanks anyway! ( more afraid of the alien aspect to be honest, the Nordic "God's" and the "tall whites", like what people say look like Angels, with skin so pale it's like stone, and have some kind of strange "light" about them. Could all be the product of over active imagination on the part of the individuals, but I'm not so sure with Canada's prime minister of defense and the Apollo astronauts saying that this is indeed happening, and that they are working with the Government super powers. These aren't crazy people, extremely reputable, so it's very odd to have seen all of this religious relation. I'm a little disturbed by it all honestly

January 31 at 12:47am · Like

Stephanie Marie: I wonder about that too, I have heard the "noble ones" referred to as the Aryans in texts. Hmmm. I'll have to look that up. Thanks Soh

January 31 at 12:49am · Like

Soh: From dharmawheel, Son of Buddha wrote:

I have come across many Buddhists who think a Buddhist having a Svastica or using the term Aryan Buddhist somehow means they are racist.

as many already know the Svastica is found in Mahayana sutras and is on many temples in Buddhists countries along with being on the maps to find temples in Japan.

But one thing most Buddhists dont know is that Aryan was a term in the Pali Canon for a person who followed the Buddhist path,it was commmonly known that all Buddhists were Aryans following the Aryan path.of course most people will never know this if they havent poured through the pali canon or havent met anyone who is a Buddhist who uses the term Aryan Buddhist,which the term generally is only found in Srilankan or indian Buddhist communies,and is not generally well known outside those comunities.

(of course I also understand why westerners would not want to use the term Aryan or wear a Svastica due to the social stigma,I myself wear a Svastica in public and do not suffer social stigma due to the fact that I am asian and its kinda hard to call an Asian a "white" supremacists)

here is where the term can be located in Sutta(I didnt post the entire sutta due to the length but the term is found all throughout the sutta,also this sutta is AWSOME in describing Buddhist pactice) Peace and love to all.

Digha Nikaya

Sangiti sutta 33

Translated by Mauice Walshe

commisioned from Wisdom Publishing(as is Bhuikku Bodhis translations)

IX. "Four Aryan lineages. Here, a monk

a. Is content with any old robe, praises such contentment, and does not try to obtain robes improperly or unsuitability. He does not worry if he does not get a robe, and if he does, he is not full of greedy, blind desire, but makes use of it, aware of such dangers and wisely aware of its true purpose. Nor is he conceited about being thus content with any old robe, and he does not disparage others. And one who is thus skilful, not lax, clearly aware and mindful, is known as a monk who is true to the ancient, original Aryan lineage. Again,

b. A monk is content with any alms food he may get...Again,

c. A monk is content with any old lodging place...and again,

d. A monk, being fond of abandoning rejoices in abandoning, and being fond of developing, rejoices in developing, is not therefore conceited...and one who is thus skilful, not lax, clearly aware and mindful, is known as a monk who is true to the ancient, original Aryan lineage.

XIV. "Four characteristics of a Stream Winner: Here, the Ariyan disciple is possessed of unwavering confidence in the Buddha, thus:

a. "This Blessed Lord is an Arahant, a fully enlightened Buddha, endowed with Wisdom and conduct, the well-farer, knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teachers of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed."

XXXVII. "Four Aryan modes of speech: stating that one has not seen, heard, sensed, known what one has not seen, heard, sensed, known.

January 31 at 12:51am · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: Beautiful!!!!

January 31 at 12:53am · Like

Jackson Peterson In Dzogchen samadhi "Ting'e dzin" means rigpa, non-dual contemplation. Norbu uses those terms quite often as synonyms for rigpa especially in his "Crystal and the Way of Light". Samadhi has many different meanings in Buddhism and Hinduism and should not be confused with Dzogchen usage and especially as used in Semde. When I say "samadhi" I mean rigpa or the true condition of "shikentaza" as used in Soto Zen. Samadhi is our Natural State settled in itself as opposed to the presence of conceptualization and ordinary thinking. Conceptualizing and ordinary thinking is absent in rigpa because those phenomena arise from ignorance, and there is no ignorance present in rigpa.

January 31 at 12:53am · Like · 4

Stephanie Marie: This is something I think of what caught my attention. Very good thank you!!!

January 31 at 12:54am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: In cessation the topics of this thread are all resolved—directly, immediately, with no recourse to linguistic convention or conceptual structures.

All these issues become like color: Shining in obviousness, the meaning not concealed. What is there to doubt about blue? What is there to determine about orange? That is absurd!

You don't get closer to the experience of blue by refining the words and categories we may use about blue, color, and so on. What a misunderstanding that would be!

January 31 at 1:01am · Edited · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: My life has become such a bundle of oddity since all of this; I can see the truth in the adage: ignorance is bliss lol

January 31 at 1:02am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Soh, your model leaves out the Divine Intelligence that informs Reality. You are that Non-dual Intelligence, omniscient Buddha Mind. This is the highest insight... There is no "I Am" sense in this Buddha Mind at all. It is empty of all self-descriptions and imputations and non-conceptual imputations. John is confusing inherent Buddha attributes with transient mind-generated characteristics of identity.

January 31 at 1:06am · Like · 3

Soh: Jackson, Intelligence does not exist in and of itself apart from the display/reality, to say that there is an Intelligence that exists as an entity, hiding behind anything, is to fall into an inherent view. Intelligence is manifestation. What's hidden is dead. Life is not dead. Life is living, intelligence is intelligencing, 'you' or 'You' is not required.

January 31 at 1:08am · Like · 1

Soh: There is nothing "inherent" or "hidden" about Buddha attributes, Buddha attributes is the display.

January 31 at 1:09am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: Even if we talk about pure wisdom display, that is the nirmanakaya wisdom, which is a distinct aspect of wisdom from that of dharmakaya / sambhogakaya ..

January 31 at 1:10am · Like

Soh: Wisdom of dharmakaya is the wisdom of emptiness and non-arising. In any case, whatever wisdom cannot be seen as something distinct from the total exertion of a single manifestation... that total exertion of a single manifestation is either a wisdom display, or a delusonal display of the 12 afflictive links.

January 31 at 1:11am · Like · 1

Soh: "Shining in obviousness, the meaning not concealed."

Direct realization is of different 'levels' too. Realization of apple doesn't mean you know orange. Realization of I AM doesn't mean final realization and there can still be many misunderstandings. Direct taste of luminous presence does not mean complete deconstruction or anatta or non-arising. Therefore have to be careful regardless of what we realized.

January 31 at 1:16am · Edited · Like · 2

Neony Karby: Given possibilities, intelligence is what gives an impulse direction, seems a fair definition. But doesn't provide it independence.

January 31 at 1:16am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: Dharmakaya:

* Tathatā-jñāna is the jñāna of Suchness or Dharmadātu, "the bare non-conceptualizing awareness" of Śūnyatā, the universal substrate of the other four jñāna.

* The Melong is very important in the esoteric Mantrayana traditions such as Dzogchen. the Ādarśa-jñāna is the jñāna of "Mirror-like Awareness", "devoid of all dualistic thought and ever united with its 'content' as a mirror is with its reflections". Ādarśa is Sanskrit for "mirror", the term may be parsed into the etymon of darśana with a grammatical adposition.

Samatā is also identical with the second ādarśa when samatā becomes the non-duality of upāya and prajñā.

Sambhogakaya:

* the Samatā-jñāna is the jñāna of the "Awareness of Sameness", which perceives the sameness, the commonality of dharmas or phenomena.

The Tattvāloka says "The wisdom of equality of Tathāgata is the non-dual method of upāya and prajñā, and it is the wisdom of the universal that can be tasted in the dharmādhtu."

* the Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna is the jñāna of "Investigative Awareness", that perceives the specificity, the uniqueness of dharmas.

Nirmanakaya:

* the Kṛty-anuṣṭhāna-jñāna is the jñāna of "Accomplishing Activities", the awareness that "spontaneously carries out all that has to be done for the welfare of beings, manifesting itself in all directions".

January 31 at 1:17am · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Soh, why this separating of the wheat from the chaff? Why this insistence upon distinction, discernment, drawing out one duality after the other only to negate it—highlighting it only to deemphasize it?

Display, reality, intelligence, entity, hiding, inherent, manifestation, hidden, life, dead, you, attributes.

Whatever, man!

From the ultimate perspective these are null and void—they are empty of themselves. Emptiness being empty too, we end up with a conventional reality that is empty of conventionality (and therefore it is conventional. A is not-A, therefore A is A).

There is no straight and narrow, no tight rope line that must be carefully balanced, meticulously picking out just the right conceptual categories, proclaiming, "only this is true, anything else is wrong". That is exactly the voice of Buddha's opponents in the Pali Canon.

January 31 at 1:21am · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I mean, this is after the opening of the Eye of Dharma. Before that, discerning skillfulness and unskillfulness, etc. is paramount—unless it's not, which would be the direct, pathless path.

January 31 at 1:24am · Edited · Like · 2

Soh: The point is really not what is the right concept. The point is awakening. When you see "X is empty of itself" you should see total exertion of X too in direct taste and awakening. Do you see this and apply it to everything including 'self', 'awareness', 'karma', etc:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../buddha-dharma...

I could think of one example: people liken “Buddha-nature” to be “like the moon”.

In actuality, the very appearance of the moon is buddha-nature, it is not that there is some hidden thing called buddha-nature which merely resembles the moon. The moon is buddha-nature, the buddha-nature is the moon, the nondual identity of symbol and symbolized. Or as Dogen says, the moon-face buddha and sun-face buddha, the whole body is the whole moon. There is nothing hidden or latent about it, there is no hidden noumenon in which phenomenon or symbols can “point to” or “hint at”. The symbol, e.g. the moon, is itself the very presence of total dynamism. Furthermore, manifestation does not 'come from' Buddha-nature, nor does Buddha-nature 'contains' manifestation, Buddha-nature is empty of a self but conventionally imputed on the "myriad forms". Likewise for Truth, Awareness, etc.

In fact everything is like this.

Scent of a flower is not scent of “a flower”, the scent does not represent or approximate something other than itself but is a complete reality (well not exactly a 'reality' but rather a whole and complete manifestation/appearance which is empty and unreal) in itself: the scent IS the flower, wheel of a car is not wheel of “a car”, the car IS the wheel. Wheel cannot be said to "come from a car" or "be contained by a car". The word “car” is a mere imputation, not a true reality that can be established. “Self” and aggregates are likewise.

Seen in such manner, all constructs are deconstructed and what's left is just the shimmering "dream-like" (coreless, empty, illusory), luminous appearances which is all there is, but not to be confused with a dreamy state.

Anyway this is Ted's new post:

Awakening to Reality: Buddha-Dharma: A Dream in a Dream

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

January 31 at 1:24am · Like · 3 · Remove Preview

Soh: Justin: that is very different from my understanding of Dharmakaya. That seems like seeing Dharmakaya from a strictly awareness point of view.

January 31 at 1:27am · Like

Justin Struble: Soh .. it aligns with my understanding quite well, perhaps it is worth considering / contemplating / practicing on? I have always found it beneficial to investigate your assertions in your articles / statements in my practice .. for me that is the benefit of these dialogues.. we should never assume our knowledge / practice is final, we can always point for one another and deepen our practice together.

January 31 at 1:30am · Like · 1

Soh: Sorry I just re-read: "the bare non-conceptualizing awareness" **of Śūnyatā**.. ok, Sunyata.

    January 31 at 1:31am · Edited · Like

Soh: This Sunyata however is the very nature (the insubstantial, non-arising nature) of the appearance... it is not that there is a void existing in and of itself..

January 31 at 1:32am · Edited · Like

Justin Struble: Soh, sunyata, and bare non-conceptualizing awareness are an inseparable union..

January 31 at 1:32am · Like

Soh: In the sense that awareness is empty. However, realizing "non-conceptualizing awareness" is simply the recognition of clarity, not the realization of emptiness. Malcolm made this clear as well, and calls it "recognition of rigpa" as opposed to "realization of emptiness" (which happens on the third vision) or realization of rigpa (in its full measure).

"Non-conceptual wisdom of emptiness" is different from "awareness aware of itself". It is realizing the empty nature of that awareness. It is a non-dual awakening, but it is not merely self-realization of awareness

January 31 at 1:34am · Edited · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: No. As far as I understand, in this system the "bare non-conceptualizing awareness" is the direct, non-conceptual realization of emptiness.

January 31 at 1:35am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: sunyata IS bare non-conceptualizing awareness, according to dzogchen. sunyata is not realized separate from bare non-conceptual awareness. awareness aware of itself, is self-arisen vidya of emptiness .. no division, no separation .. it is one complete realization

January 31 at 1:37am · Edited · Like · 3

Justin Struble: the distinctions / facets of the kayas are pointed out separately, but in truth they are inseparable, and there is equality of each facet

January 31 at 1:38am · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I know you have a thorough treatment of "mere clarity", Soh, but all "clarity"'s are not the same.

I don't mean to be so blunt, but it's not really contestable, not up for discussion. In a manner of speaking, this "bare non-conceptualizing awareness" is so far "beyond" any kind of structure.

Don't get tripped up on the use of the word "awareness". Though there's reason for its use, it can be misleading.

February 1 at 11:51pm · Edited · Like

Soh: Justin: You can realize non-conceptual awareness without realizing its emptiness. You can see it as changeless, inherently existing, have an atman-view about it, etc. Realizing awareness may be non-conceptual, but immediately after that, views can creep back and distort it, because there is realizing the luminosity without seeing its empty nature, so latent ignorance still manifests again. That's why we have the Atman-Brahman view of Hinduism, etc... we can't deny that they have realized self-luminous awareness, but they see it as inherent

January 31 at 1:43am · Edited · Like

Soh: Malcolm was very clear that in Dzogchen, recognition of rigpa is the recognition of clarity is not realization of emptiness, etc.

January 31 at 1:42am · Like

Justin Struble: soh, there is not true rigpa without the concomitant knowledge of emptiness which is inseparable from it.

January 31 at 1:43am · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: It kind of baffles me that the very non-conceptual awareness is exactly loaded by conceptual notions such as changeless, inherently existing, etc. That's just semantically incorrect, it is confusion.

January 31 at 1:45am · Edited · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: Appearances and emptiness inseparable how can there be a misunderstanding there?

January 31 at 1:45am · Like · 1

Soh: Stian: as I said before, a non-conceptual awakening of I AM is pure non-dual unfabricated apprehension of Awareness, that itself is not the problem, it is that latent ignorance comes back to distort it.

January 31 at 1:45am · Edited · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: If something that appears is found to be empty, by Nagarjuna's reasoning, what is there to misunderstand?

January 31 at 1:46am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: The "bare non-conceptual awareness" spoken of in the system of thought that is not the one that you are most invested in, is not "aware of itself"—that's a turn of phrase. How can a completely non-conceptual, non-referential awareness have any conceptual reference points like "itself"?

January 31 at 1:49am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: with all due respect, it's worth considering that malcolms statements / interpretations may have been misunderstood or mistaken themselves, i would refer all involved to the rich dzogchen lineage / tradition .. there are many excellent dzogchen teachers and sources .. if malcolms interpretation differs and he claims all these translations are wrong, i would question malcoms accuracy. awareness in dzogchen refers to rigpa, generally speaking, which is definitely not "I AM" .. which is still deluded / dualistic / inherent / etc ..

January 31 at 1:48am · Like · 4

Soh: One will hold onto that image of "pure awareness" or "pure beingness" and treat it as "something that is always there"/"behind everything", i.e. the atman view. Without realizing that is just an image of a past foreground non-dual pure conscious experience. That image being distorted by 'inherent seeing' into being a background of everything

January 31 at 1:53am · Edited · Like · 2

Soh: By the way Malcolm is qualified and asked to teach Dzogchen by Kunzang Dechen Lingpa. I'd see him as a Dzogchen teacher in his own right.

January 31 at 1:50am · Like

Ram Jayaram: I am quite impressed by the verbiage here. Good going, all!

January 31 at 1:50am · Unlike · 5

Soh: Stian: I don't mean aware of itself as an object. It is actually a subjectless and objectless pure knowing. It is a non-dual knowing. It is self-knowing in the sense that there is no separate observer observing an "it"

January 31 at 1:52am · Edited · Like · 3

Justin Struble: "In the Dzogchen teachings it refers to the dissolution of the dualistic consciousness in nondual awareness, so that this nondual awareness, rather than manifesting as nondual awareness (of) dualistic consciousness of object, reveals its true condition in a nondual, nonconceptual way (and therefore in this case it is not permissible to speak either of reflexivity or of apperception, for there is no dualistic, conceptual perception [of] which nondual awareness may be aware)."

    ...

"However, there is a radical difference between nondual awareness (of) the dualistic consciousness that is the core of saṃsāra and the nondual awareness in question fully revealing its own nature in nirvāṇa (the former involving reflexivity [which implies the subject-object duality] and apperception, the second being nondually aware [of] itself and [of] its true condition)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa#Misc.

Rigpa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

In a DzogchenMenngagde context, rigpa (Skt. vidyā; Tibetan: རིག་པ་, Wylie: rig p...See More

January 31 at 1:53am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Justin Struble: one does not realize nirvana without realizing emptiness, just as a further point of clarification to the above.

January 31 at 1:54am · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Thank you guys !!!

January 31 at 1:54am · Like · 1

Soh: I AM is not dualistic. I AM realization that I'm referring to is without any sense of self or duality. It unfabricated non-dual Awareness itself in direct apprehension. However after that moment direct apprehension/realization of Awareness, due to persisting ignorance there can be a distortion of that realization into something it is not (like the example on the background I gave). An image of a previous pure conscious experience captured in memory and reified into something inherently existing.. preventing the direct seeing that all display are of same taste. That would depend on non-dual insights.. and anatta is the peak of non-dual insight, the clearest kind of non-dual insight. Anatta realization removes this delusion/obscuration

January 31 at 1:59am · Edited · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: So, please correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

What you call "recognition of clarity", it is totally free of conceptual reference points, such as subject-object, self-other, awareness-emptiness, inherent, nondual, ignorance, wisdom, etc. It is totally free of these notions.

And that very point-instant of recognition, lacking space and time, is not what you call realization of emptiness, because why? This recognition being empty, it being mere clarity aware of (not even) only the lack of any conceptual extremes, how is it not realization of emptiness?

And if that is not realization of emptiness, then what is? What is more empty than truly empty awareness?

January 31 at 2:01am · Like · 3

Soh: Basically Thusness sums it up when he said: "

John TanThursday, December 12, 2013 at 9:27am UTC+08

Awareness aware of itself soon becomes dead...lol

John TanThursday, December 12, 2013 at 9:29am UTC+08

The measure of one's depth is in the ineffability and marvelous manifestation in activity. Anatta and emptiness cannot b dead."

Awareness aware of itself (not as subject or object) is not wrong. It's just that it becomes dead soon, after that realization.

January 31 at 2:02am · Edited · Like · 2

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: I like that, cautioning the hypostatization of clarity that happens after recognition. But that is not the point of disagreement. The point of disagreement seems to me to be the statement that the recognition "itself" is not realization of emptiness.

January 31 at 6:43am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: "However after that moment direct apprehension/realization of Awareness, due to persisting ignorance there can be a distortion of that realization into something it is not (like the example on the background I gave)."

if awareness is mistakenly viewed as a background, then that is a dualistic view , a deluded view, is it not? is this truly a realization if it is subject to delusion after the fact?

January 31 at 2:03am · Like · 4

Stephanie Marie: That's what I'm wondering, what is the definition of realization? I can say , from reading Nagarjuna and looking at the sense impressions, sutras do etc, I realize that everything is empty. If that's not a realization what is?

January 31 at 2:05am · Like

Justin Struble: realization is distinct from intellectual knowledge / certainty, stephanie.. i'm sure Soh can give you a good link on realization vs peak experience vs intellectual view ..

January 31 at 2:07am · Like · 3

Soh: Stian: Realization of emptiness occurs when you see through the delusional framework that allows the "hypostatization of clarity".

Is there a seeing existing in and of itself behind everything? Is Buddha-nature hidden somewhere? Is the scent the scent of a flower-core hidden somewhere? Are the display merely stuff coming out of Buddha-nature or is it Buddha-nature itself?

Seeing through seer-seeing-seen, one realizes the true face of Awareness. No longer is "Awareness" seen as a hidden entity or ghost, but as the very stuff of life itself. The total exertion of scent, the moon, the sky, ....

January 31 at 2:07am · Like

Stephanie Marie: You wouldn't be able to convince me it's not, though during activities if I'm not thinking about it I can forget

I understand full anatta realization is when you never forget you aren't a human in a body, and that's due to karmic conditioning

Is empty too though

January 31 at 2:07am · Like

Soh: p.s. that is just firstfold

January 31 at 2:08am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: So what happens when it's realized, different from an epiphany?

January 31 at 2:09am · Like

Justin Struble: yes Soh, awareness IS the stuff of life itself, but realizing awareness is not dependent upon any display or the presence of any phenomena whatsoever, as you have pointed out with non-dual awareness realization;

It unfabricated non-dual Awareness itself in direct apprehension.

this is not mediated by, nor does it require the presence of any phenomena / display whatsoever.

January 31 at 2:09am · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Does something happen to you other than, holy crap wow!!! That's true!!!???

January 31 at 2:10am · Like

Stephanie Marie: I saw soh's link on that, I've only experienced peak with sensation..,.

Are you like enveloped to a void or something?

January 31 at 2:11am · Like

Stephanie Marie: I'm just really trying to understand what I am ignoring my family for, is it worth all of this effort? I've about had it and am going to walk away from Dharma.

January 31 at 2:13am · Like

Stephanie Marie: I don't think I need all of this extra stress, when I got into buddhism to relieve it

January 31 at 2:13am · Like

Justin Struble: you can only resolve your uncertainty in direct experiential realization, steph. that means you must commit yourself to a dedicated dharma practice until there is true realization. endless intellectualizing will never result in true realization. only practice truly clarifies.

January 31 at 2:15am · Like · 5

Stephanie Marie: Ok, that's a good explanation. Thanks Justin

January 31 at 2:16am · Like

Justin Struble: that said, we have discussions because right view is part of dharma practice, and learning how to properly practice vipassana / samatha is also part of dharma practice. once you have the initial understanding how to practice, it's time to practice!

January 31 at 2:16am · Like · 4

Stephanie Marie: Time to practice lol

January 31 at 2:17am · Like · 2

Soh: "yes Soh, awareness IS the stuff of life itself, but realizing awareness is not dependent upon any display or the presence of any phenomena whatsoever, as you have pointed out with non-dual awareness realization;

It unfabricated non-dual Awareness itself in direct apprehension.

this is not mediated by, nor does it require the presence of any phenomena / display whatsoever."

It's not right to identify something as "Awareness" vs everything else as "phenomena". (As Thusness said: When a particular speck of dust becomes special, then all other pristine happening that are self-mirroring suddenly appears dusty.)

I say, that non-dual Awareness itself is another foreground manifestation, no different from any other foreground, self-luminous manifestation.

Direct non-dual Awareness apprehending itself (as "non-conceptual thought" or "mind" realm) is no more ultimate or special than...

Direct pure non-dual luminous sound apprehending itself...

Direct pure non-dual luminous sight apprehending itself...

(etc etc)

Each is equally awareness, each is equally phenomena, each is equally display, each is equally "stuff of life".

There is a pure non-dual awareness present even in the absence of all concepts and even when devoid of five senses. You can call it Mind. Or Awareness.

Still it is not more special or ultimate than a pure non-dual thought or sight or sound etc

January 31 at 2:22am · Edited · Like · 3

Soh: 24. RE: The mind and the watcher

Apr 7 2009, 5:46 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 7 2009, 5:57 PM EDT

"I AM: Paradoxically, one feels at the same time that one is both essentially untouched by all phenomena and yet intimately at one with them. As the Upanishad says "Thou are That."

1.a. Body and Mind as Constructs: Another way to look at this is to observe that all compound things -- including one's own body and mind -- are **objects to awareness.** That is to say, from the "fundamental" point of view of primordial awareness, or True Self, even body and mind are **not self.**"

Thusness:

Ha Gozen, I re-read the post and saw **not self**, I supposed u r referring to anatta then I have to disagree.... However I agree with what that u said from the Vedanta (True Self) standpoint. But going into it can make it appears unnecessary complex.

As a summary, I see anatta as understanding the **transience** as Awareness by realizing that there is no observer apart from the observed. Effectively it is referring to the experience of in seeing, only scenery, no seer. In hearing, only sound, no hearer. The experience is quite similar to “Thou are That” except that there is no sinking back to a Source as it is deemed unnecessary. Full comfort is found in resting completely as the transience without even the slightest need to refer back to a source. For the source has always been the manifestation due to its emptiness nature.

All along there is no dust alighting on the Mirror; the dust has always been the Mirror. We fail to recognize the dust as the Mirror when we are attached to a particular speck of dust and call it the ”Mirror”; When a particular speck of dust becomes special, then all other pristine happening that are self-mirroring suddenly appears dusty.

Anything further, we will have to take it private again.

January 31 at 2:23am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: I agree with the wisdom of equality, and that each is equally empty awareness Soh, but kyle was stating earlier that rigpa can only be realized via / through / as the display of phenomena. I am simply asserting that awareness can be realized / directly apprehended when phenomena are totally pacified / cease.. and therefor that realizing awareness is not dependent on any display / appearance / phenomenal existence / non existence.

I disagree that "It unfabricated non-dual Awareness itself in direct apprehension." is a type of "manifestation" as this term is traditionally used to refer to fabricated phenomena.

fabricated phenomena are codependent with delusion / ignorance, whereas primordial awareness is free from ignorance.

January 31 at 2:27am · Like · 1

Soh: Stephanie: hmm... Stian tried to express "realization":

"In cessation the topics of this thread are all resolved—directly, immediately, with no recourse to linguistic convention or conceptual structures.

All these issues become like color: Shining in obviousness, the meaning not concealed. What is there to doubt about blue? What is there to determine about orange? That is absurd!

You don't get closer to the experience of blue by refining the words and categories we may use about blue, color, and so on. What a misunderstanding that would be!"

Like a person drinking water, knows himself whether it is hot or cold. There is non-conceptual certainty of '...' (whatever that is directly apprehended)

January 31 at 2:34am · Edited · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: That is because you think rigpa is awareness. It is not, and never has been.

January 31 at 2:34am · Like · 1

Soh: "

    I disagree that "It unfabricated non-dual Awareness itself in direct apprehension." is a type of "manifestation" as this term is traditionally used to refer to fabricated phenomena.

    "

I'm using it in a non-afflictive sense. I'm saying there is nothing hidden at all, there is only the display and nothing hiding behind the display (be it wisdom display or ignorance display).

January 31 at 2:37am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Like when I was pregnant with my daughter and reading about labor and freaking out about it, people said I'd know the contractions when I have them , I assume it's like that

I used Greg Goodes experiments from the direct path , and my vision went in to two dimensions,

Also, I've used pointing from hall of mirrors, to get to a seeing I guess that I am not my body feelings thoughts etc. I was hoping that this related to practice in some way. I'm positive I'm out of my league here, and thanks for understanding and all of your help.

Practice is probably the best idea, good to. Clear up misinformation though like you guys say

January 31 at 2:42am · Like

Soh: Stephanie: what path are you inclined towards? If you're into Advaitic realization, I would recommend self-inquiry, which works great from my (and many others') experience. But not everyone may be keen on that path.

January 31 at 2:44am · Like · 1

Soh: I have a chapter on self-inquiry in my ebook.

January 31 at 2:44am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie I really like the buddhist path. I mistakenly thought they were the same from self teaching. I would love to read your ebook Soh

January 31 at 2:45am · Like

Soh: I see... by the way, as I pointed out to Stian and Justin, the "I AM" realization is not exactly "wrong". It is a "correct" realization of one's luminous clarity. Just that its nature should be further clarified. "I AM realization" is doubtless realization of Awareness and that you will be guided by that luminous taste from that point, so there is less danger of becoming nihilistic, as you embody "Existence" "Life" "Presence" "Consciousness" "Intelligence" itself. You will try to perfect and bring that taste to your whole life, waking and sleep. You will fail... at first. You may try to mentally reconfirm the Self's everpresentness and all-pervasiveness in all experiences (and there is indeed intuition that the Self can never be lost, nor will there be a sense that the Self is being lost at any moment after self-realization), but that mental reconfirmation is just a story, another tiring mind-movement rather than actualization.

You may then try to abide in samadhi, in Self. I wrote then: "It doesn't take even a moment of practice to Dive into your Self. Because you never left and can never be other than Who You Are. Without moving a step forward (or backward), You Are - Self-Shining, Self-Certain/Doubtless, Still, Unmoved, Abiding Existence-Awareness. All frustrations exist because you are moving forward and backward to find your Self. Stop, pause, You Are, full-stop. What's next, you say? There is no next except to Abide as You Are." You may think that perfecting nirvikalpa samadhi is the key. But that is not the path of effortlessness. You will try to find the way to effortlessness. Then you will develope further insights into impersonality, non-dual, anatta, emptiness.

Those lead towards effortlessness and self-liberation of Total Presence revealing every moment as the very obviousness of this very breath... this sight... this sound... how alive

January 31 at 3:05am · Edited · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: Oh I see! Thanks Soh

January 31 at 2:52am · Unlike · 1

Soh: Good night. Tomorrow heading to Thailand... (not Bangkok where grenades are exploding here and there, haha... Chiang Mai)

January 31 at 2:59am · Edited · Like · 3

Neony Karby: Have a nice trip. Can you fly directly to Chiang Mai? Don't you have to shift in Bangkok? Soh. And how long are you staying?

January 31 at 3:01am · Unlike · 1

Soh: Direct flight (one of the few ones).. staying for 3 days

January 31 at 3:02am · Like · 1

Neony Karby: ENJOY . The heat is back.

January 31 at 3:03am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Good Luck have fun Soh! That's wonderful! Thanks for all of your help!!

January 31 at 3:07am · Like

Ram Jayaram: just forget all this spiritual mumbo-jumbo for a few days and have fun in chiang-mai!

January 31 at 3:08am · Like

Soh: Thanks! Ok, I'll try not to think about anatta, emptiness and non-duality.

January 31 at 3:09am · Like · 2

Ram Jayaram: oh-oh, there you go again.. !

January 31 at 3:10am · Unlike · 2

Neony Karby: Wat-Phra-That-Doi-Suthep in Chiang Mai. Go there. It's mesmerizing.

Neony Karby's photo.

January 31 at 3:18am · Unlike · 4

Stephanie Marie: That's beautiful! Wow

January 31 at 3:19am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon, rigpa is the awareness-knowing mind of a Buddha, that knows its own condition. A Buddha is "aware" and fully conscious. Rigpa is that "mind" when all conceptualizing has ceased and that mind knows itself through its own omniscient insight.

January 31 at 3:23am · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: I was very disappointed to find all the temples were brand new... I thought they were of ancient origin.. (in Bangkok central's temple complex)

January 31 at 3:35am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: All sentient beings have awareness, all have the clarity of mind.

A small handful have knowledge [rig pa] of their nature.

January 31 at 3:35am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: You'd have to carefully define the cessation of conceptualization.

If you mean a suspension of thought and resting in the clarity of mind, then that is not the view.

If you mean the cessation of mind, then yes that is rig pa.

January 31 at 3:37am · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Cessation means "finished". Yet rigpa can self-recognize even during strong karmic moments of mental content. The intrinsic nature of rigpa is ever present and is recognized when the mind looks inward at its own nature. The empty, true nature of the samsaric mind is itself rigpa.

January 31 at 3:41am · Edited · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Yes but not the rang byung rig pa spoken of in Dzogchen. What you are pointing out is the coarsest form of rigpa, which is the clarity of mind.

January 31 at 3:42am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: What does that mean the cessation of mind, you don't see a person in the mirror anymore?

You are always calm not afflicted at all?

This is a real question

January 31 at 3:42am · Like

Kyle Dixon: It means recognizing the non-arising of mind, the emptiness of mind. That the notion of a mind was a misconception. Which is called recognizing the nature of mind [sems nyid].

Awakened beings are awakened beings because they have recognized the nature of mind. Sentient beings are sentient beings because they are ignorant of the nature of their minds.

January 31 at 3:44am · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Oh, gosh all of those big words get so misleading lol

January 31 at 3:45am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche points out the difference between rig pa as the clarity of mind, and rang byung rig pa:

"In the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth."

January 31 at 3:50am · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Cool, I see

January 31 at 3:53am · Like

Neony Karby: I was absolutely thrilled to see that they still build in and on ancient traditions Jax.

Wat Phrathat Doi Suthep temple is from 1383 when the first chedi was built on top of the mountain.

And there are still many very old beautiful wooden temples in Chiang Mai and out here in Nongkai along Mekong river.

January 31 at 4:13am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: Soh said:

"There is a pure non-dual awareness present even in the absence of all concepts and even when devoid of five senses. You can call it Mind. Or Awareness." exactly! agreed.

January 31 at 6:32am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Right, but that isn't primordial wisdom. It's simply mind.

January 31 at 6:38am · Like · 3

Justin Struble: when ... "There is a pure non-dual awareness present even in the absence of all concepts and even when devoid of five senses." .. that recognizes it's own nature due to self-arisen vidya, that is primordial wisdom / rigpa / dharmakaya

January 31 at 6:40am · Like

Kyle Dixon: You'd have to define 'concepts' more specifically, concepts can mean two things: (i) coarse imputation, thoughts and so on, and (ii) the perception of objects as conditioned phenomena which can arise, abide and cease.

'Devoid of the five senses' can also mean various things. It can point to the receding of the senses into the substratum, as in formless vacuum samādhi states or deep sleep. Or it can point to the cessation of mind which occurs in the direct recognition of dharmatā.

So Soh would have to unpack that statement further, but either way his view on this matter is excellent, and he and I agree on these things. I assume because he capitalized the 'M' in 'Mind' he is not referring to ones relative condition, but if that is a typo, and he meant 'mind', then the statement takes on an entirely different meaning.

At any rate you seem to be holding the view that there is indeed an established 'non-dual awareness' which occurs in the wake of these insights.

Either way, there is no term for 'non-dual awareness' which is found anywhere in the Dzogchen teachings.

Ones nature is 'non-dual' [advaya], but not in the sense you seem to be conveying, which appears to be more along the lines of advaita nonduality.

January 31 at 6:53am · Edited · Like · 3

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Formulating this in the style of "cessation" and similar expression is quite excellent.

The disappearance of the senses (and mind) is not a turning off of the senses, like going blind and deaf. Instead it is the dissolving of the structuring that we call the senses.

The senses are not *real*, they are not *actual*, they are empty. The senses and mind do not shut off in cessation because they're not there to be shut off.

The senses are not exactly distinct streams of sensory 'data'; The senses are imputations just like "table". Instead of the senses shutting off, they merely dissolve as structure.

But there's an enormous trap here.

In that 'state' where the senses (and mind) cease, since I'm here asserting the lack of distinction among the imputed sensory modalities, we automatically assume that the 'result' is a "featureless, monistic, nondual bubble world totally devoid of distinctions" in the sense of an undifferentiated mass or blob of awareness. But this a grave misunderstanding. The 'state' is quite simply beyond all notions, beyond sameness-and-difference. It is undifferentiated beyond any notions of difference-and-sameness, vastly empty, total simplicity.

The dissolving of the structures of experience—which together constitute the whole notion of experience, of existence-and-non-existence—is the very realization of non-arising of the structures. To see that the senses and mind were always non-arisen one must actually see their arising and passing away. This is completely non-negotiable.

February 2 at 8:55am · Edited · Like · 3

Justin Struble: one way to experientially verify this is to attain nirodha samapatti, during the cessation dharmata / the kayas are laid bare ... as the five wisdoms / nibbana .. rigpa can be recognized in the cessation, which is a direct self-arisen vidya that is not dependent upon any sense impression or phenomena whatsoever, it cannot be said to correspond to any sense door at all.

January 31 at 7:15am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: practicing dzogchen eventually results in the exact same recognition / fruition as the above.

January 31 at 7:18am · Like · 1

Robert Dominik: I wonder how many western practitioners have realised the Rainbow Body up until now.

January 31 at 7:22am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: I didn't even know that was possible til about a month ago. Knocked my socks off! Weird world this samsara/nirvana lol

January 31 at 7:26am · Like

Soh: Justin, the point however is to see that "Mind" (here not referring to a conceptual thought, nor the dzogchen word 'sems', but a non-conceptual presence of awareness) is another manifestation as equal as any other. As Thusness wrote in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/.../mistaken... :

"When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence."

Awakening to Reality: Buddha Nature is NOT "I Am"

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com

January 31 at 7:46am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

Soh: Also the way you describe nirodha samapatti is different from what is generally described in dho and suttas. In nirodha samapatti there is no awareness. What you're describing is 'nirvikalpa samadhi'. Check this out, its well written and does a comparison between nirodha samapatti and nirvikalpa samadhi. Written by someone from experience.

https://app.box.com/s/7u47emus4osjxzpnqs03

Keep it here as it is still draft phase.

SeraphDraft.pdf - File Shared from Box

app.box.com

January 31 at 7:50am · Edited · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Justin, it isn't that rigpa 'can' be recognized in that cessation, but that it (rigpa) directly ensues from it. Prior to that 'cessation' there was no knowledge of ones nature i.e. one was ignorant [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa] of that nature. After such an event, one directly sees uncontrived dharmatā, and so one is no longer ignorant of that nature, instead, there is a direct experiential knowledge [skt. vidyā, tib. rig pa] of that nature.

So that knowledge is recognition of the non-arising of mind. When it matures further it extends to a knowledge of the non-arising of phenomena. Ergo it is intimately related to the so-called sensory apparatus.

January 31 at 7:50am · Like · 1

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle, going by the Pali Canon, NS does not guarantee Awakening.

February 1 at 8:17am · Edited · Like

Justin Struble: Soh, I will certainly read what you have provided, but I am well aware of the way Nirodha Samapatti is/was traditionally presented at dho ... so I am aware that for example it is not traditionally presented that Rigpa is present during nirodha samapatti.. if you're familiar with kenneth folk however he was instructing certain practitioners to bring the recognition of rigpa into the practice of nirodha samapatti

Stian, while NS doesn't guarantee awakening, in the Anupadda sutta the buddha says sariputta became an arahant upon attaining NS. It has also been mapped to anagamihood.

P.S. yes stian, it is also possible to attain NS but without any recognition of rigpa.

January 31 at 8:02am · Edited · Like

Justin Struble: Kyle,

"So that knowledge is recognition of the non-arising of mind. When it matures further it extends to a knowledge of the non-arising of phenomena."

This seems to imply that the recognition that phenomena are unarisen is somehow not equal to the recogntion of mind as unarisen.

January 31 at 8:00am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Norbu made clear to me personally and in our times with him that rigpa is not some super Special Knowledge or insight, rather it's quite an easy insight and recognition. He said in clear English that the awareness as a "noticing" of any experience whether the "noticing" of emptiness, or movement or perceptions; that simple "noticing" that is noticing experience, is the always unconditioned rigpa. Rigpa is simply what is noticing experience. Recognizing this simplicity as being one's true nature as only this "noticing", is the wisdom aspect of rigpa which differentiates it from mere registering alaya. Notice what's noticing... that ever present "noticing" or presence is rigpa. It remains unconditioned at all times. Don't buy into this intellectual crap that leads one away from the utter simplicity of this recognition. This simple "noticing" has infinite depth and meaning... when prioritized in practice. No other study or practices are necessary. Come to know what's knowing. You are always only that which is knowing or noticing experience.

January 31 at 8:00am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Stian, neither is recognition of the nature of mind. All teachers state that recognition alone is insufficient.

January 31 at 8:03am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jax, yes that is the clarity of mind. Which is commonly what is pointed out in introduction because very few individuals are able to recognize the definitive view in the instance of introduction. The clarity of mind is the coarsest form of rigpa, and is therefore a suitable foundation for ones practice.

January 31 at 8:08am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: There is nothing which knows, that is the point which is to be recognized. Otherwise, yes the alleged knower is grasped at and reified as ones true identity, which is a deviation from the meaning of Dzogchen and the buddhadharma.

January 31 at 8:10am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Justin, yes the recognition of the nature of mind is not the realization of emptiness.

January 31 at 8:30am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle... you don't get Ati. The knowing or noticing is our spiritual nature our Buddha Nature. It can't be "reified". Its not "clarity", its what is the knowing or noticing quality of all moments as Norbu says. Its not "coarse", its the simple knowing that knows. That is the heart of rigpa, not a coarse level. There are no levels in rigpa. The Dharmakaya is the Dharmakaya. Rigpa is changeless knowingness, however the mind activities can come and go, but none of the karmic mind's activities condition the "knowing of them". You are mixing up lower yana views with Ati. Ati can't be found in books or from a teacher's lips. It can only be known for oneself.

January 31 at 9:00am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Stian, just for the record, by 'cessation' I meant recognition of the nature of mind.

Whether such knowledge can result from nirodha samāpatti I doubt, it sounds as if nirodha samāpatti is something like a vacuum state, I have no idea. At any rate the 'cessation' or better parsed 'recognition' I was referencing was cittatā.

January 31 at 9:04am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: There certainly is a refinement of rigpa that occurs, degrees of refinement, if you will.

Rigpa is not changeless but fluctuates. Ye shes is what does not 'change', so to speak... as in dharmatā does not fluctuate. Rigpa is ones knowledge of ye shes, and therefore is not fully stable until buddhahood.

The knowing or noticing is the mere clarity of mind. A necessary starting point, but far from definitive.

January 31 at 9:08am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: You don't get it Kyle... Ordinary "knowing" is the Ground of Being, so to speak. The knowing of that "knowing" is rigpa. The Ground is changeless, the knowing is changeless. The content changes but not the knowing of the content. The content in this case is "mind". Either the changless knowing has karmic mental content or not, but the knowing remains like a mirror. Sometimes yeshe arises sometimes karmic thoughts arise and release upon the arising. But the knowing remains as it always is. At the moment of knowing the knowing, the content is experienced as empty-form.

January 31 at 9:25am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: There is no 'ground of being' in Dzogchen, nor in the Buddhadharma in general. Incidentally, that which you refer to as the 'ground of being' is precisely what Vedanta and so on refers to as the ground of being, the reification of that capacity is the self.

It is true the continuity of rig pa is unceasing, however due to non-recognition of our nature that knowing capacity is susceptible to conditioning. Therefore clarity can become conditioned, and is, that is what makes a sentient being a sentient being; ignorance, and conditioning, which are referred to as 'the father and mother of samsara'.

The duality of content, and the knowing of the content, (the former changing and the latter unchanging), in our current condition is merely insight into the stillness and movement of mind. The combination of the two is 'mind'. The knowing of the stillness and movement is the clarity of mind, the coarsest form of rig pa. Also referred to as 'the rig pa that apprehends characteristics'.

The knowing does not remain like a mirror, but can become ignorant and conditioned. Ones definitive nature is what remains unstained like the capacity of a mirror. The 'knowing' can either know that nature, or be ignorant of it. When the knowing knows its nature, that is the definitive rig pa. When the knowing is ignorant of its nature, it is the mind.

This is why recognition, training, and finalization are required. That so-called refinement occurs from within the continuity of rig pa, and that knowledge is refined through insight and familiarization.

This is why The Blazing Lamp states:

"That which ripens the basis itself into the result, is insight;

by virtue of insight bringing the kāyas into maturity,

the dharmakāya of the essence itself

ripens into the dharmakāya of primordial wisdom."

January 31 at 9:48am · Like · 4

Jackson Peterson: The translation of the Longchenpa's Choying Dzod, by the Padma Translation Committee uses "Ground of Being" for Zhi. It is an excellent translation and rendering for English speakers. It captures the "nature of being" that is the essential quality of a Buddha, Vajrasattva and sentient beings in general. Again trying to define Dzogchen within the philosophical structures of early Buddhism is too limiting at best. Dzogchen should be set free from the shackles of Buddhist polemics. As Norbu says: "Dzogchen is not Buddhist nor belongs to any religious tradition in which it finds itself embedded".

Your further descriptions regarding the "mirror" and rigpa are actually heretical views to Dzogchen and are part of those teachers who confused Garab Dorje's pure Dzogchen and the gradual systems of the lower yanas. The Natural State as Dharmakaya has never become contaminated or impure by any appearances or conceptual constructions within the karmic mind, sem. It is through the capacity of the Natural State that we perceive and know. That perceiving and knowing is forever pure. The only changing element is the content. But in fact, the empty nature of the afflicted content is itself the Natural State! Here the analogy of the mirror and its reflections is most apt.

Kyle Dixon, you are reading too many books on Dzogchen and your mentor is misleading you into confusing lower yana views with original Dzogchen. Dzogchen is not learned through reading translated scriptures and texts.I know you are a "newby" to Dzogchen, and that is to be expected by those graced with a sharp intellect.

Rather Dzogchen is learned in direct yogic insight. It is clear your mind's attachment to intellectualization has ham-strung your actual realization of the true purport and fruit of Dzogchen. Since you like to study so much, I would read all the instructions on "Gom-med" or "non-meditation" and put those instructions into practice as taught in Mahamudra and Dzogchen. Its time to move beyond your intellectual constructions and to experience the naked state of your own Aware Knowing. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's "Mahamudra, The Moonlight, The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation" section of "Non-Meditation" would by quite useful for you...

January 31 at 9:09pm · Edited · Like

Anurag Jain: Great to see you in action Kyle ! I enjoyed the dialogue

January 31 at 10:52pm · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, 'ground of being' is considered by most to be an incorrect translation, as there is no 'being', much less 'beings' which would require a 'ground' from the standpoint of the basis [gzhi]. The tantras even clarify this point specifically. Sentient beings are product of ignorance. Dzogchen is not 'buddhist' but it is the condition of Buddhas, and therefore never contradicts that view.

February 1 at 2:08am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Misconceptions like this actually sparked a huge thread on vajracakra not too long ago...

Mustang Cave wrote:

"The ego or seperate soul-self is a concept.

God, the world, the mind, desires, action, sorrow,

and all other things are all concepts.......

There is nothing whatsoever except concepts.......

The mind is unreal, a magic show, absolutely non-existent....

Abiding without concepts is the undifferentiated state.....

the Reality of the Supreme Absolute Being."

But for some reason you chose to focus on the last line. Is it that attention spans are decreasing due to too much internet? Are we speed-reading away subtle meaning?

Malcolm wrote:

You can find this kind of sentiment also in Samkhya. For example, the only thing that is real are the three gunas of mulaprakṛti. All the evolutes are unreal delusions. But purusha and prakriti are real. And purusha is an undifferentiated state of being.

Anyway, Dzogchen rejects Advaita and Samkhya explicitly, even mentioned Shankaracarya, etc., by name in the rig pa rang shar tantra.

Mustang Cave wrote:

In the context of abiding without concepts in the undifferential state (which is without concepts) we have being or beingness.

This being or beingness is not our individual selfhood and neither is it only 'other' and so it is supreme. It is not dependent on coming and going or an original cause and so it is absolute. It is energy and makes itself known to itself and so it is being.

Malcolm wrote:

There is no absolute being in Dzogchen.

Mustang Cave wrote:

If you have a good understanding of Dzogchen then everything fits. If you have some false pride or arrogance then you easily become dismissive and then hardly anything fits with your view.

Malcolm wrote:

If you have a poor understanding of Dzogchen, then you think that everything that sounds "nondual" fits with Dzogchen. In this case, nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no ultimate ground of being in Dzogchen for the simple reason that Dzogchen rejects all four extremes of being, non-being, both and neither. The basis, original purity, has no "being" per se, since if it did, it could not express itself, since it would be nonempty and permanent.

February 1 at 2:17am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Even Jean-Luc Achard attempted to politely tell you your notions of 'being' in Dzogpa Chenpo are misguided:

Jax: You can tell when it is present in your mind as it always calls itself by it's favorite names: "I" and "me". Our sphere of Awareness is who we actually are, like an orb of Being, without form, boundary or center.

Jean-Luc: This is not Dzogchen either. If you want to refer to Dzogchen as a state, you have to give up the vocabulary Being and similar things. Because then when people read that this state is beyond Being and Non-being, they don’t understand anymore. This is where re-formulation is a delusion and mistake in itself.

February 1 at 2:29am · Like

Kyle Dixon: The Unwritten Tantra states:

"Since my self-originated wisdom originally is pure of delusion, it is beyond the extremes of being and non-being."

February 1 at 2:31am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/.../kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html

Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (1)

www.accesstoinsight.org

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at J...See More

February 1 at 2:32am · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: That dimension is the non-arising of phenomena i.e. emptiness.

There is no being, non-being, both or neither in Dzogchen. Those four extremes arise from non-recognition of the basis, and are the epitome of ignorance.

February 1 at 2:34am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: that dimension is the kayas of the buddha.

February 1 at 2:40am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: which includes cognizant emptiness; knowingness - aka primordial awareness.

February 1 at 2:37am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The basis [gzhi] is emptiness free of extremes:

"The natural state of the basis is free from elaboration:

It is not existent - even the conquerors cannot see it;

It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana;

It is not both or neither - it goes beyond being an object of speech;

May I realize the natural state of the basis of the Great Perfection.

Because its essence is empty, it is free from the limit of eternalism;

Because its nature is luminous, it is free from the extreme of nihilism;

Because its compassion is unobstructed, it is the basis of the manifold manifestations;

Though it can be divided into three, in truth there is no difference.

May I realize the natural state of the basis of the Great Perfection.

[The basis] is inconceivable and free from imputation,

Destroying partiality toward existence and nonexistence;

In expressing this truth even the tongues of the conquerors are thwarted;

It is the expanse of the vast and profound luminosity, without beginning, middle, or end.

May I realize the natural state of the basis of the Great Perfection.

In my own essence, stainless, unborn and ever-pure,

The radiance of unconditioned spontaneous presence rises up;

Realizing this as the union of vidyā and emptiness, without looking for it elsewhere,

And thus arriving at the full realization of the basis,

May I not deviate from the essential points of the path..."

- Jigme Lingpa

February 1 at 2:37am · Like · 3

Kyle Dixon: That 'cognizant knowingness' is never separate from the essence, which is emptiness, ergo it is empty, and free from extremes.

February 1 at 2:37am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: There is no 'being' in any of it.

February 1 at 2:37am · Like

Justin Struble: using the term "being" doesn't necessarily mean one is implying truly or inherently "existent" .

February 1 at 2:38am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Yes, it does.

February 1 at 2:38am · Like

Justin Struble: :)

February 1 at 2:38am · Like

Kyle Dixon: 'Being' in the context of Dzogchen is a fantasy of eternalists and those with a poor understanding of the teaching.

Just like 'awareness', the term 'being' is also an unfortunate byproduct of some early translations.

February 1 at 2:41am · Like

Justin Struble: nah, it's not an issue if one does not get hung up on the language / semantics. in the larger context of dzogchen texts "awareness" and "being" can be used skillfully.

February 1 at 2:45am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: there is no english language we can use to point to the basis with 100% accuracy.

February 1 at 2:46am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: for example anyone could take issue with you using the term "emptiness" and say it is nihilism / extreme..

February 1 at 2:47am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: even though through the context of our discussion we know that is not the case.

February 1 at 2:47am · Like

Justin Struble: likewise i think Jackson understands "the ground of being" .. as precisely the basis that is free of extremes.

February 1 at 2:48am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: That would mean they don't understand emptiness, which is a freedom from extremes. Once it is explained to them, there should be no confusion, and if there is, what can you do.

February 1 at 2:49am · Like

Justin Struble: Kyle, i agree but the way we use emptiness in the context of buddhism is a special meaning for that term.

February 1 at 2:50am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson's presentation of Dzogchen has always been tinged with an eternalistic leaning. Which is fine, it is his own opinion and he's more than welcome to it. But for the sake of balance, it will not go unchallenged.

February 1 at 2:51am · Like

Justin Struble:

February 1 at 2:51am · Like

Justin Struble: that's fine by me all the dialogue is welcome and appreciated.

February 1 at 2:51am · Like

Kyle Dixon: I do disagree that 'awareness' and 'being' can be used skillfully. Especially not in reference to the basis.

The only 'being' you find is 'sentient beings', which are those who are ignorant of their nature.

February 1 at 2:52am · Like

Kyle Dixon: 'Awareness' is simply a bad translation of rig pa.

All beings are aware, my cat is aware.

Rig pa is something completely different.

February 1 at 2:54am · Like

Justin Struble: kyle, all sentient beings have rigpa / awareness the same as the buddha.. they just lack recognition.

February 1 at 2:55am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Right! Except identifying awareness is incredibly simple, we are cognizant and aware, there it is.

Rig pa on the other hand, is the knowledge which ensues from recognizing the non-arising and the unreality of that cognizance... identifying that in a definitive sense is far more difficult.

February 1 at 2:57am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: kyle, while i understand your point, i think calling rigpa knowledge or interpreting it as a knowledge, can be misleading.

cognizance / awareness .. when it is recognized directly, already "contains" the knowledge of rigpa.. it's essence / nature is primordial purity / primordial freedom .. and as long as awareness / cognizance notices itself clearly, this "knowledge" is inevitable / very natural.

it's not something made anew or intellectual knowledge that must be developed. that wisdom was always an intrinsic essence / nature of cognizance / awareness. this is why the "knowledge" of rigpa is inseparable from awareness / cognizance itself, and so it can be misleading to call it knowledge.

this is why it is called self-arisen vidya.

February 1 at 3:18am · Edited · Like · 1

John Tan: Hi Kyle, is dzogchen direct introduction to clarity a direct apprehension of Awareness? That is, piercing through all discursive thoughts - no thoughts; a gnosis or intuitive insight of it's original face. A zen satori in this case.

February 1 at 3:34am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: Justin, not at all. Cognizance is simply the clarity of mind. Identifying cognizance is quite simple and does not constitute a recognition of your nature which is the antithesis of ignorance. Therefore clarity is not the definitive view. Clarity must be sealed with emptiness, that is the nature of mind.

February 1 at 3:25am · Like

Justin Struble: kyle, i never mentioned once the term "clarity". the nature / essence of mind / cognizance / awareness IS empty, unestablished, unsupported... as long as mind / awareness / cognizance notices itself clearly, the "knowledge" of rigpa is intrinsic to cognizance / awareness.

that nature of mind is cognizant emptiness, suffused with awareness. the basis has the three aspects pointed out as the kayas.. even though in truth they are an inseparable union.

February 1 at 3:31am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: You're correct that wisdom [ye shes] does not require development. Your knowledge [rig pa] of wisdom, on the other hand does.

February 1 at 3:32am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: John, that depends on the individual. The direct introduction is never meant to be an introduction to clarity. The teacher always attempts to point out the uncontrived nature of mind, but few students have the capacity to recognize that right away and so often it is the clarity of mind which is ascertained. Then from there other practices are available, such as khorde rushan and the sems dzins, which will help the student to recognize their definitive nature.

February 1 at 3:37am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Justin, the recognition of the nature of mind is nirvana. It is not as simple as you make it out to be. That is why working with the coarse aspect of rig pa, as the clarity of mind is an acceptable foundation for ones practice, otherwise no one would be able to practice dzogchen.

February 1 at 3:39am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Again you seem to be pointing out the relative nature of mind as mere clarity. Sems nyid is a whole other animal completely.

February 1 at 3:41am · Like

Justin Struble: as before, i am not pointing to mere clarity.

February 1 at 3:47am · Like

Justin Struble: it should be obvious, that in referring to the basis / kayas, that one is not pointing to "mere clarity" as you call it.

February 1 at 3:48am · Edited · Like

Justin Struble: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nature_of_mind

Nature of mind - Rigpa Wiki

www.rigpawiki.org

Nature of mind (Skt. cittatā; Tib. སེམས་ཉིད་, semnyi; Wyl.sems nyid) — the insep...See More [Cut off website preview]

February 1 at 3:50am · Like · Remove Preview

Justin Struble: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Awareness

Awareness - Rigpa Wiki

www.rigpawiki.org

February 1 at 3:50am · Like · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: The kāyas, as you pointed out, are inseparable. Therefore any and every aspect of the kāyas is empty, non-arisen and free from extremes.

February 1 at 3:51am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: right, and therefor every aspect of the kayas is inseparable from awareness / luminosity / energy. emptiness is not any more fundamental than nor separate from any other aspect of the trikaya.

February 1 at 3:53am · Like

Justin Struble: it is equally innaccurate to speak of emptiness without mentioning awareness, as it is to speak of awareness without mentioning emptiness.

February 1 at 3:53am · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: I love this conversation!!

February 1 at 3:55am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Right, just as those 'rigpa wiki' entries show; the nature of mind is the inseparability of clarity and emptiness. Or as they put it; awareness [shes pa] and emptiness.

Whether clarity [gsal ba] or awareness [shes pa] is used, as long as it's understood that the recognition they are empty, meaning; unborn, non-arisen etc., is what reveals the ultimate nature of mind [cittatā], then that is correct.

February 1 at 3:57am · Edited · Like · 4

Kyle Dixon: Justin, as everything is empty, there is nothing which isn't empty, and so whatever designation or capacity you could possibly conjure up, such as; awareness or cognizance (whatever term you want to use) since it never leaves the realm of conventionality, it is a given (because all conventional designations are equal in that they are empty).

However that isn't the point, the point is to actually recognize the nature of that awareness or cognizance.

February 1 at 4:07am · Edited · Like · 2

Justin Struble: The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities―essence, nature (Tib. རང་བཞིན་, rangshyin; Wyl. rang bzhin), and compassionate energy, or responsiveness. The second quality is that its nature is cognizant, being spontaneous presence or lhundrup (Tib. ལྷུན་སྒྲུབ་, Wyl. lhun sgrub).

While the essence of mind is empty, like the sky, its nature is cognizant and clear, like the light of the sun. But when we compare the nature of mind to the sky, it has something the sky does not have, that is its clarity and cognizance. We are aware, we can see, we can hear and we can feel. That is the cognizant nature. Everything appears and manifests out of this cognizant nature, which is sometimes also referred to as ‘luminosity’ or ‘Clear Light’.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nature

Nature - Rigpa Wiki

www.rigpawiki.org

The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities? The s...See More [Cut of website preview]

February 1 at 4:12am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

Justin Struble:

February 1 at 4:03am · Like

Justin Struble: The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities―essence, nature and compassionate energy. The third quality of the Ground is its compassionate energy (Tib. ཐུགས་རྗེ་, tukjé; Wyl. thugs rje).

Just as the sky and sunlight are indivisible, so the empty essence and cognizant nature are always a unity. This inseparability or unity is called ‘compassionate energy’, the manifestation of the compassionate energy of the enlightened mind. This unceasing compassionate energy is described as:

unconfined,

unobstructed, and

all-pervasive.

It too possesses three wonderful qualities:

the wisdom that knows,

the compassion that is loving and caring, and

the power that is able to liberate, protect, and benefit beings and fulfil the enlightened activity of the buddhas.

Tulku Tsullo, a student of Tertön Sogyal Lerab Lingpa, describes it in the following way:

The manifest power of that wisdom is capable of arising as anything whatsoever, and therefore this compassionate energy pervades all phenomena. All the pure phenomena of nirvana and impure phenomena of samsara―whatever there might be―are merely appearances arising to one’s own mind. All the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are like this; there is not a single phenomenon in samsara or nirvana that is not like this, and which exists from its own side. The nature of conceptual ideas evaluating phenomena and also non-conceptual states of mind is the wisdom of rigpa’s pure awareness. Therefore, in short, all the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are but a display arising through the creative power of the wisdom of rigpa within our own minds.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php...

Compassionate energy - Rigpa Wiki

www.rigpawiki.org

The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities―essenc...See More [Cut of website preview]

February 1 at 4:12am · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: ^ I fixed my last post, it was worded badly.

February 1 at 4:08am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Justin, again it isn't so much 'luminosity' as it is the lhun grub, or natural perfection, of emptiness.

Like a moon reflected in water. The fact that the image (of the moon in the water) is not really the moon, is the emptiness of the reflection. The fact that the image is apparent, yet non-arisen and therefore never corrupted, is the natural perfection.

The kāyas are simply an excellent description of emptiness. Accounting for the way phenomena are apparent yet unreal.

February 1 at 4:20am · Edited · Like · 1

Justin Struble: the kayas are not described / pointed to skillfully by simply labelling them all emptiness... who would that benefit? and why do you feel it necessary to do so?

February 1 at 4:19am · Like

Justin Struble:

February 1 at 4:19am · Like

Justin Struble: luminosity is just as much natural perfection as emptiness is.

February 1 at 4:20am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: personally, i think we could replace every use of "emptiness" with "primordial purity" ... would you feel the need to correct that?

February 1 at 4:23am · Like

Kyle Dixon: You seem to be viewing emptiness as a negation or absence, this is an incorrect view which is causing you to seek balance in an interpretation of affirmation or presence on the part of the so-called form kāyas.

February 1 at 4:25am · Like

Kyle Dixon: What you are calling 'luminosity' is simply the natural non-arisen formation of wisdom.

February 1 at 4:25am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: perhaps you assume people are viewing things as inherently existent when they are not and that is why you think it is necessary to continually emphasize "emptiness" ?

February 1 at 4:26am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: i don't view emptiness as negation, i view emptiness as "primordial purity" and "primordial freedom" ... however i do find it peculiar that you seem to emphasize emptiness to the exclusion of the other equal qualities of the kayas so frequently.

February 1 at 4:27am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: my impression is that the continual emphasis on emptiness is like a habitual pattern that operates in response to presumed misunderstanding / wrong views in others.. often when said presumed misunderstandings are not really present.

February 1 at 4:28am · Like

Justin Struble: i am not singling you out in this, kyle as it seems like a general theme in this group.

February 1 at 4:28am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Loppön Malcolm has also been very clear that 'luminosity' is a synonym for emptiness.

February 1 at 4:31am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: emptiness! hehe

February 1 at 4:32am · Like

Justin Struble: i agree, and emptiness is a synonym for luminosity, as they are inseparable.

February 1 at 4:33am · Like · 2

Stephanie Marie: Cool. I hope I see this luminosity some day lol

February 1 at 4:34am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Emptiness must be emphasized due to e flagrant misconceptions which contribute to people seeing Dzogchen as somehow positing eternalistic rhetoric. For example, there are other small Dzogchen groups here on Facebook where people have actually said they enjoy Dzogchen because it's so similar to Vedanta. It is sad how astray people are led.

February 1 at 4:36am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: "Emptiness must be emphasized due to e flagrant misconceptions which contribute to people seeing Dzogchen as somehow positing eternalistic rhetoric."

holding this view / bias ... is holding an assumption that the teachings of dzogchen cannot stand on their own, and it also seems to fail to recognize the intelligence / wisdom of others. we should avoid assuming that others will fail to understand the teachings imo.

otherwise, our own activity based on those misconceptions could contribute to another unskillful imbalance.

February 1 at 4:39am · Like · 3

Justin Struble: good intentions which are based on misunderstandings / assumptions can be harmful.

February 1 at 4:40am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Trust me the teachings can stand on their own.

Unfortunately the translations and subsequent interpretations given by unqualified 'teachers' cannot.

February 1 at 4:42am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: The misunderstandings are rampant.

February 1 at 4:43am · Like

Justin Struble: lets avoid overcompensating. it is especially ironic and humorous how, if we happen to hold a bias that people are likely to fall into a view of eternalism, and we overcompensate by over emphasizing "emptiness" for example .. people might often respond by trying to counter one's own over-emphasis of emptiness... if one is not careful, this might lead to one thinking lots of people are holding "eternalistic" views when in fact, they are simply responding to one's initial overcompensation / bias to begin with lol.

February 1 at 4:43am · Like

Justin Struble:

February 1 at 4:44am · Like

Justin Struble: two parties could become locked in such a self fulfilling prophesy for quite a long while, if they weren't careful..

February 1 at 4:45am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: ^___^

February 1 at 4:45am · Like

Kyle Dixon: I don't see it as an overcompensation.

February 1 at 4:50am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Nor am I overly concerned if people choose to delude themselves and err into extreme views.

I will however give my opinion here in this forum and others I frequent and people can take it or leave it. It is after all just my opinion.

February 1 at 4:52am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: That's good I like your opinion Kyle helps me see where I'm erring

February 1 at 4:53am · Like

Justin Struble: I'm all for free speech. I just think we should be equally mindful that nihilistic extreme views are just as pernicious as eternalistic extreme views and should therefor take care to avoid fueling either.

February 1 at 4:54am · Like

Justin Struble: So we should strive towards a balanced approach, like the middle way teachings have always demonstrated.

February 1 at 4:55am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: The fact that you're interpreting what I'm saying as 'nihilistic' says a lot in and of itself.

February 1 at 4:58am · Like

Kyle Dixon: The balanced approach is emptiness.

February 1 at 4:58am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Emptiness is the middle way.

February 1 at 4:58am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: The fact that you're still assuming that I am interpreting emptiness as nihilistic says a lot about your bias / assumptions.

February 1 at 4:58am · Like

Justin Struble: You have clearly stated:

"Emptiness must be emphasized due to e flagrant misconceptions which contribute to people seeing Dzogchen as somehow positing eternalistic rhetoric. For example, there are other small Dzogchen groups here on Facebook where people have actually said they enjoy Dzogchen because it's so similar to Vedanta. It is sad how astray people are led."

Your responses are clearly based from this bias / view.

February 1 at 5:00am · Like

Kyle Dixon: It isn't a bias, it is the balance. Emptiness is the freedom from extremes.

February 1 at 5:00am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: if you believe this to be the case, you must also acknowledge that people can also fall into nihilistic forms of wrong view. the skillful way to address this is to be mindful of both potential forms of wrong view, and address the dialogue accordingly.

February 1 at 5:01am · Like

Justin Struble: the bias isn't emptiness!!! LOL

February 1 at 5:01am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Relatively, in the context of this discussion, yes it is a bias, since two opinions are being expressed. But emptiness proper is not a bias, it is the pacification of biases.

February 1 at 5:01am · Like

Justin Struble: THIS is the bias:

"due to e flagrant misconceptions which contribute to people seeing Dzogchen as somehow positing eternalistic rhetoric."

February 1 at 5:01am · Like

Justin Struble: i agree that emptiness is not a bias!

February 1 at 5:02am · Like

Justin Struble:

February 1 at 5:02am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Okay egos settle down

From my limited perspective you are both saying the same thing essentially, and it has been Incredibly helpful for me and a lot of others probably

Enormous benefit!!!

February 1 at 5:02am · Like

Justin Struble: with right view / understanding of sunyata.. that is indeed middle way. but we must acknowledge that individuals can misunderstand emptiness and fall into both forms of extreme views, nihilism and eternalism.

February 1 at 5:03am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: THAT is the obvious. If seeing that as an obvious occurrence in the context of the current state of affairs makes me biased, then I can live with that.

February 1 at 5:04am · Like

Justin Struble: and having acknowledged this, we should take care and be mindful not to fuel either form / extreme of wrong views.

February 1 at 5:04am · Like

Justin Struble: that's all i'm saying.

February 1 at 5:04am · Like

Kyle Dixon: I haven't promulgated any extreme views.

As stated above; being that all conventions are equal in that they are empty, they are all a given.

Emphasizing the emptiness of these conventions is what allows or liberation from seeing them as inherent. There's no reason to focus on appearances, awareness, or clarity and so on. They are a given in the conventional sense, it is recognizing the emptiness of these which will bring release, not the other way around.

February 1 at 5:10am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: emptiness, luminosity, cognizance, awareness; cognizant emptiness suffused with awareness .. compassionate energy .. the trikaya / kayas .. these are all the middle way / right view .. inseparable. emphasizing any one of these qualities to the exclusion of others doesn't create a dialogue that is any more middle way than simply presenting them all in a balanced and clear manner.

February 1 at 5:10am · Like · 1

Stephanie Marie: That's a good point Kyle

February 1 at 5:11am · Like

Justin Struble: lol

February 1 at 5:11am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Emptiness is the middle way.

Cognizance and awareness are designations which are to be recognized as empty.

Emptiness is also never cognizant. Emptiness is the non-arising of cognizance.

February 1 at 5:12am · Like

Justin Struble: "Emptiness is also never cognizant. Emptiness is the non-arising of cognizance." wrong.

February 1 at 5:12am · Like

Stephanie Marie: And justin; though I've never seen clear light,so when people say clear and luminous I'm waiting for something to happen, and that's probably hindering my efforts

February 1 at 5:13am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Not wrong in the least.

Emptiness is never ever presented as cognizant.

Ever.

February 1 at 5:13am · Like

Stephanie Marie Good: point to justin I mean

February 1 at 5:13am · Like

Justin Struble: "Emptiness is the non-arising of cognizance." dead wrong.

February 1 at 5:13am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Emptiness is not a capacity which can perform functions such as being cognizant. Emptiness is the lack of inherency of these designations.

February 1 at 5:13am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Again, in the context of exploring 'cognizance', if we are to bring emptiness into the picture, emptiness would be addressing the non-arising of cognizance.

So not 'dead wrong' at all, but you're welcome to believe whatever you'd like.

February 1 at 5:15am · Like

Justin Struble: cognizance has always been unarisen, free from the four extremes.

February 1 at 5:15am · Like

Justin Struble: Emptiness is never ever presented as cognizant.

Ever.

cognizant emptiness, suffused with awareness. - tulku urgyen rinpoche

February 1 at 5:16am · Like

Justin Struble: it appears that you're presenting a view that emptiness negates or is the absence of cognizance.

February 1 at 5:17am · Like

Justin Struble: but emptiness is not the absence of cognizance. it is however the recognition that cognizance is unconditioned, and un-arisen in that sense.

February 1 at 5:17am · Like

Justin Struble: ie; free from the four extremes.

February 1 at 5:18am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Right, but ignorance of that is what causes cognizance to be reified as a personal sentience which as truly arisen in contrast to other 'objects', is extended in time as a personal reference point, and will eventually cease.

This is what constitutes a sentient being.

It is the direct knowledge of non-arising which is what allows for a liberation from the misconceived notions of inherency attached to cognizance.

So yes, cognizance is innately non-arisen. But these systems aren't concerned with that. What they are concerned with is the ignorance or knowledge of that fact.

February 1 at 5:18am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Emptiness negates the misunderstanding of inherency, as a personal reference point or personal sentience, which is attached to cognizance. That misunderstanding causes suffering. Emptiness is the recognition of that misunderstanding and revels it to be a misunderstanding, thus alleviating the ignorant misconception.

February 1 at 5:19am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Tulku Urgyen never spoke english in his life, so whatever you are reading are translations of his expositions on Dzogchen. Whether it is attempting to point out the nature of mind and so on.

February 1 at 5:20am · Like

Justin Struble: realizing emptiness is realizing the primordial purity / primordial freedom from grasping of cognizance.. it is cognizance itself; mind's intrinsic nature which is primordially free from this grasping.

February 1 at 5:21am · Like · 3

Jackson Peterson: That is correct Justin Struble!

February 1 at 5:21am · Like · 2

Jackson Peterson: Those translations are perfectly accurate!

February 1 at 5:22am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Not that cognizance is unconditioned. Cognizance is surely conditioned because it is a relative designation. What is unconditioned is the non-arising of cognizance, which in turn means that cognizance is truly unconditioned in that it is non-arisen.

'Unconditioned' however does not mean that cognizance is unconditioned in the sense of the way such a notion is presented in Vedanta and so on.

Unconditioned means two different things, or holds two different meanings from tradition to tradition, in that respect.

February 1 at 5:23am · Like

Kyle Dixon: That is not correct, and for the most part those translations are accurate, however they use english terms which carry subtle meanings, or suggest things which cause them to be misconstrued as stating something else.

February 1 at 5:24am · Like

Justin Struble: your language appears to be interpreting emptiness as negating cognizance.

February 1 at 5:25am · Like

Justin Struble: cognizance is not a relative designation, it is pointing to our buddha nature.

February 1 at 5:25am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Negating the misconception of inherency. Emptiness reveals that cognizance cannot be found as a truly established independent quality.

February 1 at 5:26am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Cognizance is not your buddha nature. Wherever did you hear that?

February 1 at 5:26am · Like

Justin Struble: which is unconditioned, unsupported, unestablished.

February 1 at 5:26am · Like

Justin Struble http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nature

Nature - Rigpa Wiki

www.rigpawiki.org

The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities? The s...See More

February 1 at 5:26am · Like · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Yes, unconditioned and unestablished because it is empty.

February 1 at 5:26am · Like

Justin Struble: the fact that cognizance is empty does not negate it or mean it is not spontaneously present for a buddha. the fact that cognizance is empty means that cognizance is primordially free from grasping, primordially pure.

February 1 at 5:28am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: If you think cognizance itself is unconditioned, unsupported, unestablished, then you have erred into eternalism and your view is no different than Vedanta and so on.

February 1 at 5:28am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle's fundamental error is his attempt to see and relegate Dzogchen teachings through the lens of lower yana Buddhist polemic. Dzogchen is not a Buddhist teaching. Nor is it a Vajrayana teaching... It was only embedded in this vehicle like Sufism was embedded in Islam and Kabbalah in Judaism. Dzogchen is like "physics" or "chemistry" and has no affiliation with any religion or philosophy. It is simply an explanation of the way our spiritual nature manifests and how one can reclaim what is already our spiritual heritage.

February 1 at 5:29am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The fact that cognizance is empty means cognizance is non-arisen.

Primordial purity is emptiness.

Freedom from grasping only occurs once it is seen that the alleged reference point (cognizance) which could grasp is non-arisen.

February 1 at 5:30am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: because cognizance / awareness is primordially free from grasping, it is unestablished, unsupported, unconditioned.

this is not erring into the extremes of eternalism, or nihilism, because there is no inherent existence or non-existence, both, or neither in relation to primordial awareness / tathata. .. there is no grasping or clinging to one's nature as a substantial self whatsoever. no reification.

February 1 at 5:30am · Like

Justin Struble: cognizance is not a reference point.

February 1 at 5:31am · Like

Stephanie Marie: I did hear the Dalai Lama say it was "the highest" form of buddhist teaching.

I love that Tenzin Gyatzo lol

February 1 at 5:31am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Yes, cognizance is a reference point when it is reified as you reify it.

February 1 at 5:31am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Cognizance, not the consciousness of the fifth skandha, IS an independent "presence" not conditioned or obstructed by any phenomena, like the mirror not influenced by its own reflections in perfect non-duality.

February 1 at 5:31am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Cognizance is the clarity [gsal ba] of mind [sems]. It is therefore always conditioned.

February 1 at 5:32am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle you are no expert on translations other than parroting Malcolm who is also no expert on translations. You are just saying that to negate what refutes your lower yana views...l

February 1 at 5:33am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, your charge that I attempt to present Dzogchen in the view of the so-called lower yanas is a reflection of your own view, but that is okay.

February 1 at 5:33am · Like

Justin Struble: Our Mind is primordially free from grasping, reification, primordially pure. unconfined, unobstructed, all pervasive.

February 1 at 5:33am · Like · 2

Justin Struble: The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities―essence, nature and compassionate energy. The third quality of the Ground is its compassionate energy (Tib. ཐུགས་རྗེ་, tukjé; Wyl. thugs rje).

Just as the sky and sunlight are indivisible, so the empty essence and cognizant nature are always a unity. This inseparability or unity is called ‘compassionate energy’, the manifestation of the compassionate energy of the enlightened mind. This unceasing compassionate energy is described as:

unconfined,

unobstructed, and

all-pervasive.

It too possesses three wonderful qualities:

the wisdom that knows,

the compassion that is loving and caring, and

the power that is able to liberate, protect, and benefit beings and fulfil the enlightened activity of the buddhas.

Tulku Tsullo, a student of Tertön Sogyal Lerab Lingpa, describes it in the following way:

The manifest power of that wisdom is capable of arising as anything whatsoever, and therefore this compassionate energy pervades all phenomena. All the pure phenomena of nirvana and impure phenomena of samsara―whatever there might be―are merely appearances arising to one’s own mind. All the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are like this; there is not a single phenomenon in samsara or nirvana that is not like this, and which exists from its own side. The nature of conceptual ideas evaluating phenomena and also non-conceptual states of mind is the wisdom of rigpa’s pure awareness. Therefore, in short, all the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are but a display arising through the creative power of the wisdom of rigpa within our own minds.

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php...

Compassionate energy - Rigpa Wiki

www.rigpawiki.org

The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities―essenc...See More [Cut off website preview]

February 1 at 5:33am · Like · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: The 'lower yana' view aspersion directed towards me is a straw man argument. Completely unfounded.

February 1 at 5:34am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Justin, yes, the mind is primordially free of grasping and so on if its nature is recognized. Otherwise the mind IS grasping by definition.

February 1 at 5:35am · Like

Justin Struble: The nature of our mind is awareness / cognizance / luminosity / clear light. KNOWING. spontaneous presence.

February 1 at 5:36am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, neither are you or Justin 'experts' on this topic. So let's leave the playing field level, as it is.

February 1 at 5:36am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: The Dharmakaya, never grasps... you are only and have only been the Dharmakaya... the rest is mental day dreaming..

February 1 at 5:36am · Like

Justin Struble: The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities―essence, nature (Tib. རང་བཞིན་, rangshyin; Wyl. rang bzhin), and compassionate energy, or responsiveness. The second quality is that its nature is cognizant, being spontaneous pr...See More

Nature - Rigpa Wiki

www.rigpawiki.org

The Ground of Dzogchen is described as being endowed with three qualities? The s...See More

February 1 at 5:36am · Like · Remove Preview

Kyle Dixon: Justin, that would be incorrect. The nature of your mind is nondual emptiness and clarity i.e. the non-arising of clarity.

Awareness, cognizance and so on by themselves are not the nature of your mind. They are the mind.

February 1 at 5:37am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, you are describing the clarity of mind.

February 1 at 5:38am · Like

Justin Struble: incorrect, kyle. see the above links.

February 1 at 5:38am · Like

Jackson Peterson: No, empty aware quality of mind is the mind's nature: Sem Nyid

February 1 at 5:38am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The above links are not an authority I would reference, so thank you for the suggestion but no thank you.

February 1 at 5:38am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, that would be incorrect, the empty aware quality is the relative nature of mind, i.e. clarity.

The ultimate nature of mind [sems nyid] is the non-arising of that clarity.

February 1 at 5:39am · Like

Justin Struble: You can claim that translations and various other sources are wrong, Kyle, but that suggests that your view / understanding deviates from tradition.

February 1 at 5:39am · Like

Kyle Dixon: I never said that article is wrong.

February 1 at 5:39am · Like

Jackson Peterson: Kyle only refers to texts... his experience obviously is not that of a yogi, but rather one of Sakyapa ala Malcolm, or like a Gelugpa academic.

February 1 at 5:39am · Like

Justin Struble: Kyle, please define "the non-arising of that clarity" .. what do you mean by non-arising.

February 1 at 5:39am · Like

Jackson Peterson: When you present any text that contradicts Kyle's perverted view of Dzogchen he says"oh, you just cherry pick" or "They mistranslated that".

February 1 at 5:40am · Like

Jackson Peterson: I have seen this for almost two years...

February 1 at 5:41am · Like

Justin Struble:

February 1 at 5:41am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, yes you usually do revert to ad hominem attacks that I have no experience and so on.

February 1 at 5:41am · Like

Jackson Peterson: The Clear Light Mind of the Dharmakaya does not "arise" Kyle...

February 1 at 5:42am · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: That Clear Light Mind is "Pure Knowing Awareness" the nirvanic mind of a Buddha.

February 1 at 5:43am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: ^ Which is not equivalent to advaita, because there is no reification / selfhood present. No grasping, no view of inherency whatsoever, primordial freedom / purity.

February 1 at 5:44am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, the clear light is revealed through the recognition of the nature of mind.

February 1 at 5:45am · Like

Jackson Peterson: The Clear Light and the Nature of Mind are inseparable...

February 1 at 5:45am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: The clear light is emptiness.

February 1 at 5:48am · Like

Justin Struble: advaita lacks the realization of sunyata, but you seem to be misinterpreting sunyata as some sort of negation / absence of the qualites of buddha nature / the kayas. the fact that sunyata is the essence of our buddha nature, does not mean it negates or is the absence of our nature or compassionate energy. the self-arisen vidya of sunyata is our awareness / cognizance realizing it's own primordial purity / freedom.

February 1 at 5:49am · Edited · Like

Justin Struble: While the essence of mind is empty, like the sky, its nature is cognizant and clear, like the light of the sun. But when we compare the nature of mind to the sky, it has something the sky does not have, that is its clarity and cognizance. We are aware,...See More

February 1 at 5:50am · Like

Justin Struble: our cognizant nature is not something inherently existent or substantial, it is not a reference point, not a reified-self that can be clung to; it is totally unfindable / non-local / unconfined, unobstructed, and all-pervasive.

February 1 at 5:52am · Edited · Like

Kyle Dixon: Justin, here is something I wrote on the non-arising of clarity just recently:

The 'natural' part of the practice arises as a result of recognizing the nature of mind. If that recognition hasn't occurred, no matter how relaxed or loose we remain, the mind is still acting as a reference point and is mediating experience, which means that delusion is still present, and there is nothing natural about ones practice. Resting in mind is a necessary preliminary practice for most, but it shouldn't be confused as the definitive view. 

There's (i) non-fixation which is resting in the clarity of mind (as a reference point), and then there's (ii) non-fixation resting in the nature of mind (free of a reference point). Confusing the former for the latter causes a lot of issues. 

Per Dudjom Lingpa; the clarity of mind can be referred to as the 'relative' nature of mind, but this (clarity) is not the ultimate nature of mind. The 'ultimate' nature of mind, meaning the minds definitive nature, is sems nyid i.e. the recognition of the non-arising of the mind (sometimes parsed as 'nondual clarity and emptiness'). That recognition frees up the illusory reference point of mind and so mind no longer mediates experience and appearances self-arise [rang byung] and self-liberate [rang grol].

The clarity (cognizance) of mind alone implies a subtle reference point and a subtle grasping, because clarity is susceptible to conditioning. But when clarity is sealed with emptiness, that reference point is freed up and the grasping is cut. This is why, for example; tregchö [khregs chod] is sometimes defined as cutting the binding on bundle of wood. The binding represents the delusion which keeps clarity conditioned and sustains the artificial reference point of mind. Clarity alone (divorced of the recognition of its emptiness) is merely the neutral indeterminate cognizance of the ālaya. All sentient beings function from the standpoint of the ālaya and mind.

An allegedly natural resting in the clarity of mind is simply śamatha, when that clarity is recognized as empty, the knowledge that the mind has been beginninglessly non-arisen gives rise to the 'natural' resting you are alluding to, which is the vipaśyanā of the natural state. The former entails effort, even if one thinks they are resting effortlessly. The latter is the true effortlessness.

February 1 at 5:52am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: Per Dudjom Lingpa; the clarity of mind can be referred to as the 'relative' nature of mind, but this (clarity) is not the ultimate nature of mind. The 'ultimate' nature of mind, meaning the minds definitive nature, is sems nyid i.e. the recognition of the non-arising of the mind (sometimes parsed as 'nondual clarity and emptiness'). That recognition frees up the illusory reference point of mind and so mind no longer mediates experience and appearances self-arise [rang byung] and self-liberate [rang grol]. 

"the recognition of the non-arising of the mind" 

here means the collapse of dualistic mind / sems. it doesn't mean that the nature of our mind as spontaneous presence, cognizance / awareness / knowing is absent. yes, the "reference point" which is a product of grasping / delusion / reification IS absent with vidya.

the clarity of the SEMS ( mind ) is reified as a reference point, because the sems-mind is still subject to delusion.

when this delusion collapses, cognizance is still spontaneously present.

February 1 at 5:58am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Also wrote this some time ago:

That is truly all vidyā [rig pa] is. Is the ability to discern and discriminate the afflictive patterning from the non-afflictive. Afflictive meaning; the perception of inherency in reference to X, the non-afflictive; being the recognition that X is unfounded. For Nāgārjuna (and Dzogchen), the main culprit in the establishment of ignorance [avidyā], is the mind's proclivity to grasp and impute, and the vicious cycle that arises out of that habit. As he says:

"Since the Buddhas have stated

That the world is conditioned by ignorance,

Why is it not reasonable [to assert]

That the world is [a result of] conceptualization?

Since it comes to an end

When ignorance ceases;

Why does it not become clear then

That it was conjured by ignorance?

That which comes into being from a cause

And does not endure without conditions,

It disappears as well when conditions are absent-

How can this be understood to exist?"

This is why so much weight is placed on recognizing the mind's nature in Dzogchen, because the mind is the factor which is sustaining ignorance and manifesting the appearance of an external world and the being(s) which inhabit(s) it. The very first link in the specific theory of dependent origination i.e. the Twelve Nidānas [the links in the cycle of pratītyasamutpāda]; is avidyā [ignorance]. The logic then follows that severing that initial ignorance means that the other 11 links have no foundation to stand on. As Padmasambhava said, “Do not seek to cut the root of phenomena, cut the root of the mind", Tilopa has insight which is very close to the same: "Cut the root of a tree and the leaves will wither; cut the root of your mind and samsara falls." So recognition of the mind's nature, as co-emergent emptiness and clarity (rather than a individuated substratum) means that the 'grasper' [subject] who grasps at experience and causes the proliferation, is emptied out, implying the emptying of other-than-subject [object]. That recognition is called vidyā [rig pa].

February 1 at 5:59am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Justin, clarity [gsal ba] is always attributed to the relative dualistic mind [sems]. Clarity is what becomes conditioned.

February 1 at 6:01am · Like

Kyle Dixon: When that delusion collapses, cognizance is recognized as non-arisen. It is no longer a personal cognizant reference point.

February 1 at 6:01am · Like

Justin Struble: when the root of SEMS is cut, yes, the SEMS mind / world dichotomy ALL collapses... at which point only the experience of the kayas remains ... cognizant emptiness suffused with awareness.

February 1 at 6:02am · Like · 1

Justin Struble: kyle, you are the one here using the term clarity .. which i haven't been using at all.. i have never been referring to the clarity of sems.

February 1 at 6:02am · Like

Jackson Peterson: No Rigpa is not a "discerning ability". Rigpa is already seeing clearly and has no need for "discerning", that is the mind that discerns.

February 1 at 6:02am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Justin, the root of the sems mind is 'cut' by recognizing the nature of sems i.e. sems nyid i.e. the nature of mind i.e. mind-essence.

February 1 at 6:03am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Rig pa is what discerns affliction from wisdom. The relative coarse rig pa you usually reference is simply the clarity of mind [sems].

February 1 at 6:04am · Like

Jackson Peterson: There is no affliction in rigpa to discern. Discernment is the clarity of mind.

February 1 at 6:05am · Like

Justin Struble: thanks for sharing regarding "clarity" kyle.. i would like to clarify that what you refer to as "mere clarity" or the clarity of sems, is not what i am referring to with the term cognizance / awareness, or cognizant emptiness suffused with awareness.

when i use the terms cognizance / awareness / cognizant emptiness suffused with awareness i am referring to the dharmakaya / sambhogakaya.

what you are pointing to with the term "clarity" or "mere clarity" of sems is still a dualistic / grasping / reification .. codependently generated based on delusion / ignorance..

in vidya sems is totally absent, but awareness / cognizance is spontaneously present, and recognizes it's own primordial purity / primordial freedom.

February 1 at 6:11am · Like

Kyle Dixon: I never said there was affliction in rig pa.

February 1 at 6:11am · Like

Kyle Dixon: Jackson, The rig pa you usually reference is the mere 'noticing', of the stillness and movement of conditioned relative mind. 

That is not the definitive rig pa of the basis, path and result. 

Here Tsoknyi Rinpoche explains this point:

"This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing awareness [rang byung rig pa].

Great masters traditionally give something called pointing-out instruction, which literally means bringing one face to face with one's true nature. What is this nature that is being introduced? A practitioner of shamatha who has cultivated a sense of stillness to the extent that there is no longer any dividing point between thought occurrence and simply resting experiences a certain quality of knowing or presence of mind. This knowing is what the practitioner is brought face to face with - or rather, the very identity of this knowing as being rootless and groundless, insubstantial. By recognizing this, one is introduced to self-existing awareness, rangjung rigpa."

And as posted earlier in this thread, his father Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche also points out the difference between rig pa as the clarity of mind, and rang byung rig pa:

"In the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth."

February 1 at 6:12am · Like · 2

Kyle Dixon: Justin, again, 'cognizance' and 'awareness' only ever refer to afflictive cognizance of mind and the afflictive awareness (consciousness) of mind.

In the definitive view, cognizance and awareness are known to be non-arisen.

February 1 at 6:13am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: From an earlier thread here:

Rigpa is direct knowledge of the trikāya. Rigpa is not the trikāya. Rigpa is not cognizance [gsal ba], rigpa is not awareness [shes pa], rigpa is not presence [dran pa]. 

The trikāya is also empty of cognizance, or rather, cognizance is empty. The recognition that cognizance is empty [sems nyid] is itself a key aspect of Dzogchen. The whole of its praxis is predicated on that initial discernment. 

The emptiness of cognizance does not mean an oblivion or a dark void (or whatever one would conceive a lack of cognizance in the coarse sense to be). On the contrary it simply means that the faculty you mistake to be the cognizance of mind is itself (truly) wisdom. The varying appearances are the ceaseless display of lhun grub and thugs rje, both inseparable from ka dag. However this means that wisdom appearances are utterly non-arisen like the reflection of the moon in water; apparent yet lacking any substantiality or reality.

February 1 at 6:20am · Edited · Like · 1

Jackson Peterson: Kyle Dixon... When Norbu says rigpa is the "noticing" of all experience, he means what he says. But that noticing needs to recognize itself for it to qualify as actual rigpa. But that doesn't mean that "noticing" is not rigpa... its is, but just not in self-recognition. In either case, in every case, it is never conditioned.

February 1 at 7:33am · Like · 1

Kyle Dixon: Longchenpa clarifies that though vidyā itself is not 'conditioned', it certainly becomes lost in the midst of conditioning (which causes it to appear as mind), and it is therefore compromised in that way:

"Though vidyā [rig pa] itself is without the stains of cognition, it becomes endowed with stains, and through its becoming enveloped in the seal of mind, the vidyā of the ever pure essence is polluted by conceptualization. Chained by the sixfold manas, it is covered with the net of the body of partless atoms, and the luminosity becomes latent."

Malcolm also put it well:

"Put it this way — being in the state of vidyā is unconditioned, being in the stage of ignorance is conditioned; but vidyā and ignorance concern the perception or misperception of the same primordial state which is beyond the dichtomy of conditioned or unconditioned... You cannot call it conditioned in a real sense because it is originally pure [ka dag]; but you cannot call it unconditioned in a real sense because of lhun grub, which has processes, and which serves as the cause of both vidyā and āvidyā."

February 1 at 8:22am · Like

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland: Kyle, I'm a little confused.

I detect heavy bias in your statements.

What are you basing your statements here on? In you own opinion and preferably in traditional terms, what realization have you?

Emptiness is not empty—that is how it is empty.

February 1 at 9:07am · Edited · Like · 1

Robert Healion: What wonderful debate

I agree these debates force you to consider a point of view that you may not even notice unless a contra opinion is voiced.

As for the waste of time, that is arbitrary,

There is space for all and I think Soh Wei is not biased and allows opinions to be voiced. As for the eloquent people here I see very little form them that is not considerate to the other person feelings.

February 1 at 11:26am · Like · 3

Neony Karby: What I see is that it is demanding and takes a lot of views, to talk about 'simple'.

Simple doesn't mean easy.

February 2 at 3:43pm · Edited · Like · 4

Neony Karby: Thanks to Klaus Wallbrunn:

"The four difficulties of Sudden Awakening:

So close you can't see it.

So deep you can't fathom it.

So simple you can't believe it.

So good you can't accept it."

~ Tibetan Buddhist proverb

February 2 at 2:46am · Like · 3

Stephanie Marie: Lol

February 2 at 2:47am · Like

Stephanie Marie: So simple you can't believe it is the issue here lol

February 2 at 2:47am · Like

Stephanie Marie: Nothing but an appearance of empty collections lol

February 2 at 2:54am · Like

Viorica Doina Neacsu: This is really a brilliant thread! Thank you

about an hour ago · Unlike · 1

Amir Mourad: "takes a lot of views, to talk about 'simple'."

Even to refer to it as simple as just as short-sighted as clinging to the idea that it is complex. If it were complex, you could grasp it. If it were simple, then too, you could grasp it. Even a small glimpse into this requires a totally different order of intelligence altogether.

February 3 at 10:48am · Like

Stephanie Marie: That's why it's hard to believe it's simple. I think possibly, the truth is a lot more profound then what is prattled as truth on Facebook,

But what do I know?

February 3 at 11:02am · Like · 1